Though the callous way the WH has handled this, and more importantly the condition of the Dick's victim, make joke-cracking a bit indelicate, this one just cracked me up.
Senator Leahy, reflecting upon our genteel veep's infamous name-calling of him (in the Senate chamber!), had this to say today: "In retrospect, it looks like I got off easy."
Worlds of truth stacked up on these two men in these pithy little scenarios, eh?
dr. elsewhere
Wednesday, February 15, 2006
This one's for Joe...
...because we all know how you love and adore the ubiquitous Ann Coldheart.
Well, seems the supreme slime-slinger and haughty hate-hurler may have committed a minor felony by voting in the wrong precinct. This evidently comes with a fine and possible jail time. (Which for her is silly since she is so anorexic she can slither through the bars. ooh. meyooooowwww.)
Gosh, in addition to being such a fine Christian, she sure is the model citizen, is she not?
dr. "catty" elsewhere
Well, seems the supreme slime-slinger and haughty hate-hurler may have committed a minor felony by voting in the wrong precinct. This evidently comes with a fine and possible jail time. (Which for her is silly since she is so anorexic she can slither through the bars. ooh. meyooooowwww.)
Gosh, in addition to being such a fine Christian, she sure is the model citizen, is she not?
dr. "catty" elsewhere
Ahem; Horn-tootin' time....
Omigod, this feels pretty silly, especially after Joe sent me such kind words last night. But.... validation is so sweet.
I am quite sure no one remembers my raising this issue last week (remember last week??) while in the thick of gonzo's testimony, namely that the weird way in which he kept phrasing responses to the scope and nature of the 'program' (e.g., "not with respect to the program addressed by this hearing today" and other such magical h/wand-waving) gave me the very creepy feeling that he was actually saying "gosh, not in this program the prez signed off on, but there might be other programs out there that do these illegal things, but they're not within the parameters of this hearing, so I can ignore them, and so should you."
Me? This sent me pacing around the room. It seemed so transparent, or I suppose the better image would be translucent. And in a disturbing insider kind of way, like he knew the committee members knew what he was referring to, but this was "the deal," you know. I only saw one or two folks out there who picked up on this, and had begun to worry that it would fall through the cracks.
Well, the bombshell has fallen, from the lips of Russell Tice, a former NSA intelligence officer who got some serious run-around when he tried to report suspicious spy-like behavior of a colleague. Also consider reading the transcript of an earlier interview with Tice by the incomparable Amy Goodman.
Funny, but for some bizarre reason my mind just drifted to the Great Schism, right as I was noting how we might be witnessing another great - though opposite - historical moment that I would call the Great Confluence. We'll try to keep pulling things together in meaningful ways here at cannonfire, but never underestimate how much we rely on the input from you commenters out there!
dr. elsewhere
UPDATE: Well, we may want to retract the Great Confluence and keep to the Great Cover-Up after all. Seems the WH has launched a blitzkrieg to stop this investigation, again.
Ya know, there should be a HUGE story in THAT! Not only is it unseemly that they're scrambling so hard to keep it hidden (ya gotta wonder if Rove's hand in it suggests that a lot of the purloined info was campaign-oriented, for example), but just how are they managing - as weak as they are right now - to bring such heft to their threats?
Hey. That latter question might have been answered by the parenthetical.
I am quite sure no one remembers my raising this issue last week (remember last week??) while in the thick of gonzo's testimony, namely that the weird way in which he kept phrasing responses to the scope and nature of the 'program' (e.g., "not with respect to the program addressed by this hearing today" and other such magical h/wand-waving) gave me the very creepy feeling that he was actually saying "gosh, not in this program the prez signed off on, but there might be other programs out there that do these illegal things, but they're not within the parameters of this hearing, so I can ignore them, and so should you."
Me? This sent me pacing around the room. It seemed so transparent, or I suppose the better image would be translucent. And in a disturbing insider kind of way, like he knew the committee members knew what he was referring to, but this was "the deal," you know. I only saw one or two folks out there who picked up on this, and had begun to worry that it would fall through the cracks.
Well, the bombshell has fallen, from the lips of Russell Tice, a former NSA intelligence officer who got some serious run-around when he tried to report suspicious spy-like behavior of a colleague. Also consider reading the transcript of an earlier interview with Tice by the incomparable Amy Goodman.
Funny, but for some bizarre reason my mind just drifted to the Great Schism, right as I was noting how we might be witnessing another great - though opposite - historical moment that I would call the Great Confluence. We'll try to keep pulling things together in meaningful ways here at cannonfire, but never underestimate how much we rely on the input from you commenters out there!
dr. elsewhere
UPDATE: Well, we may want to retract the Great Confluence and keep to the Great Cover-Up after all. Seems the WH has launched a blitzkrieg to stop this investigation, again.
Ya know, there should be a HUGE story in THAT! Not only is it unseemly that they're scrambling so hard to keep it hidden (ya gotta wonder if Rove's hand in it suggests that a lot of the purloined info was campaign-oriented, for example), but just how are they managing - as weak as they are right now - to bring such heft to their threats?
Hey. That latter question might have been answered by the parenthetical.
See Dick shoot
Cannon here: dr. elsewhere has so ably covered the Veep's attempt to channel Aaron Burr that I've not felt obligated to offer much in the way of commentary -- until now. The indications of press manipulation have become impossible to ignore.
1. As this fine blogger points out, an MSNBC story carried a quote indicating that the hunters were drinking. That quote was scrubbed from later versions of this story. Remember how Trotsky tended to disappear from Stalin-approved historical photographs in the bad old days of the USSR? Such things do not occur by accident.
(Bring up this incident next time a rightist accuses the press of being biased in favor of Democrats.)
2. When did the shooting take place? The question is important, since the law forbids hunting after sunset. We now know that the incident took place later than originally claimed. Why the lie?
3. Why the varying reports regarding the distance? There's quite a difference between 30 feet and 30 yards.
4. Why the conflicting stories about why Whittington was where he was?
5. Can we fairly use the term "hunting" to describe whatever the hell it was that these people were trying to do? I have no problem with real hunting, but when a chauffeur drives you to a spot on a private ranch where flunkies release clipped-wing quails bred in a pen, you are engaged in a whole 'nother activity. If you call that "sport," then you might as well call an abattoir a stadium.
1. As this fine blogger points out, an MSNBC story carried a quote indicating that the hunters were drinking. That quote was scrubbed from later versions of this story. Remember how Trotsky tended to disappear from Stalin-approved historical photographs in the bad old days of the USSR? Such things do not occur by accident.
(Bring up this incident next time a rightist accuses the press of being biased in favor of Democrats.)
2. When did the shooting take place? The question is important, since the law forbids hunting after sunset. We now know that the incident took place later than originally claimed. Why the lie?
3. Why the varying reports regarding the distance? There's quite a difference between 30 feet and 30 yards.
4. Why the conflicting stories about why Whittington was where he was?
5. Can we fairly use the term "hunting" to describe whatever the hell it was that these people were trying to do? I have no problem with real hunting, but when a chauffeur drives you to a spot on a private ranch where flunkies release clipped-wing quails bred in a pen, you are engaged in a whole 'nother activity. If you call that "sport," then you might as well call an abattoir a stadium.
Hack job
GlobalNewsMatrix was hacked and knocked offline earlier today. Even though I don't always agree with the choices made by the proprietors of that site -- some links go to sources I consider other-than-credible -- GNM nevertheless regularly directs public attention to a number of stories which might otherwise go unnoticed. It is a valuable resource. I hope that the hackers were just a couple of smirking kids -- and I hope that these infants receive the paddling they deserve.
Tuesday, February 14, 2006
Ducking Dick
Well. Keep reminding yourselves that the Watergate break-in went for many months as nothing more than a "third-rate burglary." This shooting incident has gone from not-even-reported to threatening the Dick's role as Darth Vader in a mere three days.
There are so many great posts on this, and even comments here (thanks to anon for the rich background on the Armstrongs; indeed, some lobbying was going on in the Texas brush, but who was zoomin' who?), so I will likely direct attention to matters otherwise under the radar. After just a few more comments, though.
First, of course, there is the small matter of the heart attack. This unfortunate development raises a number of further questions, such as how could a pellet penetrate that deeply from 30 yards from the right? Most disturbing, though, is the fact that the hospital informed the WH about this mid-morning today, and Scottie did not mention it to the press, instead insisting we all move on from this to more, er, pressing matters?
Second, Larry O'Donnell has taken up the serious question of whether or not Dick was drinking, pointing out that no tests were taken, just someone's word. Dailykos shows a post that quotes Armstrong admitting "there may have been a beer or two...," while crooksandliars suggests (without a link) that the sheriff's office has admitted they were not allowed to see Cheney for 15 hours after the incident.
Third, Brad Friedman has done some serious inquiry into just what all the delays might have meant, even beyond the drinking potential. He points out that there may have been some real concerns that Mr. Whittington might not make it, in which case, they may have considered a cover-up that allowed for Bush to maintain plausible deniability (god, how I despise that phrase). Brad notes that if Mr. Whittington were to die from these wounds, our VP would then be involved in one count of manslaughter or negligent homicide.
With all due respect to Mr. Whittington, I suppose that actually is as "trivial" as Ms. Armstrong tried to present this, when we compare it to tens of thousands of counts of intentional homicide.
Fourth, Harry's friends are finally weighing in, and they are not the least bit happy with, or persuaded by, the WH decision to blame the victim, joke about it, and cover for the Dick's perpetual silence, sans apology.
Which brings us to this last but not least question, where the devil IS the Dick???
Please feel free to comment 'liberally' on this issue as it continues to develop (or disintegrate, as the case may be), no matter what gets otherwise posted here. This one is bound for the watershed!
dr. elsewhere
There are so many great posts on this, and even comments here (thanks to anon for the rich background on the Armstrongs; indeed, some lobbying was going on in the Texas brush, but who was zoomin' who?), so I will likely direct attention to matters otherwise under the radar. After just a few more comments, though.
First, of course, there is the small matter of the heart attack. This unfortunate development raises a number of further questions, such as how could a pellet penetrate that deeply from 30 yards from the right? Most disturbing, though, is the fact that the hospital informed the WH about this mid-morning today, and Scottie did not mention it to the press, instead insisting we all move on from this to more, er, pressing matters?
Second, Larry O'Donnell has taken up the serious question of whether or not Dick was drinking, pointing out that no tests were taken, just someone's word. Dailykos shows a post that quotes Armstrong admitting "there may have been a beer or two...," while crooksandliars suggests (without a link) that the sheriff's office has admitted they were not allowed to see Cheney for 15 hours after the incident.
Third, Brad Friedman has done some serious inquiry into just what all the delays might have meant, even beyond the drinking potential. He points out that there may have been some real concerns that Mr. Whittington might not make it, in which case, they may have considered a cover-up that allowed for Bush to maintain plausible deniability (god, how I despise that phrase). Brad notes that if Mr. Whittington were to die from these wounds, our VP would then be involved in one count of manslaughter or negligent homicide.
With all due respect to Mr. Whittington, I suppose that actually is as "trivial" as Ms. Armstrong tried to present this, when we compare it to tens of thousands of counts of intentional homicide.
Fourth, Harry's friends are finally weighing in, and they are not the least bit happy with, or persuaded by, the WH decision to blame the victim, joke about it, and cover for the Dick's perpetual silence, sans apology.
Which brings us to this last but not least question, where the devil IS the Dick???
Please feel free to comment 'liberally' on this issue as it continues to develop (or disintegrate, as the case may be), no matter what gets otherwise posted here. This one is bound for the watershed!
dr. elsewhere
Monday, February 13, 2006
This Dog Evidently Will Hunt....
The Dickie Fudd story is veritably exploding out there. The press corps is on fire, the blogosphere is practically vaporizing, and there are now so many angles exposed, it's hard to keep up.
First of all, an alert commenter hooked us up with some background on Whittington's role in the funeralgate scandal during Georgie's last days as TX guv, one in which his Chief of Staff Allbaugh played a key role (and then went on to head FEMA, turn it over to Brownie so he could go lobby, ending up in NOLA to milk that tragedy for all it was worth while his protege floundered in fashion). Evidently a lot of covering up of a lot of stuff was going on, and a whistleblower who was fired, then filed suit (and then evidently settled for a paltry $50,000?), has seemingly vanished from view. That settlement datum is the most recent info I could find on that story, now I can't relocate it, and Robert Bryce appears to have moved on from the whole shebang. Anyone have more?
But that's all deep background stuff, and there's enough surface slime going down here to slide clear off the planet. Big questions, like why were wounds that were reported by Ms. Armstrong to be so superficial keeping the victim in the ICU for 48 hours? Was the shot fired from 30 yards or 30 feet; both have been reported? Why did it take almost three hours to get this poor guy admitted to the hospital after said incident, even with a medical crew at the scene? When were authorities notified, as per TX law? Why was the press not informed for 22 hours? And was the sheriff allowed to interview Cheney or not; the reports are conflicting (though not really)?
Though the sheriff's office issued a statement that ruled out alcohol, there is no indication that any real tests were taken to verify this. All manner of hunters have weighed in on these details, and the consensus is pretty clear: the only way this sort of thing does happen - and it does - is if the shooter is dumb or drunk or both.
For the best reading on all these questions, visit Josh Marshall at TPM and Jane Hamsher and friends at firedoglake. They raise a boatload of fascinating points, including the fact that Cheney only "hunts" in areas stocked with prepped prey (oh so manly), the 28 gauge he used is often referred to as "a lady's gun" (even more manly), and - again - Cheney has a medical team hovering likely inside the Secret Service comfort zone, courtesy of us taxpayers (the ultimate in today's 'manly').
Of particular interest, though, is the fact that Jack Reed and George Allen were on Fox this morning blasting Cheney not for blasting his buddy, but for declassifying a NIE (National Intelligence Estimate), which has apparently been alledged by Libby. Firedoglake raises the tantalizing observation that these two hyper-repug dogs were not brought out to protect the VP but to hound him. Et tu, Rupert?
Could it be the time has come to put this ol' huntin' dog down?
dr. elsewhere
UPDATE: Like I said, hard to keep up. Smoking Gun has the sheriff's press release and Cheney's citation for the incident.
Note that the report does not have a time associated with the report itself, only for the incident. And note that the safety position for Cheney's gun was marked "unknown." Note also that Cheney's "hunting education" is marked "unknown," and Whittington's "no." And take particular note of the second paragraph of the press release; not only does it not make very good sense, but it does not note the times at which Whittington was moved to the two medical facilities.
First of all, an alert commenter hooked us up with some background on Whittington's role in the funeralgate scandal during Georgie's last days as TX guv, one in which his Chief of Staff Allbaugh played a key role (and then went on to head FEMA, turn it over to Brownie so he could go lobby, ending up in NOLA to milk that tragedy for all it was worth while his protege floundered in fashion). Evidently a lot of covering up of a lot of stuff was going on, and a whistleblower who was fired, then filed suit (and then evidently settled for a paltry $50,000?), has seemingly vanished from view. That settlement datum is the most recent info I could find on that story, now I can't relocate it, and Robert Bryce appears to have moved on from the whole shebang. Anyone have more?
But that's all deep background stuff, and there's enough surface slime going down here to slide clear off the planet. Big questions, like why were wounds that were reported by Ms. Armstrong to be so superficial keeping the victim in the ICU for 48 hours? Was the shot fired from 30 yards or 30 feet; both have been reported? Why did it take almost three hours to get this poor guy admitted to the hospital after said incident, even with a medical crew at the scene? When were authorities notified, as per TX law? Why was the press not informed for 22 hours? And was the sheriff allowed to interview Cheney or not; the reports are conflicting (though not really)?
Though the sheriff's office issued a statement that ruled out alcohol, there is no indication that any real tests were taken to verify this. All manner of hunters have weighed in on these details, and the consensus is pretty clear: the only way this sort of thing does happen - and it does - is if the shooter is dumb or drunk or both.
For the best reading on all these questions, visit Josh Marshall at TPM and Jane Hamsher and friends at firedoglake. They raise a boatload of fascinating points, including the fact that Cheney only "hunts" in areas stocked with prepped prey (oh so manly), the 28 gauge he used is often referred to as "a lady's gun" (even more manly), and - again - Cheney has a medical team hovering likely inside the Secret Service comfort zone, courtesy of us taxpayers (the ultimate in today's 'manly').
Of particular interest, though, is the fact that Jack Reed and George Allen were on Fox this morning blasting Cheney not for blasting his buddy, but for declassifying a NIE (National Intelligence Estimate), which has apparently been alledged by Libby. Firedoglake raises the tantalizing observation that these two hyper-repug dogs were not brought out to protect the VP but to hound him. Et tu, Rupert?
Could it be the time has come to put this ol' huntin' dog down?
dr. elsewhere
UPDATE: Like I said, hard to keep up. Smoking Gun has the sheriff's press release and Cheney's citation for the incident.
Note that the report does not have a time associated with the report itself, only for the incident. And note that the safety position for Cheney's gun was marked "unknown." Note also that Cheney's "hunting education" is marked "unknown," and Whittington's "no." And take particular note of the second paragraph of the press release; not only does it not make very good sense, but it does not note the times at which Whittington was moved to the two medical facilities.
Clint Curtis to run against Tom Feeney
This is one for the "poetice justice" bin. If you have not followed Brad Friedman's stellar coverage of the Florida election fiascos, '00 & '04, then you may want to take advantage of some of the background info provided by Brad within this post. Bottom line, Curtis - a whistle-blower - is running against Feeney - the criminal Congressman he blew the whistle against. Though a lifelong Republican, Curtis will be running as a "conservative" Democrat.
So, given Curtis' accusations and his passing a lie-detector test AND his exposure of some very weird spying, this should get very intereshtink...
dr. elsewhere
So, given Curtis' accusations and his passing a lie-detector test AND his exposure of some very weird spying, this should get very intereshtink...
dr. elsewhere
HOLY SHADES OF SCHADENFREUDE!!
Well, it does look like Dick Cheney's stars are just a tad outa line about now. Not only has he put an old (in both senses of the term) friend in the ICU (what can it mean to shoot a pal in the FACE??), but it now appears that Valerie Plame's beat was not just WMDs, but IRAN!
Such timing, eh? Here they are, trying so hard to get this new pre-emptive war off the ground (so to speak), and he pulls an Elmer Fudd.
As an old friend of mine opined, "Isn't there something painfully ironic about Dick "Dick" Cheney shooting from the hip, hitting the wrong target, resulting in the spilling of innocent American blood?"
To make matters even worse - maybe even worse than blaming poor old Whittington! - (NOT better, Dick, NOT better), the VP has evidently refused to cooperate with the local sheriff in the shooting's investigation.
Of course, this imperious "above the law" attitude is just so Dick! But one cannot help but wonder just how all those federal and Supreme Court judges (scroll to end) he touted as the "greatest accomplishments" of this administration will help him in that podunk little Texas town.
oh, woops, forgot; he owns Texas, too.
Well, anyway. it will nevertheless be quite entertaining to watch him slime out of this one. meanwhile, it's pretty entertaining to watch Scottie sweat his way through a surprisingly aggressive WH press corps!
Folks, if the stakes weren't so damn high, this would be more fun than the Keystone Cops. I often have my own private little fun by imagining how history will write these bozos, Shakespeare style. Just my way of enjoying their inevitable demise, schadenfreude style.
dr. elsewhere
Such timing, eh? Here they are, trying so hard to get this new pre-emptive war off the ground (so to speak), and he pulls an Elmer Fudd.
As an old friend of mine opined, "Isn't there something painfully ironic about Dick "Dick" Cheney shooting from the hip, hitting the wrong target, resulting in the spilling of innocent American blood?"
To make matters even worse - maybe even worse than blaming poor old Whittington! - (NOT better, Dick, NOT better), the VP has evidently refused to cooperate with the local sheriff in the shooting's investigation.
Of course, this imperious "above the law" attitude is just so Dick! But one cannot help but wonder just how all those federal and Supreme Court judges (scroll to end) he touted as the "greatest accomplishments" of this administration will help him in that podunk little Texas town.
oh, woops, forgot; he owns Texas, too.
Well, anyway. it will nevertheless be quite entertaining to watch him slime out of this one. meanwhile, it's pretty entertaining to watch Scottie sweat his way through a surprisingly aggressive WH press corps!
Folks, if the stakes weren't so damn high, this would be more fun than the Keystone Cops. I often have my own private little fun by imagining how history will write these bozos, Shakespeare style. Just my way of enjoying their inevitable demise, schadenfreude style.
dr. elsewhere
Bush WANTS a new terror attack
The first sentence of this AP story says it all:
A company in the United Arab Emirates is poised to take over significant operations at six American ports as part of a corporate sale, leaving a country with ties to the Sept. 11 hijackers with influence over a maritime industry considered vulnerable to terrorism.
Sunday, February 12, 2006
"My rod and my staff shall comfort thee..."
Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi -- friend to Bush and member of the ultra-right-wing secret society known as P2 -- has declared himself "the Jesus Christ of politics."
In the accompanying photo, Berlusconi shows what Licio Gelli had him by.
(Alternative photo caption: "Actually, I'm bigger than Jesus...")
Saturday, February 11, 2006
Jesus was a raghead
I read with some interest Ann Coulter's latest hate-gasm. Among her many vile remarks was a needlessly insulting reference to Muslims as "ragheads."
Some time ago, I immersed myself in an abortive project involving illustrations of the life of Christ. Naturally, I spent some time trying to research what people actually wore in that time and place. Sources disagree, of course; I never did figure out how the tzitzit were placed, or whether the outer garment was fringed. However, we have good reason to believe that ancient Israelites -- including Jesus -- usually wore the turban, which was called a "tsaniph" in Hebrew.
Coulter calls herself a Christian, yet she hates "ragheads" -- a category which almost certainly includes her presumed Lord and Savior.
I wonder if Southern fundamentalists would have appreciated my paintings of a Semitic-looking, turban-wearing Jesus? Maybe it's all for the best that the project was put on hold...
(By the way, most of the people who wear turbans in the United States are Sikhs -- who, as it happens, are neither Arabs nor Muslims. They have had to put up with many nasty remarks from the sort of ignorant fools who buy Coulter's books.)
Some time ago, I immersed myself in an abortive project involving illustrations of the life of Christ. Naturally, I spent some time trying to research what people actually wore in that time and place. Sources disagree, of course; I never did figure out how the tzitzit were placed, or whether the outer garment was fringed. However, we have good reason to believe that ancient Israelites -- including Jesus -- usually wore the turban, which was called a "tsaniph" in Hebrew.
Coulter calls herself a Christian, yet she hates "ragheads" -- a category which almost certainly includes her presumed Lord and Savior.
I wonder if Southern fundamentalists would have appreciated my paintings of a Semitic-looking, turban-wearing Jesus? Maybe it's all for the best that the project was put on hold...
(By the way, most of the people who wear turbans in the United States are Sikhs -- who, as it happens, are neither Arabs nor Muslims. They have had to put up with many nasty remarks from the sort of ignorant fools who buy Coulter's books.)
Jack meets George
Remember when the White House told us that Dubya never met Jack Abramoff? Here are the photos proving otherwise. Are they real? I believe that they are.
Friday, February 10, 2006
Soft on terror
Cannon here: Just a brief observation. Republicans defending Dubya's violations of the wiretapping laws are trotting out one of their favorite defenses:
"Democrats want to treat terrorism as a violation of law. Republicans want to treat it as a matter of war."
This formulation forces us to ask a few questions:
1. Have you ever heard any Democrat -- anywhere -- argue that we should relegate terrorism to the law-enforcement file?
2. If not, then how did this frequently-heard smear originate, and why does it stick?
3. Can we quash the smear, or are the red-state faithful so wedded to fantasy that they will believe whatever they are told to believe, however unfactual?
"Democrats want to treat terrorism as a violation of law. Republicans want to treat it as a matter of war."
This formulation forces us to ask a few questions:
1. Have you ever heard any Democrat -- anywhere -- argue that we should relegate terrorism to the law-enforcement file?
2. If not, then how did this frequently-heard smear originate, and why does it stick?
3. Can we quash the smear, or are the red-state faithful so wedded to fantasy that they will believe whatever they are told to believe, however unfactual?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)