Slashdot Mirror

Yeah, like how they wouldn't let Obama stay at the Blair house...

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/01/07/howard-blair-house/

Wow! Source? Haven't seen anything like that.

That's a bit like asking for a source that the sky is blue, because you've never noticed... Of course, you couldn't be bothered to do the simplest search for yourself.

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/08/30/bush-blames/
http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/200601012_bush_blames_clinton_again/
http://www.davidcogswell.com/Political/BushBlamesClinton.html
http://www.pensitoreview.com/2008/07/28/bush-administration-blames-bill-clinton-for-deficit/
http://www.truthout.org/article/keith-olbermann-a-textbook-definition-cowardice
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0006/23/se.02.html
http://zzpat.tripod.com/cvb/impeach44.html#Bush_Blames_Clinton_For_N_Korea_Debacle
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-04-13-attacks-panel_x.htm

And, of course:
http://homepage.mac.com/garyligi/iblog/C1957607809/E20080429161904/index.html

That quotation was Tina Fey, in fact.
Surprised? That's what media with opinions does to you.

No, actually, I was aware of the difference. In any case the Fey quote it was a parody of something Palin and the McCain campaign actually said... that Palin had foreign policy experience by virtue of Alaska's being a neighbour to Russia.

References: here and here.

You are correct, sir

Yes, most Republicans are actually pretty open minded. Even a lot of people who do not approve of gay marriage are very tolerant of alternate sexual orientations

that's an oxymoron. Obviously, if you oppose gay marriage, then being gay does matter to you, otherwise why would you oppose it. And you musn't have been paying attention if you think the Republican Party is open-minded.

What public statements has O'Reilly made that make you think he has anything against gay individuals in general?

Seriously? Have you not ever listened to the man? One link from a 5-second Googling.

Not my friends. But then they feel comfortable being gay and are not insecure as some may be I suppose...

It doesn't have anything to do with insecurity, quite the opposite. If your friends use the word gay, then they are using a reclaimed epithet themselves. If calling O'Reilly gay as a joke is so offensive, then that indicates fragility and insecurity.

However, it doesn't matter what they think, what matters is the end effect of the action. To use the concept of being gay as an insult is as I said backwards motion for the cause of universal tolerance of a gay lifestyle, and it's a mistake to use it that way as it only furthers intolerance.

It all depends on the context and the intent. Clearly in this case, it's a lampooning of O'Reilly's homophobia and self-portrayal as America's straightest man. It's meant to insult O'Reilly and homophobes, not gay people.

I agree with that. One of the more interesting and plausible theories at the time was that it was a sign that we may soon invade Iran (they were the worst cut-off from the internet at the time). Thankfully that wasn't true.

Seymour Hersh recently talked about Cheney wanting to dress up as Iranians and have them shoot at US ships.
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/07/31/cheney-proposal-for-iran-war/

I can't say the real reason for them being cut, but the official story doesn't add up. The article explaining the two ships is interesting. The information on those ships is from Reliance Communications, which is very suspect.

Here is a press release from Reliance on December 21, 2007:

This step also paves the way to extend Yipes' services worldwide over FLAG's global next-generation network, creating significantly more value from our undersea network assets in the strongholds of India, the Middle East, and East Asia," said RCOM Global Business president Punit Garg.

It seems like this could be a case of industrial sabotage. I admit that I have no proof, but its a possibility. Extorting two ships in Dubai doesn't seem like it would be tough to do for a large company such as this.

Why is it everyone keeps putting "secret ballot" in quotes?

They put "secret ballot" in quotes because though the actual ballot may be anonymous, there is nothing remotely approaching a "free and fair vote," and anti-union corporations use the "secret ballot" issue as a smoke screen to somehow assert that because the ballot is secret, it follows that the vote must have been fair.

Of course, it's impossible to hold a fair vote when everyone who speaks openly in favor of the union has their name written down by management, and the employees can be forced to attend "education" meetings where the employer tells them in so uncertain terms that if they vote for the union, the company will close their department. This along with a helpful smattering of anti-union propaganda and a screening of "On the Waterfront." :)

You try to cast this as "we need to remove the secret ballot to prevent pro-union people from being harrassed" but thats just silly. There already are laws preventing this from happening.

These laws are not enforced, and when they are it can take the NLRB years to settle the issue, in which time the management can build a paper trail and rotate out the troublemakers, and then pay a slap on-the-wrist fine. It's MUCH cheaper for a union to break and be caught breaker labor laws than for it to allow a union to form. Note this recent case involving CNN: they broke the law by conducing reprisal firings against union employees in 2003, and they've been forced to rehire the fired folks... in 2008. This, sadly, is the norm.

Meanwhile, as President-elect Obama contemplates hiring 1997 Nobel Physics laureate Dr. Chu for Secretary of Energy, the current EPA Administrator, Stephen Johnson, just proclaimed that there is "no clean-cut division between science and religion".

I'm really looking forward to January 20th when the grownups take charge for the first time in eight years.

- "We don't believe we're going to have a recession though." [Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/30/08]
- "I think the experts will tell you we're not in a recession." [President Bush, 2/10/08]
- "The answer is, I don't think we are in a recession right now." [Council of Economic Advisers Chairman Edward Lazear, 2/11/08]
- "First of all, we're not in a recession." [President Bush, 4/22/08]
- "The data are pretty clear that we are not in a recession." [Council of Economic Advisers Chairman Edward Lazear, 5/7/08]
- "I don't think we are" in a recession. [Director of the National Economic Council Keith Hennesy, 6/3/08]
- "I think we have avoided a recession." [White House Budget Director Jim Nussle, 7/31/08]
- "I don't think anybody could tell you right now if we're in a recession or not" [Dana Perino, 10/7/08]

- "We don't believe we're going to have a recession though." [Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/30/08]
- "I think the experts will tell you we're not in a recession." [President Bush, 2/10/08]
- "The answer is, I don't think we are in a recession right now." [Council of Economic Advisers Chairman Edward Lazear, 2/11/08]
- "First of all, we're not in a recession." [President Bush, 4/22/08]
- "The data are pretty clear that we are not in a recession." [Council of Economic Advisers Chairman Edward Lazear, 5/7/08]
- "I don't think we are" in a recession. [Director of the National Economic Council Keith Hennesy, 6/3/08]
- "I think we have avoided a recession." [White House Budget Director Jim Nussle, 7/31/08]
- "I don't think anybody could tell you right now if we're in a recession or not" [Dana Perino, 10/7/08]

- "We don't believe we're going to have a recession though." [Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/30/08]
- "I think the experts will tell you we're not in a recession." [President Bush, 2/10/08]
- "The answer is, I don't think we are in a recession right now." [Council of Economic Advisers Chairman Edward Lazear, 2/11/08]
- "First of all, we're not in a recession." [President Bush, 4/22/08]
- "The data are pretty clear that we are not in a recession." [Council of Economic Advisers Chairman Edward Lazear, 5/7/08]
- "I don't think we are" in a recession. [Director of the National Economic Council Keith Hennesy, 6/3/08]
- "I think we have avoided a recession." [White House Budget Director Jim Nussle, 7/31/08]
- "I don't think anybody could tell you right now if we're in a recession or not" [Dana Perino, 10/7/08]

Then you had the whole "Fannie/Freddie" thing. The media never reported that John McCain cosponsored a bill [govtrack.us] that would have prevented it over two years ago. Here is a McCain quote from May 25, 2006 that the media did not report:

Not to nitpick, but Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were not the root causes of this... (at least according to Alan Greenspan and company). Whether you like them or not, DailyKos did a decent job of debunking that as well.

Now, are their conservative blow hards on Fox? YES! But, their are also Liberal blow hards on all the major news chanels including Fox.

Which one of the other major news channels coordinates their daily talking points from the party and campaign leadership? Fox does that. Here, here, and the documentary OutFoxed goes into the relationship in a lot more detail. Scott McClellan confirmed the White House coordinated their talking points with Fox. OutFoxed has a lot more detail that substantiates the relationship was much deeper.

That's not a news media, that's a political tool. Everyone manipulates the media...or tries to...but which media outlets are coordinating talking point memos from campaign sources? Name one and be sure and provide the links that back it up (even if they're partisan). Not just the usual emesis about mainstream media.

You mean like the idea of giving $1000 to people unwilling to work will improve our economy?

No. I mean this: http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/24/palin-fruit-flies/ and http://chicago.about.com/od/neighborhoodshistory/a/AdlerDebateStmt.htm (which he mentioned TWICE in debates), http://www.factcheck.org/outrageous_exaggerations.html (hint: DNA study), etc.

Or something like this: http://news.aol.com/newsbloggers/2008/03/04/mccain-perpetuates-vaccine-autism-myth/

Stupid positions on foreign affairs? Like maybe the willingness to sit down with tin-pot dictators who would get populace support from demonizing the US and then forcing the our leaders to negotiate with them?

Ok. What else do you propose? Kill these poor people to save them from suffering? You'll HAVE to talk to them.

Look, I'm from Russia. We had our problem with Chechen terrorists, it is now mostly solved. But only after Putin made peace with a former Chechen terrorist and supported him in rebuilding destroyed Chechnya.

No, I don't think I can overlook that one either. Pandering to the extreme religious right? You mean instead of pandering to the extreme religious left? Yeah. I'll probably let that one slip by in a "don't care" conditional.

How about not pandering to religion at all? Or _at_ _least_ pander to religious moderates.

Oh well, I'm already diversifying my business. I guess I won't have much clients from the US after another 4 years of Republican administration.

At the same moment, Sarah Palin wants to stop all research on Drosophila : http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/24/palin-fruit-flies/

As one of the commenters there points out, with their tiny brains and their impressive reproductive abilities, they presumably make an uncomfortably close study model for some republican candidates...

Palin is comedic gold (to us that don't have her as a politician of course)

At the same moment, Sarah Palin wants to stop all research on Drosophila : http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/24/palin-fruit-flies/

With people like this, no need for science degrees anymore. After all, everything we need to know is written in their bible.

According to a vice-presidential candidate whose name escapes me, research using fruit flies is UnAmerican.

Actually I think the REAL question should be: Do you honestly think Sarah Palin is qualified to be President of the USA? Because lets face it,we are talking about a 72 year old cancer survivor. I don't know about you but I wouldn't want to bet on him surviving for eight more,or even four more years. While I think Biden sucks ass IMHO he is 1000% more qualified to be president than Mrs "Real America" hockey mom.

Don't forget this is a woman who said,quote "Ultimately, what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the health care reform that is needed to help shore up the economy." WTF does the bailout of wall street have to do with health care? Here is the clip. I think anyone who watches it will agree with John Cleese who said she is like a parrot spitting out her speeches and talking points without really knowing what she is talking about.

Clinton did technically commit perjury. This Governor did technically commit a crime.

The current president's staff did too and got a way with it, which is where Palin got her idea.

It hardly seems like she has declined access to the media

Even the article linked says that her staff failed to respond to their written questions. Personally, I'm a news junky, and she isn't scheduled for any Sunday talk shows. No Larry King, no Bill O'Reilly, no Meet the Press, not even Fox and Friends. This could change today, but so far, nothing. What's more unusual, is that she didn't do those shows before being picked. She's been unavailable during the convention, and doesn't even speak with the local reporters at her stump speeches. Hell, even the 'strait talk express' is off limits for reporters these days. Sarah Palin is the biggest story of the election, and no one even has video of her answering anything but softball questions. It's no wonder that the media has gone into a feeding frenzy.

It hasn't become the big story yet but here's a story with lots of links.

The feds built it but the state took over control back when they demanded control of the interstate highway system.

The American Society of Civil Engineers faulted the Corps's levee design, and the Corps has admitted their failure. That has nothing to do with any actions taken by the state.

Nor had the state taken over flood control. The Army Corps of Engineers was still working on flood control projects in the area, though they were massively underfunded.

In 2004, USACE requested $11 million for the Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity Hurricane Protection project; Bush's budget requested only $3 million. Congress increased the amount to $5.5 million. In 2005, the Corps requested $22.5 million - Bush, $3.9 million, and Congress approved $5.7 million.

Investigative articles by the Times-Picayune from 2004 and 2005 specifically cite the cost of the Iraq boondoggle as a reason why funding for the Southeast Louisiana Urban Flood Control Project dried up in 2003. $250 million in crucial projects was left incomplete, including work right at the site of the main breach.

To add insult to the injury, 35 percent of the Louisiana National Guard had been deployed to Iraq, thus making them unavailable to, you know, Guard that part of the Nation.

The failure of the levvies, and the lack of resources at the state level to deal with it, were the results of deadly incompetence at the federal level.

But it was federalism that allowed the democrats in power in the 20 years before Katrina...

Democrats in power for 20 years? Where?

On the federal level, we had a Republican in the White House from 1980-1992 and 2000-2008. From 1994 to 2006, there was GOP control of the House. 1994-2001 and 2002-2006, Republican control of the Senate.

At the state level, Louisiana had a Republican governor 1980-1984, 1991-1992, and 1996-2004.

Hurricanes are caused by homosexuals, apparently.

Or Republicans.

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/08/28/hagee-ministries-no-comment-on-tropical-storm-gustav/

Here is pretty much the nail in your argument's coffin:

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/08/20/limbaugh-obama-won-primaries-becuase-no-one-had-the-guts-to-stand-up-and-say-no-to-a-black-guy/

Limbaugh isn't even CLOSE to Colbert/Stewart, he's just another old white racist conservative, and drug addict to boot.

You're right, we need a President who is very concerned about the Iraq/Pakistan border. I'd also like him confuse Sudan and Somalia, after all, they are like the same thing, right?

McCain, at one point, may have known his stuff. But he has lost it. There is already a very long list of these gaffes. Is this the kind of face you want America to have?

In 2006, John McCain gave the commencement address at Jerry Falwell's Liberty University, and took the opportunity to mock individual expression:

When I was a young man, I was quite infatuated with self-expression, and rightly so because, if memory conveniently serves, I was so much more eloquent, well-informed, and wiser than anyone else I knew. It seemed I understood the world and the purpose of life so much more profoundly than most people. I believed that to be especially true with many of my elders, people whose only accomplishment, as far as I could tell, was that they had been born before me, and, consequently, had suffered some number of years deprived of my insights. I had opinions on everything, and I was always right. I loved to argue, and I could become understandably belligerent with people who lacked the grace and intelligence to agree with me. With my superior qualities so obvious, it was an intolerable hardship to have to suffer fools gladly. So I rarely did. All their resistance to my brilliantly conceived and cogently argued views proved was that they possessed an inferior intellect and a weaker character than God had blessed me with, and I felt it was my clear duty to so inform them. It's a pity that there wasn't a blogosphere then. I would have felt very much at home in the medium.

His contempt for citizens expressing their views is, presumably, why he introduced legislation that would basically have shut down comments on blogs and on sites like Slashdot. Under John McCain, if you are an individual blogger and you allow user comments or user profiles, you'd have to follow the same reporting rules as an ISP, but you'd be subject to even harsher penalties. The EFF called McCain's bill a "constitutionally dubious proposal ... made apparently mostly based on fear or political considerations."

Changing a bill after it had been passed

One aspect of the pending FBI investigation centers on Young's role in securing a $10 million earmark in the $286.5 billion highway bill passed in 2005. The earmark, which was inserted in the bill after final passage by the House of Representatives and Senate, was for a study of a highway ramp sought by a Florida real estate developer. At a fundraiser while on a trip to Bonita Springs, Fla., to inspect the site, Young received more than $40,000 in donations.

Holding open vote

CBS News correspondent Bob Fuss reports there was chaos on the Hour floor as Republican leaders passed the bill by holding a five-minute vote open for almost 50 minutes until they could convince two Republicans to change their votes.

They buttonholed lawmakers for last-minute lobbying as Democrats complained loudly that the vote should be closed. Finally two GOP lawmakers switched from "no" to "yes," giving the bill's supporters the margin of victory.

(additional examples)
It is against House rules to keep a vote open in order to alter the outcome.

a recorded vote by electronic device shall not be held open for the sole purpose of reversing the outcome of such vote.

"Abusive holds" is difficult to quantify but I'd point towards Tom Coburn's extensive holds.

Government arranging for a causus belli is the traditional way to start wars and drive people to support things. Even Sun Tzu taught this. - Is it so far fetched that the teachings of the holy book of US military might have been used in arranging for "a new Pearl Harbor"?

Apparently to you it is, but also Cheney seems to have done it again, just recently, concerning Iran:

To Provoke War, Cheney Wanted Navy Seals As Iranians

Now, how far fetched is it to bribe an anthrax scientist to send letters and then help cover up the deed inside the investigating team?

Do remember, Dick Cheney went on Cipro a month before the letters started.

You heard about this right?

This instance is doubly poignant because the plaintiffs are would-be lawyers. You never know when someone is going to search:

[First name of a candidate]! and pre/2 [last name of a candidate] w/7 bush or gore or republican! or democrat! or charg! or accus! or criticiz! or blam! or defend! or iran contra or clinton or spotted owl or florida recount or sex! or controvers! or racis! or fraud! or investigat! or bankrupt! or layoff! or downsiz! or PNTR or NAFTA or outsourc! or indict! or enron or kerry or iraq or wmd! or arrest! or intox! or fired or sex! or racis! or intox! or slur! or arrest! or fired or controvers! or abortion! or gay! or homosexual! or gun! or firearm!

or herpes or sodom!

The problem with Al Gore is that his dire predictions don't match his behavior, and that makes him look the hypocrite, rightly or wrongly.

Unfortunately you are correct, and this particular circumstance always comes under heavy criticism (particularly by those who disagree to begin with). I'm not sure, though, what kind of solution there could reasonably be, given what gore already does (ie drive a hybrid, flies commercially when possible, buys green power, & buys carbon offsets when he does fly private jets).

However, when one looks at solar in particular, photovalic cells have been on the market for well over 20 years and still aren't as efficient as fossil fuels when measured by cost per KwHour.

True. Yet that does not factor in the major negative externalities that fossil fuels produce. Think pollution (& related health issues), think political discomfort & wars in oil-rich regions, think climate change. All of those things *do* cost us, just not in a easily quantifiable ways. If we could price in the effects of such things, I think you'd see alternative sources of energy start to be a much more common option simply due to economics.

like Gore does with claiming the superiority of alternative energy.

I would suggest that alternative energey is superior, just not cheaper.

-Ted

In related news...

Rep. Boehner [R-OH] says there's no 'wildlife' in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge

White House buries climate change deaths report

Klingon Speakers Now Outnumber Navajo Speakers

Using the Wing Nut Daily as a source doesn't help your argument any, but thanks for making your neocon shill credentials so clear.

I will use a similarly biased web site (although it has a slightly better truthiness reputation) to rebut your claim: thinkprogress.org

Here is another article about the Sandy Berger incident, from a slightly more reputable news source. Note how right wing propagandists like to say that Berger "stole" or "removed" classified documents from the Archives, when he actually took home COPIES, which was still a big legal nono, but the difference in argument is typical of how neocons like to misrepresent facts.

Next time you try and put out neocon propaganda, I suggest making sure your statements can't be rebutted by web sites which show up on the first page of a Google search. You'll be able to fool more people that way.

1. National security is the realm of the Commander-in-Chief - NOT congress, and broad military issues should be left with strong leadership, not with bureaucracy. We don't need warrants against spies and those doing war against us.

The legislature is supposed to write laws, and the executive is supposed to enforce them. For instance, if the Congress passes a law saying that President Bush cannot torture people (such as treaties like the Geneva Conventions or the Convention Against Torture), President Bush is required to enforce that law (specifically, the War Crimes Act of 1996).

The Congress should not tell the President what to do, but rather what cannot be done. Reasonably, I think you would agree with this.

Further, I would imagine that if the administration said "so and so is a spy", a warrant would be given in short order, so I do not see a warrant as an excessive burden of proof, especially given the extensive intelligence abuses of the 50s and 60s.

2. International terrorism is primarily a military - NOT LAW ENFORCEMENT - matter. Its roots are in a conflict against governments and people as a whole, not against individuals, thus putting it in the realm of the military.

I agree with this entirely. Unfortunately, the USA PATRIOT Act removed the barrier between foreign intelligence and law enforcement, allowing evidence obtained from FISA warrants (or the lack thereof) to be used by the FBI. I think this sets a dangerous precedent whereby a future President could potentially have the FBI criminally prosecute someone for acts unrelated to terrorism that were uncovered co-incident with investigation into "terrorism".

3. Communications of internationals, like it or not, are NOT covered by the US Constitution. Anything that travels across borders has ALWAYS been an open book to ALL countries. Most/all communications travel in this manner now...even when one international calls another, it can travel through US systems. We DON'T need a warrant to listen to that.

You're exactly right, we don't need a warrant to listen in on communications between foreign entities. In fact, we never have. 50 USC Section 1802(a)(1) authorizes the Attorney General to eavesdrop on foreign-to-foreign communications without a court order.

We were dealing with a weird red-tape issue, and an administration that may have taken a step or two too far - allegedly, may I remind everyone, because we really don't know who they were or weren't listening to

Right, this is why John Ashcroft (when he was Attorney General), James Comey, and a significant amount of the top echelon of the DOJ were about to resign en masse during the Intensive Care Showdown on March 11, 2004.

What would make hardcore GWOT supporters threaten to resign over a program that was still not public at the time? One must wonder how horrific a violation of the law must be to motivate such dedicated followers to such extreme ends.

The media is much too diversified and there is much too much money at stake for the fairness doctrine to have any effect. IN any case, the so-called liberal media is already careful. For instance, today when NPR had a story about Obama, they made sure to reference the previous days story about McCain. Rush is free is denigrate women and minorities, abuse drugs while making fun of other with the same problem and promote hate and incite violence in general, but somehow the media is still considered liberal.

"Firstly, anyone who actually contends that the Fairness Doctrine targeted conservative viewpoints is so mindnumbingly stupid"

What percentage of talk radio is liberal vs conservative? Here is one "study" from a liberal group. http://thinkprogress.org/2007/06/20/radio-report/
Now, tell me how, if the fairness doctrine is to "equalize" time for viewpoints on the airwaves, that it is NOT DEVISED to censor many conservative viewpoints? And also, who determines what content is conservative and what content is liberal?

I think the parent's point was not that Karl Rove is a major force in the McCain campaign, but that people "the likes of Karl Rove" are.
 
And besides, Karl is doing plenty to contribute.

Well, there are 7 justices nominated by Republicans, and the other 2 were suggested by a Republican. The Court is already fully packed.

The 5-4 decision split along ideological lines, with the five justices most widely considered "more liberal" voting that a CSRT doesn't qualify as habeas. The four considered "more conservative" -- including GWB's two -- voted that secret kangaroo courts are plenty good for any o' them furriners that our president wants to hold without charges.

I remember that convoluted nonsense and so here, for everyone's viewing pleasure, are the words straight from the (literally) horses mouth:

Scalia's comments

Scalia's arguments came straight out of a horse alright, but it wasn't the mouth.

Scalia's comments

I disagree completely. In most ways, the nominees from the Democratic and Republican parties are incredibly similar. In fact, it's quite difficult to find any substantial differences in the campaign promises of either Obama or McCain

It's not difficult at all to find substantial differences. At least one was all over the news today:

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/usa/2008/06/fallout_from_the_gitmo_ruling.html
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/06/12/mccain-habeas-court/

We've recently discussed some substantial differences in tech policy and in advisor selection on slashdot.

I get it that to some extent, certain political realities force every mainstream candidate into certain positions. But it's wildly wrong to take the further step and equate all their positions, and furthermore, it's dangerous.

Ok Source with video

2) McCain rarely backs George Bush.

3) McCain never sucks up to the religious right, either.

He has repeatedly drawn distinctions between what happens at Gitmo and -actual- torture.

The difference is that he's not convinced that solitary confinement for a few weeks or interrogations are neccesarily torture.

It's an awful thing, solitary. It crushes your spirit and weakens your resistance more effectively than any other form of mistreatment.... There is little doubt that solitary confinement causes some mental deterioration in even the most resilient of personalities....

First, to be "outed", Valerie Plame would have had to be a covert operative. She wasn't at that time.

Sorry, I was barely paying attention to this thread, but couldn't help noticing this bit of misinformation.

Plame was covert agent at time of name leak --MSNBC

Yes, Valerie Plame Was Covert --CBSNews

Leak Prosecutor says Plame was Covert --NYTimes

Video: Valerie Plame confirms her covert status --thinkprogress.org

etc.

You may be confused because of the following misinformation campaign:

Right-wing noise machine: Plame not covert --Salon

He had the moral ground, then he gave it away by backing down on waterboarding.
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/13/mccain-waterboarding-fail/

He voted against the ban on waterboarding.

If you think John McCain will reign in spending and return to fiscal discipline think again. An interesting article studies his economic plan and shows how disastrous it is and how it would create the largest deficit since WWII. His answer is to lower or eliminate a lot of taxes and eliminate all pork (roughly $18B). Unfortunately, the amount of pork is far less than the amount of taxes he would lower. He's pretty clueless and is really no different than Bush. Plus, this idiot would likely get us into a war with Iran and possibly more due to his explosive temper, flushing a lot more money (and lives) down the drain.

McCain is actually far closer to Bush and basically just tries to extend Bush's disastrous fiscal policies.

Does a presidential candidate count? http://thinkprogress.org/2006/04/02/mccain-falwell/

Just because Brownback is ultra conservative does not mean he's fine with willy nilly eletronic monitoring to "protect our freedoms" Why don't you read what Brownback has said about Bush's wiretapping? Maybe it'll cheer up that depression of yours just a bit.

otherwise Lincon would have had no recourse to lock up captured southern military soldiers as individual rebels

there was no concept of "enemy combatant"

succeeding

You didn't read the information at the link I posted.

"Once an alcoholic, always an alcoholic." The person may stop drinking, but his or her alcoholic personality does not change. The violence (killing more than 1,000,000 Iraqis) and dishonesty and feelings of being above everyone else that we see in the Bush administration are typical of people with alcoholic personalities, just on a larger scale than usual.

Bush is not really president. As has been widely reported, Cheney presents Bush with simple choices, with a strong recommendation about which he should choose. Bush is a simple-minded man, and is happy being treated that way. Bush calls himself the "Decider", but only a child would say that. Cheney makes the decisions.

If you have any evidence that Bush thinks independently except in a very simple way, please post a link.

On February 13, 2006, two years ago, Cheney shot his lawyer in the face while they were hunting. Cheney admitted that he had been drinking. Quote: 'Mr. Whittington's doctors "had no comment on whether Whittington's blood alcohol level had been tested after the accident." ' As someone mentioned in the comments, everyone stopped for DUI says they have had only one drink.

I am unable to follow the logic step between one unit of our oil being substantially equal to one unit of OPEC oil and the conclusion that this gives OPEC some control over the price that our oil will be sold at. It seems logical to me that an influx of a large amount of a resource into a market would reduce the price. Although, I will admit the record profits that big oil has been having in 2007: http://money.cnn.com/2008/02/01/news/companies/exxon_earnings/ and as far back as 2004: http://thinkprogress.org/2005/05/09/consumers-on-fumes-oil-industry-guzzels-profits/> will tend to erase any relief for consumers.

If McCain is against waterboarding, then why did he vote against that bill the first time it came around?