A Happyish Ending

This is not political. Do you recall the story of the Judge who sued his dry cleaner's for 54 million dollars for "losing" his pants? He lost the case and he lost his job. He is, probably, the worst person in the world, and he should be banned from working for anyone, ever. He should be counter sued for his racist and frivolous lawsuit.

The couple was forced to sell their cleaners.

He is the man on the left. His name is Roy Pearson, and he is an embarrassment.

The couple on the right is Jin and Soo Chung. They are not an embarrassment. Please consider these two statements if you happen to meet them in your travels.

Republican Opportunists

Benazir Bhutto, leader of the opposition group to the Pakistani Government and as important a figure to Pakistan as Bill Clinton is to the US, gets assassinated. What do you think would be the appropriate response from a Republican Presidential Candidate?

Is it:

a) Share a moment of silence and prayer for Bhutto, her family, her supporters who died in the suicide attack and the dangerous situation in Pakistan.
b) Argue that terrorism needs to be stopped in Pakistan as a way to bolster his image of a terrorism fighter (in order to get more votes from the people who pay attention to that).
c) Explain why a fence is important to stop the Mexicans from getting in our country.
d) Have sex with young boys in an airport bathroom.

If you picked D, you're wrong, but at least you have a good sense of humor. If you picked B, you're still wrong! Well, I'm sure one of them did, but that's not the subject of this post. If you picked C, you're right! Yes, Governor Mike Huckabee decided to compare the murder of a top political figure in Pakistan to the need for a border fence to keep the Mexicans out.

Congratulations Mike Huckabee! You are officially the Librocrat.com Douchebag of the week!

Have a Good Holiday

I will be enjoying Chinese food, watching movies, and possibly sneaking onto the Golf Course. Hooray for December 25th!

Ugh.

"I ain't never ran from a Neocon and I damn sure ain't 'bout to pick today to start running."
- Lil' Wayne and Playaz Circle, with edits.

What?

WASHINGTON — A federal judge on Friday declined to rule immediately on a request to compel the government to explain in detail the destruction of C.I.A. videotapes showing the harsh interrogation of two suspected Al Qaeda operatives.

District Judge Henry H. Kennedy said he would rule later on a request by lawyers for a dozen Yemeni prisoners being held at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, that he order such a hearing.

But Judge Kennedy, who heard a motion from the prisoners’ lawyers, appeared at one point to be at least partly swayed by Bush administration lawyers that he should not get more deeply involved while Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey is undertaking one of the inquiries into the tapes’ destruction.

“Why should the court not permit the Department of Justice to do just that?” Judge Kennedy asked David H. Remes, a lawyer for the detainees.

Ooh, I know! I know! Because he works for the people that destroyed the tapes, right? You were looking for an answer weren't you? I know you must have been since you're not stupid enough to actually believe that the DOJ is going to look into this objectively, right? RIGHT???

Natasha Charles is My Hero

Outside of Madison Square Garden in New York, hundreds of angry Knicks fans are protesting against Knicks' coach Isaiah Thomas, signing petitions to get him fired. The New York Times has the whole article, if you care. Regardless, this was by far my favorite couple of paragraphs I've read in an article in a while:

Some people walking by stopped for a few moments to listen out of curiosity but not everyone was supportive. Natasha Charles, who said she was headed to work at New York Lawyers for Public Interest, stopped to debate a few demonstrators.

"Seriously, of all the things you could protest, I can’t believe this,” she said. ”Compared to the jerk we have in the White House, this is minutia. George Bush is the one we should be protesting. This is ridiculous. This is embarrassing.”

In other news, upset about affirmative action, Republicans have begun protesting chocolate milk.

Lucifer's Wrath Lights White House on Fire

Dick Cheney's Suite in the White House burst into flames today, in what has to be the most hilarious and ironic "disaster" to happen in the Washington since Mark Foley. Reports are unsure what started the blade, but sources say it's not uncommon for smoke and flames to engulf small areas whenever Cheney enters a room. Luckily no souls escaped in the blast. The world can't stand another Elizabeth Dole.

Full Story here.

Shock and Awe

"Why is it that people are constantly taking a shit and no one gives a shit?"
- Librocrat 5:13

This should come as a surprise to... someone. Ex Democratic Vice-Presidential Candidate Joseph Lieberman decides to endorse Ex-Important Republican Lawmaker John McCain as the next President of the United States. Proving, yet again, that there is no Jewish person in Washington that accurately reflects the feelings and opinions of the Jewish people.

Hit the road, Joe. Take Jesus with you.

I have a cold.

So read this instead:

Mitt Romney did not have lawn relations with that immigrant.

Also, from the Satirical Political Report, this line made me laugh:

"Mitchell Report Concludes Bush Should Have Used Performance Enhancing Drugs."

Ha.

PoliSat - In Speech on Religion, Obama Explains His Faith in Oprah

From the Borowitz Report:

In Speech on Religion, Obama Explains His Faith in Oprah
Calls Belief in Talk Show Hostess a “Personal Matter’

Under pressure to explain his religious faith to the American people, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama delivered a forty-five minute speech today discussing his belief in Oprah Winfrey.

In an election year that has been dominated by discussions of candidates’ religious faith, perhaps no candidate’s religion has been more controversial than Sen. Obama’s Oprahism.

Speaking to supporters at the University of Iowa, the Illinois senator devoted his entire speech to his religious faith but mentioned Ms. Winfrey only once by name.

“My religion is a personal matter to me,” Sen. Obama told his followers. “Having said that, let me make this clear: I have accepted Oprah as my host.”

Later in the day, Ms. Winfrey toured the state with Mr. Obama and, in a stunning demonstration of her influence, briefly caused a solar eclipse.

“Sun and moon, do my bidding!” she roared, raising her hands above her head and delighting the crowd with the celestial display.

“Oprah is without question the most powerful force in the election right now,” said Carol Foyler, 45, an Obama supporter from Cedar Rapids. “I’d like to see Bill Clinton do that.”

Davis Logsdon, who studies the interrelation between politicians, religion and talk-show hosts at the University of Minnesota, said that Sen. Obama’s worship of Oprah Winfrey puts him in the mainstream of American theological belief.

“Over thirty percent of Americans currently define themselves as Oprahists,” Mr. Logsdon said. “And that number is higher during sweeps.”

Elsewhere, the CIA created more controversy today by acknowledging that it accidentally returned several interrogation tapes to Blockbuster.

Even worse, the CIA forgot to rewind the tapes.

FYI - Stop War in Thai

In case you wanted to know how to say "Stop War" in another language.

Updating the links on this blog

It looks like some of the bloggers on my liberal link list have stopped blogging. The internet misses you.

So I will be updating my links tonight and tomorrow. Want your blog on here? Link to it in a comment.

Bad News for Mike Huckabee

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (AP) -- Mike Huckabee once advocated isolating AIDS patients from the general public, opposed increased federal funding in the search for a cure and said homosexuality could ''pose a dangerous public health risk.''

As a candidate for a U.S. Senate seat in 1992, Huckabee answered 229 questions submitted to him by The Associated Press. Besides a quarantine, Huckabee suggested that Hollywood celebrities fund AIDS research from their own pockets, rather than federal health agencies.

No commentary necessary. Full story here.

Iran

If any of you watch Live with Dan Abrams on MSNBC, you have to give the man credit. He does not give up on his questions. And unlike Chris Matthews, he also does not interrupt and talk over the answers of the panelists. Using this style, he can try to get his guests to answer the question he asks (rather than skirting around it, as most try to do) but still gives them a chance to answer, before calling them on their BS and asking them the question again.

So it was amusing yesterday to watch him grill a Republican Strategist (talk shows still don't pick their guests well) over Iran and watch as the Strategist failed miserably to answer the question. He didn't stutter, he didn't falter in his words. No, he just spewed propaganda like bomb in a honey bucket. Even Pat Buchanan thought everything the strategist said was crap.

Here is the better part of the transcript (emphasis mine):

DAN ABRAMS: All right. Jack, now look, don‘t - I don‘t want to change the question here. The question is not - is Iran dangerous or could Iran be dangerous, OK? Because everyone, I think, on this panel will concede that Iran could be dangerous. That‘s not the question. The question is - has the administration misled us in the last few months about Iran‘s nuclear capability?

JACK BURKMAN, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: No, I think not in any way. I think this, if anything, makes the president‘s case stronger. I think he was charitable today, Dan. There‘s a very fine line between an intention to have a program and having a program. These people have always intended to have a program. What you have today is clear and convincing evidence for the first time that these people have a program. You now have concrete evidence on the table. The difference is, and I think this will appeal to you, you were making the analogy to a courtroom in your opening piece. You can‘t make that analogy because the stakes here are higher. If we‘re wrong, you could have hundreds of thousands of people killed. What you have to understand is this at the end of the day is not North Korea because North Korea at the end of the day is China‘s problem, it‘s Russia‘s problem, it can be contained.

ABRAMS: Yes, but don‘t change the subject. I‘m not going to let you change the subject. That‘s what all the Bush team is trying to do. They‘re trying to change the subject away from whether there‘s been dishonesty. And Rachel, I saw shaking your head. It is infuriating, I agree with you because I see you getting the notion that somehow this report proves they‘ve been right all along. I mean, the 2005 report suggested that Iran had a nuclear program. So, this is not the first time we‘re hearing about the possibility. And the fact that they halted it in 2003, has to make us ask questions about what we were being told in 2007?

RACHEL MADDOW, AIR AMERICA: The only way you can understand this as a validation of what the White House has been saying is if you completely deny everything the White House has been saying. What they‘ve been saying is that Iran has a nuclear weapons program and that they aggressively want a nuclear weapon. But National Intelligence Estimate rejects this and I quote, “With high confidence.” So, I don‘t know how that means that proves the opposite of that is true.

(CROSSTALK)

BURKMAN: If I may Dan. The issue - the White House did not that say that. I think Rachel mischaracterized what they‘re saying. What they‘re saying is they are developing and working toward. That‘s what Dana Perino said, that‘s what Stephen Hadley had said.

MADDOW: But no, that‘s not what they said. They don‘t want nuclear weapons.

(CROSSTALK)

ABRAMS: That‘s a dishonest representation of what I said. Go ahead,

Pat. I want you to -

PAT BUCHANAN, MSNBC CORRESPONDENT: Look, how can you credibly say Iran is driving toward nuclear weapons when they voluntarily shut down their nuclear weapons program four years ago? That tells me they‘re thinking over whether they really want to have them. If they shut down their secret program, it means they‘re not driving toward nuclear weapons. And it means they may be enriching uranium for the reason that they‘ve got a right to do that under the treaty that they signed.

ABRAMS: And Jack, let me ask you this one, how do you spin Samuel Bodman, the Energy secretary‘s comment on November 13th - “We are convinced that they are developing nuclear weapons.” What‘s ambiguous about that? BURKMAN: I don‘t think you have to spin it because I think if you have in the recent past, and three or four years ago is certainly the recent past, somebody clearly working toward a program, you have evidence of that.

ABRAMS: This is - as you‘re saying - again, we‘re now learning that this administration knew—I‘m concerned about the dishonesty here because I think Iran is a threat, I really do. But I‘m concerned about being dishonest. I want the truth from my government. I don‘t want people spinning things. And that‘s what I feel like has been happening even though they knew it. And let me let Pat take us inside.

BUCHANAN: I think it‘s worse than that in this sense. Look, we were driving straight toward an attack on Iran. The president and vice president and the neoconservatives were painting us into a corner where we had no choice but to destroy these nuclear facilities. And if they knew they had shut down a program and they knew that the intelligence is saying, look, we may think the Iranians backed off from this four years ago, they were stampeding us toward war, the same way it was done in 2003.

ABRAMS: Go ahead, jack.

BURKMAN: You see, Dan, the margin for error is zero. This is a guy who‘s committed to the destruction of Israel. The president of Iran is committed to the destruction of Israel quote on his words, “I want to wipe Israel off the map.

(CROSSTALK)

ABRAMS: But you‘re changing the subject again, Jack. The subject is not is - look, we can talk about whether Iran is a threat. Iran is a possible threat, alright? No question about it. The question is whether we have been lied to as of late. Let me play you two pieces of sound, Jack. I want to ask you if this make you nervous? This is comparing the president talking about Iraq in 2005 and talking about Iran now.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BUSH: Iran was dangerous. Iran is dangerous and Iran will be dangerous if they have the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon.

We did find out that he had the intent and the capability of making weapons, which in my judgment still made him a dangerous man and the world understood how dangerous Saddam Hussein was.

We talked about Iran and the desire to work jointly to convince the Iranian regime to give up their nuclear weapons - (Librocrat's note: This clip was played by accident - it was supposed to end after the Saddam Hussein statement, but the clip guy played it too long. In the end, I wish it was played)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ABRAMS: I didn‘t need the last piece of sound there, Jack. You listen to the talk about the dangerous man—it‘s a little bit frightening and it goes to Pat‘s point about being on this sort of road to war.

BURKMAN: Let me respond specifically to your legal question. I think it is an appropriate question. I don‘t see, Dan, a material distinction between an intention to develop a nuclear program and actually developing a program when, when that party has already engaged in moving toward developing a program.

ABRAMS: No, that ignores the significance, Rachel, of this new report.

MADDOW: Yes, you cannot make a case to the American people that we ought to invade a country because there‘s a bad man there or somebody who once had a nuclear thought. The case they were making to us about attacking Iran was that Iran posed an imminent danger because of this nuclear weapons program that we now know doesn‘t exist. The evidence is bunk.

ABRAMS: Right. Pat, final word, I‘ve got to wrap it up.

BUCHANAN: We‘re headed for war because we could not take the risk and there was, as far as we know now, no risk there.

ABRAMS: And we were and I am concerned about the credibility factor.
I don‘t want that to be lost on this. Don‘t let them change the subject.
They‘ve got to answer the question, have they been telling us the truth?

I want to repeat what was bolded. This idiot thinks that having once started making nuclear weapons is EXACTLY THE SAME THING as building them. So when various members of government say that "we are telling them to stop their nuclear weapons research," even though they're not researching it, that's okay because they once did. It's not a lie, because they stopped only 4 years ago. Thus it is okay that we say they are currently doing it.

So in honor of that: We here on this website are begging George Bush to stop snorting cocaine. We are also asking - NAY, TELLING - Saddam Hussein that he needs to stop what he's doing to the Iraqi's. I know he's dead now, but because he was doing terrible things recently, it's okay that I imply he's still doing them. In fact, once we found out that 3 or 4 years ago he was doing terrible things to Iraqis, it only VALIDATES my statement that he is doing it right now as we speak.

News of the Day

All the men Paris Hilton has slept with over the past few years have come forward... oh, I'm sorry, those aren't the men that Paris has slept with, those are all the men that have slept with Larry "Wide Stance" Craig. That slut.

Also, Iran stopped making Nuclear arms in 2003. So says the U.S. intelligence team (appointed by the Bush government) set to investigate Iran's weapons manufacturing. This goes against everything that Bush has told us for 4 years. WHOOPS! But hey, you know, at least Bush was able to halt the Iran weapon's program. Granted he halted it the year before he claimed it was a problem, but no one said Bush wasn't anachronistic. In fact, right now he has the same brain he had when he was an infant. Weird.

Finally, according to this headline, "Bush and Democrats Renew War of Words." Bush said in a statement: "We're fighting the words there, so we don't have to use them correctly here."

Bush's Iraq Message