July 20, 2004

• Bush and his allies have been described as partisan or bare-knuckled, but the problem is more fundamental than that. They have routinely violated norms of political conduct, smothered information necessary for informed public debate, and illegitimately exploited government power to perpetuate their rule. These habits are not just mean and nasty. They're undemocratic. Impeach that bastard. Those bastards.
• Sweet! That means that Dennis Hastert would take over! What a deal! I agree with the sentiment, but do it in November.
• My first response was, "duh!" If we have the freedoms and openess that our government has had for the past 225 years, then the terrorists win! Which, unfortunately is the Kool-Aid that too many people seem to have swallowed...
• So, this Bush, he is bad?
• Sweet! That means that Dennis Hastert would take over! What a deal! It could be Tom Delay. He makes Hastert look like one of the founding fathers.
• Off Topic, but since I already posted today... Nude Man Covered in Nacho Cheese Arrested

  An officer saw a nude man carrying a box of Frito Lay snacks and a container of nacho cheese run toward a Jeep in the lot and stopped him.

• sully, are you suggesting we try covering bush in nacho cheese?
• No SideDish. And here's a cute kitten photo for you.
• maybe its a brutal art attack, comparing the oily, sleazy way Bush runs things with a naked man covered in nacho cheese. *puts on black turtleneck, increases disaffectedness*
• Police knew the type of cheese because the pool bar attendee was chasing after the man yelling "Not yo cheese! Not yo cheese!" Get it? Not yo = nacho?? [sigh]
• blogRot: Lipsey Russell has nothing on you. You DA MAN!
• Not-so-Curious George
• I wonder does anyone in Congress gets scared when Bush threatens to veto a bill.
• Has anyone seen the new design to the new Bush/Cheney 2004 logo. This is the first time that these guys have been honest about something.
• maybe you guys didn't get the memo. America is safer! The President said so!
• Helen Thomas, in bizarro land:

  Q Prime Minister Blair took full personal responsibility for taking his nation into war under falsehoods -- under reasons that have been determined now to be false. Is President Bush also willing to take full, personal responsibility -- MR. McCLELLAN: I think Prime Minister Blair said that it was the right thing to do; that Saddam Hussein's regime was a threat. Q Those were not the reasons he took his country into war. It turned out to be untrue, and the same is true for us. Does the President take full, personal responsibility for this war? MR. McCLELLAN: The issue here is what do you to with a threat in a post-September 11th world? Either you live with a threat, or you confront the threat. Q There was no threat. MR. McCLELLAN: The President made the decision to confront the threat. Q Saddam Hussein did not threaten this country. MR. McCLELLAN: The world -- the world, the Congress and the administration all disagree. They all recognized that there was a threat posed by Saddam Hussein. When it came to September 11th, that changed the equation. It taught us, as I said -- Q The Intelligence Committee said there was no threat. MR. McCLELLAN: As I said, it taught us that we must confront threats before it's too late. Q So the President doesn't take full responsibility? MR. McCLELLAN: The President already talked about the responsibility for the decisions he's made. He talked about that with Prime Minister Blair. Q Personal responsibility? MR. McCLELLAN: Terry, go ahead.

  I guess the Mad Hatter and the March Hare couldn't be reached for comment...?
• I read that Scott says the same thing off the record. These guys don't go off their talking points.
• Via the other Sullivan Being Arrested For Free Speech

  CHARLESTON, W.Va. -- Trespassing charges against two people who wore anti-Bush T-shirts to the president

• One of my favorites: Q ... I'm just wondering if you could explain how those two disparate thoughts are completely consistent. Q But that's in direct contradiction to what the 9/11 Commission has found. Q And not only that, this President has said that he thought that Saddam Hussein would like to use al Qaeda as a forward army, as one of his forward armies. The 9/11 Commission is saying, contacts a relationship don't make. Q Scott, do you really think people buy this? Q Between what the facts are and what the reality is. Q No, I'm also talking about facts. The President said he thinks that al Qaeda would like to be a forward -- that Saddam wanted to use al Qaeda as a forward army -- his words from, I believe, 10/02 at a Michigan rally. Q This commission has said after its own investigation, and you were the ones who set up the commission, that there was no collaborative relationship. So the conclusion -- the question and conclusion seems to be that administration overstated the evidence that exists. Q The New York Times says the President should apologize to the American people. Also, are you saying that the 9/11 report is wrong? Is that what you're saying that you reject the findings? Q What are people supposed to conclude, that they're having lunch with each other? Q You talk about deep, long-standing ties. What is that supposed to mean? Q Why don't you just say the commission is wrong? Q Well, because the terms that you did use, "deep, long-standing ties -- sinister nexus," and the President himself saying, "By removing Saddam Hussein we have removed an ally of al Qaeda," that means they are working together. Did Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda work together, where and when? Q Well, what does "ally" mean? Q That's an argument. Those are not facts. Q That's just an argument. The facts as determined do not bear out that argument. Q But you didn't find any. Q Who has repudiated his own testimony. Q I'm looking for facts. Q Where was the threat? Q Did he ever threaten the United States? Q Scott, the last poll on the subject found that most Americans, more than half, believe that Iraq had some hand in the planning and the execution of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Do you believe that the White House, the administration has done anything to contribute to that misimpression? Do you believe that you have, in any way, at any time, overstated the ties, the connections between al Qaeda and Iraq?
• Q ... Do you believe -- you're saying that the White House believes that administration officials bear no responsibility for this misperception of Iraq's role in 9/11 that polls indicate a good half of the American people have. Are you concerned about that? Two questions. Q And you're not concerned about the -- it doesn't trouble you that so many people have this misperception? Q It is a fact ... that a number of people had this misperception. I want to know if you're concerned about that. Does it trouble you that so many Americans believe Saddam had a role in 9/11? Q Scott, how much of a political problem is it for the President leading into a reelection campaign that one rationale after another for going to war in Iraq seems to be vanishing in terms of credibility? Q So you don't see any political difficulty in these latest revelations, the fact that there's no weapons of mass destruction? Q That's not true. Q And you don't see any political price to be paid for the erosion of one justification -- Q -- after another before the war? Q Well, the fact is -- the fact is there's been no WMD found. We clearly haven't been welcomed as liberators. Q What I'm trying to get you to address, Scott, is that the political atmosphere surrounding this whole enterprise in Iraq clearly has shifted if you read polls. More and more people doubt the rationales for going to war. More and more people question -- Q I'm not trying to be argumentative, but clearly -- Q Clearly, Scott, obviously... the President's reelection hinges in large part on whether enough people believe that he made the right decision to do that. And how does he go about -- given all this news and evidence to the contrary and all that, how does he go about continuing to make this case between now and the next four, four-and-a-half months that the decision was the right one? Q Scott, you said there is a misperception of what the commission said on ties to terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, let me ask you this, did this administration commit any mistakes? Are you -- in other words, are you considered a perfect government? Q A perfect government. I mean you are not accepting any -- Q No, this government -- the government of President George W. Bush. Q You're perfect. [No shit, eh, Sully? I included the questions only, because the answers are all the same, as always. With apologies to Bob Harris]
• Worst.Administration.Ever. not that it matters - with the unprecedented doublespeak and talking points going out as Fox "news" - what's the fucking point? They're not even making sense now and they still pretend to be legitimate. It's UnAmerican. It's pathetic.
• Best Scotty Line Ever (acording to Atrios)

  I'm not aware of any one in the White House who is aware of anyone who's aware that the President ever was aware of having made such a comment.

  I don't think Scott is aware of what he's saying anymore.
• You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
• Update on this story: Feds pay $80,000 over anti-Bush T-shirts
• @#%!
• Your tax dollars at work!
• Remember free speech? Right to assemble? Good on those folks. Hope more people have the balls to push Bush till he chokes. The feds are expecting taxpayers to be jealous and pissed that someone got a bit of cash. Anything to divert attention from the real issue. King Bush: I'm not above the law, I AM THE LAW.