FBI Investigates No. 3 CIA Official

This is off Yahoo News:

WASHINGTON - The FBI is investigating whether the No. 3 official at the
CIA improperly intervened in the award of contracts to a businessman who has been implicated in a congressional bribery scandal, a law enforcement official said Monday.

CIA Executive Director Kyle "Dusty" Foggo already was under investigation by the agency's inspector general in connection with his relationship to San Diego businessman Brent Wilkes.

The FBI recently opened its own probe of Foggo, a longtime and close friend of Wilkes, the official said, speaking only on condition of anonymity because the investigation is under way.

Foggo has decided to retire from the CIA following the resignation last Friday of CIA Director Porter Goss, an intelligence official said Monday, also speaking on condition of anonymity. The official noted that new CIA directors have traditionally chosen their own executive directors, who run the agency's day-to-day operations.

Is it me, or is there a connection between the FBI probe on Foggo, and CIA Director Porter Goss' retirement? There certainly has been plenty of speculation in the liberal and progressive blogosphere about Foggo's relationship with Wilkes, and the prostitution scandal involving Duke Cunningham and possibly more congressional Republicans. It is almost as if the Republicans are trying to nip this scandal in the bud, before it also explodes and causes havoc with the Bush White House. Considering the details:

Last week, the CIA released a statement on Foggo's behalf in which he denied any improprieties. "Mr. Foggo maintains that government contracts for which he was responsible were properly awarded and administered," the agency said.

This is your standard PR denial of any wrongdoing by Foggo. Continuing on:

Wilkes has been described in court papers as an unindicted coconspirator in a plot to bribe then-Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, now serving a federal prison term for taking $2.4 million from government contractors.

FBI agents also have been looking into whether Wilkes supplied Cunningham with prostitutes, limousines and hotel suites. Foggo sometimes attended poker parties at the hotel rooms, but he said there was nothing untoward about his presence.

"If he attended occasional card games with friends over the years, Mr. Foggo insists they were that and nothing more," the CIA statement said.

So Foggo insists that he "attended occasional card games with friends" in hotel rooms. Mr. Foggo--why are you attending card games in hotel rooms? Are you saying that you or your friends can't have poker parties at your place--or your friends' places? Or were you playing "strip poker" in those hotel rooms with some prostitutes?

But this is more than just Hookergate here. Consider this:

[L]awmakers raised questions Monday about Department of
Homeland Security contracts to Shirlington Limousine and Transportation Inc., the Arlington, Va., company at the center of the prostitution investigation.

Company attorney Michael York said in an interview last week that the company and its president, Christopher Baker, are cooperating with the federal investigation, but he denied any company involvement in improper or illegal activities. York did not immediately return a call for comment on Monday.

Democrats on the House Homeland Security Committee sent a letter Monday to the department's inspector general questioning whether Shirlington Limousine was qualified to get the two contracts it was awarded by the department, one for $3.8 million in April 2004 and another for as much as $21 million over five years in October 2005.

And now let's go back to the CIA PR-statement of denial:

Last week, the CIA released a statement on Foggo's behalf in which he denied any improprieties. "Mr. Foggo maintains that government contracts for which he was responsible were properly awarded and administered," the agency said.

The Department of Homeland Security awarded two contracts for around $24.8 million over five years to a Shirlington Limousine that is at the center of this prostitution ring. The company president--Christopher Baker--is cooperating with the feds in this scandal. Is it not ironic that this Shirlington Limousine, which is embroiled in the prostitution ring, was also awarded fat DHS contracts--and that the CIA is claiming that Foggo "properly awarded and administered" government contracts? What government contracts did Foggo award and administered? Was Shirlington Limousine one of the bidders that Foggo awarded DHS contracts to? If so, then there is an interesting connection between Foggo's possible awarding government contracts to Shirlington Limousine, when he was attending hotel poker parties with prostitutes that may have been supplied by Shirlington Limousines. Or did Foggo also give his DHS stamp of approval for defense contracts with Wilkes? According to the AP story, Wilkes supplied Cunningham with "prostitutes, limousines[by Shirlington?] and hotel suites" and that Foggo attended these parties. If Foggo awarded DHS contracts for Shirlington Limousines, or even for Wilkes' companies, then that just shows another layer of corruption--this time inside the Department of Homeland Security. Instead of keeping the country safe from possible terrorist attacks, the Republicans inside the Congress, and the CIA were enriching themselves and their corporate interests. And if Foggo was involved, then you have to wonder how much did Porter Goss know of this scam?

FRIDAY FUN STUFF: HAPPY CINCO DE MAYO!

For today's Fun Stuff, I'm going to say Happy Cinco De Mayo! Have a margarita on me! For today is not only the anniversary of the Mexicans defeat of the French army in Puebla, but it also happens to be the day that yours truly came into this world 41 years ago today, and wondered what the heck did he ever get into. So I'll leave this day of Porter Goss sex scandals, non-existent $100 gas rebate checks, and multiple Oval Office prayers for Republican election miracles in November, for another day. I'll certainly be sipping margaritas today!

Happy Cinco De Mayo!

Moussaoui Sentenced to Life at Supermax

This artist's rendering shows Rosemary Dillard, who lost her husband Eddie on September 11, 2001, center at podium, speaking to Zacarias Moussaoui, left, as family members of 9/11 victims Lisa Beilke, right, Abraham Scott, second from right, and Lisa Dolan, second from left, listen in U.S. District Court in Alexandria, Va., during the sentencing of the convicted al-Qaeda conspirator Thursday, May 4, 2006. U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema, center, sentenced Moussaoui to life in prison. (AP Photo/Dana Verkouteren)

This is one story that I've been watching, but I haven't really felt the need to comment on it--until now. This is off Yahoo News:

DENVER - A defiant Zacarias Moussaoui spent weeks at trial telling anyone who would listen that he will never feel any remorse for his role in the Sept. 11 attacks.

Now, he has been ordered to spend the rest of his life in a cell with no one to talk to at a prison known as the "Alcatraz of the Rockies."

Moussaoui was sentenced Thursday to life in prison after scolding Americans for missing a chance to learn from him why they are hated by al-Qaida terrorists. U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema sentenced the unrepentant 37-year-old Frenchman to six life sentences and told him he would "die with a whimper," isolated from the world and not in the glory of martyrdom.

His next stop is expected to be the federal maximum-security prison in Florence, a small town 90 miles southwest of Denver.

At Supermax, he would spend 23 hours a day in a cell with a tiny window and have little to no contact with other notorious criminals, including Ramzi Yousef, Eric Rudolph, Ted Kaczynski and Terry Nichols on "bombers' row." Richard Reid, the would-be shoe bomber Moussaoui said was to help him fly a fifth plane into the White House, is also serving a life sentence there.

Supermax is the hardest of the hard-core prisons. It is a place where they will lock you up, throw away the key, and your life will be literally rotted away. It is a place where you will disappear from society, and your name will be forgotten. It is a far more appropriate punishment for Moussaoui than the death penalty. Moussaoui likely believed that his execution would enable him to become a martyr within the Muslim world, and allow him his place among the fellow 9/11 hijackers in Paradise, where he can frolic with virgins. This is a far better punishment--let him sit in a cell for the rest of his life, thinking about what he has done. And Supermax will rot him. Continuing on:

The $60 million Supermax, formally called Administrative Maximum, was built in 1995 in Florence, a town of 3,600 people. It was designed for inmates once held at the U.S. Penitentiary in Marion, Ill., which had replaced Alcatraz when it closed in 1963.

The soundproofed cells were designed so inmates cannot make eye contact with each other. Each 7-by-12-feet cell has a long, narrow window looking out at other prison walls or the small concrete recreation yard.

Concrete platforms topped with mattresses function as beds. Each cell also contains a concrete stool, shower and toilet.

Hood said inmates see no current news on the small black-and-white television, and some of the programming is official prison material. "If a newspaper is allowed it will be time-delayed," the former warden said.

Inmates get one hour out of their cells each day to eat or play basketball or handball. They can take academic courses via closed-circuit TV in each cell.

Moussaoui will be sitting in that cell for 23 hours a day, alone with almost no contact from anyone on the outside world.

An appropriate punishment for him.

Conservatives Drive Bush's Approval Down

We've got some new poll numbers here. From Yahoo News:

WASHINGTON - Angry conservatives are driving the approval ratings of
President Bush and the GOP-led Congress to dismal new lows, according to an AP-Ipsos poll that underscores why Republicans fear an Election Day massacre.

Six months out, the intensity of opposition to Bush and Congress has risen sharply, along with the percentage of Americans who believe the nation is on the wrong track.

The AP-Ipsos poll also suggests that Democratic voters are far more motivated than Republicans. Elections in the middle of a president's term traditionally favor the party whose core supporters are the most energized.

This week's survey of 1,000 adults, including 865 registered voters, found:

* Just 33 percent of the public approves of Bush's job performance, the lowest of his presidency. That compares with 36 percent approval in early April. Forty-five percent of self-described conservatives now disapprove of the president.

* Just one-fourth of the public approves of the job Congress is doing, a new low in AP-Ipsos polling and down 5 percentage points since last month. A whopping 65 percent of conservatives disapprove of Congress.

* A majority of Americans say they want Democrats rather than Republicans to control Congress (51 percent to 34 percent). That's the largest gap recorded by AP-Ipsos since Bush took office. Even 31 percent of conservatives want Republicans out of power.

* The souring of the nation's mood has accelerated the past three months, with the percentage of people describing the nation on the wrong track rising 12 points to a new high of 73 percent. Six of 10 conservatives say America is headed in the wrong direction.

Republican strategists said the party stands to lose control of Congress unless the environment changes unexpectedly.

"It's going to take some events of significance to turn this around," GOP pollster Whit Ayres said. "I don't think at this point you can talk your way back from those sorts of ratings."

President Bush's Republican base is starting to crumble. The American public, who identifies themselves as Republicans, are finally waking up to fact that this Republican president, and the Republican Congress, has been driving this country down a path of domestic and foreign policy ruin. When you've got six out of 10 conservatives saying America is heading in the wrong direction, you've got a huge problem on your hands. Americans--both Democrat and Republican, liberal and conservative--are no longer believing the White House spin. With a majority of Americans believing that the Democrats would do a better job in Congress than the Republicans, such a poll reading shows that the Republican Party has tied themselves completely with the president. And they are sinking with him.

So what does this mean? If events continue the way they are going, we should see the Democrats take control of one, or both houses of Congress. Americans have soured on President Bush's neoconservative, one-party rule. Democrats and Independents are certainly enraged and motivated to vote for their party candidates. Republicans may not be willing to choose a Democratic candidate in this year's elections, but could stay home in protest. The Republicans in Congress know this, and they have been trying to pander to the American voters--a prime example is the $100 gas rebate checks the Republicans dangled to the voters as a way to offset the soaring gas prices. But the $100 gas rebate check was a table scrap thrown to the voters as a cheap way to keep them happy and vote Republican for this November--the rebate check does nothing to solve the high gas prices or help reduce America's dependence on foreign oil (I don't consider the Republican proposal to drill in ANWAR as a means to reduce our dependence on oil). The immigration reform bill has been stalled by hard-lined conservative Republicans, even though the issue is a prime concern for Americans, with recent large-scale, multi-city demonstrations expressing the public's desire for immigration reform. This is a problem that the Republican-controlled Congress has been incapable of solving, even as they make statements professing their desire for an immigration reform bill. With six months left before the November midterm elections, the Republicans really don't have any legislative achievements to show the voters.

Video Shows al-Zarqawi Fumbling With Rifle

This undated image from video, released by the The U.S. military command Thursday, May 4, 2006, purportedly shows Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi . The full video was discovered during one of several raids against al-Qaida in Iraq safe houses in the Baghdad area starting with an operation last month near Youssifiyah, (AP Photo/Defense Department)

This is off Yahoo News:

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is shown wearing American tennis shoes and unable to operate his automatic rifle in video released Thursday by the U.S. military as part of a propaganda war aimed at undercutting the image of the terror leader.

The U.S. command showed the footage to reporters at a time when it is stepping up operations against al-Qaida in Iraq and making overtures to other Sunni groups. The Americans hope to isolate religious extremists from insurgents they believe are more likely to cut a deal to end the war.

The clips were part of a longer video that U.S. troops seized in a raid last month. Al-Qaida in Iraq militants posted an edited version of the same video on the Internet April 25--but without the embarrassing segments.

This undated video image released by the The U.S. military command Thursday, May 4, 2006, shows a previously unseen images of a video purportedly posted by al-Qaida in Iraq's leader Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi . (AP Photo/Defense Department)

Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch, spokesman for the U.S. command, mocked al-Zarqawi as the previously unseen footage showed a smiling al-Qaida leader first firing single shots from a U.S.-made M-249 light machine gun. A frown creeps across al-Zarqawi's face as the weapon jams. He looks at it, confused, then summons another fighter.

"It's supposed to be automatic fire. He's shooting single shots," Lynch said. "Something is wrong with his machine gun. He looks down, can't figure out, calls his friend to come unblock the stoppage and get the weapon firing again."

By contrast, the edited version which the militants posted on the Web showed what happened only after the fighter fixed the weapon--a fierce-looking al-Zarqawi confidently blasting away with bursts of automatic gunfire.

His fellow fighters and associates appear similarly inept in the newly released footage. One reaches out to grab a just-fired weapon by the barrel, apparently unaware that it would burn his hand. The camera quickly pans to the ground and then away.

"His close associates around him ... do things like grab the hot barrel of the machine gun and burn themselves," Lynch said. "Makes you wonder" about their military skills.

Photo dated April 2006 shows Major General Rick Lynch briefing reporters on sectarian violence in Baghdad. Lynch said US forces are "zooming in" on Al-Qaeda militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who may be in Baghdad or nearby. Lynch said the demise of Zarqawi is only a matter of time.(AFP/File/Karim Sahib)

First thing is first--al-Zarqawi was trying to fire a modern U.S. machine gun. You can bet that al-Zarqawi had no weapons training for the M-249, which is why he was not only having trouble firing the weapon, but his fellow fighters also had trouble with it. Second, the Iraqi military was pretty much supplied with Russian-made weapons--such as the AK-47, or or any of the Russian light machine guns that were sold to Iraq during the Cold War. So I reject Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch's derision of al-Zarqawi's military skills simply because he can't fire an American-made machine gun.

Second, al-Zarqawi is not your typical foot soldier in this insurgency. He is the guy who has developed the strategy and tactics of this low-tech insurgency that is grinding up American soldiers with their home-made roadside bombs. That is where al-Zarqawi's strength lies--in conducting both the military and political war against the U.S. occupation. Now granted, al-Zarqawi will use this footage of himself firing an American-made machine gun for his own propaganda purposes--just as the U.S. military has every right to use the raw footage of al-Zarqawi's tapes, seized by the U.S. military, for their own propaganda purposes. But General Lynch, don't deride or disregard al-Zarqawi's "military skills" because he can't fire a American machine gun. Because I can point out that al-Zarqawi hasn't been captured after three years of American military occupation of Iraq--that's 136,000 American soldiers looking for him.

Gee, with all those American soldiers looking for one little terrorist, I guess that says a lot about the incompetence of our own U.S. military--doesn't it General Lynch?

Rumsfeld Heckled by Former CIA Analyst

Anti-war protester Gloria Tatum, left, is restrained by an unidentified woman after she disrupted a speech by Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, Thursday, May 4, 2006, in Atlanta. Anti-war protesters interrupted Rumsfeld's speech and one of them grilled Rumsfeld afterward about the Bush administration's Iraq policy. (AP Photo/John Bazemore)

This is off Yahoo News:

ATLANTA - Protesters repeatedly interrupted Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld during a speech Thursday and one man, a former CIA analyst, accused him of lying about Iraq prewar intelligence in an unusually vociferous display of anti-war sentiment.

"Why did you lie to get us into a war that caused these kind of casualties and was not necessary?" asked Ray McGovern, the former analyst, during a question-and-answer session.

"I did not lie," shot back Rumsfeld, who waved off security guards ready to remove McGovern from the hall at the Southern Center for International Studies.

With Iraq war support remaining low, it is not unusual for top Bush administration officials to encounter protests and hostile questions. But the outbursts Rumsfeld confronted on Thursday seemed beyond the usual.

Three protesters were escorted away by security as each interrupted Rumsfeld's speech by jumping up and shouting anti-war messages. Throughout the speech, a fourth protester stood in the middle of the room with his back to Rumsfeld in silent protest. Officials reported no arrests.

Rumsfeld also faced tough questions from a woman identifying herself as Patricia Roberts of Lithonia, Ga., who said her son, 22-year-old Spc. Jamaal Addison, was killed in Iraq. Roberts said she is now raising her young grandson and asked whether the government could provide any help.

A protester opposed to the Iraq war confronted US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, pictured April 2006, as he gave a speech and accused him of lying over the reasons for the 2003 invasion.(AFP/File/Brendan Smialowski)

It is interesting that we are now starting to see the exposure of these protests, not that they have just started protesting against the Bush administration, but rather that the protestors are able to confront these administration officials, face to face. For the past five years, Bush administration officials have been able to keep the protestors away from public relations events. That has changed. Back on January 24, that I posted a story of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales being heckled by Georgetown University students criticizing the Bush administration's illegal NSA domestic spying on American citizens. I believe that was the first time I've seen a Bush administration official having to directly face a protest at a public event. Of course, we had Cindy Sheehan camping outside President Bush's ranch in Crawford Texas, as a demonstration against the Iraq war. But the President never confronted Sheehan. In fact, at just about every public even that President Bush has even attended, he has been shielded from any protest or dissent by selectively allowing only loyal supporters to these public events--even to the point where individuals had to sign statements affirming their loyalties towards the president, and anyone who question or refused to sign such statements were denied attendance, and escorted away from the event. Any protestors who wanted to demonstrate, had to do so well away from the president's view. So this Bush administration has been shielded from any dissent in the country.

And now Rumsfeld is politically attacked by dissenters. What does this mean? First, I'd say that the protestors are getting smart at how to infiltrate these public events so they can express opposition towards the Bush administration. They are learning that the way to get in is to project themselves as Bush supporters and make it through the loyalty oaths, and promised votes for Republicans, and then you can confront Gonzales, Rumsfeld, or even President Bush, where a real-estate broker Harry Taylor criticized Bush, saying, ""While I listen to you talk about freedom, I see you assert your right to tap my telephone, to arrest me and hold me without charges, to try to preclude me from breathing clean air and drinking clean water."

The second thing I would have to say is that we can expect more of these demonstrators forcing confrontations against President Bush, and his senior officials. With President Bush's public approval ratings heading down to 33 percent, and with a majority of the American public saying that the country is heading down the wrong path, what is it going to take to force these White House neoconservatives to listen? The problems this country faces will just get worst--more Americans will be killed in Iraq, energy prices will continue to rise, inflation is still a menace, wages among American workers still stagnate, and immigration reform continues to be a major concern. The Bush administration's PR team has a major problem. In order to increase the Bush administrations poll ratings and hopefully not face a Republican disaster during the midterm elections, they have to go out to the American public and try to sell their political talking points. But to go out on these public events, the Bush administration officials run an increasing risk of of face-to-face confrontations with demonstrators. If the Bush administration decides to barricade itself within the White House walls, it will increase the difficulty of presenting their message to a skeptical American public, reinforcing the belief that the Bush White House is in a state of a siege mentality. Please note, that I have not said anything about the message itself--a message that is rejected or derided by the American public is useless, no matter how the Bush White House tries to spin it.

So it will be interesting to see how many more face-to-face confrontations will occur between the Bush administration, and demonstrators.

Bush Calls U.S. a Nation of Prayer

President Bush, right, takes part in the National Day of Prayer, Thursday, May 4, 2006, in the East Room at the White House in Washington. Left to right are Father Charles Conner, Scranton, Pa., Rabbi Sholom Ciment, Palm Beach, Fla., Bush. (AP Photo/Ron Edmonds)


This is off Yahoo News:

WASHINGTON - President Bush said Thursday that America's history is inexorably tied to prayer.

"America is a nation of prayer. It's impossible to tell the story of our nation without telling the story of people who pray," Bush said during a White House celebration of the National Day of Prayer. "At decisive moments in our history and in quiet times around family tables, we are a people humbled and strengthened and blessed by prayer."

Now before you start screaming curses at me, I want you to know that I believe and support the president 100 percent on this issue of America's history being tied to prayer. I say this not because I believe that America is a religious nation, born out of the persecution of extremist religious groups--the Puritans, the Quakers, the Pilgrims and the Calvinists--in Old World Europe, who decided to risk the hardships of crossing the Atlantic to settle and live in an unexplored, and possibly hostile land, where they can worship and pray to God as they please. I say this because somewhere in our genes, we have been hard-wired to pray to God, whether we are Evangelical religious wing-nuts who claim that God told us to invade Iran, evil Satanistic devil worshippers who dream of sacrificing blond virgins, or even liberal, atheistic Mr. Spock-wannabes--We all pray to God, whether we consciously know it or not.

You don't believe me?

Through the miracles of modern scientific research, advanced NSA computer technology, and a little prayer of our own, we are able to tap into the modern prayer line and monitor American citizens prayers to God. And it is not just the folks sitting in The 700 Club studio audience that are praying. Consider these prayers we have tapped into:

Oh MY GOD! Who tracked mud on the floor--after I have just cleaned and mopped it?

Dear God, please let me pass my history/math/grammar test? I promise that next time I will study, rather than learning about French with Danielle!

God, I hate broccoli for dinner!

Oh please God, let me be re-elected this year! I promise I will start driving hydrogen-fueled cars, rather than my gas-guzzling SUV!

God I hope I don't end up in a Texas state prison--Damn that Ronnie Earle!

God I wish the Exxon shareholders double my paycheck next year to $800 million.

Dear God--Please get me out of Iraq, so I can see my family again!

Let us pray. Dear God in Heaven--Give us the strength to fight your holy battles against Satan and his evil minions such as Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, and that we may partake in the glory and love of your busom with cheap oil for the righteous United States. And please make sure that our donations to The 700 Club are doubled.

Dear Allah, please let me shoot this American-made machine gun without blowing my foot off! [OOPS--Wrong prayer!].

Oh GOD--why did I do that?

God, I'm suppose to be The Decider--right? Can you tell me how I'm suppose to decide?

These are just a few of the prayers that we Americans say every day. President Bush is right--prayer is tied within our nation! So let us celebrate this National Day of Prayer. What prayers would you like to say today?

Libby's Lawyers Seek Media Records

This is off CBS News:

(CBS/AP) Lawyers for I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby have urged a federal judge to force several media organizations to turn over e-mails, drafts of news articles and reporters' notes they say the former top White House aide needs to receive a fair trial in the CIA leak case.

In a 45-page filing on Monday, Libby's lawyers said reporters have "no right, under the Constitution or the common law, to deprive Mr. Libby of evidence that will help establish his innocence at trial."

The key to Libby's defense is whose memory is correct, Libby's or three reporters who talked with him in June and July 2003. His lawyers said they need the reporters' records to use in cross-examining them and government officials, who, the lawyers said, may be "shading" the truth to protect themselves or their bosses.

Lawyers for NBC News, The New York Times and Time Inc. want U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton to limit Libby's subpoenas. The media groups say the subpoenas are so broad that they threaten the integrity of their news-gathering operations by targeting all of their employees, not just the three reporters involved in the case.

Generally, Libby's subpoenas seek all documents prepared or received by any employee of NBC News, The New York Times and Time that refer to Plame and her husband before Novak's column was published.

The subpoenas also seek drafts of articles, even those that were not published; communications between reporters and editors, and e-mail exchanges among any reporters about Plame or Wilson.

The defense attorneys said in Monday's filing that reporters' notes may be useful to Libby's case if they do not mention Plame. Libby argues that Plame was a "peripheral" issue and that he was focused on attacking her husband's charges on the merits, not smearing him.

This is pretty much a fishing expedition among Libby's lawyers to gather every scrap of media paper they can regarding the Plame case. This interesting aspect of this case is that it conflicts Libby's right to a fair trial, with the right of freedom of the press. No secondary or third sources are going to reveal important information on stories, if they feel that the reporter's notes will be used in criminal trials where their anomymity is exposed. Consider what Libby's lawyers are demanding:

Libby's lawyers want uncensored copies of [New York Times reporter Judith] Miller's notes to use to cross-examine her about discrepancies in her public statements and writings about the case. Miller spent 85 days in jail last year, refusing to name Libby as her source.

The defense team also wants NBC reporter Andrea Mitchell's records because the lawyers believe she told [NBC's reporter Tim] Russert about Plame's work at the CIA, and that Russert, in turn, told Libby.

Libby's lawyers want records generated by [Time Magazine reporter Matt] Cooper's colleagues because he was part of a team of six reporters who worked on the dispute between Wilson and the White House over the prewar intelligence.

I'm not sure how Judge Walton will rule on this issue. I can possibly see the three reporters involved, to turn over their notes regarding the Plame affair, but not every scrap of paper from anyone whose name is linked to Valerie Plame. And even in this situation of having Miller, Cooper, and Russert turn over all of their notes, could still cause consternation among future anonymous sources, who may worry that their own identities would be revealed in criminal trials.

Leftists Lighting a Fire in South America

This is off ABC News.com:

May 2, 2006 — Hey President Morales, you just came back from a summit with America's arch enemies, Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez … what are you going to do now?

That question was quickly answered Monday by President Evo Morales when he nationalized Bolivia's national gas industry. The announcement came just two days after he signed an alternative trade pact with Cuba and Venezuela, and the bold move is sure to anger both President Bush and private energy companies that do business in the Andean nation.

Morales immediately ordered soldiers to occupy Bolivia's gas fields, and he told energy companies operating in the country that they have six months to hand over majority control of their holdings to his government.

So Bolivia nationalized the gas fields, and have ordered the big energy companies to transfer control of their holdings to the government. You can bet that President Bush has a few choice words to say about Morales--Cheney's probably got a bullseye target of Morales taped to a wall in his office! Continuing on:

Bolivia has South America's second-largest natural gas reserves and those companies affected by the announcement include such major producers as Britain's BG Group and U.S.-based Exxon Mobil. Multinational corporations last year produced 100 million cubic feet of natural gas in the country and now they are expected to hand over 82 percent of their production to the Bolivian government. The companies are being allowed to keep 18 percent, only because the Bolivians are unable to tap all of its natural gas on its own.

Morales, a leftist, won Bolivia's presidency in part by lashing out against foreign corporations, saying his country's natural resources had been looted by these companies. Bolivia is South America's poorest country and poverty remains a large factor in its politics.

This past weekend, Morales met with Presidents Chavez of Venezuela and Castro of Cuba to denounce the United States and its trade policy in the region, which these leaders say hurt the poor of the Southern Hemisphere.

The announcement Monday by Morales is one more attempt to redistribute the region's wealth, and the summit was one more attempt to stall U.S. free trade agreements with countries in the region. The United States has signed nine such agreements with Latin American countries.

We have two issues here. The first is that the big energy companies have secured lucrative contracts with the Bolivian government to pump and sell this gas for their profit. Whatever royalty payments these companies paid into the Bolivian government has gone into the coffers of government officials and rich elites through graft and corruption. None of this revenue from the gas sales has gone into providing basic poverty-fighting services to the Bolivian population. So we have an extreme distribution of wealth in Bolivia--a rich, elitist Bolivian ruling class supported by a large, impoverished population.

Karl Marx would be delighted.

So now we've got a leftist president Evo Morales meeting up with Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez, and good old Fidel from Cuba. Chavez has already gotten on the Bush administration's bad side regarding energy, trade, and even terrorism issues. President Bush has pretty much disregarded Latin and South America, relegating U.S. foreign policy in the region to "you do what Washington tells you to do," while ignoring these countries own national interests. And it certainly doesn't help US-Latin American relations when Religious Right Wing-nut Pat Robertson calls for Chavez's assassination. So is it no wonder that these three leftist governments are coming together in their own alliance against an extreme rightward Bush administration? And where can these governments hurt the U.S., and force the Bush White House to take their issues seriously? You've guessed it--Oil and gas.

And that is the second issue here. The Bush White House has pretty much ignored Latin America, and the problems this region faces. Whatever policy that is created through the Bush administration, is a policy that would continue favoring U.S. corporate interests in expanding their economic clout in the region. Morales, Chavez and Castro views this issue as being the rich United States, under control of the Bush White House and their corporate masters, are raping these countries of their natural resources and are not providing anything to improve the quality of life for their peoples. And to stop this raping of natural resources by U.S. companies, Morales nationalizes the gas industry.

I don't know how the Bush administration is going to respond to Morales' nationalization of the gas industry. An American invasion into Bolivia? Or will Pat Robertson call for the assassination of Morales? I would say that the Bush White House doesn't have a clue as to how to respond, considering that their attention is focused on both Iraq, and the upcoming invasion of Iran. Leaving this troubled spot to simmer is just going to cause another explosion of natural gas prices, once Morales kicks the big energy companies, who refuse to hand over control of their holdings, out of Bolivia after the six months are up--of which the deadline is this November, by the way.

It is going to be a long, hot summer.

Study: Geography Greek to young Americans

This is off CNN.Com:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- After more than three years of combat and nearly 2,400 U.S. military deaths in Iraq, nearly two-thirds of Americans aged 18 to 24 still cannot find Iraq on a map, a study released Tuesday showed.

The study found that less than six months after Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans and the Gulf Coast, 33 percent could not point out Louisiana on a U.S. map.

Two-thirds of Americans 18-24 couldn't find Iraq on a map? I'm speechless. These kids are prime cannon-fodder for the Pentagon to ship out, fighting a war in a country they can't even find on a map. And you can bet that if these kids can't even find Iraq on a map, they certainly wouldn't be able to understand complex historical, social, economic and political issues surrounding the U.S. involvement in Iraq. And it is not just Iraq here--One third of these Americans couldn't even find where Louisiana is on a U.S. map.

How much do you want to bet they couldn't find New Orleans on a map--even with all the Katrina stories being published?

Now I'll admit that I'm not completely up on geography myself. I know I couldn't identify where all the "stan" countries are located--Kazakhstan or Uzbekistan as examples. I'd probably have some trouble pointing out the obscure African nations on the map. But I know enough geography to it down to the general area within the world, and locate a certain country on a map. These kids couldn't even identify where the most prominent nations are located that dominate the news media each night. What are we teaching these kids? Continuing on:

The National Geographic-Roper Public Affairs 2006 Geographic Literacy Study paints a dismal picture of the geographic knowledge of the most recent graduates of the U.S. education system.

"Taken together, these results suggest that young people in the United States ... are unprepared for an increasingly global future," said the study's final report.

"Far too many lack even the most basic skills for navigating the international economy or understanding the relationships among people and places that provide critical context for world events."

The study, which surveyed 510 young Americans from December 17 to January 20, showed that 88 percent of those questioned could not find Afghanistan on a map of Asia despite widespread coverage of the U.S.-led overthrow of the Taliban in 2001 and the political rebirth of the country.

In the Middle East, 63 percent could not find Iraq or Saudi Arabia on a map, and 75 percent could not point out Iran or Israel. Forty-four percent couldn't find any one of those four countries.

Inside the United States, "half or fewer of young men and women 18-24 can identify the states of New York or Ohio on a map [50 percent and 43 percent, respectively]," the study said.

On the positive side, the study noted, seven in 10 young Americans correctly located China on a map, even though they had a number of misconceptions about that country. Forty-five percent said China's population is only twice that of the United States. It's actually four times larger than the U.S. population.

When the poll was conducted in 2002, "Americans scored second to last on overall geographic knowledge, trailing Canada, France, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, Japan and Sweden," the report said.

I really don't know what to say. It is incredible.

To test your own knowledge of geography, CNN provided this fun little geography quiz. I got a score of 6 out of 6 questions.

Top US senator accuses FBI of spying on anti-war groups

Federal Bureau of Investigation Director Robert Mueller takes questions during a full oversight committee hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC. Top US senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont took the FBI to task, accusing the federal agency of spying on groups opposed to the war in Iraq.(AFP/Jim Watson)

This seems to be a breaking story coming out on Yahoo News:

WASHINGTON (AFP) - A top US senator took the FBI to task, accusing the federal agency of spying on groups opposed to the war in Iraq.

Senator Patrick Leahy, a Vermont Democrat, complained that there was "evidence" the federal agency was monitoring peace groups, including the Thomas Merton Center for Peace and Justice, a Roman Catholic organization from Pennsylvania, and the "Raging Grannies" group of elderly women activists.

"What possible business does the FBI have spying on law-abiding American citizens simply because they may oppose the war in Iraq?" Leahy, who cited internal FBI reports, asked FBI director Robert Mueller during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing.

Mueller said that surveillance of the Thomas Merton Center was part of an investigation into identifying an individual and that FBI agents "were not concerned about the political dissent."

He also denied that the FBI had monitored Quakers or the Raging Grannies.

That is the extent of this story so far. I'm sure there is more details coming later today.

In one respect, I'm not surprised that the FBI has been spying on anti-war groups. There have been plenty of stories, rumors, and allegations of domestic spying against anti-war and other political opposition groups by the FBI and the Pentagon. We already know that the NSA has been using data-mining techniques to monitor both domestic cell phone and internet use by Americans. In one respect, this is another example of the Bush administration's paranoia and their vindictiveness at any individual or political group their neoconservative policies. So I want to see this latest "evidence" of the FBI spying on peace groups. I want all of these domestic spying activities to be publicly exposed. I want the American people to realize that this Bush White House is systematically destroying their rights and freedoms, creating as close to a dictatorship as Bush and the neoconservatives can create.

$100 gas rebate "insulting": Boehner

House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) is seen on Capitol Hill, February 2, 2006. (Jason Reed/Reuters).

Now this is interesting. From Yahoo News:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A Senate Republican proposal to offer a $100 check to taxpayers to offset high gas prices is "insulting," House Majority Leader John Boehner said on Tuesday.

"The really insulting part of this whole proposal is the fact that somebody is offering $100 to every American family over this. This is not going to solve the problem," Boehner said at a press conference.

"I don't like the proposal. And over the weekend I heard back from my constituents. They thought it was stupid," said Boehner, an Ohio Republican.

With gasoline prices above $3 a gallon in many U.S. cities, Boehner's comments showed senior Republicans deeply split about how to approach the issue. Lawmakers are fretting that voters will vent their rage at high prices in November's elections.

Senate Republicans proposed the $100 rebate last week in a package that also included incentives to build refineries and open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for drilling.

So now House Majority Leader John Boehner is calling this $100 gas rebate "insulting?" Something tells me that Boehner has been hearing some very negative flack over this latest Republican bribe to the American people. And at the moment, he's siding against the rebate check.

So what does Boehner say about how to solve this nation's energy crisis, and the high gas prices? What are Boehner's proposals? Surprisingly little. Continuing on:

Boehner said the House would take up two energy bills this week: one that deals with price gouging and another that would encourage new refining capacity.

After that the House would take up bills dealing with Alaska drilling, "boutique" fuels and incentives for hydrogen fuel, Boehner said.

I'd say that once the midterm elections are over, all this talk about a $100 gas rebate check will dissipate, and Boehner will go back to being a Republican whore for Big Oil interests.

But the best is yet to come. Here's what House Speaker Dennis Hastert had to say:

House Speaker Dennis Hastert told reporters after a meeting with ExxonMobil Chairman and CEO Rex Tillerson that any consumer rebates would have to be offset by drilling in Alaska.

Hastert said he wanted to "make sure" American consumers were not the victims of price gouging or market manipulation.

"There is not a decrease in the supply" of gasoline, Hastert said, adding policymakers were trying to find out why prices have moved in a way that might be "disconnected" from supply and demand.

House Speaker Dennis Hastert of Ill., talks to reporters on Capitol Hill Tuesday, May 2, 2006, following a private meeting with Exxon-Mobil CEO Rex Tillerson. (AP Photo/Dennis Cook)

YIPEE! Denny Hastert is still trying to link this so-called gas rebate bribe with oil drilling in Alaska! So Denny, are you parroting what Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson secretly desires from the government--considering that this gas rebate is being paid for by the U.S. government and NOT from Big Oil, and Big Oil will be getting more government subsidies for drilling in ANWAR?

Then again, why should we be surprised at what Dennis Hastert said in this press conference? Remember this lovely photo:

House Speaker Dennis Hastert of Ill., center, gets out of a Hydrogen Alternative Fueled automobile, left, as he prepares to board his SUV, which uses gasoline, after holding a news conference at a local gas station in Washington, Thursday, April 27, 2006 to discuss the recent rise in gas prices. Hastert and other members of Congress drove off in the Hydrogen-Fueled cars only to switch to their official cars to drive the few blocks back to the U.S. Capitol. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)

Have some more Kool-Aid Denny.

Texas Republicans Boost DeLay's Legal Fund

Republican Rep. Tom DeLay of Texas. REUTERS/FOX News Channel's 'Your World with Neil Cavuto'/Handout

Folks, it is time for another exciting episode of The Tom DeLay Comedy Hour! This is off Yahoo News:

WASHINGTON - Rep. Tom DeLay raised more money to pay legal fees after abandoning any effort to return as majority leader than he did in the immediate months following his indictment in Texas last year on money laundering charges.

DeLay, R-Texas, received lots of help in boosting his legal defense fund from Texas financiers of Republican causes, corporations and fellow members of Congress. But he spent as much as he raised during the first three months of 2006.

DeLay, a 22-year veteran, announced earlier this month that he is resigning by mid-June.

He raised $314,435 between January and March while awaiting trial on the Texas charges and spent $312,465, most of it on legal fees. In the previous three months, he raised $182,000 and spent $239,000.

Isn't it just SO NICE to hear that Tom DeLay is getting lotsa help from his corporate friends? But it gets better. Continuing on:

One contributor was Houston home builder Bob Perry, the chief financial backer of Swift Boat Veterans of Truth, which campaigned against Democrat
John Kerry in the 2004 presidential race. Perry and his wife Doylene contributed a total $10,000 to DeLay's legal fund.

James Leininger and his wife Cecilia pitched in an equal amount. Leininger is a San Antonio doctor who advocates private school vouchers and backs like-minded politicians. Ex-Houston mayor Bob Lanier contributed $5,000.

DeLay paid $280,000 to lawyers, with $125,000 going to the Dallas office of the law firm Bracewell & Giuliani and $110,000 to Dick DeGuerin, a Houston attorney.

He spent about $18,000 on a Washington fundraiser.

Laser Shot Inc., a Stafford, Texas, producer of firearms simulators, contributed $5,000. Contributing an equal amount were BNSF Railway Co. of Topeka, Kan.; Panda Energy Management Inc. of Dallas; Maxxam Inc. of Houston and R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. of North Carolina.

I just have one interesting little question to ask here. What did these guys get from Tom DeLay, that would cause them to contribute these large sums of money to his defense fund? What are they getting back in return? What legislative goodies did they get while DeLay was the House Majority leader?

Inquiring minds want to know.

MSNBC confirms: Outed CIA agent was working on Iran

This story came out on yesterday's Hardball, and it is a devastating little piece of information. While the blogs have been picking this up, it really hasn't attracted the attention of the mainstream media --yet. Here is what MSNBC correspondent David Shuster had to say in his report on Hardball:

SHUSTER: MSNBC has learned new information about the damage caused by the White House leaks. Intelligence sources says Valerie Wilson [Plame] was part of an operation three years ago tracking the proliferation of nuclear weapons material into Iran. And the sources allege that when Mrs. WilsonÂ’s cover was blown, the administrationÂ’s ability to track IranÂ’s nuclear ambitions was damaged as well.

The White House considers Iran to be one of AmericaÂ’s biggest threats.

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Iranians should not have a nuclear weapon, the capacity to make a nuclear weapon or the knowledge as to how to make a nuclear weapon. And now,that weÂ’ve got the goal in mind, weÂ’re working on the tactics.

Valerie Plame was tracking the nuclear weapons material coming into Iran? That is certainly news to me. I'm not sure what to make of this revelation, aside from the fact that the U.S. ability to track Iranian nukes have been damaged by individuals within the Bush White House, who felt that outing Plame would discredit Joe Wilson's criticisms on the lack of intelligence, while supporting the White House claims that Iraq was developing WMDs. Now that Iran is speeding up their own development of nuclear weapons in response to the Bush administration's veiled threats of war, the U.S. has lost a major intelligence source that could determine the extent of Iranian nuclear capabilities, in a region of which we're lacking credible intelligence sources. And since we don't have reliable intelligence on Iranian nuclear capabilities, the Bush White House is going to assume the worst case scenario on Iran, and could seriously consider going to war with Iran as a means to stop the supposed Iranian WMD threat.

Why do I feel like we're chasing our tails here?

Iran Threatens Israel if U.S. Attacks

This is off Yahoo News:

TEHRAN, Iran - A top Iranian Revolutionary Guards commander said Tuesday that Israel would be Iran's first retaliatory target in response to any U.S. attack.

"We have announced that whenever America does make any mischief, the first place we target will be Israel," the Iranian Student News Agency quoted Gen. Mohammad Ebrahim Dehghani as saying.

Dehghani, a top commander of the elite Revolutionary Guards, also said Israel was not prepared to go war against Iran.

"We will definitely resist...U.S. B-52 (bombers)," Dehghani also was quoted as saying.

President Bush has said a military option remained on the table if Iran did not agree to international demands for it to stop enriching uranium. The American leader has said, however, that Washington wanted to solve the dispute over the Iranian nuclear program through diplomacy.

Can you say World War III?

White House to release logs of Abramoff visits

Looks like we've got another exciting episode of The Jack Abramoff Show! This is a good one here--actually two stories here. This first is from CNN.Com, titled White House to release logs of Abramoff visits:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Despite repeated White House objections to the release of documents related to Jack Abramoff's visits to the White House, the Secret Service has agreed to produce all logs detailing the disgraced lobbyist's meetings, according to a court filing released Monday.

The Secret Service agreed on April 25 to drop any objections to turning over the information and will "produce any and all documents" on or before May 10, according to the filing released by the conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch, which filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request on February 2.

Judicial Watch officials have said they believe the records will show the frequency and length of Abramoff's visits to the White House in recent years and could shed light on the former lobbyist's relationship with the White House.

Naturally, the Bush White House has been stonewalling this access of the Secret Service logs regarding Abramoff's visits. Consider this from the CNN story:

Questions have also been raised about Abramoff's contact with White House officials, including President Bush.

When reporters in January pressed him on his relationship with Abramoff, the president said, "I've never sat down with him and had a discussion with the guy."

White House aides have confirmed that Abramoff attended holiday parties at the White House and had some "staff-level meetings" as well.

While White House officials have been careful not to rule out the possibility that other Bush-Abramoff meetings occurred, they have refused to turn over any documents detailing who at the White House has met with Abramoff and under what circumstances.

So, the first questions to ask would regard Abramoff's visits--how many times? When? Who did Abramoff meet? What was the nature of the visits? What about Abramoff's involvement in these "staff-level meetings?" What were the nature of these staff level meetings, and who were involved in these meetings? And there is a whole range of questions regarding President Bush's involvement with Abramoff--even though Bush claims he has never sat down and had a discussion with Abramoff. I'm not sure that the Secret Service logs will be able to answer any of these questions, but they can provide the number of times Abramoff visited the White House, what dates and times, and perhaps show who Abramoff was suppose to meet in the White House. In other words, we get a timeline regarding this relationship between Abramoff and the Bush administration.

I especially find it interesting that for the longest time, the Bush administration has been refusing to hand over any documents regarding Jack Abramoff. You have to wonder if the White House is hiding something regarding the Abramoff scandal? But now, the White House has to turn over these Secret Service logs. And what does the White House say regarding this matter? You're gonna love this! This little story is from Yahoo News, titled, White House Cautions on Abramoff Logs:

WASHINGTON - The Secret Service's records documenting convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff's contacts with Bush administration officials may not reveal all such meetings, the White House said Tuesday.

he Secret Service has agreed to turn over White House visitor logs showing when Abramoff met with administration officials — and with whom. But presidential spokesman Scott McClellan cautioned reporters from viewing the release as all-inclusive.

"I don't know exactly what they'll be providing, but they only have certain records and so I just wouldn't view it as a complete historical record," McClellan said.

I just have to laugh at this. First, the Bush administration refuses to turn over any documents regarding Jack Abramoff's visits to the White House, and then when the Bush administration turns over these Secret Service documents, White House Press Secretary Scotty McClellan disregards them, claiming people are not going to view the "complete historical record" of these Abramoff visits. Excuse me Mr. Scott--why not have the White House hand over ALL documents regarding Jack Abramoff's visits, so that the American public can view this "complete historical record?" Or is the Bush administration trying to hide its own involvement in this Abramoff scandal? Consider this:

Abramoff, who represented Indian tribes in their dealings with Washington politicians and raised at least $100,000 for Bush's re-election campaign, was once one of the city's most successful lobbyists.

When a photo of Bush with Abramoff surfaced earlier this year, the president said he has his picture taken with "a lot of people." In the 2001 photo, Bush is shaking hands with a leader of an Indian tribe. Abramoff is in the background.

The president has said that he does not know Abramoff personally, but Abramoff told the Washingtonian magazine that he had met with Bush nearly a dozen times and that the president knew him well enough to joke with him.

McClellan has said that Abramoff attended Hanukkah receptions at the White House in 2001 and 2002, and some additional staff-level meetings. "But I said I couldn't rule out that there might be other large events that may have taken place that he attended, but that's what I know and that still stands," McClellan said.

I'm sorry Mr. Scott. There is more to this scandal here.

Sen. Frist Backs Off Oil Co. Tax Increase

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak, File).

Why am I not surprised here? From Yahoo News:

WASHINGTON - Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, under pressure from business leaders, retreated Monday from a plan that would have used a tax increase on oil companies and other businesses to fund a $100 gasoline rebate for millions of motorists.

Frist, the Tennessee Republican, had proposed an accounting change that would have required oil companies to pay more taxes on their inventory of crude as a way to pay the one-time rebate which GOP leaders rolled out last week as they scrambled to find ways to ease public anger over soaring gasoline prices.

In a statement, Frist said he will still push the rebate, but abandoned the accounting change and said the Senate Finance Committee planned a hearing on the issue in the near future.

Frist gave no indication how the rebate, estimated to cost about $10 billion, will be paid for, although he said he still planned to "find a way to bring our proposals to the Senate floor for a vote."

Gee, I wonder what "business leaders" opposed this tax plan to give the $100 gas rebate checks to Americans. Could it be the oil companies? Why, look at this:

The tax accounting change involving inventories was the most substantial tax hit Congress has been seriously considering in response to the huge oil industry profits at the time of soaring costs at the pump. The change, applying only to five of the largest oil companies, had been approved by the Senate, but faced strong opposition in the House.

Oil companies waged an intense lobbying effort to block the change.

Rex Tillerson, chairman of Exxon Mobil Corp., at an energy conference Monday, called it "nothing more than a backdoor windfall profits tax" and a "very dangerous and very poorly thought out step to take." The change was estimated to increase taxes for the five major oil companies by $4.3 billion over five years.

Frist would have expanded the tax to other industries, which prompted a chorus of protests, prompting his retreat from the proposal. The National Association of Manufacturers and Wal-Mart Stores Inc., among others, made known their strong opposition to the inventory taxing change.

I guess we have another example of where Republican loyalties lie. The Republicans whore themselves to the corporate interests, then expect the American public to become whores to the Republicans for a measly $100 bucks. It is so funny how the Republicans like Bill Frist still keep calling this a gas rebate plan. Because it isn't really a gas rebate plan at all. It is just a cheap $100 tax cut to be handed out to lower and middle income Americans. The money is being taken out of the U.S. Treasury. And now we're not even taxing the oil companies to pay for this plan--Big Oil doesn't like this accounting change, so Big Oil tells Frist and the Republicans not to include this accounting change. So the name of this "gas rebate" plan is just that--nothing more than a name created by the Republican spin-meisters to link the issue of high gas prices with a cheap tax cut that they can hopefully sell to the voters for maintaining their control of Congress in this year's election. The Republicans could have called this plan a tax rebate, brown-bag bribes, or even whore-payments--it is all the same. Continuing on:

The rebate proposal, meanwhile, seemed to have little appeal among motorists who would benefit.

Aids to several Republican senators, including some who support the proposal, said Monday they have received generally negative feedback from the public in telephone calls and e-mails.

"There are some who say this is a Band-Aid and they want a real solution. .... There are people who say, `Do you think I can be satisfied so easily,'" said Don Steward, an aide to Sen. John Cornyn (news, bio, voting record), R-Texas. He said almost all of the comments received about the rebate — which Cornyn has characterized as "a theatrical response" — have been negative.

Another Senate staffer, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the senator was among those who have been pushing the GOP energy package, said voters know that with gas costing more than $3 a gallon the rebate likely will pay for only a couple of tanks of gas.

"It's probably one fill-up for a Sequoia," added the aide, referring to the Toyota SUV that gets 15 miles to the gallon in city driving.

But Frist said the rebate "will help people who are emptying their wallets at the pump. ... We've got to help those who are feeling pain ... as quickly as possible." Single taxpayers earning up to $145,950 and married couples earning up to $218,950 would get the rebate in August under the Frist proposal.

It would appear that even the American public knows when the Republicans are treating them like whores. This $100 rebate check isn't going to do much to reduce the high costs of gas prices--it will just fill up my gas tank twice, and I have a 2000 Mazda 626 sedan. And since this plan doesn't place a cap on the gas prices, there is nothing to hold the oil companies back from increasing gas prices, at the pump, so they can take their own chunk of this rebate check (Please note that I am not advocating a cap on gas prices).

Bill Frist still doesn't get it. He's willing to push this ridiculous plan as a means to "help people who are emptying their wallets at the pump. ... We've got to help those who are feeling pain ... as quickly as possible." And while Bill Frist is trying to help those Americans "who are feeling pain," he still climbs into bed with the Big Oil companies by retreating from his own proposal to make Big Oil pay for some of the gas rebate checks.

More Republican hypocrisy.

Toyota executive: Prius shortage won't improve `until later this year'

This is off The San Jose Mercury News:

If you're in the market for a new Toyota Prius, you're probably in for a long wait. According to a report today from Bloomberg News, sales of the gas-electric hybrid were down in April, but that was because of a production shortage, not a decline in the vehicle's popularity.

``If I had the vehicles, we could do 250,000 this year,'' Jin Lentz, a group vice president at Toyota, told Bloomberg. ``We're going to end April with just a four-day supply of Prius, and I don't see that situation improving until later this year.''

Toyota sold 107,897 Prius sedans in 2005, Lentz said. In April, Toyota sold about 7,500 of the vehicles, down from 11,345 a year ago.

At least one analyst predicts that higher gas prices will fuel hybrid demand in the coming months. ``Fuel prices are going to play a role in overall hybrid demand,'' Alan Baum, of Birmingham, Mich., consultancy Planning Edge told Bloomberg. ``We're starting to come to the realization that the fuel price spike that we thought was seasonal is now becoming less so.''

Here in the San Jose area, the price of a gallon of regular unleaded gasoline reached another record today, at an average $3.25, according to the AAA auto club.

There are two aspects of this issue that I'm interested in. The first is that I would be curious to see what the relationship is between the rising fuel prices and the demand for the Toyota Prius. Looking at this, I'm reminded of the Arab oil embargos of the early 1970s. When gas prices went up in the early 70s, American consumers were driving Detroit iron, with big gas-guzzling V-8 engines. Nobody wanted to buy those tiny gas-miser Japanese imports. Right after the gas prices went up, Japanese car sales went up.

So now we appear to be back in the 1970s. American consumers have been addicted to cheap gas and big Detroit SUVs. While there are plenty of smaller, fuel efficient cars on the market today, fuel efficiency has not been at the forefront of Detroit's Big Three carmakers. Congress has allowed the CAFE fuel standards to remain laggard--especially the loopholes defining SUVs as trucks, rather than passenger vehicles, which have a lower mpg rating. General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler have been happily building high profit-margin, luxury SUVs for the soccer moms. Detroit never looked into the hybrid cars. Meanwhile, the Japanese auto makers continued investing into hybrid technology, providing autos with greater fuel efficiency. And lo--we have another period where gas prices have gone through the roof, where consumers are stuck driving big Detroit SUVs, and the Japanese car makers have new gas-saving hybrid cars in the market. And just as Detroit was behind in developing fuel efficient cars in the 1970s, Detroit is now behind in developing hybrid technology cars today.

History repeats itself.

Immigrants Demonstrate Economic Clout

A pedestrian walks by one of the closed stores on 4th Street in downtown Santa Ana, Calif., Monday, May 1, 2006. Fourth Street, the busiest area for various businesses for and by Latinos, was almost vacant on Monday morning due to the closure of most stores to support the 'Day Without Immigrants' (AP Photo/Sang H. Park)

This is interesting. From Yahoo News:

Illegal immigrants made their point Monday: Without them, Americans would pay higher prices and a lot of work wouldn't get done.

As nationwide demonstrations thinned the work force in businesses from meat-packing plants to construction sites to behind the counter at McDonald's, economists said there can be no dispute within the context of the contentious immigration issue that the group wields significant clout in the U.S. economy.

"If illegal immigration came to a standstill, it would disrupt the economy," said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Economy.com. "It would lead to higher prices for many goods and services, and some things literally would not get done. It would be a major adjustment for our economy, for sure."

Another economist, Diane Swonk, said it would be an economic mistake to restrict entry and work rights when revising immigration policy.

"Given the obvious hardship of having illegal aliens flooding in, we also know they are critical to the functioning of the U.S. economy," said Swonk, chief economist at Chicago-based Mesirow Financial. "To be turning our backs on people who want to work is kind of silly in an environment where you've got tight labor markets and we're getting older and need younger people to work."

While the full impact of the one-day Day Without Immigrants boycott was hard to immediately gauge, it was palpable in some industries with a heavily Hispanic work force. On-the-job turnout was dramatically lower at some locales in the meat-packing, masonry, restaurant and landscaping businesses, and numerous firms closed for the day.

I would be curious to see what the economic impact of this boycott would be in lost business sales--especially in the areas of agriculture, food services, construction, hospitality, and retail sales. Consider some of these examples:

Mike Collins, who owns 500 acres of Vidalia onions in southeastern Georgia, was forced to shut down his packing shed and postpone his harvest when none of his 175 seasonal workers showed up.

"We need to be going wide-open this time of year to get these onions out of the field and we have nobody working today," he said. "Losing a day in this part of the season causes a tremendous amount of problems."

Tyson Foods Inc., the world's largest meat producer, shut five of nine beef plants and four of six pork plants in anticipation of widespread absences. Perdue Farms Inc., the nation's third-largest chicken producer, closed eight processing plants in seven states. Cargill Meat Solutions, the nation's second-largest beef processor, gave more than 15,000 workers the day off and closed plants in six states.

Gold Kist, another poultry producer, shuttered two North Carolina plants and operated its two Georgia facilities at reduced productivity after many employees failed to heed requests by the company's managers and CEO to show up despite the protests.

"We've tried to be open," said Wayne Lord, a vice president for the Atlanta-based company. "They were urged to come to work today because of our focus on satisfying our customer requirements."

Work sites operated in the Washington, D.C., area by Beltsville, Md.-based Manganaro MidAtlantic, a concrete and masonry company where immigrants comprise up to 75 percent of the work force, were quiet Monday. John Livingston, a business developer for Manganaro, said his firm has not been able to fill its staffing needs without immigrants for more than a decade.

Low attendance also was the story at hotels in Indianapolis, construction sites in Miami and plant nurseries and landscapers across a wide area.

McDonald's Corp. said some of its employees participated in the rallies, prompting it to operate an unspecified number of its nearly 14,000 restaurants with limited crews, shortened hours or drive-thru service only. The Oak Brook, Ill.-based company did not provide further specifics but released a statement saying it strongly supports U.S. immigration reform.

Carl Tannenbaum, chief economist at LaSalle Bank in Chicago, said the boycott underscores that immigration is not only political issue but a big economic one, too.

"The American economy really relies to a large extent on a growing labor force," he said. "There's a certain replenishment to the labor force that immigrants provide, and I think we have to be careful about taking steps that would hinder that process."

Colbert Roasts Bush

In my previous posting on Stephen Colbert's wicked political roasting of President Bush at the White House Correspondent Dinner, I included a link to the Crooks and Liars' website which had the video on its site. However, the Crooks and Liars video is fairly small, and is not the best quality image. But now the Colbert video is up on YouTube. So why not also include the video here?

So now an encore presentation of Stephen Colbert's roasting of President Bush in three parts.

Part One of Three:


Part Two of Three:


Part Three of Three:


Finally, I should point out that the media believes that the best part of the roasting was the duet between President Bush and impersonator Steve Bridges. Consider this Yahoo News story regarding the duet:

WASHINGTON - It was twice the fun for members of the White House Correspondents' Association and guests when President Bush and a lookalike, soundalike sidekick poked fun at the president and fellow politicians.

But impersonator Steve Bridges stole many of the best lines. Vice President
Dick Cheney and his hunting accident were targets of his humor on a couple of occasions.

"Speaking of suspects, where is the great white hunter?" Bridges said, later adding, "He shot the only trial lawyer in the country who supports me."

Bush continued a tradition begun by President Coolidge in attending the correspondents' dinner.

He invited Bridges to play his double. The president talked to the press in polite, friendly terms. Bridges told them what the president was really thinking.

So, I thought I would include this duet here as well:

Video Game Border Patrol shows extreme racism against Mexicans

I found this off of the comments section of an Americablog posting. I decided to check into this to see what it was. It is pretty sickening. It appears that this Aryian website decided to develop this simple Flash video game called Border Patrol--where you control the U.S. border by shooting Mexican illegal aliens trying to cross over this border. The game does get pretty graphic with blood splattering as you hit your targets. It also appears that this game is getting picked up by the mainstream press.

Here is the link to play the game.

Here is a KNBC News web story on the game:

SAN DIEGO -- Human rights activists say a new video game is encouraging hate and racism in the debate over immigration reform.

The game is called "Border Patrol," and it challenges players to kill as many illegal immigrants as they can.

The computer game puts the player in charge of guarding the border with a loaded gun. The goal to kill as many people as possible, including pregnant women and children. Pedro Risol and other immigration rights activists are outraged.

"It's sole purpose is just to offer violence to the immigration question," Risol said. "It truly is disturbing."

The site plays up the racial overtones of the immigration debate. Those killed during the game are called "wetbacks."

The game is part of a Web site called "The Insurgent." Information on the Web site says that it is based in Temecula, Calif., just north of the San Diego-Riverside county line. The site claims that Tom Metzger, the head of White Aryan Resistance, is responsible for the content.

"Border Patrol" is just one of five games on the Web site that targets people because of their race.

"Drive-by 2" arms you as a drive-by shooter. Players score points for shooting up windows, joggers, prostitutes, and police officers. Killing a cop racks up the highest score.

In "Kaboom," players become suicide bombers. The goal is to take out as many people as possible with a bomb strapped on your body. The game breaks down the damage by number of men, women and children killed and injured.

Phillip Gay, a sociologist at San Diego State University, said allowing kids to play games like these can desensitize them to killing people.

"You get into the game and you want to win the game. We're competitive," Gay said.

The Web site claims that the games are not meant to be a threat against anyone.

NBC San Diego attempted to contact the people who run "The Insurgent" for comment. They have not returned the calls.

So this is how the wing-nuts feel about border control--kill the illegals! What I find especially disgusting is how the Republicans, and their media pundits, quietly condone this hatred and vitriol among its members. We hear it concealed in their social messages of gay marriage, or using Minutemen to watch the borders. Look at the comments section of Michele Malkin, or RedState, and you can read the hatred within them--calling immigrants, illegals, gays, liberals, Democrats, some of the worst names in the English language, wishing the most foulest means of torture and death upon anyone who does not agree with their extreme view. And when racist games such as this Border Control appear on the net, they are dismissed as childish humor. Consider this review of the game. Please note that the spelling in some of these reviews is taken as is, from the review and comments pages. Also, some of these comments contain harsh language and racist statements:

Speaking of illegal immigration, racism, and what have you, Aryan website The Insurgent has a whole slew (a horde, if you will) of racist, flash-based video games, including "Border Patrol," in which you try to shoot illegal immigrants as they run across the US-Mexico border.

Other games featured on the site include "Driveby 2 (Feel what it's like in the ghetto.)," "Watch Out Behind You Hunter! (Shoot the fags before they rape you!)," and "Kaboom! (Arab Training Game)." I liked the "Border Patrol" one best myself, but that "Driveby 2" is not to be slept on.

Regardless of where you come down on the issue, you have to admit this is some hilarious shit.

Or how about some of these comments:

I found a game called Border Patrol where you kill as many wetbacks as you can trying to cross the border. Its funny. You can check it out at http://freehost.nfshost.com/games/wp...der_patrol.swf My best score was 54

They are going to have a hell of a time "taking over" and fullfilling "reconquista" if they are filled full of lead at the border.

We should have started doing this in real life a long time ago. Perhaps less people would attempt to illegally come into the country, and those that did would be shot dead.

hey . ok.. why is this racist. when i saw this on the nws, i started laughing. like damn.. that's creative. and who cares it's just a game.it's funny. but you kow. fighting for Mexican rights. and yeah. i don't worry about it cause. i am already american. do you think the mexicans in mexico would care about americans. huh. Stop bitching and go with the flow. Damn.. and for all the ppl who say whit trash ans stupid shit like that. your being racist which viods your comment . so just shut up. Fuckin ignorance Bitches!.

That Border Patrol game sure was fun, you wetbacks run real fast, know wonder there's so many of you pieces of shit here, my high score so far is 53, I think I'll get 88 soon, too bad we don't implement the same thing in the game in real life.
Well I hope you wetbacks keep making out more gangs to kill each other off, see one of you wetbacks soon, you will know me by the guy in the uniform beating the shit out you.
Have fun you anti-US wetback pieces of shit/
P.S. of course Mexicans are going to be the majority soon, they are ignorant and breed like cockroaches, and for the most part there not much smarter then cockroaches.

FUCK all of you wetback fags, go back to your shit hole in Mexico.

This is how the extremists on the conservative side thinks. This is how the real wackos--who probably make the neoconservatives seem moderate view the issue of immigration. And not only are they expressing it in vulgur terms, but the conservatives laugh and shrug it off, as they are happily playing this game. It is depressing.

Sharp Reaction to G.O.P. Plan on Gas Rebate

This is off The New York Times:

WASHINGTON, April 30 — The Senate Republican plan to mail $100 checks to voters to ease the burden of high gasoline prices is eliciting more scorn than gratitude from the very people it was intended to help.

Aides for several Republican senators reported a surge of calls and e-mail messages from constituents ridiculing the rebate as a paltry and transparent effort to pander to voters before the midterm elections in November.

"The conservatives think it is socialist bunk, and the liberals think it is conservative trickery," said Don Stewart, a spokesman for Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas, pointing out that the criticism was coming from across the ideological spectrum.

Angry constituents have asked, "Do you think we are prostitutes? Do you think you can buy us?" said another Republican senator's aide, who was granted anonymity to openly discuss the feedback because the senator had supported the plan.

Conservative talk radio hosts have been particularly vocal. "What kind of insult is this?" Rush Limbaugh asked on his radio program on Friday. "Instead of buying us off and treating us like we're a bunch of whores, just solve the problem." In commentary on Fox News Sunday, Brit Hume called the idea "silly."

The reaction comes as the rising price of gasoline has put the public in a volatile mood and as polls show that cynicism about Congress is at its highest level since 1994.

A couple things here. First, I'm surprised that Rush Limbaugh--that icon of neoconservativism--likened this $100 gas rebate idea as Congress treating Americans like they are whores. You know the Republicans are out of touch, when Rush Limbaugh starts criticizing them. And Faux News' Brit Hume calling the idea "silly?" Damn. Maybe the congressional Republicans are onto something here....

Continuing on with the Republican views on this issue:

David Winston, a Republican pollster who advises the Senate Republican leadership, called the rebate an intuitive way to show voters that Republicans were on their side. "It is like putting the American family budget ahead of oil company profits," Mr. Winston said. "How do you help the American families out? Well, give them some money."

Gee....Why am I not surprised? Of course, the oil companies are reaping billions in tax breaks and subsidies from the federal government, while each American family will be getting a measly $100 bucks. And it is still coming from the U.S. Treasury--Not from the oil companies. And who is to say that Big Oil won't get a big chunk of those $100 rebate checks when they start raising gas prices over the course of the summer?

But that is not all. Over at The Dark Wraith's blogsite, I came across a nice little plan I'd like to share. Why not allow the Republicans to give Americans their $100 rebate checks, and then have Americans pledge to sign over their rebate checks to a non-Republican political party of their choice? Here is what Dark Wraith had to say:

If the hundred dollar checks are indeed disbursed pursuant to an Act of Congress approved by the President, all who are opposed to the Republicans pledge as follows: Upon receiving the check for the sum of One Hundred dollars ($100.00), I shall immediately sign the back of the draft and send it to the non-Republican political party or candidate of my choice.

The Republicans will, then, have instituted de facto public campaign financing on a scale that could rival any formal campaign finance reform proposal. If one million households were to honor the pledge suggested above, one hundred million dollars ($100,000,000) would flow into the coffers of the Democrats, the Greens, and other non-Republicans for the 2006/2008 election cycle. If the Republicans in Congress chose not to back down from their hare-brained, transparent vote-buying scheme, they would stand their shaky ground knowing very well that the commitment of non-Republicans to use their checks this way would be far greater than that of Republican voters to use their checks to support the GOP, especially considering how unpopular the Republicans are as we head into the jaws of the 2006 campaign season.

Talk about public financing here! In 2004, I donated $150 to John Kerry's presidential campaign. It was the first time I've ever donated any money to a political campaign, or to the Democratic Party. And I've vowed that it is the last time I will donate any money to a political party or campaign. In 2004, I've watched as Kerry's campaign imploded with Democratic campaign strategists' incompetence, stupidity, and Karl Rove's machinations (Think Kerry's response to Swiftboat tactics, or his I opposed the war while supporting it pledge). And yet even with all of Kerry's problems, and Bush's weaknesses, Kerry certainly came close to winning. I've certainly been angered and sickened by the Democratic Party's inability to formulate a clear opposition plan to fight against this abusive Bush White House. And I'm not alone, considering the comments I've seen here and in other liberal and progressive blogsites. So I'm no longer willing to donate my own money to the Democratic Party yet.

But I'm certainly willing to donate a $100 of the fed's money to the Democratic Party. The Republicans are giving plenty of the fed's money to Big Oil through tax breaks and reductions of royalty payments. And it is not just Big Oil that's getting these breaks--just about every corporate interest is getting something. This would be a nice little counter-weight to the millions that corporate interests give to their Republican lapdogs, even if it is a one-time only deal.

And one last thought. Think of the infusion of cash given not only to the Democrats, but also to the Greens, Libertarians, Peace and Freedom Parties....

I'll do it. How about you?

Bush Voices Confidence in Iraqi Leadership

I think it is time to add some White House PR-spin. This is off Yahoo News:

WASHINGTON - Three years after declaring major military operations over in Iraq, President Bush said Monday that a report from his two top foreign policy officials on their visit to Baghdad shows that Iraq's leadership is "more determined than ever to succeed."

"We believe we've got partners to help the Iraqi people realize their dreams," Bush said outside the Oval Office after meeting with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. "They need to know that we stand with them."

But Bush said that Rice and Rumsfeld didn't come back from their surprise joint visit to Iraq last week — intended to boost the standing and spirits of the newly formed permanent government in Baghdad — with all good news.

"There's going to be more tough days ahead," the president said, with Rice and Rumsfeld at his side. "It's a government that understands they've got serious challenges ahead of them."

Though Bush was emphasizing the positive, it was a decidedly less positive message than the one he offered from aboard an aircraft carrier, the USS Lincoln, on May 1, 2003. "The tyrant has fallen and Iraq is free," he said then, standing underneath a banner proclaiming: "Mission Accomplished."

What more can I say about this that hasn't been said already? The Iraq war is a complete disaster. American soldiers are slowly being stuffed into a meatgrinder of a low-tech insurgency--one American killed here in a roadside bomb, another American killed over there. The country is already in a state of civil war. And President Bush continues to claim that Iraq is a success, but that there are more tough days ahead, and that the enemy is more determined than ever. It is like I'm listening to a broken record, playing the same snippet of the tune "Happy Days Are Here Again" over and over, while the entire house is burning down. We've heard plenty of talk on how President Bush exists in a White House bubble--but it has gone beyond this "bubble boy" mentality. Bush no longer lives in a bubble--he is a child living in the womb of his own misguided world, playing with his little toy soldiers or his ABC blocks, completely oblivious to the environment around him. He cannot be reasoned with, argued with, or debated with--I'm not sure he can even hold a rational thought now, considering the rumors and stories circulating that President Bush has gone back to drinking again. So Bush the Child sits in his own little world, playing with his toy soldiers, happily singing along with that broken record, "Happy Days Are Here Again."

While all around him, the White House, and the country, burns down.

Sen. Biden: Iraq should be divided into 3 regions

This is an interesting thought. From Yahoo News:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Iraq should be divided into three largely autonomous regions -- Kurd, Sunni Arab and Shiite Arab -- with a weaker central government in Baghdad, Sen. Joseph Biden (news, bio, voting record) said on Monday.

In an op-ed article in The New York Times, Biden, the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee's top Democrat, said the Bush administration's effort to establish a strong central government in Baghdad had been a failure, doomed by ethnic rivalry that had spawned widespread sectarian violence.

"It is increasingly clear that
President Bush does not have a strategy for victory in Iraq. Rather, he hopes to prevent defeat and pass the problem along to his successor," said Biden and co-author Leslie Gelb, president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations.

Iraq's Sunnis, the driving force behind the insurgency, would welcome the partition plan rather than be dominated by a Shiite-controlled central government, Biden said.

He said the division of Iraq would follow the example of Bosnia a decade ago when that war-torn country was partitioned into ethnic federations under the U.S.-brokered Dayton Accords.

Biden billed his plan as a "third option" beyond the "false choice" of continuing the Bush administration policy of nurturing a unity government in Iraq or withdrawing U.S. troops immediately.

As part of the plan, the United States should withdraw most of its troops from Iraq by 2008, except for a small force to combat terrorism, Biden said.

Under Biden's proposal, the Kurdish, Sunni and Shiite regions would each be responsible for their own domestic laws, administration and internal security. The central government would control border defense, foreign affairs and oil revenues.

I will say that Biden's plan is an interesting thought here. There are certainly some serious problems with the plan--one being that all three regions would want to control territory that contain rich oil reserves. If this confederation does break down and the three ethnic factions do get into a civil war, the factions that control the oil revenues, will be able to purchase arms and control the war. I could also see problems with foreign affairs--the Shiites would love to forge closer ties to Iran, over any objectives by the Sunnis and Kurds. That is not to say that such a confederation is impossible, but rather it would be a difficult challenge for the U.S. to achieve alone in its occupation and reconstruction of Iraq. The U.S. would have to bring in the leaders and representatives of all three ethnic groups--especially the representatives of the insurgents factions--for negotiations. The U.S. would also have to abandon the plans for permanent military bases in Iraq--something the PNAC crowd in the Bush administration would refuse to allow. And in addition to a U.S. troop withdrawal, the Bush administration would have to allow a greater UN presence and control in Iraq (Perhaps allowing UN peacekeepers to control the border regions of Iraq. I don't know if the UN is willing to take over the occupation of Iraq.

But what I can say is that it is an alternative to the current meatgrinder that the Bush administration is currently touting as a success. What a disaster.