Brainshrub.com - Politics

Breaking: The US has just started bombing Iran!

Paul -V- — Sun, 02 Sep 2007 13:37:23 -0400

No, there is no attack on Iran. But, judging from the state of the blogosphere this past week, when it comes to claiming the US is going to attack Iran - clearly, you don't need facts to write an inflammatory headline.

Just write something that sounds scary, claim you have a friend or acquaintance who says an attack in immanent, click "post" - and BAM... front-page on the big social networks.

This "immanent" attack of Iran has been going on for years. You'd think people would start treating these claims with skepticism by now. For example, here are the results of a quick Google search for "US to attack Iran":

2004 - Israel will attack Iran, with US backing. Sound the alarm!!!

2005 - Seymour M. Hersh alerts the public! We're gonna attack Iran!!!

2005 - Scott Ritter knows what he's talking about. I'm sure he's right this time.

2006 - The Russians are not controlled by US corporate media - so surely, they must know what they are talking about.

2007 - OMFG! A blogger is writing on DailyKos! IT MUST BE TRUE THIS TIME!!!!!

The above list is a tiny sampling of the numerous chicken-little claims which have popped up every six months or so about an immanent attack on Iran. Thankfully, like predictions of the rapture, they never happen.

Why?

Because as much as Cheney would love to get his NeoCon hands on Iran... it's not economically, politicaly or militarily possible.

Period.

Everything you read to the contrary is hyperbolic ranting from websites trolling for traffic, or bloggers craving attention... and frankly, it's getting on my nerves.

NOTE: This site is still being recovering from the hack attack last month - so comments are still being moderated.

Breaking: Sheehan running for congress

Paul -V- — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 16:39:22 -0400

How many times have you heard Progressives lament "... if only someone would so something? Why isn't anyone taking to the streets or holding anyone accountable?"

Well - I just got word that Cindy Sheehan is running for Nancy Pelosi's seat.

More Details at Raw Story and with Kos blogger Bob Fertik.

Now let's sit back and watch as the ~~surrender monkeys~~ err .. I mean "mainstream Democrats" bleat about how horrible it is that Sheehan would dare go actually do something.

It's Good to be King

Doug De Clue — Wed, 04 Jul 2007 10:14:50 -0400

I don't know about you, but in my humble opinion it's long since time to begin the impeachment of King George.

Yesterday's commutation of Scooter Libby was clearly for no other reasonable purpose than protecting his own administration from criminal and impeachment investigations.

The Bush Administration has proved yet again its utter contempt for the rule of law and the Judiciary branch of government in commuting the sentence of Scooter Libby.

President Bush has repeatedly demonstrated that he believes himself to be an absolute monarch who has no need for judges, juries, laws or trials.

He has no problem, when it suits him, to seize people - even American citizens - without a trial, a judge, or a jury and hold them indefinitely, perhaps for the rest of their natural lives in his own royal dungeon in Guantanamo Bay Cuba.

He has no problem, when it suits him, to have people tortured in his dungeons around the world in violation of their most basic human rights.

He has no problem, when it suits him, to ignore the legal requirement to obtain a warrant before conducting a wiretap of an American citizen or even thousands upon thousands of law abiding American citizens.

Yesterday it suited him to commute the Federal prison sentence of one I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby and he did so despite the fact that he rarely, even for a chief executive, has done so in the past and that the overwhelming majority of Americans disapprove of this commutation.

In effect, President Bush has said, I don't care about the evidence, I don't what you 12 citizens believed, and I don't care what the courts and the judges decide - I'm the King and it only matters what I decide.

I guess as Mel Brooks once said "It's good to be the King"..

Hey Shuler - thanks for voting to send more people off to die.

Paul -V- — Fri, 25 May 2007 10:29:06 -0400

Heath Shuler, North Carolina congressperson from District 11, voted to fund the Iraqi Occupation without a time-table. The full bill he voted for was titled: "H.R. 2206: Agricultural Disaster Assistance and Western States Emergency Unfinished Business Appropriations Act, 2007"

The details of the bill are so shameful, the authors didn't have enough courage to name it appropriately. It's an Iraqi Occupation funding bill that gives the president another blank check.

I respect and understand Shuler isn't a progressive. But for God's sake - he just helped condemn thousands of Americans to meaningless death and pain.

To put into perspective what Shuler has voted to continue funding, here is a photo of Marine Ty Ziegel after being burned to a crisp by a suicide bomber in Iraq.

Full story behind this image here and here.

I don't know how Marine Ziegel feels about the occupation of Iraq. For all I know, he might think the occupation is the greatest thing to happen to the Iraqi people since the invention of air conditioning.

I also don't know what kind of President would use human beings as hostages to continue an oil war - and I certainly don't understand how Democratic political strategists would be willing to play along with his sick game.

But here is what I do know: Congress has a constitutional duty to hold the executive branch accountable. And our leaders have, once again, shirked their responsibility.

Most importantly I know from this point onward, Democrats are just as culpable for the Occupation of Iraq as Republicans.

Congressional Democrats, like Heath Shuler, sold us all out for a handful of fools gold.

Read counterpoint here.

Tags: Ziegel - Shuler - Democrats - Congress - Surrender Monkeys - Oversight

I've never seen Dems this pissed before

Paul -V- — Thu, 24 May 2007 12:02:00 -0400

I'm a blogger and SEO by trade. My job is to surf the internet, write content, observe trends, and, most importantly, advise customers on how to benefit from those trends.

I'm mentioning all this because I've never - EVER - seen the lefty-blogosphere so pissed off at the Democratic party for funding the Occupation of Iraq without a time-table. Withdrawing from Iraq was the issue for Progressives in 2006 - and Democrats backed down from the mandate.

Why?

I suspect conservative Democrats are gambling it's easier to use the quagmire in Iraq as an election issue, than bringing troops home, since Americans associate the quagmire in Iraq with President Bush.

This is going to back-fire because Bush isn't running in 2008.

From this point onward, Democrats are just as culpable as Republicans for the Occupation of Iraq. They might not have started it, but they didn't do much to prevent it, and refused to take steps to end it.

In other words: The Democratic Party can't run on an anti-war platform, since they've just demonstrated they aren't serious about it.

Therefore - as your friendly blog analyst, here are my predictions:

1) The next President of the United States will be decided within 24 hours. The first Democratic candidate who condemns the continued funding will win. (ON EDIT - Get used to saying "President Edwards".)

2) Most Democrats who supported the capitulation are in danger of losing their seat in 2008. Here's why: a) Progressives are going to make district primaries a living hell for incumbent congresspeople. b) Even if the incumbent survives the primary - 3rd party candidates will enjoy a boost of support this election cycle. They may not win many elections, but what little gains Republicans achieve in 2008 will be because of spoilers.

Read counterpoint here.

Tags: Democrats - 2008 Election - Surrender - Bush - Occupation of Iraq - Perfect storm - Mad as hell Dems

Good news for the Bush Administration! There is a quick way to retrive missing emails!

Doug De Clue — Tue, 17 Apr 2007 08:27:04 -0400

Dear President Bush,

I heard your staff lost millions of emails. While I am no fan of your administration, I certainly sympathize. Even if this was an accident, the political fallout will be tremendous.

Thankfully, I'm happy to report there is an organization which should have backed up all the emails, and quite possibly your telephone conversations, faxes and websites as well.

Who would do you such a favor?

The National Security Agency, whom you ordered to illegally monitor everyone. I'm sure THEY can "recover" the missing emails after all.

Sincerely,

Doug De Clue.

Hypothetically, what would Karl Rove's testimony look like? A (Republican) best-case scenario.

Doug De Clue — Wed, 28 Mar 2007 09:29:46 -0400

Does anyone else feel like they just saw George Bush and Tony Snow try to pull off "the Jedi mind trick" last week? You know the scene in the original Star Wars movie where Obi Wan Kenobi tricks the storm troopers at the check point into letting them pass by whispering "you don't need to see their papers...these aren't the droids you're looking for.. you can go about your business..move along.."

Imagine this scene...

In an unlit Capitol windowless closet... no one's around...

Senator Leahy whispers to the lone staffer: OK you can turn off the tape recorder, stop writing down what I'm saying and leave the room now...

Karl Rove: Are you sure we're alone and this isn't being recorded?

Senator Leahy: I assure you, we ARE alone and this is NOT being recorded....so ... Mr. Rove, do you promise to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you God?

Karl Rove: No. Of course not.

Senator Leahy: OK...NO problem..I'm sorry but those pesky Democratic colleagues of mine made me ask you that....of course I trust you....Have a seat..can I get you anything? Some coffee or a doughnut?

Karl Rove: No thanks..I'm watching my weight.

Senator Leahy: Now Mr. Rove did you or did you not order the firings of eight United States attorneys because they either were investigating prominent Republicans or alternately because they refused to investigate prominent Democrats?

Karl Rove: I didn't.

Senator Leahy: OK, again sorry for that harsh question, but ..you know I had to ask it or my Democratic friends would be upset with me - I accept your answer - Now can I see those internal emails and documents between you, Attorney General Gonzales, Harriet Meiers and the President?

Karl Rove: Of course not. We've shredded them already anyways.

Senator Leahy: Hey that's good thinking! I guess we can just close the books on this one then - let's just forget the whole thing.

Karl Rove: This is getting old...Can I go now?

Senator Leahy: I'm sorry, I didn't mean to keep you from your busy schedule of jamming Democratic campaign office phone lines and planting phone bugs in your own office and then calling the FBI on your political opponents, I know you're a busy and important man....

Karl Rove: OK now - remember you can't talk about anything we said just now.

Senator Leahy: OK. I promise Karl...

Well that's basically "the reasonable proposal" that President Bush and Press Secretary Tony Snow want the Congress and the American people to accept with respect to asking for testimony from Rove, Gonzales, Meiers over Gonzales recent misleading testimony before Congress.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales came before Congress and made false statements when he testified that he fired eight United States Attorneys around the country for "performance reasons". In fact it has turned out that they not fired for performance but were apparently fired for political reasons and this scandal very likely reaches to Karl Rove, Harriet Meiers
and George Bush himself.

Lying before Congress - with or without an oath - is still a crime. It's called Federal Fraud statute USC 18-371. You just can't defraud or deceive the government.

This is a very broad statute that the Supreme Court previously ruled on in Hammerschmidt v. United States, 265 U.S. 182 (1924):

"To conspire to defraud the United States means primarily to cheat the Government out of property or money, but it also means to interfere with or obstruct one of its lawful governmental functions by deceit, craft or trickery, or at least by means that are dishonest. It is not necessary that the Government shall be subjected to property or pecuniary loss by the fraud, but only that its legitimate official action and purpose shall be defeated by misrepresentation, chicane or the overreaching of those charged with carrying out the governmental intention."

In Hass v. Henkel, 216 U.S. 462 (1910), the Supreme Court ruled: "The statute is broad enough in its terms to include any conspiracy for the purpose of impairing, obstructing or defeating the lawful function of any department of government . . . (A)ny conspiracy which is calculated to obstruct or impair its efficiency and destroy the value of its operation and reports as fair, impartial and reasonably accurate, would be to defraud the United States by depriving it of its lawful right and duty of promulgating or diffusing the information so officially acquired in the way and at the time required by law or departmental regulation. "

So you don't even have to lie under oath to break the law, you just have to make deceptive statements designed to defeat legitimate official actions of the government - like when Gonzales defeated Congressional oversight by falsely testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

We've already had Scooter Libby's convictions a few weeks ago on perjury and obstruction of justice in the Plame leak case and just a few hours ago Deputy Interior Secretary J. Steven Griles agreed to plead guilty to obstruction of justice in a Senate committee's investigation of the Abramoff lobbyist scandal - so why shouldn't we trust them?

This President seems to think he is an absolute monarch and above questioning by anyone.

Give me a break Mr. President, Press Secretary Snow....

The President IS NOT ABOVE THE LAW. Congress not only has the RIGHT to subpoena him and members of his administration - it has a Constitutional DUTY to do so where it has any reason to be concerned that all is not well in the Republic.

Everyone else in any legal proceeding no matter how trivial has to take sworn oaths and sign documents under penalty of perjury.

Every other legal proceeding is recorded by the court reporter as it is being taken to insure that the record is accurate and that it can't be denied or distorted later.

Every other legal proceeding is supposed to be conducted publicly in the light of day so that it can be accountable to We the People.

These have been the standard practice in the law and the government going back throughout the entire history of our own American government and before that for centuries in English law.

What makes YOU so special Mr. President?

Just when will "our Constitution work" again? When will "our great Republic resume being a government of laws and not of men?" When will "OUR long national nightmare" finally be over?

The only way out of this mess is for the Congress and the Senate to not back down and actually issue those subpoenas. The President can't say no. The Supreme Court has already decided this issue in United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974) when it ruled unanimously 8-0 that Nixon had to surrender his White House tapes under subpoena.

Congress and the Senate must investigate this matter under oath, with transcripts, in public and pursuant to a compelling subpoena and thereafter it must impeach as required by the Constitution and the facts.

CNN posts misleading story about air traffic planted by FAA / Whitehouse

Doug De Clue — Tue, 20 Mar 2007 08:30:36 -0400

Let's start with full disclosure: I am a member of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA), a licensed pilot, an aerospace engineer, and, a Democratic Party committeeman in Orange County Florida.

Last week I noticed the following CNN story:

FAA: Crowded skies to get more crowded

Airline passengers can expect more delays as airplanes crowd the skies, the Federal Aviation Administration said Thursday.

The agency expects an average of 1.4 million more takeoffs and landings -- the equivalent of traffic at two Dallas-Fort Worth International Airports -- every year until 2020. In 2006, air traffic controllers handled 61.1 million takeoffs and landings.

"Delays are mounting due to congested airspace and congested airports," said FAA administrator Marion Blakey. "The congestion is really becoming a chronic thing."

(...snip...)

Blakey said the nation's aging air traffic control system must be replaced to avoid gridlock in the skies.

To pay for a new system that would rely on satellite-based navigation, the FAA proposes to replace the ticket tax now paid by airline passengers with a combination of fees and taxes. That would force people who fly corporate jets to bear more of the cost of the air traffic control system.

Which is apparently based on this FAA press release:

This conveniently timed press release is a thinly-veiled political tactic designed to push back against the Congressional Aviation Subcommittee which is nixing, on a bipartisan basis, the proposed Bush 70 cent/gallon fuel tax hike and user fees. The Bush Administration is trying to create a false sense of emergency among the general public about changing the Air Traffic Control. (ATC)

The real purpose of these aviation tax increases is to make up for lost tax revenues from Bush tax cuts for the uberwealthy and to make up for vastly increased spending on the war in Iraq all of which have added tremendously to our national debt.

Because the aviation community is relatively small when compared to other groups upon which the government might raise taxes, it is my belief they thought could slide these taxes in on us "under the radar" so to speak because they felt that no one would notice or complain in a highly public way.

Here are the facts:

1) General Aviation (GA) stays out of Class B airspace (all cited airports in the article were Class B) if at all possible because of the hassle involved - particularly in NY and Washington due to all the restricted air space post 9/11. For that matter, we also generally try to avoid operating from Class C airports for similar reasons. It's much easier to fly from smaller Class D and uncontrolled fields and it's usually much closer to our final destinations anyways.

2) In the struggle between safety and user fees, safety always loses. User fees create a serious financial disincentive to file flight plans, get weather reports, use flight following, use the Instrument Flight Rules system and other ATC resources to insure safe operations.

3) Right now our GA operations are extremely safe due to conscientious, careful, and well trained pilots. If we switch to user fees and/or privatize the system, safety will fall by the wayside. No one will notice that safety has lapsed for a while until a spectacular accident occurs that would have been utterly unheard of and preventable under the existing SAFETY focused ATC system.

4) Such a dramatic increase in tax burden will literally kill the GA industry costing tens of thousands of jobs around the country and will inevitably result in some pilots engaging in technically legal yet still unsafe behaviors such as not filing flight plans in order to minimize the increased costs on themselves.

The money raised by increasing taxes on GA pilots will be more than offset by the detrimental effect on the economy, the increased cost of accident investigations and the money lost to increased death, injury, and property damage. It is better and cheaper to preemptively invest our tax dollars in insuring safety of operations rather than pay to clean up the extra accidents afterwards.

Read counterpoint here.

Tags: Airport saftey - FAA - Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association - Air Traffic Control - User Fees

Al Gore to testify before congress

Lolorb — Sun, 18 Mar 2007 10:50:01 -0400

I usually ignore the canned emails in my inbox, as I'm sure most people give them a cursory glance or just don't read them. However, this one from Al Gore did catch my eye:

On March 21st, I will testify before Congress on the immediate action that needs to be taken to end the climate crisis. At the hearing, I will deliver the 294,374 messages you signed, demonstrating that hundreds of thousands of people share my sense of urgency.

Only 294,374? C'mon - we can do better!

I'm asking everyone to bump that number by going here to sign his petition. If you haven't done so already, please consider taking a minute to add your concerns to the list.

On a side note, I hope Al's testimony will be the beginning of his as yet unannounced campaign. I've talked to people of many different political persuasions, and almost all agree that they would vote for him because they trust his expertise to fix the problems. (Note: You can go here to sign the "Draft Gore" petition.)

After all, who are you gonna trust -- Rudy "9/11, 9/11, 9/11" Guiliani or Al Gore?

Read counterpoint here.

Mercenaries hired to deal with Somolia

Paul -V- — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 12:28:20 -0500

I wasn't going to post anything today - I've been really busy at work. But this caught my eye:

U.S. hires contractor to back Somalis

The State Department has hired a major military contractor to help equip and provide logistical support to international peacekeepers in Somalia, giving the United States a significant role in the critical mission without assigning combat forces.

DynCorp International, which also has U.S. contracts in Iraq, Bosnia, Afghanistan and Iraq, will be paid $10 million to help the first peacekeeping mission in Somalia in more than 10 years.

To illustrate why this is a bad idea, let me tell you a quick story:

When I was a kid I had a classmate who used to give a mutual friend, let's call him Kevin, fruit roll-ups for doing his homework. The plan worked great until another student caught on, and offered Kevin a fruit roll-ups AND five bucks.

Kevin didn't tell his original "employer" that he had another client, and when the teacher noticed two students with identical homework, they both got detention.

The lesson: Never trust a mercenary to do something that you are supposed to do yourself. They will srcew you when a better opportunity presents itself.

Read counterpoint here.