Nobody Could Have Predicted...

The Justice Department is opening an investigation into the person or persons who leaked the story about Bush's use of the NSA to bypass the FISA Court to conduct warrantless searches of American citizens. According to Mr. Bush, this leak jeopardized our efforts in the never-ending fight against terror.

Part of this story is how the administration convinced the New York Times to delay publication due to national security concerns. The Times, apparently, sat on the story for over a year and presumably had the story prior to the 2004 elections.

So here's the rub. The administration has known for well over a year that someone had leaked what they called classified information. This information purportedly was vital to the national security interests yet they did not begin an investigation until now. So why is that? Is it because they knew what they were doing was illegal and could impact the 2004 elections? Or, do they only care when the information causes them some embarassment.

If the leak was a detrimental as they claim, what's the excuse for not investigating until now? Something is wrong with this picture.

n : partiality to cronies esp. as evidenced in the appointment of political hangers-on to office without regard to their qualifications

The most blatant and well-known example is that of Michael (heck of a job) Brown formerly the head of FEMA. But, sadly, he is just one of many. Either by political connections, political contributions, political activism or corporate connections, this incestual relationship permeates the current administration to the detriment of the American taxpayer.

...forcible suppression of opposition.

1 : a political philosophy, m0vement, or regime that exalts nation and race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition 2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control

One needs to look to when the "state rights" mantra becomes inconvenient such as Bush v. Gore or in the Terri Schiavo case and the centralization of control become more evident. Additionally, programs like "No Child Left Behind," which thankfully was underfunded, is another attempt by Washington to exert control over the individual states by the making requisite compliance with federal dictates in order to receive federal funds.

a: a ruler with absolute power and authority : Autocrat b: a person exercising power abusively, oppressively, or tyrannically.

Despots thrive where there is no check on their power. Co-equal branches of government are meant to provide the cherished "checks and balances" which are the vanguard protections of the United States Constitution.

It's not surprising that one who would usurp the office would then thereafter attempt to usurp the powers of the other branches.

1: Centralized control by an autocratic authority; 2: The political concept that the citizen should be totally subject to an absolute state authority.

If this sounds good to you, move to Cuba!

Either you're for the Bill of Rights or you're against it!

Anyone else tired of hearing this trite canard?

During the election campaign of 2004, John Kerry made a statement about support from foreign leaders. The White House and the Bush campaign aggressively attacked Kerry demanding to know to whom he had spoken. Now, with the revelations about illegal spying by the White House, one has to wonder whether Kerry’s foreign and domestic communications were being monitored. Did the White House have advance knowledge of Kerry’s foreign leader contacts and knew that he could not name them without embarrassing the foreign leader. Thus, they figured that demanding Kerry name the leaders, knowing that he could not, was a way to question Kerry’s honesty.

MSNBC


Kerry on defensive on ‘foreign leaders’ claim

The White House kept up the pressure Monday. “If Senator Kerry is going to say he has support from foreign leaders, then he needs to be straightforward with the American people and say who it is that he has spoken with and who it is that supports him,” White House press secretary Scott McClellan told reporters.

BTW, where are all the "rule of law" republicans on this issue demanding that justice be served.

Probably just another scary coincidence...

Here is information regarding a subpoena issued to the White House regarding media contacts in 2004. Can you spot the odd-man out?

Other journalists cited in the Jan. 22, 2004 subpoena, one of three sent to the White House that day are:

Robert Novak, "Crossfire," "Capital Gang" and the Chicago Sun-Times; Knut Royce and Timothy M. Phelps, Newsday; Walter Pincus, Richard Leiby, Mike Allen, Dana Priest and Glenn Kessler, The Washington Post; Matthew Cooper, John Dickerson, Massimo Calabresi, Michael Duffy and James Carney, Time magazine; Evan Thomas, Newsweek; Andrea Mitchell, "Meet the Press," NBC; Chris Matthews, "Hardball," MSNBC; Tim Russert, Campbell Brown, NBC; Nicholas D. Kristof, David E. Sanger and Judith Miller, The New York Times; Greg Hitt and Paul Gigot, The Wall Street Journal; John Solomon, The Associated Press; and Jeff Gannon, Talon News.

CounterPunch

Granted, this is a trick question because so many on the list are journalistic prostitutes, but the key is which one is not an employee of a major news organization.

Are EPA’s Mileage Estimates An End-Run Around Government Mandated Fleet Mileage Requirements?

Last night, ABC News ran a story about how the EPA mileage estimates for hybrid cars falls well short of the mileage realized by drivers in the real world. This same issue was dealt with nearly a year and a half ago by John Gartner in his article Hybrid Mileage Comes Up Short.


ABC reported than one such hybrid vehicle is rated at 60 miles per gallon but actually delivers 35 miles per gallon in real life conditions. Now, this got me to thinking, “How could the estimates be so far off?” This isn’t a minor difference; it’s like buying a pound of butter that’s 9.28 ounces. Supposedly, the differences are attributed to the EPA’s testing method using lab conditions and not actually directly measuring fuel consumption, a method which they’ve been using for the last 19 years. Let’s see, 19 years ago, that would put Reagan in office.

Virginia Postrel’s article in 2001, titled Setting fuel-efficiency targets for vehicle fleets makes little sense, notes the following:

Under the complex CAFE system, the federal government sets a minimum average mileage requirement for each manufacturer's fleet. Domestic and imported cars are averaged separately, and automakers that do better than the mandate, often because they make mostly small cars, can save credits for future use. Toyota and Honda used these credits when they introduced their luxury lines.



The federal government has imposed fuel efficiency standards on the auto industry not based on individual vehicles, but instead, how their fleet of vehicles performs mileage wise. So, does anyone benefit from these exaggerated estimates? Certainly not the consumer. But, what is the effect overall for the auto industry? Is compliance based on just more flawed research. Note: These requirements were fully in force when Reagan came into office in 1981 and shortly thereafter, these testing procedures were adopted.

All this prompts the following questions”

Is this discrepancy the result of flawed testing or is it the EPA’s way of helping the auto industry comply with fleet mileage requirements for its cars under the CAFE system.

What testing procedure did the EPA use prior to the current (inaccurate) method and was it more realistic than what we have here.

What prompted the EPA to use this testing procedure? Was there pressure from the industry or White House to do so?

If more accurate mileage ratings were used, would the fleets of the major auto manufacturers comply with the CAFE requirements?

Would the EPA put forth false information to protect business interests? Ask the workers at “ground zero!”

Have all the lies made me more cynical?

A cancer of corruption!

Showing his much touted compassionate conservatism, President Bush demonstates how poor Americans can heat their homes this winter.

NEW YORK In his major speech this week outlining a strategy for Iraq that might turn around public opinion on the war, President Bush used the word victory 15 times against a backdrop of dozens of “Plan for Victory” signs. Is victory really in our grasp—-and was the talk based more on changing poll results than really setting a wise course in Iraq?

The questions will gain even more relevance with a revelation coming in Sunday’s New York Times. It seems that in a part of the 35-page “Our National Strategy for Victory in Iraq” document posted on the White House web site, a few key strokes by those in know reveal that the document’s originator or author, is one “feaver-p.”

This person is Dr. Peter D. Feaver, a 43-year-old Duke University political scientist who joined the National Security Council staff as a special adviser in June. White House officials, while saying the document contained contributions from many federal departments, confirmed, according to the Times, that “its creation and presentation strongly reflected the public opinion research” of Dr. Feaver.

Feaver, the Times’ Scott Shane writes, “was recruited after he and Duke colleagues presented to administration officials their analysis of polls about the Iraq war in 2003 and 2004.

They concluded that Americans would support a war with mounting casualties on one condition: that they believe it would ultimately succeed."

Editor & Publisher


Then Old Fashioned Patriot Notices This Suspicious Pattern:

Ding Dong The Witch Is Dead!

"This list isn't all inclusive but I am noticing a pattern here:"

Nov 19th - 9 US Soldiers Killed
Nov 20th - al-Zarqawi Dead? Al Qaeda Terrorist Perhaps Killed in Firefight

Nov 16th - 8 US Soldiers Killed
Nov 16th - IRAQ: US MILITARY ANNOUNCES CAPTURE OF KEY AL-QAEDA OFFICER

Nov 2nd - 7 US Soldiers Killed
Nov 3rd - Top Al Qaeda Leader Believed Captured

Sep 28th - 7 US Soldiers Killed
Sep 28th - Al-Qaida chief killed, says Pakistan

posted by George @ 12/03/2005 06:17:00 PM

Probably just another morbid coincidence and not an attempt to assuage public opinion.

Top Ten Conservative Idiots

Another great entry for the idiocy archives!

The stock market is not the economy.