assuming he has any that are capable of focusing on other "threats" than the one his would-be Vice-President poses (especially when she's in front of him).

But this report will truly make McCain's head spin. It predicts less U.S. dominance. It states flatly that U.S. conventional firepower will be less useful than ever. And this final sentence, addressed to a man who does not know Shia from Sunni, or that Iran is between Iraq and Pakistan:

 

Iranians are "more scared of their neighbors than many think they ought to be," Fingar said. But he noted that the United States had eliminated two of Iran's biggest enemies: Iraq's Saddam Hussein and the Taliban regime in Afghanistan.

"The United States took care of Iran's principal security threats," he said, "except for us, which the Iranians consider a mortal threat."




Who honestly believes McCain is capable of processing what Republicans have been unable to grasp for six years, but thinking people figured out in a nanosecond? I have to ask again:
Why are Republicans
so fucking stupid?

 

 

Kyle "Dusty" Foggo is the former Executive Director of the CIA, and a major salesperson of the GWOT (if he didn't come up with the rheumatic-sounding acronym, he knows who did).

Please make friends with him here.

He is now charged with 28 counts of assorted types of fraud and lying statements.

He was the CIA's Executive Director during the crucial period after Valerie Plame's outing, George Tenet's ouster and President Bush's installation of Tenet's apparently little respected successor, Porter Goss, who had to admonish his employees, immediately after the 2004 elections that gave Goss' boss yet another four years to make employees swear loyalty oaths to him , that "[W]e support the Administration, and its policies...We do not identify with, support or champion opposition to the Administration or its policies" (loyalty to God, country, and Administration is a recurring Republican theme).

Oh yes, he also is alleged to have attended parties with  hookers at the Watergate hotel with his boss and such affiliated notables as Duke Cunningham and Brent Wilkes.

Please note the troubling connection between the firing of Carol Lam and the fate of these notables.

I present him as a true patriot, a keeper of State Secrets, one who supports President Bush's power to dismiss attorneys at his pleasure, and to freely use the Watergate Hotel as a National Monument to Republican rectitude.


Now we see what happens to a patriot when facing serious time:

Prosecutors say Foggo has threatened "to expose the cover of virtually every CIA employee with whom he interacted and to divulge to the world some of our country's most sensitive programs - even though this information has absolutely nothing to do with the charges he faces."

Prosecutors also allege his lawyers are seeking to introduce classified evidence to "portray Foggo as a hero engaged in actions necessary to protect the public from terrorist acts" to gain sympathy from jurors.

Our premier journalist team, that dares to go where no MSM'er has gone before, reveals the sordid truth we all knew already: That Bristol Palin was not happy about being married off to the man who said that he didn't plan on having children on his facebook page.
http://www.nationalenquirer.com/sarah_palin_at_war_with_her_daughter_over_pregnancy_wedding/celebrity/65370

It is a sorry story indeed.  Click only if you revel in filth of the most lawyer-vetted nature.

And comment on the relevance (or not) of this to the election.

We will not hear about the famous "signing statement" in this election.
A shame there are so many taboos in this election.
This signing statement (in itself unconstitutional, but let's not go there) was no secret, yet McCain didn't say a word about it.

It is a shame the Democrats are so compromised in this election. There is so much that is taboo.

George W. Bush, or a henchman of his who went by the name of Alberto Gonzales, repudiated the Geneva Conventions as "quaint"  and knowingly violated them.
That is grounds for impeachment. But our worthless Democratic leadership made excuses, or just said So?" (yes you, Madam Speaker).


John Conyers said (on February 16, 2007) that  he thought there wasn't enough time to impeach Bush and end the war(has the war ended? did I miss something?).

Also, this non-multitasking, non-singletasking worm claimed that besides ending the war, impeachment might get in the way of Dems expanding their majority.

So,  rather than do his job (any job!) (and in fact, get in the way of doing a necessary job for partisan reasons, leaving Dems with no moral high-ground to protest what McCain is doing in Alaska), he was inviting the Republicans to do what they are doing in this election- namely, treating that subpoena from the Alaska legislature as if it had come from the worthless John Conyers himself.

Now, there is a serious ethical question here, that to my mind damns all the Dems who think like him:

What if Republicans decided they weren't going to impeach Nixon because they didn't want to lose the '76 elections?

And this further implication escaped Conyers: if Republicans were on notice that they could break the law with impunity for Bush's two terms in office, why did anyone think they would stop there? Why not run someone who can do two things at once (unlike pitiful Dems, who can't even do one), such as shred subpoenas and win an election?


Dems are naive, pitifully naive.


If we are stuck with McCain/Palin next year, we know who to blame. Democrats refused to hold anyone accountable, and have now made a joke of the entire Government.

The entire, damning quote follows.

AMY GOODMAN: Congressmember Conyers, after the Democrats gained control of both houses in the November elections, you wrote the following in a letter to supporters, quote, “As many of you also know, I have agreed with Speaker-to-be Pelosi that impeachment is off the table. Instead, we agree that oversight, accountability and checks and balances, which have been sorely lacking for the past six years, must occur. I have nothing but respect for those who might disagree, but that’s where I come out.” That’s what you wrote, but on January 27, you addressed that mass demonstration against war on the National Mall in Washington, D.C., and had this to say regarding President Bush.

REP. JOHN CONYERS: George Bush has the habit of firing military leaders who tells him the Iraq war is failing. But let me tell you something. He can’t fire you. He can’t fire us. But we can fire him! We can fire him!

AMY GOODMAN: That was Congressmember Conyers in Washington, D.C. Are you calling for President Bush’s impeachment, Congressmember Conyers?

REP. JOHN CONYERS: The reason I am not, notwithstanding my fiery rhetoric at the rally, which I thought was quite appropriate, by the way, and I don’t retract, we’re firing—on November 7, we fired all the Republicans we could find that are supporting President Bush. Next year in November, we’re going to get hired to do the job of leading this country with a Democratic president and with a stronger House and Senate majority. You know, a one-senate majority lead is not much of a majority. Fifteen-vote change in the House would erase the advantage that we have. And quite frankly, any impeachment proceeding that would go forward without taking out the Vice President and the President, to me, would be a waste of time. We don’t have the luxury to impeach this president and this vice president. We have the responsibility to stop the war in Iraq, and I think it’s proceeding along sound lines, and then we will be able to deal with Katrina, the domestic under-funding of everything from healthcare to housing to job creation, to re-entry of former felons. All the things that need to be done have to be taken care of. A $2 trillion debt is what we are paying to stay in Iraq. We’ve got to stop that financial hemorrhaging as a first responsibility in the Congress.