This is just pathetic...

I get the feeling that the *right* is so panicked and desperate at their slipping grip on the rudder of power and influence, that they are willing to sacrifice a few thousand innocents on the altar of politics.

In fact, it seems like every day that passes without a major attack on our shores is a bitter disappointment to some of them.

How else to explain this?

America's fabric is pulling apart like a cheap sweater.

What would sew us back together?

Another 9/11 attack.

The Golden Gate Bridge. Mount Rushmore. Chicago's Wrigley Field. The Philadelphia subway system. The U.S. is a target-rich environment for al Qaeda.

Is there any doubt they are planning to hit us again?

If it is to be, then let it be. It will take another attack on the homeland to quell the chattering of chipmunks and to restore America's righteous rage and singular purpose to prevail.

The unity brought by such an attack sadly won't last forever.

The first 9/11 proved that. *

Yep - another September 11 attack is JUST what we need! That will unite us behind the war in Iraq! We will all forget that Iraq wasn't responsible for the worst terrorist attack in history, and we will all stop letting those pesky facts get in the way, and we'll all rally 'round the flag and return the Republicans to the prominence and respect they so richly deserve!

Give me a fucking break. If anyone said something like that in my presence...The August fundraiser would be for bail money.


By the way...Who was the editor who let this garbage pass? Fire that idiot post haste.

(h/t Atrios)

Infrastructure Matters

Last week, we got a stark reminder of the cost of war when the I-35 West collapsed in Minneapolis, dumping commuters and construction workers into the Mississippi River.

Now calm down – the bridge didn’t collapse because of the war, and I am not saying it did. I am saying that we have some totally screwed up spending priorities.

Consider that the war is costing $150 Billion dollars a year, or about $3 Billion per week. $150 Billion dollars could repair 600 bridges a year.

Infrastructure matters. Without sound infrastructure, the economy is at risk. Highways are deteriorating, bridges are crumbling, the electric grid is teetering, ports are not secure, and we all saw two years ago this month that the levee system is unreliable.

The Resident was mindful of the post-Katrina flap when he went to Minneapolis and pledged the money to rebuild the bridge. And that’s all well and good. But then today, as he headed off to yet another vacation, the Leisure President denounced a hike in the gas tax to repair infrastructure.

“Before we raise taxes, which could affect economic growth, I would strongly urge the Congress to examine how they set priorities,” Mr. Bush said.

“My suggestion would be that they revisit the process by which they spend gasoline money in the first place,” he added, accusing lawmakers of focusing on their own parochial concerns — or plum projects — above such national concerns as bridge conditions.

Representative Don Young, Republican of Alaska and a member of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, has raised the possibility of increasing the gasoline tax as a way to pay for bridge repairs throughout the country in the wake of the Minneapolis bridge collapse, which raised new concerns about potential problems with a number of the nation’s bridges. A plan being considered by the House committee would index the current gasoline tax for inflation, which would result in an increase of roughly 5 cents.

Sweet Jeebus…he wants everyone else to reevaluate priorities? While bridges fall down and levees fail and people perish? But he won’t even consider reevaluating his pet war?

Pale Rider takes Bob Novak to the Woodshed

Tee Hee! My mood just got a lot better! It's always a good day when I awake to an order of freshly-roasted wingnut for breakfast, courtesy of Pale Rider.

Admiral Scapegoat

By Robert D. Novak

Thursday, August 9, 2007; Page A17

A sadder but wiser Vice Admiral J.M. "Mike" McConnell, director of national intelligence (DNI), told a senior Republican House member last weekend that the next time he dealt with congressional Democrats he would make sure a Republican was in the room or on the phone. After a lifetime navigating the murky waters of intelligence, McConnell at age 64 was ill-prepared for the stormy seas of Capitol Hill.

Late Saturday, the Democratic-controlled Congress passed a bill that is anathema to the party's base: authorization of eavesdropping on suspected terrorist conversations without a court warrant. It passed because Democrats could not take the political risk of going home for the August recess having shut down U.S. surveillance of threats to the country. But since they could not blame themselves, they blamed the nonpolitical DNI.

[The DNI is not, nor will it ever be, "non-political." The DNI is a political appointee. The choice of Negroponte was pure, unadulterated politics. McConnell got the job because no one fucking wanted it.]

At issue is whether McConnell, in a closed-door meeting, accepted a Democratic plan sharply limiting warrantless eavesdropping and then reneged under White House pressure. The Democratic leadership hoped the admiral's approval would give enough Republicans and Democrats cover to vote for their bill. Instead, his disapproval produced a breakdown in Democratic discipline rare during this Congress.

McConnell, who spent 26 of his 29 active-duty Navy years in intelligence, is a gray spook not widely known on Capitol Hill until last week. After serving the last four years of his naval career as director of the National Security Agency under President Bill Clinton, he was not considered a Republican. That was before last week's meeting at Speaker Nancy Pelosi's office with other key House Democrats and with McConnell on the phone. As usual, no Republicans were invited, and the bill under discussion was not revealed to the GOP.

[Gee--how the fuck did they do business under the Republicans? I seem to recall this item:

Ways and Means Chairman Apologizes to House

by Juliet Eilperin

Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Thomas (R-Calif.) tearfully apologized on the House floor yesterday for asking Capitol Police officers to evict Democrats from a committee room Friday, as Republicans worked to quell bad publicity stemming from the fracas. The extraordinary public admission -- Thomas broke down in tears as he addressed a hushed chamber usually reserved for policy debates and state speeches -- capped a week of quiet damage control by GOP leaders. Furious at the thought of handing Democrats a public relations win, top Republicans have spent hours in closed-door meetings lecturing senior members on proper decorum. Friday's routine Ways and Means Committee session on pension legislation dissolved into partisan brawling after Democrats said they had not been given enough time to review a substitute version offered by Thomas. When the chairman refused to delay the vote, the Democrats decamped to an adjacent library in protest.]

Hopes of passing the bill faded when McConnell issued a written statement saying, "I strongly oppose it," adding that it "would not allow me to carry out my responsibility to provide warning and to protect the nation." Nevertheless, Democratic leaders brought up their bill on Friday under a procedure requiring a two-thirds vote for passage to prevent the Republicans from offering a stronger substitute. The vote, 218 to 207, fell far short.

That left Democrats in a difficult position. Could they go home without having passed a surveillance bill and face Republican taunts that Congress was permitting terrorists to communicate freely? They had no choice but to permit the administration's bill to come to a vote Saturday night just before adjourning, without imposing party discipline. Not a single Democrat spoke in favor of the bill. No committee chairman voted for it. But 41 Democrats did -- mostly junior members, including 13 freshmen from competitive districts. The bill passed 227 to 183. It also passed easily in the Senate, where 16 Democrats supported it.

To explain this defeat, Democrats in floor debate added McConnell to their gallery of rogues, along with George W. Bush and Alberto Gonzales. Rep. Jerrold Nadler of New York suggested McConnell accepted the Democratic restrictions "until he spoke to the White House, and now he changes politically." Off the House floor, one prominent Democrat said -- not for attribution -- that McConnell "was less than truthful." On the record, House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel told me: "He was not negotiating in good faith."

What did McConnell say in his conference with the Democrats? The usually prudent House majority leader, Steny Hoyer , was measured in floor debate, saying the DNI (in a "direct quote") informed the Democrats that their proposal "significantly enhances America's security." He added: "I do not imply that he said he supported it." McConnell, a reticent professional intelligence officer, declined to talk to me about his comments to Democrats. But Rep. Pete Hoekstra of Michigan, ranking Republican on the House intelligence committee, talked with McConnell on Saturday and Monday and told me: "He never had a deal with the Democrats."

In three decades of dealing with intelligence secrets, Mike McConnell was never subjected to the abuse he encountered in the two House sessions, during which he was called a cowardly liar. With the activist Democratic base bitterly opposed to eavesdropping but the party's leadership wary of challenging President Bush on protecting the country from terrorism, the admiral became the scapegoat.

So Novak's source is...Hoekstra? Where do we know him from? He wouldn't actually be a Republican who politicized the right of the American people to have access to intelligence that concerns our national security, would he? He wouldn't be someone who trivializes matters and plays games with peoples lives, would he?

Roll Call: Dem Intel Aide's Access Restored
By Paul Kiel - November 20, 2006, 12:54 PM

Remember Larry Hanauer, the Democratic aide on the House Intelligence Committee whose clearance was yanked because he was suspected of leaking the Iraq NIE?

House Intel Chairman Pete Hoekstra (R-MI) probably hopes you don't, because, as Roll Call reports (sub. req.), Hanauer's access to classified info has been quietly reinstated, "essentially clearing the aide of accusations that he leaked a sensitive report on the Iraq War to The New York Times."

Hoekstra had stripped Hanauer of his access based on remarkably thin evidence -- that Hanauer requested a copy of the Iraq National Intelligence Estimate shortly before the Times reported on the NIE's findings. Nevermind that the Times piece clearly stated that details of the report came from a number of intelligence professionals, with whom the reporters had been speaking for weeks. In fact, as Rep. Ray Lahood (R-IL) admitted, Hanauer was demoted as payback for the Democrats having released, over Hoekstra's objections, a report on Duke Cunningham's dirty doings.