Anonymous speaks out against CISPA

another despicable piece of legislation carefully crafted by our super-rich elites to control the only free flow of information available to the masses...

anonymous...

Despite growing resistance to the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, CISPA has cleared its first legislative hurdle. But the battle over the widely-criticized information-sharing bill is just heating up.

In an earlier-than-expected vote Thursday evening, the House of Representatives voted 248 to 168 in favor of the bill , which was originally designed to allow more sharing of cybersecurity threat information with government agencies.

The legislation has drawn the ire of legislators, civil liberties groups, security practitioners and professors, and hundreds of thousands of petitioners, who say the bill tramples over users' privacy rights as it allows Web firms like Google and Facebook to give private users' information to government agencies irrespective of other laws that protect users' privacy. "It's basically a privacy nightmare," says Trevor Timm, a lawyer and activist with the Electronic Frontier Foundation. "CISPA would allow companies to hand over private data to the government without a warrant, without anonymity, with no judicial review."

But even before it passed, the House voted to amend the bill to actually allow even more types of private sector information to be shared with government agencies, not merely in matters of cybersecurity or national security, but in the investigation of vaguely defined cybersecurity "crimes," "protection of individuals the danger of death or serious bodily harm," and cases where that involve the protection of minors from exploitation.

That statute, which in effect widened the most controversial portion of the bill just hours before it came to a vote, is sure to draw even more controversy as the bill works its way through the legislative branch and reaches President Obama's desk. President Obama currently backs a bill in the Senate put forward by Senators Joe Lieberman and Susan Collins, designed to increase the cybersecurity regulatory powers of the Department of Homeland security, which has been opposed by the GOP and stalled in the Senate.

The White House came out Wednesday with a strongly-worded statement slamming CISPA and pushing its regulatory approach in a threat to veto CISPA, writing that "cybersecurity and privacy are not mutually exclusive" and calling CISPA an intelligence bill rather than a security bill that treats civilians as subjects of surveillance. (White House watchers have observed, however, that the president's advisors similarly recommended that he veto the National Defense Authorization Act, which he instead signed into law.)

Regardless, reconciling the House bill in its new, even more controversial form with a Senate version, even as the White House opposes the central thrust of the legislation, will only rekindle the controversy that has grown around CISPA in the last week.

The EFF's Timm says he sees the House's early vote on CISPA as an attempt by its author, representative Mike Rogers, to squeeze the bill through before its opposition grew any stronger. "We've seen an explosion of a variety of groups and congressmen come out against the bill," he says. "As the Senate debates this, it's good that privacy and civil liberties will be front and center."

why does it have to be a constant battle to have access to information and, just possibly, the truth along with it...?

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

MN Rep. Keith Ellison on OWS and the 99%

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Now, HERE'S a speech...!

california congressional representative george miller offers a damning indictment of those who seek to destroy the u.s. middle class along with most of the values our country stands for...



from the transcript (thanks to daily kos)...

How do you build a strong middle class community on the back of lower-wage workers? You can't do it. Many years ago in America we wanted to add a strong, vibrant middle class and we did that by forming the union and giving people the right to have a say at work. Study after study where workers have a say in the workplace, they work harder, more productive, more open to new ideas.

But what do we say to workers with the governors of Wisconsin and Ohio and Indiana? Do what we tell you to do, do it for less pay, do it for less benefit, and do it because we told you so. That doesn't sound like America to me. It doesn't sound like a powerful country that has the best and most productive workers in the history of the world. That sounds like something that we are not familiar with in this country.

That sounds like an autocratic system that just demands and takes but never gives.

wow...! an elected official who actually takes his duty to defend and represent the common good of his nation seriously...! who woulda thunk it...?

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

It may turn out the new president's ... a Democrat!

holy crap...! who woulda thunk it...?

greg palast in truthout...

Frankly, I was worried about this guy. Obama's appointing Clinton-droids to the Cabinet, bloated incompetents like Larry Summers as "Economics Czar," made me fear for my country, that we'd gotten another Democrat who wished he were a Republican.

Then came Obama's money bomb. The House bill included $125 billion for schools (TRIPLING federal spending on education), expanding insurance coverage to the unemployed, making the most progressive change in the tax code in four decades by creating a $500 credit against social security payroll deductions, and so on.

It's as if Obama dug up Ronald Reagan's carcass and put a stake through The Gipper's anti-government heart. Aw-RIGHT!

About the only concession Obama threw to the right-wing trogs was to remove the subsidy for condoms, leaving hooker-happy GOP Senators, like David Vitter, to pay for their own protection. S'OK with me.

And here's the proof that Bam is The Man: Not one single Republican congressman voted for the bill. And that means that Obama didn't compromise, the way Clinton and Carter would have, to win the love of these condom-less jerks.

And we didn't need'm. Nyah! Nyah! Nyah!

Now I understand Obama's weird moves: dinner with those creepy conservative columnists, earnest meetings at the White House with the Republican leaders, a dramatic begging foray into Senate offices. Just as the Republicans say, it was all a fraud. Obama was pure Chicago, Boss Daley in a slim skin, putting his arms around his enemies, pretending to listen and care and compromise, then slowly, quietly, slipping in the knife. All while the media praises Obama's "post-partisanship." Heh heh heh.

Love it. Now we know why Obama picked that vindictive little viper Rahm Emanuel as staff chief: everyone visiting the Oval office will be greeted by the Windy City hit man who would hack up your grandma if you mess with the Godfather-in-Chief.

I don't know about you, but THIS is the change I've been waiting for.

Will it last? We'll see if Obama caves in to more tax cuts to investment bankers. We'll see if he stops the sub-prime scum-bags from foreclosing on frightened families. We'll see if he stands up to the whining, gormless generals who don't know how to get our troops out of Iraq. (In SHIPS, you doofuses!)

Look, don't get your hopes up. But it may turn out the new president's ... a Democrat!

'sumbitch...!

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Fellow Congressmen... I urge you to cast your vote for... Oops... I'm sorry... It's classified

this video clip contains little real information but is all the more disturbing for that...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Nancy Pelosi = rubber chicken = Nancy Pelosi

shirley golub is trying to unseat nancy pelosi in her san francisco district... i wish her the very best...

here's her much-viewed rubber chicken campaign ad...



should you be so moved, you can contribute here...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

The House FISA bill would allow Americans to finally see the breathtaking extent of Bush's lawless behavior

so says the nyt...

What Mr. Bush wants is to be able to listen to your international telephone calls and read your international e-mail whenever he wants, without a court being able to prevent it or judge the legality of his actions.

[...]

The purpose of [telecom] amnesty is not to protect national secrets — that could be done during a trial — but to make sure that the full damage to Americans’ civil liberties is never revealed.

[...]

The president will continue to claim the country is in grave danger over this issue, but it is not. The real danger is for Mr. Bush. A good law — like the House bill — would allow Americans to finally see the breathtaking extent of his lawless behavior.

that's about the size of it...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Joe Courtney (D-CT) on yesterday's House FISA vote

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

YAY...! House rejects telecom amnesty and warrantless surveillance

damn... i wasn't at all confident THIS was going to happen... what a GREAT way to start a weekend --- for a change...

glenn greenwald...

The House just now approved a new FISA bill that denies retroactive immunity to lawbreaking telecoms and which refuses to grant most of the new powers for the President to spy on Americans without warrants. It passed comfortably, by a 213-197 margin.

As impressive as the House vote itself was, more impressive still was the floor debate which preceded it. I can't recall ever watching a debate on the floor of either House of Congress that I found even remotely impressive -- until today. One Democrat after the next -- of all stripes -- delivered impassioned, defiant speeches in defense of the rule of law, oversight on presidential eavesdropping, and safeguards on government spying. They swatted away the GOP's fear-mongering claims with the dismissive contempt such tactics deserve, rejecting the principle that has predominated political debate in this country since 9/11: that the threat of the Terrorists means we must live under the rule of an omnipotent President and a dismantled constitutional framework.

[...]

It's hard not to believe that there's not at least some significant sea change reflected by this. They have seen that they can defy the President even on matters of Terrorism, and the sky doesn't fall in on them.

WOO-HOO...! even if it's only the weekend that i have the smile on my face, it's one hell of a lot better than the news that's been trickling in the past year...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

The "no-big-secret" secret session

a wapo follow-up to to the "secret session" (see my post from last night)...

"I will bring information . . . to the secret session that some members are aware of but others are not," promised a coy Minority Whip Roy Blunt (Mo.), declaring it his solemn "obligation to bring information and communicate information that is confidential and that I believe ought to be kept secret."

[...]

They sounded like schoolgirls whispering among themselves in class. Except they weren't schoolgirls: They were members of Congress, debating whether to grant immunity to telecom companies that cooperate in a clandestine government eavesdropping program. A vote on that program, a rewriting of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, will come today. Last night was the time for an hour-long secret debate about the spy bill -- preceded by a 90-minute public debate about whether to have the secret debate.

[...]

Blunt finally ... offered some soothing words.

"I have not suggested this is at the top-secret level," he said.

The secret was out! The man who requested the secret session in the first place finally admitted he had no big secrets to divulge.

the money quote...

"There are some of us here who feel that this country has drifted toward a version of a national security state," said Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio).

uh... yeah... no kidding...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

House in secret session for the first time in 25 years

this can't be good, particularly since it was called by the r's...

The House of Representatives will shutter C-Span's cameras Thursday afternoon and evict citizens and reporters from the chambers to hold an extremely rare, one-hour secret session where Republicans say they will present information about the current spying debate that cannot be publicly discussed.

The secret session, only the sixth in the House's history and the first since 1983, comes just hours ahead of a planned vote on a new proposal from House Democrats who oppose giving amnesty to telecoms that helped President Bush's warrantless, domestic wiretapping program.

i'm dreading the outcome...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

"The US Congress cannot conspire in Bush's destruction of US civil liberty and expect a future restoration of civil liberty"

paul craig roberts articulates the precise issue that bothers me the most about the serial capitulation of our congress, unfolding once again as we watch, aghast...

No matter who is the next president, the Bush Regime has established that the executive branch is no longer a co-equal branch of government. It is the primary branch, armed with unaccountability and the discretion to consult with other branches of government if it so wishes. The US Congress cannot give up the powers it has given up during the Bush years and ever expect to get them back.

The US Congress cannot conspire in Bush's destruction of US civil liberty and expect a future restoration of civil liberty.

Republican federal judges who have aided and abetted the rise of an executive branch dictatorship cannot expect the judiciary to continue as a check on the unconstitutional and illegal behavior of the executive branch.

The Bush Regime, with the complicity of Congress and the judiciary, has destroyed the American constitutional system.

[...]

In the November 2006 congressional elections, voters gave Democrats control of Congress in order to rein in the Republican administration, but by then Congress had been reduced to an impotent branch of government and has proven to be incapable of reining in even an unpopular president with a 19% approval rating.

If a Regime that has come to be despised and deplored by a majority of Americans and the world can ride roughshod over law and the Constitution, constitutional government obviously has no future in America.

[...]

The only power the House has left is impeachment, and Pelosi is too frightened to use it. Why is the Speaker of the House afraid to use the power the Constitution gives her to remove from office a president who deceived Congress and the American people, who violated US and international law, and who is a clear and present danger to American liberty, to the US Constitution, and to peace and stability in the world?

good question... i'm torn between two possible answers... one is, yes, congress is frightened because something big enough and dark enough is being held over their heads that effectively prevents them from fulfilling their oath of office... the other is simply that they are co-conspirators, that they are getting something for themselves out of this horrible, country-destroying charade...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

No capitulation and no covering Bush's ass with retroactive immunity for the telecoms

amazingly enough, the wapo is offering a small ray of daylight, albeit on page 7...

[I]n the bitter Washington dispute over whether to give the companies legal immunity, there is one thing on which both sides agree: If the lawsuits go forward, sensitive details about the scope and methods of the Bush administration's surveillance efforts could be divulged for the first time.

Nearly 40 lawsuits, consolidated into five groups, are pending before a San Francisco judge. The various plaintiffs, a mix of nonprofit civil liberties advocates and private attorneys, are seeking to prove that the Bush administration engaged in illegal massive surveillance of Americans' e-mails and phone calls after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, and to show that major phone companies illegally aided the surveillance, including the disclosure of customers' call records.

If the cases are allowed to proceed, plaintiffs' attorneys say, the courts could review, in secret if necessary, any government authorizations for the surveillance. The process might also force the disclosure of government memos, contracts and other documents to a judge, outlining the legal reasoning behind the warrantless wiretapping program.

Perhaps most important, disclosures in the lawsuits could clarify the scope of the government's surveillance and establish whether, as the plaintiffs allege, it involved the massive interception of purely domestic communications with the help of the nation's largest providers: AT&T, Cingular Wireless, BellSouth, Sprint and MCI/Verizon. (Verizon Communications bought MCI in 2006.)

yeah, those would be SENSITIVE, all right... DAMN SENSITIVE... so SENSITIVE, in fact, that the collective hind-ends of the bush administration criminals could potentially be locked up for a long, long time...

dday from daily kos...

[T]here's only one constituency for which this legislation is designed. And that's the Bush Administration itself. As Glenn Greenwald noted the other day, it's not like this is even well hidden.

In his Press Conference yesterday, Commander-in-Chief George W. Bush candidly explained why he was so eager to have Congress grant amnesty to telecoms:

"Allowing the lawsuits to proceed could aid our enemies, because the litigation process could lead to the disclosure of information about how we conduct surveillance." [...]

Bush is finally being candid about the real reason the administration is so desperate to have these surveillance lawsuits dismissed. It's because those lawsuits are the absolute last hope for ever learning what the administration did when they spied on Americans for years in violation of the law. Dismissal via amnesty would ensure that their spying behavior stays permanently concealed, buried forever, and as importantly, that no court ever rules on the legality of what they did. Isn't it striking how that implication of telecom amnesty is never discussed, and how little interest it generates among journalists -- whose role, theoretically, is to uncover secret government actions?

That's all this is about. The telecoms don't want the amnesty. The overriding goal is to shut down these lawsuits and, most important, eliminate the discovery phase so that the full extent of Administration lawbreaking is permanently hidden. This is about burying the evidence, as every single action by the White House since the Democratic takeover of Congress has been. Bush may have a soft spot in his heart for his corporate buddies, but he's really not interested in indemnifying them. He's interested in immunity for himself.

As the Democratic leadership in the Congress floats trial balloons about capitulating on this bill, it's important to keep this end goal in mind. Official Washington really doesn't want to reveal a lot of its secrets. Immunity has a certain pull for the Democrats as well, particularly those who were briefed about the program, even in part. They either made no objection or failed to ask the proper questions or in some way became complicit to this lawbreaking that has occurred for almost SEVEN YEARS now, and if the truth ever came out, my guess is that nobody would come out looking so noble.

that last statement is certainly an understatement... criminal prosecution is highly IGNOBLE and it's no surprise that the bushies would like to forestall that event once 20 january 2009 has come and gone...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

No, no, no, no, and no... Contempt citations DON'T substitute for IMPEACHMENT, dammit...! [UPDATE]

are we supposed to think that, after sitting on your ass AND the contempt citations for SEVEN GODDAM MONTHS, and then filing them knowing DAMN GOOD AND WELL that the doj would refuse to take action, SUBSTITUTES for REMOVING THE CRIMINALS FROM THE WHITE HOUSE...? if that thought even crossed your fuzzy little brain, nancy, i am F****** OUTRAGED...

House Democrats really didn't expect the Justice Department to present their contempt citations against two of President Bush's top aides to a federal grand jury for prosecution.

But the effort and having a civil lawsuit at the ready as a backup in their fight against the White House over the 2006 firings of nine federal prosecutors has satisfied, for now, some liberals who for a year have wanted much more: Bush's impeachment.

Even before House Speaker Nancy Pelosi became the first woman to reach Congress' highest office, the California Democrat had rejected demands from many in her party for impeachment.

Until two weeks ago, she had sat for seven months on the contempt citations sought by Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee against Bush's chief of staff, Josh Bolten, and his former counsel, Harriet Miers.

and NOW we're supposed to WAIT for the CIVIL SUIT to move glacially forward...? NO, i say... INHERENT CONTEMPT AND IMPEACHMENT...!

[UPDATE]

my final letter to pelosi...

Madame Speaker,

I just finished reading the following news item in the Associated Press (link follows).
-----

[excerpts from above article]

-----
I am outraged. So far, I have attempted to be polite and reasonable in my communication with you and my U.S. Senator, Harry Reid. I have repeatedly expressed my desire to have both of you take strong action against the criminals who currently occupy the White House. However, now that you have stonewalled impeachment hearings for fourteen months, stalled for seven months prior to submitting contempt of Congress citations (all the while knowing that the Department of Justice would not pursue them), and failed to invoke the option for inherent contempt (CRS Congressional Oversight Manual, May 1, 2007), I have no choice but to conclude that you have violated your oath of office.

I am abundantly clear that the unconstitutional, balance of powers-negating mechanisms of unfettered executive power seized by George W. Bush under the bogus claim of the "unitary executive" and an illegal interpretation of our Constitution, will remain intact as the new president is sworn in on 20 January 2009.

Madame Speaker, regretfully I can no longer entrust you, your leadership, or your colleagues with the sacred and sworn obligation to preserve, protect, and defend the United States Constitution. There is nothing left for those of us who cherish our country but to move to replace our government with one which will respect the principles upon which the United States was founded.

This will be my final communication with you.

Sincerely,

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

The Bush sock-puppet, Mukasey, responds

as previously advertised...

Attorney General Michael Mukasey on Friday rejected referring the House's contempt citations against two of President Bush's top aides to a federal grand jury. Mukasey says they committed no crime.

Mukasey said White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten and former presidential counsel Harriet Miers were right in refusing to provide Congress White House documents or testify about the firings of federal prosecutors.

"The department will not bring the congressional contempt citations before a grand jury or take any other action to prosecute Mr. Bolten or Ms. Miers," Mukasey wrote House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

The House voted two weeks ago to cite Bolten and Mukasey for contempt of Congress and seek a grand jury investigation. Most Republicans boycotted the vote.

Pelosi requested the grand jury investigation on Thursday and gave Mukasey a week to reply. She said the House would file a civil suit seeking seeking enforcement of the contempt citations if federal prosecutors declined to seek misdemeanor charges against Bolten and Miers.

ok, nancy... let's you and your colleagues get your respective asses in gear and PUSH this... you've diddled long enough... from this point on, let no grass grow under your feet...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Enforcement of contempt of Congress charges...? Hmmmm... Pro'ly not...

from kagro x at daily kos...

This just in:

February 28, 2008

The Honorable Michael B. Mukasey
The Attorney General
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W
Washington, D.C. 20530-0001

Dear Mr. Attorney General:

In accordance with 2 U.S.C. § 194 and the attached House Resolution 979 (adopted on February 14, 2008), I have today sent a certification to the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, Jeffrey Taylor, advising him of the failure of former White House Counsel, Harriet Miers, to appear, testify and produce documents in compliance with a duly issued subpoena of a subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee and of the failure of Joshua Bolten, White House Chief of Staff and custodian of White House documents, to produce documents in his custody as required by a duly issued subpoena of the House Judiciary Committee.

Under section 194, Mr. Taylor is now required "to bring the matter before the grand jury for its action." The appropriate grand jury action is a criminal charge for violation of 2 U.S.C. § 192, which provides: "Every person who having been summoned as a witness by the authority of either House of Congress to give testimony or to produce papers . . . willfully makes default . . . shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor" and shall be subject to a fine and "imprisonment in a common jail for not less than one month nor more than twelve months."

According to the testimony of your predecessor, former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, and your recent testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, the Justice Department intends to prevent Mr. Taylor from complying with the statute and enforcing the contempt citations against Ms. Miers and Mr. Bolten. You claimed that "enforcement by way of contempt of a congressional subpoena is not permitted when the President directs a direct adviser of his... not to appear or when he directs any member of the executive not to produce documents." Hearing on Oversight of the Dep't of Justice Before the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 110th Cong. 87-88 (Feb. 7, 2008). You purported to base your view on a "long line of authority," but cited no court decision that supports this proposition.

There is no authority by which persons may wholly ignore a subpoena and fail to appear as directed because a President unilaterally instructs them to do so. Even if a subpoenaed witness intends to assert a privilege in response to questions, the witness is not at liberty to disregard the subpoena and fail to appear at the required time and place. Surely, your Department would not tolerate that type of action if the witness were subpoenaed to a federal grand jury. Short of a formal assertion of executive privilege, which cannot be made in this case, there is no authority that permits a President to advise anyone to ignore a duly issued congressional subpoena for documents.

Your press spokesman has stated that you will "act promptly" to review this matter and reach a final decision. We will appreciate your acting with appropriate dispatch on this important matter. I strongly urge you to reconsider your position and to ensure that our nation is operating under the rule of law and not at presidential whim. If, however, you intend to persist in preventing Mr. Taylor from carrying out his statutory obligation to present this matter to the grand jury in the District of Columbia, we respectfully request that you inform us of that decision within one week from today, so that the House may proceed with a civil enforcement suit in federal district court.

Thank your for your prompt consideration and attention to this matter.

best regards,

NANCY PELOSI
Speaker of the House

Next up: US Attorney Jeffrey Taylor ignores the vote of the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Judiciary Committee files a civil suit seeking enforcement of their subpoenas.

One week. Start the clock.

< checks watch, sets alarm >

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Rep. Rick Renzi (R-AZ): another one bites the dust

let's take these corrupt bastards DOWN... repub or dem, let's move back to the rule of law...

Republican Rep. Rick Renzi has been indicted for extortion, wire fraud, money laundering and other charges related to a land deal in Arizona.

A 26-page federal indictment unsealed in Arizona accuses Renzi and two former business partners of conspiring to promote the sale of land that buyers could swap for property owned by the federal government. The sale netted one of Renzi's former partners $4.5 million.

in most countries i visit or spend time in, the good citizens KNOW their government is corrupt... in the u.s. we tend to live in this delusion that our public officials actually have our best interests at heart... sure, there's the occasional congressman and senator, but those are just one-off, dontcha know... it's about time that people figured out that the whole goddam thing is rotten to the core, full of crooks, liars, and generally slimy folks...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

CONTEMPT...! "Beyond arrogance ... hubris taken to the ultimate degree"

what took 'em so goddam long to get here...?

pelosi...



conyers...



this should have happened MONTHS AGO...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Hey, Nancy, you worthless bitch... Shirley's putting HERSELF on the table...!

shirley golub is challenging nancy pelosi in her home district and has a few things to say about impeachment...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Harry Reid, my senator and "one of the biggest pussies in U.S. political history"

not cuz i haven't been bombarding his email inbox, i can assure you...

Quietly, while Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have been inspiring Democrats everywhere with their rolling bitchfest, congressional superduo Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have completed one of the most awesome political collapses since Neville Chamberlain. At long last, the Democratic leaders of Congress have publicly surrendered on the Iraq War, just one year after being swept into power with a firm mandate to end it.

Solidifying his reputation as one of the biggest pussies in U.S. political history, Reid explained his decision to refocus his party's energies on topics other than ending the war by saying he just couldn't fit Iraq into his busy schedule. "We have the presidential election," Reid said recently. "Our time is really squeezed."

There was much public shedding of tears among the Democratic leadership, as Reid, Pelosi and other congressional heavyweights expressed deep sadness that their valiant charge up the hill of change had been thwarted by circumstances beyond their control — that, as much as they would love to continue trying to end the catastrophic Iraq deal, they would now have to wait until, oh, 2009 to try again. "We'll have a new president," said Pelosi. "And I do think at that time we'll take a fresh look at it."

they are pretty pathetic, i must admit...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments