Robert Scheer: Our elections are a hoax

so very, very sad...

robert scheer writing in truthdig...

Our own elections, the ones our government has modeled for the world, are a hoax. What other word should we use to describe this year’s presidential election, whose outcome will turn on which party’s super PACs gets the most generous bribes from billionaires? The Republicans, enabled by decisions of a Supreme Court they still control, were the first out of the gate and are far more culpable in destroying our system of popular governance. But the Democrats, no less committed to winning at any cost to political principle, have now jumped in.

The generally reserved New York Times editorial page responded to the Obama campaign’s decision to seek super PAC funding with a scathing editorial headlined “Another Campaign for Sale.” The Times reminded that Barack Obama, in his State of the Union speech two years ago, called out the Supreme Court justices sitting before him over their decision to free special interests from campaign spending limits. “I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests,” Obama said then. “They should be decided by the American people.” But sadly, as the Times editorial noted this week, “On Monday, the President abandoned that fundamental principle and gave in to the culture of the Citizens United decision that he once denounced as a ‘threat to our democracy.’ ”

[...]

Once again he has failed to take that case for economic justice to the American people and instead validated the Republican assault on what remains of our democracy.

and, with breakneck speed, we are headed to yet another presidential election where the choices are not really choices at all... i'm both angry and embarrassed that i actually thought 2008 presented a choice... silly me...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Utter, craven, liberal, progressive, Democratic hypocrisy

i confess to simply not understanding how those who profess to hold the deepest and most fundamental values and principles http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifcan suddenly turn their back on them out of political expediency...

glenn...

I’ve often made the case that one of the most consequential aspects of the Obama legacy is that he has transformed what was once known as “right-wing shredding of the Constitution” into bipartisan consensus, and this is exactly what I mean. When one of the two major parties supports a certain policy and the other party pretends to oppose it — as happened with these radical War on Terror policies during the Bush years — then public opinion is divisive on the question, sharply split. But once the policy becomes the hallmark of both political parties, then public opinion becomes robust in support of it. That’s because people assume that if both political parties support a certain policy that it must be wise, and because policies that enjoy the status of bipartisan consensus are removed from the realm of mainstream challenge. That’s what Barack Obama has done to these Bush/Cheney policies (**see below): he has, as Jack Goldsmith predicted he would back in 2009, shielded and entrenched them as standard U.S. policy for at least a generation, and (by leading his supporters to embrace these policies as their own) has done so with far more success than any GOP President ever could have dreamed of achieving.

like i say, i just don't get it... as hard as it is to admit, i'm more outraged now than i was under the bush administration and i have trouble finding that even possible...

**[T]he notion that the President could do whatever he wants, in secret and with no checks, to anyone he accuses without trial of being a Terrorist – even including eavesdropping on their communications or detaining them without due process. But President Obama has not only done the same thing, but has gone much farther than mere eavesdropping or detention: he has asserted the power even to kill citizens without due process. As Bush’s own CIA and NSA chief Michael Hayden said this week about the Awlaki assassination: “We needed a court order to eavesdrop on him but we didn’t need a court order to kill him. Isn’t that something?” That is indeed “something,” as is the fact that Bush’s mere due-process-free eavesdropping on and detention of American citizens caused such liberal outrage, while Obama’s due-process-free execution of them has not.Beyond that, Obama has used drones to kill Muslim children and innocent adults by the hundreds. He has refused to disclose his legal arguments for why he can do this or to justify the attacks in any way. He has even had rescuers and funeral mourners deliberately targeted. As Hayden said: ”Right now, there isn’t a government on the planet that agrees with our legal rationale for these operations, except for Afghanistan and maybe Israel.” But that is all perfectly fine with most American liberals now that their Party’s Leader is doing it...

three cheers for a democratic president... < /snark >

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Obama's veto threat of the NDAA proves to be as bogus as he is

sorry for the rancor, but i'm fucking fed the fuck up... the fact that this truly abominable piece of constitutional-destroying legislation could possibly become law is the final straw for me... now, i'm REALLY PISSED...

The White House on Wednesday said it would not veto the controversial National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).

President Barack Obama’s spokesman Jay Carney said lawmakers who crafted a compromise version from rival Senate and House versions of the legislation had addressed his worries about proposed tough rules on detainees.

fucking goddam son of a bitch... our president should be impeached for shredding the united states constitution... son of a BITCH...! if our president is looking to radicalize people, he just succeeded with me...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 2 comments

Obama, the civil liberties disaster, and the Democratic Stockholm syndrome

jonathan turley...

One man is primarily responsible for the disappearance of civil liberties from the national debate, and he is Barack Obama. While many are reluctant to admit it, Obama has proved a disaster not just for specific civil liberties but the civil liberties cause in the United States.

[...]

But perhaps the biggest blow to civil liberties is what he has done to the movement itself. It has quieted to a whisper, muted by the power of Obama's personality and his symbolic importance as the first black president as well as the liberal who replaced Bush. Indeed, only a few days after he took office, the Nobel committee awarded him the Nobel Peace Prize without his having a single accomplishment to his credit beyond being elected. Many Democrats were, and remain, enraptured.

It's almost a classic case of the Stockholm syndrome, in which a hostage bonds with his captor despite the obvious threat to his existence. Even though many Democrats admit in private that they are shocked by Obama's position on civil liberties, they are incapable of opposing him. Some insist that they are simply motivated by realism: A Republican would be worse. However, realism alone cannot explain the utter absence of a push for an alternative Democratic candidate or organized opposition to Obama's policies on civil liberties in Congress during his term. It looks more like a cult of personality. Obama's policies have become secondary to his persona.

Ironically, had Obama been defeated in 2008, it is likely that an alliance for civil liberties might have coalesced and effectively fought the government's burgeoning police powers. A Gallup poll released this week shows 49% of Americans, a record since the poll began asking this question in 2003, believe that "the federal government poses an immediate threat to individuals' rights and freedoms." Yet the Obama administration long ago made a cynical calculation that it already had such voters in the bag and tacked to the right on this issue to show Obama was not "soft" on terror. He assumed that, yet again, civil libertarians might grumble and gripe but, come election day, they would not dare stay home.

This calculation may be wrong.

[...]

In time, the election of Barack Obama may stand as one of the single most devastating events in our history for civil liberties. Now the president has begun campaigning for a second term. He will again be selling himself more than his policies, but he is likely to find many civil libertarians who simply are not buying.

i'm not buying...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Shirley Golub's ad spawns more rubber chickens to wave in Nancy Pelosi's face

from the pen...

What Shirley Golub started in San Francisco with her primary challenge to Nancy Pelosi, calling her out as a political coward, is spreading all over the country. When Shirley put out her "Rubber Chicken" TV spot it got major TV coverage in San Francisco the same night, and there are now news wire stories all over the country about it.

Now in Oregon, Joe Walsh in the 3rd congressional district and Nancy Moran in the 5th have put out their own interpretation of the rubber chicken attack. It's as much a scream as the original.

we can never have enough rubber chickens to remind us of the arch-villainess, nancy pelosi...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

NO-O-O-O-O-O-OOOOOOO...!

did ANYONE ANYWHERE entertain anything but the most psychotic delusion that this wouldn't happen...?

Lawmakers may consider a compromise bill that would renew the law, which expired last month, and possibly grant some sort of protection to phone companies from lawsuits. But it would differ from a Senate-passed measure backed by the White House that would provide blanket immunity.

"We think we're very close. Probably within the next week, we'll be able to hopefully bring it to a vote," House Intelligence Committee Chairman Silvestre Reyes of Texas said of efforts to craft and pass such legislation.

[...]

Reyes said House Democrats were now reviewing confidential U.S. documents they received in recent weeks about the warrantless electronic surveillance program and were talking with phone companies.

Consequently, Reyes said he now had an "open mind" on whether to shield companies from lawsuits.

keee-f'ing-rist... is there even one of the s.o.b.'s that takes their goddam oath of office seriously...? the country they're screwing with belongs to ME TOO...!

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

R.I.P., 4th Amendment

Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. [emphasis added]

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

When I read stuff like this from a so-called "liberal-progressive," I want to cry

what is it going to take from some people to get it...?

clammyc at daily kos, writing an open letter to senator chuck schumer...

Allowing for retroactive immunity in a FISA bill that had no business even being brought to the floor is not progressive. Folding to Mister Bush on Iraq over and over and over when the vast majority of the country is on your side is not progressive. Sending a big "F-You" to MoveOn.org on the Senate floor is not progressive. Allowing extremist appointment after extremist appointment by Bush is not progressive. Caving to an unpopular President and an even less popular Congressional minority is not progressive. Allowing non-progressives to continuously set the tone of the debate is not progressive.

[...]

I sincerely hope that we can recruit more progressives for the Senate, and win more seats. However, we also expect more from the lion’s share of the current Democratic Senators – on the very issues that we were promised results on. Blaming republican obstruction is part of it - but we know better. There is much more that you and your colleagues could have (and still can) accomplish if you were to keep your promises made to us back in 2006.

You can do better. We did our part for you. Now it is time that you and your colleagues really do what you promised us. If I can't trust the DSCC and who it represents to keep up your end of the deal, then you'll have to excuse me while I work for and donate money to true progressives.

No hard feelings, though...

i completely understand the value of courtesy, especially when couched in articulate and intelligent writing, but, clammyc, in all seriousness, the time for that is long past... what we are witnessing here is criminal complicity, nothing more and nothing less, and i'm thinking of the fisa votes of the "better" democrats tester and webb as i type this... what we have here is a system so rotten to the core that even brand new "better" democrats are betraying us... scratch that... they are betraying their COUNTRY...

who are we to trust...? i was beginning to warm to obama, to "catch the wave," so to speak, but, ya know what, i simply can't get past zbigniew brzezinski as one of his chief policy advisors any more than i can get past mark penn as hillary's campaign chief...

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

What could the plan be?

paul craig roberts via ich...

What could the plan be?

They can steal the election with the Diebold electronic voting machines and proprietary software that no one is allowed to check. There are now enough elections on record with significant divergences between exit polls and vote tallies that a stolen election can be explained away. The Democrats have been house trained to acquiesce to stolen elections. The voters, whose votes are stolen, dismiss the evidence as “conspiracy theories.”

Or what about a well-timed orchestrated “terrorist attack” to drive fearful Americans to the war candidate. False flag events are stock-in-trade. Hitler used the Reichstag fire to turn German democracy into a dictatorship overnight.

heightened vigilance is required... remember, we are the ones we have been waiting for...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Bruce Fein: "Congress has taken the Constitution backward more than three centuries"

another traitorous congressional sellout to a criminal president...

Jan. 28, 2008, is a date that will live in congressional infamy. Congress surrendered the power of the purse over national security affairs to the White House.

President Bush appended a signing statement to the National Defense Authorization Act of 2008 denying the power of Congress to withhold funds for establishing permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq, or to control its oil resources. The statement tacitly averred that Congress was required to appropriate money to support every presidential national security gambit, for example, launching pre-emptive wars anywhere on the planet or breaking and entering homes to gather foreign intelligence.

[...]

Yet Congress acquiesced. It did not pass a resolution disputing Mr. Bush. It did not threaten impeachment. It meekly surrendered its national security relevance. Under the precedent it left undisturbed, the president could flout congressional prohibitions on spending funds to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities, to invade North Korea, to conduct military offensives in Iraq, to install an anti-missile system in Poland and the Czech Republic, or to assist Taiwan against a Chinese attack.

i simply do not understand how or why our elected members of congress can stand aside and allow this criminal president to systematically and thoroughly shred the constitution of the united states...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Dems throw accountability out the window and continue to sell us down the river - for BIPARTISANSHIP...???

valentine's day is fast approaching too, and we certainly wouldn't want to defile the loving spirit of THAT great day...

from raw story...

Last week it was "pretty certain" that House Democrats would quickly move forward with contempt citations against two Bush administration figures who were stonewalling Congress. Then the economy started circling the drain.

The planned citations now appear to be on hold as Congress and the White House work on a bipartisan economic stimulus package, the central tenet of which involves cutting virtually everyone an $800 check.

Democratic leaders and aides tell The Politico that pursuing the contempt citations in conjunction with the stimulus package would "step on their message" of bipartisanship.

gag me with a spoon... why don't the dems just come right out and say, "hey, we're criminals, just like the r's... cry me a river, build me a bridge, and GET OVER IT...!"

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

"EVERYTHING depends on our standing up."

opol's back and he's cranked...

My generation thought Vietnam was an aberration, but it wasn’t, it was the game plan. Lie your way into a nasty little war and let other people’s children do the killing and dying while the fat cats at the top of the capitalist pile rake in the dough. It’s all for the benefit of those so bloated with greed that they just don’t care that their profits come soaked in the blood of innocents and patriots.

[...]

Nearly 4,000 American service men and women have died for no good reason in Iraq since our wrongheaded and distinctly criminal invasion in 2003 (not to mention a million Iraqis). How hard must it be to face the fact that your loved one didn’t die to protect the world from anything, that they died for no noble purpose, not to preserve freedom or democracy, not for any righteous cause – but for nothing - nothing worth dying for at any rate? How hard must that be?

They died for the sole purpose of making already wealthy men even wealthier. It is evil. It is pure evil.

[...]

Would having a Democrat in office make it better? Not necessarily. I find it painful to point out that the Democrats have surrendered the moral high ground without a fight. Theories as to why abound, but it is clear that they have done just that. We should not be fooled. Our government is against us, and it is no longer fair to make distinctions between Republicans and Democrats except in rare individual cases. The vast majority of all our politicians of both parties are corrupt or otherwise compromised and are now in thrall to the corporatist military-industrial-congressional-media complex. They are no longer on our side - if they ever were.

What we are headed for is a brutal fascistic rule of the super rich enforced on the impoverished masses by heavily armed thugs operating under color of law - though there are those here who will tell you that it can’t happen here. If we believe that, it will be our epitaph.

[...]

The Democrats are not going to be our salvation. I wish that weren’t true - but it is. It is strictly up to us. Put your faith in the American people – they, we, are our last and only hope. We must stand up to the monsters who have done this to our country, and we must take it back from them. We are the only true owners of this nation. It’s time to act up America.

Soldiers are taught that when caught in a deadly ambush with nowhere to run or hide, you must charge the ambush. It is a case of the best defense being a good offense. We need to rise up, not stand down. We need to resist the fascism. We need to charge the ambush.

Our choices have come down to two: we can knuckle under, or we can stand up. And EVERYTHING depends on our standing up.

like i said the other day, there is only one answer to our desperate national crisis, and it will only be found by looking in the mirror...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

A highly articulate, front-page Daily Kos post describes the problem and misses the entire point

another tragically myopic daily kos front page post, this one by hunter...

the problem, as he sees it...

In battle after battle the House and Senate Dems have made it crystal clear that they do not give a flying shit about their base. They wish we'd just curl up and die. They're happy to have the free help spreading their points, but that help does not reciprocate in any way. There's not a damn thing they'll do on our behalf, or on behalf of the voters who made their regained power possible -- not one thing. They'll even sell out Move On by name -- and all in fear of this mythical overwhelming conservative tide of voters who will wag their fingers sternly and supposedly dangerously at the slightest provocation. They spend a hell of a lot more time worrying about what the racists think about brown people, and the religious extremists think about non-extremists, and the corporate lobbyists think about corporate needs, than they've ever once worried about any of us. Their strategy is all about placating, of all fucking things, the Republican base. That's who they're absolutely obsessed with: making sure the Republicans aren't mad at them, that thirty percent of voters who would rather join militias and drift off into the countryside than vote against hardcore Republicanism anyway.

They really have learned nothing, in their decade-plus of being out of power. Not a damn thing. They're still obsessed with strategic, plodding, inoffensive timidity as the answer to all possible situations and questions. We can only be glad that the civil rights battles are largely over for black Americans, because these people would sell out absolutely anyone and anything in order to continue their consultant-honed strategy of taking absolutely no stand on anything the slightest bit difficult.

It seems hard to come to any other conclusion but that a large part of the party, people like Rahm Emanuel and Steny Hoyer foremost in that group, wants to cripple and kill us every bit as much as the Republicans do, all for the lazy-assed sake of avoiding hard fights on hard issues and being able to go back to the milquetoast, visionless blandfest that the party is at this point rightfully famous for. And the majority of the rest are more interested in their goddamn strategists than their goddamn consciences.

and that terribly mistaken point...?

It is crystal clear that the Congressional Democrats are divided and incapable at best, and incompetent at worst. We have been through month after month of similar "showdowns", followed by similar collapses. This time, it at least has a financial price attached: if the Democrats are willing to sell out on the one overriding issue that brought them back into power, in the 2006 elections, at least we know they are able to use it as bargaining chip for other issues. Somehow, that is the exact opposite of comforting.

How do we work for them, in the next election, knowing that on the central issue the last election, they are unapologetically uninterested? Nationwide, Democrats were thrust into power in an overwhelming tide due to voter anger over the course of the war, and over the governance of the nation in general. What is there, in 2008, to vote for? What possible credibility do Democrats have over Republicans in ending the war, after time after time after time of abandoning all responsibility for it?

ok, fine... i'll keep banging my lonely drum... i'll continue to play the voice crying in the desert... hey...! what's yet another exercise in futility...? here goes...

the dems are NOT INCOMPETENT... they're NOT ACTING OUT OF FEAR... they're NOT "LAZY-ASSED" ABOUT "AVOIDING HARD FIGHTS"... and they're certainly NOT "OBSESSED WITH STRATEGIC, PLODDING, INOFFENSIVE TIMIDITY"...

one more time...

THE DEMOCRATS ARE COLLABORATIONISTS, CO-CONSPIRATORS, and TRAITORS.*

the sooner the united states fully wakes up to this tragic fact, the sooner we can get on with hosing the accumulated sewage and encrusted excrement off of the principles that were designed to make the united states a bright beacon of truth and hope to all of humanity...

* qualifier: not ALL democrats, to be sure, but a sickeningly large majority, and, to be fair, not ALL republicans, to be sure, but an even more sickening and even larger majority...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Defending Democratic complicity

i was deeply angry yesterday to learn of the dems' five-year conspiracy of silence in covering up the bush administration's endemic violations of our constitution and the rule of law...

today, i read this from glenn...

If someone wants to defend these Democrats' complicit behavior (on the craven ground that what they did was understandable because it was politically wise), then they should make that argument. But nobody should pretend that these Senators and Representatives were "helpless" and had no options for putting a stop to Bush's torture programs and other lawbreaking if they were actually interested in doing so.

that was shortly after i read this by john aravosis...

It's also clear that had Pelosi raised any private objections during the meeting - remember, it took place in the first year after September 11 - Bush and the Republicans would have leaked that fact to the public (like they just did) and destroyed her career and marked her publicly as a traitor. No member of Congress, no American, could have spoken up about anything in the months after September 11 and survived. It's patently unfair to suggest that somehow because Pelosi didn't object then that she doesn't have the right to object now.

sigh... i am terribly disappointed to read john's perspective... hell yes, pelosi has the right to object now, but she didn't when she should have and that fact cannot be excused... would it have destroyed her career...? very possibly... would it have marked her publicly as a traitor...? quite likely... but sorry, john, i don't give a rat's ass... she took an oath to protect and defend the constitution, she chose not to do that, and THAT is the REAL treason she is guilty of...

on another note... while i completely understand that, in the bigger picture of things, what i think about anything matters little, i must say that i am liking what i am seeing of john aravosis' perspectives less and less every day... in many, many ways, i admire and respect john, but his determined blindness in the face of our nation's constitutional crisis is disappointing, disturbing, and puzzling in equal measure... while it's certainly his prerogative to form and express his own opinions, this defense of nancy pelosi is another nail in his coffin, as far as i'm concerned... ah, well...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Jane Harman is totally and completely full of shit

she finds out all about it in 2003, sucks up to bush, doesn't tell anybody shit about shit, and then comes out NOW and tries to tell us that she's one of the good guys... gimme a friggin' BREAK...!

Rep. Jane Harman said in an interview with MSNBC on Friday that she told the CIA not to destroy videotapes of the interrogation of Al Qaeda terrorist suspects.

"My view then and my view now is it was a bad idea to consider destroying any tapes, and it was a very bad idea to do it," said California Democrat Harman, who is the chair of the House Homeland Security Committee on Intelligence and Terrorism Risk Assessment. Harman said she wrote a "classified" letter to the CIA telling them of her opinion when she learned of the existence of these videotapes in 2003.

go directly to hell, jane harman...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Greenwald on Mukasey's confirmation: Why no filibuster?

damn good question, unless of course the answer is the usual one - another sellout...

Every time Congressional Democrats failed this year to stop the Bush administration (i.e., every time they "tried"), the excuse they gave was that they "need 60 votes in the Senate" in order to get anything done. Each time Senate Republicans blocked Democratic legislation, the media helpfully explained not that Republicans were obstructing via filibuster, but rather that, in the Senate, there is a general "60-vote requirement" for everything.

How, then, can this be explained?

The Senate confirmed Michael B. Mukasey as attorney general Thursday night, approving him despite Democratic criticism that he had failed to take an unequivocal stance against the torture of terrorism detainees.

The 53-to-40 vote made Mr. Mukasey, a former federal judge, the third person to head the Justice Department during the tenure of President Bush . . . Thirty-nine Democrats and one independent [Bernie Sanders] opposed him.

Beyond that, four Senate Democrats running for President missed the vote, and all four had announced they oppose Mukasey's confirmation. Thus, at least 44 Senators claimed to oppose Mukasey's confirmation -- more than enough to prevent it via filibuster. So why didn't they filibuster, the way Senate Republicans have on virtually every measure this year which they wanted to defeat?

we are so far off the track in this country... i just don't know what else to say...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

WANTED: for criminal complicity, ignoring the U.S. Constitution, and violating oath of office

Democratic leaders in Congress are quietly preparing to give President Bush essentially everything he wants to keep the Iraq war going for at least another six months without forcing any change in course.

please make the bad people stop hurting me...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Criminal Democrats who no longer care if we know

lead item in the daily wapo email, page one in the print edition...

the headline says it all...

TODAY'S HIGHLIGHTS
Democratic Defections Clear Path For Mukasey
The nomination fight over attorney general nominee Michael B. Mukasey effectively came to an end yesterday, as two key Senate Democrats parted from their colleagues and announced their support for the former judge despite his controversial statements on torture.
(By Dan Eggen and Paul Kane, The Washington Post)

i only have one quibble... the defections are not of recent vintage... they sold out a long time ago, and we are only now seeing it in the full light of day... they have essentially declared what we have suspected all along, that they are supporters of a criminal regime, fully cognizant of their actions, and they no longer care who knows it...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments