GM Hires FNC's Sean Hannity For Its Latest Car Giveaway

from ThinkProgress.org

Oh, The Hannity! GM Hires FNC's Sean Hannity For Its Latest Car Giveaway

Think Progress | Fox News | Posted Friday September 29, 2006 at 04:01 PM

General Motors has signed on Fox News host Sean Hannity as the new face of GM's latest car giveaway campaign, called "The Sean Hannity 'You're a Great American' Car Giveaway." It feels somehow wrong that there's not an exclamation point in there. At any rate, Hannity will offer radio listeners "the chance to pick and win one of five GM vehicles," according to ThinkProgress, which notes that the Hannity-hire comes in conjunction with GM's new patriotic-themed ad campaign for the new Chevrolet Silverado, complete with an anthem by John Mellencamp called "Our Country," echoed by the slogan: "Our country. Our truck." Per ThinkProgress: "The first spot features images from American history and recent events, including Rosa Parks and hurricane-damaged homes." Interesting way to sell cars, that.

Meanwhile, Hannity's contract with ClearChannel radio was just extended to 2010, so GM may be making a long-term investment here. ThinkProgress points out some rather, er, blue-state unfriendly positions, which begs the question of whether GM is writing off liberal buyers of cars (one commenter says "Oh brother who would want to buy a GM car now with Hannity pushing it?"), and also notes notes that Hannity was the "least accepting of dissenting views out of six talk show hosts" (beating out Laura Ingraham and Rush Limbaugh). Apparently he also isn't a fan of the liberal media. ETP doesn't drive in any case, but we do lament the passing of the the classic Bob Seger "Like A Rock" campaign. Those trucks just seemed so dependable.

Credit to Huffington Post.

Woodward: Card Urged Bush to Toss Rumsfeld

More from Woodward’s book: President Bush’s then-chief of staff and Bush’s wife, Laura, pleaded with the president to fire Rumsfeld during 2004 and 2005. But Cheney and Rove convinced Bush that doing so would send the wrong message.

Also, there’s more evidence that Bush’s knowledge about the horrible state of affairs in Iraq was at incredible odds with his public statements.

Gen. John Abizaid, head of the Central Command, basically agreed with Rep. John Murtha about the hopeless situation in Iraq.

Washington Post:

Former White House chief of staff Andrew Card on two occasions tried and failed to persuade President Bush to fire Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, according to a new book by Bob Woodward that depicts senior officials of the Bush administration as unable to face the consequences of their policy in Iraq.

Card made his first attempt after Bush was reelected in November, 2004, arguing that the administration needed a fresh start and recommending that Bush replace Rumsfeld with former secretary of state James A. Baker III. Woodward writes that Bush considered the move, but was persuaded by Vice President Cheney and Karl Rove, his chief political adviser, that it would be seen as an expression of doubt about the course of the war and would expose Bush himself to criticism.

Card tried again around Thanksgiving, 2005, this time with the support of First Lady Laura Bush, who according to Woodward, felt that Rumsfeld’s overbearing manner was damaging to her husband. Bush refused for a second time, and Card left the administration last March, convinced that Iraq would be compared to Vietnam and that history would record that no senior administration officials had raised their voices in opposition to the conduct of the war.

Link

Stewart Goes After Bush’s Naivete

The Daily Show host has the perfect rejoinder to Bush’s assertion, regarding the national intelligence estimate, that war critics are “naive.”

Watch it.

Stewart Rips Bush’s Torture Plan

Stewart Rips Bush’s Torture Plan

When Bush asserts that the Geneva Convention is vague, because it prohibits “outrages upon human dignity,” the host of “The Daily Show” tees off.

Link to video.

‘Daily Show’: Senator Al Franken?

Al Franken dropped in on Wednesday’s “Daily Show,” where Jon Stewart asked the comedian and radio host whether he would indeed run against Sen. Norm Coleman in the 2008 election. Although Franken said he was still making up his mind, he added: “I’ve moved to Minnesota, I’ve been there since January 1st. You don’t move to Minnesota January 1st unless you’re serious.”

Later, regarding Sen. George Allen’s “macaca” fiasco, Franken offered this sage comment: “You don’t want to go into the last month of a campaign where the only issue is not ‘are you a racist?’ but ‘how big a racist are you?’



This man does need to run for office. Link to video.

Franken Has Fun With Tony Blankley of the Washington Times

Franken Has Fun With Tony Blankley

By: Jamie Holly on Wednesday, September 27th, 2006 at 9:56 AM - PDT

Tony was just asking for it. He makes this ridiculous argument to try and downplay the significance of the NIE and Matthews nails him on it before Franken even gets a shot. Tony says we shouldn’t expect to see results because we’re not "at the end of the war" and argues it’s only natural to see more enemies now. Franken reminds him that we were repeatedly told before the start of the war that this would be a quick in and out, greeted as liberators, etc.

Video - WMV Video - QT

I believe Franken is on the Daily Show tonight as well

Musharraf on Daily Show (Video)

Pakistan’s President Pervez Musharraf stopped by “the Daily Show” on Tuesday for some tea and a candid discussion of the war on terror, including the Bush administration’s strong-arm diplomacy and his contemplation of war with America.

When Jon Stewart asked Musharraf who would likelier win a Pakistani election, George Bush or Osama Bin Laden, the general shot back: “They’ll both lose miserably.”

Part 1


Part 2

Bush Dismisses Iraq Bloodshed as a ‘Comma’

Found this over at Truthdig. Check out the link to Cafferty's response as well.

Bush Dismisses Iraq Bloodshed as a ‘Comma’

Posted on Sep 26, 2006

From CNN

The president said this about possible civil war in Iraq: “I like to tell people when the final history is written on Iraq, it will look like just a comma because there is—my point is, there’s a strong will for democracy.”

Every time Bush comes out with a head-scratcher like this, we’re reminded of the lyrics from The Police’s classic song “De do do do, de da da da.” (jump for explanation)

And when their eloquence escapes me
Their logic ties me up and rapes me

De do do do, de da da da
Is all I want to say to you

UPDATE: Jack Cafferty responds to Bush’s “comma” comment

Crooks and Liars:

BLITZER: Lets move on and talk a little bit about Iraq. Because this is a huge, huge issue, as you know, for the American public, a lot of concern that perhaps they are on the verge of a civil war--if not already a civil war. We see these horrible bodies showing up, tortured, mutilation. The Shia and the Sunni, the Iranians apparently having a negative role. Of course, al Qaeda in Iraq is still operating.

BUSH: Yes, you see you see it on TV, and that’s the power of an enemy that is willing to kill innocent people. But there’s also an unbelievable will and resiliency by the Iraqi people. Admittedly, it seems like a decade ago. I like to tell people when the final history is written on Iraq, it will look like just a comma because there is ח my point is, there’s a strong will for democracy.

Link

MSNBC Runs Entire Segment On Clinton’s Socks: ‘The Former President Was Showing Off A Little Leg’

MSNBC Runs Entire Segment On Clinton’s Socks: ‘The Former President Was Showing Off A Little Leg’

Today MSNBC decided to forego substantive discussion of terrorism and instead focused on the fact that former President Bill Clinton’s sock had slipped and part of his “white” leg was showing during his interview with Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace. The MSNBC host asked her guests, “Is this a travesty or what?

Full transcript below:

HOST: Well, people haven’t just been talking about Bill Clinton’s red face in that Fox News interview and all the anger and the finger pointing, but some have been focusing on Clinton’s white legs. The former president showing off a little leg during the sitdown with Chris Wallace. We’re going to show you that, and that’s left some — see, there it is, a little glimpse of leg. Well, how does this happen? … I mean — is this a travesty or what?

[SNIP]

RON CHRISTIE: Yes, I do have longer socks on. And the fact of the matter is —

HOST: How high do they come? To your calf or knee?

CHRISTIE: They’re almost up to the knee. You don’t have to worry about any leg showing here.

HOST: Very good. Because I prefer modesty in all of my interviewees.

CHRISTIE: Exactly.

HOST: Julian Epstein, Ron Christie, that was fun.

CHRISTIE: Thanks.

HOST: If I had been doing that interview, I’ve got to say, I would just say, “Oh, Mr. president, your leg is showing,” or it’s sort of like telling someone they have spinach in their teeth. Come on, it’s not cool to let someone go around with spinach in their teeth, same thing with leg.

Find the video at Think Progress

Daily Show Rips Cable News for Clinton Coverage

Daily Show Rips Cable News for Clinton Coverage

By: John Amato on Tuesday, September 26th, 2006 at 7:45 AM - PDT

Jon Stewart and Samantha Bee weigh in on the FOX-Clinton interview. Jon makes an astute point which the responsible, serious mainstream media seems to miss; Clinton’s record on bin Laden is strong. Much stronger than Bush who is STILL not doing anything about him.

Video-WMP Video-QT

The CIA shut down their bin Laden unit in July and a recent article says the trail has gone "stone cold." Then, we have this report that says Pakistan signed a deal with the forces who control the area where bin Laden is believed to be hiding (or dying depending on how gullible you are) Yea…REAL serious about terrorism.

Credit to Crooks and Liars for the video.

Pakistan Prez appears on 'Daily Show'

By JAKE COYLE, AP Entertainment Writer 34 minutes ago

Jon Stewart welcomed Pakistan's president to "The Daily Show" on Tuesday with tea and a Twinkie. President Gen. Pervez Musharraf's tete-a-tete with Stewart on the Comedy Central program was even more unlikely than the much-anticipated meeting between Musharraf, Afghan President Hamid Karzai and President Bush, planned for Wednesday.

As a gesture mirroring Pakistani hospitality, Stewart welcomed Musharraf with a cup of jasmine green tea, and offered the more American delicacy of a Twinkie. Musharraf chuckled and thanked the host, though Stewart promptly changed the subject.

"Where's Osama bin Laden?" he asked suddenly.

"I don't know," replied Musharraf. "You know where he is? You lead on, we'll follow you."

Musharraf's appearance on "The Daily Show," which was taped late Tuesday and was to air Tuesday evening, was the first time a sitting head of state appeared on the program, a show spokesman said. The comedy show, though, has frequently drawn major political figures, including former President Clinton last week.

The Pakistan president, who is on tour of the U.S., appeared on the program to promote his new memoir, "In the Line of Fire." The book has drawn headlines for, among other things, the Pakistan president's claim that after the Sept. 11 attacks he had no choice but to support the U.S. led war on terror groups or face an American "onslaught."

On balancing the wishes of the U.S. and Pakistan, which is largely anti-American, Musharraf told Stewart: "I've had to learn the art of tightrope-walking many times, and I think I've become quite an expert of that."

Stewart, himself, has also proven deft at balancing both humor and seriousness on "The Daily Show." At one point, he asked Musharraf if he had omitted any mention of the war in Iraq in his memoir because it has "gone so well."

Musharraf again laughed, but said: "It has led certainly to more extremism and terrorism around the world."

To conclude the interview, Stewart put Musharraf on the "Seat of Heat," a new feature for the program in which red lights flash around the studio and the guest is asked a final question.

"George W. Bush and Osama bin Laden — be truthful — who would win a popular vote in Pakistan?" asked Stewart.

"I think they'll both lose miserably," replied Musharraf, an answer met with raucous laughter by the "Daily Show" audience.

___

On the Net:

http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/the_daily_show/index.jhtml

Olbermann’s Special Comment: Are YOURS the actions of a true American?

By: Nicole Belle on Monday, September 25th, 2006 at 6:30 PM - PDT

Keith pulled no punches and launched another smack down on Bush and FOX News…

Video - WMV Video - QT

And finally tonight, a Special Comment about President Clinton’s interview. The headlines about them are, of course, entirely wrong. It is not essential that a past President, bullied and sandbagged by a monkey posing as a newscaster, finally lashed back.

It is not important that the current President’s "portable public chorus" has described his predecessor’s tone as "crazed."

Our tone should be crazed. The nation’s freedoms are under assault by an administration whose policies can do us as much damage as Al-Qaeda; the nation’s "marketplace of ideas" is being poisoned, by a propaganda company so blatant that Tokyo Rose would’ve quit. Nonetheless.

The headline is this: Bill Clinton did what almost none of us have done, in five years. He has spoken the truth about 9/11, and the current presidential administration.

"At least I tried," he said of his own efforts to capture or kill Osama Bin Laden. "That’s the difference in me and some, including all of the right-wingers who are attacking me now. They had eight months to try; they did not try. I tried."

Thus in his supposed emeritus years, has Mr. Clinton taken forceful and triumphant action for honesty, and for us; action as vital and as courageous as any of his presidency; action as startling and as liberating, as any, by anyone, in these last five long years.

The Bush Administration did not try to get Osama Bin Laden before 9/11.

The Bush Administration ignored all the evidence gathered by its predecessors.

The Bush Administration did not understand the Daily Briefing entitled "Bin Laden Determined To Strike in U.S."

The Bush Administration… did… not… try.—

Moreover, for the last five years one month and two weeks, the current administration, and in particular the President, has been given the greatest "pass" for incompetence and malfeasance, in American history!

President Roosevelt was rightly blamed for ignoring the warning signs — some of them, 17 years old — before Pearl Harbor.

President Hoover was correctly blamed for — if not the Great Depression itself — then the disastrous economic steps he took in the immediate aftermath of the Stock Market Crash.

Even President Lincoln assumed some measure of responsibility for the Civil War — though talk of Southern secession had begun as early as 1832.

But not this President.

To hear him bleat and whine and bully at nearly every opportunity, one would think someone else had been President on September 11th, 2001 — or the nearly eight months that preceded it.

That hardly reflects the honesty nor manliness we expect of the Executive.

But if his own fitness to serve is of no true concern to him, perhaps we should simply sigh and keep our fingers crossed, until a grown-up takes the job three Januarys from now.

Except… for this:

After five years of skirting even the most inarguable of facts — that he was President on 9/11 and he must bear some responsibility for his, and our, unreadiness, Mr. Bush has now moved, unmistakably and without conscience or shame, towards re-writing history, and attempting to make the responsibility, entirely Mr. Clinton’s.

Of course he is not honest enough to do that directly.

As with all the other nefariousness and slime of this, our worst presidency since James Buchanan, he is having it done for him, by proxy.

Thus, the sandbag effort by Fox News, Friday afternoon.

Consider the timing: The very same weekend the National Intelligence Estimate would be released and show the Iraq war to be the fraudulent failure it is — not a check on terror, but fertilizer for it!

The kind of proof of incompetence, for which the administration and its hyenas at Fox need to find a diversion, in a scapegoat.

It was the kind of cheap trick which would get a journalist fired — but a propagandist, promoted:

Promise to talk of charity and generosity; but instead launch into the lies and distortions with which the Authoritarians among us attack the virtuous and reward the useless.

And don’t even be professional enough to assume the responsibility for the slanders yourself; blame your audience for "e-mailing" you the question.

Mr. Clinton responded as you have seen.

He told the great truth un-told… about this administration’s negligence, perhaps criminal negligence, about Bin Laden.

He was brave.

Then again, Chris Wallace might be braver still. Had I — in one moment surrendered all my credibility as a journalist — and been irredeemably humiliated, as was he, I would have gone home and started a new career selling seeds by mail.

The smearing by proxy, of course, did not begin Friday afternoon.

Disney was first to sell-out its corporate reputation, with "The Path to 9/11."

Of that company’s crimes against truth one needs to say little. Simply put: someone there enabled an Authoritarian zealot to belch out Mr. Bush’s new and improved history.

The basic plot-line was this: because he was distracted by the Monica Lewinsky scandal, Bill Clinton failed to prevent 9/11.

The most curious and in some ways the most infuriating aspect of this slapdash theory, is that the Right Wingers who have advocated it — who try to sneak it into our collective consciousness through entertainment, or who sandbag Mr. Clinton with it at news interviews — have simply skipped past its most glaring flaw.

Had it been true that Clinton had been distracted from the hunt for Bin Laden in 1998 because of the Lewinsky nonsense — why did these same people not applaud him for having bombed Bin Laden’s camps in Afghanistan and Sudan on August 20th of that year? For mentioning Bin Laden by name as he did so?

That day, Republican Senator Grams of Minnesota invoked the movie "Wag The Dog."

Republican Senator Coats of Indiana questioned Mr. Clinton’s judgment.

Republican Senator Ashcroft of Missouri — the future Attorney General — echoed Coats.

Even Republican Senator Arlen Specter questioned the timing.

And of course, were it true Clinton had been "distracted" by the Lewinsky witch-hunt — who on earth conducted the Lewinsky witch-hunt? Who turned the political discourse of this nation on its head for two years?

Who corrupted the political media?

Who made it impossible for us to even bring back on the air, the counter-terrorism analysts like Dr. Richard Haass, and James Dunegan, who had warned, at this very hour, on this very network, in early 1998, of cells from the Middle East who sought to attack us, here?

Who preempted them… in order to strangle us with the trivia that was… "All Monica All The Time"?

Who… distracted whom?

This is, of course, where — as is inevitable — Mr. Bush and his henchmen prove not quite as smart as they think they are.

The full responsibility for 9/11 is obviously shared by three administrations, possibly four.

But, Mr. Bush, if you are now trying to convince us by proxy that it’s all about the distractions of 1998 and 1999, then you will have to face a startling fact that your minions may have hidden from you.

The distractions of 1998 and 1999, Mr. Bush, were carefully manufactured, and lovingly executed, not by Bill Clinton… but by the same people who got you… elected President.

Thus instead of some commendable acknowledgment that you were even in office on 9/11 and the lost months before it… we have your sleazy and sloppy rewriting of history, designed by somebody who evidently redd the Orwell playbook too quickly.

Thus instead of some explanation for the inertia of your first eight months in office, we are told that you have kept us "safe" ever since — a statement that might range anywhere from Zero, to One Hundred Percent, true.

We have nothing but your word, and your word has long since ceased to mean anything.

And, of course, the one time you have ever given us specifics about what you have kept us safe from, Mr. Bush — you got the name of the supposedly targeted Tower in Los Angeles… wrong.

Thus was it left for the previous President to say what so many of us have felt; what so many of us have given you a pass for in the months and even the years after the attack:

You did not try.

You ignored the evidence gathered by your predecessor.

You ignored the evidence gathered by your own people.

Then, you blamed your predecessor.

That would be the textbook definition… Sir, of cowardice.

To enforce the lies of the present, it is necessary to erase the truths of the past.

That was one of the great mechanical realities Eric Blair — writing as George Orwell — gave us in the novel "1984."

The great philosophical reality he gave us, Mr. Bush, may sound as familiar to you, as it has lately begun to sound familiar to me.

"The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power…

"Power is not a means; it is an end.

"One does not establish a dictatorship to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship.

"The object of persecution, is persecution. The object of torture, is torture. The object of power… is power."

Earlier last Friday afternoon, before the Fox ambush, speaking in the far different context of the closing session of his remarkable Global Initiative, Mr. Clinton quoted Abraham Lincoln’s State of the Union address from 1862.

"We must disenthrall ourselves."

Mr. Clinton did not quote the rest of Mr. Lincoln’s sentence. He might well have.

"We must disenthrall ourselves — and then… we shall save our country."

And so has Mr. Clinton helped us to disenthrall ourselves, and perhaps enabled us, even at this late and bleak date… to save… our… country.

—

The "free pass" has been withdrawn, Mr. Bush…

You did not act to prevent 9/11.

We do not know what you have done, to prevent another 9/11.

You have failed us — then leveraged that failure, to justify a purposeless war in Iraq which will have, all too soon, claimed more American lives than did 9/11.

You have failed us anew in Afghanistan.

And you have now tried to hide your failures, by blaming your predecessor.

And now you exploit your failure, to rationalize brazen torture — which doesn’t work anyway; which only condemns our soldiers to water-boarding; which only humiliates our country further in the world; and which no true American would ever condone, let alone advocate.And there it is, sir:

Are yours the actions of a true American?

I’m K.O., good night, and good luck.

Olbermann again...thanks to Crooks and Liars.

Clinton Creams Fox News

Clinton Creams Fox News

Posted on Sep 24, 2006

Think Progress

Fox News tried to swiftboat Clinton on his Bin Laden record a la “The Path to 9/11” on Sunday, and the former president responded with a brutal fact-soaked tongue-lashing. After defending his record, Clinton turned the tables and went after the network’s conservative agenda.

Watch it

Transcript

Partial Transcript (from Think Progress):

CHRIS WALLACE: Do you think you did enough, sir?

CLINTON: No, because I didn’t get him.

WALLACE: Right.

CLINTON: But at least I tried. That’s the difference in me and some, including all the right-wingers who are attacking me now. They ridiculed me for trying. They had eight months to try. They did not try. I tried.

So I tried and failed. When I failed, I left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy and the best guy in the country, Dick Clarke, who got demoted.

So you did Fox’s bidding on this show. You did your nice little conservative hit job on me. What I want to know is

WALLACE: Well, wait a minute, sir.

CLINTON: No, wait. No, no…

WALLACE: I want to ask a question. You don’t think that’s a legitimate question?

CLINTON: It was a perfectly legitimate question, but I want to know how many people in the Bush administration you asked this question of.

I want to know how many people in the Bush administration you asked, Why didn’t you do anything about the Cole?

I want to know how many you asked, Why did you fire Dick Clarke?

I want to know how many people you asked

(later in the interview)

CLINTON: What did I do? What did I do? I worked hard to try to kill him. I authorized a finding for the CIA to kill him. We contracted with people to kill him. I got closer to killing him than anybody has gotten since. And if I were still president, we’d have more than 20,000 troops there trying to kill him.

Now, Ive never criticized President Bush, and I don’t think this is useful. But you know we do have a government that thinks Afghanistan is only one-seventh as important as Iraq.

And you ask me about terror and Al Qaida with that sort of dismissive thing? When all you have to do is read Richard Clarkes book to look at what we did in a comprehensive, systematic way to try to protect the country against terror.

And you’ve got that little smirk on your face and you think youre so clever. But I had responsibility for trying to protect this country. I tried and I failed to get bin Laden. I regret it. But I did try. And I did everything I thought I responsibly could.

The entire military was against sending Special Forces in to Afghanistan and refueling by helicopter. And no one thought we could do it otherwise, because we could not get the CIA and the FBI to certify that Al Qaida was responsible while I was president.

And so, I left office. And yet, I get asked about this all the time. They had three times as much time to deal with it, and nobody ever asks them about it. I think that’s strange.

Credit to Truthdig.

Up for some fantasy hockey?

If you're up for some fantasy hockey please get in touch with me ASAP.

The World needs a leader like him once again

One of the greatest speeches in history.

Stewart Mocks O’Reilly’s Al Qaeda Claim

The “Daily Show” pokes fun at Bill O’Reilly’s recent bragging that Al Qaeda has him on a hit list. As Jon Stewart points out: “I don’t know if you’ve seen the Al Qaeda tapes, um...we’re kind of all on the hit list.”

Watch it here

Musharraf uses book deal to dodge "bomb" spat

Musharraf uses book deal to dodge "bomb" spat

By Matt Spetalnick Fri Sep 22, 5:26 PM ET

President George W. BushWASHINGTON (Reuters) - Pakistan's leader cited a book deal during an appearance with President George W. Bush on Friday to avoid talking about a purported U.S. threat to bomb his country back to the Stone Age after the September 11 attacks.

With his memoir due out on Monday, President Pervez Musharraf managed to plug his book while smoothing diplomatic waters after talks with Bush on their partnership in the war on terrorism and efforts to combat a Taliban resurgence.

Musharraf, in an interview with CBS News magazine show "60 Minutes" to air on Sunday, charged that after the September 11 attacks, the United States threatened to strike Pakistan if it did not cooperate in America's campaign against the Taliban.

Musharraf said Richard Armitage, then deputy secretary of state, told Pakistan's intelligence director, "'Be prepared to be bombed. Be prepared to go back to the Stone Age."'

Bush, hailing Musharraf as an important ally, insisted on Friday he knew of no such U.S. threat, and Armitage said he never issued such a warning.

"The first I've heard of this is when I read it in the newspaper today," Bush said as he stood next to Musharraf at a White House news conference. "I guess I was taken aback by the harshness of the words."

Musharraf, who told CBS the Stone Age warning was a "very rude remark, dodged a reporter's question on the issue, citing a contract with his publisher for his memoir, "In the Line of Fire."

"I would like to -- I am launching my book on the 25th, and I am honor-bound to Simon & Schuster not to comment on the book before that day," he said.

"In other words, "Buy the book," is what he's saying," Bush said amid laughter from the assembled journalists.

It was unclear, however, why the book deal would not have stopped Musharraf from airing the complaint earlier to CBS.

Both Simon & Schuster and the CBS network are owned by media giant CBS Corp., formerly part of Viacom Inc.

An article on my post from earlier....I'm still looking for a video link.

Ramadan Mubarak

Just wanted to say Ramadan Mubarak (whenever it is you're starting) to everyone.

Colbert to GOP’ers: Lose in November!

Colbert’s offers some suspect political analysis for Republicans. A nice zinger in this “The Word” segment: When you can vote for the President [in 2008], the Republicans will need a platform.” [On-screen: “Hopefully with a trap door."]

Watch it

Credit to Truthdig and Crooks and Liars.

Worst Press Conference Ever

I don't have a link to any videos for this as of yet but today's joint Musharraf/Bush Press Conference was about as bad as any political press conference I've ever seen. They were both putting words into each other's mouths and Musharraf looked extremely weak after his comment that will air on "60 Minutes" This week. I'll post up some links as I find them

Olbermann at it again on 9/19/06

Here's the video thanks to Truthout.org


Here's a transcript thanks to MSNBC.com:

Bush owes us an apology

The President of the United States owes this country an apology.

It will not be offered, of course.

He does not realize its necessity.

There are now none around him who would tell him or could.

The last of them, it appears, was the very man whose letter provoked the President into the conduct, for which the apology is essential.

An apology is this President's only hope of regaining the slightest measure of confidence, of what has been, for nearly two years, a clear majority of his people.

Not "confidence" in his policies nor in his designs nor even in something as narrowly focused as which vision of torture shall prevail -- his, or that of the man who has sent him into apoplexy, Colin Powell.

In a larger sense, the President needs to regain our confidence, that he has some basic understanding of what this country represents -- of what it must maintain if we are to defeat not only terrorists, but if we are also to defeat what is ever more increasingly apparent, as an attempt to re-define the way we live here, and what we mean, when we say the word "freedom."

Because it is evident now that, if not its architect, this President intends to be the contractor, for this narrowing of the definition of freedom.

The President revealed this last Friday, as he fairly spat through his teeth, words of unrestrained fury directed at the man who was once the very symbol of his administration, who was once an ambassador from this administration to its critics, as he had once been an ambassador from the military to its critics.

The former Secretary of State, Mr. Powell, had written, simply and candidly and without anger, that "the world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism."

This President's response included not merely what is apparently the Presidential equivalent of threatening to hold one's breath, but within it contained one particularly chilling phrase.

"Mr. President, former Secretary of State Colin Powell says the world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism," he was asked by a reporter. "If a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and former secretary of state feels this way, don't you think that Americans and the rest of the world are beginning to wonder whether you're following a flawed strategy?"

“If there's any comparison between the compassion and decency of the American people and the terrorist tactics of extremists, it's flawed logic,” Bush said. “It's just -- I simply can't accept that. It's unacceptable to think that there's any kind of comparison between the behavior of the United States of America and the action of Islamic extremists who kill innocent women and children to achieve an objective.

Of course it's acceptable to think that there's "any kind of comparison."

And in this particular debate, it is not only acceptable, it is obviously necessary, even if Mr. Powell never made the comparison in his letter.

Some will think that our actions at Abu Ghraib, or in Guantanamo, or in secret prisons in Eastern Europe, are all too comparable to the actions of the extremists.

Some will think that there is no similarity, or, if there is one, it is to the slightest and most unavoidable of degrees.

What all of us will agree on, is that we have the right -- we have the duty -- to think about the comparison.

And, most importantly, that the other guy, whose opinion about this we cannot fathom, has exactly the same right as we do: to think -- and say -- what his mind and his heart and his conscience tell him, is right.

All of us agree about that.

Except, it seems, this President.

With increasing rage, he and his administration have begun to tell us, we are not permitted to disagree with them, that we cannot be right, that Colin Powell cannot be right.

And then there was that one, most awful phrase.

In four simple words last Friday, the President brought into sharp focus what has been only vaguely clear these past five-and-a-half years - the way the terrain at night is perceptible only during an angry flash of lightning, and then, a second later, all again is dark.

“It's unacceptable to think," he said.

It is never unacceptable to think.

And when a President says thinking is unacceptable, even on one topic, even in the heat of the moment, even in the turning of a phrase extracted from its context, he takes us toward a new and fearful path -- one heretofore the realm of science fiction authors and apocalyptic visionaries.

That flash of lightning freezes at the distant horizon, and we can just make out a world in which authority can actually suggest it has become unacceptable to think.

Thus the lightning flash reveals not merely a President we have already seen, the one who believes he has a monopoly on current truth.

It now shows us a President who has decided that of all our commanders-in-chief, ever, he alone has had the knowledge necessary to alter and re-shape our inalienable rights.

This is a frightening, and a dangerous, delusion, Mr. President.

If Mr. Powell's letter -- cautionary, concerned, predominantly supportive -- can induce from you such wrath and such intolerance, what would you say were this statement to be shouted to you by a reporter, or written to you by a colleague?

"Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government.”

Those incendiary thoughts came, of course, from a prior holder of your job, Mr. Bush.

They were the words of Thomas Jefferson.

He put them in the Declaration of Independence.

Mr. Bush, what would you say to something that anti-thetical to the status quo just now?

Would you call it "unacceptable" for Jefferson to think such things, or to write them?

Between your confidence in your infallibility, sir, and your demonizing of dissent, and now these rages better suited to a thwarted three-year old, you have left the unnerving sense of a White House coming unglued - a chilling suspicion that perhaps we have not seen the peak of the anger; that we can no longer forecast what next will be said to, or about, anyone who disagrees.

Or what will next be done to them.

On this newscast last Friday night, Constitiutional law Professor Jonathan Turley of George Washington University, suggested that at some point in the near future some of the "detainees" transferred from secret CIA cells to Guantanamo, will finally get to tell the Red Cross that they have indeed been tortured.

Thus the debate over the Geneva Conventions, might not be about further interrogations of detainees, but about those already conducted, and the possible liability of the administration, for them.

That, certainly, could explain Mr. Bush's fury.

That, at this point, is speculative.

But at least it provides an alternative possibility as to why the President's words were at such variance from the entire history of this country.

For, there needs to be some other explanation, Mr. Bush, than that you truly believe we should live in a United States of America in which a thought is unacceptable.

There needs to be a delegation of responsible leaders -- Republicans or otherwise -- who can sit you down as Barry Goldwater and Hugh Scott once sat Richard Nixon down - and explain the reality of the situation you have created.

There needs to be an apology from the President of the United States.

And more than one.

But, Mr. Bush, the others -- for warnings unheeded five years ago, for war unjustified four years ago, for battle unprepared three years ago -- they are not weighted with the urgency and necessity of this one.

We must know that, to you, thought with which you disagree -- and even voice with which you disagree and even action with which you disagree -- are still sacrosanct to you.

The philosopher Voltaire once insisted to another author, "I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write." Since the nation's birth, Mr. Bush, we have misquoted and even embellished that statement, but we have served ourselves well, by subscribing to its essence.

Oddly, there are other words of Voltaire's that are more pertinent still, just now.

"Think for yourselves," he wrote, "and let others enjoy the privilege to do so, too."

Apologize, sir, for even hinting at an America where a few have that privilege to think and the rest of us get yelled at by the President.

Anything else, Mr. Bush, is truly unacceptable.

'US threat to bomb Pakistan back to the Stone Age'

Pakistan leader Pervez Musharraf has stunned world leaders claiming Washington had threatened to bomb his country "back to the Stone Age" if it did not co-operate in the war on terror.

Interviewed for US TV while attending the United Nations general assembly in New York, Musharraf said the threat was made after the September 11 attacks.

He added the threat came from US Assistant Secretary of State Richard Armitage and was given to his intelligence director.

"The intelligence director told me that (Armitage) said, 'Be prepared to be bombed. Be prepared to go back to the Stone Age,'" Musharraf said.

And then they wonder why anti-US sentiment is so high in that region. Link to full article.

Iraq torture 'worse after Saddam'

Iraq torture 'worse after Saddam'

Torture may be worse now in Iraq than under former leader Saddam Hussein, the UN's chief anti-torture expert says.

Manfred Nowak said the situation in Iraq was "out of control", with abuses being committed by security forces, militia groups and anti-US insurgents.

Bodies found in the Baghdad morgue "often bear signs of severe torture", said the human rights office of the UN Assistance Mission in Iraq in a report.

The wounds confirmed reports given by refugees from Iraq, Mr Nowak said.

He told journalists at a briefing in Geneva that he had yet to visit Iraq, but he was able to base his information on autopsies and interviews with Iraqis in neighbouring Jordan.

"What most people tell you is that the situation as far as torture is concerned now in Iraq is totally out of hand," the Austrian law professor said.

"The situation is so bad many people say it is worse than it has been in the times of Saddam Hussein," he added.

Link to the full story over at the BBC.

Verducci on A-Rod

Verducci has a very good article on A-Rod in this week's SI. Read the article here.

At U.N., Chavez calls Bush 'the devil'

By IAN JAMES, Associated Press Writer

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez took his verbal battle with the United States to the floor of the U.N. General Assembly on Wednesday, calling President Bush "the devil."

"The devil came here yesterday," Chavez said, referring to Bush's address Tuesday. "He came here talking as if he were the owner of the world."

Link to full AP story.

Colbert Rips American Tribalism

Stephen Colbert offered this riff on racial tribalism in America, after learning that whites tend to live amongst other whites. Here’s a taste: “I’m colorblind. I don’t see race, folks, and I always thought my gated community was incredibly diverse. But, uh, today I asked around and it turns out that everyone at last week’s ‘smooth jazz and mayonnaise block party’ was in fact white.”

Link to video.

Giambi, Torre get tough with A-Rod

The Yankees' magic number to clinch the AL East is 1. Fitting, because the defending AL MVP seems to be all alone in the Bronx Bombers' clubhouse.

In a story in this week's Sports Illustrated, Alex Rodriguez is portrayed as a loner on the AL's best team, whose struggles prompted Jason Giambi to urge manager Joe Torre to get tough with Rodriguez. Rodriguez's current statistics are gaudy -- .286, 34 home runs and 116 RBI -- but the slugging third baseman has been perceived by the fans and media as unable to get the big hit when the Yankees need it.

"[Mike] Mussina doesn't get hammered at all. He's making a boatload of money. Giambi's making [$20.4 million], which is fine and dandy, but it seems those guys get a pass. When people write [bad things] about me, I don't know if it's [because] I'm good-looking, I'm biracial, I make the most money, I play on the most popular team ..."

-- Alex Rodriguez in this week's SI

Giambi is quoted in the article as saying Rodriguez has a "false confidence" and that Torre should "stop coddling him."

Link to the full story.

Gammons will appear live from Fenway Park

ESPN.com

Peter Gammons will be back on ESPN on Wednesday night.

Gammons, who suffered a brain aneurysm in late June, will be on the 6 p.m. ET edition of SportsCenter and the 7 p.m. ET edition of Baseball Tonight. He will report from Fenway Park.

Gammons isn't returning to work full-time. An ESPN spokesman said that future appearances will be scheduled as Gammons is comfortable.

Great to see. Hopefully he sprinkles in more appearances during the playoffs.

Jim Webb explains the real Iraq-terror connection

"We didn't go in to Iraq because of terrorism. We have terrorists in Iraq because we went in there."

Watch the clip here.

If someone has a link to the full interview debate from this past Sunday's Meet the Press can you please send it to me.

Colbert Lampoons Bush’s Torture Agenda

On Monday, Stephen Colbert went after Bush’s proposed re-imagining of the Geneva Convention by inviting the president to come on the “Report” and demonstrate his preferred interrogation techniques. Mocking the president’s assertion that the treaty banning torture lacks clarity, Colbert observed: “I personally think the image of the president saying specifically what, to him, is not an outrage on human dignity will make everyone see his position very clearly....”

Watch it on Truthdig.

Stewart Probes Clinton for Hillary’s Weakness

Bill Clinton made an appearance on “The Daily Show” Monday to share the heartwarming work of his Clinton Global Initiative, but the climax of the interview was much more fun. Jon Stewart put the former president on the “seat of heat” and asked: “Mr. President, Hillary Clinton may be running for president. If so, what is the key to defeating her?”

Watch it at Truthdig.

One Million Ways to Die

Sept. 11, 2001 was undoubtedly one of the darkest and deadliest days in United States history. Al-Qaida's attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center killed 2,976 people, and the country recoiled in horror as we witnessed the death of thousands of Americans when the towers fell.

In the five years since that shattering day, the government has spent billions on anti-terrorism projects, instituted a color-coded alert system that has never been green, banned fingernail clippers and water bottles from airplanes, launched a pre-emptive war on false pretenses, and advised citizens to stock up on duct tape and plastic sheeting.

But despite the never-ending litany of warnings and endless stories of half-baked plots foiled, how likely are you, statistically speaking, to die from a terrorist attack?

Comparing official mortality data with the number of Americans who have been killed inside the United States by terrorism since the 1995 bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma reveals that scores of threats are far more likely to kill an American than any terrorist -- at least, statistically speaking.

In fact, your appendix is more likely to kill you than al-Qaida is.

With that in mind, here's a handy ranking of the various dangers confronting America, based on the number of mortalities in each category throughout the 11-year period spanning 1995 through 2005 (extrapolated from best available data).

S E V E R E Driving off the road: 254,419 Falling: 146,542 Accidental poisoning: 140,327

H I G H Dying from work: 59,730 Walking down the street: 52,000. Accidentally drowning: 38,302

E L E V A T E D Killed by the flu: 19,415 Dying from a hernia: 16,742

G U A R D E D Accidental firing of a gun: 8,536 Electrocution: 5,171

L O W Being shot by law enforcement: 3,949 Terrorism: 3147 Carbon monoxide in products: 1,554

A pretty interesting read. Something that is ofcourse never thought about by 99% of the people. Whether these particular numbers are accurate or not I don't know, but ...it has to be pretty close.

Congrats to Mets fans

Just want to extend my congratulations to all fans of the Metropolitans. Long time coming and as someone who's not a Mets fan but absolutely hates the Yanks and the Braves....this is great. I picked the Mets to win the division by 15 games so they better not slack off now (they lead by 14.5 right now).

The Word - Ten-Hut!

Colbert on Veterans against the Iraq War

Stephen Colbert: Goooooaaaaaal!

The Colbert Report - 2006.09.14 - Hungarian Bridge

Rumsfeld Unveils New Justification For Iraq War: High Gas Prices

It's the start of a new week so it is time for a brand new Iraq War excuse.

Rumsfeld Unveils New Justification For Iraq War: High Gas Prices

Prior to the war, the administration stressed that the United States needed to invade Iraq because Saddam Hussein possessed WMDs and had connections to al-Qaeda. None of that turned out to be true.

Now, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has introduced a new rationale for the invasion of Iraq, high gas prices. From a radio interview last week:

SECRETARY RUMSFELD: The fact of the matter is - if Saddam Hussein were still in power in Iraq, he would be rolling in petrol dollars. Think of the price of oil today. He would have so much money. And he would be seeing the Iranians interested in a nuclear program, he would be seeing the North Koreans developing a nuclear program, and he’d say well why shouldn’t he - and he would. So we’re fortunate that he’s gone.

Of course, one of the reason gas prices are high is instability in the Middle East — created, in part, by the invasion of Iraq.

Digg It!

Olbermann Smacks Down Ingraham

This one is from the 2nd or 3rd week of March.

Olbermann: Who does the President think he's F'n kidding?

So now that I have rediscovered the greatness that is Keith Olbermann (well until MSNBC fires him anyways), I have been searching for clips from the past. This one is from the 3rd anniversary of the start of the Iraq war. Credith to Crooks and Liars on this one.

The Daily Show on Harry Potter Spoilers

Rob Corddry goes undercover to see if a Harry Potter security breach could...happen...here.

The Daily Show 9/14 - Matt Lauer vs Bush

Norm McDonald jokes about Steve Irwin

Norm Macdonald Rifs on the Crocodile Hunter

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Norm MacDonald
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Rally to Restore Sanity

You might not want to laugh......but you have to. Funny stuff from last nights show.

Daily Show: President's stages of grief

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/video/41511/ This is the full video to the "We are safe" I posted a couple of days ago.

Five years after 9/11 and where the hell is Osama bin Laden? Has Bush come to accept that Osama will never be caught? Or is he in denial?

In this Daily Show clip Jon Stewart uses a montage of sound bites to demonstrate Bush's "stages of grief" when it comes to Osama bin Laden:

"Denial >> Anger >> Anger >> Anger >> Hanukkah >> Acceptance >> Denial"

The Hypothetical Question Bush Can’t Answer

At a Rose Garden press conference this morning, NBC’s David Gregory asked George W. Bush the obvious hypothetical question: How would he feel if a foreign government like, say, North Korea’s or Iran’s, captured a U.S. soldier or CIA officer, subjected him to torture, then tried and convicted him with evidence he wasn’t allowed to see?

Bush didn’t—Bush couldn’t—answer the question.

“My reaction is that, if the nations such as those you named adopted the standards within the [White House’s] Detainee Detention Act, the world would be better,” he said.

....yeah right. Here's a link to the video of the question by David Gregory of NBC News.

Dubya's Empty Threat

Empty Threat of the Day

Posted on Sep 15, 2006

From CNN

Bush says that questioning of suspected terrorists “won’t go forward” unless Congress passes a law clarifying the treatment and interrogation of such detainees.

Believe that? If so, there’s a nice Nigerian billionaire we met on the Internet who’d love to discuss a business opportunity with you...

CNN:

Questioning of suspected terrorists “won’t go forward” unless Congress clarifies a U.S. standard for the treatment and interrogation of wartime prisoners, President Bush warned on Friday.

During a Rose Garden news conference, the president launched the latest salvo in efforts to write new rules that Bush said would clarify how Geneva Conventions provisions apply to detainee interrogations.

Critics, including three high-profile Republican senators and former Secretary of State Colin Powell, say it’s an interpretation that could threaten the safety of U.S. forces overseas.

Link

Credit to Truthdig. I was watching this press conference and it was just akward at times.

Colbert Mocks Allen’s ‘Ethnic Rally’

Link

The Daily Show - 2006.09.14 - John Oliver's Journey

The Daily Show’s “foreigner” correspondent, John Oliver, reports from the frontlines of the immigration debate, sharing his own harrowing experience: “Jon, like billions of other unfortunate people in the world, I was tragically born not American.”

Credit to Truthdig.com and whoever posted the video on Youtube.

Colbert Report: 'Knowledge of War is Bad for You'

Fool Us Once, Mr. President…

In light news (see above) about a U.S. House report that is, according to the United Nations, exaggerating claims about Iran’s nuclear capabilities, we’ve got a ready-made response. And interestingly enough, President Bush already delivered it.

Watch it:http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/20060914_fool_us_once_mr_president/

Snow Almost Doesn’t Bother Lying

Asked whether Bush still thinks there was a relationship between Hussein and Al Qaeda honcho Al Zarqawi, White House spokesman Tony Snow nearly admitted the absence of such a relationship, but then said one existed because Zarqawi “operated” in Iraq. But as ThinkProgress points out, that’s like saying America had a “relationship” with the Unabomber because he was “operating” in the United States.

Got this at Truthdig. The Link has both transcrip and video.

Little Richard Translates for Bush on ‘Daily Show’

We’ve had some readers asking for us at Truthdig to dig between the lines of Bush’s 9/11 speech. Turns out Jon Stewart & Co. were already all over that. Watch as Little Richard explicates our prez.

Check Link for Video

What was the ref watching?

Ballboy scores a goal........and it counts?

Link to video.

15 year NHL Contract????

DiPietro's record 15-year deal will pay him $67.5M

ESPN.com news services

UNIONDALE, N.Y. -- The New York Islanders have become the NHL's version of a three-ring circus -- and the spotlight keeps shining on the guys in net.

"I guess it's pretty beneficial to be a goaltender on Long Island right now," Rick DiPietro said Tuesday, moments after signing the longest playing contract in NHL history.

One week shy of his 25th birthday, the brash netminder from New England grabbed a pen and confidently inked his name to a 15-year deal that will pay him $4.5 million each season until 2021, totaling $67.5 million.

"Well, 15 years seems like a long time," he said before a deep sigh. "It is a long time."

Standing next to him was Garth Snow, his 37-year-old former teammate and backup, who hung up his skates earlier this summer the same day he took over as Islanders general manager. If that was strange enough, he was replacing Neil Smith, who had been on the job a little more than a month.

Snow's biggest priority suddenly became negotiating the deal to keep the Islanders' most popular player in the fold until he's nearly 40.

"At first it was a little awkward," DiPietro said.

And so it goes for the Islanders, who always seem to make more news and noise during the offseason than in winter.

"This is not a big deal," owner Charles Wang said. "You have to have a commitment to who you're working with. I've done this all my business career. Now I'm doing it in sports and everybody is like, 'Oh my God. How could he do that?"'

It's pretty funny when you think about it. Given the mess the Isles are in I'd DiPietro is sick in tired on Long Island in 2 years tops and never even comes close to being an "Islander for life"

Link to rest of the story.

Stingrays mutilated in wake of Crocodile Hunter's death

Stingrays mutilated in wake of Crocodile Hunter's death

MERAIAH FOLEY

Associated Press

SYDNEY, AUSTRALIA — At least 10 stingrays have been slain since Crocodile Hunter Steve Irwin was killed by one of the fish, an official said Tuesday, prompting a spokesman for the late TV star's animal charity to urge people not take revenge on the animals.

Link to rest of the story over at the Globe and Mail

Terrour Plot

Daily Show: We are Safe! 9/11/06

George Bush recently said “America is safer than it has been, but it’s not yet safe.” Attempting to make sense of this seemingly contradictory statement in a post 9/11, post “mission accomplished,” post Katrina world, the “Daily Show” came up with this rationale: “George W. Bush is the right man to lead us in the era post whatever horrible calamity he leads us into next.”

9/11: America attacked twice

Who would have imagined in their worst nightmares that these political usurpers would employ the human catastrophe of 9/11 to continue the terrorists work for them? Who would have imagined that they would embark on a course that would eventually kill more Americans than died on 9/11 in wars that do nothing to ensure the nation’s security but much to inspire more Arabs to hate us and wish to attack us? Who would have imagined they would dissipate the global solidarity and support the world had offered us? Who would have imagined that, having ignored all of the signs of a certain attack, they would continue to ignore the most obvious steps to protect us against future catastrophe, leaving our ports, our nuclear facilities, our chemical facilities invitingly unguarded? Who would have imagined that they would willingly allow bin-Laden to escape? Who would have imagined they would lie to the rescue workers about the health effects of the air they were breathing. Who would have imagined that they would put the fate of the nation in the hands of a group of lying, conniving, rats like “curveball,” Ahmad Chalabi and the INC? Who would have imagined a political campaign in which a man like Max Cleland, a man who lost three limbs in Vietnam, would be branded as insufficiently patriotic by right-wing politicians and pundits who never sacrificed so much as a chicken dinner for their country? Who would have imagined they would use homeland security as pure pork money, doling out millions for Red State fire houses while leaving tens of millions who live near obvious targets—and were attacked last time—unprotected? Who would have imagined they would emulate our enemies, employing methods of torture and massacre? Who would imagine they would force our brave soldiers to die fighting phantoms, without even proper body armor? Who would have imagined they would outlaw photographs of military funerals, or that the president could not find time to attend a single one of them? Who would have imagined they would use the attacks to create a domestic spying regime, a series of secret prisons and tribunals, and the declare the right to abrogate any and all American civil liberties whenever it struck their fancy? Who would have imagined, in other words, that they would exploit these tragic deaths to seek to undermine our Constitution, our Bill of Rights, indeed the very foundations of the same “freedom” that allegedly inspired the terrorists in the first place? And finally, who would have imagined that our vaunted “liberal media” and nonpartisan political establishment would cheer them along the way, failing to ask the difficult questions and attacking the patriotism and even sanity of those with the courage and foresight to do so?


Full article available at Eric Alterman's MSNBC blog Altercation.