Newsweek

-snip-

But there was substantial evidence showing that, up to 9/11, Al Qaeda could barely hold its act together, that it was a failing group, hounded from every country it tried to roost in (except for the equally lunatic Taliban-run Afghanistan). That it didn’t represent the mainstream view even in the jihadi community, much less the rest of the Muslim world. This is the reality of the group that the Bush administration has said would engage us in a "long war" not unlike the cold war—the group that has led to the transformation of U.S. foreign policy and America’s image in the world. The intelligence community generally agrees that the number of true A-list Al Qaeda operatives out there around the time of 9/11 was no more than about 1,000, perhaps as few as 500, most in and around Afghanistan. It is also fairly well established that bin Laden and his No. 2, Ayman al-Zawahiri, were engaged in a fierce pre-9/11 struggle with their own meager band of followers over whether it was wise to take on the "far enemy"—the United States—when many jihadis really wanted to engage the "near enemy," their national regimes, like Egyptian autocrat Hosni Mubarak.

The ultimate tragedy of the Iraq war was not only that it diverted the U.S. from the knockout blow against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan—the deaths of bin Laden and Zawahiri would likely have persuaded most jihadis it was wiser to focus on the near enemy—but that Iraq also altered the outcome of Al Qaeda’s internal debate, tipping it in bin Laden’s favor. "Iraq ended that debate because it fused the near and the far enemy," as Arquilla puts it succinctly. America ventured into the lands of jihad and willingly offered itself as a target in place of the local regimes. And as a new cause that revived the flagging Al Qaeda movement. It is, no doubt, bin Laden’s greatest victory.

This is great news for thr Democrats, and even better new for America.

From Bloomberg

Voters increasingly see Democrats as the party best able to handle the top problems confronting the U.S., as Republicans struggle to hold their congressional majorities in midterm elections little more than four months away.

Registered voters favor Democrats over Republicans in contests in their congressional districts by 49 percent to 35 percent, a Bloomberg/Los Angeles Times poll finds. Fifty-four percent want to see Democrats control Congress, while 34 percent prefer that Republicans stay in power. In April, Democrats led Republicans 51 percent to 38 percent on the issue.

Democrats have opened up a 16-point lead on the question of which party is best equipped to tackle the nation’s most urgent challenges. Democrats, who have long enjoyed a decided edge on issues such as health care and the economy, now find themselves preferred on the Iraq war, ethics and immigration — issues where Republicans had been ahead, or where the public was more divided.

The turnaround suggests Republicans “are headed for very difficult fall elections,” said Stuart Rothenberg, editor of the nonpartisan Rothenberg Political Report. “The House of Representatives is in play, and the Democrats have a real chance” to sweep back to power.

It is well known that Bush hates laws, he hates brown people, and he hates that the United States shares this earth with other nations. He has selectivly removed the US from treaties that we not only signed, but in many cases wrote. Well the SCOTUS said, "NO" to the boy king, and I am sure he is about to cry about it…

From the SCOTUSBlog

As I predicted below, the Court held that Congress had, by statute, required that the commissions comply with the laws of war — and held further that these commissions do not (for various reasons). I have not yet read the complete opinions, but from what I’ve seen of not only the Stevens majority, but also the Kennedy and Breyer concurrences (see Orin Kerr with the relevant AMK and SGB excerpts here), it is hard to overstate the principal, powerfully stated themes emanating from the Court, which are (i) that the President’s conduct is subject to the limitations of statute and treaty; and (ii) that Congress’s enactments are best construed to require compliance with the international laws of armed conflict.

Even more importantly for present purposes, the Court held that Common Article 3 of Geneva aplies as a matter of treaty obligation to the conflict against Al Qaeda. That is the HUGE part of today’s ruling. The commissions are the least of it. This basically resolves the debate about interrogation techniques, because Common Article 3 provides that detained persons "shall in all circumstances be treated humanely," and that "[t]o this end," certain specified acts "are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever"—including "cruel treatment and torture," and "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment." This standard, not limited to the restrictions of the due process clause, is much more restrictive than even the McCain Amendment. See my further discussion here.

This almost certainly means that the CIA’s interrogation regime is unlawful, and indeed, that many techniques the Administation has been using, such as waterboarding and hypothermia (and others) violate the War Crimes Act (because violations of Common Article 3 are deemed war crimes).

There is a lot more, I think you should go and read it.

In a 5-3 decision (Chief Justice Roberts abstaining), the Supreme Court ruled that President Bush did not have authority to set up military tribunals at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, finding the “military commissions” illegal under both military justice law and the Geneva Convention. The opinion of the Court, written by Justice John Paul Stevens, declares that “the Executive is bound to comply with the Rule of Law that prevails in this jurisdiction.”

UPDATE I: The AP has more: “The ruling, a rebuke to the administration and its aggressive anti-terror policies, was written by Justice John Paul Stevens, who said the proposed trials were illegal under U.S. law and international Geneva conventions.”

UPDATE II: SCOTUSBlog has the voting breakdown: “The main opinion [was] written by Justice John Paul Stevens. That opinion was supported in full by Justices Stephen G. Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David H. Souter. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote separately, in an opinion partly joined by Justices Breyer, Ginsburg and Souter…Justices Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, the dissenters, each wrote an opinion.” Read the opinions (pdf).

UPDATE III: From SCOTUSBlog: “The Court appears to have held that Common Article 3 of Geneva aplies to the conflict against Al Qaeda. That is the HUGE part of today’s ruling. The commissions are the least of it. This basically resolves the debate about interrogation techniques, because Common Article 3 provides that detained persons ’shall in all circumstances be treated humanely,’ and that ‘[t]o this end,’ certain specified acts ‘are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever’—including ‘cruel treatment and torture,’ and ‘outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment.’ This standard, not limited to the restrictions of the due process clause, is much more restrictive than even the McCain Amendment. … This almost certainly means that the CIA’s interrogation regime is unlawful.”

UPDATE IV: “Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a strongly worded dissent and took the unusual step of reading part of it from the bench something he had never done before in his 15 years. He said the court’s decision would ’sorely hamper the president’s ability to confront and defeat a new and deadly enemy.’” Justice Breyer responded in the opinion that Bush should consult with Congress to receive specific authority, and doing so, would strengthen the nation’s ability to deals with threats:

Nothing prevents the President from returning to Congress to seek the authority he believes necessary. Where, as here, no emergency prevents consultation with Congress, judicial insistence upon that consultation does not weaken our Nation’s ability to deal with danger. To the contrary, that insistence strengthens the Nation’s ability to determine—through democratic means—how best to do so. The Constitution places its faith in thosedemocratic means. Our Court today simply does the same.

Wow, Americans think we are less safe than before 9/11. We are over 2500 dead soldiers later, almost half a trillion in tax payer money, and we are LESS safe, and Bush’s friends are MORE rich.

From Foreign Policy (The Center for American Progress and the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace)

Following the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Americans understandably rallied around the flag. Having just suffered the deadliest attack ever on U.S. soil, huge percentages believed another attack was imminent. But Americans also had enormous faith that the Global War on Terror would help keep them safe. Just one month after 9/11, for instance, 94 percent of Americans told an ABC News/Washington Post poll that they approved of how the fight against terrorism was being handled. The United States then quickly went to war in Afghanistan, closing down a terrorist sanctuary and capturing or killing a number of high-level al Qaeda operatives in the process.

-snip-

These pessimistic public perceptions could easily be attributed to the high cost, in both treasure and lives, of counterterrorism efforts. After all, Americans are constantly being told by their elected leaders that their pessimism is wrong, that the war is being won. But they’re also told that another attack is inevitable. Which is it? To find out, FOREIGN POLICY and the Center for American Progress teamed up to survey more than 100 of America’s top foreign-policy experts—Republicans and Democrats alike. The FOREIGN POLICY/Center for American Progress Terrorism Index is the first comprehensive effort to mine the highest echelons of America’s foreign-policy establishment for their assessment of how the United States is fighting the Global War on Terror. Our aim was to draw some definitive conclusions about the war’s priorities, policies, and progress from the very people who have run America’s national security apparatus over the past half century. Participants include people who have served as secretary of state, national security advisor, retired top commanders from the U.S. military, seasoned members of the intelligence community, and distinguished academics and journalists. Nearly 80 percent of the index participants have worked in the U.S. government—of these more than half were in the executive branch, one third in the military, and 17 percent in the intelligence community.

Despite today’s highly politicized national security environment, the index results show striking consensus across political party lines. A bipartisan majority (84 percent) of the index’s experts say the United States is not winning the war on terror. Eighty-six percent of the index’s experts see a world today that is growing more dangerous for Americans. Overall, they agree that the U.S. government is falling short in its homeland security efforts. More than 8 in 10 expect an attack on the scale of 9/11 within a decade. These dark conclusions appear to stem from the experts’ belief that the U.S. national security apparatus is in serious disrepair. “Foreign-policy experts have never been in so much agreement about an administration’s performance abroad,” says Leslie Gelb, president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations and an index participant. “The reason is that it’s clear to nearly all that Bush and his team have had a totally unrealistic view of what they can accomplish with military force and threats of force.”

-snip-

These conclusions about the United States’ performance in the war thus far are all the more troubling considering that, although Americans appear to be growing tired of the war on terror, the index’s experts appear to believe that the battle has just begun. Accordingly, a majority agrees that the war requires more emphasis on a victory of ideas, not just guns. That is hardly surprising, considering that nearly 80 percent believe a widespread rejection of radical ideologies in the Islamic world is a critical element to victory. To win the battle of ideas, the experts say, America must place a much higher emphasis on its nonmilitary tools. More than two thirds say that U.S. policymakers must strengthen the United Nations and other multilateral institutions. At the same time, the experts indicate that the U.S. government must think more creatively about threats. Asked what presents the single greatest danger to U.S. national security, nearly half said loose nukes and other weapons of mass destruction, while just one third said al Qaeda and terrorism, and a mere 4 percent said Iran. Five years after the attacks of September 11, it’s a reminder that the greatest challenges may still lie ahead.

For the love of god, please hurry and get this damn thing over with. The world would be a far better place without all these damn morons.

From the Los Angeles Times

For thousands of years, prophets have predicted the end of the world. Today, various religious groups, using the latest technology, are trying to hasten it.

Their end game is to speed the promised arrival of a messiah.

For some Christians, this means laying the groundwork for Armageddon.

With that goal in mind, mega-church pastors recently met in Inglewood, Calif., to polish strategies for using global communications and aircraft to transport missionaries to fulfill the Great Commission — to make every person on Earth aware of Jesus’ message.

Doing so, they believe, will bring about the end, perhaps within two decades.

These are the people that this administration thinks is right. Now I am not attacking all Christians, I just think that this group of them are as evil as the Islam that Osama subscribes too. I with them luck, I will not miss them.

The GOP lead Congress is going to do everything they can to ignore the woes of the American people and try to focus on pointless uber Right-wind legislation from here until Congress ends for the year, because they can smell defeat in the air, and want to try to get all there pet legislation passed before the American people send them packing. John over at AmericaBlog said it best “Because what America really needs right now is more guns on the streets, and the biggest problem facing our troops in Iraq is abortion in America.”

From the AP, Via Yahoo (bolds are mine)

House Republicans intend to hold votes this summer and fall touching on abortion, guns, religion and other priority issues for social conservatives, part of an attempt to improve the party’s prospects in the midterm elections.

-snip-

Other bills are certain to spark controversy.

One would to strip the Supreme Court and other federal courts of jurisdiction over cases challenging the constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance. The legislation is a response to a 2002 Appeals Court ruling that held the pledge is unconstitutional because of the presence of the words "under God." A federal judge made a similar ruling last fall, citing the appeals court precedent.

Another measure would block the payment of attorney fees in challenges to the display of the Ten Commandments in public areas and other, similar church-state lawsuits.

An abortion-related proposal would require that some women seeking to end their pregnancies be informed the procedure "will cause the unborn child pain" and they have the option of receiving drugs to reduce or eliminate it. A separate measure would ban human cloning, a prohibition that cleared the House in the previous Congress.

Two measures relate to the rights of gun owners. One would prohibit the confiscation of legal firearms during national emergencies, barring practices such as the one that officials said arose in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina hit.

The measure is backed by the National Rifle Association, which has hailed the recent passage of a state law in Louisiana. "The aftermath of Hurricane Katrina became the proving ground for what American gun owners have always feared: the day that government bureaucrats throw the Bill of Rights in the trash and declare freedom to be whatever they say it is," Wayne LaPierre, NRA executive vice president, said in a statement posted on the organization’s Web site.

Thank god this nation is going so great and we can spend Congress’ time of such bullshit. Increasing numbers of Americans with out health insurance, The GOP does not care about you. The increase of 14 million Americans entering poverty, the GOP could care less, an increase in abortions over the past 5 years, the GOP does not care why, just stop-it. What, an increase in the infant mortality rate, the GOP could care less about you once you fall out of the who-who. Iraq, the GOP does not even know what you are talking about, never heard of it. All in all the GOP (Those are Republicans) do not care about YOU the American.

Other Blogs on this Subject
Reason Engaged
AmericaBlog

Well the flag burning amendment failed in the Senate today (66-34, short by one vote). According to the Republicans, this was the pressing issue facing the nation. Now I personally am glad it did not past, did you ever hear the phrase, “You are the company you keep” well there are only 3 nations in the WHOLE world that outlaw flag burning, they are Iran, Cuba, and China. You heard me the Republicans wanted us to join the club that has 2 Communist Countries and an Islamic Republic, This is what the Republicans see as America. Oh, under Saddam Hessian you were not allowed to burn the flag.

As much as I will not be burning a flag, unless it needs to be destroyed as per the regulations for proper flag destruction, this “Amendment” was just a waste of time, and was a Republican attempt to rally the retards and hope to god you forget the disaster that is the “War on Terror” and the enormous federal deficit, and massive trade gap… The Republicans message to Americans, “For the love of god, look over there!”

Why do the Republicans hate Americans, and the First Amendment?

This is great, first the hero of the retard right is so wasted on drugs he goes deaf, now he needs drugs to get it up, and he does not have a prescription, if I recall, a direct violation of his plea deal.

From the AOL News

Rush Limbaugh was detained for more than three hours Monday at Palm Beach International Airport after authorities said they found a bottle of Viagra in his possession without a prescription.

Customs officials found a prescription bottle labeled as Viagra in his luggage that didn’t have Limbaugh’s name on it, but that of two doctors, said Paul Miller, spokesman for the Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office.

A doctor had prescribed the drug, but it was "labeled as being issued to the physician rather than Mr. Limbaugh for privacy purposes," Roy Black, Limbaugh’s attorney, said in a statement.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement examined the 55-year-old radio commentator’s luggage after his private plane landed at the airport from the Dominican Republic, said Miller.

From the Seattle Post-Intelligencer

George W. Bush has broken yet another record for presidential arrogance and suppression of information.

We noted last month The Boston Globe report that President Bush had made greater use than any other president of adding "signing statements" to bills passed by Congress that he intends not to follow.

Now, Cox News Service reports that two separate studies show that Bush, more than any president in history, has invoked the "state secrets privilege" to block lawsuits that supposedly would harm national security.

He used it, for instance, to block a suit by the American Civil Liberties Union against the National Security Agency’s eavesdropping on Americans’ telephone calls.

Between 1953 and 2001, the privilege was invoked 55 times. As far as we know, the Bush administration has invoked the privilege at least 24 times.

William Weaver, political science professor at the University of Texas-El Paso, an expert on presidents’ use of the privilege, likens it to the magic ring in "Lord of the Rings." "They put it on and they disappear, at least from the context of potentially illegal or embarrassing circumstances."

Bush slipped on the ring just last month to block a case brought by Khalid el-Masri, the German who claims to have been mistakenly abducted and tortured under the CIA’s clandestine "rendition" program.

It’s a creative way of trying to hide the emperor’s lack of clothing.

Bush condemns the discloser of a secret program data mines confidential financial records looking for “terrorists”. He said, "For people to leak that program and for a newspaper to publish it does great harm to the United States of America," Bush said. He said the disclosure of the program "makes it harder to win this war on terror."

It is not the discloser of this program, or the discloser that Bush illegally tapped phones, or illegally tracked phone calls, it is the fact that Bush is so willing to destroy, trample, and otherwise decimate the safeguards Americans hold so dear. That will guarantee that we loose the “War on Terror”. If this is what Bush thinks we have to do, destroy the US Constitution, and spy on Americans then the terrorist have won, period!  Bush once said, “They hate our freedoms” and he is right, they do, but Bush and the Republicans that hide his dealings are working very hard to take those freedoms away. If they hate our freedoms, and Bush takes them away, Tey Win…

What’s more, the only saving grace this fair nation has is the press, as inept as they are, as complacent as they are, they are the only thing we have left to protect us from the madman in the White House. What should scare the shit out of you is if this is what the corporate media is willing to disclose, what they hell are they holding on to and won’t disclose (Remember they had the wiretap story for OVER A YEAR before they published it).

You know what is odd, last week the Democrats offered a plan submitted to the Senate by John Kerry, decorated Vietnam vet, to withdraw most of the US troops out of Iraq and deploy them over the horizon as it is called. His plan was to have this done by July 2007. It was largely defeated by most Republicans, and a few Democrats who know that their "no" votes will show up as a campaign ads by their warmonger Republican opponents come November (cowards if you ask me). The choose was a Democratic plan to end this “war” or the Republican plan, do nothing, hope it goes away. Our troops need a plan, not a slogan.

Well look what we have found; General Casey wants to start to pull out the troops by 12/2007. Wow, this sounds all to familiar, I mean I think I just read somewhere about a plan that was real close to this one, Oh Yah, the Democrats plan! White House is doing it’s best to play this news down, as of 20 mins ago Tony Snow, White House shill said, "I would caution very strongly against everybody thinking, ‘Well, they’re going to pull two brigades out,’"

So the Republicans plan in Iraq is, “Do nothing, and put a magnet on your car” and the Democrats plan is to get our troops out of harms way and force the Iraqi government to stand up.

Lets be honest, if we were to use the Republican coined definition of “cut and run” you would see that it is the Republicans that have done it. Just look at history, Vietnam, while a tragically executed war by both parties, under Ford, a Republican, “Cut and Ran” (May 15, 1975). Ronald Ragan, a Republican, “Cut and Ran” from Lebanon after the Marine Corps barracks were bombed (On February 7, 1984, the order was given for the Marines to begin withdrawal from Lebanon. This was completed on February 26; the rest of the MNF was withdrawn by April. Terrorists saw this as a two-fold victory for their cause, and their activity against Westerners (particularly Americans) increased, prompting various U.S. responses.). Bush has done his best to “Cut and Run” from Afghanistan, he has “Cut and Ran” from Saidi Arabia at the request of Osama bin Laden himself. If you want “Cut and Run” look no further than the Republicans, they have years of practice at it.

Hey the Crazy Evangelicals always see everything as a sign from god, so what does this mean?

 A Elm tree uprooted itself and flung itself at the door step of the White House, could this tree be stopping ol’ George Bush from leaving the White House, or re-entering it? Could mother Earth be exacting her revenge on the President that has distroyed more of the enviroment than ever before. Or could it be a sign from god that she is not happy with him… If Bush acts like Bush, he will take the next 3 months off to recover and pray.

From ThinkProgress….

The New York Times reported on Friday that the Bush administration has “examined banking transactions involving thousands of Americans and others in the United States” allegedly linked to terrorist networks.

This morning, Rep. Peter King (R-NY) argued that the NYT reporters, editors, and publishers responsible for that story should be charged under the Espionage Act, which is punishable by up to 20 years in prison.

[N]o one elected the New York Times to do anything. And the New York Times is putting its own arrogant elitest left wing agenda before the interests of the American people, and I’m calling on the Attorney General to begin a criminal investigation and prosecution of the New York Times — its reporters, the editors who worked on this, and the publisher. We’re in a time of war, Chris, and what they’ve done has violated the Espionage Act, the COMINT act.

Watch it:

Moments later, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) called King’s proposal “premature” and paraphrased Thomas Jefferson: “Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.”

Full transcript below:

WALLACE: Congressman King, let me bring you in on this as well. From what you know, do you have any problems with the Swift program, this tracking of financial records, and what about the argument that if it — even if it was an emergency after 9/11, that five years after the fact, this has become a permanent program and that you should get approval from the courts and Congress?

KING: Chris, I think the administration acted entirely appropriately. The 1976 U.S. Supreme Court case gives them, to me, the absolute right to do this. They’re in full compliance with all statutes. To me, the real question here is the conduct of the New York Times by disclosing this in time of war, they have compromised America’s anti-terrorist policies. This is a very effective policy. They have compromised it. This is the second time the New York Times has done this. And to me, no one elected the New York Times to do anything. And the New York Times is putting its own arrogant elitest left wing agenda before the interests of the American people, and I’m calling on the Attorney General to begin a criminal investigation and prosecution of the New York Times — its reporters, the editors who worked on this, and the publisher. We’re in a time of war, Chris, and what they’ve done has violated the Espionage Act, the COMINT act. The time has come for the American people to realize, and the New York Times to realize, we’re at war and they can’t be on their own deciding what to declassify, what to release. If Congress wants to work on this privately, that’s one thing. But for them to, on their own, for the editor of the New York Times to say that he decides it’s in the national interest — no one elected them to anything. Remember, this is the newspaper that brought us Jason Blair. Going back a few years ago, they’re the ones who gave Fidel Castro his job in Cuba. They have no right to do this at all. The First Amendment is not absolute, especially when it comes to something like this, which is a clear violation of statutory law.

This is a great find, the Senate Dems have a copy of the Republican plans for Iraq, Click here to see it. (PDF)