is to credibility what Bush is to smart, but for some reason it does not stop people from giving them a platform to display there ignorance. Last week (Aug 13th) Bill made the assertion that if a candidate had the backing of a Gay Group they would not get elected. He said, “a new poll” — which he said was issued by “Pew Research or something like that” — “says that most Americans won’t vote for you if you get an endorsement by a gay rights group.” was a flat out lie.

News flash Bill, George Bush was backed by the Log Cabin Republicans, a Gay Group!

Media Matters for America took him to task and found the polls he was refering to, and you know what they said, that Bill O’Reilly is a flat out liar.

He went on TV to spin his way out of his lie… MMA picks it up from here

In fact, an August 6-8 Quinnipiac Poll of voters in Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania found that a majority of voters in each state responded that support for a presidential candidate by “gay rights groups” would not affect their level of support for the candidate. While O’Reilly noted that the poll was taken “in a few states,” not nationally as he had earlier suggested, he did not acknowledge that his original assertion that the result applied to a “majority” of respondents was false. Rather, he simply cited the Quinnipiac poll results from Florida — which found that 28 percent of respondents would be “less likely” to support a candidate endorsed by a gay rights group, while 60 percent said it “would make no difference,” and 10 percent said it would make them “more likely” to support such a candidate — and added, “That’s what I was referring to.”

Washington Post in the wake of Watergate

In the (Constitutional) convention George Mason argued that the President might use his pardoning power to “pardon crimes which were advised by himself” or, before indictment or conviction, “to stop inquiry and prevent detection.” James Madison responded:

If the President be connected, in any suspicious manner, with any person, and there be grounds to believe he will shelter him, the House of Representatives can impeach him; they can remove him if found guilty…

…………………

Madison went on to say contrary to his position in the Philadelphia convention, that the President could be suspended when suspected, and his powers would devolve on the Vice President, who could likewise be suspended until impeached and convicted, if he were also suspected.

You can see the whole thing as it sat on A13 of the Washington Post

From ThinkProgress 

On April 11, Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced that tours of duty for the Army would be extended from 12 months to 15 months, effective immediately. In exchange for the extensions, soldiers would receive at least a year home between deployments. This rest time was intended to “provide some long-term predictability for the soldiers and their families…particularly guaranteeing that they will be at home for a full 12 months,” Gates added. Watch it…

But Gates has not kept his promise. Stars and Stripes reports:

The Army is sending a company of Europe-based soldiers back to Iraq before the unit has had a full 12 months of “dwell time,” or at-home rest.

Members of the 1st Armored Division’s 1st Battalion, 6th Infantry, Company A, learned Tuesday that they are scheduled to head back to Iraq in November, just nine months after the 150-soldier company left the combat zone in February after a 13-month deployment.

A recent Pentagon report concluded that soldiers on extended and repeated deployments “were more likely to suffer acute stress, and that mental health problems correlated with higher rates of battlefield misconduct.”

When asked yesterday about this nine-month deployment, Gates simply replied, “I’ll be very interested in finding out more about that.” Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman’s response was that “there are some people, just by the nature of transferring units and things like that may not end up with the full 12 months.”

According to Whitman, the 12-month rest period between deployments “is a goal,” not a guarantee.

Joe. the piece of shit from the same state that bore us George Bush is now working to undermined America, and make up crap out of whole cloth.

From ThinkProgress

Today on CNN, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) said he “strongly disagrees” with Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) bipartisan delegation to Syria, calling it a “mistake” and “bad for the United States of America.”

Lieberman added, “I say this because we’re in a war. We’re in a war against the Islamic terrorists who attacked us on 9-11-01.” CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer responded, “But they had nothing to do with 9-11.” Lieberman dodged the issue and changed topics.

Watch it: Here

Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA), who visited Syria last year, defended Pelosi’s trip. “I believe in the maxim, hold your friends close and your enemies closer,” Specter said. “President Ronald Reagan declared the Soviet Union to be the Evil Empire. Immediately thereafter he undertook negotiations with them.” Specter said he has been to Syria 14 times over the last two decades “and have been able to be helpful in a number of situations that I can document.”

Digg It!

Transcript:

SPECTER: I believe that Assad can be negotiated with. I’ve made 14 trips there, Wolf, in the last two decades, and have been able to be helpful in a number of situations that I can document. And I think opening discussions with Syria are very, very important, and I’d rather Condoleezza Rice did it, but if not, it’s up to Speaker Pelosi and Arlen Specter and others.

BLITZER: What about Senator Lieberman, what do you think?

LIEBERMAN: I respectfully and strongly disagree with Arlen Specter and with Nancy Pelosi. I believe her visit to Syria was a mistake, that it was bad for the United States of America and good for the Syrians. And I say this because we’re in a war. We’re in a war against the Islamic terrorists who attacked us on 9-11-01. Syria is a state sponsor of terrorism.

BLITZER: But they had nothing to do with 9-11.

LIEBERMAN: But they have — but let me tell what you they have to do with what we’re into now. The Bashir Assad Syrian government has allowed terrorists and arms to flow across its country into Iraq that are being used to kill Americans today. Syria has been implicated in the assassination of a very strong popular Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri. Syria is supporting Hezbollah, which is trying to unseat our ally, Senora, in Lebanon. Syria is supporting the terrorist group Hamas against our allies in the Fatah Palestinian movement, and of course, Israel. The administration, in all fairness — people in Washington should know, if they don’t know, the administration has been trying in many ways, in diplomatic discussions with Syria since 9-11, to get Assad to change his behavior and he has not. When Nancy Pelosi goes there, she sends a message of disunity. She legitimizes the Syrian goverment.

BLITZER: So I assume you disagree with Senator Specter’s decision. I want Senator Specter to respond. Why do you think Senator Lieberman, Senator Specter, is wrong?

SPECTER: I believe in the maxim, hold your friends close and your enemies closer. President Ronald Reagan declared the Soviet Union to be the evil empire, and immediately thereafter undertook negotiations with them. Look, Assad is not a boy scout, but we have to deal with him. he’s there. In my conversation with him, I think there are ways to get him to stop arming Hezbollah and to stop arming Hamas. They came on the brink of a solution to the Golan Heights in 1995 and again in the year 2000. That was done by active negotiation that President Clinton engaged in. So there are ways to move through it, and to isolate them has not been successful.

This administration just can’t stop lying about everything. They lie even when the truth is a much easer route. FBI used to detain American war protesters, said never happened… but that is a lie.

From the Washington Post

A secret FBI intelligence unit helped detain a group of war protesters in a downtown Washington parking garage in April 2002 and interrogated some of them on videotape about their political and religious beliefs, newly uncovered documents and interviews show.

For years, law enforcement authorities suggested it never happened. The FBI and D.C. police said they had no records of such an incident. And police told a federal court that no FBI agents were present when officers arrested more than 20 protesters that afternoon for trespassing; police viewed them as suspicious for milling around the parking garage entrance.

But a civil lawsuit, filed by the protesters, recently unearthed D.C. police logs that confirm the FBI's role in the incident. Lawyers for the demonstrators said the logs, which police say they just found, bolster their allegations of civil rights violations.

The probable cause to arrest the protesters as they retrieved food from their parked van? They were wearing black — a color choice the FBI and police associated with anarchists, according to the police records.

FBI agents dressed in street clothes separated members to question them one by one about protests they attended, whom they had spent time with recently, what political views they espoused and the significance of their tattoos and slogans, according to interviews and court records.

The revelations, combined with protester accounts, provide the first public evidence that Washington-based FBI personnel used their intelligence-gathering powers in the District to collect purely political intelligence. Ultimately, the protesters were not prosecuted because there wasn't sufficient evidence of trespassing, and their arrest records were expunged.

If you hear McCain tell the story, Iraq is a desert playground where pixies and sand sprites frolic in morning dew. Where people are happy and safe. In short McCain has host his fucking mind.

So to prove his point on how great Baghdad is, he went to Iraq and strolled around. It was a great photo-op for propaganda, but it is what was not in the photos that shows McCain is a coward, and liar. In his little walking tour of a market the brave McCain had over 100 soldiers, 3 Blackhawk helicopters above, and 2 Apache gun ships. Well if I had that much protection I would stroll the streets of hell.

What a Coward, is this the guy we want as president?

The fact is you know Bush is lying because his lips are moving. Bush is playing Chicken with our troops. He keeps tiring to peddle a lie that if HE vetoes the Iraq Spending supplemental the troops will run out of money by April 15^th. Keep in mind the Congress passed the bill to fund the troops, it is the “President” that is going to veto the funding.

The fact is, the April 15^th date is something he pulled out of his ass, like most things.

PRNewswire-USNewswire

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid made the following statement upon receipt of a Congressional Research Service (CRS) analysis of the Army's ability to finance its operational needs with existing funds well beyond the April 15th date asserted by President Bush.

In a thorough review of Army data and the Defense Department's existing legal authorities, non-partisan budget experts at CRS informed the Congress that the Army could maintain its wartime operations well into July 2007 with funds the Army has already been provided.

"This study confirms that the President is once again attempting to mislead the public and create an artificial atmosphere of anxiety. He is using scare tactics to defeat bipartisan legislation that would change course in Iraq. After waiting months for this Administration to send us its funding requests, both houses of Congress worked quickly to pass the emergency supplemental bill for our troops. Congress has acted in good faith and will send the President a conference report for his signature well ahead of the July 2007 date CRS identified. If the President vetoes this bill, he is making the choice to continue down the same failed path in Iraq.

"Instead of holding press events to score political points, I call upon the President to tone down his rhetoric, stop the veto threats of a bill he has not yet seen, and sit down with the congressional leadership to discuss how our two co-equal branches of government can get an emergency spending bill passed that funds our troops and makes America more secure."

Well it is a sad day in American, but under Bush not a shocker, that the Attorney General of the United States, Alberto Gonzales lied to congress about that he knew. In face new documents (Friday news dump) says he not only knew about it, but did it!

Last week he said

QUESTION: How could your chief of staff be working closely with the resident on which U.S. attorneys to be let go and you not know the pecifics?
ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: Well, again, as — I accept responsibility
for everything that happens here within this department. But when you have
110,000 people working in the department obviously there are going to be
decisions that I'm not aware of in real time. Many decisions are delegated.
We have people who were confirmed by the Senate who, by statute, have been
delegated authority to make decisions

Well this was a ball face lie! The AP Has this.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales approved plans to fire several U.S. attorneys in a November meeting, according to documents released Friday that contradict earlier claims that he was not closely involved in the dismissals.

The Nov. 27 meeting, in which the attorney general and at least five top Justice Department officials participated, focused on a five-step plan for carrying out the firings of the prosecutors, Justice Department officials said late Friday.

There, Gonzales signed off on the plan, which was crafted by his chief of staff, Kyle Sampson. Sampson resigned last week amid a political firestorm surrounding the firings.

The five-step plan involved notifying Republican home-state senators of the impending dismissals, preparing for potential political upheaval and naming replacements and submitted them to the Senate for confirmation.

The documents indicated that the hour-long morning discussion, held in the attorney general's conference room, was the only time Gonzales met with top aides who decided which prosecutors to fire and how to do it.

The Dems have made statements

Nonetheless Democrats pounced late Friday.

 

"If the facts bear out that Attorney General Gonzales knew much more about the plan than he has previously admitted, then he can no longer serve as Attorney General," said Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, who is heading the Senate's investigation into the firings.

Added House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers:

"This puts the Attorney General front and center in these matters, contrary to information that had previously been provided to the public and Congress."

The developments were not what Republicans, skittish about new revelations, had hoped.

What a shocker, Rice, Secretary of State and cheerleader for the failed Bush “presidency” lied to Congress when asked about Iran.

From Reuters

Controversy over a possible missed U.S. opportunity for rapprochement with Iran grew on Wednesday as former aide accused Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice of misleading Congress on the issue.

Flynt Leverett, who worked on the National Security Council when it was headed by Rice, said a proposal vetted by Tehran’s most senior leaders was sent to the United States in May 2003 and was akin to the 1972 U.S. opening to China.

Speaking at a conference on Capitol Hill, Leverett said he was confident it was seen by Rice and then-Secretary of State Colin Powell but “the administration rejected the overture.”

Rice’s spokesman denied she misled Congress and reiterated that she did not see the proposal.

Separately, Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns warned Iran it risked further U.N. and other sanctions if it did not halt uranium enrichment as the U.N. Security Council demanded.

He stressed there was still time for diplomacy before Iran reached a critical point in its nuclear capability and said conflict with Iran was not inevitable.

For the first time in a while someone is calling out the �president� and his administration for maybe not telling the truth to Americans when it comes to IraqIraq) (Well everything really, but for now, let�s stick to

From McClatchy Newspapers (My Bolds so there)

President Bush and his aides, explaining their reasons for sending more American troops to Iraq, are offering an incomplete, oversimplified and possibly untrue version of events there that raises new questions about the accuracy of the administration's statements about Iraq.

It goes on for a bit but SusabG over at DailyKos said it best.

After quoting extensively from Bush�s speech on escalation given Wednesday, the gutting begins:

That version of events helps to justify Bush's "new way forward" in Iraq, in which U.S. forces will largely target Sunni insurgents and leave it to Iraq's U.S.-backed Shiite government to - perhaps - disarm its allies in Shiite militias and death squads.

But the president's account understates by at least 15 months when Shiite death squads began targeting Sunni politicians and clerics. It also ignores the role that Iranian-backed Shiite groups had in death squad activities prior to the Samarra bombing.

Reporter Seibel then hammers Rice for repeating the same "incomplete, oversimplified and possibly untrue version of events" during Barbara Boxer�s questioning at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing the following day. Then Rice is smacked down for repeating the same fairy tale before the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Then Stephen Hadley gets nailed for repeating it on Meet the Press this morning. Then the reporter observes:

Much like the administration's pre-war claims about Saddam's alleged ties to al-Qaida and purported nuclear weapons program, the claims about the bombing of the Shiite mosque in Samarra ignore inconvenient facts and highlight questionable but politically useful assumptions.

A brief historical background is then offered about Shiite death squads, much of it relying on McClatchy�s own reports from the past few years � reports that were dead-on and in direct contradiction to most of what the administration was peddling.

Why is this important? Because of this:

Beginning in 2002, the administration's case for a pre-emptive war in Iraq was plagued by similar oversights, oversimplifications, misjudgments and misinformation. Unlike the administration's claims about the Samarra bombing, however, much of that information was peddled by Iraqi exiles and defectors and accepted by some eager officials and journalists.

… The administration has continued to offer inaccurate information to Congress, the American people and sometimes to itself. The Iraq Study Group, in its December report, concluded, for example, that the U.S. military was systematically under-reporting the violence in Iraq in an effort to disguise policy failings. The group recommended that the military change its reporting system.

Are these people liars or fools, McClatchy implicitly questions near the end of the piece:

Whether many of the administration's statements about Iraq for nearly five years have been deliberately misleading or honest but gullible mistakes hasn't been determined. The Senate Intelligence Committee has yet to complete an investigation into the issue that was begun but stalled when Republicans controlled the committee.

Real journalism. Real fact-checking. Real analysis. Go read the amazing piece in full, folks, to get an idea what real reporting looks like. It�s enough to make you weep for joy.

The people of Connecticut owe the American people a heartfelt apology for the absolute cluster fuck that is Joe Lieberman. The Republican in �Independent Democrat� clothing has betrayed his own word (No shocker there, he also said he would only server 2 terms and no more) and will not investigate the �president� in his handling of the Katrina disaster.

From Newsweek via MSNBC (bolds are mins)

Sen. Joe Lieberman, the only Democrat to endorse President Bush�s new plan for Iraq, has quietly backed away from his pre-election demands that the White House turn over potentially embarrassing documents relating to its handling of the Hurricane Katrina disaster in New Orleans.

Lieberman�s reversal underscores the new role that he is seeking to play in the Senate as the leading apostle of bipartisanship, especially on national-security issues. On Wednesday night, Bush conspicuously cited Lieberman�s advice as being the inspiration for creating a new �bipartisan working group� on Capitol Hill that he said will �help us come together across party lines to win the war on terror.�

But the decision by Lieberman, the new chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, to back away from the committee's Katrina probe is already dismaying public-interest groups and others who hoped the Democratic victory in November would lead to more aggressive investigations of one of the White House�s most spectacular foul-ups.

Last year, when he was running for re-election in Connecticut, Lieberman was a vocal critic of the administration�s handling of Katrina. He was especially dismayed by its failure to turn over key records that could have shed light on internal White House deliberations about the hurricane, including those involving President Bush.

Asserting that there were �too many important questions that cannot be answered,� Lieberman and other committee Democrats complained in a statement last year that the panel �did not receive information or documents showing what actually was going on in the White House.�

For a long time I thought that Bill �Falafel� O�Reilly was the dumbest man on the planet, and then I hear the comments of Tony Blankley on this weekend�s �Meet the Press�.

He exclaimed something to the effect (Because the transcript is not up yet) that the Christians had been celebrating Christmas on December 25th long before the Pagans used the date to celebrate the Winter Solstice.

Now Tony, there are a few things you need to know before you open your big fat mouth. First, no Pagans celebrate the Winter Solstice on December 25th, most Pagans celebrate the Winter Solstice on the Winter Solstice, dumb ass (This year Dec 22, 2006 - 00:22 UST). Unlike Christmas, which is made up out of whole cloth, the Winter Solstice is a documented and verified point in time that houses the shortest day of the year. Now I am going to say something that may offend Christians all over America, but the Winter Solstice can be proven by science and the interments that are used in science, mainly in this case, a watch.

The Second part of your statement shows just how much of an ideological moron you really are. Pagans, and the celebration of the Winter Solstice predates Christianity by possibly more than a thousand years. You see Tony, your �Faith� is the new kid on the block, in terms of some of the other faiths of the world, still in diapers (I conclude this also by the way many of you act).

Now to you non-pagans you may ask, well what is the Winter Solstice to Pagans. Easy, it is the birth of god (Hmm sound familiar?) God being the sun, and given that the Winter Solstice is the shortest DAY (Ruled by the sun) of the year, the next day is longer, the sun is �reborn� for the year.

So Tony, before you open your mouth you should stick something in your brain. It is better to be thought of as a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. You should pass that along to your FAUX NEWS co-workers.

I just love ThinkProgress, they have the time and the money to point out how much of a pack of liars they are!

On Sunday, President Bush told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos that his Iraq policy has “never been stay the course.” (Today, Rumsfeld disagreed, calling suggestions they were backing away from the phrase “nonsense.”)

Moments ago on Fox News, White House Press Secretary Tony Snow said “we went back and looked today and could only find eight times where he [Bush] ever used the phrase stay the course.” Watch it:

Apparently, the White House research team isn’t very good at “the Google.” ThinkProgress has documented 30 times that Bush has used the phrase to describe his policy in Iraq:

Digg It!

BUSH: We will stay the course, we will help this young Iraqi democracy succeed, and victory in Iraq will be a major ideological triumph in the struggle of the 21st century. [8/30/06]

BUSH: Stay the course also means don’t leave before the job is done. And that’s - we’re going to get the job done in Iraq. [8/11/06]

BUSH: As a matter of fact, we will win in Iraq so long as we stay the course. [7/11/06]

BUSH: And I saw people wondering whether the United States would have the nerve to stay the course and help them succeed. [6/19/06]

BUSH: If we don’t lose our nerve, if we stay the course, someday down the road, an American President will be working with democratically-elected leaders in the broader Middle East at the table to keep the peace. [3/24/06]

BUSH: Some critics continue to assert that we have no plan in Iraq except to, “stay the course.” If by “stay the course,” they mean we will not allow the terrorists to break our will, they are right. If by “stay the course,” they mean we will not permit al Qaeda to turn Iraq into what Afghanistan was under the Taliban - a safe haven for terrorism and a launching pad for attacks on America - they are right, as well. If by “stay the course” they mean that we’re not learning from our experiences, or adjusting our tactics to meet the challenges on the ground, then they’re flat wrong. [11/30/05]

BUSH: We will stay the course, we will complete the job in Iraq. [8/4/05]

BUSH: And so the United States of America will stay the course and we will complete the task. We’ll help Iraq develop a democracy and the world will be better off for it. [11/21/04]

BUSH: My message is that - is that we will stay the course and stand with these people so that they become free. [9/23/04]

BUSH: We will stay the course so that they can develop an army and police force of their own so they can defend themselves. [9/13/04]

BUSH: We must stay the course until the job is done. [8/13/04]

BUSH: But Americans are used to hard work when it comes to a cause greater than ourself. And that’s what we’re doing. And we’ll stay the course. [4/20/04]

BUSH: And that’s why we’re going to stay the course in Iraq. [4/16/04]

BUSH: And we will stay the course in Iraq so that his son did not die in vain. [4/15/04]

BUSH: And my message today to those in Iraq is: We’ll stay the course; we’ll complete the job. [4/13/04]

BUSH: We will stay the course in Iraq. [4/6/04]

BUSH: So we’ve got tough action in Iraq. But we will stay the course. [4/5/04]

BUSH: You know, I told the family how much we appreciated his sacrifice - he was killed in Iraq - and assured him that we would stay the course. [4/5/04]

BUSH: I met with the family of a fellow who - who was killed in Iraq. … I told the - I told the dad, and the mom, and the wife that we’d stay the course. [4/5/04]

BUSH: This country will stay the course and get the job done. [4/2/04]

BUSH: We will stay the course until the job is done, because a free Iraq in the heart of the Middle East will make the world more peaceful. [1/23/04]

BUSH: And we will stay the course until the job is done. [1/12/04]

BUSH: We will stay the course until the job is done, Steve. And the temptation is to try to get the President or somebody to put a timetable on the definition of getting the job done. We’re just going to stay the course. [12/15/03]

BUSH: I was able to assure them that we were going to stay the course and get the job done, but I also reminded them what I said publicly, that it’s up to them to seize the moment, to have a government that recognizes all rights, the rights of the majority and the rights of the minority, to speak to the aspirations and hopes of the Iraqi people. [11/27/03]

BUSH: We will stay the course, and as more and more Iraqis realize freedom is precious and freedom is a beautiful way of life, they will assume more and more responsibilities, not only for security, but for humanitarian reasons, as well. [11/14/03]

BUSH: It’s in the national interest of the United States that a peaceful Iraq emerge. And we will stay the course in order to achieve this objective. [10/27/03]

BUSH: And we’ll just stay the course. [10/22/03]

BUSH: We talked about Iraq. And I told him and assured him that the United States would stay the course because we believe freedom is on its way to the Iraqi people. [7/14/03]

BUSH: We’re making steady progress. A free Iraq will mean a peaceful world. And it’s very important for us to stay the course, and we will stay the course. [7/10/03]

BUSH: Not only does the war on terror go on, but we’ve got a lot of work to do in Iraq. And we’re going to stay the course until the job gets done. [6/5/03]

Video Transcript:

GIBSON: Tony Snow, Thanks very much for joining us. Is it true the president has abandoned the line we’re staying the course and the new explanation of Iraq is there is a time line in place?

SNOW: This a great story, because we went back and looked today and could only find eight times where he ever used the phrase stay the course.