Rex Kickass

I think he isn't resigning over any trial. He's quitting to run the campaign to split electoral votes in California - to ensure a GOP Presidency in 2009. (Even though the initiative is unconstitutional.)

I've never lost my faith. But my religion lost me a long time ago.

And another 200 points down to start the day.

McCain isn't the only Republican beaten in that poll by Obama. BTW: He's also being beaten by Hillary among Iowa GOP. Link President Poll - GOP leaning voters only. 1. Dunno 34.8 2. Romney 21.8 3. Guiliani 10.0 4. Obama 6.7 5. Thompson 5.2 6. Other 2.4 6. Paul 2.4 6. Huckabee 2.4 9. Tommy Thompson 2.1 9. Hillary 2.1 10. McCain 1.8 10. Richardson 1.8 Dem leaning voters only. 1. Hillary 30.0 2. Dunno 22.7 3. Obama 20.4 4. Edwards 16.1 5. Richardson 5.5 6. Other 2.8 (No one else polled at 1.0 percent or better)

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Aug 8, 2007 -> 11:11 AM) If you are being told this in a secure intelligence briefing, and you are George W. Bush - why would you not believe it? So, again, the data/intelligence all pointed to these issues. Everyone was being fed the same lines of what turned out to be bulls***. Now, having said that, at one time, Saddam had this technology, or the means to make it. That's always conveniently never brought up. Now, next, re: my first sentance, you're going to tell me that it was GWB (or his administration) that was forcing people to lie about this stuff. I absolutely don't think that's true. The intelligence supported it. Period. Once we got in there, our intelligence was proven to be junk, although I still say most of this is sitting in Syria today. I'm not saying the GWB was forcing people to lie about this stuff. I am saying that there was a lot of intelligence about this stuff. Some intelligence supported what the administration claimed. Some did not. In fact, it was far from an abundance of intelligence - it wasn't even really a consensus we know now. What I'm saying is that the administration cherry picked what intelligence was presented to Congress and it did not present opposing viewpoints that might question the validity of the stronger intelligence. Saddam had the technology, true. We gave a lot of it to him. We also destroyed and dismantled it. He never restarted his programs seriously after GW1. He created the appearance of doing so... because the appearance of doing so, had been a more effective weapon after 1991 than the actual weapons themselves.

Washington Post put it on the front page of Section C today (Wednesday). ABC News had a story on it. USA Today had a blog post on it.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Aug 7, 2007 -> 10:14 PM) Again I'll say this, the main thing I have against Kerry, Clinton, Edwards...all of them...is that whether or not their decisions were based on politics, polling, etc., the best defense they have offered for their vote is that they made the mistake of believing Mr. Bush. So...given that by September of 02 I had personally decided that I couldn't believe a word coming out of Mr. Bush's mouth, and that every time he brought up things like the aluminum tubes, or the Ansar al Islam camp with Zarqawi that we were protecting with the no-fly zones, or the UAV's Iraq supposedly had (I think my personal favorite was the UAV's that were held together by duct tape that were somehow supposed to fly round the world) he was lying, why should I trust the judgement of someone who couldn't figure it out as well as me? How do I know they won't look into Putin's soul and proclaim him to not be a liar, when they looked into Mr. Bush's soul and decided to trust him? I have to hold their vote against them...because I am not supposed to be better at their jobs than they are. The aluminum tube myth wasn't debunked by the IAEA until January 03. The first time Zarqawi was referenced by the President was in October of 2002. As for the other stuff, Senator Nelson of Florida in 2004 says it best - as quoted in the Congressional Record. If you're being told this in a secure intelligence briefing, and you are John Q Senator - why would you not believe it? It's not coming from the President's speech, it's coming from a secured intelligence briefing.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Aug 7, 2007 -> 01:34 PM) Of course, I read that speech thinking he was baldly lying, that no matter what Iraq actually did, if the resolution passed, the war was inevitable, and it turned out that my judgement was better than that of Hillary et al. Which is the single greatest reason I will not vote for her in the primary; if my judgement of GWB was more accurate than hers, why should I trust her judgement with others? Because what honorable people do who are in office is not hide the truth to get into war. Did our President hide the truth about the inevitability of this war? Absolutely. Did he lie about the reasons to get into this war? That's less clear, but IMHO, appears to be the case. But in 2002, Senators weren't operating under the CW that the Bush administration is hiding its objectives, acting incompetently and recklessly, or that there was a nefarious purpose in the intent of the President. This drum beat to war concerned a lot of people, but I do think that most of mainstream America didn't feel that there was poor intent. And that it was the will of these elected officials' constituency to follow what is American tradition and give the President the necessary tools to responsibly execute foreign policy in the name of this country. The lack of debate over why this was happening is what stunned me about 2002. The fact that the oversight of our Congress was so not there for six years stunned me. But given the climate of 2002, and given the Presidential assurances (which most members of Congress should but sadly can no longer take as honest) I wouldn't fault any senator or congressman for their vote. However, playing it on both sides, like a lot of Senators have - to give themselves wiggle room - is awful. And not too forgivable. It's why Hillary's vote stunk, because she stayed hawkish til it wouldn't work for her future anymore.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Aug 7, 2007 -> 09:57 AM) Congrats, is this business or pleasure? A little bit of column A, a little bit of column B. I know a couple languages but none that will help me as much as learning spanish.

When I was in College, I had the privilege of being the station's Music Director. I got to pick our station's music. And it spoiled me rotten. So when I listen to the radio, I just wish I was that station's director. Not so much because I think I could do a better job, but because the ability to discover new acts was so easy to come by!

Ted Leo & The Pharmacists - Sons of Cain Gorillaz - Kids With Guns The Originals - The Bells Peaches - Get It The Go! Team - Phantom Broadcast Pixies - Wave of Mutilation Brazilian Girls - Talk To The Bomb Kaiser Chiefs - Time Honored Bjork - Constellation Sergio Mendes - Timeless Bonus 11: The Beatles - Old Brown Shoe

Oh, so its just small things? Good, then Criss Angel's job is still safe

I plan on returning to college this fall. To learn Spanish.

Back to Guiliani. He's got two more big problems.... His daughter supports Obama for President. And NYC's Emergency Management Director from 1996 - 2000 went on record yesterday to say he'd be a horrible President.

If there was a whiff of intent behind it, I highly doubt the House Dem leadership would have agreed to a subpoena power investigation within 24 hours of the event.

I seem to recall in Politico that the House voting system actually completely crashed the next day and was offline for two hours, btw.

Pretty much yes. That's why his government is weak. There is pressure on Musharraf to hold elections and choose between head of the military and President, because the support for him to hold both is dwindling.

Nice spin. The bill lets states determine what kind of identification is needed to enroll in the program. So California may require an original birth certificate, but Nevada may decide to require a certified copy of one. Other states may require merely proof of residency. From what I understand, the reason this change was made was because there was never any real problem with undocumented immigrants trying to get this coverage as much as there was with US Citizens unable to get this coverage because the documentation requirements were unreasonably strict. There is nothing in this bill that would require any state to provide SCHIP to an undocumented immigrant.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Aug 5, 2007 -> 06:30 PM) So what other group has enough organization, backing, military might, and power to step into a vaccuum in Pakistan? The Pakistani military. Musharraf has lost power. The military has not.

That's funny because Kos is a Cubs fan.

The version of the bill does not provide any more actual access to the insurance than what was already there actually. The objections to the bill, according to the NPR report I heard earlier this morning were on language that enabled states to determine eligibility requirements (IE what constitutes financial hardship enough to qualify - but only after getting approval from the Federal government for a income limit waiver) and documentation required to enroll in SCHIP. (The program currently requires original documents proving citizenship - which if IIRC is actually more difficult to obtain than the citizenship proof required to get a passport.)

The only silver lining about this bill is that it will automatically sunset in six months. But yeah, it was a s***ty last night of session move on their behalf. Fortunately, my Rep voted against it.

My band "Zsa Zsa Gabortion and the Back Ally McBeals" will be having its debut performance Saturday night.

QUOTE(Heads22 @ Aug 3, 2007 -> 05:56 PM) I had no idea Edwards was on RAGBRAI. I'm definitley hearing more buzz about Obama here. Yeah, he rode one day with Armstrong. But he wasn't the only candidate to do so IIRC.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Aug 3, 2007 -> 04:18 PM) And again, that's not exactly what the Bush people have said, even regarding Iraq... But back to the point at hand. They told the government that they have to live up to certain expectations, or we won't give them economic aid. Big difference, compared to what's been implied. You do have to realize that Musharraf is probably the only thing we can rely on over there. Who are we going to deal with? The Pakistani army, who will launch nukes at India, just because they want to play a little nuclear basketball? He holds power because we say he does right now. Pakistan has so many factions and issues - probably more then Iraq - but it's a known known as opposed to a known unknown. I meant about Obama saying "ignorant" things. The Pakistani situation is a lot more complicated than you or I could even fathom right now.