Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
mizbinkley
Published Letters: 870 Editor's Choice: 116
I took an oath. And I take that oath to the president very seriously.
Thank you Leahy for calling her on this. Sorry, but we don't swear fealty to our political leaders here. That one comment is a snapshot of what's so very wrong about Bush's administration. They seem not to realize that their loyalty is supposed to be to the Constitution.
Although I wouldn't be surprised if Bush did have everyone swear an oath of loyalty to him personally.
Writes Rick Maze for Army Times, “A Senate proposal to guarantee combat troops more time at home was derailed Wednesday by a procedural roadblock thrown by Republicans.” http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/07/military_webb_dwelltime_070711w/
This amendment allowed for waivers in the event of a national security emergency. It allowed soldiers themselves to redeploy early if they so chose. Yet apparently even this was too stringent for Bush and his Republicans.
Read the heart-breaking Army Times editorial about fifteen-month deployments which reads, in part:
Fifteen-month deployments mean some soldiers can expect to miss two Christmases, two anniversaries, and two of the same child’s birthdays in one war tour. It means more mental health problems for soldiers, more stress on families and less support for the mission at home.
http://www.armytimes.com/community/opinion/army_opinion_editorial_070709/
Maybe Bush will create some Faith-based Initiatives to put these soldiers’ families and lives back together.
Not voting: Sam Brownback (R-KS), Tim Johnson (D-SD) and David Vitter (R-LA). I guess Vitter’s a bit pre-occupied with DC call girls.
The Democrats delivered their block and then some. It just wasn't enough.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00241
I agree this is much ado about nothing, but AKA Smith makes a good point with, "What pissed him off is that he called on her because he expected a soft ball question. She did not give him one. Good for her. He snapped at her the way he habitually snaps at people from whom he must suffer hard questioning."
It wasn't a full-fledged snap, it was a snip, toned down to 13 year-old size. It's just a little point that gives us some insight into Bush's character--an inherently bullying and mocking nature.
From the Report: As measured from a January 2007 baseline, do we assess that present trend data demonstrates a positive trajectory, which is tracking toward satisfactory accomplishment in the near term? If the answer is yes, we have provided a “Satisfactory” assessment; if the answer is no, the assessment is “Unsatisfactory.”
“Positive trajectory” are the keys words here. They mean “progress.” If you read the report, “satisfactory” assessments are given to benchmarks where there has been no change. This report is beyond “revised down.” And if “satisfactory” progress actually refers to “no change,” I shudder to think what “unsatisfactory” progress really means.
"The Scooter Libby decision was, I thought, a fair and balanced decision."
Bush's Scooter Libby decision, of course. Not the decision of Patrick Fitzgerald, Judge Walton and a jury of Libby's peers. Bush knows best!
That is HILARIOUS! The Democrats are recycling candidates? Did Mike Duncan not watch the debates? The visual alone shows how ridiculous his talking point is: the Democrats are diversity city and the Republicans are the old white guy brigade. They're not called the "Grand Old Party" for nothin'.
Slackie Onassis makes some good points about the thriving Bush Youth. The Republican Party is pulling its future leaders from the “best and brightest” from such fine institutions:
Some of these College Republicans might be laughable, narrow-minded ideologues. But they’re the laughable, narrow-minded ideologues who’ll be shaping our government.
Now it’s not so funny.
Because when I think, “what organizations are working to protect women’s health?” I always think of the Family Research Council. Of the 12 “team leaders” and senior staff members at FRC, Yoest in the only woman.
Yoest is a woman who’s the communications director and new public persona of FRC. But that doesn’t make the Family Research Council a credible voice when it comes to protecting women’s health.
Nice try, though.
so I was expecting something much worse.
But the image is tasteless. It was provocative, if that was the point.
Once I got past that and thought about it, it occurred to me that the graphic makes no sense for the article. The article is about the decision whether or not to abort. It's not about clubbing babies in Mexico.
Poor graphic! It does not illustrate the text! Boo!
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
