Greetings Strangebedfellows!

We're pleased to announce that Bob Barr is taking action to defend our constitution by endorsing AccountabilityNowPAC!

Barr's endorsement is true action in defense of our nation's civil liberties, and can be seen here:

http://blog.bobbarr2008.com/2008/07/16/bob-barr-2008-statement-on-new-pr...

Please help us spread the word about this latest development! With your support, we WILL hold Washington Accountable for their actions.

Thank you, and please send us links to your blog entries!

Strangebedfellows

AccountabilityNowPAC.com (http://accountabilitynowpac.com)

Not to get way off topic, but I remember many years back, probably the early 80’s, seeing a clip of Pat Roberston on the 700 Club railing against ‘Let it Be’ because he said, “Mother Mary comes to me” was a reference to marijuana. To this day I have never heard anyone else make that weird leap as to what those lyrics meant. And considering the religious nature of the versions of that song done by artists such as Aretha Franklin, Ray Charles, and The Persuasions, for wacko Robertson to use THAT song to attack the Beatles was truly bizarre!

Is that compared to Bush, Robert Mugabe, (you know the guy that grabbed the wife of an opposition party member, had her feet hacked off, and then set her on fire) is not so bad.

http://tinyurl.com/46fou5

So, seems that barring some spectacular situations (my dad was my civics teacher...), proper instruction in the U.S. Constitution, and the system of government it establishes, so necessary to the proper functioning of a democracy, is largely defunct nowadays. I think we can safely presume that educational standards have only fallen since 2000...

I guess in a lot of ways, this is the root of the problem. It also explains the reluctance of politicians to support better education not only in general, but also in respect to government/civics. No surprises here, but a lot people seem to forget how critical education is to the overall governance and functioning of a civil society.

It's all based on trust and respect for property and civil rights, two very unnatural concepts that must be taught: they will not be gleaned by following the laws of the jungle.

(*Tom Haden representing the Godfather.) ...lest there might be a conflict of interest.

This ain't the half-of-it, Glenn. John Ashcroft said the exact same thing (last night on c-pan) to the full Judiciary committee. Nary a peep out of any of them. (*So, if any body needs some constitutional remedial education, I'd start with them.)

Also Glenn, did you see the Yoo/Addington ...hearing! I tell you whut, I think Addington thought it was a parole hearing. And he's not going easily.

bah.

~bop o. no bacon, I'm still eating crow after Barack turned on me! ...it's good see you are living high on the hog at least./.

~Arne. congrats.~ ...if thats your real name, Leon.

One Quick Point:

It should be clear that the matter of Karl Rove and Don Siegelman is a question of law breaking. Whether laws were broken or not of course we don't know, but it is clearly an issue of criminality, and not a matter of state, or the execution of the office and duties of any member of the executive branch from the president on down and certainly including the ex-White House chief of staff Karl Rove.

For the President to invoke executive privilege in this matter is thus clearly one of two things: 1) impeding a criminal investigation -- executive privilege has NEVER been interpreted to allow this. or 2) An admission of complicity and involvement in the matter of wrongfully prosecuting a member of the opposition party during an election. That thar would be banana republic level politics.

For the president to invoke executive privilege in this matter, it must be the case that the president in fact discussed this matter with Karl Rove. That makes the president an accomplice and hence liable himself for prosecution.

It seems to me that any other way of talking about this executive privilege claim is basically spineless. All these democrats and frankly even constitutional civil libertarians, who fail to contextualize this properly are doing us a disservice. This isnt some matter we can sit around and debate and get differing opinions about whether it is or isn't traditional to invoke executive privilege or whether it should or shouldn't apply in this case.

This is obstruction of justice AND prima facie evidence of complicity in a criminal matter.

If the talking heads and the politicians won't call it what it is...

We Will

The left-wing understanding of Government....

Is that compared to Bush, Robert Mugabe, (you know the guy that grabbed the wife of an opposition party member, had her feet hacked off, and then set her on fire) is not so bad.

I try not to be insulting, but there is no polite way to answer something this stupid and dishonest.

The best defense for Bush that you can manage is to say that he isn't as bad as Mugabe.

And the best attack on everyone else you can manage is the pathetic, cheap lying implication that people who read a Greenwald column would support mutilation and torture.

There simply is no non-contemptuous way to respond to something like that.

Good lord, no one here supports Mugabe, okay?

I think Putin is worse than Bush, too. Okay? That doesn't mean I can't have problems with Bush (or in the past, with Clinton).

The military junta in Burma is unspeakable, and propped up by China. I don't want either of their systems either...but I can still advocate for change here.

I can't wait to see a murderer claim that he is being unfairly criticised because he isn't as bad as Ted Bundy.

Shooter, you can do better than this.

I was watching Abrams during this discussion, and actually shouted at my TV when he didn't correct Blakeman, on his statement of the AG being the Presidents lawyer. You don't have to be a lawyer, to know that the AG is supposed to represent all Americans, a fact either unknown, or more probably, ignored by the creeps currently in power.