http://mediamatters.org/...

Because if you voted, you would have to chose.  And this time around the choice is so obvious that there's just no use in debate or reason.  

I want you to stay home on Election Day because you must accept the fact that your party has abandoned you. You've gotta accept the fact that your vote doesn't matter anyway. So all you Democrats, stay home.

Yes, he's also saying your vote doesn't matter.  I don't know if that means he believes the whole thing is rigged, or that he's lying.  He's losing it.  He's running out of things to say.

This is a good sign.

When I hear the argument that somebody being tortured will "tell you anything you want", maybe some people don't think much of this.  False information isn't so bad now is it?

Well, if this information leads to an invasion, war (Iraq), or strategic attack, this will be risking people's lives much more than no information.  And would be much worse than accurate information.

The Bush administration doesn't think that torture is a useful information-gathering tool.  They think it's a useful way to consolidate their power some more.  A way to justify any and all military actions they feel like.  

And when Iran comes around, they'll have some testimony that says "this Iranian guy said the nuclear facilities are here and here".  And when we realize that this guy just pointed at a map haphazardly while he was drowning underwater, it wil probably be too late.

http://news.yahoo.com/...

"With all respect to Don Rumsfeld, who has done a grueling job for six years, we would benefit from new leadership to work with our military in Iraq," he said on CBS' "Face the Nation."

Wise words..except they would 180° contradict in every possible way his fearmongering from some time ago seen here:

http://www.crooksandliars.com/...

David Gregory asks him a question, asking him to explain how his focus on the Middle East has seems to ahve destroyed it more than anything, and the man just crumbles.

For a while, American foreign policy was just, Let's hope everything is calm -- manage calm. But beneath the surface brewed a lot of resentment and anger that was manifested on September the 11th.

So we have traded "managed calm" for what?  Unmanaged chaos?  He must have just been reaching for his talking points and tripped.  He has pretty much summed up how his administration has led to the collapse of any sort of order in the mideast, and they still have no idea of what to do.

Mexico has not had many official elections in their past and it needs to have start having more that are well organized and legitimate.  There was a large protest today and this Sunday there is a rally in Mexico City when Obrador will present evidence to the electoral court.  Please support this protest.  If you know somebody there, encourage them to show up.  

Both the candidates seem to recognize that it is a very close race.   Only a few people like Bush went ahead and congratulated the conservative candidate even though the election hasn't been officially validated.

They just need more peaceful support to recognize that the people do want a recopunt to justify the election.  You'd do it if itwas in the U.S.

Plenty of ink and spittle has been spent on this trend already, so I'll spare any details about peak oil speciulation and say that prices are going to keep going up. I think this will be the much larger crisis before any environmental one, but they go hand in hand.  

The only response the administration has done, besides some verbal endorsement of alternative fuels, is tax cuts for the automakers.  Slightly helpful, but way short of what needs to be done considering that it's full of loopholes.

The only real solution is to raise taxes on pure gasoline.  Yes, I realize this will only exacerbate the hurting on the public, but a) it's going to have to happen sooner or later.  Better now then when it's $4-$5/gallon.

and b) ONLY TAX PURE GASOLINE

Please visit the site: DemocracyNow.org.  The video podcast is where it's at. Also available through iTunes.

She is on target with a gazillion things that I don't even hear via the weblogs.  Like trying to stop the APA (American Psychological Association) from encouraging their members to participate in Guantanamo.  She runs discussions between two sides that might usually end in screaming, but on her show, ends in a respectable discourse.

She has the best news program right now and this needs to be recognized.

Officials in US President George W. Bush's administration turned down a 2003 Iranian offer to begin talks with the US, recognize Israel, and end support of Palestinian terror organizations, The Washington Post reported on Sunday.

The proposal, which arrived via fax along with a letter of authentication by a Swiss ambassador, was ignored. Reports have circulated in the past that Iran had extended its hand to the US, but the document itself was only recently obtained by the Post - reportedly from Iranian sources - and confirmed as genuine by both American and Iranian officials.

If true, this sends my head spinning.  Even if you don't trust Iran, any interest in diplomacy would involve following up on an overture like this.  I've been trying to think of logical reasons why they might not but I've run out of possibilities outside of the glaringly evil (Bush wants war) or the glaringly incompetent (they just forgot to read it).  

is there any possible logical explanation for this?  

How do those that are rattling the saber with Iran explain something like this?

When the Boston Globe, this past April, broke the story that President Bush has been quietly setting aside over 750 acts passed by Congress, claiming he has the authority as "unitary executive" and as commander in chief to ignore such laws, it turned out that one of the laws the president chose to ignore was the one establishing the special inspector general post for Iraq. What the president did was write a so-called "signing statement" on the side (unpublicized of course), saying that the new inspector general would have no authority to investigate any contracts or corruption issues involving the Pentagon.

Well, since most of the missing money has been going to the military in Iraq, that pretty much meant nothing of consequence would be discovered by the inspector general.

So yes, as long as corruption goes to the Pentagon, there's no oversight.  The military is now a giant money laundromat.  

These signing statements need to be stopped.  It's pure dictatorship if he can overrule any law with one line.  It makes the Senate and Congress into a farce.

As far as we know, he never asked for more troops, never said anything publicly, and his decision to disband the Iraqi military will go down in history as one of the stupidest strategic decisions of all time.

When his job in Iraq was done, he ran directly away from the country he was supposed to help within hours of handing over power.

The same man who "lost" 9 billion dollars meant for Iraq's reconstruction along with other huge mistakes.

Hackett stepped out before the primary.  He did this all to himself.  When it was evident that Brown, somebody who seemed to be of a like-minded political persuasion, had a much better chance of winning, he wouldn't run for a congressional seat that he had a sure chance of getting.

I'm not familiar with what is going on in the Arab press to say this, but are we blaming the wrong people for our own interests of war with Syria and Iran, or just conveniently leaving Suadi Arabia out of the blame?  Is there any evidence either way?

Iceland may be a unique situation, but I have to imagine that this would be possible for many other places.  I remember there was a lot of talk about hydrogen as a possibility in the US when the Segways first came out, but now all of them run on an electric battery instead.  What happened to the hydrogen revolution?

How can an Alito and Roberts get by with only releasing partial records like we're pulling teeth.  If they want status as top notch judicials they should be open and honest. But instead they lie at every opportunity to get the job.  This applies across the board.  If you can't be fully honest, why should you be a JUDGE.  the man that guages peoples honesty.  the people that set the standard for everybody else as far as truth.  If they don't fully disclose their judicial record, they shouldn't even apply.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

So if you believed Bush, you believed that Osama had NO IDEA that the US was trying to trace his satellite phone, even though he was the #1 most wanted in the world.  Well even so, it complete hogwash.  By the time the mention in the press that Osama was being tracked by satellite phone, he had already turned it off, and the information was already public.

The press gave nothing away.  There's absolutely no reason for Bush to sidestep the FISC courts.

I've never heard of them mentioning anything like that, but let's have a  look at some quotations to see...

Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers saying that impeachment should be for...

and again: