Is it just me or does anyone else seeing a potential connection between OPECs recent refusal to increase production and John McCain’s desire to not only never leave the Middle East but to expand the violence by bombing Iran?  

I think it is pretty clear that Bush’s Saudi friends kept the price of oil low before the 2004 elections – more than likely to help the US economy and thus help re-elect Bush.

So could the reverse now be true?  Could the Oil Sheiks be trying to tank the US economy in order to hurt Bush and the GOP in order to ruin John "10,000 years in Iraq" McCain bid for President?

Clearly, OPEC could simply be trying to maximize their profit, but crashing the US and the world economies could have profound effects on their profits in the following years.  Not to mention allowing a window for opportunity for alternative forms of energy to be developed and deployed – the ultimate bane of any oil baron.  

I hate being stuck in a party filled with spineless leaders and it is high time my party stool up and told the "Decider" to stick his FISA telecom immunity where the sun don't shine.

Because, as anyone that has been even half-wake through the reign of Bush II knows, immunity for the telecoms has nothing to do with immunity for telecoms.  Why?  Because Bush and his cronies don't care about the telecoms or national security or even the "Global War on Terror."  It is, as it always is with them, all about themselves and how much power they can grab. Telecom immunity isn't about saving the telecoms' asses, but their own. Which is the only reason they are fighting so hard for it.  

So I think it instead of listening to Bush whine on and on about telecom immunity, I think it is high time we should hear directly from the telecoms why they need immunity so badly.  So what I think Nancy should do is send the bill back (or start a new one) to a committee that has a chairman (or chairwoman) with some balls. A chairman that will demand the CEO's of the telecom companies appear and testify under oath why they need this immunity to keep "America safe in the future"

Libby managed to scoot from the punishment he so richly earned.

However, as they used to say... the truth is still out there.

There is no reason that Libby can't be brought back in and asked the same questions.  If he chooses to lie again and continue to obstruct justice... well... that's a separate event and isn't covered under double jeopardy.

As far as I see, double jeopardy doesn't cover lying under oath a second time or a third time... or even a fourth.  If he wants to keep lying again and again... so be it.  I think we Democrats can play this game as long as necessary.   Personally, Democrats should keep asking Scooter to tell the truth until he does. Perhaps his tongue will loosen when Bush is no longer Mr. Pardon.

I'm not entire happy with twisting the Constitution like this, but I also think evildoers belong in jail, just sayin'

What is so freakin' wrong with our so called Democratic leaders?

Congress controls the purse (see: Constitution, United States) not our Decider in Chief.  And I really don't care what our Decider likes or doesn't like about that fact.

Fact is, the Democrats don't have to spend the money.   Period.  End.  Stop.  Time to call King Georgie's bluff. Let him throw a temper tantrum in public.

There should be absolutely no reason why we can't find 41 Senators to back a filibuster and gum this ridiculous war to death.  

Filibustering is not just for Republicans.

It is time for us NetRoots folks to make our voices heard by our most obdurate President concerning the Emergency Supplemental spending bill that Bush has promised to veto.

Bush demands a "clean bill" but I say he should sign the one that will be sent to him by Congress this week.

Unfortunately, I suspect that the time between the passage of the Supplement Bill in the House on Thursday and the promised veto by Bush will be relatively short, leaving a very small window to contact the White House and express our displeasure concerning the veto.  

Therefore, we need to start contacting the White House NOW, before Bush vetoes the bill, if we want to maximize our effectiveness. And I’m not naïve, I realize that Bush doesn’t really care what the NetRoots thinks or even the country at large, but deluging the White House with our views may give others pause.

Like I said, time is short, so if you'll join me after the break...

It is clear that the Rightards in this country are determined to defend Libby's actions through a long list of misdirection and obfuscation.  The shouts of it wasn't a crime, Wilson lied, ad nauseum are detailed on other diary entries and quite annoying.

However, one thing that this trial proved in spades is that Libby actively tried to out a valuable CIA intelligent agent (unless an expert in middle east nuclear proliferation isn't valuable).  

The facts are clear, that's what Libby did, and quite frankly, one could consider it treasonous behavior.  The righties can't deny that Libby tried out Plame and when I've brought that argument out, I can tell from the responses, I'm scoring points.  His actions were morally indefensible, and they know it.

Thing is, is there really any difference between Libby trying to get the New Yorks Times to out Plame and him trying to get the paper of record to publish the sailing times of the next convey to the UK (assuming this was still WWII).  

Which I think is the perfect analogy and why I think we should start calling him Loose Lips Libby.

It is simply a tag, in this era of tagging, that labels Scooter for what he is; someone willing to put his party over the good of the country.

I doubt I'm going to get many people on this site defending the nadir of our judicial system - Gitmo.  In fact, I'm hoping that with the Dems in control, one of the first things defunded will be Gitmo.

Of course, when I mentioned this thought on another more "bi-partisan" site I frequent the righties exploded in a lather that was even more extreme that usual.  Maybe it is finally starting to sink that losing elections actually has consequences.  Anyway, the frothing went from threatening filibusters, to vetos, to saying Congress didn't have the right to close Gitmo to (of course) labeling me (and all lefties) as traitors.  

Obviously, they "love" Gitmo just as much as I hate it - but then when you can lock up brown people indefinitely without a trial or even charges what's a rightie not to love.  But, alas for them, they are now the minority.

So come answer my questions over in Moreville.

A day after Bush's prime time speech from the White House, the Senate's top Republican threatened a filibuster to block any legislation expressing disapproval of the plan.Yahoo

The polls show only 11% of the US wants to escalate, so I can't imagine a dumber move for the Republicans then to filibuster a resolution expressing disapproval.

Yes, I know that the Senate as a lot of real work to do and something like this would distract from the effort, however, [massive understatement] Iraq is important, too.[/massive understatement] And besides the Republicans are going to threaten to do a lot of filibustering this session... letting one blow up in their faces might teach them a real good lesson about keeping their powder dry.

So if the Republicans are willing to spend six weeks (or more) in front the Senate cameras pontificating and pounding sand about "staying the course", I say let them.  What could possibly be a better way to tie Iraq around the necks of the entire GOP.  Give them as much rope as they'll take.

Can one of the many Constitutional law geniuses on this site answer this question for me. The question popped up on another blog and I don't want to make a fool... or bigger fool... out of myself on this issue.

I get that the Constitution makes the President the Commander and Chief of the armed forces.  However, Article 1, section 8 sez:

The Congress shall have Power...

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

.  

So what I don't get is why can't Congress simply "regulate" that the Army (etc.) to leave Iraq by a certain date?

a little more after the jump.

So it seems that if, god forbid, we should lose a senator between now and the opening of Congress in Jan, things get dicey for determining control.

My question is; when the Senate first opens new session, what rules are in place?  As I have learned in the past 24 hours, the rules are extremely important to the functioning of that body.  And exactly how things could play out in early January has caught my attention. <please join me past the jump>
 

After appointing probably the most conservative and backward justice and corporate lackey in past 75 years to the Supreme Court, you once again have the gall tonight, in hopefully your last State of Union speech, to call for the nation to come together, put aside partisan rhetoric and work together under your misguided, bumbling and inept leadership.  

[There's more rant in Moreville]

Hey, Sen. Dumbass, this investigation was started because Fact #1: Classified information was publicly release (in a time of war I might add) and Fact #2: The CIA requested the investigation.  [More in Moreville]