
Live free.

Die well.

Leave a good-looking planet.
Any questions?

Bomb Explosions Kill Two GIs, 3 Iraqis
A bomb exploded Sunday at a crowded bus station south of Baghdad, killing at least two people and injuring four, police said. Two U.S. soldiers and an Iraqi police officer were killed in other explosions.
A bomb detonated as passengers boarded a bus in Hillah, a predominantly Shiite city about 60 miles south of Baghdad, police Capt. Muthana Khalid said. The vehicle was destroyed in the blast.
Jawad Khazim, a bus driver who witnessed the attack, said a man boarded the bus carrying a bag and disembarked moments later empty-handed. The explosion occurred minutes later, Khazim said.
Sunday was the first day normal traffic was allowed in Hillah after the strife-prone region was placed under an extraordinary daylight curfew to curb a deadly wave of sectarian violence unleashed by the bombing of a revered Shiite shrine in Samarra.
A vehicle ban remained in effect in Baghdad and its suburbs, but traffic restrictions were lifted in three surrounding provinces.
Passengers fled the bus station and shops closed after the blast.
"Every day there are explosions," said Abdelallah Hassan, who runs a pastry shop at the bus station. "The main blame should be directed not at the terrorists, but at the government which stands helpless in front of them."
...
Paul Moore: It must be nice to always believe you know better, to always think you're the smartest person in the room.
Jane Craig: No. It's awful.
…the American public has been presented reports by the Senate Intelligence Committee, and the heads of the Iraq Survey Group David Kay and Charles Duelfer (chosen by the president), concluding that before the war Iraq had neither weapons of mass destruction, nor even a significant program for developing them.
Nonetheless, 72% of Bush supporters continued to hold to the view that Iraq had actual WMD (47%) or a major program for developing them (25%).
The pattern on al Qaeda is similar. Seventy-five percent of Bush supporters think the Bush administration is currently saying Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda (56%) or even that it was directly involved in 9/11 (19%). Furthermore, 55% of Bush supporters say it is their impression the Bush administration is currently saying the US has found clear evidence Saddam Hussein was working closely with al Qaeda (not saying clear evidence found: 37%).

1. Bush is on vacation again.
2. They’re so scared stupid by yet another week of their own ineptitude blowing up in their own faces again that even Scary Mary Matalin can’t get her bile-erection up two weeks in a row.
3. It’s Two-For-One Day at Manwhore Gannon’s Bareback Shack
“He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And when you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.”

Outraged Moderate got hold of Steven Cambone’s handwritten notes of his meeting with Donald Rumsfeld from the afternoon of September 11, 2001.
The notes confirm CBS News’ report of September 4, 2002 that, at that meeting, Rumsfeld was already thinking of using the atrocities as an excuse to go to war with Iraq. It’s important to stress: Rumsfeld is not wondering if Iraq did it; he’s wondering if it can look enough like Iraq did it to pin the blame there.
It can’t be stressed enough: the Pentagon was aflame; there was smoke pouring from a hole in the Pennsylvania fields and the World Trade Center complex was belching its ghastly cloud, and already our rulers were thinking not, who is to blame? but what can we get away with? What will the still-bubbling fat of the murdered serve to cook?…
Plans For Iraq Attack Began On 9/11
WASHINGTON, Sept. 4, 2002
(CBS) CBS News has learned that barely five hours after American Airlines Flight 77 plowed into the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was telling his aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq — even though there was no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the attacks.
That's according to notes taken by aides who were with Rumsfeld in the National Military Command Center on Sept. 11 – notes that show exactly where the road toward war with Iraq began, reports CBS News National Security Correspondent David Martin.
At 9:53 a.m., just 15 minutes after the hijacked plane had hit the Pentagon, and while Rumsfeld was still outside helping with the injured, the National Security Agency, which monitors communications worldwide, intercepted a phone call from one of Osama bin Laden's operatives in Afghanistan to a phone number in the former Soviet Republic of Georgia.
The caller said he had "heard good news" and that another target was still to come; an indication he knew another airliner, the one that eventually crashed in Pennsylvania, was at that very moment zeroing in on Washington.
It was 12:05 p.m. when the director of Central Intelligence told Rumsfeld about the intercepted conversation.
Rumsfeld felt it was "vague," that it "might not mean something," and that there was "no good basis for hanging hat." In other words, the evidence was not clear-cut enough to justify military action against bin Laden.
But later that afternoon, the CIA reported the passenger manifests for the hijacked airliners showed three of the hijackers were suspected al Qaeda operatives.
"One guy is associate of Cole bomber," the notes say, a reference to the October 2000 suicide boat attack on the USS Cole in Yemen, which had also been the work of bin Laden.
With the intelligence all pointing toward bin Laden, Rumsfeld ordered the military to begin working on strike plans. And at 2:40 p.m., the notes quote Rumsfeld as saying he wanted "best info fast. Judge whether good enough hit S.H." – meaning Saddam Hussein – "at same time. Not only UBL" – the initials used to identify Osama bin Laden.
Now, nearly one year later, there is still very little evidence Iraq was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks. But if these notes are accurate, that didn't matter to Rumsfeld.
"Go massive," the notes quote him as saying. "Sweep it all up. Things related and not."

IT DIDN'T WORK
By William F. Buckley Jr. Fri Feb 24, 9:05 PM ET
"I can tell you the main reason behind all our woes -- it is America." The New York Times reporter is quoting the complaint of a clothing merchant in a Sunni stronghold in Iraq. "Everything that is going on between Sunnis and Shiites, the troublemaker in the middle is America."
One can't doubt that the American objective in Iraq has failed. The same edition of the paper quotes a fellow of the American Enterprise Institute. Mr. Reuel Marc Gerecht backed the American intervention. He now speaks of the bombing of the especially sacred Shiite mosque in Samarra and what that has precipitated in the way of revenge. He concludes that "the bombing has completely demolished" what was being attempted -- to bring Sunnis into the defense and interior ministries.
Our mission has failed because Iraqi animosities have proved uncontainable by an invading army of 130,000 Americans. The great human reserves that call for civil life haven't proved strong enough. No doubt they are latently there, but they have not been able to contend against the ice men who move about in the shadows with bombs and grenades and pistols.
The Iraqis we hear about are first indignant, and then infuriated, that Americans aren't on the scene to protect them and to punish the aggressors. And so they join the clothing merchant who says that everything is the fault of the Americans.
The Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, elucidates on the complaint against Americans. It is not only that the invaders are American, it is that they are "Zionists." It would not be surprising to learn from an anonymously cited American soldier that he can understand why Saddam Hussein was needed to keep the Sunnis and the Shiites from each other's throats.
A problem for American policymakers -- for President Bush, ultimately -- is to cope with the postulates and decide how to proceed.
…
Mr. Bush has a very difficult internal problem here because to make the kind of concession that is strategically appropriate requires a mitigation of policies he has several times affirmed in high-flown pronouncements. His challenge is to persuade himself that he can submit to a historical reality without forswearing basic commitments in foreign policy.
He will certainly face the current development as military leaders are expected to do: They are called upon to acknowledge a tactical setback, but to insist on the survival of strategic policies.
Yes, but within their own counsels, different plans have to be made. And the kernel here is the acknowledgment of defeat.

1. I like a roof over my head, and to feed my meager vices, and I’m not a Nebraska meat packer (which, you’ll pardon me for saying so and maybe it's just me, sounds vaguely…uh…dirty. “Yeah, Jim, I know! I never thought she’d go for a ‘Nebraska meat packer’, but she had a couple of martinis, and bless her heart, you know down deep she’s a bit freak-ay.” ) so it’s into the labor pool for this working man.
2. Getting a hat-tip is nice, but it doesn’t mean anything kin the long run. For a day it’ll spike, but it always settles back down to a previous level, plus a few new friends picked up along the way (and a troll or two). And them things return to their proper cruising altitude.


This is my 500th Post.
“… I don't want to talk about it now
I don't want to talk about it now
I don't want to talk about it now
I wanna go down
God knows why you don't want me
No one would do the things I do
But to my grave it's gonna haunt me
How I got down on my knees for you
You are my obsession
And the reason that I live
You already got my soul
There's nothin left to give
But I don't want to talk about it now
I don't want to talk about it now
I don't want to talk about it now
I wanna go down…”

Senate Dems block Bush/GOP insider nominees for TVA
Submitted by R. Neal on Sat, 2006/02/18 - 9:26am.
In huge news that is not getting any coverage, Senate Democrats have taken a stand against White House cronyism and one-party GOP government.
A while back, Sen. Bill Frist ushered through legislation to expand the Tennessee Valley Authority board of directors and appoint a first-ever CEO to oversee operations. The intent was to run the giant federal utility more like a business and less like a government within a government with no elected officials.
The problem is that all six new Bush nominees are unqualified GOP insiders with little or no utility experience. And the current chairman, Bill Baxter, who was recently appointed to that post by Bush, is already a generous Bush/GOP supporter.
But the fact that they aren't qualified isn't what got the Senate Dem's panties in a bunch. This Knoxville News Sentinel exclusive article (registration required) explains:Senate Democrats Friday blocked approval of six nominees to the Tennessee Valley Authority's board of directors and said President Bush and Senate Republicans are "trying to stack" the nine-member board just with Republicans.
The six were denied a final Senate vote under an open-ended procedural move that could extend beyond the current recess and well past the Senate's next series of votes starting Feb. 28.
"All we're asking for is a guarantee of one Democratic nominee, and to date they have been unwilling to provide those assurances," said Jim Manley, a spokesman for Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada.
It's not a filibuster of a Bush Supreme Court Nominee, but it's pretty huge, and a nice battle for Senate Dems to pick.
Why?
TVA is one of the nation's largest electric utilities. It is a quasi-federal agency that operates in seven Southern states. It serves more than 8 million people and generates approx. $7 billion in revenues. It operates a system of hydroelectric dams, nuclear power plants, and fossil fuel facilities including 11 coal-fired power plants. Their operations have a significant impact on the diverse economy of the Tennessee Valley and surrounding states.
They are a huge consumer of coal and natural gas. They are also one of the worst polluters in the South. Their coal-fired power plants are some of the dirtiest in the nation, and they have a long history fighting EPA regulation of coal fired power plant emissions.
…


Inigo Montoya: He's dead. He can't talk.
Miracle Max: Whoo-hoo-hoo, look who knows so much. It just so happens that your friend here is only MOSTLY dead. There's a big difference between mostly dead and all dead. Mostly dead is slightly alive. With all dead, well, with all dead there's usually only one thing you can do.
Inigo Montoya: What's that?
Miracle Max: Go through his clothes and look for loose change.

February 14, 2006
U.S. Has Royalty Plan to Give Windfall to Oil Companies
By EDMUND L. ANDREWS
WASHINGTON, Feb. 13 — The federal government is on the verge of one of the biggest giveaways of oil and gas in American history, worth an estimated $7 billion over five years.
New projections, buried in the Interior Department's just-published budget plan, anticipate that the government will let companies pump about $65 billion worth of oil and natural gas from federal territory over the next five years without paying any royalties to the government.
Based on the administration figures, the government will give up more than $7 billion in payments between now and 2011. The companies are expected to get the largess, known as royalty relief, even though the administration assumes that oil prices will remain above $50 a barrel throughout that period.
…
But what seemed like modest incentives 10 years ago have ballooned to levels that have alarmed even ardent supporters of the oil and gas industry, partly because of added sweeteners approved during the Clinton administration but also because of ambiguities in the law that energy companies have successfully exploited in court.
Short of imposing new taxes on the industry, there may be little Congress can do to reverse its earlier giveaways. The new projections come at a moment when President Bush and Republican leaders are on the defensive about record-high energy prices, soaring profits at major oil companies and big cuts in domestic spending.
Indeed, Mr. Bush and House Republicans are trying to kill a one-year, $5 billion windfall profits tax for oil companies that the Senate passed last fall.
Moreover, the projected largess could be just the start. Last week, Kerr-McGee Exploration and Development, a major industry player, began a brash but utterly serious court challenge that could, if it succeeds, cost the government another $28 billion in royalties over the next five years.
…
"It's one of the greatest train robberies in the history of the world," said Representative George Miller, a California Democrat who has fought royalty concessions on oil and gas for more than a decade. "It's the gift that keeps on giving."
…
Based on the government's assumptions about future prices — that oil will hover at about $50 a barrel and natural gas will average about $7 per thousand cubic feet — the total value of the free oil and gas over the next five years would be about $65 billion and the forgone royalties would total more than $7 billion.
Administration officials say the issue is out of their hands, adding that they opposed provisions in last year's energy bill that added new royalty relief for deep drilling in shallow waters.
…
By contrast, the White House bluntly promised to veto the Senate's $60 billion tax cut bill because it contained a one-year tax of $5 billion on profits of major oil companies. …
"The [Minerals Management Service] only has the authority that Congress gives it," Mr. Hunter said. "The legislation said that royalty relief for these leases is automatic."
If that view prevails, the government said it would lose a total of nearly $35 billion in royalties to taxpayers by 2011 — about the same amount that Mr. Bush is proposing to cut from Medicare, Medicaid and child support enforcement programs over the same period.