DRUNKEN-MONKEY CRAZY EDITION

TarsTarkas.NET Blog: Resistnet Reacts Racistly. Live chat logs from the eve of HCR

43-Ideas-Per-Minute: And for the defense...part ll

Mother Jones: American Tea Party Top 40

Mad Kane’s Political Madness: Addled Threat

Halfway There: Treason! Insanity! Really!

Opinions You Should Have: Every Republican in congress calls in sick

Joe. My. God.: Pending senate health care vote fosters more wingnut calls for Civil War

Wall St. Cheat Sheet: Credit Suisse circumvents Iran sanctions to make money

Bay Area Houston: Speaking of giving somebody 'the bird'...

Dissident Voice: Among the most important corporate media censored news stories of the past decade, one must be that over one million people have died because of the United States military invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Runnin' Scared: War on Christmas not as warlike this year

Brad DeLong: Ten economic paragraphs worth reading

DOWNLOADS: (997)

PLAYS: (1735)

Embed

You knew that when Dick Cheney went on Sean Hannity's Fox News show for a sit-down interview last night, it was going to be a nonstop Obama-bashing fest.

Indeed, not only did Cheney back up the long-running Fox News theme that "Obama is a radical leftist America-hater whose plan is to weaken us and destroy us", but he went a step further -- essentially accusing the Obama administration of committing treason.

Hannity: You said that the president's cerebral approach projects weakness, and that the president is looking far more radical than you expected. I was, during the campaign, criticized a lot because I was warning, I thought, of the president's radical associations. How radical do you view him now? How radical do you view his opinions?

Cheney: I saw him, when he got elected, as a liberal Democrat -- but conventional, in the sense of sort of falling within the parameters of the national Democratic Party. I think he's demonstrated pretty conclusively now during his first year in office that he's more radical than that. That he's farther outside the parameters, if you will, of what we've traditionally had in Democratic presidents in years past.

Excuse me, but WTF?????!!!!! Neither Cheney nor Hannity explain this remark or give any example of Obama's supposed demonstration of his radicalism.

Let's see, was it Obama's decision to eschew a single-payer plan and head for a "public option" compromise on health-care reform that marked him a "radical"? His decision to increase troop strength in Afghanistan? Or maybe his willingness to scale back his stimulus package, at conservatives' behest, to the point that it failed to properly spark job growth? Maybe it was his willingness to throw Van Jones under the bus the moment right-wing talkers began circling around him. I dunno. They never tell us.

But Cheney keeps going, slagging and attacking Obama's presidency in some of the most vicious terms available -- including the suggestion that Obama and his administration have committed an act of treason.

This came when he and Hannity were discussing the upcoming trials of Khalid Sheikh Mohammad and other 9/11 terrorists in New York:

Hannity: You said in an interview that New York City is great, this trial in New York City is 'great for Al Qaeda'. That's a pretty strong statement. What did you mean by that?

Cheney: I mean that I think it will give aid and comfort to the enemy. I mean that it will make Khalid Sheikh Mohammad something of a hero in certain circles, especially in the radical regions of Islam.

Um, yeah, except of course that KSM is already "something of a hero" in "the radical regions of Islam."

More importantly, the language "give aid and comfort to the enemy" just happens to be the same language as the very legal definition of treason, as laid out in Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

Cheney is essentially accusing Obama of treason.

Hannity caps it off by asking Cheney if the Obama administration "maybe doesn't believe there's a war on terror," and Cheney agreeing that it doesn't.

History has already recorded that Dick Cheney not only was one of the worst vice presidents in history just in terms of governance, but moreover one of the most vicious character assassins and ethics-deprived manipulators ever to set foot in the White House.

Now he's just adding to that legacy.

It's true, you are dumb, Halloween book burners.

CJSD: Top Ten Reasons We Should Reject Our Nobel Peace Prize

Skippy: Self-Described Troublemaker Whines because People think he's a Troublemaker

PourMeCoffee: Michael Steele Accuses Democrats of Treason, in Writing, and No One Even Blinks Anymore

Ben Varkentine: Looking for something serious to read this weekend?

Guest posted by Blue Gal.

DOWNLOAD (164)

PLAY (262)

Another brave citizen gets arrested while attempting a citizen's arrest of Karl Rove.

LA Times:

At the annual convention of the Mortgage Bankers' Assn., former White House guru Karl Rove debated the 2008 presidential election -- and the current economic meltdown -- with former Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell.

Up on the stage walks a well-dressed woman, name as yet unknown. First she complained that there was no woman on the panel. Then she drew out handcuffs and tried to arrest Rove for treason.

She was quickly ushered off the stage.

The exchange between George Mitchell and Karl Rove on negative campaigning may very well be the best part of the clip. Be sure to watch til the end.

Now this is what real treason looks like.

alicublog: The moratorium on Elizabeth Edwards criticism has ended...

F.A.I.R. Imus has a long history of racism but the parade of media luminaries who have appeared on his show have rarely raised questions about the show's bigotry.  And explain this to me, why do UNITED STATES SENATORS appear on this daily slimathon?  Should we really be surprised at this latest symptom of the breakdown of civilized discourse when the Bush Crime Family, their right wing spear carriers, and the MSM routinely accuse other citizens of treason for merely criticizing elected public officials?

Martini Republic: An even more serious crisis looms in Iraq as tens of thousands take to the streets to protest US occupation

AlterNet: We don't just torture them, we torture us!

Booman Tribune: A lot of hot air devoted to fund raising, who's up, who's down...where's the beef?

And Doctor Biobrain's Response Is...on conservative authenticity

YahooNews: (h/t E)

Former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, behind bars for bribery, can at least be consoled by the federal pension he'll continue to collect. Current or future lawmakers convicted of crimes may not be so lucky.

The Senate on Friday voted 87-0 to strip away the pensions of members of Congress convicted of white-collar crimes such as bribery, perjury and fraud. That could result in benefit losses of more than $100,000 a year.

"With this vote, we are preventing members of Congress who steal or cheat from receiving a lifelong pension that is paid for by the taxpayers," said Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., sponsor of the measure with Sen. Ken Salazar, D-Colo.

The pension measure was attached to a comprehensive ethics and lobbying bill that the Democratic-controlled Senate, trying to improve the image of Congress after the scandals of last year, took up as its first legislative act of the year.

The Democrats' return to power in both the House and Senate came after a campaign in which they stressed the "culture of corruption" under GOP rule.

[..]Kerry's office said that by law Congress cannot take away pensions retroactively and the so-called "Duke Cunningham Act" won't affect the benefits of Cunningham or Ney. It would also not touch the military benefits of a veteran such as Cunningham.

Under current law, pensions can be forfeited only if a lawmaker commits crimes such as treason or espionage.

[..]The NTU says there are roughly 20 former members convicted of serious crimes who qualify for pensions.

Hoyer says a similar act will come before the Senate next week.

Honestly, the name, the "Duke Cunningham Act", while snarkily delicious, is so limiting. Given all the exalted members of the 109th Congress that have left their seat in disgrace, shall we redub it the "Cunningham/Ney/Delay Act"?

Anyone else I'm forgetting?

Will Bunch takes a look at NBC's new "TODAY Show" host Meredith Vieira:

"Who knows anymore because everything's been built on lies. Everything! I mean the entire pre-text for war."

Check out her handling of Ann Coulter on "The View" in 2003:

Viera: "In your last book you said liberals have been wrong about everything in last half century. You ticked us off over that one, alright. And now in this new book you say that liberals hate freedom...I want to talk about your politics because in Treason you say, yes, that liberals hate America."

Ann Coulter: "Right."

Vieira: "Well, it's stupid. What do you mean liberals hate America?" ...read on

You all know how I feel about Hitchens, but Chris joining the ACLU over this is pretty amazing.

ZAHN: But would the U.S. government have a reason...

HITCHENS: Warrantless wiretapping -- warrantless wiretapping is unconstitutional.
And can I just say that your reporter was exactly right when he said that, until this was outed, the administration had no comment. You and I are not supposed to be having this conversation. We're not supposed to know that this is even a controversy. Well, now we do. And now the administration has changed its tone.
It doesn't say it's treason to be talking about it. It is going to have hearings in Congress next month, as it should have already, and it's going to face a lawsuit.

HITCHENS: Well, frivolous, none of us are. I don't think our worst enemies would say that of us.
We're filing in the Eastern District of Michigan, which is the district, which in 1972, ruled that warrantless wiretapping of Americans was unconstitutional. And the Supreme Court eventually upheld that. It is called the Keith case. It did a lot of damage to the horrific Richard Nixon.
And, remember, when you think of that name, any power you give now to any government or administration or any right you surrender to it is surrendered for good. All future administrations can use that power any way they like. Is it no good to say, we're only using it to stop attacks, when they used to say, we're not doing it at all.

HITCHENS: What are they ashamed of?

ZAHN: Christopher, is there any instance where you would support domestic spying or unauthorized wiretaps in this war on terror?

HITCHENS: Well, you ask me domestic spying and all unauthorized wiretaps, that's tough.
Let me put it like this. There are people I can think of easily within the United States who the president should be impeached if he wasn't wiretapping. If you feel that you're on to someone or some group like that, you can wiretap them for 72 hours and still go to a judge and still ask for an authorization. It's still legal to do that.

ZAHN: Sure.

HITCHENS: That's pretty wide, I would say. And, therefore, if you feel to that extent, I'm ready to sleep at night. But you notice that those who support this policy, which they kept secret from us until recently, now say, well, actually, we don't really like the original act at all. We -- we don't like the FISA that guarantees this or the courts that it sets up.

Well, in that case, they must go to Congress and ask for it to be changed. They can't act as if it's a law, but they don't have to obey it.