Another one for the books.

This one's juicy:

NEWSWEEK has learned that the General Accounting Office, Congress's investigative arm, is opening a probe into the [Iraqi National Congress]'s use of U.S. government money the group received in 2001 and 2002. The issue under scrutiny is not whether [INC head Ahmad] Chalabi prodded America into a war on false pretenses; it is whether he used U.S. taxpayer dollars and broke U.S. laws or regulations to do so. Did Chalabi and the INC violate the terms of their funding by using U.S. money to sell the public on its anti-Saddam campaign and to lobby Congress?

The investigation could easily become a political football. The GAO inquiry was requested by Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry (who when not on the stump is still a working senator) and another prominent critic of the Iraq war, Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, ranking Democrat on the Armed Services Committee. A March 3 letter from the senators says the INC's use of U.S. money is "troubling."

Chalabi is a huge piece of the puzzle as to why we ended up going to war. Any light shined on his shenanigans will definitely help weaken B***'s Iraq case.

BRING IT ON.

My favorite picture of today.

Deconstructing B***.

Revenge of the Repressed

From a good essay in today's Whiskey Bar:

...[T]hanks to [Richard] Clarke, and to the attention he focused on this week's public hearings, it seems like the collective mental block has been broken. Suddenly, people want to know the story. They want information, speculation, opinion. And they want to discuss it -- making this the political equivalent of Freud's talking cure.

A good overview...

...of various accounts of the B*** White House:

Accounts from insiders in the Bush White House describe a tightly controlled, top-down organization that pushes a predetermined agenda, shuns dissenting views and discourages open debate.

Doesn't add anything new, but it's nice to see this stuff hit the mainstream.

Great news.

From The Pew Center for the People and the Press:

A...Pew survey of 1,065 Americans, conducted March 22-24, shows that criticisms lodged by former White House counter-terrorism aide Richard Clarke are drawing significant public interest. About four-in-ten Americans (42%) say they have heard "a lot" about Clarke's claim that the president ignored serious warnings prior to the Sept. 11 attacks and 47% say they have heard "a little" about his claims. Just 10% say they have heard nothing at all about Clarke's criticisms. The story is attracting comparable levels of interest among Republicans and Democrats.

"Real, specific" information

From Government Executive Magazine:

A former FBI translator said Wednesday that the bureau had 'real, specific' information relating to the Sept. 11 attacks before they happened. Sibel Edmonds worked for the agency working from Sept. 20, 2001 to March 2002.

Edmonds said she was hired to retranslate material that was collected prior to Sept. 11 to determine if anything was missed in the translations that related to the plot. In her review, Edmonds said the documents clearly showed that the Sept. 11 hijackers were in the country and plotting to use airplanes as missiles. The documents also included information relating to their financial activities. Edmonds said she could not comment in detail because she has been under a Justice Department gag order since October 2002.

Edmonds has testified before the Sept. 11 commission, the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Senate Select Intelligence Committee.

There's more, here, from a press conference she held after her testimony.

Senate Votes to Make Harming a Fetus a Crime

61-38. (sigh)

Senate Votes to Make Harming a Fetus a Crime (washingtonpost.com)

Rasmussen Poll

I've added a link to a daily presidential tracking poll over on the left. It's updated by 9AM Pacific time every morning. Here's the latest from that poll:

Thursday March 25, 2004--The latest Rasmussen Reports Presidential Tracking Poll shows Senator John F. Kerry at 48%, President George W. Bush at 44%, and "some other candidate" at 4%.

Data from the past two days makes it clear that the recent news cycle is taking a toll on the President's numbers. Today's figures represent a net decline of seven points for the President in the past three days.

In addition to the increasing support for Senator Kerry, Rasmussen Reports has also found that the President's job approval ratings have fallen to their lowest level of the year.

Could it be the teflon has (finally) worn a bit thin?

After you've read the last one, then go read this.

The Carpetbagger Report: Scandal after scandal after scandal

Update by proxy

Sorry, I'm just too damn busy to update the chart, but things are looking really good right now. In the meantime, read this.

I'm personally looking forward to changing the operating system...

...to one that doesn't run this program.

Why We Went In: Version 10.0

Another day, another spit take.

Or is it "spittake?" In any case:

Before Toma Petre's relatives pulled his body from the grave, ripped out his heart, burned it to ashes, mixed it with water and drank it, he hadn't been in the news much.

Again. Not Right-Left. Right-Wrong.

Someday soon some people will no longer be able to get away with applying the word "partisan" or "political" to every utterance that goes against the B*** administration. Statements like this should be supported by everyone who cares about good (or even mediocre) government:

Floor Statement of Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle on the Administration Attacking Good People for Telling the Truth

"I want to talk this morning about a disturbing pattern of conduct by the people around President Bush. They seem to be willing to do anything for political purposes, regardless of the facts and regardless of what's right.

I don't have the time this morning to talk in detail about all the incidents that come to mind. Larry Lindsay, for instance, seems to have been fired as the President's Economic Advisor because he spoke honestly about the costs of the Iraq War. General Shinseki seems to have become a target when he spoke honestly about the number of troops that would be needed in Iraq.

There are many others, who are less well known, who have also faced consequences for speaking out. U.S. Park Police Chief Teresa Chambers was suspended from her job when she disclosed budget problems that our nation's parks are less safe, and Professor Elizabeth Blackburn was replaced on the Council on Bioethics because of her scientific views on stem-cell research.

Each of these examples deserves examination, but they are not my focus today.

Instead, I want to talk briefly about four other incidents that are deeply troubling.

When former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill stepped forward to criticize the Bush Administration's Iraq policy, he was immediately ridiculed by the people around the President and his credibility was attacked. Even worse, the Administration launched a government investigation to see if Secretary O'Neill improperly disclosed classified documents. He was, of course, exonerated, but the message was clear. If you speak freely, there will be consequences.

Ambassador Joseph Wilson also learned that lesson. Ambassador Wilson, who by all accounts served bravely under President Bush in the early 1990s, felt a responsibility to speak out on President Bush's false State of the Union statement on Niger and uranium. When he did, the people around the President quickly retaliated. Within weeks of debunking the President's claim, Ambassador Wilson's wife was the target of a despicable act.

Her identity as a deep-cover CIA agent was revealed to Bob Novak, a syndicated columnist, and was printed in newspapers around the country. That was the first time in our history, I believe, that the identity and safety of a CIA agent was disclosed for purely political purposes. It was an unconscionable and intolerable act.

Around the same time Bush Administration officials were endangering Ambassador Wilson's wife, they appear to have been threatening another federal employee for trying to do his job. In recent weeks Richard Foster, an actuary for the Department of Health and Human Services, has revealed that he was told he would be fired if he told Congress and the American people the real costs of last year's Medicare bill.

Mr. Foster, in an e-mail he wrote on June 26 of last year, said the whole episode had been "pretty nightmarish." He wrote: "I'm no longer in grave danger of being fired, but there remains a strong likelihood that I will have to resign in protest of the withholding of important technical information from key policymakers for political purposes."

Think about those words. He would lose his job if he did his job. If he provided the information the Congress and the American people deserved and were entitled to, he would lose his job. When did this become the standard for our government? When did we become a government of intimidation?

And now, in today's newspapers, we see the latest example of how the people around the President react when faced with facts they want to avoid.

The White House's former lead counter-terrorism advisor, Richard Clarke, is under fierce attack for questioning the White House's record on combating terrorism. Mr. Clarke has served in four White Houses, beginning with Ronald Reagan's Administration, and earned an impeccable record for his work.

Now the White House seeks to destroy his reputation. The people around the President aren't answering his allegations; instead, they are trying to use the same tactics they used with Paul O'Neill. They are trying to ridicule Mr. Clarke and destroy his credibility, and create any diversion possible to focus attention away from his serious allegations.

The purpose of government isn't to make the President look good. It isn't to produce propaganda or misleading information. It is, instead, to do its best for the American people and to be accountable to the American people. The people around the President don't seem to believe that. They have crossed a line–perhaps several lines–that no government ought to cross.

We shouldn't fire or demean people for telling the truth. We shouldn't reveal the names of law enforcement officials for political gain. And we shouldn't try to destroy people who are out to make country safer.

I think the people around the President have crossed into dangerous territory. We are seeing abuses of power that cannot be tolerated.

The President needs to put a stop to it, right now. We need to get to the truth, and the President needs to help us do that."

It's really quite simple.

If I do a spit take when I read something, I'm putting it here.

Schadenfreude.

I can't help it. I wish I could, but I just can't.

The official merchandise Web site for President George W. Bush's re-election campaign has sold clothing made in Burma, whose goods were banned by Bush from the U.S. last year to punish its military dictatorship.

1 bill. 3 investigations.

The Medicare fiasco bill might need its own chart.

Not as cool as my chart, but...

...it'll have to do until I have a chance to update it.

I am much relieved.

Today I note that the B*** Administration has not made one misleading statement about me. Click here if you want to see if they've said anything misleading about you

I still love this.

And now it's on my site! The Internet rocks.

This is getting too damn easy.

It feels like every day it's something new:

Federal investigators are scrutinizing television segments in which the Bush administration paid people to pose as journalists praising the benefits of the new Medicare law, which would be offered to help elderly Americans with the costs of their prescription medicines.

At some point, it's just so damn funny it's not funny anymore.

If you're going to the Republican National Convention, bring rose petals.

I was just staring angrily at a hagiographic portrait of Putin on the side of a bus stop (no, I wasn't in Moscow; there is a picture in the L.A. Times), then I came upstairs and read this:

For days now, the job at Eisenhower Park in Nassau County has been to follow the order from the White House through the Secret Service and down to the park workers:

"The president's feet are not to touch the dirt."

So all yesterday, large crews drawn from all county parks worked to ensure that, as always in his life, George Bush's feet do not touch the ground when he appears in the big park today.

Bush arrives for a fund-raiser at a restaurant in the park. That is indoors and he doesn't have to worry about his feet there. But he has to go over ground to an administration building where he is to meet with families of 9/11 victims. After that, he has to go over more ground to get to the site of a memorial to the victims.

And all I could think of was this guy.

"Send me back my copy of Beaches"

Sometimes I read my junk mail, just for the amusement value. This piece came in today:

Hey Mark,

I hope your month has been doing better than mine. Got into a bit of a mess, and well, it's been killing me. Snapped my knees when rollerblading down the steep hill by your apartment, I wondered why you have not heard. Anyway, I had to begin taking these meds that are an leg and a leg in the wallet. My brother in law in New Jersey sent me this place.

(SITE WITHHELD)


stuff:anything else, I can get it from there, since they have anything I could need. Can you do me a favor and send me back my copy of Beaches? I am just sitting on the couch taking what the hospital ordered and just playing video games. Take care, talk to you really soon.

Big hugs,

Lisa

I sure hope Lisa gets her copy of Beaches back from her gay friend Mark.

9/11 images said inappropriate by voters

Unbelievable oversight. Don't B***'s marketing people test these things before they release them?

Undecided voters, by a 2-1 margin, feel it was inappropriate for President Bush's re-election campaign to use images from the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in a television commercial, according to a poll released Friday.

Maybe the ad will help them decide.

Congressional Republicans Gut American Intelligence

Turns out that Republicans ended up carving more than twice as much from the 1995 intelligence budget as B*** is now accusing Kerry of doing. Here's B*** on Kerry:

In his campaign speech Monday, Bush said that in 1995, "two years after the [first] attack on the World Trade Center, my opponent introduced a bill to cut the overall intelligence budget by one-and-a-half billion dollars. His bill was so deeply irresponsible that he didn't have a single co-sponsor in the United States Senate. Once again, Senator Kerry is trying to have it both ways. He's for good intelligence, yet he was willing to gut the intelligence services. And that is no way to lead a nation in a time of war."

And here's the reality:

Bush is correct that Kerry on Sept. 29, 1995, proposed a five-year, $1.5 billion cut to the intelligence budget. But Bush appears to be wrong when he said the proposed Kerry cut -- about 1 percent of the overall intelligence budget for those years -- would have "gutted" intelligence. In fact, the Republican-led Congress that year approved legislation that resulted in $3.8 billion being cut over five years from the budget of the National Reconnaissance Office -- the same program Kerry said he was targeting.

Heh. They got pictures on the gal-durn Internet thingy.

From here.

Coffin? Nail.

Once again, we're way past right-left and into right-wrong territory here. Someone please convince me that there aren't a lot of Republicans hoping secretly for the ouster of this band of idiots.

WASHINGTON - The government's top expert on Medicare costs was warned that he would be fired if he told key lawmakers about a series of Bush administration cost estimates that could have torpedoed congressional passage of the White House-backed Medicare prescription-drug plan.

November, here we come...

UPDATE: By the way, isn't lying to Congress a crime?

Damn.

Salon.com News | California Supreme Court halts marriages

Lockyer and the conservative Alliance Defense Fund said the court's action was urgently needed because thousands of newly married gays might otherwise think they enjoy the same rights granted other married couples...

Can't have that.

Things Not to do on the Internet, Part 3

Have a link on your presidential re-election website that reads, "Read why, every day, more people support President Bush!"

He's been our president for 3-plus years now. Shouldn't they already support him?

Things Not to Do on the Internet, Part Deux (I'm not lazy yet)

Create a make-your-own-Bush-Cheney-'04-slogan website. At least not so long as people like Wonkette exist.

UPDATE: You can no longer make your own slogan by typing something in. Now you can only select from a pre-determined set of groups that might like to see B*** re-elected. I'm not on that list.

Knight Ridder Rules. AP Sucks.

Columbia Journalism Review can take AP apart any way it wants for its administration hackery. I'll take Knight Ridder any day.

Bush's State of the Union Address Causes Congress to Spring Into Action!

Stopping children from being left behind? No. Damn.

Senators call for baseball to toughen policy on steroids

Heh.

WASHINGTON - When the Bush campaign asked James McKinnon to co-chair its veterans steering committee in New Hampshire - a job he held in 2000 - the 56-year-old Vietnam veteran respectfully, but firmly, said no.

"I basically told them I was disappointed in his support of veterans," said McKinnon, who served two tours in Vietnam with the Coast Guard. "He's killing the active-duty military. ... Look at the reserves call-ups for Iraq, the hardships. The National Guard - the state militia - is being used improperly. I took the president at his word on Iraq, and now you can't find a single report to back up or substantiate weapons of mass destruction."

KR Washington Bureau | 03/10/2004 | Bush alienating some military voters who helped him win in 2000

Again I ask...

Has the B*** administration done even one right thing since "Mission Accomplished?

Amateur Celebrities Pick a Movie and Join In

Okay, I'm so all over this it's scary.

This is why I honestly think there will be a democratic blow-out in November

This is the worst presidency in the history of my 39 years (some historians say it's the worst in the history of the U.S, but I don't know enough about, say, Millard Fillmore to confidently make that statement), and I don't mean that in a conservative-bashing way; I mean that in a stupidity-bashing way.

B*** and Co. (the Mayberry Machiavellis) have subverted all policy to politics. The result has been a cascade of real, definable, understandable negatives in all our lives (deficits, job losses, the failure to secure Iraq post-war). So many of our current problems are not left-right oriented, and so many are directly pinnable on Administration choices (I won't use the word "policies!"), that I honestly don't believe B*** can win.

But I will hand one thing to B***: his complete disavowal of policy as one of the (chief?) tools of politics has proven that policy matters; that what a government chooses to do makes a difference. A Gore presidency (ironically, considering his reputation as a policy wonk) would never have done that.

This is good and apropos.

Now, the Search for the Next Diva of Domesticity

Now, the Search for the Next Diva of Domesticity

I would like to nominate J Lo.

Heh.

B*** is only up by 3 points in solid red states (states that went for him by over 5 points in 2000) and is down by 16 points in "swing states" (states decided by 5 points or less in 2000).

One thing is for sure...Bush will have to go negative in three...two...one...

Fun.

I like Pelosi's Balls

Newtering DeLay is Dems' aim

I'm amazed and heartened at the amount of solidarity the Dems are showing. They must really, really, really, really not like B*** very much.

For the next few weeks...

I'm working four jobs, so I'll be able to spend less time here. Not that anyone cares, but still...

I'll try to update my chart weekly (though I've missed this week's installment; it's coming) and I'll post articles I read with some comments, but that's about it.

RNC and Moveon.org

The RNC is warning TV stations not to run ads:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Republican National Committee is warning television stations across the country not to run ads from the MoveOn.org Voter Fund that criticize President Bush, charging that the left-leaning political group is paying for them with money raised in violation of the new campaign-finance law.

Now, okay. The jury is out on ads by these new groups like Moveon.org. The FEC is working its way through the issue right now, and might rule against them (though the head of the FEC is pro leaving them alone).

But, c'mon. The Republican National Committee? Couldn't they even create a shallow veneer of independence on this one?

Sheesh. The Republicans are way off their game.

UPDATE: Beyond the snarkiness, I have a couple more thoughts on this. First of all, the RNC can't possibly think that an independent (or even an owned-and-operated), local station would be prosecuted because it aired something that later turned out to be against campaign finance rules. If anyone were to suffer, it would be Moveon itself. So it's clearly a ploy.

But beyond that, it seems that this letter might be hinting at a new Republican strategy born of the post-Janet Jackson media skittishness. Frankly, I have been surprised at the depth of antipathy toward the broadcast media since Jackson's stunt. But as recently as last night I figured it was just an election-year wedge issue for the Republicans to trot out (they love trashing Hollywood and making the Democrats squirm). Now I'm thinking it might actually be part of a grander strategy of making station owners so gun-shy (which they certainly are) that they will flinch at any hint of impropriety.

Any local media outlet, whether independently owned or owned by a network, will be extremely cautious about raising any political hackles, what with the FCC actually threatening to pull licenses. It honestly wouldn't surprise me to see half the stations who were planning on running Moveon's adds pull them.

Which is hideous, of course. But consequential.

Someone Oughta Package This and Sell It as a Snack.

"Moblogging." Not when a group of angry guys in flannel starts cutting down trees. Instead, it's when people take pictures with their cell phones and immediately send them to a picture blog site.

Huh. Can't think of anything useful to do with this technology that doesn't involve porn. Apparently, this is the best anyone's come up with, and she got in trouble trying to do it.

Wake me up when phones can take movies and immediately send them to a website. Probably in about a year.

UPDATE: Okay, the article says some phones can take movies at 1-2 frames per second now. I didn't read the last paragraph. Sue me. And don't wake me up until the phones get up to at least 12 frames per second.

When You Consider...

...this (from The Book on Bush):

In one...case, Bush & Co. intervened at the precise moment that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Advisory Committee on Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention was set to consider once again lowering acceptable blood-lead levels in response to new scientific evidence. The Administration rejected nominee Bruce Lanphear and dumped panel member Michael Weitzman, both of whom previously advocated lowering the legal limit. Instead, Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson appointed William Banner--who had testified on behalf of lead companies in poison-related litigation--and Joyce Tsuji, who had worked for a consulting firm whose clients include a lead smelter. (She later withdrew.) Banner and another appointee, Sergio Piomelli, were first contacted about serving on the committee not by a member of the Administration but by lead-industry representatives who appeared to be recruiting favorable committee members with the blessing of HHS officials.

And add this:

Lead poisoning in children can damage the nervous system, limit IQ and cause learning disabilities and behavioral problems. At very high levels, lead can lead to coma, convulsions, even death.

And then just a touch of this:

Under the federal Clean Air Act, EPA was required to set emission standards for small [municipal waste combustors; these facilities emit significant levels of lead] that, at a minimum, matched the performance of the cleanest units now in operation. But in December 2000, EPA issued standards that flunked that test. Rather than requiring all MWC to match the performance of the best units, they gave a federal blessing to the continued operation of the dirtiest units.

Okay, okay, but maybe add a pinch of Washington D.C.'s current problem, where lead contamination in homes was found at up to 3200x (yep, thirty-two hundred times) the EPA's limit.

Then taste. Mmmm..good, but still needs a little:

The severity of lead contamination in the District's water reveals serious weaknesses in the federal testing program and raises the prospect that other cities may have similar, undiscovered problems, according to federal officials, scientists and engineers.

Now you've got a brew.

But one question: given all of the above, if you were gutting the EPA, and you were running for re-election pretending you weren't, would you call one of your new campaign ads "Lead?"

Question.

President Bush's day-old reelection advertising campaign generated criticism and controversy yesterday, as relatives of the victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist strikes charged that television commercials using images from the attacks were exploiting the tragedy for political gain.

The reaction to the ads put Bush campaign officials on the defensive on a day in which they had hoped to have the political spotlight to themselves after months in which media attention focused on the Democratic candidates and their criticisms of the president. The ads quickly became a political issue, with the Democratic National Committee and the Republican National Committee firing salvos over them.

Has the B*** marketing team done one thing right since the "Mission Accomplished" fiasco?

Honestly, if you can think of one, post it in the comments section or e-mail me.

Things That Make My Head Explode.

Okay, you try to wrap your head around this paragraph:

Military officials insist their case for attacking Zarqawi’s operation [before the war] was airtight, but the administration feared destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq could undercut its case for war against Saddam.

(Because Zarqawi's camp, which lay in U.S./Kurdish controlled Iraqi territory and outside Hussein's control, was being sold to the American public as proof that Hussein was in league with terrorists.)

It's a damn shame these people can't vote in November.

Cute.

Sydney Blumenthal is calling the religious right "theocons." His newest column talks about their differences with the neocons.

Even These Guys.

Even those wacky Oregonians would support a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage if only the Senate would waste some more time.

But for now, not so much.

Confusing Quote of the Day

From an AP article about the gay marriage amendment:

‘‘The chances (of passing an amendment) are getting better the more the American people find out," said [Texas Republican Senator John]Cornyn, who held a hearing in a Judiciary subcommittee on the issue Wednesday. And, he added, ‘‘we should not waste time."

Excuse my parse-imony, but surely if "the more the American people find out" the more pro-amendment they are, then they should waste time. I mean, by this reasoning eventually everyone will know about the amendment and there will be 100% support behind it.

Right?

Gary Aldrich

Conservative commentator and (allegedly?) former FBI agent Gary Aldrich is calling for John Kerry to release his FBI files. According to newsmax.com, Aldrich wants the files released in order "to bring some clarity to what is otherwise a very hazy explanation and description of Senator Kerry's activity, both in Vietnam and in the U.S. after he returned."

IN VIETNAM?

Yep. Here's what Aldrich has to say about that in an essay in Conservative Truth [sic]:

In the debate about [whether George W. Bush or John Kerry] has given more to his country, no evidence has been more emotionally persuasive than Senator Kerry’s own claims of war heroism. One basis for this assertion is that while serving in Vietnam, Kerry showed great courage in leaping off his boat to attack and kill a wounded North Vietnamese soldier.

Evidence suggests the Vietnamese soldier had previously been wounded by a 50-caliber round. Veteran friends of mine tell me if a person is hit by a 50-caliber round, it is highly unlikely they could continue to be a threat, because of the hydro-shock associated with the impact of the round. I am assured this is true regardless of where the enemy was hit.

I know from my own FBI training that certain high-powered rounds can destroy vital organs and blow away entire limbs – due to this same hydro-shock factor. Kerry’s claims that he saved his fellow soldier’s lives by taking the life of the wounded Vietnamese fighter now lie in reasonable doubt.

Also, Kerry’s ardent fans clamor over the Purple Hearts he received for each of his several wounds. What is not widely known is that even a minor wound can qualify for a Purple Heart, and a combination of Purple Hearts can be the basis for reassignment to a safer post. Kerry did, in fact, take a safer post after accepting his war medals.

Other veterans tell me they didn’t even put in for Purple Hearts, because they did not want to be transferred home unless they were seriously wounded. These veterans didn’t want to leave their buddies behind just to seek the safety of distance from the battle.

In total, it appears Kerry was in-country less than five months. Yet some prisoners of war served more than seven years and had many serious wounds.

I don't really have anything else to say about this, except "it has begun."

The Meaning of Marriage

I have seen the Light and have realized that this nation needs to return to its Christian roots when defining marriage.

Henceforth, I will devote some time each day (probably not very much, honestly) to getting my legislators to propose an amendment that will implement the following Biblical rules on marriage (from The Bible, Deuteronomy 22):

If a man takes a wife and, after lying with her, dislikes her and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, "I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity," then the girl's father and mother shall bring proof that she was a virgin to the town elders at the gate. The girl's father will say to the elders, "I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her. Now he has slandered her and said, 'I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.' But here is the proof of my daughter's virginity." Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town, and the elders shall take the man and punish him. They shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver and give them to the girl's father, because this man has given an Israelite virgin a bad name. She shall continue to be his wife; he must not divorce her as long as he lives.

If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl's virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father's house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father's house. You must purge the evil from among you.

If a man is found sleeping with another man's wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die. You must purge the evil from Israel.

If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death-the girl because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man's wife. You must purge the evil from among you.

But if out in the country a man happens to meet a girl pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. Do nothing to the girl; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders his neighbor, for the man found the girl out in the country, and though the betrothed girl screamed, there was no one to rescue her.

If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

Sorry, non-virginal single women. Looks like God hates you as much as he hates the homos. Don't blame me.

"Symbol of Failure."

From an article in today's Salon.com (subscription required):

Some of the 9/11 families wonder why Bush would want to shine a spotlight on 9/11 at all, since they insist it highlights a massive breakdown of his government to prevent the attack. "It's a symbol of failure," Pototari says. "The president is charged with defending this country, and literally nothing was done during the two hours of attack to defend the county. I've never been able to understand how Republicans have turned this tragedy into a victory."

I've always wondered why so many people have given this Administration a pass on all their bullshit. Doesn't the buck stop at B***'s desk? Honestly, why don't more people wonder where their leader's sense of responsibility is?

Another Case of Senatorial Ballism.It's Good News Tuesday.

A bill that would have provided immunity against lawsuits to gun manufacturers was defeated today after Dems successfully inserted "poison pills" into the bill. The pills?

• Extension of the existing assault weapon ban
• Closing a loophole regarding background checks at gun shows

Sound like horrible infringements on your Second Amendment rights? Well, they're not. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently declared that the Second Amendment applies only to militias, not to individuals. And it also turns out that the Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal of the case in which this ruling was made. So, repeat after me:

THERE IS NO SECOND AMENDMENT PROTECTION FOR INDIVIDUALS FROM GUN CONTROL LAWS.

At Least in San Francisco...

...Newsome illegally issued licenses before performing his same-sex weddings. In New Paltz, New York, not so much.

Good Riddance!

No tears shed by me:

Marge Schott passes away
By Todd Lorenz / MLB.com

SARASOTA, Fla. -- Reds minority owner Marge Schott passed away at Cincinnati's Christ Hospital on Tuesday. She was 75.

According to published reports, Schott checked into the hospital on Feb. 9 due of complications from a cold.

And I hope they got her little dog, too.

Joseph Wilson Book

All I could get (via Calpundit) off the Publisher's Weekly website without registering, but enough to be tantalizing:

Abstract: The much-awaited May book from nuclear expert Joseph Wilson will disclose who in the White House he says leaked information that led to the outing of his wife as a CIA agent, PW has learned.

That's definitely going on next week's update.

What a Crock

The Hill is reporting that a former aide to Senator Grassley has come forward with information that supports a Republican contention that it was easy to get into the Democrats' files.

Because of that, findings in the Senate file-stealing probe have been delayed.

Uh huh, yeah, and? I mean, the ease with which the files were stolen is not in question. So how is this more than a delaying tactic?

My Chart. Updated.

Not a lot going on this week overall, but I've taken the Perle things off (he resigned from the government), and added a couple of documents that might crop up during the election.

Here's the link.