Dr. Paul Broun "For Brains" and his deep concern for the troops' well-being -- Take away all soft porn sales at military bases
Sadly, this is my district's representative -- the incomparable Dr. Paul Broun. He is a truly one of a kind politician or simply put, degenerate. He filled the vacated seat preceded by the late Charlie Norwood, and he won't be missed by me. Don't you have any respect for the dead? No. When it comes to a man who months before his death paraded through this area to provide his absurd rationale for voting to repeal the 1965 Voting Rights Act, claiming blacks are tying up the Justice Department, I consider his death a deliverance. Broun won the vacant seat over Jim Whitehead (carbon copy voice of Mr. Anderson from Beavis and Butthead. I'm Jem Whiiiteheaead). One of the wives for these candidates literally sent out e-mail alerts to potential voters claiming her husband was a better Christian than the other. I wish I was making this up. I think when I went to the polls I used a write-in vote for a "tree stump." Yes, it's an inanimate object, but at least it won't cause any distractions or harm.
Broun, who is another Bush-bot, decided to waste the taxpayers and Congress' time by authoring this ridiculous bill. What's on the priority list for our troops right now? Let's see. Equipment. Adequate facilities. Medical supplies. MREs. VA services. Detecting Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and having it treated ASAP. Modernizing the GI Bill under veteran Jim Webb, so service members can attend college and oh, Broun's bill to prevent our troops from purchasing soft porn on base. Here it is from the wacky medical doctor:
H.R. 5821
Monday, April 28, 2008
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Denounce and Reject?
It seems little attention is being directed at Sen. John McCain these days. One of his evangelical donors went as far as to say the end times will be a war between Israel, the West, and China with the antichrist ruling the European Union. What? Where was this in the Bible or anywhere for that matter? People are quick to ostracize Rev. Jeremiah Wright's (Obama's former pastor) comments which continues to be drudged up by our dumb media. After more than 400 years of slavery and segregation, I think he has a right to bitch about some of America's actions. Yes, his statements were deplorable, but you can't say they didn't have substance behind them.
Here is another example of why McCain needs to enter into a nursing home. He's scene-aisle. If he received that phone call on the red phone, it might take him precious minutes just to figure out who's calling him.
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/04/21/hagee-flip-flop/)
It seems little attention is being directed at Sen. John McCain these days. One of his evangelical donors went as far as to say the end times will be a war between Israel, the West, and China with the antichrist ruling the European Union. What? Where was this in the Bible or anywhere for that matter? People are quick to ostracize Rev. Jeremiah Wright's (Obama's former pastor) comments which continues to be drudged up by our dumb media. After more than 400 years of slavery and segregation, I think he has a right to bitch about some of America's actions. Yes, his statements were deplorable, but you can't say they didn't have substance behind them.
Here is another example of why McCain needs to enter into a nursing home. He's scene-aisle. If he received that phone call on the red phone, it might take him precious minutes just to figure out who's calling him.
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/04/21/hagee-flip-flop/)
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
More of the same great deterrent tactics -- generalizations and defer to the other guys.
Below is a transcript of a hearing held questioning alleged torture used by our Department of Defense and CIA. Rep. Robert Wexler D-Florida, who is also petitioning to hold impeachment hearings on Dick Cheney, provided a disturbing account of FBI Director Robert Mueller's persistent generalizations when asked specific questions pertaining to his agency's actions.
(TRANSCRIPT:)Robert Wexler: Thank you Mr. Chairman. Mr. Director, in January of 2006, the New York Times reported that the NSA wireless wiretapping program had produced thousands of leads each month that the FBI had to track down, but that no Al-Qaeda networks were discovered. During a July 17, 2007 briefing, FBI deputy director John Pistole indicated that the FBI was not aware of any Al-Qaeda sleeper cells operating in the United States. In August of 2007 Congress passed the Protect America Act, giving the intelligence community greater access to electronic communications coming into and out of the United States. I have two questions in this regard.
RW: Has the FBI found any sleeper cells yet? One…
RW: Two. Has the NSA’s wireless wiretapping programs either before the Protect America Act or after led to the prosecution and conviction of any terrorists in the United States?
Robert Mueller: Well, as to your first question as to whether we have found affiliates or, as you would call them, cells of Al-Qaeda in the United States, yes we have. Again, I cannot get into it in public session, but I would say yes we have. With regard to the relationship of a particular case or individual to the terrorist surveillance program, again that is something that would have to be covered in a closed session.
RW: Alright, Mr. Director. An LA Times article from October, 2007 quotes one senior federal enforcement official as saying quote “the CIA determined they were going to torture people, and we made the decision not to be involved” end quote. The article goes on to say that some FBI officials went to you and that you quote “pulled many of the agents back from playing even a supporting role in the investigations to avoid exposing them to legal jeopardy” end quote.
RW: My question Mr. Director, I congratulate you for pulling the FBI agents back, but why did you not take more substantial steps to stop the interrogation techniques that your own FBI agents were telling you were illegal? Why did you not initiate criminal investigations when your agents told you the CIA and the Department of Defense were engaging in illegal interrogation techniques, and rather than simply pulling your agents out, shouldn’t you have directed them to prevent any illegal interrogations from taking place?
RM: I can go so far sir as to tell you that a protocol in the FBI is not to use coercion in any of our interrogations or our questioning and we have abided by our protocol.RW: I appreciate that. What is the protocol say when the FBI knows that the CIA is engaging or the Department of Defense is engaging in an illegal technique? What does the protocol say in that circumstance?RM: We would bring it up to appropriate authorities and determine whether the techniques were legal or illegal.RW: Did you bring it up to appropriate authorities?
RM: All I can tell you is that we followed our own protocols.
RW: So you can’t tell us whether you brought it; when your own FBI agents came to you and said the CIA is doing something illegal which caused you to say don’t you get involved; you can’t tell us whether you then went to whatever authority?
RM: I’ll tell you we followed our own protocols.
RW: And what was the result?
RM: We followed our own protocols. We followed our protocols. We did not use coercion. We did not participate in any instance where coercion was used to my knowledge.RW: Did the CIA use techniques that were illegal?
RM: I can’t comment on what has been done by another agency and under what authorities the other agency may have taken actions.RW: Why can’t you comment on the actions of another agency?
RM: I leave that up to the other agency to answer questions with regard to the actions taken by that agency and the legal authorities that may apply to them.
RW: Are you the chief legal law enforcement agency in the United States?
RM: I am the Director of the FBI.
RW: And you do not have authority with respect to any other governmental agency in the United States? Is that what you’re saying?
RM: My authority is given to me to investigate. Yes we do.
RW: Did somebody take away that authority with respect to the CIA?
RM: Nobody has taken away the authority. I can tell you what our protocol was, and how we followed that protocol.RW: Did anybody take away the authority with respect to the Department of Defense?
RM: I’m not certain what you mean.
RW: Your authority to investigate an illegal torture technique.
RM: There has to be a legal basis for us to investigate, and generally that legal basis is given to us by the Department of Justice. Any interpretations of the laws given to us by the Department of Justice….(talking over each other)
RW: But apparently your own agents made a determination that the actions by the CIA and the Department of Defense were illegal, so much so that you authorized, ordered, your agents not to participate. But that’s it.
RM: I’ve told you what our protocol was, and I’ve indicated that we’ve adhered to our protocol throughout.
RW: My time is up. Thank you very much Mr. Director.
That's great. Let's turn the investigation over to the Justice Department, the same department that also has incompetent Bush loyalists with cookie cutter law degrees from nutcase Religious Right institutions. The same institution that fired several district attorneys for not participating in smear campaigns agaisnt Democratic opponents during the '06 election. I'm sure there will be a steadfast investigation into alleged torture. Jackasses.
Below is a transcript of a hearing held questioning alleged torture used by our Department of Defense and CIA. Rep. Robert Wexler D-Florida, who is also petitioning to hold impeachment hearings on Dick Cheney, provided a disturbing account of FBI Director Robert Mueller's persistent generalizations when asked specific questions pertaining to his agency's actions.
(TRANSCRIPT:)Robert Wexler: Thank you Mr. Chairman. Mr. Director, in January of 2006, the New York Times reported that the NSA wireless wiretapping program had produced thousands of leads each month that the FBI had to track down, but that no Al-Qaeda networks were discovered. During a July 17, 2007 briefing, FBI deputy director John Pistole indicated that the FBI was not aware of any Al-Qaeda sleeper cells operating in the United States. In August of 2007 Congress passed the Protect America Act, giving the intelligence community greater access to electronic communications coming into and out of the United States. I have two questions in this regard.
RW: Has the FBI found any sleeper cells yet? One…
RW: Two. Has the NSA’s wireless wiretapping programs either before the Protect America Act or after led to the prosecution and conviction of any terrorists in the United States?
Robert Mueller: Well, as to your first question as to whether we have found affiliates or, as you would call them, cells of Al-Qaeda in the United States, yes we have. Again, I cannot get into it in public session, but I would say yes we have. With regard to the relationship of a particular case or individual to the terrorist surveillance program, again that is something that would have to be covered in a closed session.
RW: Alright, Mr. Director. An LA Times article from October, 2007 quotes one senior federal enforcement official as saying quote “the CIA determined they were going to torture people, and we made the decision not to be involved” end quote. The article goes on to say that some FBI officials went to you and that you quote “pulled many of the agents back from playing even a supporting role in the investigations to avoid exposing them to legal jeopardy” end quote.
RW: My question Mr. Director, I congratulate you for pulling the FBI agents back, but why did you not take more substantial steps to stop the interrogation techniques that your own FBI agents were telling you were illegal? Why did you not initiate criminal investigations when your agents told you the CIA and the Department of Defense were engaging in illegal interrogation techniques, and rather than simply pulling your agents out, shouldn’t you have directed them to prevent any illegal interrogations from taking place?
RM: I can go so far sir as to tell you that a protocol in the FBI is not to use coercion in any of our interrogations or our questioning and we have abided by our protocol.RW: I appreciate that. What is the protocol say when the FBI knows that the CIA is engaging or the Department of Defense is engaging in an illegal technique? What does the protocol say in that circumstance?RM: We would bring it up to appropriate authorities and determine whether the techniques were legal or illegal.RW: Did you bring it up to appropriate authorities?
RM: All I can tell you is that we followed our own protocols.
RW: So you can’t tell us whether you brought it; when your own FBI agents came to you and said the CIA is doing something illegal which caused you to say don’t you get involved; you can’t tell us whether you then went to whatever authority?
RM: I’ll tell you we followed our own protocols.
RW: And what was the result?
RM: We followed our own protocols. We followed our protocols. We did not use coercion. We did not participate in any instance where coercion was used to my knowledge.RW: Did the CIA use techniques that were illegal?
RM: I can’t comment on what has been done by another agency and under what authorities the other agency may have taken actions.RW: Why can’t you comment on the actions of another agency?
RM: I leave that up to the other agency to answer questions with regard to the actions taken by that agency and the legal authorities that may apply to them.
RW: Are you the chief legal law enforcement agency in the United States?
RM: I am the Director of the FBI.
RW: And you do not have authority with respect to any other governmental agency in the United States? Is that what you’re saying?
RM: My authority is given to me to investigate. Yes we do.
RW: Did somebody take away that authority with respect to the CIA?
RM: Nobody has taken away the authority. I can tell you what our protocol was, and how we followed that protocol.RW: Did anybody take away the authority with respect to the Department of Defense?
RM: I’m not certain what you mean.
RW: Your authority to investigate an illegal torture technique.
RM: There has to be a legal basis for us to investigate, and generally that legal basis is given to us by the Department of Justice. Any interpretations of the laws given to us by the Department of Justice….(talking over each other)
RW: But apparently your own agents made a determination that the actions by the CIA and the Department of Defense were illegal, so much so that you authorized, ordered, your agents not to participate. But that’s it.
RM: I’ve told you what our protocol was, and I’ve indicated that we’ve adhered to our protocol throughout.
RW: My time is up. Thank you very much Mr. Director.
That's great. Let's turn the investigation over to the Justice Department, the same department that also has incompetent Bush loyalists with cookie cutter law degrees from nutcase Religious Right institutions. The same institution that fired several district attorneys for not participating in smear campaigns agaisnt Democratic opponents during the '06 election. I'm sure there will be a steadfast investigation into alleged torture. Jackasses.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Welcome
I'm P.J. and it's great to share and collect ideas with all of you. This is a blog that is poltically progressive and willing to exploit the disasters we face with the Bush administration. It's an election year, and the most important one in our nation's history, in my opinion. I'm ready to see this country return to its greatness once again.
I'm P.J. and it's great to share and collect ideas with all of you. This is a blog that is poltically progressive and willing to exploit the disasters we face with the Bush administration. It's an election year, and the most important one in our nation's history, in my opinion. I'm ready to see this country return to its greatness once again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
