Bush v. the media

I can’t stand the conservative cry babies who keep saying that the media is being bias against them.

First of all, I absolutely adore Helen Thomas. She has covered something like nine administrations. I saw her at the Newseum when it opened in D.C. in 1997 as she was being interviewed and she is quite something.

I think she is more of a liberal than a conservative, which is what she is now being blasted for, but in a recent interview she said that her reporting is only about “finding the truth” which is what it should be, right???

For some of you who are not following the line of Bush backpeddlings, last week he told an audience in Ohio that he never linked the September 11th attacks with Saddam Hussein as a reason for going to war. His comments were linked with old sound bytes from 2003 on shows like Keith Oberman which showed the direct contradiction of his statements for why we went to war with Iraq.

I don’t understand why people keep buying his lies. He can’t even string a sentence together anymore when he is trying to explain his reasons for things.

For the past 6 years, he has avoided calling on Helen Thomas like the plague. He knows she will try to corner him. Last week, he had a moment of weakness and called on her.
The following is the exchange:


Helen. After that brilliant performance at the Gridiron (dinner), I am -- (laughter.)

Q You're going to be sorry. (Laughter.)

THE PRESIDENT: Well, then, let me take it back. (Laughter.)

Q I'd like to ask you, Mr. President, your decision to invade Iraq has caused the deaths of thousands of Americans and Iraqis, wounds of Americans and Iraqis for a lifetime. Every reason given, publicly at least, has turned out not to be true. My question is, why did you really want to go to war? From the moment you stepped into the White House, from your Cabinet -- your Cabinet officers, intelligence people, and so forth -- what was your real reason? You have said it wasn't oil -- quest for oil, it hasn't been Israel, or anything else. What was it?

THE PRESIDENT: I think your premise -- in all due respect to your question and to you as a lifelong journalist -- is that -- I didn't want war. To assume I wanted war is just flat wrong, Helen, in all due respect --

Q Everything --

THE PRESIDENT: Hold on for a second, please.

Q -- everything I've heard --

THE PRESIDENT: Excuse me, excuse me. No President wants war. Everything you may have heard is that, but it's just simply not true. My attitude about the defense of this country changed on September the 11th. We -- when we got attacked, I vowed then and there to use every asset at my disposal to protect the American people. Our foreign policy changed on that day, Helen. You know, we used to think we were secure because of oceans and previous diplomacy. But we realized on September the 11th, 2001, that killers could destroy innocent life. And I'm never going to forget it. And I'm never going to forget the vow I made to the American people that we will do everything in our power to protect our people.

Part of that meant to make sure that we didn't allow people to provide safe haven to an enemy. And that's why I went into Iraq -- hold on for a second --

Q They didn't do anything to you, or to our country.

THE PRESIDENT: Look -- excuse me for a second, please. Excuse me for a second. They did. The Taliban provided safe haven for al Qaeda. That's where al Qaeda trained --

Q I'm talking about Iraq --

THE PRESIDENT: Helen, excuse me. That's where -- Afghanistan provided safe haven for al Qaeda. That's where they trained. That's where they plotted. That's where they planned the attacks that killed thousands of innocent Americans.

I also saw a threat in Iraq. I was hoping to solve this problem diplomatically. That's why I went to the Security Council; that's why it was important to pass 1441, which was unanimously passed. And the world said, disarm, disclose, or face serious consequences --

Q -- go to war --

THE PRESIDENT: -- and therefore, we worked with the world, we worked to make sure that Saddam Hussein heard the message of the world. And when he chose to deny inspectors, when he chose not to disclose, then I had the difficult decision to make to remove him. And we did, and the world is safer for it.

Q Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT: You're welcome. (Laughter.) I didn't really regret it. I kind of semi-regretted it. (Laughter.)

Q -- have a debate.

THE PRESIDENT: That's right. Anyway, your performance at the Gridiron was just brilliant -- unlike Holland's, was a little weak, but -- (laughter.)

Sorry.

What?

And after this confusing exchange, Helen Thomas has to go on MSNBC to explain herself for asking an “unpatriotic” question. What the hell is that about?

What about, answer the damn question Mr. President, in a way that makes some rational sense to people who speak and understand clear sentences.


Isn’t it true that “If you were telling the truth, it would only take 2 seconds” (Randi Rhodes 3/28/05) It takes George W. 5 minutes of incredible rambling to try to get a statement across. Telling, isn’t it?

This whole b.s. about the media’s war on the Bush administration should make Americans think a little. If the media is now being “biased,” “unpatriotic” and “unfair” isn’t there some thought that it might be investigative and doing it’s job at trying to bring the American people “THE NEWS” and not just “pro-war propaganda.”

Bush has said “In my line of work you have to repeat yourself over and over again to get the truth across…to catapult the propaganda.”

Message:
The Bush administration is into propaganda.
The media is into reporting.
That damn media is just so unpatriotic by not reporting the propaganda.

I’m just so flabbergasted that we continue to let this happen.

This is a reflection of history when during World War II this statement was an observation of the governmental reactions in countries like, cough, Nazi Germany: “you tell people about a threat, something to fear, then you call them traitors when they question it.” Something like that.

This entire war and administration is bullshit. Our grandchildren will be learning about this in history class and we will be embarrassed and apologetic for ever letting it happen.

I think the media should keep pushing, keep reporting, keep searching for the truth. The TRUTH!!!! And I think we, as Americans, have a duty to seek the truth as well. God help us if we ever stop seeking the truth.

Russ in '08

I saw Russ Feingold on George Stephanopoulos this morning. I have always loved Feingold. A friend of mine interned for him in 1997 when I spent a semester in D.C. and I have been a news stalker of his since.
He is going to introduce a bill to censure the president. I think that is so ballsy, and I love it.
He admitted that while impeachment proceedings could be appropriate for the wire tapping debacle, it isn't in the best interest of the country to start impeachment proceedings. Seems funny now that the Republicans found it appropriate to impeach a President for getting a blow job and lying about it, but Democrats are giving the guy a chance when he led us to war over lawn furniture, instituted illegal wire taps, implemented laws/actions well above his power, and....I could keep going but I am getting frustrated already.
He (Feingold) also made a mention that Bush seems to have thrown the Constitution and the Bill of Rights out of the window on 9/11 but funny how a state of martial law hasn't been declared. Hmmm...someone in Congress is starting to say what many consituents have been saying for years.
I wonder how Bush is going to take the censure thing. He'll probably laugh with his little arrogant smirk and refuse to apologize because he will never think he has ever done anything wrong.
It's all of these liberals and media out there who are all wrong, not Bush.

Are Republicans good for the military?

Soundbites and campaigns speeches by Republicans constantly consist of their pushes for military strength and care for the soldiers. But, are Republicans really watching out for our men and women in uniform.

Now, I’m not sure how accurate this number is, but something like 60 vets are running for office this year as Democrats. Two vets are running as Republicans. Could it be disenchantment with the party?

Additionally, it is this current administration who is cutting veteran benefits and who limit the type of body armor for soldiers. Better body armor is available from private entities but soldiers are not allowed to use that armor and if they do and still get hurt, the government will not pay their medical.

What about that bombing at a mess hall about a year ago? General military practice is to stagger mealtime dramatically so you never have so many unarmed soldiers in one place at a time. The new food contractor found it cheaper to serve more soldiers at once and so instituted a different policy which had more soldiers in the mess hall at one time than was probably appropriate. Why? Money.

So I ask again, are the Republicans good for the military or just good for military contractors???

deja vu all over again

Déjà vu anyone….????

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told the Senate Appropriations Committee today that the U.S. faces “no greater challenge from a single country” than from Iran. And that Iran is “determined…to develop a nuclear weapon…” and criticized Iran’s human rights record.

Close your eyes for a second. Take out Iran and replace it with Iraq. Replace “nuclear weapon” with “weapons of mass destruction.”

You see, we are being prepared for another war.

Next thing you know, we will be invading another country upon the discovery of a small supply of aluminum piping.

Did anyone get wind of that ‘second’ Downing Street Memo a few weeks ago in which it was uncovered that Bush tried to talk John Major into provoking Iraq into war. He suggested flying a US spy plane over Iraq with UN colors and if it was shot down by Iraqis, there’s a justification for going to war. Doesn’t it seem like we are currently poking Iran with a stick?

I also think this administration should resolve the government’s role and lack of action in the Hurricane Katrina debacle before it can point too many fingers at other countries for human rights deficiencies.

morale boosting radio

I was listening to the liberal news media last night (Air America Radio) and the announcer was commenting on the military communications network. I guess that many soldiers are able to get radio or even web access in Iraq. The military communications office/network/whatever controls what the soldiers have access to.

Apparently the powers that be have banned certain news media, talk radio and opinion.

Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly: Not prohibited

Air America radio and Al Franken: Prohibited

Now, I understand the concept of wanting the soldiers to be ignorant of all the negative opinions about the Iraq war while they are stationed in Iraq. When you join up in the service, you fight for your country and leave your politics out of it, right? Hey, I am from a military family, I always thought about joining the Navy, but won’t do it with George W. as our dictator/commander-in-chief.

I am saying that I understand why the powers that be don’t want soldiers to hear negative reports, but something bothers me about it and I am grappling with it. I don’t 100% agree with the spin radio version of the ban last night but I definitely have a problem with it.

Why can we send our men and women (boys and girls) to fight a drummed up war which now has such minimal support and not let them make up their own minds about politics or what is currently going on at home?

Is it because the liberal news media trashes our esteemed commander-in-chief every opportunity they can? Do soldiers need to have sunshine blown up their ass every second for morale purposes?

They can listen to opinion and news media so long as it is the type that is conservative, pro-Bush, pro-war, pro-annihilation of the Iraq/Iran/insert Middle East country here.

I have no idea if they have access to porn. I haven’t done the research. Let’s just say that I certainly hope they do.

South Dakota and abortion

For anyone who did not actually see the new anti-abortion South Dakota law, I have it below.

The South Dakota legislature has determined that “life” begins at conception and bases its reasoning on scientific advances since Roe v. Wade. We already know that the “life” question has been chipped away since Roe and now this is the case that will most likely be the test case for the Supreme Court.

When Alito and Roberts were being confirmed, I was terrified about how easy they both got through. And now, within months of their entrance to the bench of SCOTUS, they may be handed one of the biggest decisions of our time.

George W. Bush selected these men and despite any evidence of decisions we had from these two men (which was fucking very little), we have to remember who selected them. George W. Bush. The man who is trying everything he can to bring this country back to a Revolutionary War era society (with technology and more debt and disaster).

Is it possible that one man can create so much of a downhill spiral for this country in 6 short years. Most people would have thought it unheard of.

Enough about Bush, I digress.

The foundation of women’s right to choose as far as the Supreme Court is considered is the “penumbra” of the right to privacy as carefully found in the First Amendment. For those people out there who are strict constructionists, think for a second how scary it would be if we didn’t have a “right to privacy” on any level. (i.e. wiretapping by the federal government.)

This is not about abortion. This is not about an argument between when a life is a life and when terminating a pregnancy is “murder.” It is about the right of privacy, the right of a woman to choose what she can do to her body and what she can’t.

How many women do we all know that say “I am pro-choice, but I don’t think I could ever have an abortion.”??? It is the point of the matter. This case will mean so much more than just abortion.

Will all birth control be next? What about women who are raped? Victims of domestic violence? Incest? Are there any considerations for the woman?

I can’t even begin….

Sigh.

Here’s the text of the bill. Read it and come to your own conclusions.




FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to establish certain legislative findings, to reinstate the prohibition against certain acts causing the termination of an unborn human life, to prescribe a penalty therefor, and to provide for the implementation of such provisions under certain circumstances.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA:
Section 1. The Legislature accepts and concurs with the conclusion of the South Dakota Task Force to Study Abortion, based upon written materials, scientific studies, and testimony of witnesses presented to the task force, that life begins at the time of conception, a conclusion confirmed by scientific advances since the 1973 decision of Roe v. Wade, including the fact that each human being is totally unique immediately at fertilization. Moreover, the Legislature finds, based upon the conclusions of the South Dakota Task Force to Study Abortion, and in recognition of the technological advances and medical experience and body of knowledge about abortions produced and made available since the 1973 decision of Roe v. Wade, that to fully protect the rights, interests, and health of the pregnant mother, the rights, interest, and life of her unborn child, and the mother's fundamental natural intrinsic right to a relationship with her child, abortions in South Dakota should be prohibited.
Section 2. That chapter 22-17 be amended by adding thereto a NEW SECTION to read as follows:

No person may knowingly administer to, prescribe for, or procure for, or sell to any pregnant woman any medicine, drug, or other substance with the specific intent of causing or abetting the termination of the life of an unborn human being. No person may knowingly use or employ any instrument or procedure upon a pregnant woman with the specific intent of causing or abetting the termination of the life of an unborn human being.

Any violation of this section is a Class 5 felony.
Section 3. That chapter 22-17 be amended by adding thereto a NEW SECTION to read as follows:

Nothing in section 2 of this Act may be construed to prohibit the sale, use, prescription, or administration of a contraceptive measure, drug or chemical, if it is administered prior to the time when a pregnancy could be determined through conventional medical testing and if the contraceptive measure is sold, used, prescribed, or administered in accordance with manufacturer instructions.
Section 4. That chapter 22-17 be amended by adding thereto a NEW SECTION to read as follows:
No licensed physician who performs a medical procedure designed or intended to prevent the death of a pregnant mother is guilty of violating section 2 of this Act. However, the physician shall make reasonable medical efforts under the circumstances to preserve both the life of the mother and the life of her unborn child in a manner consistent with conventional medical practice.
Medical treatment provided to the mother by a licensed physician which results in the accidental or unintentional injury or death to the unborn child is not a violation of this statute.
Nothing in this Act may be construed to subject the pregnant mother upon whom any abortion is performed or attempted to any criminal conviction and penalty.
Section 5. That chapter 22-17 be amended by adding thereto a NEW SECTION to read as follows:
Terms used in this Act mean:
(1) "Pregnant," the human female reproductive condition, of having a living unborn human being within her body throughout the entire embryonic and fetal ages of the unborn child from fertilization to full gestation and child birth;
(2) "Unborn human being," an individual living member of the species, homo sapiens, throughout the entire embryonic and fetal ages of the unborn child from fertilization to full gestation and childbirth;
(3) "Fertilization," that point in time when a male human sperm penetrates the zona pellucida of a female human ovum.
Section 6. That § 34-23A-2 be repealed.
34-23A-2. An abortion may be performed in this state only if it is performed in compliance with § 34-23A-3, 34-23A-4, or 34-23A-5.
Section 7. That § 34-23A-3 be repealed.
34-23A-3. An abortion may be performed by a physician during the first twelve weeks of pregnancy. The abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician during the first twelve weeks of pregnancy.
Section 8. That § 34-23A-4 be repealed.

34-23A-4. An abortion may be performed following the twelfth week of pregnancy and through the twenty-fourth week of pregnancy by a physician only in a hospital licensed under the provisions of chapter 34-12 or in a hospital operated by the United States, this state, or any department, agency, or political subdivision of either or in the case of hospital facilities not being available, in the licensed physician's medical clinic or office of practice subject to the requirements of § 34-23A-6.
Section 9. That § 34-23A-5 be repealed.
34-23A-5. An abortion may be performed following the twenty-fourth week of pregnancy by a physician only in a hospital authorized under § 34-23A-4 and only if there is appropriate and reasonable medical judgment that performance of an abortion is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.
Section 10. If any court of law enjoins, suspends, or delays the implementation of a provision of this Act, the provisions of sections 6 to 9, inclusive, of this Act are similarly enjoined, suspended, or delayed during such injunction, suspension, or delayed implementation.
Section 11. If any court of law finds any provision of this Act to be unconstitutional, the other provisions of this Act are severable. If any court of law finds the provisions of this Act to be entirely or substantially unconstitutional, the provisions of § § 34-23A-2, 34-23A-3, 34-23A- 4, and 34-23A-5, as of June 30, 2006, are immediately reeffective.
Section 12. This Act shall be known, and may be cited, as the Women's Health and Human Life Protection Act.