Brain Surgeon of the Day

During last night's "The O'Reilly Factor" on FOX News, Julie Banderas appeared as a media analyst to discuss possible explanations for changes in viewer ratings for the evening news shows on the three major networks. Concerning NBC specifically, Banderas stated that "NBC has lost over two million viewers since Peter Jennings stepped down. And then Tom Brokaw, his show has lost about, uh, I don't know, two million viewers."

I know this world and its issues can be confusing from time to time so maybe I am wrong to think that it is public knowledge that Peter Jennings was employed by ABC. (I know it could be difficult to tell since Jennings only worked for ABC for more than thirty years.) With Tom Brokaw, I am sure "NBC Nightly News" is most closely associated with him but he has not anchored that show in more than two years. However, as I have stated before, FOX News has never served as a bastion of accuracy.

Shock of the Day

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), the Democratic chairman of a House panel examining the government's response to climate change, stated yesterday that extensive evidence exists in which senior Bush administration officials attempted repeatedly "to mislead the public by injecting doubt into the science of global warming".

If you could not tell, my title for this particular posting is extremely sarcastic. If the Bush administration would produce lie after lie in order to justify a war in Iraq, it is not at all surprising that similar tactics would not be utilized against trivial matters (trivial in the administration's eyes) as the environment. Two private advocacy groups presented a survey which shows 2 in 5 of the 279 climate scientists responding to a questionnaire complained that portions of their scientific papers had been edited to intentionally alter their meaning. In regards to another question, approximately half of those 279 scientists responded that, at some point, they were pressured by the Bush administration to delete references to "global warming" and "climate change" from their reports. What do you expect from an administration which still refuses to ratify the Kyoto Protocol (aimed at reducing the emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases) even though 169 other nations have done so already?

Irresponsible Stretch of the Day

During the airing of Thursday's "The Big Story with John Gibson" on FOX News, Mr. Gibson provided his latest inaccurate comments on the Scooter Libby trial: "We now know from testimony yesterday in the Libby trial that Ambassador [Joseph] Wilson was sent on the CIA mission by his wife, CIA analyst Valerie Plame. I have said from the beginning that, if CIA analyst Valerie Plame was inserting herself in politics by sending her anti-war, anti-invasion husband on a fact finding mission about Saddam Hussein, then damn right, we should know her name. I said Karl Rove should get a medal for it if he did it."

First and foremost, how much power does Gibson think Plame had as a member of the CIA? The final decision to send Wilson to Niger was made by the office of the Vice President. At the same time, I do not doubt that Plame recommended her husband for the mission to Niger to determine if Saddam Hussein was attempting to purchase enriched uranium yellowcake, especially considering the fact that he previously served as a U.S. Ambassador to several African nations. In fact, declassified documents from the State Department (a Bush led State Department) released during the Libby trial verify this assertion:

"Meeting [on February 19, 2002] apparently convened by Valerie Wilson, a CIA WMD managerial type and the wife of Ambassador Joe Wilson, with the idea that the agency and the larger [Under Secretary Grossman] USG could dispatch Joe to Niger to use his contacts there to sort out the Niger/Iraq uranium sale question."

"With the idea" of dispatching her husband to use his contacts. As a "CIA WMD managerial type", that is exactly what Plame should have done as part of her job responsibilities. At the same time, those same declassified documents paint a picture of the role played by both Plame and Wilson in this scandal contrary to Gibson's.

"[Wilson] previewed his plans and rationale for going to Niger but said he would only go if the [State] Department thought his trip made sense."

From his comments, it is apparent that Plame recommending her tremendously qualified husband for the Niger mission is much worse to Gibson than Plame being exposed by her own government as an active CIA official, which is clearly in violation of federal law. Of course, Gibson and other conservative pundits steer clear of the infamous "16 words" delivered by Mr. Bush in his State of the Union address in January 2003. During that speech, Mr. Bush, in contradiction of Wilson's findings, falsely claimed that "the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa". However, in March 2003, when the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) finally obtained the documents (regarding the alleged transactions between Iraq and Niger) referred to by former Secretary of State Colin Powell in front of the United Nations Security Council, the IAEA concluded that the documents were clearly fraudulent. With that being said, I definitely understand why Plame and Wilson are the villians in this story.

Strongest Reply of the Day

The following excerpts are taken from the statement released by Paul Rieckhoff, an Iraq War veteran and the Executive Director of the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA), in response to Mr. Bush's State of the Union address last week:

"Tonight [Mr. Bush] once again failed to demonstrate a real commitment to the 1.6 million new American veterans who have been created under his watch. For the second year in a row, [Mr. Bush] in his State of the Union address chose to mention the troops only as a prop for his failing policies and ignored the nation's new veterans entirely."

"[Mr. Bush], this nation's new veterans and this new Congress will together rewrite the book on our approach to veterans' services and we'll do it with or without your help. Tonight you demonstrated your willingness to send more troops into harm's way. A demonstration of your commitment to preserving this nation's promise to its veterans is long overdue."

The IAVA is the nation's first and largest group dedicated to the veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as the civilian supporters of those individuals. More importantly, the organization is non-partisan, criticizing both Republicans and Democrats alike. The subject matter of Rieckhoff's statements is definitely one of the main reasons for people being opposed to sending more troops to Iraq. Aside from the numerous lies perpetrated as justification for invading Iraq in the first place, the Bush administration has appeared to be extremely casual and flippant on multiple occasions when it comes to U.S. casualties suffered during the war.

Best Quote of the Week

"Today I am announcing that I will form an exploratory committee to run for president." -- Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) in announcing her intentions to run for President of the United States

Thank God! My only dilemma with this news is that I don't know which sounds better: President Hillary Clinton or First Lady Bill Clinton.

Moronic Response of the Week, Part II

In the same "60 Minutes" interview, Mr. Bush provided this egregious claim: "The minute we found out they didn't have weapons of mass destruction, I was the first to say so. Scott, all I can do is just tell the truth, tell people exactly what's on my mind, which is what I do."

Really? Is that what happened? Mr. Bush was the first to say so? If that is the case, then why was Secretary of State Colin Powell quoted on March 24, 2001 as saying Saddam Hussein "has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction"? However, on March 16, 2003, with the Iraq War only 4 days away, Mr. Cheney claimed on "Meet the Press" that "We believe [Hussein] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons". As Lord Acton, a famous British historian, stated, "Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely".

Moronic Response of the Week, Part I

In an interview on tonight's episode of "60 Minutes", correspondent Scott Pelley questioned Mr. Bush on numerous issues regarding the Iraq War, including the lack of truth from this administration:

PELLEY: You know better than I do that many Americans feel that your administration has not been straight with the country, has not been honest. To those people you say what?
BUSH: On what issue?
PELLEY: Well, sir . . .
BUSH: Like the weapons of mass destruction?
PELLEY: No weapons of mass destruction.
BUSH: Yeah.
PELLEY: No credible connection between 9/11 and Iraq.
BUSH: Yeah.
PELLEY: The Office of Management and Budget said this war would cost somewhere between $50 billion and $60 billion and now we're over $400.
BUSH: I gotcha. I gotcha. I gotcha.

Not only did Mr. Bush provide the first and most obvious lie perpetrated by his administration, he then continues to answer matter-of-factly with Pelley's other examples. Although I certainly could provide evidence to back up those examples, this is obviously an instance where Mr. Bush's nonchalant attitude is enough. (By the way, I am sure the families of the soldiers killed in the Middle East appreciate that attitude.)

Ironic Quote of the Day

"Our past efforts to secure Baghdad failed for two principal reasons: There were not enough Iraqi and American troops to secure neighborhoods that had been cleared of terrorists and insurgents."

Although there are numerous mindless excerpts from Mr. Bush's speech last night, this is definitely one of the most frustrating. As is clearly par for the course with Mr. Bush and his cronies, this is still another instance where the Bush administration deflects blame once again. As Bush-appointed U.S. Administrator of Iraq by Mr. Bush, Paul Bremer did his damage in only three days in May 2003. With Order #2, Bremer completely disbanded the Iraqi military (including the most highly trained and educated individuals), resulting in more than 300,000 still armed soldiers now underground. This order follows Bremer purging approximately 50,000 Baath Party members from their jobs in government ministries, schools and universities. Senior officials at the Coalition Provisional Authority in Baghdad attempted to persuade Bremer but he did not listen. In fact, one coalition official stated that "We said, 'Let's get Rumsfeld on the phone to soften it up a little bit.' But Bremer said, 'No, I'm issuing this today.'" (Bremer made this statement even though he reported directly to former Secretary Rumsfeld.)

Pointless Concern of the Week

After Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) was sworn in on Thursday as the newest Speaker of the House, numerous conservative individuals (both callers and hosts) on talk radio expressed anxiety about Ms. Pelosi now being second in line for succession to the presidency, behind the Vice President.

Following a day which was historical for Congress and the women of the United States, Republicans apparently had nothing better to do but spend time on this topic. First and foremost, there has obviously not been any time in the history of this country where both the President and Vice President were no longer in office. However, I am not too sure why Republicans are so concerned about the possibility of Ms. Pelosi inheriting the presidency. What do I mean by that? Let's take a closer (albeit abridged) look at the previous two Speakers of the House.

Dennis Hastert (Jan 1999 - Jan 2007)

• Hastert (R-IL) accepted more than $100,000 in contributions from the firm of convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff and his various tribal clients.
• In September 2005, Hastert declared that spending federal money to rebuild New Orleans from the devastation of Hurricane Katrina "doesn't make sense to me". He also stated that "It looks like a lot of that place could be bulldozed".
• Was critical of the FBI for its May 20, 2006 search of the Congressional office of Rep. William Jefferson (D-LA) in connection with a bribery investigation. Hastert contended that the FBI did not have the constitutional authority to search Congressional offices even though the FBI had obtained a search warrant. (By the way, investigators found approximately $90,000 in cash in Jefferson's freezer.)
• In the summer of 2005, Hastert personally intervened during House and Senate negotiations over a transportation and infrastructure bill in order to secure $152 million to build a highway project and $55 million for an interchange 5.5 miles from property he personally owned. Hastert and two partners then sold a 138-acre parcel of that property to a developer in December 2005 for $4.99 million (the land was originally purchased at a cost of $1.9 million).
• In September 2006, several news sources revealed Hastert had been aware for more than 1 year that former Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL) had sent sexually explicit e-mails to a 16-year old former congressional page in 2005. However, a former House aide stated in October 2006 that he had informed Hastert more than 3 years ago about the e-mails.

Newt Gingrich (Jan 1995 - Jan 1999)

• In late 1995 and early 1996, without enough votes to override a President Clinton veto, Gingrich (R-GA) directed the Republicans in not submitting a revised federal budget, which allowed previously approved appropriations to expire and caused portions of the federal government to be shut down due to a lack of funds.
• During Gingrich's tenure as Speaker of the House, Democrats filed 84 ethics charges, including accepting a $4.5 million advance for a book deal, claiming tax exempt status for a college course conducted for political purposes and utilizing the GOPAC political action committee as a slush fund. Since the House Ethics Committee was led by Republicans, all charges were, of course, eventually dropped. At the same time, Gingrich did admit to "unintentionally" providing inaccurate information to the Committee during the course of the investigation. As a result, he agreed to reimburse $300,000 to the Committee for the cost of prolonging the investigation. He also agreed to not spin the story in the media but admit publicly to his transgressions. However, on January 10, 1997, the New York Times reported that Gingrich and other House Republicans planned to vacate his agreement by misrepresenting the ethics violations he committed, which was supported by a taped telephone conversation.