Which Reindeer Are You?

A little belated, but...

You Are Prancer

You are the perfect reindeer, with perfect hooves and perfect flying form. Why You're Naughty: Because you're Santa's pet, and you won't let anyone show you up. Why You're Nice: You have the softest fur and the sweetest carrot breath.

Which of Santa's Reindeer Are You?

Which Action Hero Would You Be?

You scored as Maximus. After his family was murdered by the evil emperor Commodus, the great Roman general Maximus went into hiding to avoid Commodus's assassins. He became a gladiator, hoping to dominate the colosseum in order to one day get the chance of killing Commodus. Maximus is valiant, courageous, and dedicated. He wants nothing more than the chance to avenge his family, but his temper often gets the better of him.

Maximus		83%
Captain Jack Sparrow		75%
Neo, the "One"		75%
James Bond, Agent 007		75%
Indiana Jones		67%
Batman, the Dark Knight		63%
Lara Croft		63%
William Wallace		58%
El Zorro		54%
The Amazing Spider-Man		54%
The Terminator		42%

Which Action Hero Would You Be? v. 2.0
created with QuizFarm.com

Fear destroys what bin Laden could not

MiamiHerald.com | 12/26/2005 | Fear destroys what bin Laden could not:

Bush would have us excuse his administration's excesses in deference to the ''war on terror'' -- a war, it should be pointed out, that can never end. Terrorism is a tactic, an eventuality, not an opposition army or rogue nation. If we caught every person guilty of a terrorist act, we still wouldn't know where tomorrow's first-time terrorist will strike. Fighting terrorism is a bit like fighting infection -- even when it's beaten, you must continue the fight or it will strike again.

Are we agreeing, then, to give the king unfettered privilege to defy the law forever? It's time for every member of Congress to weigh in: Do they believe the president is above the law, or bound by it?

Bush stokes our fears, implying that the only alternative to doing things his extralegal way is to sit by fitfully waiting for terrorists to harm us. We are neither weak nor helpless. A proud, confident republic can hunt down its enemies without trampling legitimate human and constitutional rights.

Ultimately, our best defense against attack -- any attack, of any sort -- is holding fast and fearlessly to the ideals upon which this nation was built. Bush clearly doesn't understand or respect that. Do we?

Meme of four

Via Tbogg (amongst others to be sure), the meme of fours:

• Four jobs you’ve had in your life: waiter, claims examiner, underwriter, software engineer
  
• Four movies you could watch over and over: Blade Runner, Christmas Story, Shrek, Monty Python Holy Grail
• Four places you’ve lived: Rye, NY; Boston, Ma; Lincoln, RI; Whitinsville, Ma. and a few places in between
• Four TV shows you love to watch: The Daily Show, Law & Order, Simpsons, Apprentice
• Four places you’ve been on vacation: Nantucket, Rome, Oahu, Bermuda
• Four websites you visit daily: Hullabaloo, Crooks & Liars, Huffington Post, Left Coaster
  
• Four of your favorite foods: Pot Roast, Vindaloo, Filet Mignon, Granny Smith Apples
  
• Four places you’d rather be: Italy, Hawaii, Caribbean, Vienna
  
• Four albums you can’t live without: Pink Floyd Dark Side of the Moon, Green Day American Idiot, Hendrix Are You Experienced, Clapton Crossroads (okay, so its a compilation)
  

I'm tagging Mnot, Daveo, Ian White and Tom Glover... your turn.

Blondes have more fun

Via Stefan, one of the best blonde jokes I've ever seen. ROFLMAO!

Oh, and Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, and Happy Festivus for the restovus.

The "I"-word momentum grows

Investigative Status Report of the House Judiciay Committee Democratic Staff (PDF):

Our investigation has found that while the allegations set forth in this Report rise to the level of impeachable misconduct by the President, the Vice President, and other high ranking officials within the Administration, more information and investigatory authority is needed before recommendations can be made concerning specific Articles of Impeachment. This is due to the fact, that, among other things, the Bush Administration has largely ignored efforts by Members of Congress to obtain necessary information and documents, and the Republican Congress has failed to conduct oversight on these matters.

There is little doubt that the allegations of misconduct set forth in this Report - misleading Congress and the American public concerning the decision to go to war; misstating and manipulating the intelligence to justify a preemptive war; encouraging and countenancing torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment; covering up wrongdoing and retaliating against administration critics - rise to the level of "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors" within the meaning of Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution.

We also found that there is at least a prima facie case that these actions by the President, Vice President and other members of the Bush Administration violate a number of federal laws, including (1) Committing a Fraud Against the United States (18 U.S.C. ' 371); (2) Making False Statements to Congress (18 U.S.C. ' 1001); (3) the
War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148); (4) Misuse of Government Funds (31 U.S.C. ' 1301); (5) federal laws and international treaties prohibiting torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment (including the Anti-Torture Statute, the War Crimes Act, the Geneva and Hague Conventions, the United Nations Convention Against Torture, and Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment); (6) federal laws concerning retaliating against witnesses and other individuals (including Obstructing Congress, the Whistleblower Protection Act, the Lloyd-LaFollette Act, and Retaliating against Witnesses); and (7) federal laws and regulations concerning leaking and other misuse of intelligence information (including Executive Order 12958, Gathering, Transmitting, or Losing Defense Information, and Gathering or Delivering Defense Information to Aid Foreign Government).

2nd Blogoversary

Today marks my second blogoversary! What a long, strange trip it has been.

He knows if you've been bad or good

Presidential Oaths of Office:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Note that the oath sworn by each president is not qualified by: "when it suits me", or "when Dick agrees with what it says", or "except in cases of emergency".

Dubya is consistent if nothing else. He routinely states within 15 seconds of opening his mouth that "9/11 changed everything". Apparently, 9/11 also changed the meaning of the presidential oath of office.

Here's Dimwit this past Saturday during his weekly radio address (emphasis mine):

BUSH: Good morning. As president, I took an oath to defend the Constitution, and I have no greater responsibility than to protect our people, our freedom, and our way of life.

On September the 11th, 2001, our freedom and way of life came under attack by brutal enemies who killed nearly 3,000 innocent Americans. We’re fighting these enemies across the world, yet in this first war of the 21st century, one of our most critical battle fronts is the home front.

What is this, the zeroth law of presidential robots? He has no greater responsibility than to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States", period. Nowhere in the oath does it state that he is charged with "protecting our people, our freedom and our way of life" whatever that means. I also missed the part where it says in the Constitution that "9/11 changes everything". Nope, nothing trumps the Constitution of the United States of America.

Except, Dimbulb seems to think that it is perfectly okay to violate our constitutional rights for "national security" reasons without bothering to consult with the legislative or judicial branches of our government. Our freedoms and our way of life were not attacked on 9/11, they were attacked on 9/12 by the merry band of war criminals in the White House.

These recent revelations place this quote in a clearer light:

"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face," Bush screamed back. "It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!"

Hmmm... that doesn't sound much like someone who has sworn "to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Newsweek's coverage of "Snoopgate" tells it like it is (emphasis mine):

No, Bush was desperate to keep the Times from running this important story—which the paper had already inexplicably held for a year—because he knew that it would reveal him as a law-breaker. He insists he had “legal authority derived from the Constitution and congressional resolution authorizing force.” But the Constitution explicitly requires the president to obey the law. And the post 9/11 congressional resolution authorizing “all necessary force” in fighting terrorism was made in clear reference to military intervention. It did not scrap the Constitution and allow the president to do whatever he pleased in any area in the name of fighting terrorism.

What is especially perplexing about this story is that the 1978 law set up a special court to approve eavesdropping in hours, even minutes, if necessary. In fact, the law allows the government to eavesdrop on its own, then retroactively justify it to the court, essentially obtaining a warrant after the fact. Since 1979, the FISA court has approved tens of thousands of eavesdropping requests and rejected only four. There was no indication the existing system was slow—as the president seemed to claim in his press conference—or in any way required extra-constitutional action.

Of course, it isn't just the NSA eavesdropping... no, there is a clear pattern developing (emphasis mine):

FBI counterterrorism investigators are monitoring domestic U.S. advocacy groups engaged in antiwar, environmental, civil rights and other causes, the American Civil Liberties Union charged yesterday as it released new FBI records that it said detail the extent of the activity.

The documents, disclosed as part of a lawsuit that challenges FBI treatment of groups that planned demonstrations at last year's political conventions, show the bureau has opened a preliminary terrorism investigation into People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, the well-known animal rights group based in Norfolk.

We must also ask ourselves why, when the adminisration seems to think that it doesn't need to burden itself with minor details such as the Constitution or the 1978 FISA legislation, that it absolutely must have the 14 expiring provisions of the Patriot Act extended beyond Dec 31st 2005.

Then we have this from today's NYT:

Vice President Dick Cheney entered the debate over the legality of the program on Tuesday, casting the program as part of the administration's efforts to assert broader presidential powers.

Ah, things start to become a little clearer. Dick whispers in Dimwit's ear that he doesn't need to ask the courts because he is "commander in chief" and that means he can do whatever the f*** Dick he wants.

When the WingNut Daily turns on a Republican president, you know things are really, really bad:

That George Bush is in open and repeated violation of his oath to uphold and defend the Constitution is no longer debatable. In keeping with his many anti-constitutional actions, he has publicly declared that he has no way of knowing what is, and what is not constitutional.

This attitude, while hardly unique in Washington, should be absolutely anathema to every American of all political stripes. And it appears that Americans are increasingly turning away from the president in rightful disgust. A recent poll here on WorldNetDaily showed that 45 percent of WND readers – who tend to lean strongly Republican – believe that George Bush deserves to be impeached.

I find it interesting to note that a 2003 Elliott Wave report predicted that if George Bush was re-elected, his second term would likely follow the pattern of Richard Nixon's. Given the recent reports of George Bush's personal authorization of domestic spying and more revelations yet to come, this seems entirely possible. After all, Richard Nixon merely spied on his political opponents, while George Bush is spying on the American people.

For this and other crimes against the American people and their Constitution, George Bush must resign. Failing that, he should be impeached.

I have little doubt that this column will infuriate many Republicans and conservatives, millions of whom twice voted enthusiastically for George Bush. It is always painful to realize that one has been betrayed, and even more painful to discover that one has been made a willing accomplice in the destruction of that which one cherishes. You can continue to believe that George Bush is a patriotic American, though he is not. You can dismiss me as a liberal, a left-winger or a lunatic, though I am not.

But as you do so, try to keep in mind that railing against the messenger does not make the message any less valid.

What's that? The "I"-word? Harriet better start passing out the "Oops! I crapped my pants" to the SAO's in the west wing, 'cuz I don't think that an hour of remedial ethics training is going to fix this one.

Update: an op-ed in today's Moonie Times, no liberal rag itself and usually a staunch Bu$hCo apologist, by a former Reagan administration official no less, brings us more evidence that Dick Dubya has a major problem, even with Rethuglicans:

President Bush presents a clear and present danger to the rule of law. He cannot be trusted to conduct the war against global terrorism with a decent respect for civil liberties and checks against executive abuses. Congress should swiftly enact a code that would require Mr. Bush to obtain legislative consent for every counterterrorism measure that would materially impair individual freedoms.

Fair and balanced

Dan Froomkin strikes back:

There is undeniably a certain irreverence to the column. But I do not advocate policy, liberal or otherwise. My agenda, such as it is, is accountability and transparency. I believe that the president of the United States, no matter what his party, should be subject to the most intense journalistic scrutiny imaginable. And he should be able to easily withstand that scrutiny. I was prepared to take the same approach with John Kerry, had he become president.

This column’s advocacy is in defense of the public’s right to know what its leader is doing and why. To that end, it calls attention to times when reasonable, important questions are ducked; when disingenuous talking points are substituted for honest explanations; and when the president won’t confront his critics -- or their criticisms -- head on.

The journalists who cover Washington and the White House should be holding the president accountable. When they do, I bear witness to their work. And the answer is for more of them to do so -- not for me to be dismissed as highly opinionated and liberal because I do.

Amen to that. Keep up the good work.

Jane Hamsher @firedoglake has more:

Number one, Dan Froomkin's column is often the only thing worth reading in the Washington Post, the one thing they're managed to do right as they crawl their way out of the 18th century amidst a series of spectacularly bad decisions that have blown their credibility and set them in lockstep with the wooly mammoth. So the reporters don't like the guff they're taking from bloggers? I fucking bet they don't. But that's what you get when you set the bar so low the only people who stick around are the ones who can limbo under it.

FWIW, I agree that Froomkin's column is about the only thing worth reading most of the time, but Jane's post should be read in full.

I am sick and tired of the inane mantra that the press needs to be "fair and balanced". Fair and balanced for whom? The press is not supposed to be partisan, it is supposed to be objetive and it is supposed to have the public's interests at heart, not those of the public servants. It is charged with holding the government, all branches and all parties, accountable to we the people.

I am sick to death of the incestuous Plamegate reporting, in which the likes of Bob and Viveca (not related) Novak, Tim Russert, Chris Matthews, Andrea Mitchell and Bob Woodward have the unmitigated gall to be reporting and bloviating on the subject of who leaked what to whom and when, as if they were as confused as we are, and that this story had the ramifications of a parlor game, while all the time they are or were right in the thick of the story and know full well who leaked what to whom and when.

The country is going to hell in a handbasket thanks to the inept and mostly evil and corrupt war criminals in the administration and the K-Street Republican controlled congress, but the MSM is more concerned about being "fair and balanced" than it is about informing we the people. What rubbish.

I am sick and tired of the MSM not doing its f***ing job.

Kudos to Dan Froomkin for standing his ground.

ROFL

KoS.li Whack the penguin!

Memo to AG AG: Go Cheney Yourself

Once again, the Bu$hCo places politics above the constitution (which we now know to be just a "goddamed piece of paper").

Staff Opinions Banned In Voting Rights Cases (emphasis mine):

The Justice Department has barred staff attorneys from offering recommendations in major Voting Rights Act cases, marking a significant change in the procedures meant to insulate such decisions from politics, congressional aides and current and former employees familiar with the issue said.

Disclosure of the change comes amid growing public criticism of Justice Department decisions to approve Republican-engineered plans in Texas and Georgia that were found to hurt minority voters by career staff attorneys who analyzed the plans. Political appointees overruled staff findings in both cases.

Hmmm... what was it that the Preznit and all of his political hack appointees had to swear an oath to protect? You don't suppose it would be the Constitution, do you? I don't recall any of them having to swear alliegance to the GOP.

The policy was implemented in the Georgia case, said a Justice employee who, like others interviewed, spoke on condition of anonymity because of fears of retaliation.

Maybe that is why Darth Cheney wants an exclusion for the CIA to torture people, so that they can stifle the dissention amongst the non-political staffs of various government agencies.

A staff memo urged rejecting the state's plan to require photo identification at the polls because it would harm black voters.

But under the new policy, the recommendation was stripped out of that document and was not forwarded to higher officials in the Civil Rights Division, several sources familiar with the incident said.

The policy helps explain why the Justice Department has portrayed an Aug. 25 staff memo obtained by The Washington Post as an "early draft," even though it was dated one day before the department gave "preclearance," or approval, to the Georgia plan. The state's plan has since been halted on constitutional grounds by a federal judge who likened it to a Jim Crow-era poll tax.

Ah, those were the good ol' days, weren't they? Damn activist judges! Always throwing that goddamned piece of paper in your face. What an inconvenience! Really, I mean how can you run an effective dictatorship when there's this pesky Constitution thing always getting in the way?

The policy shift's outlines were first reported by the Dallas Morning News. Sources familiar with the change said it was implemented by John K. Tanner, the voting section chief, who is a career employee.

Who had just returned from Uzbekistan and looked a little pale.

In response to a request to comment yesterday, Justice Department spokesman Eric Holland wrote in an e-mail: "The opinions and expertise of the career lawyers are valued and respected and continue to be an integral part of the internal deliberation process upon which the department heavily relies when making litigation decisions." He declined to elaborate.

<aside>we'll just continue to ignore whatever they say</aside>

Tensions within the voting section have been rising dramatically, culminating in an emotionally charged meeting last week in which Tanner criticized the quality of work done by staff members analyzing voting rights cases, numerous sources inside and outside the section said. Many employees were so angered that they boycotted the staff holiday party later in the week, the sources said.

Quick! Alert Bill O'Reilly! The DoJ is anti-Christmas! They're holding a *gasp* holiday party! Is there anyone with a conscience who isn't sickened by the acts of this administration?

Under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, Georgia, Texas and other states with a history of discriminatory election practices are required to receive approval from the Justice Department or a federal court for any changes to their voting systems. Section 5 prohibits changes that would be "retrogressive," or bring harm to, minority voters.

For decades, staff attorneys have made recommendations in Section 5 cases that have carried great weight within the department and that have been passed along to senior officials who make a final determination, former and current employees say.

This administration doesn't even want to hide the contempt that they have for democracy and the rule of law.

Preventing staff members from making such recommendations is a significant departure and runs the risk of making the process appear more political, experts said.

Appear?!

"It's an attempt by the political hierarchy to insulate themselves from any accountability by essentially leaving it up to a chief, who's there at their whim," said Jon Greenbaum, who worked in the voting section from 1997 to 2003, and who is now director of the Voting Rights Project at the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. "To me, it shows a fear of dealing with the legal issues in these cases."

Many congressional Democrats have sharply criticized the Civil Rights Division's performance, and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) said this week that he is considering holding hearings on the Texas redistricting case. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) said in a statement yesterday: "America deserves better than a Civil Rights Division that puts the political agenda of those in power over the interests of the people its serves."

No sh*t, Sherlock. This has been the case since day one; Jan 21, 2001.

Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and other Justice officials have disputed such criticism, saying that politics play no role in civil rights decisions. In a letter to Specter this week, Assistant Attorney General William E. Moschella criticized The Post's coverage and said the department is aggressively enforcing a range of civil rights laws.

"From fair housing opportunities, equal access to the ballot box and criminal civil rights prosecutions to desegregation in America's schools and protection of the rights of the disabled, the division continues its noble mission with vigor," Moschella wrote.

I think I need to vomit.

I'm not dead, yet!

Steve learns of his untimely death via email.

This is your president on drugs

Capitol Hill Blue: Bush on the Constitution: 'It's just a goddamned piece of paper':

GOP leaders told Bush that his hardcore push to renew the more onerous provisions of the act could further alienate conservatives still mad at the President from his botched attempt to nominate White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.

“I don’t give a goddamn,” Bush retorted. “I’m the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way.”

“Mr. President,” one aide in the meeting said. “There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution.”

“Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” Bush screamed back. “It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!”

I’ve talked to three people present for the meeting that day and they all confirm that the President of the United States called the Constitution “a goddamned piece of paper.”

And, to the Bush Administration, the Constitution of the United States is little more than toilet paper stained from all the shit that this group of power-mad despots have dumped on the freedoms that “goddamned piece of paper” used to guarantee.

A piece of paper?! Someone should remind King George that he is just a man.

Impeach this dangerous idiot now, before it is too late. He really doesn't have a clue.

Feel safer, now?

Another brick in the wall

Spanish At School Translates to Suspension:

Watts, whom students describe as a disciplinarian, said she can't discuss the case. But in a written 'discipline referral' explaining her decision to suspend Zach for 1 1/2 days, she noted: 'This is not the first time we have [asked] Zach and others to not speak Spanish at school.'

Since then, the suspension of Zach Rubio has become the talk of the town in both English and Spanish newspapers and radio shows. The school district has officially rescinded his punishment and said that speaking a foreign language is not grounds for suspension. Meanwhile, the Rubio family has retained a lawyer, who says a civil rights lawsuit may be in the offing.

Must make it rather a challenge in the Spanish class if the students aren't permitted to speak Spanish.

Why haven't both the teacher and the principal been fired?

The Central Front In The War On Facts

Medium Lobster - The Central Front In The War On Facts:

While it may not be the ideal of journalism in a free society, is this planted, pro-military propaganda so different from the anti-military truthaganda published every day in the New York Times? While military propaganda shows a bias towards distortion, obfuscation, and outright lies in the service of the war effort, the baleful face of the Mainstream Media shows a clear bias towards reporting reality - and reality has always been America's greatest enemy in Iraq.

Along with facts on the ground and the ugly truth, cold hard reality has persistently undermined America's efforts in the war on terror.

ROFL!

Condi, your pants are on fire

Pentagon Memo on Torture-Motivated Transfer Cited - Los Angeles Times:

WASHINGTON — Although Bush administration officials have denied that they transfer terrorism suspects to countries where they are likely to be abused, a classified memorandum described in a court case indicates that the Pentagon has considered sending a captured militant abroad to be interrogated under threat of torture.

The classified memo is summarized — its actual contents are blacked out — in a petition filed by attorneys for Majid Mahmud Abdu Ahmad, a detainee held by the Pentagon at its Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, facility.

The March 17, 2004, Defense Department memo indicated that American officials were frustrated in trying to obtain information from Ahmad, according to the description of the classified memo in the court petition. The officials suggested sending Ahmad to an unspecified foreign country that employed torture in order to increase chances of extracting information from him, according to the petition's description of the memo.

Why is it that everything said by this administration, and I do mean everything, is contradicted by their actions.

Priceless quote of the day:

QUESTION: Mr. Murtha, what do you say to Senator Lieberman whom yesterday said Democrats need to acknowledge that this president is commander in chief for three more years, that undermining his credibility...

MURTHA: Undermining his credibility? What has he said that would give him credibility?

Frankly, that extends to anyone in the administration. They simply are not credible. For Condi to be saying "we do not torture" amid the barrage of stories to the contrary flooding the press both here and abroad serves no purpose other than to undermine our government's credibility.

The Bu$hCo administration has done more to harm our reputation at home and abroad than any launched by our staunchest enemies during the cold war.

Read for yourself the definition of treason (emphasis mine):

trea·son Pronunciation Key (trzn)
n.

1. Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.
2. A betrayal of trust or confidence.

oh-fer

Priceless TBogg:

Lets review:

The US government builds up a huge case against al Arian (so big, in fact, that Attorney John Ashcroft goes on live TV to announce the indictments) and presents it at trial, the defense rests without calling one witness, and because the jury couldn't find it in the evidence to convict him on even one of seventeen indictments ...it's a 'serious miscarriage of justice' and Johnson doesn't get it.

Yet more from the Dept. of Unmakeupable Shit. The Bu$hCo DoJ is still basically oh-fer in prosecuting "terror cases". Either they are trumped up charges, fascilitated by the Patriot Act, or else Ashcroft and Gonzales are the most incompetent AGs in history or both.

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!

RFK Jr. writes in The White House's Tortured Definition of Torture | The Huffington Post (emphasis mine):

Gonzales said all federal government employees were aware of the policy and he dismissed the Abu Ghraib atrocities as the acts of a handful of bad apples on the prison's night shift. 'The day shift didn't engage in that kind of conduct.'

So far so good. But when asked by Carroll Bogert of Human Rights Watch whether the administration considered 'waterboarding' to be torture, Gonzales refused to answer. 'I'm not going to get into a discussion about specific methods of questioning people who have information that may save American lives.'

No wonder the troops are confused. If the Attorney General won't say what constitutes torture then how is the night shift at Abu Ghraib supposed to know? Gonzales added, somewhat discordantly, that although he could not share the particulars of the administration's secret definition of torture, everyone in the federal government was already thoroughly aware of those details.

'I'm not going to talk about specific methods that are used by the United States government. What I can say is that everyone in the United State government understands what our legal obligations are.'

The Attorney General's demurral opens up a loophole large enough for Torquemada to ride through on a wagonload of Iron Maidens, breaking wheels and thumbscrews.

Shorter Gonzales (wait, isn't that redundant?): Nobody expects the Cheneyan Inquisition! Our chief weapon is surprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise.... Our two weapons are fear and surprise...and reckless incompetence.... Our *three* weapons are fear, surprise, and reckless incompetence...and an almost fanatical devotion to the President.... Our *four*...no... *Amongst* our weapons.... Amongst our weaponry...are such elements as fear, surprise and waterboarding.... I'll come in again.

Uhm... okay, if you're into that

Via Ian someone with too much time on their hands. A definite must see (Windows Video).

Snark

A little snark from the NYT editorial board -- Plan: We Win:

A president who seems less in touch with reality than Richard Nixon needs to get out more.

Are we having fun yet?

Electronic Voting Examined; Deadline Nears - Yahoo! News (emphasis mine):

In North Carolina, officials were expected to announce Thursday which voting machine vendors meet new standards for election equipment. The toughened requirements — which include placing the machines' software code in escrow for examination in case of a problem — have already led one top supplier, Diebold Inc., to say it will withdraw from the state, where about 20 counties use Diebold voting machines.

Other states have similar rules, but Diebold argued that North Carolina's law was too broad. The company said that to comply, it would have to disclose proprietary code behind Microsoft Corp.'s Windows CE operating system, which is used in its machines.

While rival machine vendors say they can meet those standards, Diebold sought to be exempted, asking a judge to protect it from criminal prosecution if it didn't disclose the code. The judge, Wake County's Narley Cashwell, declined to issue such a blanket protection.

A different kind of showdown is brewing in California, where Secretary of State Bruce McPherson says he might force e-voting machine makers to prove their systems can withstand attacks from a hacker.

One such test on a Diebold system — Diebold machines were blamed for voting disruptions in a 2004 California primary — is expected to happen in the next few weeks.

The state has been negotiating details with Finnish security expert Harri Hursti, who uncovered severe flaws in a Diebold system used in Leon County, Fla. (He demonstrated how vote results could be changed, then made screens flash 'Are we having fun yet?')

Didn't Dubya tell Diebold that they were doing a heckovajob? Why on earth would they have a problem with having their software escrowed? Are they afraid that someone will find the smoking gun after another election is stolen by Bu$hCo?

This GAO report, that has gone uncovered by MSM, basically confirms that it would not require a broad conspiracy in order to hijack an election using electronic voting such as that used in Ohio. It could have been handled by a very small cadre of political hacks hackers.