I agree oversite is needed, particularly when it comes to watching over taxpayer money and the contract process. They need to knock the hell out of anyone who intentionally cheats the taxpayer, and anyone in the agencies that let it happen.

I disagree that proving over and over that the Army lied about Pat Tillman's death, something that has been obvious for months and months, is oversite. That is not oversite, that is grandstanding and headline management in which hearings are used to score political points.

I think the Dems risk over politicising the oversight process and turning it into a sound bite and litigation carnival, which will undermine the real work of oversight.

Razorback -- I assume you must approve of the increased oversite that the new Democratic controlled Congress is exerting. Really we need a new Truman Commission -- which Jim Webb is now proposing.

Colin, there should be one rule that applies to everyone. If no bid Haliburton contracts are wrong under bush, they are wrong under clinton.

I don't support any no bid contracts, unless there is a time emergency, which might have applied early in the war, but doesn't apply now. The bid process takes time. If you have to act quickly to feed the troops, you can't do a bid. That might have applied early, but not now.

I think there should be a "company eats the cost overruns" policy on all federal contracts.

Some who shout "Haliburton" every 10 minutes are too illinformed to understand that Haliburton is a boy scout on procurement when compared to Boeing. General Electric and Exxon get enough subsidies every year to BUY Haliburton.

There is an irrational liberal fixation on Haliburton.

Razor -- Fantastic use of the old "but Clinton did it, so it must be OK" strategy. Again, I'd love to know what your point is.

All no-bid contracts aren't bad. The one the Clinton administration approved may or may not have been appropriate. There's nothing magical about a Democrat approving something that makes me agree with it -- unlike some, I'm not an ideologue.

What clearly is problematic is the entire manner that the Bush administration has conducted the war in Iraq, including but not limited to its overpaying Haliburton.

Explain to me how your "response" addresses any of that? Oh right...it doesn't.

JimD -- Out of curiosity, what policies that modern day Democrats advocate for do you find "too liberal?" To be clear, I don't mean the question to be in any way snarky. Your contributions are always thoughtful and I would genuinely be curious to know what policy positions make you prefer the GOP in some instances.

The left versus right bile displayed in here is a big reason many of us detest both parties and would dearly love to find a third party we could support. Basically, I find the Republicans too conservative and the Democrats too liberal. I usually end up voting against the party or candidate that has angered me the most. Lately, that has been the Republicans but there have been many elections in which I voted against the Democrats - especially during the Cold War. Unfortunately, the barriers to entry for a new political party are very steep. It would probably take an independent, self-financed candidate (picture Ross Perot without the eccentricities) to gain a lot of traction and, over time, peel off supporters from the major parties.

Ah, excuse me. Your post, Mr. Razorback, references an *opinion* piece on a right wing talk radio site. If this is the best you can do for "proof", it's pathetic. Try again. How about some facts?

MikeB, you should really do what Loudon Voter and Jane do and stick to name calling.

There is no such thing as LeMond. LeMond Yesterday it was LaMond. Both are LIES. And another lie you told about the unemployment rate for engineers? Remember that?

I stated French unemployment was higher than US unemployment. You make stuff up which makes you a liar.

I was not referencing social security in my original post because I was talking about the $48 billion PAID INTO THE TREASURY on ONE DAY after the INCOME tax deadline. Social Security is deducted from PAYROLLs for most people. The April 17 th deadline that generated the record daily tax take is an INCOME tax deadline, you complete moron.

Do you know anything? The few posts you make that go beyond name calling are always filled with lies.

Colin, is that the same Haliburton that was given a no bid contract while Cheney was its CEO at the insistance of the Clinton Administration?

"The Clinton administration made the same calculation in its own dealings with Halliburton. The company had won the LOGCAP in 1992, then lost it in 1997. The Clinton administration nonetheless awarded a no-bid contract to Halliburton to continue its work in the Balkans supporting the U.S. peacekeeping mission there because it made little sense to change midstream. According to Byron York, Al Gore's reinventing-government panel even singled out Halliburton for praise for its military logistics work."

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/RichLowry/2003/09/18/the_halliburton_smear

And Razorback, I DID point you to LeMond for the 50 year low unemployment number. If you are so ignorant and lazy that you wont both to look it up, don't blame me. The current reports on the BBC, Times of London, etc. report unemployment lows of 24, 24, 30, etc. years. They are all over the map. The fact is, they are at record lows. YOU reported stated that they were at reecord highs and climbing. This is rather like your earlier claim that your hypothetical family paid NO federal taxes PERIOD.

You wrote: "... U.S. tax receipts from individuals...How much of that money came from any household in America with a married couple and 2 kids which made $40,000 or less? zero..." Now, the reference you provide rolls into the total Social Security and other tax revenues, but you exclude them in your claim. You have been caught in another of your untruths, misstatements of fact, bald faced lies. No weaseling out of this. Please, go away. At least have the dignity to hang your head in shame for a while. Or, are you completely lacking in class?

Saying a conservative group pays someone for something in no way implies any degree of quality or competence. See Haliburton, Katrina, and the entire Bush administration.

By Jane, MikeB and Loudon Voter's standard, BLARG is an intellecutally dihonest liar, because he said that the INCOME tax rate was 13%, rather than income PLUS social security PLUS fica rate being 13%.

Since I believe that to lie is to intentionally misrepresent a fact and that one has to use the overall context of what is said to see if it is actually an intentional misrepresentation of fact. I do not at this point believe Blarg to be an intellectually dishonest liar.

I know MikeB and Loudon Voter are. Jane cannot be a liar because she never makes a statement of fact.

Jane, despite the fact that your otherwise idiot post contains no facts, I appreciate the fact that you apparantly believe that the qualify of my work is such that you assume that I am being paid for it.

Blarg, we have a number of problems. Note that I don't use the word lie, I give you an opportunity to put things in context.

First, you again ignore the fact that I was referring to a family of 4 that makes $40,000, despite the fact that I have clarified that repeatedly and despite the fact that the context and the cite contained in my original post makes that clear.

Second, you say that income tax rate is 13%, when the data you site also includes social security and medicare (FICA). I could call you a liar at this point, but it is obvious from the context of the discussion that you made a mistake.

Third, thanks for recognizing that MikeB is dishonest when he says that unemployment in France is at a 50 year low.

Blarg -- ...but that is when we disagreed with each other.... I apologize. Really.

'We believe Razorback to be an intellectually dishonest liar"

No kidding. He's got an agenda, which is to flog lies about taxes and generally represent the Club for Growth. They prbably are the ones that pay him.

of course you're watching -- you have no life. FACT!

An Loudon Voter lacks the courage to post a fact and relate and idea to the fact, because he knows I am watching.

Looks like the "We believe Razorback to be an intellectually dishonest liar" club has grown by several members today -- with good reason. Ole Raze is cranking out the posts so fast that his generally poor quality control has sunk to downright abysmal.

Which is more dishonest?

1. Saying the unemployment rate of France is at a 50-year low, when it's really at a 25-year low.

2. Saying that the average family of 4 pays no income taxes, when they actually pay a tax rate of 13%?
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFacts/Tfdb/TFTemplate.cfm?DocID=228&Topic2id=20&Topic3id=22

So who's the dishonest idiot here?

(Side note to MikeB: I believe at one point you also called me the type of sociopath who should be ignored or locked up. Remember?)

Ah Razorback. I provided current citations to back that up. You, on the other hand, cited ten year old newspaper articles and purely fabricated inventions to "prove" that unemployment is growing. You are so dishonest as to defy comprehension. I think you are either a troubled, pitiful delussional man or are a professional paid provocature ala the Swiftboat cockcoaches. Either way, you are a waste of time.

My point is that $48 billion came into the government on ONE DAY, a few days after the income tax deadline.

To the extent that the money that came in was income taxes, NONE of it was paid for by families of 4 that make 40,000 or less.

If I say the colors of the Minnesota Vikings are purple and gold, and you quote me as saying "The colors of the Vikings are purple", intentionally distorting the context, it doesn't make me a liar, it makes you one.

MikeB? Is that you? The same dihonest idiot that said the unemployment rate in France is at a 50 year low?

Razorback -- give it up buddy, you said "typical" for a reason. If you meant simply that A family of 4 with a gross income of 40,000 pays no federal income tax, you would have said that. INSTEAD you cited a "typical" family of 4 making 40,000. Either you are VERY sloppy in your language or you were trying to be misleading.

To the substance of your comment, what's your point? Progressives don't object to reducing the tax load of the working poor -- which the family you're quoting qualifies as in most urban areas. To the contrary, the progressive position would FURTHER reduce the tax load of working class AND middle class families.

If you want to defend tax cuts for the rich, that's fine. You're certainly entitled to advocate that position and -- as long as you support actually cutting spending to balance the tax cuts, I respect your views. But don't pretend that Bush is somehow a better advocate for the working poor relative to tax issues than are Democrats. That's just silly.

Blarg, Don't even try to argue with Razorback. He is so blindly partisan, and so utterly dishonest, that he will go to any lengths to play with you. He is not interested in facts or debate. He merely attempts, usually successfully, to steer the topic down various rabbit trails. The Razorbacks of the world are sociopaths. Either ignore them or lock them up.

At McDonald's, you can get a hamburger for $1. The typical restaurant meal costs less than $5.

What? You say I'm lying because the typical restaurant meal costs far more than that? You're taking me out of context! When I say 'typical restaurant', I mean fast-food restaurant, not other restaurants. I never said that the typical restaurant meal costs under $5. Try a little intellectual honesty!

I know exactly what point you were trying to make by juxtaposing "the family making under $40,000" with "the typical family". For someone who's so quick to scream at people for lying, like with MikeB about French employment statistics, you sure like to mislead people.

The only point I was trying to make was that a a family of 4 that makes 40,000 pays no income tax. I cited a source. You have not even tried to challenge that fact. Instead, you have used selective quotation to pretend I said something when you know full well the point I was trying to make.

Try a little intellectual honesty Blarg. Normally, you are better than that.

Razorback is, once again!, playing fast and loose with the truth and with statistics. A family of 4, with a household income of $40,000 a year pays at least $4000 a year in federal taxes. This is based on the 7+% Social Security tax (used by Bush to fund his insane war), Medicaid and Medicare taxes (used by Bush to provide medical care for the millions of ilegals in this country in a vain attempt to win the "Hispanic" vote and the votes of the greedy geeziers). ANd, oh yes, there are state and local taxes that amount to between 6 and 9%. ANd, then, there are the various federal levies on telephone and electrical services and gasoline, etc. etc etc. The Razorback conveniently leave these out when calculating tax rates on the porr but add them in when doing so for the rich. Liar!

In the first sentence, you described "a married couple and 2 kids which made $40,000 or less". In the second sentence, you referred to "a typical family of 4." But the family in the first sentence is not the family in the second sentence, because a typical family of 4 makes over 50% more than the family in the first sentence. You equated the two because you're trying to mislead people. And that's why you're a liar, your favorite insult.

Blarg:

I never said the typical family of 4 pays no income taxes. I said the typical family of 4 that makes $40,000 pays no taxes. I posted a source which said the typical family of 4 that makes $40,000 pays no taxes.

You take one sentence, and separate if from the context of the second sentence.

That was pointed out when I responded to your response to my initial post. I clarified that.

W

I debate facts with those who debate facts.

When I say something is false, I quote what they say and post evidence as to why is it false. If, after someone repeated insists on the truth of something that is false, I call them a liar. I quote what they say and post evidence as to why it is a lie.

When I have been through that process with someone 2 or 3 times in different discussions on different days, like Loudon Voter, I start right out with the liar tag.

Razorback said:
"How much of that money came from any household in America with a married couple and 2 kids which made $40,000 or less? zero, zilch, nada. NONE. The Bush tax cuts reduced the tax liability of a typical family of 4 to zero."

The family of 4 making less than $40K isn't a typical family of 4. So the information about their tax liability has absolutely nothing to do with the tax liability of a typical family of 4. Unless you can prove that the average family of 4 pays no taxes due to the Bush tax cuts, you're a liar.

I wonder what an improper relationship with a detainee's daughter is -- rape?

prison guards in iraq can do anythng they want to detainees, because they have no rights. knowing human nature, you can imagine what goes on -- and it isn't pretty.

drindl: You and others know my distaste for Liebermann, there is nothing that can be said about him to put him in a better light for me. You can expect those that support GW to bring him up time and time again when they want to focus on something else, mainly as a distraction.

you'e a liar no you are you're stupid no you are

Even those of you who beleive in this war, don't you sometimes wonder just what the hell goes on over there? What about the stuff you don't hear about?

'can we knock off the name calling, please?'

that's why razorback is here, JD -- to pick a fight. he's not motivated by anything but hatred of Democrats, pure hatred.

Even if you support this war, don't you sometimes wonder what the hell goes on over there?

'BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- A U.S. Army officer who was commander of a military prison in Iraq has been charged with giving a cell phone to suspected insurgents who were detained there, a charge described as "aiding the enemy," according to the U.S. military.

Lt. Col. William H. Steele, who was commander of the U.S. Army's Camp Cropper, also was charged with having an improper relationship with a detainee's daughter and an interpreter and possessing pornography, the military said.'

and I disagree about Joe just being for himself. If that was the case, that all he wanted was to be elected, he would have gone with the anti-war fervor that gave rise to his primary challenge. At least he stands up for what he believes and doesn't follow the latest poll.

In fact, maybe that was Gore's biggest downfall (since someone brought the subject up).

can we knock off the name calling, please?

Loudon Voter you liar, I desribed the differences in Joe's relationship with liberals and liberal senate collegues PRE and POST primary.

The suggestion that hinting at a possible party swich that would change control of the Senate is not a significant change in Lieberman is just foolish and idiotic.

"|" says:

"No matter how you cut it, if fairness and santity prevailed, the wealthest 10%, those who control 90% of this nations wealth, would pay 90% of the taxes."

That would be true if we had a wealth tax and not an income tax. Write your congressperson with your suggestion.

Later "|" says: "We need to raise taxes on the wealthiest 10% proportional to their percent of national income and proportional to the damage they do to this country."

This is a problem because income is taxed based on what happens each YEAR. Wealth is what you accumulate from YEAR to YEAR.

Its hard to respond to a post from someone who does not know enough about basic accounting to say what they really mean.

At least this person, unlike Olivia, Loudon Voter, and Willy, actually includes an attempt at facts in their post.

Finally, "|" says: (derogatory names for bush) has cut the taxes of these parasites by two-thirds.

This is FALSE if you are talking about income tax. The top marginal tax rate was cut from 39.6% to 35%.

'HIGH LIEBERMANISM. Did Joe Lieberman just call the Democratic leadership pawns of al-Qaeda? In today's Washington Post he writes:

When politicians here declare that Iraq is "lost" in reaction to al-Qaeda's terrorist attacks and demand timetables for withdrawal, they are doing exactly what al-Qaeda hopes they will do'

does this answer your question? first, how does he know what 'al queda' wants? 'al queda' is a group of cells, not one monolithic structure. it's also not even one group, but many who may not communicate at all, according to our security experts. if he's talking about bin ladin -- bin ladin says he wants a global religious war. now, what better recruitment tool does he have than Iraq?

bin ladin also said that in reaction to 9/11 we would destroy ourselves -- give up our civil liberties, overextend our military and do exactly what russia did -- bankrupt ourselves in an arms race. did you ever listen to the tapes?

the problem is, he's not stupid. he's vicious, he's evil, but he is savvy and educated. so far, we have played right into his hands. we can't allow ourselves to be played like this --or he will win.

lieberman's cowardly attack on Dems just once again proves he's only in it for joe. he has another agenda entirely.

Razorback: your post about how Lieberman was treated during the Dem primary is an outright lie and everyone knows it. Colin and Olivia rightfully called you out. Don't come on here, post garbage, and then challenge people to prove you wrong. Why don't you just post non-lies and save everyone the trouble?

Would you like people to post "Razorback is a pedophile" and then force you to prove the negative? You're truly an idiot.

Razorback, post a quote from the righ wing lying nuts at the Tax Foundation is rather like getting a lecture on virginity from a prostitute. The top 10% of earners in this country pay slightly less than 40% of the taxes, but own 90% of this country's wealth. The rest are paid by for by the poor, the Middle class, and that working two parent family with two children. No matter how you cut it, if fairness and santity prevailed, the wealthest 10%, those who control 90% of this nations wealth, would pay 90% of the taxes. That blithering idiot we have as a President, your hero The Moron, The Draft Dodger, The Murderer Of Children, The Desecrator of Peace and Civility and the Rule of Law, this clodhopper, fanatic, dufus, this stuffed shirt, this empty headed baffoon, this cousin of your's, has cut the taxes of these parasites by two-thirds. Even at that, they never paid their fair share nor their way. We need to raise taxes on the wealthiest 10% proportional to their percent of national income and proportional to the damage they do to this country.

Willy:

I post facts and debate facts with people who want to debate facts.

When someone calls me a name without any facts or logic to back them up, I call them what they are.

Willy, do you have any more helpful time management tips?

Blarg:

A hypothetical family of 4 that makes $40,000 is a hypothetical family of 4 that makes $40,000.

I didn't say anything about what the typical family of four makes.

'Loudon voter you mental midget' I think his job is to come on here and insult Dems and change the suvject. I've never seen anyone who spends so much time on a board.

A family that makes $40K or less is not a typical family of 4. That's far below the average income.

I guess that makes you a liar.

Loudon voter you mental midget post some evidence that contradicts what I said about Lieberman or shut up.

Loudon voter:

You can call me a liar all you want. But what you cannot do is find a post of mine on this board and use basic logic to show that it is false.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. tax receipts from individuals hit a record one-day high of $48.7 billion on April 24, a Treasury Department official said on Wednesday.

How much of that money came from any household in America with a married couple and 2 kids which made $40,000 or less? zero, zilch, nada. NONE. The Bush tax cuts reduced the tax liability of a typical family of 4 to zero.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/102.html

Colin and Olivia: Razorback is a known, proven liar. His regular job appears to be posting nonsense on this board.

Colin, I am not saying Joe was rational, I am just saying he took it personal. Even though they supported him in the primary, they made it clear that they wouldn't support him in the general if he lost the primary.

Olivia, in a hysterical unsupported fit of personal ideology says:

"'Joe didn't start bashing as aggressively as he has lately until the Libs, including Senate colleagues, all dumped on him during his primary.'

"Total fabrication, revisionist history. What else is new."

Joe, who had previously campaigned for House democrats, declined to say whether he thought it would be good if the dems re-took the House.

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2006/oct/15/ct_sen_lieberman_wont_say_whether_he_thinks_dems_should_win_house

Joe had always strongly denied he had any interest in switching parties. Then:

Four days after calling his party affiliation a "closed issue," Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) said he was "not ruling it out" that he could turn Republican, the Hartford Courant reports.

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2006/11/13/lieberman_hints_he_could_still_switch_parties.html

Also:

Lieberman didn't take a congratulatory phone call from Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid (D-NV) on election night.

Only an idiot would suggest that the pre-primary Joe and the post primary Joe act the same with respect to disagreements with liberals and liberal senate colleagues.

Olivia, you are free to have any opinion that you want. You are free to be irrational as you want. But if you post falsehood and I happen to see it, prepare to be corrected.

Well, at the end of the day, then, Gore is the one to blame, since he picked Joe. I would have less respect for Joe if he changed after being chosen, to fit some mold or pre-conceived notion.

At least the guy is true to his principles. There are quite a few like that I respect, even liberals like Dean, and conservatives like Santorum. It's those who constantly shift with the wind that I despise - hey, maybe I should not vote for McCain after all....

'Joe didn't start bashing as aggressively as he has lately until the Libs, including Senate colleagues, all dumped on him during his primary.'

Total fabrication, revisionist history. What else is new.

Razorback -- every major Democrat supported Lieberman in the primary. It was only after he LOST and stopped being a Democrat that folks endorsed Lamont. You know...becaue he was the DEMOCRATIC nominee.

Jd, I think Lieberman turned a lot of dems off -- the man has the charisma and charm of a clump of dirt-- but I really blame the loons in my own party who voted for Nader. I knew a few of them --they bought Nader's line that there was 'no difference' between the parties. Nader had just decided it was his turn and he would rather bring defeat to the dems than look at the national interest. It was pathetic and childish and despicable.

It didn't help that the press HATED Gore eithr -- and bashed him relentlessly and just plain made up stuff he never said. I will never forgive them either.

BLARG, Spector and Santorum disagreed about alot, but always supported each other at home in PA.

It was a breach of normal Senate etiquette for them to bail on Joe. Of course, they were in a political bind, because they didn't want to offend the moveon bunch that was after Joe.

I would like to remind those that post a "Link" or request one from others is doing what anyone can do, find someone that expresses/states their view. Try thinking for yourself, if possible.

I hear you, Blarg. Sounds like your problem was with Gore, not Lieberman - why did Gore pick him I wonder? I guess to satisfy the NE requirement on a Dem presidential ticket.

JD, I really think that Lieberman dragged down the Gore ticket. He wasn't the sole reason for Gore's loss, but he certainly didn't help. In 2000, Gore was stereotyped as a boring policy wonk. And a lot of liberal voters complained that the two major parties were too similar. Gore responded by picking the dullest man alive, and one of the most conservative Democrats, as his running mate. I really think it was a mistake.

Why do Republicans pretend to be outraged at how Democrats have treated Lieberman? Primaries are part of the democratic process. Republicans have them also; they've tried for years to replace Specter and other moderate Republicans with reliable conservatives. Lieberman lost the primary fair and square, then decided that he was too important not to be Senator. What's respectable about that?

The Jeffords analogy is accurate. Politicians disagree all of the time. They don't switch parties until it becomes personal.

Joe didn't start bashing as aggressively as he has lately until the Libs, including Senate colleagues, all dumped on him during his primary.

Joe agrees with the right on Iraq and on a few other less significant security issues. He sees some merit in limited expirimentation with school choice. He also uses the bully pulpit of his office to question the negative cultural influence of hollywood, video games, music, etc, although he doesn't offer a legislative ban.

Other than that, he is pretty much a main stream liberal in the US Senate.

You libs better be carefull about bashing him.

The Repubs decided to bash a fellow Repub over the bush tax cuts (Jeffords). Even though Jeffords ultimately voted FOR the version of the Bush tax cuts that is currently the law, the bashing of Jeffords over his refusal to support prior versions of the Bush tax cuts was so intense that if flipped control of the US Senate.

Joe used to be a respected left/center US Senator. The bashing he took in his primary from Senate colleages is personal. Keep bashing the "new" Joe, and flip the Senate.

colin, please see above reply; I'm not a repub nor do I walk lockstep with them.

I do like their economic positions infinitely more than the Dems, though

drindl and blarg, I'm not sure I buy your analogy to Jefferds - he may call himself an indy but he caucuses with the Dems, so he's actually switched parties. Lieberman of course still caucuses with the Dems, giving them control of the Senate (for now, not sure how long he'll do that based on how the Dems treat him).

Frankly I don't hate Snowe, Hagel, etc at all. I think multiple viewpoints is good in any party, and big tents are always better than mono-view, narrow ideology. Keep in mind that I think of myself as more libertarian than Republican, and I'm certainly not a member of the GOP, so I can't speak for them.

And Blarg, blaming Lieberman for Gore's defeat is self delusional. If you want to blame anyone, blame Bubba (for his uncontrollable appetites allowing the public to be distracted from the Administration's successes) and maybe Nader.

JD -- one other thing about Lieberman that is important; he's from Connecticut. I'm a 'big tent' kind of guy and don't have any expectation that the Ben Nelsons of the world are going to vote exactly as I'd like them to. And that's fine b/c (1) he's still a heck of a lot more liberal than any republican that would replace him; and (2) he doesn't go on TV and bash members of his party that are to his left.

Joe, on the other hand, has made a career out of bashing straw man "far left" positions while allowing GWB and this administration to pretend it's being bipartisan. For a lot of us, it's that rather than his specific views on the issues that stings.

Oh, and he also just endorsed Collins' re-election campaign. Would you be happy if a republican was endorsing Democrats? I'm guessing the answer is no.

One thing I've recently learned is that the 2002 MZM contract with the White House was to scan email to the White House for threats.

This one month July-August 2002 $140k contract with the White House was the first contract MZM had received from the federal government as a primary contractor. It had previously -- circa April 2002 - jointly bid with Gray Hawk and a third company for a Pentagon contract with the Counter Intelligence Field Activity. Funny thing is, when it made its initial bid, MZM didn't quite have its Federal Supply Schedule contract approved - its application was still pending. Someone put his thumb on the scale at GSA to make that go through, and MZM got its federal supply schedule contract approved in May 2002. Less than two months later, MZM got the White House contract. And of course, a couple weeks after getting the $140,000 White House contract, MZM's Mitchell Wade paid $140,000 to buy a yacht which he gave to Congressman Duke Cunningham.

People think of Broder as the 'Dean' of the Washington press corps because of things he did in the 60s and 70s. But the man he is today is much more a product of the long conservative ascendancy of the last three decades -- an ascendancy still very much alive in the town's journalistic and editorial elite. You can hear the animus more and more sharply in this columns as his inability to grasp the political moment becomes more and more clear.

U.S. officials exclude car bombs in touting drop in Iraq violence

U.S. officials who say there has been a dramatic drop in sectarian violence in Iraq since President Bush began sending more American troops into Baghdad aren't counting one of the main killers of Iraqi civilians.

Car bombs and other explosive devices have killed thousands of Iraqis in the past three years, but the administration doesn't include them in the casualty counts it has been citing as evidence that the surge of additional U.S. forces is beginning to defuse tensions between Shiite and Sunni Muslims.

By excluding these increasing forms of violence, and only referring to the statistics of bodies discovered resulting from sectarian death squads, the administration is able to inform their people that there is evidence that the surge is working in Baghdad.

Lies are now the norm. They permeate every official statement. They come fast and furious and are almost impossible to pick up and counter. It is now accepted as legitimate debate; the stuff of our politics.

Condoleezza Rice responds to the subpoena approved yesterday by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee:

Rice, in Oslo for a meeting with NATO foreign ministers, said on Thursday she was not inclined to appear before the committee.

Not 'inclined' to obey the law? No I guess not. The next time a copy tries to pull me over I think I'll just tell him I'm not 'inclined.'

n this 90-minute report, called "Buying the War," Moyers and producer Kathleen Hughes use alarming evidence and an array of respected journalists to make the case that, in the rage that followed the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the media abandoned their role as watchdog and became a lapdog instead.

Exhibit A -- the first event recalled in this report -- is a news conference by President Bush on March 6, 2003, which Moyers says is two weeks before Bush "will order America to war." The press conference was a sham, with Bush calling only on "friendly" reporters who'd ask friendly questions. The corker was this scorching investigative query: "Mr. President, how is your faith guiding you?"

Yeah, JD do you 'hate' Jeffords or Spector or Snowe or Hagel?

I imagine you feel the same way about them as most dems feel about Lieberman -- except that they have actually been more supportive of their own partiy than Lieberman has.

JD, Byrd and those others may be as conservative as Lieberman, but they're members in good standing of the Democratic Party. Lieberman has trashed the party for years, voting against it on the biggest issues, and allowing Bush to claim bipartisan support on everything. There's good reason to believe that Gore could have won in 2000 with a better running mate. And he decided to reject the primary process and run as his own Lieberman party, because all he cares about is himself.

So of course Democrats don't like Lieberman. In 2006, he was re-elected with very strong Republican support. He betrayed the party and nearly cost it control of the Senate. Democratic activists may not be big fans of other conservative Democrats, but at least they're still Democrats. Lieberman isn't.

Were Republicans big fans of Jeffords after he left their party a few years back?

edit: obviously, I meant to say 'half as liberal'...

Jim, interesting ranking, thanks for the site. That irregular news seems to be coming from quite the left wing position though, so I expect anyone to the right of Bernie Sanders or Kucinich will not fare well. I note that Chris Dodd was close to Lieberman's score, and he!!, he's running for prez for the Dems.

Bill Nelson, Max Baucus were both tied with Lieberman for lib street cred, and whoa, Robert Byrd, revered quasi-leader of the Dems, was only have as liberal as Lieberman according to your rankings.

And I never hear any hatred for those others from the Democratic party.

Oh well...

'Throwing a curveball into speculation about both his - and Al Gore's - political future, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg made a provocative comment today about a possible Gore presidential run.

"I hope Al Gore enters the race; I think it would be good for the country," the mayor said.'

Interesting ... speaking of Unity -- Gore/Bloomberg would be provocative.

A human rights group today attacked a US decision to file murder charges against a Canadian national and alleged Taliban fighter who was captured in Afghanistan when he was 10.

Omar Khadr was wounded by US soldiers during a battle near Khost, Afghanistan, and taken into US custody in July 2002. He has spent most of the past five years in the US military prison at Guantánamo Bay.

During his capture he was shot three times and is blind in one eye as a result of his injuries.

'US to make history trying alleged child war criminal'

JD, don't be disingenious. It isn't one issue -- Leiberman goes on Sean Hannity and trashes Dems. His biggest supporters in the last election were Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter. They LOVE him -- for the simple reason that he sold Dems out. Lied to them. Told them he would push to end the war and then turned around and called them traitors, echoing dick cheney, not a popular guy among dems.

Why did most of Joe's '06 money come from the RNC?

He used to be good socially, but that was before his wife became a lobbyist for the pharmaceutical and financial sector. He's repellent.

Pardon me while I elevate the discourse a bit by quoting from the Unity'08 website:

"Our Goals
We have set three specific goals, and are exploring how best to achieve them.

Goal One is the election of a Unity Ticket for President and Vice-President of the United States in 2008 -- headed by a woman and/or man from each major party or by an independent who presents a Unity Team from both parties.
Goal Two is for the people themselves to pick that Unity Ticket in the first half of 2008 -- via a virtual and secure online convention in which all American voters will be qualified to vote.
Goal Three is for the delegates to that convention to select the issues which are crucial to America's future and the questions on those crucial issues which the candidates should address fully and candidly.
The new ground broken in meeting our goals will include new choices for voters, new opportunities for candidates, and new uses of modern technology as well. In pursuing our goals, we will both follow the law in every instance and seek the opinion of the Federal Elections Commission to interpret the law where we are breaking new ground.

We are not looking to build a new and permanent party. That might happen, but our objective is to fix the old parties. A Unity Ticket in office for one term or even taking part in just one election can bring new ideas, new integrity and new leaders to the fore.

We will not waste time assessing blame. Both parties and all of us who have been active in them share responsibility for the current political morass. We hope instead to return the focus of our politics and policy to the common good -- those ideas and traditions which unite and empower us as individuals and as a people."

The interesting part: "headed by a woman and/or man from each major party or by an independent who presents a Unity Team from both parties." An interesting question: which D and R would be willing to team up? I'd think the Iraq War would throw a real wrench into this concept because of the current stalemate.

Actually, JD, if you look at Lieberman across a range of issues he is significantly more conservative than most Democrats.

Look here:

http://irregularnews.com/senate/bystate.html

for an example.

You're right that Lieberman is hardly to the right of Cheney. But neither is Lieberman conservative only on one issue of the day.

For this there is a simple reason: while the US can no longer successfully manipulate regional actors to carry out its plans, regional actors have learned to use the US presence to promote their own objectives. Quietly and against the deeply held wishes of their populations, they have managed to keep the Americans engaged with the hope of some elusive victory.

The competing axis of so-called rogue states made up of Syria and Iran wants the US to stay. So long as America remains mired in Iraq's quicksand, they think, it will be difficult for it to embark on a similar adventure nearby. This is true not only politically - the quagmire standing as a stark reminder of the invasion's failure - but also militarily: US capabilities will remain stretched and weakened for as long as the occupation continues.

Moreover, American forces in Iraq present relatively soft targets for retaliation in case Iran or Syria is attacked. In short, the occupation of Iraq is seen as the most effective insurance policy against a possible US attack against them.

You know, usually I don't respond to anonymous posters, but I think there is a point that needs addressing:

I've heard many Democrats say that Lieberman is super rightwing, he ought to be a GOPer, etc. Let me ask those who think that: Do you even know Lieberman's positions? Do you know how socially liberal he is? Have you ever heard him (along with Sue Collins) grill Administration witnesses on the HS committee?

If you think he's some shill for the Admin you're greatly mistaken. Most of his politics identify with the Dems (which is fine btw). The real question is, why do people go so ballistic over one litmus test issue? Why not look at the entire person? Repubs do this too with abortion, btw.

Or is the anon poster/coward just saying something to get a reaction, ie he/she is being a little juvenile.

I saw that interview, and just about every question Chris Cilizza asked was, "What do you think about Candidate X? What do you think about Candidate Y?"

How about getting beyond personality gossip, and getting to the very structure of Unity08?

Why not ask why an organization that proclaims it is against lobbyists has lobbyists in its leadership?

Why not ask why an organization that to this day proclaims on its website it will only take small contributions is suing the government for the right to take contributions of unlimited size?

Why not ask why a so-called "grassroots movement" is primarily funded by venture capitalists and hedge fund managers?

Why not ask why an organization that publicly promised never to sell its membership lists indicated in a deposition its intention to do just that?

Do your homework -- heck, just do a google search on these topics! -- then ask the tough questions next time. Otherwise, you're just being a tool, Mr. Cilliza.

n a separate incident, two suicide bombers attacked an office of the Kurdistan Democratic Party of Massoud Barzani, leader of the autonomous Kurdish region in Iraq, killing three of its guards and wounding five.

The attack occurred at about 8 am in Zumar, a town that is 70 km west of Mosul, the capital of Ninevah province.

It was the second suicide attack this week aimed at the KDP in that area.

Four Iraqi police officers were killed yesterday when a suicide bomber struck a police station in the Diyala city of Balad Ruz, 70 km northeast of Baghdad.

thursday, April 26, 2007 (Baghdad)
A suicide car bomb attack on an Iraqi army checkpoint in northern part of the country killed at least nine soldiers on Thursday.

The attack at about 9 am in Khalis, 80 km north of Baghdad also wounded 10 Iraqi soldiers and five civilians.

Unity '08 has got to be a front group for folks wanting to dilute the vote fo the center and left. Can't put my finger on it but it smells awfully funny, kinda like when it turned out that the green candidate for the senate in Pennsylvania last year was funded entirely by GOP donors.

The big tipoff for me is when folks are saying that the Democrats in Congress and just like the GOP before them. Excuse me? After all that has gone on since 2001?

he Post fronts administration officials acknowledging that White House officials held 20 private briefings, in at least 15 government agencies, that examined the prospects for Republican candidates during the last midterm elections. A presentation made at the General Services Administration headquarters is currently under investigation because it is illegal to use federal resources for partisan political purposes.

Staffers said Iraqi government officials told them privately they didn't want to release the civilian death toll figures out of fear that they would further undermine public opinion. The LAT does its own digging and says that, according to numbers from several government ministries, more than 5,500 people died in the Baghdad area since the beginning of the year.

What's Unity about it? They're all republicans. However if they want to start a new republican party that is sane to replace the current crop of morally bankrupt lunatics, that's a good idea.

Note: Lieberman is NOT a democrat.. he is to the right of Dick Cheney and the idea that any democrats other than the morons in his home state would vote for him is laughable.

Take him, wingers -- he's all yours.

Libs on this blog who always complain about corporate hos and lobbyists like to PRETEND that they are all Repubs.

TheHill.com has a story about how all of the Repub corporate hos are stepping aside for all the Dem corporate hos, now that the Dems control Congress.

http://thehill.com/business--lobby/the-new-sheriffs-in-town-2007-04-24.html

Libs, keep on flacking for those Dem corporate hos. You are eating baloney while they get rich.

3rd party candidates always fail, because over time, the issues that they bring to the table are adopted by one of the major parties.

Also, our system, unlike a paliamentary system, requires a party to win an election in a single congressional district in order to be represented in the legislative body. In a parliamentary system, all you have to do is reach a certain threshold of the national vote, sometimes less than 5%, to get representation in the legislative body.

If the US had a parliamentary system, there would be a union party, a white liberal party, a black party, a business party, a religious conservative party, and 2 or 3 moderate parties like the party King and Waterston want to start.

Our congressional system forces candidates to build coalitions to 50% in one congressional district. This forces both parties toward the center. Our system is better than the parliamentary system.

King and Waterston should say what they believe and participate in the debate rather than take shots at the parties.

So the question is, can they win, and most importantly, from which party would they steal most of their support?

I still think a McCain/Lieberman ticket is possible if McCain doesn't get the GOP nod. And it'd be the one I'd vote for, that's for sure.

Theocratic reactionaries, "We're an empire now" imperialist strutters, war profiteers, uber-patriotic demagogue-bullies, nutbars and loony-tunes of sundry stripe, the bellicose nerds at their basement keyboards, the functional illiterates over at Blogs for Bush and Renew America, deniers of evolution, believers in Satan, the Rapture-ready, and Tom DeLay: Ladies and gentlemen, the Republican Party.

To assist them, they have the services of exactly the kind of spokespersons such people deserve: the neighborhood saloon loudmouth Rush Limbaugh, Sean "The Boston Terrier of Indignation" Hannity, the self-parodying O'Reilly, the vile Coulter, with assorted nudniks like Glenn Beck and Dennis Prager to come in off the bench in case, against all odds, there's a shortfall of teh stoopid. Oh, and Fox News, as dependable as Pravda and easily as accurate, unswerving in its dedication to cheering on Chimpy.

This is what remains of the right after six years of the Bush-Cheney Follies. It's like the end of 'Salem's Lot, where everyone left in town is a vampire. If we must talk about "conservative humor," these are the "conservatives"--liars to a man, only in it for the money, the worst America has to offer. Just ask the world.

You think I'm the best major candidate? Have you ever looked, I mean really LOOKED at me? You can do better, much better. And anyway, I'm not running. No, stop making that face, I've made up my mind and am not running.

Wrong in the facts, wrong in the law!

US President Tim Kalemkarian, US Senate Tim Kalemkarian, US House Tim Kalemkarian: best major candidate.