An editorial from the The Atlantic that we should ALL read.

Courtesy of The Atlantic:  

The Republican Party, as an institution, has become a danger to the rule of law and the integrity of our democracy. The problem is not just Donald Trump; it’s the larger political apparatus that made a conscious decision to enable him. In a two-party system, nonpartisanship works only if both parties are consistent democratic actors. If one of them is not predictably so, the space for nonpartisans evaporates. We’re thus driven to believe that the best hope of defending the country from Trump’s Republican enablers, and of saving the Republican Party from itself, is to do as Toren Beasley did: vote mindlessly and mechanically against Republicans at every opportunity, until the party either rights itself or implodes (very preferably the former). 

Of course, lots of people vote a straight ticket. Some do so because they are partisan. Others do so because of a particular policy position: Many pro-lifers, for example, will not vote for Democrats, even pro-life Democrats, because they see the Democratic Party as institutionally committed to the slaughter of babies.

We’re proposing something different. We’re suggesting that in today’s situation, people should vote a straight Democratic ticket even if they are not partisan, and despite their policy views. They should vote against Republicans in a spirit that is, if you will, prepartisan and prepolitical. Their attitude should be: The rule of law is a threshold value in American politics, and a party that endangers this value disqualifies itself, period. In other words, under certain peculiar and deeply regrettable circumstances, sophisticated, independent-minded voters need to act as if they were dumb-ass partisans.

The title of this article is "Boycott the Republican party."

And that is exactly what the article is advocating.

For very good reason in fact.

As you can see from the article below, the Republican party is now the party of Donald Trump, and therefore also the party of Vladimir Putin.

This is NOT the Red Scare of the 1950's for which Joseph McCarthy was justifiably vilified.

Unlike that case there is overwhelming evidence that we are under constant attack from a foreign entity determined to turn us against each other, and to undermine our democracy.

If the Republican party is unable to recognize that, or protect us from that, they have no right to represent us in Washington, or even in local state offices.

Good question.

Source

What do YOU think?

Sarah Palin compares Hillary Clinton to Edward Snowden because you know that makes so much sense.

Courtesy of Palin's only remaining link to her dwindling fan base.

Okay now first off whether you agree with Snowden's actions or not, the fact is that he smuggled top secret information out of the NSA which he then distributed to the media and brought with him when he left America.

THAT stands in stark contrast to the possibility that Hillary Clinton, who was the Secretary of State at the time, might have sent sensitive information through a private e-mail server that everybody in the White House already knew about.

The conversation about whether Snowden should be considered a traitor or not is a legitimate one, however Palin has no interest in actually having it as she is only interested in using Snowden to attack Hillary.

By the way it should be mentioned at this time that the State Department was certainly not secure enough to resist being hacked and shut down in 2014. (Which it should be noted happened AFTER Hillary left office.)

On the other hand Hillary's e-mail was not hacked by anyone as far as we know, and the only peek into what she was receiving on her private server only comes because her friend Sydney Blumenthal was hacked.

And that only revealed what he sent her, and nothing that she sent back.

As it appears right now Clinton's e-mail account seems to be the one that was the safest from attack.

So in what way did she secretly expose classified information?

This video is for the next time that your obnoxious Southern relatives try to convince you that the Civil War was not fought over slavery. Spoiler alert: Yes it was!

This is Colonel Ty Seidule, Professor of History at the United States Military Academy at West Point, so you know he has some understanding of the topic.

In a nutshell certain people in the Southern part of the country thought that owning people was a good idea, one that they felt the Bible supported by the way, and people in the North thought otherwise.

If you are a supporter of the Confederate flag you are a supporter of the types of abuse they inflicted on their fellow man, and the treasonous acts they perpetrated against their own government to protect those acts.

President Obama has the best reaction ever to the 47 Senate Republicans who signed the letter to Iran. He's embarrassed for them.

Courtesy of The Jerusalem Post:  

US President Barack Obama was quoted on Friday as saying that he was "embarrassed" for the 47 Republican senators who wrote a letter to the Iranian government threatening to undermine any agreement reached regarding Tehran's nuclear program. 

In an interview with Vice News, the president said that the letter was "close to unprecedented." 

"I'm embarrassed for them," the president told Vice News. "For them to address a letter to the ayatollah ... who they claim is our mortal enemy, and their basic argument to them is, 'Don't deal with our president because you can't trust him to follow through on an agreement.' That's close to unprecedented."

I would like to correct the President on one point here.

The Republicans are NOT suggesting that the Iranians cannot trust the President.

They are outright stating that the Iranians CAN trust THEM to sabotage any deal that Iran and the President might reach, and also trust that if a Republican is elected in 2016 that it will be dismantled completely. 

In my opinion the President is being very presidential here because he has every right to slam his fist on his desk and call these assholes out for purposefully undermining a deal with Iran, and increasing the possibility of yet another war that will see potentially thousands of our military members bleeding out onto the sand.

Instead he is embarrassed for them, because clearly they lack the capacity to feel embarrassed themselves. As always, he takes the high road.

I guess that is why he is the President. And let's take a moment to thank our lucky stars that HE is our President, because there is no longer any doubt as to what would be happening right now if a Republican had won either of the two last presidential elections.

By signing that letter to Iran newly minted Senator Joni Ernst might have just opened herself up to a court martial.

Courtesy of the Daily Kos:

Lt. Col. Joni Ernst, the junior senator from Iowa, is a lieutenant colonel in the Iowa Army National Guard. As such, she is bound by the Iowa State Code of Military Justice. Her signing of the seditious letter to Iran is a clear and direct violation of Chapter 29B.85 of the Iowa State Code of Military Justice. 

29B.85 CONTEMPT TOWARD OFFICIALS. 

Any person subject to this code who uses contemptuous words against the president, the governor, or the governor of any other state, territory, commonwealth, or possession in which that person may be serving, shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

Well now isn't THAT interesting?

Ernst of course is not the ONLY Senator who might have reason to regret signing that letter.

John McCain does not seem terribly thrilled with his decision either:  

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), one of the signers of the controversial letter to Iran’s leadership, admitted Tuesday night that the letter might not have been the way to express frustration that President Obama isn’t working with Congress on nuclear negotiations with Tehran. 

“What that letter did was tell the Iranians that whatever deal they make, the Congress of the United States will play a role,” he said on Fox News’s “On the Record with Greta van Susteren.” 

“Maybe that wasn’t the best way to do that, but I think the Iranians should know that the Congress of the United States has to play a role in whether an agreement of this magnitude.” 

“It’s also symptomatic between the total lack of trust that exists now between we Republicans and the president,” he said. 

“This has established a poisoned environment here which sometimes causes us to react maybe in not the most effective fashion.”

Perhaps somebody needs to remind this old fossil that it was NOT President Obama who fired the first round in the war with the Republicans they started that skirmish the night of his inauguration:  

On the night of Barack Obama’s inauguration, a group of top GOP luminaries quietly gathered in a Washington steakhouse to lick their wounds and ultimately create the outline of a plan for how to deal with the incoming administration. 

“The room was filled. It was a who’s who of ranking members who had at one point been committee chairmen, or in the majority, who now wondered out loud whether they were in the permanent minority,” Frank Luntz, who organized the event, told FRONTLINE. 

Among them were Senate power brokers Jim DeMint, Jon Kyl and Tom Coburn, and conservative congressmen Eric Cantor, Kevin McCarthy and Paul Ryan. 

After three hours of strategizing, they decided they needed to fight Obama on everything. The new president had no idea what the Republicans were planning.

I defy John McCain to explain how ANY President is supposed to work toward compromise with THAT sort of entrenched oppostion.

This Iran letter is just the latest example of the kind of uncooperative, underhanded, and even treasonous behavior exhibited by members of the Republican party since the very day this President was sworn into office.

More fallout from that traitorous Republican letter to the Iranian government.

Boy Senator Bernie Sanders certainly did not mince words:  

Speaking with a group of reporters following his speech at the International Association of Fire Fighters presidential forum in Washington, the Vermont senator said the 47 Republican senators warning Iran of a deal on its nuclear program are trying to “sabotage” a agreement. Story Continued Below 

“[M]y Republican friends seem to be itching for that war,” said Sanders, an independent who is openly considering a presidential bid as a Democrat. “When you sabotage the effort to reach a peace agreement by the leader of the United States of America — the man who is charged with dealing with foreign policy — that, to me, is really unspeakable.” 

My sentiments exactly!

And there are a whole lot of people who feel the same. Which explains why a petition urging the federal government to file charges against the 47 senators for violating the Logan Act has already received almost 150,000 signatures.

As for the traitors themselves, well some of them have started to rethink their decision to sign that letter in the first place: 

A day after releasing a letter that potentially threatened the administration’s negotiations with Iran, some Republicans who signed on are realizing it was a bad call. 

Behind the scenes, Republicans are wondering if sending an open letter to Iran’s leaders was the best strategy to keep a bad nuclear deal from being negotiated.

Yeah well too fucking late. This is adulthood, there are to "take backs."

No these assholes made this choice and let's hope that it causes them all kinds of problem with their constituents and in their bids for reelection.

I mean at some point, enough has to be enough.

Joe Biden blasts Senate Republicans over letter to Iran.

Courtesy of HuffPo:

"In thirty-six years in the United States Senate, I cannot recall another instance in which Senators wrote directly to advise another country -- much less a longtime foreign adversary -- that the President does not have the constitutional authority to reach a meaningful understanding with them. This letter sends a highly misleading signal to friend and foe alike that that our Commander-in-Chief cannot deliver on America’s commitments -- a message that is as false as it is dangerous," Biden said in a statement released by the White House. 

"The decision to undercut our President and circumvent our constitutional system offends me as a matter of principle. As a matter of policy, the letter and its authors have also offered no viable alternative to the diplomatic resolution with Iran that their letter seeks to undermine," he added. 

"If talks collapse because of Congressional intervention, the United States will be blamed, leaving us with the worst of all worlds," Biden argued. "Iran’s nuclear program, currently frozen, would race forward again. We would lack the international unity necessary just to enforce existing sanctions, let alone put in place new ones. Without diplomacy or increased pressure, the need to resort to military force becomes much more likely -- at a time when our forces are already engaged in the fight against ISIL."

The Vice President was not the only one to express his anger and disappointment. President Obama had this to say:

"I think it's somewhat ironic to see some members of Congress wanting to make common cause with the hardliners in Iran," Mr Obama said in response to the letter. "It's an unusual coalition."

Even the Iranian Foreign Minister was quick to lambast the Republican Senators who authored the letter:

"In our view, this letter has no legal value and is mostly a propaganda ploy. It is very interesting that while negotiations are still in progress and while no agreement has been reached, some political pressure groups are so afraid even of the prospect of an agreement that they resort to unconventional methods, unprecedented in diplomatic history. This indicates that like Netanyahu, who considers peace as an existential threat, some are opposed to any agreement, regardless of its content."

There are others here in America that are calling the letter what it is, treason:

Republicans are Committing Treason in Public!: http://t.co/kZiYtOtWla via @YouTube
— Thom Hartmann (@Thom_Hartmann) March 9, 2015

As you can see I am pretty pissed off about this. Right now it is almost impossible for me to imagine the Republicans doing ANYTHING that does not undermine this President, or helps this country avoid war.

And that is beginning to really terrify me.

Republicans send letter in attempt to sabotage President Obama's negotiations with Iran. Can you say "treason?"

Courtesy of Bloomberg:  

A group of 47 Republican senators has written an open letter to Iran's leaders warning them that any nuclear deal they sign with President Barack Obama's administration won’t last after Obama leaves office. Organized by freshman Senator Tom Cotton and signed by the chamber's entire party leadership as well as potential 2016 presidential contenders Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, the letter is meant not just to discourage the Iranian regime from signing a deal but also to pressure the White House into giving Congress some authority over the process. 

“It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system … Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement,” the senators wrote. “The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.” 

Arms-control advocates and supporters of the negotiations argue that the next president and the next Congress will have a hard time changing or canceling any Iran deal -- -- which is reportedly near done -- especially if it is working reasonably well. 

Many inside the Republican caucus, however, hope that by pointing out the long-term fragility of a deal with no congressional approval -- something Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has also noted -- the Iranian regime might be convinced to think twice. "Iran's ayatollahs need to know before agreeing to any nuclear deal that … any unilateral executive agreement is one they accept at their own peril,” Cotton told me.

Okay not to use hyperbole here, but how is this NOT treason?

According to a Republican member of the House Armed Services Committee, there are GOP Congressmen encouraging generals to publicly resign if they don't like orders from the President. Am I wrong in thinking that's not okay?

Courtesy of Medium.com: 

Members of Congress have been talking to U.S. generals behind the scenes and urging them to publicly resign “in a blaze of glory” if they disagree with how the White House is handling conflicts in the Middle East, according to U.S. Rep. Doug Lamborn of Colorado. 

The Republican member of the House Armed Services Committee made the remarks at a Sept. 23 liberty group meeting in the basement of a Colorado Springs bar … following a kilt-wearing contest. 

During a question-and-answer portion of the forum, a service member urged Lamborn to work with his congressional colleagues in both parties to “support the generals and the troops in this country despite the fact that there is no leadership from the Muslim Brotherhood in the White House.” 

“You know what, I can’t add anything to that, but do let me reassure you on this,” Lamborn said. “A lot of us are talking to the generals behind the scenes, saying, ‘Hey, if you disagree with the policy that the White House has given you, let’s have a resignation.’” 

“‘You know, let’s have a public resignation, and state your protest, and go out in a blaze of glory,’” Lamborn continued. “And I haven’t seen that very much, in fact I haven’t seen that at all in years.”

I am no legal expert but isn't that possibly an act of treason?

Treason

1. the offense of acting to overthrow one's government or to harm or kill its sovereign. 
2. a violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or to one's state. 
3. the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery.

Hey whatta you know it is.

Seriously what in the hell is wrong with Republicans these days?

The President is essentially doing exactly what they want him to do to fight the so-called terrorist threat and they are still treating him like he is working with ISIS to overthrow the country.

The man killed Osama Bin laden! That alone should excuse him from any, and all criticism, from the party of warmongers.

And I think the justice Department should investigate what this Lamborn guy said, and if there is any validity to it, then there should be serious consequences.

I mean seriously can any of you imagine what would have happened to Democratic Congressmen if they had engaged in this type of behavior during the Bush administration?

Faith and Freedom Coalition founder Ralph Reed compares the fight against gay marriage to the fight against slavery, and suggests it is still a winner for conservatives. And Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal threatens Washington D.C. with a "hostile takeover."

Courtesy of Yahoo News:  

Seeking to encourage social conservative activists to persevere in the fight against same-sex marriage, Faith and Freedom Coalition founder Ralph Reed drew parallels between the ongoing debate over marriage equality and the nation’s long struggle over slavery and civil rights for African-Americans. 

Speaking to about 40 attendees at an afternoon breakout session during the organization’s annual “Road to Majority” conference in Washington, D.C. on Friday, Reed gave a speech in which he suggested the 1857 Dred Scott Supreme Court decision —which ruled that African American slaves remained the property of their owners even if they traveled to or resided in free states — held a lesson for contemporary conservative activists concerned about what they see as judicial overreach on the issue of gay marriage. 

Before the abolitionists triumphed, Reed reminded, it appeared for many years that the courts would squash the hopes of human rights reformers. 

“The battle looked like it was lost, but it really wasn’t,” Reed said of the immediate aftermath of the Dred Scott decision, which went on to embolden abolitionist activists. “And that’s kind of like where we are right now. Anybody heard lately that we’re losing the marriage issue? Anybody heard that argument? You notice some similarities? I’m not comparing slavery to same-sex marriage, OK? (Yes you are.) I’m just pointing out that when you have these fights, what’s interesting is that if you look at same-sex marriage, it’s now legal in 17 states.”

Continued Reed: “Only six of them, six out of those 17, six out of 50 states, had done it by referendum or by state legislature. In every other case, it was imposed by courts. Just like the courts had to impose Dred Scott. Because they couldn’t do it on the country because the country didn’t agree with it. The country, by the way, doesn’t agree with same-sex marriage.”

Seriously what part of the country is HE looking at? Just the South?

There is literally progress being made almost on a daily basis for gay Americans, and if the conservatives keep fighting against granting them rights, the Republican party will go the way of the Whigs well before 2024 when they might actually have a shot at the Presidency.

Which by the way might not be a bad thing.

And if that were not batshit crazy enough Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal seemed to be calling for an open revolt against President Obama and the White House in his speech on Saturday.

 Courtesy of NBC News:  

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal on Saturday night accused President Barack Obama and other Democrats of waging wars against religious liberty and education and said that a rebellion is brewing in the U.S. with people ready for "a hostile takeover" of the nation's capital. 

Jindal spoke at the annual conference hosted by the Faith and Freedom Coalition, a group led by longtime Christian activist Ralph Reed. Organizers said more than 1,000 evangelical leaders attended the three-day gathering. Republican officials across the political spectrum concede that evangelical voters continue to play a critical role in GOP politics. 

"I can sense right now a rebellion brewing amongst these United States," Jindal said, "where people are ready for a hostile takeover of Washington, D.C., to preserve the American Dream for our children and grandchildren." 

The governor said there was a "silent war" on religious liberty being fought in the U.S. — a country that he said was built on that liberty. 

"I am tired of the left. They say they're for tolerance, they say they respect diversity. The reality is this: They respect everybody unless you happen to disagree with them," he said. "The left is trying to silence us and I'm tired of it, I won't take it anymore."

You know usually the domestic terrorists are more low key than this.

Exactly what does one do when the governor of a state is calling for a hostile, and I assume heavily armed, takeover of the United States government?

Outgoing White House Press Secretary Jay Carney has just about the best response possible to criticism from Dick Cheney on Obama's handling of Iraq.

Courtesy of Mediaite:

During his final briefing on Wednesday, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney got in a jab at Dick Cheney after the former vice president wrote in the Wall Street Journal that “rarely has a U.S. president been so wrong about so much at the expense of so many” with regards to Iraq and Middle East policy. 

“Which president was he talking about?” Carney zinged as ABC reporter Jon Karl read off the quote, prompting laughter from the packed room. “I believe he was talking about President Obama,” Karl joked back. 

 Carney ultimately settled with this response: “He’s entitled to his opinion.”

The idea that anybody should seriously listen to anything Cheney has to say about Iraq is being universally dismissed. 

From the New York Times: 

This, from the man who helped lead us into this trumped-up war, searching for nonexistent weapons of mass destruction, a war in which some 4,500 members of the American military were killed, many thousands more injured, and that is running a tab of trillions of dollars.

To the Washington Post:  

When it comes to being wrong about Iraq, Dick Cheney has been in a class by himself. It was Cheney who said, “Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us.” 

It was Cheney who said: “it’s been pretty well confirmed” that 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta “did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service.” 

It was Cheney who said: “we do know, with absolute certainty, that [Saddam Hussein] is using his procurement system to acquire the equipment he needs in order to enrich uranium to build a nuclear weapon” 

It was Cheney who said in 2005: “I think they’re in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency.” 

All those things, and many more, were false. There is not a single person in America — not Bill Kristol, not Paul Wolfowitz, not Don Rumsfeld, no pundit, not even President Bush himself — who has been more wrong and more shamelessly dishonest on the topic of Iraq than Dick Cheney.

And even, believe it or not, over at Fox News:

 “In your op-ed [in the Wall Street Journal], you write as follows: ‘Rarely has a U.S. president been so wrong about so much at the expense of so many,” Kelly said on her show “The Kelly File.” “But time and time again, history has proven that you got it wrong as well sir.” 

And while all of that is good, it is really not good enough. 

Good enough would be seeing Dick Cheney giving interviews from behind bars.

Good enough would be seeing the entire Bush Administration prosecuted for war crimes.

Good enough would be the Republican party admitting publicly that they helped lie a nation into war and lose their standing as a political party of worth in this country.

It would not bring back the thousands of dead American soldiers, nor the hundreds of thousands dead Iraqis, but at least it might do something to keep such a travesty from ever happening again.

Oh yeah, such a reasonable group.

Doesn't leave a lot of room for discussion does it?

So in a nutshell if you are not religious you are leading this country to civil war.

You not to be disagreeable, but I don't think it is OUR side who is always threatening to shoot people that we don't agree with.

Hey do you remember that Christian Militia guy that was raising a reward for the murder or capture of President Obama? Yeah well he is still at it.

You may remember Everest Wilhelmsen from a post I did at the end of last month:

 Well since then his plans have become even more specific:

Another member posted a "member list" which conveniently lists all of the individuals who have signed on to be part of this force, from all over the country.

So the question I have is WHY is this guy still allowed to be running free, essentially orchestrating the assassination of our President?

By now the Secret Service HAVE to know this guy exists.

So is he so insignificant that they simply cannot be bothered?

Or is he, whether he knows it or not, helping to flush out other enemies of the state, so that the Federal government can gather their names and keep an eye on them as well?

I kind of think the latter.

How about you?

Florida Republican candidate suggested that President Obama should be arrested and hanged. Seriously? Update!

Courtesy of Tampa Bay Times:  

As Americans honored the memory of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. on Monday, a Republican candidate for Florida House District 68 said President Barack Obama should be hanged for war crimes. 

"I'm past impeachment," Joshua Black wrote on Twitter. "It's time to arrest and hang him high." 

The tweet caught the attention of Chris Latvala, a Republican candidate for House District 67. 

"You aren't seriously calling for the killing of Obama are you?" Latvala replied. "I know you are crazy but good heavens. U R an embarrassment." 

Latvala added: "I make it my business when so called GOP candidates become an embarrassment to my beloved party." 

Black, 31, of Pinellas Park moved to Florida in 2007 after practicing street evangelism in St. Louis and works as a taxi driver. According to his campaign website, Black entered politics in 2012 when he tried influencing the presidential primary. 

The website says: "Republicans have a serious communication problem. Everything we say sounds like spears." 

Hours after the tweet, Black defended his comment. Obama should be held responsible for ordering a drone strike that killed a U.S. citizen overseas, he said. 

"He should be executed for treason," Black said. "I think the appropriate punishment is death. They killed Benedict Arnold. (Obama) shouldn't be allowed to kill Americans without a trial."

So in the eyes of this wingnut President Obama is comparable to Benedict Arnold, the most famous traitor in US history. Oh yeah, nothing exaggerated about that!

Hey look I am also uncomfortable with the idea of drones killing American citizens (And by the way there have been four.), but I am also aware that police officers shoot and kill suspects all over the country in what are considered life and death circumstances, without benefit of a trial, and as a rule we do not suggest that they be put to death.

And let me point out just how incredibly hypocritical it is to demand that this President be tried of war crimes, when the entire fucking reason we were over in Afghanistan and Iraq is due to the policies of George W. Bush, a man that we KNOW started the wars based on fabricated intelligence.

After we have arrested and imprisoned George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz, THEN somebody can start talking about arresting President Obama.

And on that note the radical fringe falls silent. 

Update: Well guess who got a visit from the Secret Service. 

Nonpartisan group finds that, without a doubt, the Bush administration is guilty of torture. Somebody organize a jury while I get some rope.

"Yeah, so we broke the law and used torture, What are ya gonna do about it?" 

Courtesy of Raw Story:

A nonpartisan group led by a former top Bush administration official concluded a two-year review on Tuesday that finds the former president and his top advisers knowingly ordered interrogation techniques that U.S. officials have previously referred to as torture. 

“After conducting our own two-year investigation, weighing the credibility of all sources and studying the current public record, we have come to the regrettable, but unavoidable, conclusion that the United States did indeed engage in conduct that is clearly torture,” former Rep. Asa Hutchinson (R-AR), who served as undersecretary of the Department of Homeland Security during the Bush administration, said in an advisory. 

The 577-page review, put together by the advocacy group The Constitution Project, includes interviews with dozens of people who have first-hand knowledge of the discussions about interrogation techniques and their implementation. Although Bush administration loyalists said at the time that “enhanced interrogation tactics” like stress positions, waterboarding, mock executions, sensory deprivation and prolonged diapering were not torture, this report aims to specifically and finally emphasize that these activities meet the clinical definition of “torture.” 

“As long as the debate continues, so too does the possibility that the United States could again engage in torture,” the report says, according to The New York Times, which received an advance copy. 

“What sets the United States apart as a world leader, in addition to our military might, are our values and respect for the rule of law. All the available evidence led us to conclude that, for many of these detainees, the U.S. violated both international law and treaties and our own laws, greatly diminishing America’s ability to forge important alliances around the world,” former Rep. James R. Jones (D-OK) added in the group’s advisory. 

The report also notes dozens of instances in which U.S. officials and U.S courts treated similar tactics as torture when applied to U.S. persons, and urges the Obama administration to declassify a 6,000-page Senate report on the extent of torture’s use during the Bush years. 

“This has not been an easy inquiry for me, because I know many of the players,” Hutchinson told The New York Times. “But I just think we learn from history. It’s incredibly important to have an accurate account not just of what happened but of how decisions were made.” 

Okay so now that this report is finished and it leaves NO doubt that the Bush administration engaged in criminal activities. let's have the whole slimy bunch of them arrested for treason.

All criminal investigations into the Bush torture program have been called off by the Obama administration.

Fuck!

So nothing. These bastards destroy our reputation, lie us into two unnecessary wars, spy on our citizens, and damn near near bankrupt the country, and nothing happens to them?

No of course not. But just let President Obama fail to leave a tip after eating lunch and the impeachment hearings will commence posthaste.

Fucking Republicans!

Dick Cheney's Halliburton made 39.5 billion off of the Iraq War. Just in case you were still wondering why we sent our troops there.

Courtesy of ZNet: 

The accounting of the financial cost of the nearly decade-long Iraq War will go on for years, but a recent analysis has shed light on the companies that made money off the war by providing support services as the privatization of what were former U.S. military operations rose to unprecedented levels. 

Private or publicly listed firms received at least $138 billion of U.S. taxpayer money for government contracts for services that included providing private security, building infrastructure and feeding the troops. 

Ten contractors received 52 percent of the funds, according to an analysis by the Financial Times that was published Tuesday. 

The No. 1 recipient? 

Houston-based energy-focused engineering and construction firm KBR, Inc. (NYSE:KBR), which was spun off from its parent, oilfield services provider Halliburton Co. (NYSE:HAL), in 2007. 

The company was given $39.5 billion in Iraq-related contracts over the past decade, with many of the deals given without any bidding from competing firms, such as a $568-million contract renewal in 2010 to provide housing, meals, water and bathroom services to soldiers, a deal that led to a Justice Department lawsuit over alleged kickbacks, as reported by Bloomberg.

Conservatives would argue that Cheney broke ties with Halliburton when he chose himself to be George W. Bush's VP, and before the start of the war, but that is actually false.

The truth is that Cheney received a payout of 34 million dollars when he left the company to become the Vice President, and I don't think it can simply be chalked up to a conspiracy theory that after only three years Cheney helped start a war, and provided no-bid contracts to his old company, as possibly part of a prearranged deal with his old company.

After all records show that there was talk of invading Iraq, WELL before the events of September 11, 2001.

To put it bluntly Dick Cheney is a traitor, and possible domestic terrorist, and his relationship with Halliburton seems riddled with corruption.

A thorough investigation of Dick Cheney, his ties to Halliburton, and how their association led to the start of a completely unnecessary, war is long overdue. 

Rachel Maddow reports that Richard Nixon prolonged the Vietnam War for political purposes.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

As a progressive I am not at all surprised to have it reaffirmed that the Republicans have been killing Americans for political gain for decades.

I only wonder why so many of my fellow citizens are so damn slow in figuring it out as well?

Chris Matthews: Republicans are using "Cold War CIA tactics to destabilize our own country."

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Courtesy of Raw Story: 

“If they didn’t like a government somewhere — Guatemala, Iran, the Dominican Republic, Chile — they just brought it down,” he said. “Guess what, Republicans are now using the same tactic here at home. If they don’t like who we’ve elected president, they find some way to undermine the government, discredit its leaders, whatever it takes to destroy it.” 

“We are using in this country the same old Cold War CIA tactics to destabilize our own country,” Matthews continued. “Look at the impact of the constant threats to shut down the government on public confidence. It’s all in the ratings. It’s making people forever nervous about the basic ability of America to even have a running government. Is that patriotic? I don’t think so.” 

You know I think for the most part Matthews and I are on the same side of the ideological fence, but sometimes I am embarrassed by his bombastic approach to journalism or his over the top criticisms, condemnations, or compliments.

But I have to say that THIS time, though it may at first seem like an over the top criticism, sadly he is dead on.

Yes the Republican party is indeed acting as if they are trying to destabilize this country.

Which begs the question, is it possible to put an entire political party on trial for treason?

In case you missed it here is "Hubris: The Selling of the Iraq War" narrated by Rachel Maddow

If you did not get the chance to watch this last night I urge you to take the time to watch it here, It is too important to miss in my opinion.

One of my strongest reactions while watching this last night, was to the sheer hypocrisy of the Republican party. Many of who DARE to criticize  President Obama's decisions to end the Iraq War, after supporting the start of it so aggressively while ignoring the fact that the reasons given for going in were based on shaky, if not false, information.

If they had any sense of honor they would have all stepped down from their political positions years ago.

And speaking of shameful we have the insanity of John McCain DEMANDING more information about the four American deaths in Benghazi, while the blood of 4,486 dead United States military members drips from his old arthritic hands.

If ANY member of the Senate should have seen what was happening and put a stop to it, it was ex POW John McCain. But what did he do? He continued to push for an extension of the war well past the point where virtually everybody else had deemed it unnecessary, and wrong.

In a perfect world I would see George Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice, Dick Cheney, and Paul Wolfowitz, executed for treason after being tried for war crimes. But I would also like to see John McCain stripped of his office and thrown into jail as well, for supporting a criminal war and ignoring information that he knew to be false.