Detainee Bill Shifts Power to President

Read it and weep. The detainee bill was never about torture. It was about shifting more power to Bush II. As if we needed more proof, but welcome to the police state formerly known as America.

Now THIS Should Be the Story of the Year

As usual the Fourth Estate and the extremists on the right and left have missed the most significant thing about the David Gregory/Bush II exchange yesterday.

Besides the whole "president coming unglued" problem, Bush's non-answer was very revealing. At one point (has anyone seen the full transcript?) Bush says that without passage of the law, everything stops concerning the detaining and prosecuting of terrorist suspects. If true, has the military and CIA told him they won't proceed without protection? Is that why he sounds so...desperate? Makes me wonder who's really in charge. But then again, I've been wondering that for some time now.

The Three Musketeers

The actions this week of three GOP Senators who actually understand what's happening in the world gives me hope. And I just love the fact that one of them is quoted as saying "there are three branches of government, not one." We so obviously need reminding.

Graham could actually be a Republican I vote for. He also had the common sense to wonder aloud about the universe that actually makes it okay to convict someone using secret evidence. Can you say Gestapo?

Safe?

So Bush II says "we're safer but not yet safe." Safe, safer, safest. Which really means nothing when you think about. So who are they kidding? And how is that speech not a "fuck you" to terrorists everywher - so how does that help us in any way?

And thankfully the Center for Strategic and International Studies can call a spade a spade: according to the Post, a CSIS report states that any attempt a diplomacy is "undermined by perceived U.S. unilateralism." Perceived? How about, actual unilateralism.