This Is Interesting

Some dude paid $100K for a virtual space station:

In one of the largest sales yet of property in an online game, a Miami resident has bought a virtual space station for $100,000 and wants to turn it into a cross between Jurassic Park and a disco.

Jon Jacobs, a director of independent films, plans to call the space resort, in the science-fiction themed game Project Entropia, “Club Neverdie.” Like other land areas in the game that has been visited by 300,000 players, the resort grounds will spawn dinosaur-like monsters, which visitors can kill.

Jacobs will take a cut of the virtual resources that the carcasses yield, like hides.

Jacobs, 39, plans to hire famous disc jockeys to entertain visitors once a week or so at the resort but still reckons on netting $20,000 a month from the hunting tax and other income.

Thanks for the link, JB.

BushCo Declares War On The Word "Insurgency"

I was going to write today about Bush's bold new plan on how to deal with the ongoing struggle in Iraq, but since he didn't come up with anything new or bold, I will instead write about BushCo's ongoing struggle with the English language.

First they wanted to change "privatization" to "private accounts" and then to "personal accounts." Then Rumsfeld wanted to change "The War on Terror" to "The Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism" (G-SAVE).

Now Rumsfeld doesn't like the word "insurgency" anymore:

Asked at a Pentagon news conference why he did not think the word insurgency applied to enemy forces in Iraq, Rumsfeld said he had "an epiphany."

"I've thought about it. And, over the weekend, I thought to myself, you know, that gives them a greater legitimacy than they seem to merit," Rumsfeld said.

Rumsfeld instead referred to the guerrillas in Iraq as "the terrorists" and "the enemies of the government." U.S. military statements also have referred to insurgents as "anti-Iraqi forces."

Now if they would just change the word "epiphany" to "brain fart," I think they'd be on to something.

A Single Digit Approval Rating?

It appears so (from The Toledo Blade by way of Hoffmania):

Gov. Bob Taft's approval ratings have hit single digits.

But Ohio Republicans shouldn't hit the panic button, a new statewide poll suggests.

A Zogby International online survey, conducted a week after the Nov. 8 election and released yesterday, shows just 6.5 percent of Ohio voters view the embattled GOP governor very or somewhat favorably. Barely 3 percent rate his job performance as "good" or "excellent."

"I'm not aware of anyone who's ever sunk lower," pollster John Zogby said.

I'd love to see a detailed study done on the 6.5% who gave Taft's job performance a thumbs-up. It would be a fascinating read.

Some Good Stuff From Froomkin Today

Dan Froomkin wonders about Bush's incredible shrinking "safety zone" (via AmericaBlog):

What does it say about the president of the United States that he won't go anywhere near ordinary citizens any more? And that he'll only speak to captive audiences?

President Bush's safety zone these days doesn't appear to extend very far beyond military bases, other federal installations and Republican fundraisers.

Tomorrow, Bush gives a speech on the war on terror -- at the United States Naval Academy. Then he attends a reception for Republican party donors.

Today, he visits a U.S. Border Patrol office, then attends a Republican fundraising lunch.

Yesterday, he spoke at an Air Force base and a Republican fundraiser.

Before leaving the country on his recent trip to Asia, Bush made one last speech -- at an Air Force base in Alaska. A few days before that, he spoke at an Army depot in Pennsylvania. When he delivered a speech on Nov. 1 about bird flu, it was to an audience of National Institutes of Health employees.

When was the last time Bush spoke at an event featuring a crowd that was not completely controlled by the White House? That was on October 28 (and Bush was heckled).

Quote Of The Day

Courtesy of Orrin Hatch:

"The Democratic Party seems to be taken over by the Michael Moore contingent in their attitude toward Vietnam, and they continually call for a withdrawal of troops at a time when we haven't finished the job," Hatch said on [the FoxNews] morning show.

Hardcore Anti-Tax Advocates

I thought this was pretty funny:

A proposal to impose a special tax on sexually oriented businesses is creating a dilemma for some legislators.

They're socially conservative and would like to combat pornography and discourage the opening of new shops that sell X-rated videos and magazines and other products, such as sex toys.

But some also have signed a pledge not to raise taxes.

That has a few talking about tying the proposed porn tax to proposals to cut taxes elsewhere.

If I was running against any of these folks, I wouldn't hesitate to run attack ads pointing out that my opponent obviously advocates pornography given that he or she refuses to support legislation that would tax it. And when my opponent called me sleazy for running such attack ads, my simple response would be: "I'm sleazy? Hell, you're the one who supports pornography."

First Decent Snowfall Of The Year

We received four inches so far in Bend today.

The picture is of our newly-landscaped side yard. I'll try to post a better one later.

"Duke" Cunningham To Plead Guilty

This shouldn't surprise anyone, but it is still interesting:

Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham will plead guilty to tax violations, a person close to the investigation of the California Republican has told The Associated Press. * * *

In November 2003, he sold his Del Mar, Calif., home to defense contractor Mitchell Wade for $1,675,000. Wade put the house back on the market and sold it after nearly a year for $975,000 -- a loss of $700,000 in one of the nation's hottest housing markets.

Cunningham and his wife, Nancy, used the proceeds from the sale to buy a $2.55 million mansion in ritzy Rancho Santa Fe, Calif.

Wade also let Cunningham live rent-free on his yacht, the Duke Stir, at the Capital Yacht Club. His firm, MZM Inc., donated generously to Cunningham's campaigns.

The Republicans thought they were untouchable back in 2003 and could therefore do anything they wanted, even obviously illegal stuff like this.


Hell, the fact that they named the yacht "Duke-Stir" speaks volumes in that regard. Scooter Libby had no problem committing obvious felonies back then either.



UPDATE: It is confirmed:

Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham pleaded guilty Monday to conspiracy and tax charges involving the sale of his home two years ago to a defense contractor at an inflated price.

Admitting to a judge that he took bribes, Cunningham entered pleas in U.S. District Court to charges of conspiracy to commit mail fraud and wire fraud and tax evasion for underreporting his income in 2004.

As Kos says: "These are good times for criminal prosecutors."

Is Scott McClelland On His Way Out?

From Political Wire:

Think Progress wonders where White House press secretary Scott McClellan has gone. The last time he gave an on-the-record press briefing was 19 days ago.

"We called the White House to ask whether there would be a press briefing today, and the press assistant checked the schedule and informed us there was not one scheduled. When asked whether there would be a press briefing any time this week, the press office informed us that there was nothing scheduled because the President would be traveling."

Nearly two weeks ago, PR Week predicted McClellan would be replaced soon because he "lacks credibility."

The reason we don't see much of McClelland anymore is because every time he conducts a press conference, the American public is reminded that Karl Rove is a liar. BushCo therefore has no choice but to replace McClelland.

BushCo Just Can't Stop Lying About Iraq

So, let me see if I got this right: The Bush Regime spent the better part of last week criticizing the Democrats who initially supported the Iraq War for changing their positions. When Rep. John Murtha announced that he supported a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, the Bush Administration -- and those in Congress who have provided aid and comfort to the Bush Administration -- went on the attack.

Scott McClelland compared war hawk Murtha to "Michael Moore and the extreme liberal wing of the Democratic party," then equated a call for withdrawal from Iraq with "surrender." Cheney jumped into the fray, and we all remember what "Mean Jean" Schmidt said (and was later forced to retract). But Bush ended up calling off the attack dogs.

Now we know why -- it looks like political pressure is forcing Bush to flip-flop on Iraq:

President Bush will give a major speech Wednesday at the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, Md., in which aides say he is expected to herald the improved readiness of Iraqi troops, which he has identified as the key condition for pulling out U.S. forces.

The administration's pivot on the issue comes as the White House is seeking to relieve enormous pressure by war opponents. The camp includes liberals, moderates and old-line conservatives who are uneasy with the costly and uncertain nation-building effort.

Now Bush is about to engage in the Mother of All Flip-Flops when it comes to Iraq, and will have to lie to the American people in order to do it. Oops.

I laughed out loud when I read the following paragraphs from the above-linked L.A. Times article:

Some analysts say the emerging consensus might have less to do with conditions in Iraq than the deployment's long-term strain on the U.S. military. And major questions about the readiness of Iraq's fledgling security forces remain, posing risks for any strategy that calls for an accelerated American withdrawal.

As recently as late September, senior U.S. military commanders said during a congressional hearing that just one Iraqi battalion, about 700 soldiers, was considered capable of undertaking combat operations fully independent of U.S. support. Administration officials now dismiss that measure of readiness, saying more Iraqi units are able to conduct advanced operations each day.

A former top Pentagon official who served during Bush's first term said he believed there was a "growing consensus" on withdrawing about 40,000 troops before next year's congressional election. That would be followed by further substantial pullouts in 2007 if it became clear that Iraqi forces could contain the insurgency.

The Democrats will, of course, let Bush get away with this flip-flop. What they should instead do is jump all over him by stating the obvious, namely, that Bush appears incapable of telling the truth to the American people when it comes to his debacle in Iraq -- he lied to get us in there, and now he is lying to get us out.

And they called John Murtha a coward?

David Broder Is A Whore

This exchange occurred a few minutes ago on Meet The Press:

RUSSERT: "David Broder, is it possible for official Washington -- the president, democratic leaders, republican leaders -- to arrive at common ground, a consensus position on Iraq?

BRODER: "It's possible, Tim, but they won't get there by arguing about who did what three years ago and this whole debate about whether there was just a mistake or misrepresentation or so on. This whole debate -- I think from a public point of view -- is largely irrelevant. Let's move past that."

So, Broder -- 2108 American troops dead, thousands more receiving life-changing wounds there, hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars wasted, all on a lie, and you think that is irrelevant?

Bill Richardson Appears To Be Out of the Running for '08

New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson's chances of winning the 2008 Democratic nomination for president appear to be evaporating:

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson is coming clean on his draft record. The baseball draft, that is.

For nearly four decades, Richardson, a prominent Democrat frequently mentioned as a possible presidential candidate, has maintained he was drafted as a pitcher in 1966 by the Kansas City Athletics.

But an Albuquerque Journal investigation found no record of Richardson being drafted by the A's, who have since moved to Oakland, or any other team. Informed by the newspaper of its findings, the governor acknowledged the error in a story published Thursday by the paper.

"After being notified of the situation (by Journal reporter Toby Smith) and after researching the matter ... I came to the conclusion that I was not drafted by the A's," Richardson said.

This probably ends Richardson's chance for the presidency. Sure, what he did was pretty minimal -- I mean, it is not like he lied the country into war -- but the G.O.P. will push this in a big way and blow it all out of proportion. That's what they do. Republicans may be incompetent when it comes to minor things like running the country or running a foreign policy, but they are experts at attacking political opponents.

Remember -- the G.O.P. successfully attacked Al Gore on the whole "inventing the internet" deal by lying about what Gore actually said on the subject and then convincing the country that their lie was "the truth." But they won't have to lie about Richardson's false baseball claim.

Happy Thanksgiving, Everyone

From Nick Anderson of The Louisville Courier-Journal (by way of Hoffmania):

More On Bush's Plan to Bomb al-Jazeera

This is starting to look pretty bad:

Claims that George Bush planned to bomb the Arabic TV news station al-Jazeera have fuelled concerns that an attack on the broadcaster's Baghdad offices during the war on Iraq was deliberate.

An international journalists group today demanded "complete disclosure" from the British and American governments over reports that the US considered attacking the al-Jazeera HQ in the Qatar capital, Doha.

The International Federation of Journalists claimed that 16 journalists and other media staff have died at the hands of US forces in Iraq, adding that the deaths had not been properly investigated.

If a story like this had come out a year ago, it would have gotten very little coverage in the mainstream U.S. press. But I have a feeling that this story has some legs over here. And it certainly appears to be legitimate. As Kos points out: "If the story has no merit, why would the British government threaten newspapers with prosecution under the Official Secrets Act?"

Could the U.S. have attacked al-Jazeera's Kabul and Baghdad offices deliberately? I would certainly hope not. But then again, the Bush Regime blew the cover of one of its own covert agents in order to retaliate against a critic here at home, so who knows what it is capable of doing abroad. The Arabic TV news station wants some answers:

Al-Jazeera said it had given the location of its offices in both Kabul and Baghdad to the authorities in Washington, but it had still been attacked.

"We have been campaigning vigorously for an independent inquiry into what happened in Baghdad on April 8 [2003]. Now is the time for the US to take responsibility and tell the world what actually happened," said Mr White.

"The public has a right to know whether politicians would seriously consider killing journalists in order to stifle independent or critical voices. In this particular case the family, friends and colleagues of the victim also have a right to justice.

From Ben Sargent of the Austin American-Statesman

Another "Downing Street Memo" Surfaces

Bush wanted to bomb al-Jazeera's headquarters in Qatar:

US President George W. Bush planned to bomb pan-Arab television broadcaster al-Jazeera, British newspaper the Daily Mirror said, citing a Downing Street memo marked "Top Secret".

The five-page transcript of a conversation between Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair reveals that Blair talked Bush out of launching a military strike on the station, unnamed sources told the daily which is against the war in Iraq.

The transcript of the pair's talks during Blair's April 16, 2004 visit to Washington allegedly shows Bush wanted to attack the satellite channel's headquarters.

Did Bush come up with this on his own? Kind of seems stupid even for him. But it is hard to argue with this analysis:

The Mirror said such a strike would have been "the most spectacular foreign policy disaster since the Iraq war itself."

The newspaper said that the memo "casts fresh doubt on claims that other attacks on al-Jazeera were accidents". It cited the 2001 direct hit on the channel's Kabul office.

Blair's former defence minister Peter Kilfoyle challenged Downing Street to publish the transcript.

"I hope the prime minister insists this memo be published," he told the Mirror.

"It gives an insight into the mindset of those whe were architects of the war."

UPDATE: Juan Cole has more.

Iraq Weighs In On Withdrawal Issue

Holy Sh!!t(e):

Reaching out to the Sunni Arab community, Iraqi leaders called for a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S.-led forces and said Iraq's opposition had a "legitimate right" of resistance.

The communique -- finalized by Shiite, Kurdish and Sunni leaders Monday -- condemned terrorism but was a clear acknowledgment of the Sunni position that insurgents should not be labeled as terrorists if their operations do not target innocent civilians or institutions designed to provide for the welfare of Iraqi citizens.

The leaders agreed on "calling for the withdrawal of foreign troops according to a timetable, through putting in place an immediate national program to rebuild the armed forces ... control the borders and the security situation" and end terror attacks.

The PNAC folks will not like this one bit. So, the opposition has a "legitimate right" to attack American troops. Sounds like we just might have to invade Iraq yet again.

This Was Long Overdue

Matt Drudge has the exclusive and still developing story.





UPDATE: Damn -- it was all just a glitch:

According to the network, "A portion of the switcher experienced a momentary glitch." The "X," the news organization explains, was in fact a place-marker for the CNN logo, which was being cued for transition. It was for operator use, and never meant to go on air. Drudge skeptically quotes the CNN statement, which further characterizes the incident as, "A technological malfunction not an issue of operator error."

Bloggers Dan Report and Intoxination have analyzed the video, isolating the key effects (images superimposed over the primary video). Revealed were the "X" and the words "Transition appears over 5 frames," which are even somewhat visible on the Drudge image. This would seem to support CNN's claim.

Lest We Forget . . .

Al Gore made the following statements in a speech at the Commonwealth Club on September 9th, 2002, about a month before Congress authorized Bush to invade Iraq:

"[B]ack in 1991, President George H. W. Bush purposely waited until after the mid-term elections of 1990 in order to push for a vote at the beginning of the new Congress in January of 1991. President George W. Bush, by contrast, is pushing for a vote in this Congress immediately before the election. That in itself is not inherently wrong, but I believe that puts a burden on the shoulders of President Bush to dispel the doubts many have expressed about the role that politics might be playing in the calculations of some in the administration. I have not raised those doubts, but many have. And because they have been raised, this has become a problem for our country's effort to build a national consensus and an international coalition."

"Rather than making efforts to dispel these concerns at home and abroad about the role of politics in the timing of his policy, the president is on the campaign trail two and three days a week, often publicly taunting Democrats with the political consequences of a "no" vote. The Republican National Committee is running pre-packaged advertising based on the same theme - all of this apparently in keeping with a political strategy clearly described in a White House aide's misplaced computer disk, which advised Republican operatives that their principal game plan for success in the election a few weeks away was to "focus on the war." Vice President Cheney, meanwhile, has indignantly described suggestions of any such thing as reprehensible, and then the following week took his discussion of the war to the Rush Limbaugh show." * * *

If that Cheney remark sounds familiar, it's because our vice-president apparently loves to use a certain word when he refers to legitimate criticism from Democrats. The following is from a speech Cheney gave earlier today:

Cheney pressed the administration's high-voltage attack on war critics, particularly Senate Democrats who voted in October 2002 to give Bush authority to go to war in Iraq and who now oppose his policy, calling them "dishonest and reprehensible."

Gore, in that September 2002 speech, went on to predict the post-invasion Iraq Quagmire, among other things:

"I believe this proposed foreshortening of deliberation in the Congress robs the country of the time it needs for careful analysis of exactly what may lie before us. Such consideration is all the more important because the administration has failed thus far to lay out an assessment of how it thinks the course of a war will run - even while it has given free run to persons both within and close to the administration to suggest at every opportunity that this will be a pretty easy matter. And it may well be, but the administration has not said much of anything to clarify its idea of what would follow regime change or the degree of engagement that it is prepared to accept for the United States in Iraq in the months and years after a regime change has taken place."

"I believe that this is unfortunate, because in the immediate aftermath of September 11, more than a year ago, we had an enormous reservoir of goodwill and sympathy and shared resolve all over the world. That has been squandered in a year's time and replaced with great anxiety all around the world, not primarily about what the terrorist networks are going to do, but about what we're going to do. My point is not that they are right to feel that way, but that they do feel that way. And that has consequences for us. Squandering all that goodwill and replacing it with anxiety in a year's time is similar to what was done by turning a hundred-billion-dollar surplus into a two-hundred-billion-dollar deficit in a year's time."

People who hate government often state that there is no real difference between Democrats and Republicans. That may actually be true with regard to a lot of things.

But the above-referenced quotes from Al Gore really make you think about how different this world would be now if Gore had been sworn in as president in January 2001. And it also brings up this sobering thought -- unless Congress comes to our aid, the sonofabitch currently occupying the White House still has over three years left in his term.

I Had No Idea

Maybe I'm merely ignorant and everyone else in the U.S. knew this, but if I hadn't watched 60 Minutes tonight, I would have gone on believing that internet gambling was legal in the United States. It is not: "The federal government is clear: gambling on the Internet is against the law. And yet millions of Americans do it on hundreds of Web sites, to the tune of billions of dollars."

The 60 Minutes segment explained why television advertisements for gambling websites like PokerStars and PartyPoker say that their sites are "not gambling sites" when they obviously are:

Those offshore companies are so brazen, they advertise. There are banners pulled by airplanes, ads in magazines, and commercials all over cable TV. How can a cable network air an ad for an illegal activity? It’s all in the fine print.

One ad was not for paradisepoker.com, where you can gamble, but for paradisepoker.net, which they call an “educational” site.

“You can play for free on those sites and learn about how to play poker,” says Lipscomb.

The .net site can advertise because there is no money involved, so it is not considered gambling. But with their identical logos and brand names, the obvious goal is to draw people from the free.net site over to the real gambling.com site.

Although I've avoided internet gambling mostly because I don't trust it, I assumed it was legal in this country because it is so prevalent and is done so openly.

Also, there are a lot of folks who have made tons of money off of internet gambling. The poker shows you see on TV repeatedly refer to certain players as very successful internet poker players. Are these people paying taxes on their winnings? I assume they are and that the government doesn't really care that this money is being won illegally, but I still find the whole thing fascinating.

This Is Laughable

As everyone knows by now, Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-Nincompoopia) called decorated Viet Nam Vet John Murtha a coward the other day. Check this out:

Several Republicans who were on the House floor said afterward that Ms. Schmidt did not appear to know she was referring to a much-decorated veteran.

"The poor lady didn't know Jack Murtha was a Marine - she really just ran into a hornet's nest," said Representative Jack Kingston of Georgia.

Representative David Dreier of California said, "Very clearly, she did not know that Jack Murtha was a Marine."

Bullshit.

I Rarely Agree With A Republican, But . . .

. . . this G.O.P. operative really nails it (from Talking Points Memo via Daily Kos):

Discrediting a critic's argument isn't enough, because it takes too much time in an environment when time is everything. Campaign politics are the primary frame of reference for politicians in Washington today. Republicans of late have practiced this trade more aggressively . . . Karl Rove's influence on GOP political operatives may be even more profound, and GOP political operatives have vast influence in Republican politics.

Finally and very frankly, Democratic politicians tend to be wimps. . . . This encourages Republican political operatives to use rough tactics.

I don't think this is a matter of ideology. In fact I don't know what it is. I just know if I were a Republican politician there wouldn't be many Democratic politicians I would be afraid of. . .

He is absolutely right. The most memorable example of this is when John Kerry delayed in responding to the Swift Boat traitors. As David Mamet stated, Kerry's immediate response should have been to say that George W. Bush deserted his post during the Viet Nam War. But Democrats don't generally operate that way, and they -- and the American people as a whole -- have paid a heavy price as a result.

John Murtha seems to understand this -- he essentially responded to Cheney's attack on anti-war Democrats by calling Cheney a draft dodger. That is how this game is played; and the sooner all the Democrats realize this, the better it will be for the country.

Jean Schmidt Is A National Embarrassment

If you missed it, definitely try to check out what Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-Ohio) said today in open session -- tonight's news should have it, and hopefully Crooks and Liars will post it.

Here are her words, but you really need to see the film of it because the last sentence of the below-quoted remarks was drowned out by the Democrats booing and trying to shut her down. It was great:

Ms. Schmidt: "Yesterday I stood at Arlington National Cemetery attending the funeral of a young marine in my district. He believed in what we were doing is the right thing and had the courage to lay his life on the line to do it. A few minutes ago I received a call from Colonel Danny Bop, Ohio Representative from the 88th district in the House of Representatives. He asked me to send Congress a message: Stay the course. He also asked me to send Congressman Murtha a message, that cowards cut and run, Marines never do. Danny and the rest of America and the world want the assurance from this body - that we will see this through.

Schmidt was forced to withdraw her words or else she would have been censured by the House leadership because "House rules do not allow members to impugn the integrity of any other members."

Meanwhile, the attack on Murtha continues:

Republican lawmakers say that ties between Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) and his brother's lobbying firm, KSA Consulting, may warrant investigation by the House ethics committee.

Will this GOP line of attack work? No it won't and here's why:

In a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll taken Friday through Sunday, more than half of those surveyed wanted to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq within the next 12 months.

Don't forget: this is the result from a poll that has a reputation for being skewed toward Republicans.

We have two options in Iraq: (1) start withdrawing troops, or (2) deploy many more troops there. The last couple of years have demonstrated one thing very clearly, namely, that "staying the course" is not an option. The American people are fed up with the Iraq Debacle, so they would never support deploying more troops there. This means that the only real option is to get out.

The Republicans know this, particularly those who are facing a reelection battle in 2006. I expect that we will begin significant troop withdrawals from Iraq sometime this Spring. The GOP cannot afford to go into next year's mid-term election with the same troop levels we have now.

TreasonGate Update: Hadley May Not Be Woodward's Source

This WSJ article eliminates Stephen Hadley (and just about everyone else in the Bush Administration) as Bob Woodward's source in the TraitorGate Scandal, thus contradicting the Raw Story article stating that Hadley was the source.

Interestingly, Hadley would not deny it himself:

National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley won't say if he was the source who told Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward that Bush administration critic Joseph Wilson's wife worked for the CIA. But Hadley volunteered on Friday that some administration officials say he's not the leaker.

Accompanying President Bush at a summit here, Hadley was asked at a news briefing whether he was Woodward's source.

Referring to news accounts about the case, Hadley said with a smile, "I've also seen press reports from White House officials saying that I am not one of his sources." He said he would not comment further because the CIA leak case remains under investigation.

Leaving the room, Hadley was asked if his answer amounted to a yes or a no. "It is what it is," he said.

That has to be one of the strangest "non-denial" denials in history.

Meanwhile, Hunter at Kos is reporting that, "not only has Woodward been deposed, but that Fitzgerald intends to present the information to a new (already seated) grand jury." This is from the WSJ (subscription required):

The White House now must brace itself for the possibility that Mr. Fitzgerald's probe, far from winding down, may have just gotten a second wind. Prosecutors deposed Mr. Woodward in anticipation of presenting that evidence to a new grand jury, according to a person familiar with the situation. The one that indicted Mr. Libby expired on Oct. 28. That could require that Mr. Card and the unnamed official be called to testify about their conversations with Mr. Woodward. A White House spokeswoman declined to comment.

The bottom line here is that I may never be able to enjoy watching "All The President's Men" like I used to, now that I know what kind of person Woodward really is.

UPDATE: Raw Story is standing by its article that Hadley was Woodward's source.

The Great "Bridge to Nowhere" Fake-Out

Given the outrage expressed by the public over the now-legendary Alaskan "Bridge to Nowhere," Congress felt that it had to do something. Well, that "something" turned out to be "nothing."

From John Aravosis at AmericaBlog:

Why didn't the Washington Post report: Congress refuses to delete money for Bridge to Nowhere? Nope. They put a headline and first couple of paragraphs that make you think the bridge has been killed and Congress did the right thing. When in fact, Congress went out of its way in order to trick the American public. That should be the headline, congressional deceit.

Just like with the Bob Woodward story, and so many stories since the Republicans took over the White House, the mainstream media refuses to go the extra step and report the truth, rather than simply reporting the spin. This story is clearly about how the GOP pulled a fast one to try and hide the bridge funding. Yet the Post and the rest of the media report it as a victory for fiscal responsibility. Pitiful.

Pitiful, but not surprising.

John Murtha: Bush/Cheney's Worst Nightmare

Decorated Viet Nam veteran John Murtha, described as "one of the most hawkish Democrats in the House," has called for the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq:

"It is time for a change in direction. Our military is suffering; the future of our country is at risk. We cannot continue on the present course. It is evident that continued military action in Iraq is not in the best interests of the United States of America, the Iraqi people or the Persian Gulf region," Murtha said.

What I like about Murtha is that he appears more than willing to engage in the "knife-twisting" to which I referred in a previous post. He certainly did not shy away from going after Dick "Dick" Cheney for all the crap he has been saying lately:

Vice President Dick Cheney jumped into the fray Wednesday by assailing Democrats who contend the Bush administration manipulated intelligence on Iraq, calling their criticism "one of the most dishonest and reprehensible charges ever aired in this city."

Murtha, a Marine intelligence officer in Vietnam, angrily shot back at Cheney: "I like guys who've never been there that criticize us who've been there. I like that. I like guys who got five deferments and never been there and send people to war, and then don't like to hear suggestions about what needs to be done."

Murtha also has no problem going after Bush: "I resent the fact, on Veterans Day, he criticized Democrats for criticizing them."

I'm sure Murtha will be hearing from the Swift Boat Traitors very soon.

Election Theft 2004

The Government Accounting Office (GAO) has completed its investigation regarding the use of electronic voting machines in the 2004 presidential election. I knew that things in Ohio were bad last November, but I didn't realize they were this bad:

1. Some electronic voting machines "did not encrypt cast ballots or system audit logs, and it was possible to alter both without being detected." In short, the machines provided a way to manipulate the outcome of the election. In Ohio, more than 800,000 votes were cast on electronic voting machines, some registered seven times Bush’s official margin of victory.

2: the report further stated that: "it was possible to alter the files that define how a ballot looks and works, so that the votes for one candidate could be recorded for a different candidate." Very many sworn statements and affidavits claim that did happen in Ohio in 2004.

Next, the report says, "Vendors installed uncertified versions of voting system software at the local level." The GAO found that falsifying election results without leaving evidence of doing so by using altered memory cards could easily be done.

The GAO additionally found that access to the voting network was very easy to compromise because not all electronic voting systems had supervisory functions protected by password. That meant access to one machine gave access to the whole network. That critical finding showed that rigging the election did not take a "widespread conspiracy" but simply the cooperation of a small number of operators with the power to tap into the networked machines. They could thus alter the vote totals at will. It therefore was no big task for a single programmer to flip vote numbers to give Bush the 118,775 votes.

The way I see it, the re-installation of Bush in the White House involved more than just a bunch of corrupt individuals in Ohio -- it was a joint effort involving many others, including members of Congress as well as the Corporate Media.

But beyond the effect the GAO Report will (hopefully) have on future elections, I don't really care anymore. Let's face it -- if Kerry had been declared the winner in 2004, he could have blamed Bush for the Iraq Catastrophe, but only for a year or two.

Then Iraq would have become Kerry's problem, and Bush would have published his book -- the first presidential memoir ever written in crayon on brown paper bags -- and blamed Kerry for "not being able to finish the job in Iraq," and all would be well within the Republican ranks.

But Bush now has to live with his failures while still in office, as does the rest of the GOP. And Iraq is one of these failures. In fact, it is all about Iraq. TraitorGate is, at its core, all about Iraq. All of the other scandals are merely icing on the cake.

The one thing I'm going to enjoy the most is watching the Republicans who are up for reelection in 2006 distance themselves from Bush and his administration in the coming months.

UPDATE: The actual GAO Report is here.

What A Dick

Dick "Lying Sack of Shit" Cheney had this to say yesterday:

Vice President Dick Cheney joined the White House attack on critics of the Iraq war Wednesday night when he told a conservative group that senators who had suggested that the Bush administration manipulated prewar intelligence were making "one of the most dishonest and reprehensible charges ever aired in this city."

Mr. Cheney, who was the administration's toughest, most persistent advocate for the war in Iraq, depicted the senators as hypocrites swayed by antiwar sentiment and their own political ambitions.

"Some of the most irresponsible comments have, of course, come from politicians who actually voted in favor of authorizing force against Saddam Hussein," Mr. Cheney told the group, Frontiers of Freedom, at the Mayflower Hotel. "What we're hearing now is some politicians contradicting their own statements and making a play for political advantage in the middle of a war."

I'll admit that a lot of Democrats -- John Kerry and Hillary Clinton, for example -- were political cowards during the run-up to the Iraq Debacle, but it is laughable for Cheney to suggest that he and his administration did not manipulate prewar intelligence. It is time for the Democrats to do some serious knife-twisting.

TreasonGate: The "Plot" Thickens

I've refrained as of late from posting much on the TreasonGate Scandal, mostly because I feel the investigation is in pretty good hands and I kind of grew tired of all the speculation.

But this is too good to pass up:

The [Washington Post] reported that Woodward told Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, who is investigating the leak of Plame's identity, that the official talked to him about Plame in mid-June 2003. Woodward and editors at the Post refused to identify the official to reporters other than to say it was not Libby.

Mark Corallo, a spokesman for Karl Rove's legal team, said Rove was not the official who talked to Woodward. Rove is a top deputy to President Bush and was referred to, but not by name, in Libby's indictment, as having discussed Plame's identity with reporters.

John Aravosis at AmericaBlog sums it up well: "I'm sorry, but we now have Karl, Scooter, and a third senior official all just 'happening' to be telling numerous journalists that Amb. Wilson's wife is a CIA agent, yet we're to believe that this is NOT part of a coordinated conspiracy to spread that info?"

Raw Story is reporting that this third senior official is Stephen Hadley. Interestingly, Hadley was reportedly telling friends last month that he expects to be indicted.

Meanwhile, on a completely related subject, Josh Marshall has this:

So it looks like the November 14th deadline Bill Frist set for a plan to pursue "phase two" of the senate Iraq intel investigation has come and gone. There's been progress apparently. But no resolution. No plan on looking into what happened in Doug Feith's office. And apparently no agreement from the majority as to whether the committee will actually be able to interview any of the key people in the administration. Roberts, Frist and Co. are still stonewalling for the White House.

Another Award For The Daily Show Folks

This time, it is The Thurber Prize:

Comedy Central’s The Daily Show with Jon Stewart has added one more plaque to its growing gallery of awards—this time the 2005 Thurber Prize, for the book The Daily Show with Jon Stewart Presents America (The Book): A Citizen’s Guide to Democracy in Action. Announced Monday night at a reception and reading at the Algonquin Hotel, the award was presented to co-authors Jon Stewart, David Javerbaum and Ben Karlin, and to the book’s publisher, Warner Books.

“When the really smart extraterrestrials finally locate the fused wreckage of our planet, I hope they are able to retrieve a copy of this book,” said judge and writer Rachel Cline, of America (The Book). “It catalogues the follies of faith, greed, idealism and idolatry that animated a great nation.”

Extremism Trumps Science Yet Again

Once again, the radical religious nutjobs infesting the Bush Regime got their way, but this time a shit-storm has developed as a result:

Lawmakers are again accusing the Food and Drug Administration of putting politics over science in the long-running saga over whether the morning-after pill should sell without a prescription.

A congressional audit released Monday cited "unusual" steps in the FDA's initial rejection of over-the-counter emergency contraception, including conflicting accounts of whether top officials made the decision even before scientists finished reviewing the evidence.

It gets better:

In a letter Monday, 18 lawmakers asked FDA's boss, Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt, to intervene to ensure the agency's final decision on Plan B isn't based on ideology. They also asked Leavitt to probe whether FDA illegally destroyed documents from McClellan's tenure that might have shed more light on the decision.

It appears that in an attempt to cover all this up, the Bush Administration might have broken some laws. I'm shocked.

Bush Continues His Attack On Democrats

There he goes again. Yesterday, our President took yet another shot at the Democrats who claim that BushCo manipulated intelligence in the run-up to the Iraq Misadventure. While speaking to some troops in Alaska, Bush basically said the same things he said last week when he essentially called the Democrats traitors for having the nerve to finally state the obvious.

I can certainly understand why Bush is continuing this attack. Hell, even Gallup has Bush's approval rating at 37%, a new low for that poll.

Meanwhile, Senate Republicans and Democrats are finding some common ground with regard to the Iraq Debacle. Both sides have submitted "nearly identical" policy proposals, with the GOP proposal borrowing heavily from the one put forward by the Democrats:

[T]he two Iraq policy proposals call for — but do not require — the Bush administration to “explain to Congress and the American people its strategy for the successful completion of the mission in Iraq” and to provide reports on U.S. foreign policy and military operations in Iraq every three months until all U.S. combat brigades have been withdrawn.

The major difference between the two versions is that the Democratic proposal calls for the president to outline a “campaign plan with estimated dates for the phased redeployment” of U.S. troops.

Republicans largely adopted the Democratic proposal as their own, but omitted that one paragraph calling for the president to offer a plan for a phased withdrawal of the roughly 160,000 U.S. troops now in Iraq. The administration has refused to set a timetable for withdrawal, saying insurgents simply would wait to strike until after U.S. forces departed.

UPDATE: This TPM reader makes an interesting point (via Atrios):

I've obviously missed something. When did it become appropriate for the Commander-in-Chief to go onto a military installation before a military crowd and denounce the opposition party? I cannot remember a time in my 21-year career when anything remotely like this happened. Is it just me or are we embarked on something very dark and dangerous for our democracy?

LA Times Fires Columnist Robert Scheer

Wow:

The Los Angeles Times newspaper last week announced that it was firing longtime columnist Robert Scheer. Scheer has been at the Times for 30 years and was one of the most progressive voices at the paper. In recent years, his columns took on the Bush Administration and its justifications for the invasion of Iraq. * * *

In a posting at the Huffington Post blog, [Scheer] wrote "The publisher Jeff Johnson, who has offered not a word of explanation to me, has privately told people that he hated every word that I wrote. I assume that mostly refers to my exposing the lies used by President Bush to justify the invasion of Iraq. Fortunately sixty percent of Americans now get the point but only after tens of thousand of Americans and Iraqis have been killed and maimed as the carnage spirals out of control. My only regret is that my pen was not sharper and my words tougher."

The Times also fired Michael Ramirez, a Pulitzer-Prize winning conservative staff cartoonist.

I could see something like this happening a couple years ago, when Bush was merely a polarizing president instead of the wildly unpopular president he is now. Incredible.

Update on Able Danger Scandal

"Able Danger" has to be one of the strangest scandals in recent American history. The whole matter came to light last August, when members of the 9-11 Commission asked Congress to find out whether the Pentagon withheld certain intelligence information from the 9-11 Panel showing that a secret American military unit -- "Able Danger" -- had identified Mohamed Atta and three other hijackers as potential terror threats over one year prior to the 9-11 attacks.

Last September, the Senate Judiciary Committee held hearings on this matter, but the Pentagon blocked several witnesses from testifying. This caused senators from both parties to accuse the Defense Department of even more obstruction.

One reason I think this scandal is rather odd is because it involves the Bush Administration's Department of Defense obstructing not one but two investigations of events that occurred during the Clinton Administration. Why would Rumsfeld's Pentagon do this? As I stated in August: "Wouldn't something like that support the Bush Regime's dominant theory regarding 9-11, namely, that the whole thing was Clinton's fault?"

In fact, it is mostly right-wing conservatives who are calling for disclosure on this -- you know, kind of like the whole Harriet Miers thing. Michael Savage has reportedly covered it on his show, and Michelle Malkin has chimed in as well. A website called The Conservative Voice had this to say a while back:

At least 7 former Able Danger team members have volunteered to testify before Congress that former Clinton Administration officials were warned ahead of time of both the USS Cole bombing and of Mohammed Atta’s presence in the US a year before 9/11/2001. These individuals have also been placed under gag-orders and are not allowed to speak to any Senate Committees or the media.

Obviously, some members of the right wing think they finally -- after all these years -- have something on Clinton that will stick, and they want to run with it. But the Bush Regime won't let them do it for some reason, and there is much outrage.

The most recent article I could find on Able Danger is here:

A senior Republican congressman said Wednesday that the Pentagon's Able Danger intelligence program had detected preparations for the terrorist attack on the USS Cole but that American military leaders failed to act on the warnings.

Citing information provided to him by Navy Capt. Scott Philpott, the former manager of the Able Danger project, Rep. Curt Weldon, R-Pa., said that two weeks before the Oct. 12, 2000, attack - and then again two days before - the intelligence unit uncovered evidence of a plot against an unnamed U.S. target in Yemen.

"They saw information that led them to unequivocally understand that something was going to happen in the port at Yemen involving an American entity," said Weldon, vice chairman of the House Armed Services Committee.

"Two days before the attack, they were jumping up and down because they knew something was going to happen ... at the port of Aden," Weldon told a Capitol Hill news conference.

If this is simply about screw-ups that occurred under Clinton's watch, so be it. Yet Rumsfeld continues to stonewall, even though allowing this information to get out would arguably help Bush.

Why is the Bush Administration acting this way? I think that is the big story here.

Tim Roemer, a member of the 9-11 Commission, didn't do much to answer that question yesterday when he appeared on Lou Dobbs' show on CNN. In fact, Roemer openly questioned whether or not some aspects of "Able Danger" had been made up out of whole cloth, particularly the existence of a chart with photos of some of the 9-11 highjackers on it.

Rep. Weldon has asserted that he had personally presented this chart to then-Deputy National Security Advisor Steve Hadley in 2001 just days after the 9/11 attacks. Roemer said something like this to Dobbs: "Where is this chart -- have you seen it? * * * We need to see evidence that this exists."

The reason Roemer probably hasn't seen any evidence of this chart is because the Pentagon is throwing sand in his eyes. Does this guy really think Able Danger is just a load of crap? If so, why is BushCo obstructing the the Senate's attempt to get to the bottom of it? The whole 9-11 investigation is sounding more and more like a whitewash every day.

Two Very Good Signs

A Denver radio station has dropped Bill O'Reilly, not because of his recent endorsement of an Al Qaeda attack on San Francisco, but due to low ratings. Via Kos:

Conservative talk-show host Glenn Beck takes to the air on KHOW 630 AM on Monday, replacing Bill O'Reilly. Beck, whose show is headquartered in Philadelphia, will be on KHOW noon to 3 p.m. weekdays.

KHOW announced in September that it would drop O'Reilly's show because of poor ratings. "We had given the producers a 90-day notice and we're at the end of the 90 days," program director Jerry Bell said in announcing the change on Thursday.

Here is another very good sign (also via Kos): "Sen. Rick Santorum has formally challenged his probable Dem opponent, Bob Casey Jr., to debates -- a year before the election."

Usually, the challenger is the one who has to beg for debates. The worm is turning, folks.

Is Bush Drunk In This Video?

It sure looks that way, especially when he gets off the helicopter and puts his arm around Laura.

I really don't care if Bush wants to have a few drinks every once in a while, but he should avoid appearing drunk when the cameras are rolling.

This Morning's Meet The Press

Sure, Tim Russert could have grilled Ken Melman more on the issue of BushCo intelligence manipulations in the run-up to Iraq, but I wasn't completely disappointed with the questions he asked Melman. A portion of this exchange is available here. Josh Marshall has the goods on all of Melman's lies here.

I thought Russert's interview with Howard Dean was interesting. Russert referred to Governor-elect Tim Kaine of Virginia making comments about the Bible, as well as John Kerry's recent Jesus-related comments. Then this exchange occurred:

Russert: "Are the Democrats now trying to embrace Christ -- embrace moral values -- because they see themselves on the wrong side of this issue?"

Dean: "Well, first of all, there are a fair number of Jewish democrats who I don't think are going to embrace Christ . . . ."

Russert kind of stepped into that one.

Dean then went on to discuss moral values and how the Democrats win that particular debate. "I am a Democrat because of my moral values," said Dean. It was pretty good.

In fact, Dean kicked some serious ass in that interview. Armando at Kos has a good summary of it here. I'll try to post the transcript and the video of the segment if and when they become available.

Both Newsweek and FOX Have Bush Approval Rating At 36%

The FoxNews poll is here.

The Newsweek poll can be found here.

Up Yours, George

Bush has launched a counter-attack against folks who have accused the White House of manipulating intelligence in the run-up to the Iraq Catastrophe:

President Bush, in the most forceful defense yet of his Iraq war policy, accused critics Friday of trying to rewrite history and charged that they’re undercutting America’s forces on the front lines.

“The stakes in the global war on terror are too high and the national interest is too important for politicians to throw out false charges,” the president said in his combative Veterans Day speech.

“When I made the decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power, Congress approved it with strong bipartisan support,” Bush said. “While it’s perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began.”

I have a three-word response to this load of crap Bush is trying to dump on us: Downing Street Memo.

If that ain't enough, then how about these 16 words: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

Stop trying to re-write history, George.

UPDATE: This Atrios post pretty much nails it:

I think that the recently statements of Stephen Hadley are really all we need to put the final nail in the coffin of the Bush administration's credibility on anything. These people are just quite literally loathsome.

Hadley argues that Democrats had the same intelligence because "parts of" the NIE "had been made public."

Right, and the parts of the NIE which weren't made public were the parts which suggested that the parts which were made public were full of shit.

Any talking head who overlooks this fact to try to claim that "democrats had the same intelligence as Republicans" is just completely full of shit. They only the had the bits that made their case, not the bits which took away from it.

And people question my patriotism?

UPDATE II: Ken Melman was just on The News Hour reciting the line of crap that Stephen Hadley was spewing the other day, namely, that the Democrats had the same intelligence that Bush had in the run-up to the Iraq Debacle. This load of bull will obviously form the foundation for the GOP talking points this weekend.

I guess we'll find out on Sunday morning whether the corporate media have done their homework on this issue, as well as whether the Democrats are willing to take this debate up another notch.

Has The Time Come For California To ReKall Arnold?

Maybe so:

A chastened Arnold Schwarzenegger took complete blame Thursday for the thrashing he endured at the polls and pledged to be a more collaborative governor in the coming year, offering Democrats an extraordinary role in crafting his agenda.

In his first public comments since election night, Schwarzenegger said he would rely far less on campaigns and ballot fights as a governing strategy in the coming year, pushing various goals instead through slow, painstaking negotiations with his legislative adversaries if that's what it takes.

Sure, I'll give Arnold some credit for taking the blame for the recent ballot measure debacle:

In a reference to his famous movie role, he said at a news conference: "If I were to do another Terminator movie, I would have the Terminator travel back in time to tell Arnold not to have a special election."

That got a laugh.

"The buck stops with me," he said. " … One should not shy away from that, and I would not blame anyone on my team. Because it was my idea to have the special election, and I said this is the year for reform and I told my team: 'You make it happen…. I have no patience, we're not going to wait. This is the year we're going to reform the system.' And it just didn't work out."

Unfortunately, Arnold's attempt to "reform the system" cost California something like $60,000,000. Gray Davis's plans didn't work out either, and he was recalled. Shouldn't Arnold get the same treatment?

Santorum's Numbers Go From "In The Toilet" To "In The Sewer"

Via Political Wire:

According to a new Philadelphia Daily News/CN8 Keystone poll, Sen. Rick Santorum's (R-PA) job-approval ratings are at a six-year low and he's trailing Bob Casey (D) in the U.S. Senate race, by 16 points, 51% to 35%.

Good.

Green China

I found this article interesting:

Increasingly aware of the deteriorating state of China's environment, the Chinese leadership has decided that it wants the national economy to not only grow fast, but grow green. They have asked state planners to develop a new indicator to measure the country's growth, a "green GDP", which would account for the costs of environmental impact and resource consumption.

The emphasis on "green GDP" reflects China's slowly shifting priorities from sustaining growth at all costs to realizing more sustainable growth.

Tom Friedman wrote a recent op/ed on this issue wherein he predicted that China would soon become the world's leader in environmental-related technology (Friedman's piece is not yet available on-line).

So what is the United States doing on this front? Well, I know what my home state of Oregon is trying to do, and who is opposing Oregon on its efforts. If you guessed that Republicans are opposing these efforts, you'd be right:

An attorney representing the car industry and GOP lawmakers urged a judge Monday to block a move by Democratic Gov. Ted Kulongoski and Oregon environmental officials to adopt California's tough new vehicle emission standards to reduce greenhouse gases.

In arguments in Marion County Circuit Court, attorney Carl Neil said Kulongoski is ignoring the wishes of the Legislature by having the state Department of Environmental Quality continue to work on adopting the California standards by the end of the year.

I hope the recent political victories by the Democrats are indications that the GOP is on its way out as the dominant party, because this country really can't afford any more Republican leadership.

The Vegas Trip

PROLOGUE

Sorry it took me so long to post this. My excuses are: (1) I'm still really tired from the trip (I'm getting too old for these kind of "vacations;") and (2) my memory of specifics is a little hazy (if you know what I mean and I think you do).

The latter excuse is important because readers like Fredrick and Alane want specifics about how certain poker hands played out, and I really only have a good memory regarding four or five key hands (I should keep a poker journal but I don't). Sorry for the length of this narrative -- I didn't have time to make it shorter. Anyway, here goes:

THE FIRST 24 HOURS

Linda and I arrived at Las Vegas at about 3:00 p.m. on Thursday after taking full advantage of the free drinks offered in first class (thanks for the upgrades, Liz). It was snowing when we left Central Oregon, so the clear skies and 80 degree weather that greeted us in Vegas was certainly appreciated -- it made the one hour we had to wait for a cab a bit more bearable.

After dinner at Battistas, I hit the craps tables over at the Casino Royale, where they still have $2 tables (I don't like playing craps at the $10 tables most other Strip casinos offer because you can really take a beating if the numbers don't show up). I wasn't planning on gambling a whole lot on Thursday evening, so I only bought $60 worth of chips. I then proceeded to watch them steadily disappear. In fact, I eventually got down to $3 in my stack after making my usual line and two come bets (with odds), so I figured it would be the last roll of the evening for me.

But then something great happened: the shooter did not seven out right away -- he began hitting numbers. By the time he rolled a seven, I had won all my money back and then some. My chip stack fluctuated wildly from that point on. I had to get off the table by 11:00 to meet Danimal, Liz, and Laurie (my wife's friend) at the hotel, so my goal was to leave the table at that time no matter what.

Interestingly enough, when 11:00 pm rolled around, the player next to me was rolling pretty well. I was low in chips at the time, so I decided (of course) to see it out. He rolled for quite a while, and by the time he was finished, I was up a little over $200 for the night. I figured it was a good time to leave, so I tipped the dealers and got out of there.

On Friday morning, Linda and I headed over to the MGM Grand to secure our places in line for the U2 show. We got our ticket through the fan club, so all we had to do was sign in when we arrived, write our number in line on our hands (we were 126 and 127), hang out for a while, and then leave. That saved us from having to stand in line all day, something that would have been impossible for me to do given the number of poker and craps tables in the immediate area.

I then met Danimal and Liz at the Flamingo's poker room, bought $60 in chips, and got a seat at the $1/$2 no-limit table. After sitting down, I immediately realized that I didn't have enough chips, because most of the players there had several hundred worth sitting in front of them. I tried limping in for a few hands, but someone at the table always raised it up. What that meant is that I pretty much had to wait for a great hand before committing to a pot.

I won a few hands and lost a few. A guy at our table actually got a royal flush, the first one I had ever seen in live play. The casino awarded him at least $400 for that the next day (The Flamingo pays out extra money when folks hit high hands -- Liz got four queens on Sunday and received $200 for them).

More of our group started trickling in. Roxy stopped by and watched Dan, Liz and I play for a while, then sat down at the $2/$4 table with Liz. Both Liz and Roxy won during this session -- Roxy made about $140.

Travis and Sara showed up about that time as well. Danimal, who was playing at my table, left to greet them on the rail. I stayed behind, got dealt a pocket pair of Kings, got all my remaining chips in the pot, and tripled up when the Kings held. By the time I had to leave, I was $60 or so up for the session and had several double Jack-on-the-rocks working as well. In other words, I was more than ready for the U2 show.

THE U2 CONCERT

Getting into the show was a piece of cake. I met up with Linda and Laurie (that's a picture of us at the concert below), and we took the monorail to the show, found our place in line, and got a spot right in front of the secondary stage located at the end of a large circular catwalk.

After the opening act, I went out to get Linda and Laurie a drink. On my way back, this big dude wouldn't let me through. He was convinced that I had just arrived and was trying to muscle my way to the front of the secondary stage. I told him that I already have a position up there, and then said, "Look, I just went and got these drinks for my wife and her friend -- do you think I drink white wine?!" He glanced down at what I was holding, then let me pass. As I was making my way to Linda and Laurie, I made a mental note to use that same technique if I ever arrive late to a show and want to get a good position in front of the stage.

Before U2 came out, some stage hands taped a lyric sheet (see pictures below) on the floor of the catwalk. It had the lyric for the song "Walk On." Bono moved around a lot for the show, so it appears that was the only song he didn't feel too comfortable with as far as remembering the lyric goes. They performed "Walk On" as an encore, and Bono sang the entire song right in front of us and referred to the lyric sheet several times during the performance.

U2 played a good set, starting out with a couple songs off their latest album ("City Of Blinding Lights" and "Vertigo"), then played a lot of my favorites, including "Sunday Bloody Sunday," "One," and "Pride (In The Name of Love)." They ended the show with "40," which is always a great way to close out. A good portion of the show took place right in front of us on the secondary stage, which allowed Linda to take some great pictures.

There were a couple of surprises, like hearing "I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For" played early in the concert. A big surprise for me was the performance of "Miss Sarajevo," a song off of their somewhat obscure "Passengers" album. When Bono announced the song, I thought that maybe Luciano Pavarotti was going to join them on stage. Bono, however, sang Pavarotti's part, and it was very well done.

I was also surprised when they played "Who's Gonna Ride Your Wild Horses" as an encore. I don't think I've ever heard that song played live, except maybe during the Zoo TV Tour in the early 90s (but I'm not sure they were playing it even then).

A funny thing happened during that song. Linda still has to wear that big neck brace from her surgery. Bono was singing that song right in front of us, and when he sang the words, "You're an accident waiting to happen . . .," he pointed right at Linda and smiled. Linda was filming the sequence and captured the whole thing in a 15-second long mini-film.

My only complaint about the concert is that they didn't play enough songs off of Achtung Baby -- I really wanted to hear "Zoo Station" (which they ended up playing the next night, btw) -- but I enjoyed the show. The Vegas concert crowds are always very boisterous.

DICE RUN HOT AND COLD ON SATURDAY

Due to excessive partying from the day before, I slept in on Saturday. Roxy, Liz, Brett, and Jenny played in a poker tourney at The Luxor, but none of them made it into the money (Roxy lasted the longest -- she busted out when her A/10 was dominated by an A/J). In the early afternoon, I went over to Danimal and Liz's hotel room at the Imperial Palace for a little gathering. Everyone had arrived in Vegas by that time, and present in room were the aforementioned Roxy, Travis, Sara, Brett and Jenny, as well as Nick, Lisa & Chris, Pete, and Christian.

After enjoying a few beverages, several of us went over to the Casino Royale to play dice. The tables were extremely crowded, but Nick and I finally got a place on one of them, and our timing couldn't have been better. Shortly after we started making bets, a guy on the other side of the table started on a very hot hand. It went on for well over a half hour, and even my low stakes betting yielded a profit of about $330. Nick also won a lot of money, but had the good sense to leave the table at the end of the hot roll. I stayed around, lost about $80, and then left when I was still up about $250.

Danimal and I returned to the same table later in the day, and it was brutal. A guy on our side of the table went on a good roll that netted us about $100 each, but then the table went dead. The worst part was that the shooters (including me) would seven out just as the table got loaded with bets. Danimal was smart enough to leave before it got too expensive for him. I stayed around to see if the worm would turn, and I dropped $240 before I figured out that it was time to call it an evening.

THE LAST DAY/NIGHT IN VEGAS

Sunday started out with an excellent brunch at Caesar's Palace. Due to my recent jaw surgery (yeah, Linda and I make quite a pair), I was limited to very soft "no-chew" foods, but one of the cooks made me a great smoked salmon, cream cheese and chive omelet.

I then hit the poker room at the Flamingo and bought in for $100 at the $1/$2 no-limit table. After folding a few hands, I got dealt an A/K offsuit. Someone raised it up, and I along with another player called the raise. The flop went something like K-10-2. I was the first to act, so I raised $30. One guy called me, and the other remaining player folded. The turn card looked non-threatening, so I put in the remainder of my chips and was called. My opponent was on a draw and he missed it on the river and I more than double up my $100.

A couple hands later, I was dealt another A/K, and I put in a small raise. The guy to the left of me called. The flop contained an ace, so I raised (a little bigger this time), and was called. A queen came up on the turn. I put in $20, and my opponent raised. I called. The river card looked non-threatening, but I checked it. My opponent raised $40, I thought awhile, then called it. He was holding A/Q, which gave him a two pair and the pot. I congratulated him on a good hand. By the time the dust settled, I realized that I had lost most of my stack on that one hand.

A few hands later, I got dealt pocket Aces in the big blind. There was a bet and a raise in front of me, so when the action got to me, I went all-in with my remaining $70 or so. I got a couple of callers. Right at that point, Linda and Laurie walked up to the table. I said something like, "you're just in time to see me all-in -- it could get ugly."

Laurie had to go catch her flight home, so they said goodbye and started walking away. I said, "Well, at least stay to watch the end of this hand." They came back to watch. An ace and a queen showed up on the flop, then another queen showed up on the turn, giving me a full house, aces over queens. I took down a sizable main pot, and I have the witnesses to prove it. I didn't hang around for much longer after that.

That evening, a bunch of us went over to a place called "The Beach" and shot some pool for awhile. At about 11:15, Julie and Spike decided to go elsewhere, so I shared a cab with them and got dropped off at the Casino Royale for more craps. I played until about 3:30 am. The action was up and down. While I played, I taught two women next to me how to make come bets with odds, and they made some money off these bets. Danimal called me and wanted to play poker over at the Flamingo, so I finished up on a roll and left the craps table $140 up for the session.

When I reached the Flamingo, Danimal wasn't there, but there was an opening at the $1/$2 no-limit table, so I acquired $100 in chips and sat down. I watched a couple hands, and it looked like folks were able to limp in, so I decided to limp in when I got dealt a 7-8 suited in early position. Unfortunately, a guy across the table raised $10. I figured this would be my last gambling in Vegas for a while, so I called him.

The flop was something like 2-5-8, all different suits. I flopped top pair, so I bet something like $15. The guy who raised it up pre-flop re-raised me $20 more. I called him. Another low card came up on the turn. I felt I had the best hand at that point and that the guy on the other side of the table was on a draw, so I went all-in with my last $50 or so. He thought about it for a while, then called me. He turned over AK, meaning that an Ace or a King on the river would beat me, as would a certain low card which I can't remember now (it might have been a four -- whatever the card was, it would have given him a straight). In any event, the river card was a seven, giving me two pair. I doubled up on the first hand I played.

A few hands later, I won another $100. I can't remember the specifics of that particular hand, but that put me up over $200. People started dropping out of the game, and soon there were only three of us left, and the table was closed up. There was still a $2/$4 limit game, but I wanted to play no-limit, so I left with an additional $200 in my wallet.

Danimal called me in the middle of all that, and I told him the action was good and to come on over. Right after that call, the table closed up, so I met him for breakfast at the Imperial Palace. It was about 5:30 am by the time we finished eating. Danimal had to go wake up Liz and Nick at about 6:15 so they could catch their early flight home, so we decided to hit the Casino Royale one last time for a short craps session on the $2 table. When we got there, all the tables were closed down. In other words, we wanted some more action before we left, but couldn't get it. Therefore, Danimal and I did not really quit -- Vegas quit on us.

I was able to get three hours of sleep before Linda and I had to leave for the airport.

EPILOGUE

How much did I win in Vegas on this trip? Somewhere between $500 and $600.

Did I lose anything besides brain cells? Yes -- I lost four pounds while there, which is a first for me (I usually gain weight in Vegas). It was the combination of not eating very much on my no-chew diet and then walking five miles or more a day which did it.

A reader has asked, "what's the draw at Las Vegas?" For me, it is all the gambling opportunities. My wife is not a gambler, but she enjoys shopping there and seeing the sights. We also try to schedule our trips (1) when there is a good rock concert in town, and (2) when the weather is crappy in Central Oregon but still good in Vegas.

But it is an exhausting experience. I am looking forward to going back, but I'll need a year or so to recover.

White House Makes Another Attempt To Minimize Cheney

As I noted last week, BushCo is re-writing some history in an effort to soften the blow of an imminent Cheney departure. More such re-writing occurred today.

Wolf Blitzer's "The Situation Room" had a segment on how Bush and Cheney have been drifting apart as of late. Blitzer had Thomas M. DeFrank of the Daily News on the show. DeFrank wrote this article. Here are the opening paragraphs:

The CIA leak scandal has peeled back the veil on the most closely held White House secret of all: the subtle but unmistakable erosion in the bond between President Bush and Vice President Cheney.

Multiple sources close to Bush told the Daily News that while the vice president remains his boss' valued political partner and counselor, his clout has lessened - primarily as a result of issues arising from the Iraq war.

But it was this part of the article that made me laugh:

"The relationship is not what it was," a presidential counselor said. "There has been some distance for some time."

A senior administration official termed any such suggestion "categorically false."

The reason I laughed is because I'm willing to bet that this "senior administration official" who denied everything was probably the guy who came up with this "let's minimize Cheney" strategy in the first place.

Bush's "Speechologist"

OK, this video is really funny.

Note: The picture on the left is not from the above-linked video, but from this very funny site.

Finally -- The GOP Gets Upset Over A Leak

Of course, it is the kind of leak that actually hurts the GOP politically:

Republican congressional leaders said Tuesday they are asking committees to investigate the possible leak of classified information about secret U.S. prisons for suspected terrorists overseas. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and House Speaker Dennis Hastert said the disclosure, first reported last week in The Washington Post, could damage national security.

Hastert, R-Illinois, and Frist, R-Tennessee, have asked the chairmen of the House and Senate intelligence committees to look into the origin of the disclosure.

"If accurate, such an egregious disclosure could have long-term and far-reaching damaging and dangerous consequences, and will imperil our efforts to protect the American people and our homeland from terrorist attacks," the lawmakers wrote in a letter requesting the investigation.

Needless to say, it would have also been nice if Frist and Hastert had felt the same way about a leak that exposed a covert CIA operative involved in WMD proliferation issues.

Oh, wait a minute -- the exposure of Valerie Plame was an purposeful GOP leak specifically designed to intimidate a critic of Bush's Iraq Debacle. Never mind.

Leaving Las Vegas

We made it back from Vegas alive. The trip was a blast, but exhausting. Three full days there is a bit much, especially if you hit it hard the whole time like we did.

The best way to do it would have been to "take off" that middle full day, i.e., sleep in late, lay by the pool all afternoon, have a leisurely dinner, perhaps gamble a little bit in the evening, lay off the booze all day, then get a good night's sleep. That way you'd be rested for the final stretch of the trip.

Anyway, I'll do one big post about the trip (with pictures) tonight.

Vegas Baby!

Linda and I are off to Las Vegas for four nights along with about 20 friends and acquaintances. It should definitely be a stone groove. We're not bringing our laptop, so postings might be few and far between for the next several days.

If I can get access to a computer, I'll try to make a post or two about how the gambling is going. I plan to play a lot of craps and poker.

We are also attending the U2 concert on Friday evening. I considered selling my ticket and taking the $500 or so I get for it and blowing it at the craps tables, but my wife would kill me if I did that.

Plus I'm really looking forward to the concert. Linda is a huge U2 fan and has seen a couple shows this year already, but Friday's Vegas concert will be the first and only show I will attend on this particular tour.

How Low Can He Go?

A CBS poll has Bush's approval rating at 35%:

Most Americans believe someone in the Bush Administration did leak Valerie Plame's name to reporters – even though Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald indicted no one for doing that. Half of the public describes the matter as something of great importance to the country, and this poll finds low assessments of both the President and the Vice President – with the President's overall approval rating dropping again to its lowest point ever.

Cheney's favorability rating, by the way, is at 19%.

This Is The Absolute Very Least Thing That Should Happen To "Turd Blossom"

Jonathan Alter at Newsweek recently examined whether Karl Rove should lose his security clearance as a result of the TreasonGate Scandal. If he loses it, it would be pursuant to Clinton's Executive Order 12958, which prohibits "any knowing, willful or negligent action that could reasonably be expected to result in an unauthorized disclosure of classified information."

The order states that "the agency head, senior agency official or other supervisory official shall, at a minimum, promptly remove the classification authority of any individual who demonstrates reckless disregard or a pattern of error in applying the classification standards of this order."

This executive order clearly applies to Rove:

In the past, other officials have lost their security clearances for similar disclosures—even without a pattern. Former CIA director John Deutch and former national-security adviser Sandy Berger (who got in trouble after leaving office) both lost their clearances when they took classified information home without proper authorization. More recently, officials of the Coast Guard were sanctioned when they warned relatives of a possible terrorist threat against the New York City subways before public disclosure of the threat.

Unfortunately, losing his security clearance wouldn't necessarily prevent Rove from serving as deputy chief of staff:

Having his security clearance yanked would not require Rove to resign as deputy chief of staff to President Bush. But it would prevent him from taking part in policymaking that relates to national-security issues, which would mean a much-reduced role in the Bush White House.

Obviously, Bush will not act on this. My question is whether an interested party can file a writ of mandamus to force Bush to follow the law and strip Rove of his clearance. I don't know the answer to that question, because I'm just not as familiar with treason-related laws as I should be.

Meanwhile, a couple of things are happening on the Rove front. First of all, there is reportedly a debate going on in the White House with regard to whether Rove should be allowed to stay on (from The Washington Post):

Top White House aides are privately discussing the future of Karl Rove, with some expressing doubt that President Bush can move beyond the damaging CIA leak case as long as his closest political strategist remains in the administration.

If Rove stays, which colleagues say remains his intention, he may at a minimum have to issue a formal apology for misleading colleagues and the public about his role in conversations that led to the unmasking of CIA operative Valerie Plame, according to senior Republican sources familiar with White House deliberations.

Karl Rove apologizing? Who the hell is going to force him to do that, Bush? That will be the day.

The second thing occurring now with regard to Rove is that Fitzgerald is taking a closer look at the conversations Rove had with Matthew Cooper:

While Rove faces doubts about his White House status, there are new indications that he remains in legal jeopardy from Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald's criminal investigation of the Plame leak. The prosecutor spoke this week with an attorney for Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper about his client's conversations with Rove before and after Plame's identity became publicly known because of anonymous disclosures by White House officials, according to two sources familiar with the conversation.

Fitzgerald is considering charging Rove with making false statements in the course of the 22-month probe, and sources close to Rove -- who holds the titles of senior adviser and White House deputy chief of staff -- said they expect to know within weeks whether the most powerful aide in the White House will be accused of a crime.

But some top Republicans said yesterday that Rove's problems may not end there. Bush's top advisers are considering whether it is tenable for Rove to remain on the staff, given that Fitzgerald has already documented something that Rove and White House official spokesmen once emphatically denied -- that he played a central role in discussions with journalists about Plame's role at the CIA and her marriage to former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, a critic of the Iraq war.

A major GOP talking point this past week contended that Rove was pretty much in the clear and that the Libby Indictment is really no big deal. It sounds like Fitzgerald might have some different ideas.

And finally, some good news for Scooter Libby with regard to his arraignment today:

Anticipating intense media interest, court officials arranged for the arraignment to be held in the oversized Ceremonial Courtroom, which can seat hundreds and is the largest courtroom in the federal courthouse here.

Not everyone gets to be arraigned in the big room. Way to go, Scooter.