I'd been pondering some kind of a satirical blog item for some time that would line up all the former Bush folks that have been branded as "liars" for exposing information that the Bushies didn't want exposed. It's a growing list of rather impressive and credentialled individuals who have patriotically spoken up and subsequently found themselves systematically trashed by the Whitehouse Attack Monkeys and their loyal band in the Rightwing Echo Chamber.

And then, incredibly, I came across a page called "Meet the Liars: The People Leading the Reckless Charge Against President Bush and the War on Terror" at BushPresident2004.com:

Surely this was a satirical Anti-Bush website in disguise, no?! Incredibly - and sadly - after several astounding pages browsed, I learned that it wasn't.

UPDATE: As eagle-eyed satire exposer and Brad Blog commenter Larry pointed out, the site in question is indeed a satirical one! So kudos to the folks at BushPresident2004.com for putting one over on me! Well done! I guess the lesson is either that I should read more closely next time, or that real Republican sites have become so outrageously ridiculous that they have become virtually indistinguishable from the fake ones making fun of them!

We've been on the road for the past few days, and thus not locked into our usual media routine. Out here, in the desert, we get a dose here and there of Cable News, though without the erstwhile FOX News drone to keep us as aware of what the Evil Doers are up to.

Rush comes in partially, with much static, so I haven't been able to keep up with the Right Wing Marching Orders with my usual alarming up-to-the-moment accuracy. Nor have I had any Internet Access for the last 3 days or so, so please pardon me if I'm missing a beat or two, and - unbeknownst to me - the entire Blogosphere is abuzz with this already. But from here, I've got just one big question since last Sunday's Bob Woodward explosions on 60 Minutes.

(DISCLAIMER: Both CBS, the producer of 60 Minutes and Simon & Schuster, publisher of Woodward's Plan of Attack are owned by the same parent company, Viacom. I have watched CBS before and have read books published by Simon & Schuster. As well, I have also watched both VH-1 and MTV on several occasions. Both of those cable channels are also owned by the parent company Viacom.)

So, anyway...The various Cable News programs we've been able to catch since Sunday, seem to be dwelling on the Powell-outta-the-loop and Bush-Saudi-low-oil-prices-before-the-election issues.

Yes, the most alarming item from Woodward on Sunday to my ears, was the bit about Bush having diverted some $700 million from the Congressionally approved Afghanistan spending over to a secret unapproved pre-Iraq War effort.

So my question is this...If Bill Clinton lying about a blowjob is an Impeachable offense, how can it be that subverting the US Constitution by diverting $700 million to a Congressionally Unapproved project by the this Administration barely raises an eyebrow by anyone? Both the House of Representatives (responsible for instituting Impeachment Proceedings) and the supposed "Liberal Media" seem to be completely ignoring the issue.

Now, I realize that the House is controlled hard by Republicans, but where is that supposedly "Liberal Media" on this one? And how can even the supposedly "Conservative" Republicans in the House sit by and ignore such a blatant disregard - if true - for the United States Constitution by this Administration?

Surely there must be at least a couple of intellectually honest Republicans out there who are outraged enough by this report to begin a very serious investigation into this very serious alleged breach of ethics by this Administration. No?

Can you imagine the Republican apoplectics that would be occurring today if it was Bill Clinton (or John Kerry!) who was reported to have done such a thing?

As Bill Bennet would have certainly asked in such a situation had this been a Democrat at the helm, "Where's the outrage??"

Or is it out there and I'm just missing it?

As the debate continues about the right thing to do in Iraq at this point, it seems a good chance to revisit some of the more memorable lines we were adamently sold by the Conservative Echo Chamber (dutifully selling the NeoCon Party Line of that Moment) in the not-too-distant past. Ah...the memories...

Ah...those were the days....

And now we're supposed to rely on the same folks who sold us the above bill of goods to determine where we should go from here? Surely you're kidding...right?

Kevin Drum on the blog job over at Washington Monthly:

Interesting cross examination of Rep. Patrick Toomey on today's Hardball. Toomey is running in the Republican primary against Sen. Arlen Specter, who Toomey describes as a "Liberal" --- just to give you an idea how far outta touch these Right Wingnutz are.

Anyway, Chris Matthews pressed him hard on his Anti-Abortion position, asking what he would do - after making abortions illegal in the US and in Pennsylvania as he supports - to enforce such a law.

Toomey started to discuss what would happen to the doctor, when Matthews cornered him to ask what would be done to the woman who - by Toomey's own terms - would be a murderer in such a case. Toomey hemmed and hawed and had no answer, but refused to suggest jailtime or anything like it for the woman.

Well done, Chris. Don't know why it all never occured to me in such stark terms before, but if the Anti-Abortionists believe that abortion is murder, one would assume they would back throwing a woman who "commits" one into jail. Or perhaps even sentencing them to the Death Penalty since it would be, by their own definition, a capital crime.

To date, I've yet to see a "pro-life" politician who called for anything but punishment of the doctor who performs the operation in such a supposed crime.

Is the Anti-Abortionists very own premise ("Abortion is murder") simply that weak? Or are they just too cowardly to actually stand behind their own purported convictions?

(I now look forward to DittoHead replies speaking to the Liberal position against the Death Penalty in lieu of an actual explanation for the hypocrisy of the Conservative position on Abortion. When you can't defend yourself, of course, attack the other guy. See any recent Bush attack ad on Kerry for further instructions.)

P.S. Catholic Priest and Novelist Andrew M. Greeley followed that segment on Hardball to toss in an interesting statistic. He once did a survey to find out who was both Anti-Abortion and Anti-War, both tenets of Catholic faith. The answer: just 6% of those surveyed were against both. Telling.

So Jaime Gorelick should resign from the 9/11 Commission even though she already recused herself long ago from questioning any witness with whom she may have had a perceived conflict of interest while sitting on an exploratory commission who will produce a non-binding report of recommendations.

But Antonin Scalia should not recuse himself because there is no "appearance of impropriety" in flying on Airforce Two with the Vice President or going Duck Hunting with him while he is a Defendant in a major case pending before the Supreme Court of the United States.

It's Bizarro World out there I tell ya. More soon...

Überblogger Josh Marshall asked last night:

Good question, Josh.

But he was on a late-night roll last night, posting this brilliant piece on the latest US/Israel/Palestinian muck that George W. has now signed us on for.

If you're not up to speed on the seachange that has just occured before our very eyes, and nearly behind our backs and certainly without our permission in regards to the US/Israel/Palestine thang and the profound effect it will likely have for years to come, I can't recommend that link enough. It's as if Dubya's now officially hellbent on taking us all down with him before his time is up in a few months.

But will we all make it that long?...And beyond?...If you really wanna be terrified, check this item that he posted just prior to the others.

That one, frankly, just scared the hell outta me when I made the mistake of reading it last night around 2am just before turning in for the night. I can't recommend it enough either. It's longer than the other, but worth the read. Just be careful if it's the last thing you intend on reading before going to bed tonight.

It's the sort of sobering reality that has actually forced me to consider supporting John Kerry. At this point, what Howard Dean said may be true, we simply can't afford George W. Bush in the Whitehouse, and if that means holding our noses and pulling the lever for Kerry, that may just be the responsible thing to do at this point.

Somehow overlooked by Drudge, but reported by AP:

Now, the United States is responsible (legally - you know, Geneva Convention and all) for the security of a soveriegn nation that we are currently occupying. And, as I recall, one of the reasons (that later wasn't really the reason at all, but never mind...) it was so important for us to go into Iraq was to ensure they didn't share their WMD technology or materials with others who wanted to harm us.

But now we're not even guarding these facilities? And radioactive materials are getting out of the country?

The report goes on:

Good lord. No doubt it's all Bill Clinton's - or Jamie Gorelick's - fault.

When DRUDGE talks, people listen. Despite Rush's claim to the contrary, it is Drudge that is "America's Assignment Desk".

Every newsroom, talk radio, newspaper, television station in America - and yes, even Rush himself - gets their daily assignments via Drudge's handpicked headlines. If you hear an interesting report on the radio, chances are Drudge had it first and that's where those guys found it.

So when Drudge declared the day before yesterday that "Liberal Radio Crashes and Burns!" - or whatever the sexy screaming headline was - without actually presenting both sides of the story,, leave it to every Conservative outlet, talking head, DittoHead in the country to run with it.

When you're starved for good news, you'll take anything you can get. "Conservatives" these days are, to say the least, hungry for anything to avoid the real shitstorm they're in the middle of.

For the record, Air America posted it's initial response yesterday on their website, explaining that the owner of the two stations in question that yanked AA from the air without warning did so "in violation of their contractual obligation". Whether that's true, I don't know. Though apparently the New York Supreme court agrees, at least enough to issue a restraining order forcing the station's owner to restore AA back to the Chicago station (over which, apparently, that court has jurisdiction). The Los Angeles case is still pending.

The AA press release to that effect is here. And also states in part:

So, what do you think? Were they right to have removed it? Should it have been posted in the first place? Or was it simply - for those who actually know and listen to Air America precisely what you've come to expect and appreciate from the insightful start-up with a sharp satirical edge?

The BRAD BLOG thinks it was pretty funny, and a taste of - at least Drudge's - own medicine. But by any standards, I'd think it's "gracefulness" and "professionalism" is certainly in question.

By way of full disclosure: I look eagerly towards AA's return to the LA market. It was, even with all it's various problems --- to be expected in it's nascent stages --- a heaven sent first step towards balancing the remarkable imbalance that is currently on our - theoretically public owned - airwaves. In the meantime, you may listen online any time at www.AirAmericaRadio.com and I recommend you do.

The mantra from the Right is that, though Bush has spent 40% of his term away from the Whitehouse on his ranch in Crawford and other family retreats, he doesn't need to be at the Whitehouse in order to fullfill his duties. That he has access to everything he needs wherever he may be.

They have also gone out of their way to point out how --- contrary to reports from Richard Clarke and others --- he was fully engaged on Terrorism because he met every day with his CIA Chief, George Tenet, on precisely this topic.

Today's testimony by Tenet to the 9/11 Commission would suggest otherwise, however.

It seems that after Zacarias "The 20th Hijacker" Moussaoui was detained in August 2001 after suspicous behavior at a Minnesota flight school --- in the midst of the summer of unprecedented "threat spikes", when "lights were blinking red" and Bush had already received his now-infamous PDB warning of Al Qaeda's plans --- it was revealed that Tenet didn't speak to the President at all during the month while Bush was on vacation in Crawford, TX.

From the MSNBC report on Tenet's testimony today:

Another self-deluding DittoHead myth falls by the wayside.