Author: Disgusted in St Louis

India tests a nuclear-capable Agni-III intercontinental ballistic missile(ICBM).

Where is the international condemnation and calls for the UN Security Council to debate repercussions?

This is in no way trying to equate the governments or intentions of India and North Korea, but to point out the hypocrisy of international and US response as well as differences reported by the media. Recall that Iran is a party of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, while India is not. Also, India has a history of war with it neighbors and been closer more recently to such a war (Pakistan in 2001) than Iran.
Check out the difference reported between BBC and Reuters versions of the story.

BBC, India tests new ballistic missile:

Analysts say the Agni-III dramatically increases the range of targets which India could hit.

“This means that India has entered an altogether different league of nations, a new club,” Rahul Bedi of Jane’s Defence Weekly told Reuters.

“We can now reach large parts of northern China, making our deterrence capacity stronger. Also, when a country is able to develop a missile which can travel 3,500km, it is not difficult to make something that can go 5,000km.

“Very few nations have that capacity.”  

Reuters, India successfully tests its longest-range missile :

Analysts say the successful test pushed India into a new phase in its long-term nuclear defense strategy.

“This means that India has entered an altogether different league of nations, a new club,” Rahul Bedi, India correspondent of Jane’s Defense Weekly, told Reuters.

“We can now reach large parts of northern China making our deterrence capacity stronger. Also, when a country is able to develop a missile which can travel 3,500 km, it is not difficult to make something that can go 5,000 km.

“Very few nations have that capacity.”

Will portraying this as a defense strategy be how India’s nuclear ballistic missle test will be downplayed in the American media soon to be described as their “missile shield” program?

Will this have any effect on Bush’s U.S.-Indian nuclear deal, which the Senate panel overwhelmingly endorsed?

Senate Committee approval came on a 16-2 vote. The debate preceding the vote lasted almost 90 minutes.

Senator after senator highlighted the proposal as a historic turning point in U.S-India relationship that has often been unfriendly.

The negative votes were cast by Sens. Russell Feingold and Barbara Boxer.

Or will Russ Feingold be right again:

The committee rejected by 13-5 an amendment from Feingold to require Bush to provide assurances that India was not taking advantage of the agreement by diverting nuclear fuel to its atomic weapons program.

Ann Coulter arrived in Chicago on the evening of July 5, 2006 to prepare for what would be one of her most memorable major public appearances, but tragically, her last. She had left Fox News Channel against the wishes of studio executives while filming “Hannity & Colmes”, for a show that was never completed, to perform at the Republican Party fundraiser and birthday salute for President George W. Bush. Reportedly, Ann was paid $100,000 for the event.
Approximately 2,000 people filled a ballroom at the Ritz-Carlton on the evening of July 6, 2006 to take part in this gala which featured Rush Limbaugh and a host of stars, among them Toby Keith, Ron Silver, Bruce Willis, and Marey Carey. Famed singer Jessica Simpson was in charge of the musical portion of the show and had rehearsed with Ann to prepare her in singing “Happy Birthday” to the President. Limbaugh distributed his new Dittohead Pez dispenser filled with his favorite candy as a party favor to all guests in preparation for Coulter’s performance.

What occurred that evening has become a legendary moment in the history of American pop culture, with politics and Hollywood colliding head to head while the entire nation looked on. Captured on a few minutes of grainy video, the image of Ann Coulter’s harpy, nightclub version of “Happy Birthday” is forever stamped in our collective consciousness. Wearing a rumpled evening dress which Tony Snow described as “skin and bones”, Ann’s disjointed and uncertain performance gives us a glimpse into the vulnerability and insecurity that plagued her entire life and career.

(adapted from ScreenLegends.com’s May 19, 1962….”Happy Birthday Mr. President”…)

You must remember this
A kiss is just a kiss, a sigh is just a sigh.
The fundamental things apply
As time goes by.

And when two lovers woo
They still say, “I love you.”
On that you can rely
No matter what the future brings
As time goes by.

(with apologies to the cast and crew of Casablanca)

Senator Joe McCarthy (R-WI), chairman of the Senate Committee on Government Operations and its Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, and Congressman Peter King (R-NY), chairman of House Homeland Security Committee, announce the formation of their Congressional Joint Committee on Un-American Activities (JUAC).
King stated the first priority for JUAC will be investigating the “arrogant elitist left wing agenda” of the New York Times and wants prosecution for treason (via Think Progress):

“I’m calling on the Attorney General to begin a criminal investigation and prosecution of the New York Times — its reporters, the editors who worked on this, and the publisher. We’re in a time of war, Chris, and what they’ve done has violated the Espionage Act, the COMINT act.”

McCarthy was in full agreement saying once the Communists at the New York Times were dealt with the JUAC would then investigate communist infiltrators at the CIA, which have been undermining President Cheney’s war efforts. McCarthy and King said they would also look into the involvement of American soldiers in the 1944 Malmedy massacre of German Waffen-SS prisoners of war with the help of evidence found by journalist Bill O’Reilly.

Previously, I asked, “how long before we discover cooperation by individual financial institutions about transactions on individual accounts — not just between financial institutions?”

Well, it didn’t take long for an answer. It took less than a day to discover that BushCo has been tracking most, if not all, credit card transactions and all Western Union wires transfers. The story has been largely ignored by the media hidden behind the zeal to portray Democrats as “cut and run” cowards and to promote fear by building up the credibility of a group of misfits and their plot to blow up the Sears Tower.

“First Data Corp., the world’s largest processor of credit-card transactions and wire transfers, gave the FBI and CIA unfettered access to data on millions of customers…” (Denver Post, June 21)
The latest revelation comes from Ron Suskind’s book, “The One Percent Doctrine”, but has been overlooked by major news outlets and I have not seen it discussed in recent interviews with Suskind on news and talk shows for his book tour.  The Rocky Mountain News and Denver Post seem to be the only ones that have covered the story.  From the Rocky Mountain News article, First Data tied to post-9/11 terror sweep:

In the days after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, First Data Corp. and its Western Union unit volunteered itself for the U.S. government’s war on terror.

FBI agents happily turned the Greenwood Village-based company into a “deadly weapon” to fight terrorism, according to a new book by Pulitzer Prize winner Ron Suskind.

At the same time, however, the Bush administration used First Data to create a “vast search-and-seizure machine” that sifted through millions of Americans’ credit-card purchases and wire transfers, unbeknownst to congressional overseers or the secret court designed to rule on matters of domestic surveillance, Suskind reported.

The Denver Post article, Book: First Data gave feds records, includes this:

First Data’s computer systems served as the “FBI’s own in-house search engine,” and the CIA was allowed to monitor money-wire transactions in real time, according to “The One Percent Doctrine” by Pulitzer Prize winner Ron Suskind.

Greenwood Village-based First Data and its money-transfer subsidiary Western Union declined to answer questions from The Denver Post but issued a joint statement.

…

The FBI accepted the offer and conducted thousands of financial searches on First Data’s computer systems in the weeks after the attacks. The FBI even set up a joint office with First Data near the company’s processing center in Omaha.

The FBI cross-checked information with the National Security Agency, which received data on millions of phone customers and calls from the nation’s telecommunications companies, Suskind wrote.

I haven’t seen this addressed by anyone yet: Bank Data Sifted in Secret by U.S. to Block Terror (NYT) .

Under a secret Bush administration program initiated weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks, counterterrorism officials have gained access to financial records from a vast international database and examined banking transactions involving thousands of Americans and others in the United States, according to government and industry officials.

The program is limited, government officials say, to tracing transactions of people suspected of having ties to Al Qaeda by reviewing records from the nerve center of the global banking industry, a Belgian cooperative that routes about $6 trillion daily between banks, brokerages, stock exchanges and other institutions. The records mostly involve wire transfers and other methods of moving money overseas and into and out of the United States. Most routine financial transactions confined to this country are not in the database.

Don’t you feel secure that “government officials” of the Cheney Misadministration say this is limited to people of suspected ties to Al Qaeda just like the NSA spying with the assistance of the telecoms.

The program is grounded in part on the president’s emergency economic powers, Mr. Levey said, and multiple safeguards have been imposed to protect against any unwarranted searches of Americans’ records.

The program, however, is a significant departure from typical practice in how the government acquires Americans’ financial records. Treasury officials did not seek individual court-approved warrants or subpoenas to examine specific transactions, instead relying on broad administrative subpoenas for millions of records from the cooperative, known as Swift.

This is another program with no judicial oversight. What you don’t about SWIFT?  I’m not surprised.  I’m familiar with it because of several years of consulting and architecture for secure transactions between financial institutions.  This is extraordinary to me!

SWIFT released the following press release (via LAT):

SWIFT is the industry-owned cooperative supplying secure, standardised messaging services and interface software to over 7,800 financial institutions worldwide. SWIFT is solely a messaging intermediary for transmitting secure and confidential financial messages between financial institutions. SWIFT is not a bank, nor does it hold accounts of any customers.

SWIFT takes its role as a key infrastructure of the international financial system very seriously and cooperates with authorities to prevent illegal uses of the international financial system. Where required, SWIFT has to comply with valid subpoenas. SWIFT’s compliance policy is published on http://www.swift.com/.

In the aftermath of the September 11th attacks, SWIFT responded to compulsory subpoenas for limited sets of data from the Office of Foreign Assets Control of the United States Department of the Treasury. Our fundamental principle has been to preserve the confidentiality of our users’ data while complying with the lawful obligations in countries where we operate. Striking that balance has guided SWIFT through this process with the United States Department of the Treasury.

SWIFT negotiated with the U.S. Treasury over the scope and oversight of the subpoenas. Through this process, SWIFT received significant protections and assurances as to the purpose, confidentiality, oversight and control of the limited sets of data produced under the subpoenas. Independent audit controls provide additional assurance that these protections are fully complied with.

All of these actions have been undertaken with advice from international and U.S. legal counsel and following our longstanding procedures on compliance, established by our Board.

Well, we know there will be no Congressional oversight on this latest attack against our privacy and civil liberties.  So, the question is how long before we discover cooperation by individual financial institutions about transactions on individual accounts — not just between financial institutions?

Some of the bloviating blowhard Bush supporting cable pundits are finally facing the reality that Bush is not a popular President.
Chris “Tweety” Matthews was incredulous and “amazed” by the results of the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, from the March 15 edition of MSNBC’s Hardball with Chris Matthews (via Media Matters):

MATTHEWS: I always thought Bush was more popular than his policies. I keep saying it, and I keep being wrong on this. Bush is not popular. I’m amazed when 50 percent of the people don’t like him — just don’t like this guy. Thirty-nine percent like him. Are you surprised? Does that fit with the world you walk in?

It is interesting that Tweety differentiates between popularity and policies, which presumably is the difference between favorability ratings and overall job ratings, because Bush’s job approval has been in the negative throughout his second term. It was even negative the week before and after the November 2004 Presidential election. Its enough to make you wonder about the dispute between the exit polls and voting results all over again, but let’s not go there any further. Bush’s job approval continues to spiral down with the latest polls having an approval in the range of 33-39% and disapproval of 51-60%.

The most interesting poll is the latest from the Pew Research Center. Aside from the usual survey questions, which showed Bush’s job approval dropping to 33%, there was a one-word description for Bush.

The single word most frequently associated with George W. Bush today is “incompetent,”and close behind are two other increasingly mentioned descriptors: “idiot” and “liar.” All three are mentioned far more often today than a year ago.

It is heartening to finally see people waking up to the reality of the Idiot from Crawford, as I have called Bush for nearly 5 years now. However, I doubt we will see Tweety or many his peers talking about Bush the Incompetent, Bush the Idiot, or Bush the Liar anytime soon. Who cares? Fuck Tweety and the cable talking pundits anyway! The important thing is that people have reached the realization and begun to talk about and describe Bush for what he is: an incompetent, an idiot, and a liar.

Now, the question is: How to get people to realize the shared responsibility of this incompetence by the GOP?

(crossposted at MLW and DKos)

CBS Evening News just reported that they have found out from Pentagon officials that the US is INCREASING the troop levels in Iraq in response to the current security situation.

I’m sure General Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, will point to this as further evidence that things are ‘going very, very well’ in Iraq.

(crossposted at MLW and DKos)
Unfortunately, I did not record the newscast.  I am not sure of the exact troop level increase, but think they stated one batallion and that the increased troop level was to be maintained for a one month period.  This was not reported as an increase during troop rotation, but to handle the current security situation. (I will post a link to a transcript or online story as soon as one is posted by CBS. If anyone sees it posted before I do, please place a link in a comment.)

As with every other statement and speech by Bush, this directly contradicts his speech yesterday on the transfer to Iraqi forces.

Update [2006-3-14 19:30:47 by Disgusted in St Louis]: Story posted by CBS:

U.S. Troop Levels In Iraq May Rise

March was supposed to be the month when the U.S. commander in Iraq made a recommendation to pull more troops out of Iraq. Instead, he has asked for more troops to be sent in, reports CBS News National Security correspondent David Martin.

…

U.S. officials say Gen. George Casey asked for more troops because of a convergence of events, and danger, surrounding the third anniversary of the American invasion.

…

In the last 24 hours at least 87 bodies have been found in Baghdad, most shot dead execution style, and Iraq’s interior ministry has announced it will once again ban private vehicles from Baghdad in an effort to hold down the violence.

Pentagon officials say they expect the extra troops to remain in Iraq about a month. So it’s a small increase and it’s supposed to be temporary, but putting troops in instead of taking them out does not sound like progress, Martin says.

Update [2006-3-14 19:48:39 by Disgusted in St Louis]: drsmith131 at DKos posted a link in the comments to this NYT story:

Rumsfeld Hints Troop Level May Increase Slightly in Iraq

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld gave a strong hint today that American troop levels in Iraq may be increased in coming days, perhaps only slightly and temporarily.

…

Mr. Rumsfeld did not specify which holiday or pilgrimage was prompting the security concern, but many Muslims observe a holiday commemorating the birth of the prophet Mohammad, which falls this year on April 10. Coincidentally, this year it comes one day after a secular national holiday on April 9, the day the government of Saddam Hussein fell three years ago.

Mr. Rumsfeld’s comments seemed to suggest the possibility of a higher American profile in the wake of continuing sectarian violence that senior military officials say now poses a greater security threat than terrorists or the insurgency. Until the recent surge of violence, there had been talk of additional, incremental reductions in the numbers of American forces this spring and summer.

Officials said no final decision on troop movements had yet been made by Mr. Rumsfeld or Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the senior commander in Iraq. Three officials involved in the discussions said that a leading proposal was to send a battalion-sized group — about 800 troops.

“We move troops in and out depending on events, like we did for the referendum, the election,” Mr. Rumsfeld said. “General Casey may decide he wants to bulk up slightly for the pilgrimage.”

Pentagon civilian and military officials said any extra forces that might be ordered into Iraq would come from an armored brigade of about 3,500 to 4,000 troops now stationed in Kuwait for just such a need if conditions deteriorated.

If the troops are ordered into Iraq, this would be the first time the brigade, a unit of the First Armored Division, left its standby status and entered the fight.

One reason for concern, Mr. Rumsfeld said, was the number of pilgrims from Iran who come to Iraq. President Bush, Mr. Rumsfeld and other officials have said in recent days that Iran is intervening in Iraqi affairs and fomenting attacks.

Interesting how Rumsfeld ties the increase in troops to concerns about Iran (my emphasis in quote).

impeachment proceedings against Clinton.  Two Republican Congressman, John Shadegg (R-AZ) and Bob Schaffer (R-CO) circulated a letter among their colleagues calling on them to boycott the State of the Union Address.

A CNN All Politics report from January 19, 1999 states:

In a “Dear Republican Colleague” letter, the congressmen write, “While some argue that attending the address is a matter of respect for the OFFICE of the presidency, it is difficult to accept in the current context.

(excerpt and diary continue below the fold)

“By proceeding with his speech, the President is demonstrating his lack of respect for the Congress and its legitimate role,” the pair complain. “He also clearly intends to gain political advantage and demean the significance of the impeachment proceeding now going forward in the Senate.”

Saying they “will not play a role in facilitating his disrespect,” Shadegg and Schaffer call on Clinton to either postpone his speech or deliver it from the Oval Office, not the House chamber.

“If he refuses to do so, we will not be present in the chamber for the address,” they wrote.

Dennis Hastert was the newly installed Republican Speaker of the House after Newt Gingrinch was forced to step down over ethics violations.  Undoubtedly influenced by recent polls showing a soaring approval rating for Clinton and a crashing one for the GOP, Hastert asked Republicans to attend the speech (from CNN All Politics December 20, 1998):

In the wake of the House of Representatives’ approval of two articles of impeachment, Bill Clinton’s approval rating has jumped 10 points to 73 percent, the latest CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll shows.

That’s not only an all-time high for Clinton, it also beats the highest approval rating President Ronald Reagan ever had.

At the same time, the number of Americans with an unfavorable view of the Republican Party has jumped 10 points; less than a third of the country now has a favorable view of the GOP.

Despite concerns that public calls for Clinton’s resignation would rise after his impeachment, the number of Americans who want Clinton to resign has remained statistically unchanged. Only 30 percent want Clinton to resign; only 29 percent want the Senate to convict Clinton and remove him from office.

I wonder if the 30% who wanted Clinton to reisgn or supported impeachment be the same people that blindly support Bush regardless of what he does, now?  It would be interesting to see that in a poll, but as Media Matters has pointed out outlets like the Washinton Post, despite doing similar polling on Clinton:

do not “do a poll on whether President Bush should be impeached” because such a question “is biased and would produce a misleading result.”

The Washington Post ran a story on January 15, 1999, State of Union Puts GOP in a Dilemma, which highlighted the Republicans views against the upcoming SOTU:

With President Clinton planning to deliver his State of the Union address to a joint session of Congress Tuesday night, many GOP lawmakers are wrestling with how to demonstrate respect for the office of the presidency without endorsing the conduct that prompted them to vote to impeach the chief executive in December.

Even moderate Republican Rep. Christopher Shays (Conn.), one of a handful of GOP House members who voted against impeachment, voiced concern about whether he can afford to be caught on camera clapping when the president announces a policy initiative Shays supports.

“From a selfish standpoint, I just wish he wouldn’t do it,” Shays said. “I will be in the chamber, but I will be in the far right,” away from the cameras.

…

A few Republicans have decided to boycott the address. Rep. Tom Coburn, a conservative junior member, will remain in his Oklahoma district. In a letter Wednesday, Coburn urged House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) to ask to delay the speech or deliver it in writing.

“He’s going to be addressing the very people who are going to be making decisions about him,” Coburn said. “The timing is wrong right now. I don’t think it hurts the nation one bit to delay it two or three weeks.”

…

Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry J. Hyde (R-Ill.) said he expects to watch the speech on television from home, but said it was not out of disrespect. “Mostly because it’s not fun,” he told ABC’s “Nightline” on Wednesday. “. . . I can watch on television and do my leaping from my feet at home.”

…

None of the top Republicans have questioned the appropriateness of his address, and aides to Clinton critic Tom DeLay (R-Tex.), the majority whip, briefly considered calling members’ offices to check on attendance before concluding it was not necessary.

A coincidental quirk of timing, rather than Clinton’s troubles, may keep attendance down. Republican House leaders have scheduled no floor votes until Feb. 2 on the theory that committees should have more time to develop legislation.

As a result, said Rep. Joe Barton (R-Tex.), lawmakers can continue working in their districts without needing to be in Washington for a vote. “If I was a junior congressman, I don’t think I’d go up for the State of the Union,” he said.

Barton noted that Republicans decided to go ahead with impeachment proceedings even as the U.S. bombed Iraq last month, and it only makes sense that Clinton address the nation as the Senate trial continues.

Many Republicans did boycott the SOTU.  I don’t know if there was a full accounting of who was in attendance, but there was some notable coverage in the news afterwards.

The New York Times in an article from the following day, State Of The Union: The No-Shows; Some Boycott the Speech (unfortunately this is now Times Select service and I don’t have access or the inclination nor finances to pay to see more):

Some lawmakers fail to attend State of the Union speech; reasons include illness, reluctance to return to Washington when House is not in session and protest against Pres Clinton’s presence while he is on trial in Senate; Rep Henry J Hyde blames bad back; Reps John Shadegg, Bob Schaffer and Bob Barr boycott speech.

The flu felled a few of them; others didn’t want to make the long trip here when the House of Representatives won’t be back in session again until next month. But some of the lawmakers absent from the House chamber tonight were actually boycotting it.

The Cincinnati Enquirer had a similar article,  State Of The Union Notebook: Thanks, But We’ll Pass, which includes criticism of Ohio Republican Senator Mike DeWine:

Several Republicans did not attend President Clinton’s State of the Union address, saying it was inappropriate for Mr. Clinton to appear before Congress during his impeachment trial.

“The president is demonstrating his lack of respect for the Congress,” Reps. John Shadegg, R-Ariz., and Bob Schaffer, R-Colo., wrote in a letter explaining their absences.

Most Republicans, however, decided to follow the lead of new House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., who wrote that despite the “discomfort,” Congress had a duty to hear the views of the president.

…

Listen up, Mr. DeWine

Union members came. So did feminists. And a minister.

Each watched President Clinton’s State of the Union address at a Columbus, Ohio, union hall to lend support to those urging the U.S. Senate to end the impeachment trial that threatens Mr. Clinton’s future.

“They’ve been after him since he got into office,” said Lula Oliver, a 69-year-old Columbus woman who attended the gathering, sponsored by People for the American Way, a liberal organization that organized community State of the Union viewings in 18 cities, including Columbus.

“They say they don’t like the way he behaves. I think they don’t like his ideas, and they don’t like that he talks about what matters.”

Larry Mays, a Baptist minister, said he hopes the speech and the meeting will spur more people opposed to the impeachment trial to speak out.

Rally organizers suggested opponents start with the office of U.S. Sen. Mike DeWine, R-Ohio.

This has led me to ponder the following question:

Should the Democrats boycott Bush’s  State of the Union address on January 31?

President Bush has certainly demonstrated a “lack of respect for the Congress” on many issues: misleading Congress and the nation to promote invading Iraq, failure to give any credible accountability for the Iraq War, authorizing the NSA’s unwarranted and illegal eavesdropping of US citizens, approval of Bush and his policies are at or below 40%, and finally his latest Nixonian paranoia statement warning Democrats to watch what they say.

What do you think? With the exception of Joe Lieberman, who will no doubt be sitting in the front row with fresh lipstick waiting to kiss Bush, should Democrats consider boycotting the upcoming State of The Union?

Hollywood, in a follow up to the smash comedy hit, Throw Tommy From The Train, is now preparing an intense drama about the recent Abramoff scandal and plea bargain entitled, BushFellas.  I have the inside scoop on the film and am presenting the movie poster and sure to be memorable quotes from the film.

Jack Abramoff narrating the introduction:

You know, we always called each other Bush fellas. Like you said to, uh, somebody, “You’re gonna like this guy. He’s all right. He’s a Bush fella. He’s one of us.” You understand? We were Bush fellas. GOPguys. But Tommy and I could never be made because we had Democratic blood. It didn’t even matter that my mother voted for Reagan. To become a member of a crew you’ve got to be one hundred per cent Republican so they can trace all your relatives back to the old country. See, it’s the highest honor they can give you. It means you belong to a family and crew. It means that nobody can fuck around with you. It also means you could fuck around with anybody just as long as they aren’t also a member. It’s like a license to steal. It’s a license to do anything. As far as George was concerned with Tommy being made, it was like we were all being made. We would now have one of our own as a member.

George Bush having a heartless-to-heartless talk with Dick Cheney:

You mean, let me understand this cause, ya know maybe it’s me, I’m a little fucked up maybe, but I’m funny how, I mean funny like I’m a clown, I amuse you? I make you laugh, I’m here to fuckin’ amuse you? What do you mean funny, funny how? How am I funny?

Roy Blunt talking to Tom Delay after assuming Republican House leadership:

Now the guy’s got Cheney as a partner. Any problems, he goes to Cheney. Trouble with a bill? He can go to Cheney. Trouble with the war, economy, Tommy, he can call Cheney. But now the guy’s gotta come up with Cheney’s money every week no matter what. Business bad? Fuck you, pay me. Oh, you had a fire? Fuck you, pay me. Place got hit by hurricane huh? Fuck you, pay me.

Tom DeLay on what it means being a Congressman:

For us to live any other way was nuts. Uh, to us, those goody-good people who worked shitty jobs for bum paychecks and took the subway to work every day, and worried about their bills, were dead. I mean they were suckers. They had no balls. If we wanted something we just took it. If anyone complained twice they got hit so bad, believe me, they never complained again.

Dick Cheney speaking to Scooter Libby after his indictment:

I’m not mad, I’m proud of you. You took your first pinch like a man and you learn two great things in your life. Look at me, never rat on your friends and always keep your mouth shut.

Michael Brown speaking about no longer being a BushFella:

And that’s the hardest part. Today everything is different; there’s no action… have to wait around like everyone else. Can’t even get decent food – right after I got here, I ordered some spaghetti with marinara sauce, and I got egg noodles and ketchup. I’m an average nobody… get to live the rest of my life like a schnook.

Karl Rove reminiscing about Jeff Gannon:

And then there was Jimmy-Jeff Two Times, who got that nickname because he said and did everything twice, like: “I’m gonna be a reporter, be a reporter.”