Now the Justice Department's IG Follows the Pentagon's IG!

The Justice Department's Inspector General released a report yesterday describing, in detail, how the Justice Department, along with the Department of Homeland Security and FBI may have worked to inflate the numbers of terrorism related criminal cases in the US from 2001-2005. These numbers according to various sources include cases that were misfiled or originally filed as terrorism related and never changed.

The report suggests that there is no evidence to support claims of intentional inflation at this time, but given the stance of this administration towards facts, there is very little evidence to suggest that it wasn't intentional. At the very least, it would certainly be very convenient for the administration to ensure that the facts were never corrected if originally unintended.

So what's to gain by inflating the numbers, and perhaps more important, what's to lose?

Well, let's start with the gains: So-called "political capital," for one, fear-mongering for another. Basically, they go hand in hand, because by fear-mongering, the adminstration gains the acquiescence of American voters into allowing them to do what is "necessary" to curtail terrorism. Necessity can have so many definitions, among them "extraordinary rendition," warrantless taps, and the Patriot Act.

What's to lose? Well, for one, we can safely assume, given track records, that not even the people attempting to stop terrorism have a really good picture of what's going on. For another, what about directing Homeland Security funding? If "terror-related" cases are misreported, it could easily tip the scales in the wrong direction, for example, when nearly deserted mid-west states received more funding per capita than NYC did. If we actually have to weigh the likelihood of a terror attack in, say, Idaho, vs. NYC, hands-down NYC would win... or lose, depending on how you look at it.

There are a host of reasons that this, and other similar incidents are truly disgusting. But for now, let's suffice to say it's just more reason never to trust Republicans again.

Texas is its Own Country!

So, I saw this when I was in London two weeks ago... It was pointed out to me by my girlfriend, and we both had the same reaction when we saw it. "Bush really ISN'T the President! Texas isn't part of America!"

So what is he, then? Pretender to the throne? A modern day Prince John?

According to Wikipedia, John was known for treachery, lies, a history of throwing his allies to the wolves when they become inconvenient. Somehow, this all seems familiar.

Anyway, the entire point was just to see if we couldn't protest Mr. Bush's claim to the throne on that basis alone. And to have some fun.

Pentagon Inspector General Releases His Own Version of the Downing Street Memo

What more do we need now? The evidence is not only crystal clear, it's now coming from within our own government, and under Bush's own administration.

This morning it has been revealed that Mr. Bush's own intelligence department fed him faulty reports based on the administration's pressure to find or make a link between Saddam and al Qaeda. The report calls these actions merely "inappropriate" but not illegal.

Of course, the response from current and former officials is to dismiss all of these allegations as petty political attacks. This is to be expected. But this doesn't matter, now. It's time to impeach, now more than ever. An overwhelming majority of Americans do not support the president, nor will they ever again. What's more is that now, there can be no doubt whatsoever about the validity of these accusations, and the sheer unwillingness to listen to any evidence countering their talking points.

Impeach them all.

Hey, That Extravagance of Power Was Different!

Nancy Pelosi wants a military plane provided to her for use as a state transport plane while traveling around the country (and presumably, world) in her duties as Speaker of the House. What's her request? A C-32 aircraft from Boeing (757). Why in one nation's name would she want that beast?

Simple. She needs a plane that can accomodate herself and ten guests (specifically related to her duties, or family), and that can fly cross country (Washington to California) without refueling. Based on the reasoning for providing former Speaker Hastert the same accomodations (Sept. 11th, and successor to the President and Vice President), this hardly seems unreasonable. Not the C-32, mind you, but an aircraft that meets these requirements. If the only one that fits the bill is the C-32, then what is the issue?

We all know that Bush mysteriously disappeared on Sept. 11th leaving us to cry for our lost (some would say fortunately), but the overall point is that we were without a leader when our nation needed one most. In order to prevent that from happening on a more long term basis, it only makes sense to protect Ms. Pelosi in whatever manner is deemed necessary in a worst-case scenario.

Naturally though, the Republicans are bawking. It's not necessary to protect the Speaker, especially in this modern age. I mean, seriously, what's the worst that could happen? It's not like there are terrorists running around everywhere killing people randomly.

Wait... What's that you say, Fox News? There ARE!?! Aww crap. There goes that one, I guess. But then, maybe Fox is just one of those liberal media stations. That must be the answer.

The problem is not that Ms. Pelosi doesn't need the aircraft. Honestly, I can't say for sure whether or not she does. I'd need to have detailed specs on the array of eligible military aircraft, and the actual stated requirements from Ms. Pelosi's camp. But who are the Republicans to claim foul on a tradition they established, being the party of "Extravagance of Power." Oh, that's right, they're Republicans.