How many times have you railed against the Federal spending priorities? How many times have you wished that you held more control over how the government spent the taxes they collected from you?

We currently have an unprecedented chance to control a portion of those taxes. The government has decided to return a chunk of the taxes they have collected from you in the form of a check. I am urging all Kossacks to consider what cause or issue you feel strongly that the government doesn't put enough money into and work to fund those things using the chunk of the Federal Budget you have been handed.

I know times are tough out there - the government wouldn't have started handing out money if it wasn't really bad - but I urge those of you who can afford it to think of the "stimulus check" you receive in this way. As a rare opportunity to have hands-on control as to how your tax dollars are spent.

So Senator Feinstein voted against telco immunity. As I said when I called her office a number of times urging her to fight telco immunity, "This is a Lieberman moment her." And from the frosty reception that got from her staff I'm assuming they knew what I was saying.

I consider myself a man of my word and I explicitly told her staffers that if she voted for telco immunity I would work to support any Democrat who ran against her. So that time has unfortunately come.

Some background after the jump.

I was reviewing the spotty coverage of Turkey's excursion into Northern Iraq and something caught my eye. These events, of course, follow the formal hand over of sovereignty, oops, I mean security operations in the North of the country to the Kurdish Regional Government. But as I was reviewing the reports of the hand-over this quote from U.S. Air Force Maj. Gen. Kurt A. Cichowski jumped out at me:

“It is important to understand that Coalition forces will always be here to support the Government of Iraq,”

Excuse me? Did he really just say "Coalition forces will always be here"? ALWAYS as in forever and ever?

A British TV report (I believe it is BBC 4) has a lengthy video reviewing the growing violence in Iraq and American presence there. The first half of the report shows the American "trainers" simply watching and commenting as an Iraqi patrol (Shia) pulls over a car and beats the three (Sunni) occupants. The troops clearly don't think the incident is being taped by the journalists but of course it is.

Typical of country with real media the report goes on to comment on the violence that pervades the country and the difficulties faces the incoming US troops. The US troops seem utterly disengaged, hopelessly naive and utterly ineffectual against the violence they face. A man who has been threatened with death complains and shows the letter to the troops and they give him a card with a hotline phone number on it. A young man is killed in a bakery in broad daylight and they try and investigate buts it seems obvious no one will ever be caught.

Bush's reported quote delivered in the Pentagon “What I want to hear from you is how we’re going to win not how we’re going to leave.” has been widely written and blogged about but I haven't heard anyone address the real horror of this quote.

The real problem with this is not that Bush is single-mindedly pursuing a "win" without regard for what's actually happening or what might be achievable. The real problem with this quote is not that Bush is (again) refusing to hear news he doesn't want to hear and bullying those that are supposed to give him honest council. The real problem with this quote is not even that Bush seems suddenly concerned with how the war is going suddenly after 3+ years of steadily escalating violence, anarchy, bloodshed and death. The real problem with Bush saying this is the fact that he is in completely the wrong f-ing building!

The recent egregious signing statement by George W Bush claiming the right to open and read the mail of Americans has finally pushed the issue of signing statements into the main stream media and into the realm of public discourse. This issue is actually a good starting point to mount an attack on the idea of signing statements because people feel fundamentally protective of their mail. And now that the majority of the electorate seems to have shaken off their knee-jerk immediate fear reaction whenever the words terrorism or 9-11 are invoked the time appears to be right too. It seems that everyone who understands the issue of signing statements - and is outside the Presidential cabal - agrees that they are a terrible idea but I feel that the extent of the dangers that signing statements haven't yet been fully discussed.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer or a Constitutional scholar but I think I can see what's coming down the road if we don't find a way to drag the entire idea of signing statements into the light and kill them once and for all.

What follows is Bush's speech from the other night with the subtext tags turned on. Bush's mind is a scary place full of cursing and evil thoughts... but you knew that already didn't you?

Bush's bullshit is bold and stark just like in real life.
My apologies to the Scotty Show for the blatant rip off of the technique. Thanks.

The full text of Bush's speech is included, but since I paid for this crap to be written and shoved back at me with my tax dollars I consider myself to be the (shamefaced) owner of that text.

Follow the jump with caution.

For anyone who missed it Senator Feinstein's early words about General Hayden's nomination to the CIA made it sound like she had already decided to confirm him. Her office here in San Diego insisted that this was NOT the case and read me her statement about him. After I started this letter the phone record mining news broke and her tone became much less positive. While this didn't change the content of my letter it did make me hope that she would be more open to idea of contentious opposition.

I think I will modify the contents slightly and send it to the other Democrats on the committee. I'm sure this will condensed down "against" by some aide and added to spreadsheet somewhere but it made me feel better to write it.

We in San Diego are unfortunate enough to have the newspaper equivalent of Fox News in our own San Diego Union. This is the paper that until recently featured a "Prayer of the Day" on its editorial page.

Needless to say they cheerlead whatever the Bush administration says or does especially on Iraq. Now I normally just ignore this bird cage liner but I was interested to see what they would do with the spying case so this weekend I turned to the "Insight" section (who says irony is dead?) and read the editorial of head cheerleader Robert Cadwell.

My response to this craziness after the jump....

[Notes: Strong language and graphics content follows on the flip. Thanks to other Kossacks who provided several of the linked articles.]

In case anyone has been wondering when the line in the sand was going to be drawn - this is it. This isn't an abstract argument about the morality of a war of choice or the complex issue of a conspiracy to out of a covert CIA agent or the treatment of brown children in our custody on the other side of the world somewhere.

This is about a very simple question: "Are we under martial law?"

Not being a homosexual wanna-be escort who lies about his military history I find I don't have the casual, unfettered access to the White House press briefings I'd like.

But seriously, is there anyone in the White House press corps who might take question suggestions via email? Is there any other way to get questions into the briefing that I might not be aware of?

My question ideas forthcoming...

So tomorrow may be Fitzmas and indictments will fall from the heavens and peace and justice will return to the world, right?

Don't count on it. The neo-cons are not cowed and they are not going gentle into that dark night. Don't believe me? Check out Macabee's diary about how Cheney specifically wants the explicit right to torture prisoners.

They have been driving this administration like a stolen SUV since they got their hands on it. And just like an episode of Cops now we're in full-on hot pursuit mode complete with lights and sirens.

More Cops after this!

We all know that the Washington Post has employed a number of dubious arguments to avoid looking at the significance of the Downing Street leaked documents and consequently their complicity in aiding the rush to war in Iraq. But they HAVE published a transcript of a frank on-line discussion of the documents with Michael Smith - the author of the London Sunday Times article that broke the story.

How frank?

Link after the jump...

News.com is running an article that says the US House attached a version of their "Real ID" act to the $82 billion dollar spending bill for Iraq. The act allows Homeland Security to dictate the minimum requirements for state driver's licenses and IDs.