Rudy Giuliani reacts to his own campaign
-Giuliani keeps racking up endorsements...-
...from less than admirable figures. Fresh off the news that Giuliani has sewn up the high level drug dealer vote, he's rounding up the America-hating religious lunatic vote. Can the religious terrorist vote be far behind?
Rudy, who's entire campaign hinges on the fact that he didn't die on 9/11, welcomed the endorsement of Pat Robertson, who basically said 9/11 happened because America deserved it.
Sometimes I wonder if Rudy Giuliani is running against Rudy Giuliani. (Guardian)
-You are what you eat-
Or something like that. Over a period in 2005-6, the FBI came up with a cunning plan to locate "Iranian terrorists" in the San Francisco area -- look for places that sell a lot of middle eastern food.
According to the report, "The brainchild of top FBI counterterrorism officials Phil Mudd and Willie T. Hulon, according to well-informed sources, the project didn't last long. It was torpedoed by the head of the FBI's criminal investigations division, Michael A. Mason, who argued that putting somebody on a terrorist list for what they ate was ridiculous -- and possibly illegal." If stupid and pointless were illegal, this would more than qualify.
At least it's a little more targeted than a 2002 data-mining project. In that, you were labelled as a potential terrorist "if you were a person who frequently ordered pizza and paid with a credit card." Couldn't tell you what the reasoning was there.
Your federal tax dollars at work, folks. And people wonder why Iraq's a complete clusterfuck. (Wired)
-R.P. hearts D.C.?-
Big time liberty and accountability candidate Ron Paul voted to kill the resolution to impeach Dick Cheney last night. Paul finds himself listed among the yea votes to table the measure -- which would've cut off debate and killed the measure.
The nays won that particular vote, but in this case, Paul voted against impeaching the Big Dick. Maybe one of Paul's evil robots froze up or something... (House Clerk, via reddit)
1 comments:
Says a friend in the know: "Because it is improper for the House to consider something as important as impeachment without having had hearings and without a report from a committee or an independent counsel. It was appropriately done this way with Nixon and Clinton. If you look at the vote, you will notice the majority of war-mongering Republicans voted with Kuncinich as a cheap stunt to embarrass the Democrats and the anti-war movement by rushing an impeachment resolution to a vote with only an hour's debate."
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/016733.html
Post a Comment