Yes, dear readers, there are T-Shirts.
According to Statcounter, there's a significant demand!
But don't worry, the design isn't as tasteless as you might think
That's not a swastika. It's a Turd Blossom!
A lot of things are coming together in the public consciousness - and of course they have to be put there.
Which makes you wonder - about what is not being said, and why hints must be dropped loudly on C-Span, rather than facts directly stated at a press conference.
Emptywheel » Yeah, What ABOUT that Anthrax Terrorist?
Call me crazy. But after viewing this very creepy exchange between Patrick Leahy and Michael Mukasey regarding the anthrax killer, I got the feeling that both of them know exactly who sent those anthrax-laden letters almost seven years ago.
Emptywheel goes on to observe that both seem to be fairly certain about exactly who "the guy" is, but cannot say so, implying it's classified, that inquiry is forbidden, etc.
Leahy uses the recent settlement between Hatfill and DOJ to raise the issue. As he raises it, he notes that he is privy to classified information about the anthrax killer, and because of that he has refrained from even discussing the case.
Leahy: I almost hate to get into the case of Steven Hatfill. I've refrained from discussing this, I've refused to discuss it with the press. I've told them some aspects of it I was aware of were classified so of course I could not discuss it but also, considering the fact that my life was threatened by an anthrax letter, two people died who touched a letter addressed to me I was supposed to open, I'm somewhat concerned.
Mukasey: That case ...
Then Leahy makes a curious statement: we're paying Hatfill, which means that the guy who committed the crime is going free.
Leahy: We're paying Hatfill millions of dollars, the indication being the guy who committed the crime went free.
And that seems to be a common theme today, that "the truth is out there" but you have to dig it up for yourself - because congress cannot or will not. This may explain why. I don't know if it's true but it doesn't insult my intelligence like the official stories do.
Who's involved in all of the "official stories?" Yeah. Karl Rove. There seems to be a Turd Blossom floating in the Rotunda; the common theme in all things that are known, implied, hinted at, blogged, speculated upon - but never directly stated authoritatively - lest one have an unfortunate encounter with some unidentifiable toxin, imprisoned on false charges, or perhaps found to have kiddy porn on your computer.
What do you think "sneak and peek" warrants are for?
Velvet Revolution has some several entries on the Siegalman railroading featuring video interviews with Don Siegelman. Among other things, he alleges that the election to replace him was... um. Not left to chance.
Yeah, don't hold your breath, guys. But here's the essential point:
Our YouTube videos of Mr. Siegelman and are getting thousands of views. We now have a new streaming 20-minute interview of Mr. Siegelman with tons of new powerful information including allegations that his last election for Governor was electronically manipulated—flipped—by GOP partisans directed by Karl Rove. Watch that video here.
For members of the media, we have high resolution footage of our Don Siegelman interview available for broadcast.
"We won't know the truth until Congress digs it out, and that's why it is so incredibly important that anybody that reads your blog...gets on the phone, gets on their computer, or writes Congress and tells them to hold Karl Rove in contempt if he does not show up to testify on July 10th." - Don SiegelmanMy computer tells me that it's the 15th. That sounds like "Inherent Contempt" to me. Which has led many to speculate why the Seargent of Arms has not been directed to bring Rove before congress, with the suggestion that "we can do this the easy way, or we can do it the hard way."
A whole string of such thing have perhaps led to a more generalized contempt FOR congress, as the Brad Blog dryly reports.
Speaker Pelosi has signaled that an Article of Impeachment charging Bush with lying to Congress about his pretexts for invading Iraq might at least get a hearing in the House Judiciary Committee."If all else fails, do the right thing."
There's no way to know what, if any, changes in conditions may have prompted her to rethink impeachment, but it may have something to do with a new Rasmussen poll released on Tuesday that found approval of Congress at 9 percent, which is essentially a statistical zero.
Jon Ponder, guest blogger, continues:
True, the fact that Bush's lies cost the lives of 4,116 lives of US service men and women, injuries to over 30,000 of our troops, the deaths of over 1 million innocent Iraqi civilians, the destruction of Iraq, and a long term cost over $3 trillion may not rise to the level of a sex lie about a blowjob, but it at least deserves a hearing.
The article speculates as to why Pelosi took impeachment off the table in the first place. I do not think anyone who's survived to get to be in her position is incapable of doing basic political caclulus, and when presented with an opportunity to do the right thing, the constitutionally mandated thing, the legally required thing, the arguably popular thing AND end up as president pro-tem, with a clear shot at the party's nomination, generally you'd expect a different result than such altruism alluded to "maintaining unity during a time of crisis" or whatever twaddle it was she uttered at the time.
Me, I'm thinking Rove's little "object lessons" have more to do with it. Object lessons like, oh, say, the Hammer's Gerrymandering of Texas. Or the Siegalman affair. I'm not saying Rove is "the guy" behind the Anthrax thing, but he's for sure the first guy I would ask.
Between immersions, I'm tempted to say!
I mean, considering that in matters of national security, the executive branch has insisted that "enhanced interrogation procedures" are perfectly ok, it would be entirely proper to take them at their word and set up a waterboarding for Rove.
The fact that Rove refuses to testify under oath makes me chuckle. Why should Congress have to accept his word that he's telling the truth when they could bring in an "expert" to ensure he's highly motivated to reveal every little detail.
It could be C-Span's first pay-per-view event!
But, in case it was not clear, I am not even remotely suggesting that would be the right thing to do. It would be wrong, and it would be evil. Sometimes, in order for Good to survive, Irony must be taken off the table.
Not impeachment, however. And when Rove cites the fifth amendment, that will certainly be enough to impeach the administration, pending full investigation, while keeping material witnesses - who may well pose a flight risk - in custody.