Whoops

Bush the detainees: My bad.

A criminal court on Saturday acquitted two former Guantanamo Bay prisoners of joining al-Qaeda or the Taliban.

Omar Rajab Amin and Abdullah Kamel al-Kundari denied any terror connections at the start of their trial. Their lawyers argued there was no evidence against them and the case was "political." Defense attorneys said the accused were in Afghanistan for charity work — not to fight.

Details of the ruling, which was announced by a court clerk, were not immediately available. The two men were not in court Saturday, but one of their lawyers, Thikra al-Majdali, said she expected them to be released from custody by tomorrow.

The prosecution can appeal the ruling, but it was not clear Saturday if it would do so.

Amin, 41, and al-Kundari, 32, were released from the U.S. detention camp in September after spending nearly five years there. They were detained by authorities for questioning upon their return to Kuwait.

[...]

Six other Kuwaitis formerly held in Guantanamo have been acquitted here of terror charges. Another four are still imprisoned there.

George W. Bush: Worst President ever.

Saturday afternoon with Public Enemy

I'm in that type of mood right now...

The silence from the mainstream media speaks volumes...

from Americablog on the media ignoring Coulter's f-d "faggot" remarks towards John Edwards.

Edwards/Kerry state the truth - that Mary Cheney is a lesbian - and all hell breaks loose.

Coulter calls Edwards a faggot.

[crickets]

Pathetic.

CTBob/Spazeboy EXCLUSIVE: Ned Lamont answers the big question

I can't wait to see the full interview!

For more info, check out Spazeboy and CTBob.

Who's giving the Democratic address tomorrow?

WTF?!?

Senator Joe Lieberman delivers this week's Democratic Radio Address, calling for immediate attention to the deplorable care for America's wounded veterans at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, DC. Our nation has no higher responsibility than to care for the brave men and women who put themselves in harm's way to defend us, and Democrats are committed to ensuring that America's veterans get the treatment and the support they deserve.

Harry Reid, what are you thinking? The same egomaniac who threatened to jump ship if the Democrats attempt to pass a binding resolution against the war is now giving the DEMOCRATIC ADDRESS tomorrow?

ugh, I need a drink.

Lt. Gen. Kevin "the urine man" Kiley not taking over Walter Reed

Thank goodness someone used common sense (I wish I can say the same for Lieberman).

Ann Coulter calls John Edwards a "faggot"

Wonder if Mitt Romney is regrets praising this witch moments before she jumped on the mic at today's American Conservative Union Political Action Conference.

Watch the gutterqueen do her thing.

UPDATE: Howard Dean responds:

"There is no place in political discourse for this kind of hate-filled and bigoted comments. While Democrats and Republicans may disagree on the issues, we should all be able to agree that this kind of vile rhetoric is out of bounds. The American people want a serious, thoughtful debate of the issues. Republicans -- including the Republican presidential candidates who shared the podium with Ann Coulter today -- should denounce her hateful remarks."

Lieberman loves the urine man

I wonder how the Democrats who threw Ned Lamont under the bus can sleep at night.

George Bush's favorite Democrat was doing his usual babbling on Imus's show this morning and had the nerve to say that the replacement of Maj. Gen. George Weightman with Lt. Gen. Kevin Kiley (a.k.a the urine man) at Walter Reed is somehow "a good first step."

IMUS: … that, particularly if you’re somebody who thought the war was such a wonderful idea, as you did, and continues to support this idiotic exercise that you — and probably you sit on some of these oversight committees…

LIEBERMAN: Yes.

IMUS: … that you would have a special responsibility to know what the hell has happened to these kids.

LIEBERMAN: Yes.

(CROSSTALK)

IMUS: It’s not enough to say you didn’t know or you didn’t ask the right questions. I mean, that’s why we elected you.

LIEBERMAN: We all have responsibility. And I will tell you very personally, because I have supported the war and continue to believe that we’ve got to do everything we can to have it end successfully, I have a special responsibility. And so, you know, we all ought to be doing mea culpas.

[...]

IMUS: How do we get this fixed?

LIEBERMAN: Well, I think the first thing is to hold people accountable. And, you know, General Weightman going is a good first step. The Armed Services Committee…

IMUS: Well, it’s an absurd first step. He didn’t have anything to do with this. He’s been in charge — that’s a big scapegoat deal and you know that.

LIEBERMAN: Your questions about General Kiley are very good questions, and I’m going to ask him. Because this, after all, is the guy that was in charge for a couple years.

IMUS: Well, he’s a lying skunk. He ought to be forced to resign today, Senator.

LIEBERMAN: Of course, I don’t have that exact authority.

(LAUGHTER)

But I will tell you that — I’m on the Armed Services Committee. The Armed Services Committee oversees the medical hospitals. And a group of us on the committee are going out there this afternoon. And I am going to ask some of the tough questions that you and a lot of others…

IMUS: See if they’ll let you, Senator Joe Lieberman, walk around without being escorted by four or five of these generals who’ve known about this for years.

LIEBERMAN: Yes.

IMUS: I mean, did you read Dana Priest and Anne Hull story in The Washington Post yesterday, that General Kiley’s been up there testifying before your committee and lying to you, Senator…

(CROSSTALK)

IMUS: … lying to you and these other people. He’s lying to you.

LIEBERMAN: I agree.

Look, this is the guy that was on top of the institution. It is not — it’s a good sized hospital, but it’s not a city. And this was a building that was an important part of that. So, look, he should have known.

[…]

LIEBERMAN: Part of this, Don, was that the whole response never lived up to the increasing demand on the Army medical system or the military medical system after Iraq.

IMUS: Well, that’s not a good excuse.

LIEBERMAN: Well, no, it’s not an excuse. It’s an explanation.

Not Joe, it's an excuse and you should be ashamed of yourself for suggesting that Kiley running the show again at Walter Reed is "a good first step."

Why do I call Kiley the urine man you ask. Well, I'll let John at Americablog give you the rundown.

Are these people insane? The Army fired the head of Walter Reed today, and the new guy who's taking over until they can hire a permanent replacement is Kevin Kiley, the same guy who reportedly let a soldier sleep in his own urine, and refused to lift a finger when he was notified by the wife of a GOP congressman who had witnessed the horrifying scene.

Think John's kidding? Read the story for yourself.

In 2004, Rep. C.W. Bill Young (R-Fla.) and his wife stopped visiting the wounded at Walter Reed out of frustration. Young said he voiced concerns to commanders over troubling incidents he witnessed but was rebuffed or ignored. "When Bev or I would bring problems to the attention of authorities of Walter Reed, we were made to feel very uncomfortable," said Young, who began visiting the wounded recuperating at other facilities.

Beverly Young said she complained to Kiley several times. She once visited a soldier who was lying in urine on his mattress pad in the hospital. When a nurse ignored her, Young said, "I went flying down to Kevin Kiley's office again, and got nowhere. He has skirted this stuff for five years and blamed everyone else."

This is the man who's BACK in charge at Walter Reed and Lieberman thinks that having Kiley in charge is a "good first step."

Think Progress has more on the new head of Walter Reed.

Joe Lieberman has no shame...don't look at me, I voted for this guy.

Bush poll numbers takes a nose dive

Oh man, this is ugly.

In the months since the Congressional elections, President Bush has lost substantial support among members of his own party, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News Poll.

Mr. Bush’s approval rating dropped 13 percentage points since last fall among Republicans, 65 percent of whom now say they approve of the way he is handling his job as president, compared with 78 percent last October.

Over all, Mr. Bush’s job approval remains at one of its lowest points, with 29 percent of all Americans saying they approve of the way he is doing his job, compared with 34 percent at the end of October. Sixty-one percent disapproved, compared with 58 percent in October, within the margin of sampling error.

Twenty-three percent of those polled approved of the way Mr. Bush is dealing with the situation in Iraq. Twenty-five percent approved of his handling of foreign policy.

Even the president’s campaign against terrorism, long his signature issue, is seen positively by only 40 percent of those polled, while 53 percent disapprove.

The Washington Times gone wild

Whoa.

As the first reporter hired by The Washington Times outside the founding group, on the newspaper's national desk for 21 years, I’m saddened by recent attacks by managing editor Francis B. Coombs Jr. against foreign desk editor David Jones and veteran foreign reporter Tom Carter.

Something has gone badly awry at The Washington Times since editor-in-chief Wesley Pruden Jr. announced his retirement and went on C-SPAN to announce managing editor Fran Coombs as his successor.

Coombs has gone power-crazy.

Last week. I received first-hand reports that during the newspaper's morning news meeting on Thursday, February 22, Coombs threatened foreign editor Jones with physical assault because Coombs wanted a particular story angle attacking the United Nations' investigation of Iran's nuclear weapons program, but Jones corrected Coombs on certain factual errors.

Coombs told Jones and other editors in the meeting that he wanted a very anti-UN and anti-Iran story, but Jones questioned many of Coombs' suppositions with factual corrections.

Then, I'm told by people present, Coombs went ballistic, slammed his hands on the table and shouted at Jones to do the story the way Coombs demanded, "before I jump up on this table and smack you down." Coombs angrily erupted against Jones in front of national, business, metro, photo, graphics, and library editors or their representatives.

Then, five days later, on Tuesday, February 27, according to many witnesses in The Washington Times newsroom, Coombs walked over to the cubicle of veteran foreign desk reporter Tom Carter and attacked him with a barrage of epithets and threats in front of all newsroom employees present.

The day before, there was a brief discussion on the foreign desk about a pending series by religion writer Julia Duin on the abortion of girls in India. The Times had expended a lot of money for Julia Duin and photographer Mary Calvert to travel to India to produce this series.

In the discussion with colleagues on The Washington Times foreign desk, editor Jones said: "The reason we are running this story is that Coombs thinks all the aborted girls means that Indian men will be immigrating to the United States to marry our girls." That is an exact quote, what Jones told his colleagues on the foreign desk.

Coombs has told me and others repeatedly that he favors abortion because he sees it as a way to eliminate black and other minority babies.

Just anohter day in Mooniesland.

Insult the troops

Keith Olbermann continues his examinaiton of the outrageous conditions at the Walter Reed medical center.

You have to see this to believe it.

Fighting Dem of the week: Rep George Miller

Now this is how you get the job done.
Nice to have the Democrats in charge.

President Bush gives C students a bad name

In honor of President Bush's photo-op in New Orleans today, it's my honor to re-post these oldie but goodie video clips.

...but first, a look at Bush's screw-ups.

President Bush’s Broken Promises on Katrina & Rita Reconstruction

President Bush visits the Gulf Coast today, where residents are still struggling to rebuild from the devastation of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Americans will hear the President speak about his commitment to reconstruction, but a look back at the President’s last visit to the region in August shows that many of the President’s commitments to the area remain unmet.  Democrats are committed to helping the residents of the Gulf Coast rebuild.

Broken promises on funding…

PRESIDENT BUSH:  “I felt it was important that our government be generous to the people who suffered. I felt that step one of a process of recovery and renewal is money.” [New Orleans, 8/29/06]

Administration refusing to waive burdensome matching requirements for Gulf Coast victims.  Despite a request from Senators Harry Reid, Mary Landrieu, and Joe Lieberman, the Bush Administration has refused to waive a burdensome matching requirement on FEMA disaster assistance, even though similar waivers have been granted in many other disasters and Hurricanes Katrina was the worst hurricane disaster in the history of the United States.  (Letter to President Bush, 2/9/07)

Discriminating against Katrina and Rita victims by prohibiting loan forgiveness. The Stafford Act recognizes the very real possibility that hard-hit communities may need to be excused from repayment of community disaster loans, and requires forgiveness of a loan if an independent audit determines that its recipient cannot sustain its repayment obligations after a three-year grace period.  However, for the first time in the history of the program, Congress in 2005 specifically prohibited forgiveness of loans related to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.  (Community Disaster Loan Act of 2005)

FEMA demands aid money back from hurricane victims. “Hurricane Katrina’s floodwaters ruined everything Jessica Horne had in her New Orleans dorm room at Dillard University, so like more than 1.7 million other evacuees, she applied for disaster assistance… Horne eventually received $9,500 from FEMA. Now the agency wants the money back -- and is prepared to play hardball to get it, holding out the threat of collection agencies and criminal prosecution.” (New Orleans Times-Picayune 2/24/07)

PRESIDENT BUSH:  “All of us agree, at all levels of government, that we got to get the money as quickly as possible in the hands of the people, so they can rebuild their lives and help this city recover.” [New Orleans, 8/29/06]

Firms handling rebuilding are “understaffed and overwhelmed.”  “Their applications get lost or neglected for weeks. They can't get their calls returned. They can't get straight answers to their questions. They can't get their money.  One homeowner griped that he showed up for his appointment with a housing adviser in New Orleans only to be told he wasn't on the list, and neither were nine other people who came that day -- including two families who had flown in from other states. He said he and several other applicants got in only after complaining to the media.” (New Orleans Times-Picayune, 1/28/07)

Broken promises on the work of the federal government…

PRESIDENT BUSH:  “To the extent there's bureaucracy standing in the way, Don Powell [Federal Coordinator of Gulf Coast Rebuilding] and I will work to get rid of them.” [New Orleans, 8/29/06]

Bureaucratic nightmares delay needed funds. “In Louisiana, projects to rebuild a hospital along the western coast, a school-board building in suburban New Orleans and a prison south of the city remain suspended, the state says, as locals hunt for matching cash.” [Wall Street Journal, “In Katrina’s Wake, Where’s the Money?” 1/27/07]

Bureaucratic red tape hampering reconstruction efforts.  “Even the U.S. military appeared to have had problems, as the senators were told when they visited Jackson Barracks, which divides Orleans and St. Bernard parishes, right in the middle of some of the worst flooding.  Gen. Hunt Downer said that when the military tried to rebuild structures for new purposes, it, too, has been slapped with a 30 percent penalty. FEMA institutes such penalties to prevent unauthorized uses of aid.” (New Orleans Times-Picayune, 1/30/07)

Broken promises on rebuilding communities…

PRESIDENT BUSH:  “I understand that rebuilding neighborhoods begins one house at a time, and that’s what's happening here. When somebody goes back to their home, it helps renew the community, and so part of our efforts, and part of our focus is to make sure that people can get back in their homes as quickly as possible.” [Biloxi MS, 8/28/06]

Communities are still waiting to find out if they can rebuild.  “The street can't be rebuilt until an associated seawall and the adjacent pier are reconstructed. FEMA calculates the pier alone will cost exactly $1,370,256.22.  To the surprise of locals, the Corps didn't request a congressional appropriation until November, more than a year after the storm.” (Wall Street Journal, 1/29/07)

Residents stranded by inaction. “The Department of Housing and Urban Development argued that more than 4,000 units in four developments should be demolished and the sites redeveloped…While thousands of apartments stood vacant, residents were forced to live with family, in trailers or outside the city. ‘We shouldn't be 16 months out trying to get back into our homes,’ said Cynthia Wiggins, president of the Citywide Tenants Association. ‘We're saying open them back up.’” [USA Today, 1/15/07]

Thousands of New Orleans residents find themselves without homeowners insurance.  “But the end of Emergency Rule 23, which required insurers to keep covering a property even though its risk profile had changed because a house was damaged and unrepaired, unoccupied or in a sparsely populated neighborhood, marks an important transition in the state's shattered insurance market. For tens of thousands of home and business owners, the end of Rule 23 will be a painful moment. Getting dropped by their insurance company will force them to take out coverage with the Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Corp., the state's insurer of last resort, make a decision to bulldoze or repair, or go without insurance coverage altogether.” (New Orleans Times-Picayune, 1/1/07)

PRESIDENT BUSH:  “We got to make sure they have a place to move to. Trailers are only temporary. The goal is to make sure that communities are restored because there’s new homes. That's the goal. And we will help.” [New Orleans, 8/29/06]

Impacted residents still displaced. “Among respondents living in the impacted community, 83% had evacuated prior to the hurricane. Those in the community reported that they also had moved approximately three times since the hurricane, and indicated an average tenure of a little over two years at their current home. A little over a quarter of trailer park respondents are living in the same zip code one year after the hurricane as they had been at the time of the hurricane.” (National Center of Disaster Preparedness, “The Recovery Divide,” 2/2/07)

Broken promises on help to small businesses…

PRESIDENT BUSH: “And also, we've put out small business loans.” [Biloxi MS, 8/28/06]

Major problems at the Small Business Administration. “Poor planning, staff training and logistics hampered the Small Business Administration's response to the 2005 Gulf Coast hurricanes, resulting in a backlog that reached more than 200,000 loan applications, the Government Accountability Office said Wednesday.  In a 41-page report on the beleaguered agency, the GAO cited recent improvements under new Administrator Steven Preston but said the SBA still lacks a timetable for completing a disaster management plan.” (USA Today, 2/15/07)

Broken promises on helping children return to school…

 

PRESIDENT BUSH:  “For children who lost everything, their homes, their belongings, and their friends, going to school can be a place where they find stability and a familiar routine.” [Biloxi MS, 8/28/06]

Children are not in school. “The leader of Louisiana's largest school system says she believes that up to 200 children in the state's biggest hurricane evacuee camp are not registered in local schools. And she says the U.S. government — citing privacy laws — is doing little to help officials identify the youths.” (USA Today 2/5/07)

Emotional and behavioral issues among children. “Over half the parents and caregivers interviewed reported that at least one child in the household had experienced emotional or behavioral issues since the hurricane, an even higher rate than reported among displaced Louisiana residents six months after the hurricane. Furthermore, there was a near fourfold increase in the clinical diagnosis of depression or anxiety in children after the hurricane, and the prevalence of behavioral or conduct problems doubled.” (National Center of Disaster Preparedness, “The Recovery Divide,” 2/2/07)

Now, keep all the info you just read in mind when you watch the following videoclips.

1. Reason enough to impeach Bush and give his ENTIRE administration the pink slip.

2. Bush's unqualified idiot who Joe Lieberman approved after 42 minutes of questioning (no wonder he doesn't want to look at the mistakes made by his favorite President and Brownie after the hurricane destroyed the Gulf Coast).


3. Cue Kanye.

Thank you Paul Sutherland

First, the complaint from a Republican for Lieberman on the proposed changes to the existing candidate ballot petition.

"This is all about the Democrats being angry that Lieberman managed to get on the ballot - and win the election - even though he lost the primary. It’s their version of a sore loser law, with the Democrat power brokers being the sore losers,"
-Senator Judith Freeman (R-26 Dist.)

Now, here's Ridgefield resident Paul Sutherland setting the record straight for the confused senator.

Lamont responds to Lieberman's op-ed

So good that I had to post it in full.

Dear Senator Lieberman,

Fifteen months ago, in an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal praising the Bush Administration's Iraq policy, you asked the rhetorical question, "does America have a good plan for doing this, a strategy for victory in Iraq?"

"Yes," we did, you answered.

Since the day you wrote those words, over 1,000 more American troops have lost their lives in Iraq and that country is more dangerous than ever.

Senator, you had it exactly wrong then, and this week, in another Wall Street Journal op-ed entitled "The Choice on Iraq," you have managed to get it exactly wrong yet again.

"As the battle for Baghdad just gets underway," you write in this week's piece, congressional opponents of the escalation "have already made up their minds about America's cause in Iraq."

On the contrary, Senator, it was you and President Bush who had already made up your minds before the war started, using cherry-picked intelligence to sell the war to the American people. And if the battle for Baghdad is "just getting underway," how do we explain the escalating violence over the last four years?

You claim that "a precipitous pullout would leave a gaping security vacuum in its wake."

Actually, Senator, it was the precipitous invasion that you supported, along with its disastrous aftermath, which left the security vacuum that exists today - a vacuum which the terrorists, insurgents, and militias have all rushed to fill.

You plead for elected officials to "come together around a constructive legislative agenda for our security."

Senator, we have already done this. The result was the bipartisan (remember that word?) Baker-Hamilton report which called for a redeployment of our troops over twelve months, plus aggressive diplomacy, as our best hope to bring stability to the region. The report's conclusions were widely accepted by a strong majority of Democrats and Republicans, and then promptly disregarded by you, the President, and all those who had "already made up their minds," the facts be damned.

You worry that Washington is removed "from what is actually happening in Iraq."

Senator, Generals Abizaid and Casey were on the ground in Iraq and opposed the escalation. They recommended a phased redeployment of our combat troops. But rather than listen to them and redeploy the troops, President Bush redeployed his generals, and escalated the war.

On November 8th of last year, while voters across the country were giving Democrats a mandate to change course on Iraq, you were able to muddy the real "Choice on Iraq" for the voters of Connecticut. They thought they were choosing between two candidates who anticipated "significant" troop reductions by the end of the year, who both wanted "to bring our troops home."

Senator, one of us still believes in those words we spoke during the campaign.

The American people and our military experts have already made their "Choice on Iraq" quite clear. It is now up to all of our elected representatives to follow their lead.

Sincerely,

Ned Lamont

Amen.

A tale about a man named Philip

Prepare to rip your hair out.

Simmons on 2008: I'm out

NOTE TO GOP: hit the panic button.

Former U.S. Rep. Rob Simmons, tapped earlier this week for a new state job advocating for business interests, has confirmed that he will not try to reclaim his congressional seat in 2008 if he is confirmed by the legislature.

[...]

Simmons' comments came after he was asked if the state position — which comes with a $75,000 salary and a mission to help businesses in their dealings in Connecticut - was a temporary stop while he recharged for a comeback attempt against Courtney, who beat Simmons by fewer than 100 votes.

"No," he replied. "When I received the nomination, my first phone call was to Joe Courtney. I announced the governor’s nomination and told him if confirmed, and the position is adequately funded, I intended to put all my time and energies towards this job. And that would obviate any run for re-election in 2008."

Lieberman loves Swiftboaters

Why am I not surprised.

With a dishonest senator like DINOboy, all you need to do is follow the money and you'll find the truth.

Can we swap Chris Shays for Debbie Wasserman Schultz?

Rep Debbie Wasserman Shultz made Chris Shays look like a dunce (which doesn't seem that hard to do given his recent bizarre statements).

Take a look at the train wreck in progress.

DANGERStein: I'm getting paid by Lieberman...so what!

DANGERStein responds to Greg Sargent's piece on his hit-job piece on blogs in on Politico.

Dan Gerstein has responded to my post below. He says there's no problem at all with the fact that The Politico published a piece by him attacking some of Joe Lieberman's high-profile foes at the same time that he was collecting money from Lieberman:

[W]hether I am a paid, unpaid, or former advisor to Lieberman was not relevant to my column. I was not writing in any Lieberman capacity or on his behalf -- I was expressing my own opinions. And the content of the column was not about Lieberman -- it barely mentioned him -- but about the blindness and irresponsibility of many liberal bloggers. (I will leave it to readers to decide whether Sargent's process point undercut my arguments or unwittingly reinforced them.)

The question that I keep coming back too is what would have been gained by highlighting my current status as a paid adviser in this particular context. The reason for disclosing that kind of information is to avoid hiding conflicts of interest or presenting interested opinions as independent ones. As I noted above, that was not at issue here -- both the column itself and the tagline at the bottom made clear my Lieberman affiliation. So what would have been the point?

What would have been the point? Why, how's this for a point: Because disclosing that he is getting paid by Lieberman would have constituted telling the full truth. The description of Gerstein as a former communications director alone was a misleading one at best. It's unwittingly revealing indeed that the basic goal of being as truthful as possible simply doesn't appear to enter into the equation for Gerstein here.

Whack, Sargent knocks it out of the park.

Blogger's forum round-up

This morning, the Hartford Courant held a blogger's forum that featured several of the well-known writers from across the state.

Unfortunately, I had to bail out on the event (my daughter CTLauryn has other plans for me) but it sounded like a pretty insightful conversation and a great time (thanks Tim for the shoutout on catching Joe Lieberman's independent comment). Hopefully people have a better understanding of the influence of blogs as well as the fact that we have a life beyond blogging.

You can hear the audio from the entire forum here and CT-N will have the video broadcast of the event available this weekend.



BTW: Genghis, blogs had a MAJOR impact in last year's primary. Blogs followed Lamont around from day one videotaping his events and providing an avenue where a completely unknown person was able to get his message out to a public who knew nothing...NOTHING about him.

Blogging about Lamont during the early days were critical as there wasn't much time between the start of his campaign and the Democratic convention. Lamont needed a portion of the delegate vote in order to force a primary and I think blogs had a great impact providing information to delegates who become interested in Ned's message. In the end, those individuals eventually voted for Lamont and gave him the chance he needed to challenge Lieberman.

Finally, I hope you remember the golden rule "that other blogger" who had a PRESS PASS told you...NEVER, EVER ACCEPT A GUEST PASS).

I could go on and on about the impact of blogs on the primary race as well the general public conversation but I'll save it for the next forum.

I guess this just slipped their minds

Full disclosure please...

Here's how The Politico identified Gerstein at the end of the piece:

Dan Gerstein, who served as communications director for Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman's successful general election campaign in 2006, is a political consultant based in New York City and the author of the blog Dangerous Thoughts.

As you can see, The Politico identified Gerstein here as a former communications director to Lieberman.

Now, let's take a look at another Politico piece on Lieberman: One that is up and running on its Web site right now. In the current article, here's how Gerstein is identified:

"Since the debate on the surge, it has been hard," said Dan Gerstein, a former Lieberman aide who continues to serve as a paid adviser. "It is definitely putting some strain on his relations within the caucus.

Got that? This current piece identifies Gerstein by saying that he "continues to serve as a paid adviser" to Lieberman. That would appear to be saying that Gerstein is currently collecting money to advise Lieberman.

If this is correct, here's what this means about the Feb. 16 piece: The Politico let Gerstein publish a long attack on some of Lieberman's most visible foes -- without mentioning that Gerstein is currently advising Lieberman and even appears to be getting paid by Lieberman or by his office or political committee.

So let see, Politico allowed DANGERStein to publish a hit piece on blogs without informing their readers that the lying hack is still on Lieberman's payroll.

...I just remove them from my blogroll.

Anti-war supporters organize in Bethel to rally against the war

On Saturday afternoon, supporters of Connecticut Opposes the War (CTCOW) from the Danbury area came together and held a meet-up at Bethel's Molten Java. The meeting was one of many meet-ups that were held across the state and part of CTCOW's effort to organize and strategize for the upcoming anti-war rally in Hartford on March 17 th.

While it's usually hard to get people to come together for anything, I was pleasantly surprised with the turnout who seemed ready to get to work. Impressing was the wide range of people who came out to show their support. From local officials, to student activists, union representatives, and people who just out of Iraq, everyone was able to express their views and with CTCOW spokesperson Josh Nessi  was able as assign people several key responsibilities. Not bad for first time meet-up.

Now, the event did not go without a few glitches as the telephone conference did not go as planned but in the end, people abandoned the new technology and opted to work the old fashion way, by signing people up, collecting money for the march, and getting people active and fired up about the march and moving forward.

While Nessi led the discussion outlining the effectiveness of speaking out against the war, State Rep. Jason Bartlett stopped in and reassured people that speaking out and communicating with your elected officials is an effective tool in activism.

In the end, I think organizers of the event were able to get across the message that it's important that we apply more pressure on our political leaders to do the right thing and work on passing a binding resolutions.

Here’s my video report on the meet-up.

Blogger editorials

This week, the Hartford Courant will be hosting a blogger forum featuring several of the better-known bloggers from the across the state and nation.

As a preview, take a read at the editorials from Genghis, CCG, and Colin McEnore who will all be on the panel.