Comments (93)

lysias wrote on September 12, 2007 4:06 PM:

"Everything I can" presumably includes mounting a filibuster. Which wouldn't even be needed if Olson can't get out of committee.

Given Bush's personality, this statement may well provoke him into nominating Olson.

lysias wrote on September 12, 2007 4:06 PM:

"Everything I can" presumably includes mounting a filibuster. Which wouldn't even be needed if Olson can't get out of committee.

Given Bush's personality, this statement may well provoke him into nominating Olson.

Prairie Vista wrote on September 12, 2007 4:15 PM:

If only Bush would nominate Olson. If so, he can be fully questioned by the Senate Judiciary committee about the crimes involved in the Arkansas Project and the railroading of William Jefferson Clinton. Olson epitomizes the "vast right-wing conspiracy" and was a lead player in the takeover.

drv wrote on September 12, 2007 4:20 PM:

I thought any Senator could put a hold on any appointment. Republicans did it all the time last year and it was reported and investigated here at TPM. So just get a Dem Senator to put a hold on and go on to other business. End of story. Let Bush bitch. Just ignore it. What can he do?

environmentalist wrote on September 12, 2007 4:26 PM:

I'll believe it when I see it.

bob wrote on September 12, 2007 4:29 PM:

Sweet.

Legalize wrote on September 12, 2007 4:32 PM:

Olsen doesn't get out of Committee, which of course will get the winger base all lathered up with breathless outrage; barks of "at the pleasure of the President," and how "advise and consent" means nothing, and never did (hell we're not even certain those words actually exist in the constitution; too bad there's no way to find out) from the Junkie Limbaugh; followed closely by the Dems folding - again.

code: "every," as in "damn time."

tk wrote on September 12, 2007 4:32 PM:

Harry Reid: Truly a courageous warrior who will bravely stand firm against the Bush administration.

Harry Reid: A man with his finger on the pulse of America, leading the country on the big issues of the day. I can't think of anything more pressing than a one year appointment to Justice.

T K

Clem wrote on September 12, 2007 4:35 PM:

Funny how all this talk about Ted Olson's AG prospects is coalescing around the six year anniversary of his wife's death. I can just hear the wingnuts howl: "How dare they deny the man! His wife died ON 9/11!" If Bush announces Olson as his nominee this anniversary week, I will never stop throwing up, but I won't be surprised, either.

jennh wrote on September 12, 2007 4:36 PM:

@environmentalist

Yeah. I bet the White House is scared now.

oleeb wrote on September 12, 2007 4:40 PM:

Well, that's certainly the right response, but considering the source it probably means if Bush says "Boo!" Reid will cave in. Actions speak louder than words of course, so I'll believe it when I see it.

triplecynic wrote on September 12, 2007 4:44 PM:

I actually know Ted Olson--his enormous vacation manse is down the road from some family members of mine. It's awfully rich of the wingnuts to use the memory of his late wife in his defense, particularly since he's had a new gal pal for years now. (And I believe she's a live-in girlfriend. What will the crazies think of that??)

OxyCon wrote on September 12, 2007 4:46 PM:

Great news. Olson and his disgusting right wing smear artist peers need to understand that when you sink to such low levels of depravity, you disqualify yourself from higher office.

JJ Montana wrote on September 12, 2007 4:49 PM:

1. I want Bush to nominate al Maliki to be AG. I think he'll be needing a job soon.

2. What about al Sadr? There's a man who's above partisanship!

3. There's always Bush's dog... but I hear he's got it on for Obama's dog.

4. Nixon?

5. Isn't the AG somewhere in line for the Presidency? Let's see, Bush and Cheney could resign and the dog would be President?

6. My Uncle Moshe wants the job, but he only speaks Yiddish. He says it would be like the Navajo Code Talkers in WW II. But then again, Helen Thomas realized that Tony Snow wasn't speaking English....

7. Things could be worse, but I can't quite think how.

ahem wrote on September 12, 2007 4:52 PM:

No matter who gets nominated, Leahy needs to set a basic condition: no confirmation hearings until the WH answers subpoenas.

There's an obvious rationale: if Gonzo's successor is to fix the DOJ, it's vital to know exactly what's wrong with it before he takes over, so that the Senate can be sure the candidate is up to the task.

LongTom wrote on September 12, 2007 4:57 PM:

This statement by Reid means Olson is a cinch to become Attorney General, if Bush nominates him. A couple of phone calls from some idiot like Bob Shrum telling Harry that voters don't like the Dems being "confrontational" or "obstructionist," and the Dems will roll out the red carpet for Olson, like they did for Gonzalez, Roberts and Alito. Hell, they don't even care when this Bushie scumbags go up to their committee hearings and lie to their faces!

Legalize wrote on September 12, 2007 4:57 PM:

I think you mean Zombie Nixon, JJ.

moondancer wrote on September 12, 2007 4:58 PM:

I'd take John Roberts, just to get him off the bench.

Harry Reid wrote on September 12, 2007 4:58 PM:

What I meant to say is I intend to talk tough about this until the actual confirmation hearings. Then I'll cave.

drv wrote on September 12, 2007 5:01 PM:

So, will Bush have the gall to mention Olsen's wife's death on 9-11? If I were a betting man I would say "yes". It'll be mentioned in the context of Olsen having sacrificed much for his country.

d

LongTom wrote on September 12, 2007 5:01 PM:

My interpretation of Reid's statement is that Olson, if nominated, is a cinch to be confirmed. The Dems don't even care when this Bush scum parade in front of them and lie to their faces. If Bush nominates Olson, some idiot like Bob Shrum will call Reid and warn him about being too "confrontational" or obstructionist." Then they'll roll out the red carpet for Olson, like they did for Gonzalez, Alito, Chertoff, and Roberts.

BC wrote on September 12, 2007 5:08 PM:

I appreciate the way Harry Reid has announced so openly the next capitulation by the roll-over-and-die Democrats. Attorney General Olson, here we come.

triplecynic wrote on September 12, 2007 5:11 PM:

Correction--I see in the AP story that Ted has remarried. But rest assured, his wife Lady (I think that's right, and if it's not, it's something equally unusual) was a live-in girlfriend/fiancee at one point.

IOKIYAR.

SkippyFlipjack wrote on September 12, 2007 5:12 PM:

If Bush brings up the death of Olson's wife to garner sympathy, then the Dems are justified in bringing up some of her choice quotes (like calling Bill Clinton's mom a "barfly who gets used by men" while explaining how Bush's upbringing made him a better man) as proof that Olson is as partisan as they come.

acf wrote on September 12, 2007 5:17 PM:

We have to watch out that Olson is not a smokescreen nominee, put up with the intention that he would be defeated, possibly even in committee, only to be followed by the 'not Olson' nominee, who would but just as bad, but not have the reputation to live down, a stealth nominee.

Mark Richards wrote on September 12, 2007 5:17 PM:

That's nice "Give 'em Hell" Harry.

Now how about (a) the spy bill that you let pass; (b) the last funding for the war that you let pass; (c) the various investigations that are rather dead in the water and (d) your commitment to END this war through a bill demanding withdrawal with a criminal penalty for non-compliance? If you need text of a good bill, here: http://www.gravel2008.us/?q=node/1191

Welcome back from your little vacation. Now get off your ass.

lovable liberal wrote on September 12, 2007 5:33 PM:

I don't see Reid caving on this, but I also don't see him doing anything about it when Duhbya gives Olson a recess appointment.

Pompano Pete Jr wrote on September 12, 2007 5:40 PM:

OK, now that you've had your shots at Harry, maybe you could pay attention to the guy who can/will make Ted Olsen disappear. Pat Leahy is the person we should be contacting with messages of support if he hangs Ted out to dry.

I'd rather the Chairman focus on impeachment or contempt of Congress, but I'll take what I can get.

SC= "muscle" as in "we've got it, but don't know how to use it".

714Day wrote on September 12, 2007 5:43 PM:

I see Reid caving on everything.

heh wrote on September 12, 2007 5:56 PM:

Ted Olson, oh my eyes!

I can't say I miss his wife, from the winger talk shows, but RIP mrs. O.

I don't know who was worse,both attorneys.

mspicata wrote on September 12, 2007 6:00 PM:

Read this:

http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200709/091007b.html

and tell me how Olson could possibly get past Lahey. The ONLY reason Olson gets named is to make the next choice more palatable.

Steve wrote on September 12, 2007 6:01 PM:

The smart money is on Reid keeping this promise.

Mr.Murder wrote on September 12, 2007 6:01 PM:

Reid says he will oppose Olson, which means Olson will get the votes needed.

George Orwell is prescient in every instance these days...

mspicata wrote on September 12, 2007 6:02 PM:

Read this:

http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200709/091007b.html

and tell me how Olson gets past Leahy. The only possible reason to nominate Olson is to follow him with a more palatable candidate.

Long Memory wrote on September 12, 2007 6:06 PM:

Having read the posts, I not believe I'd like to see Olson testify. Nobody thinks he's an idiot, so when they start asking him about all the Clinton stuff, and about the Federalist Society, and the right-wing hit machine and he says "I can't recall," then we can all laugh out loud and flush him down the toilet, back where he came from.

I agree with Pompano Pete: Forget Harry, Pat Leahy will never let that guy out of committee.

bluestatedon wrote on September 12, 2007 6:09 PM:

I can't think of anything less likely to frighten George Bush than Harry Reid flapping his ineffectual gums. The man is a living monument to flaccidity in the face of opposition.

David S., North Hollywd., CA wrote on September 12, 2007 6:24 PM:

I wish I could believe that the Democratic leadership won't end up "compromising"... read "caving." As usual.

Joe wrote on September 12, 2007 6:25 PM:

It'll be a good test of what "everything in [Reid's] power" actually amounts to. As Majority Leader, he can simply refuse to bring the matter to the floor for a vote, if things even get that far. You shouldn't need to "filibuster" if you're the majority.

CJR wrote on September 12, 2007 6:29 PM:

By this point I thought Harry Reid would have been replaced with a simple piece of capitulation software.

csbrudy wrote on September 12, 2007 6:33 PM:

Ted Olson, Recess Appointment.

hagop wrote on September 12, 2007 6:33 PM:

All bluster, no substance so far. And this guy is the majority leader of the Senate of the United States of America. How sad.

csbrudy wrote on September 12, 2007 6:34 PM:

Ted Olson, Recess Appointee.

Anonymous wrote on September 12, 2007 6:38 PM:

Thank god Reid finally grew a pair...

Now he needs to tell the White House that equally unacceptable is ANY FOB (friend of bush) or any highly partisan politico, no matter their qualifications.

Of course, Olson hasn't even been formally nominated yet. If he's nominated now, it will only be so that the White House's next pick will appear more palatable in comparison. That and perhaps to pick a fight with the Democrats and take our eyes off the war for a few days.

If I were Reid, I'd take a committee vote on Olson even before he gets to testify. That or simply tell the White House that they won't even bother to schedule a confirmation hearing for a DOA candidate like Olsen.

It's possible that Bush would rather have NO Attorney General than have a non-partisan in the seat. . . Before Bush crys that the Dems are making Amerika unsafe by not approving a new AG, the Dems should make a list of Republican's they would approve for the post.

I'm sure we could come up with 5, elder, sensible Republican's who's respect for the law far outweighs their political affiliation.

Anonymous wrote on September 12, 2007 6:40 PM:

Thank god Reid finally grew a pair...

Now he needs to tell the White House that equally unacceptable is ANY FOB (friend of bush) or any highly partisan politico, no matter their qualifications.

Of course, Olson hasn't even been formally nominated yet. If he's nominated now, it will only be so that the White House's next pick will appear more palatable in comparison. That and perhaps to pick a fight with the Democrats and take our eyes off the war for a few days.

If I were Reid, I'd take a committee vote on Olson even before he gets to testify. That or simply tell the White House that they won't even bother to schedule a confirmation hearing for a DOA candidate like Olsen.

It's possible that Bush would rather have NO Attorney General than have a non-partisan in the seat. . . Before Bush crys that the Dems are making Amerika unsafe by not approving a new AG, the Dems should make a list of Republican's they would approve for the post.

I'm sure we could come up with 5, elder, sensible Republican's who's respect for the law far outweighs their political affiliation.

RWN wrote on September 12, 2007 6:50 PM:

The constant threat is the Dems overplaying their hand. BS...Read this Dem beltway insiders, the country is looking for courage, backbone, SOB ness, so good have Bush place Olson a partisan RW conspiracy soldier and force Leahy, Schumer, Biden, Feingold, Kennedy to galvinize the Senate, force the GOP fence sitters to choke on this and force the GOP to try to use this to galvanize their base.

Here is a word for you in RED-FACE Colorado Springs, the base is disgusted. The evangelicals are disgruntled, the old RW Goldwater is dismantled and disenchanted and the moderate Midwesterners are embarrassed by the GOP. Do this, force the Dems to come together and win a good fight, it will propel them in 2008 to stop the funding and force the RW authoritarians to retreat.

BTW I am a headhunter and now have three political appointee resumes wanting to get out....they know this is a dead end ship

Bushie wrote on September 12, 2007 6:56 PM:

The good Senator will of course state at a later date, ‘Ted Olson will not be confirmed this week’ or ‘I intend to do everything I can to prevent him from being confirmed as the next attorney general until the Judiciary committee (rich with flip-floppers like Spector and Feinstein) has a pro forma hearing and vote.’

Randy wrote on September 12, 2007 7:09 PM:

You Dems i.e., Liberal Socialists are despicable. You are so invested in our country's defeat in the War on Terror that you will allow our country to suffer just to advance your power agenda. Your agenda is personal attacks because you have no ideas. You won't even admit what you stand for because you know if your platform is truly disclosed, your miscreant politicians would lose every election!

sdhays wrote on September 12, 2007 7:25 PM:

I sympathize with the sentiments about Weak-Tea Harry, but I think the fact that he's saying this now may reflect that Theodore Olson is already considered so toxic in the Democractic Senate caucus that he knows this is a non-starter.

Personally, I'd like to see Olson nominated just to see what Joe Lieberman will do. Will he support his BFF or will he work against the man central to blocking him from becoming Vice-President? Maybe his head will explode, although he probably doesn't blame Olson for anything; Gore ran too partisan a campaign, after all.

Doctor Jay wrote on September 12, 2007 7:30 PM:

I don't see a recess appointment for Olson. Reid already stopped any recess appointments during the recent recess. I expect that he will do the same for the upcoming holiday year-end recess.

maxx wrote on September 12, 2007 7:34 PM:

Yeah Harry.

Bush will never nominate a palatable candidate, that's just not his style. Calling him on is the right thing to do. Enough accomodation.

ipsin wrote on September 12, 2007 7:46 PM:

Nice "Jedi Mind Trick" handwave photo there...

JD21 wrote on September 12, 2007 7:47 PM:

Bravo!!! No Olson. Way to get some spine Dems. I like it.

Anonymous wrote on September 12, 2007 7:47 PM:

Bush does not want or need a new AG.
1. there's a miniscule chance that anyone chosen... even Olson... might disclose some of the hidden maneuvers of the administration.

2. Gonzales was only there due to historic precedence of actually HAVING an AG. His purpose was the same as everone else surrounding Bush, "Yes Sir!"

3. Bush still has dozens of "yes men" surrounding him... Gonzales won't be missed.

4. Bush will get more mileage letting the nation know that he wants an AG, but Congress just wants to be obstinate.

Miri11 wrote on September 12, 2007 8:17 PM:

This is good news. Maybe Democrats are finally growing a pair. Olson is a GOP dirty tricks operator.

BTW, Olson has moved on to trophy wife #4. He had a huge VRWC wedding with all the usual suspects invited including Starr, Silberman.

Miri11 wrote on September 12, 2007 8:27 PM:

Check out the wedding photos of Olson. The entire VRWC was there.

http://www.abovethelaw.com/2006/10/lady_and_teds_excellent_advent_1.php

Emma Anne wrote on September 12, 2007 8:31 PM:

Remember how Kerry shut down that guy who helped fund the Swiftboaters? Well, I feel confident that Hillary is at *least* as implacable on the subject of Ted Olsen. If she has to kneecap him personally, he will not be the next attorney general.

JEP wrote on September 12, 2007 8:51 PM:

Wasn't Olson the one who argued Bush V. Gore in the first place?

How appropriate he would be Bush's final anti-constitutional, pro-president AG, he was essentially his first one.

No recess appointments on this one, but I still see a surprise like Lungren on the final Congressional ballot.

noshrub wrote on September 12, 2007 8:58 PM:

Stick w/it Harry.

Al in Austex wrote on September 12, 2007 9:07 PM:

The Federalist/ NeocON cabal , will find the Olson nomination DOA. This is part of a larger set of issues that Reid & the Other Leadership will be moving on - that likely will lead to Cheney's Impeachment - if not conviction in the Senate ..
And Randy _ I am not a socialist - and you must be a Troll working for Ed Gillispie ...

Richard L. Adlof wrote on September 12, 2007 9:39 PM:

It would be just like Bush43 to nominate Jimmy . . . I mean Timmy Olsen to burn six to eight months to leave his Administration unchallaged by a potential Attorney's General . . . The correct two or three nominees could lead to the Shrub running out the clock.

I still the Chimp in Charge should put Fred Thompson up for the job. Freddy has been wandering about the country obviously looking for full-time governmental job and Bush probably thinks that he is Arthur Branch . . .

FMS wrote on September 12, 2007 9:59 PM:

Yes! Grow a spine, Demos! It is past time to defend and right the wrongs done to one of the best (Democratic!) presidents ever!

FMS wrote on September 12, 2007 10:00 PM:

Yes! Grow a spine, Demos! It is past time to defend and right the wrongs done to one of the best (Democratic!) presidents ever!

FMS wrote on September 12, 2007 10:00 PM:

Yes! Grow a spine, Demos! It is past time to defend and right the wrongs done to one of the best (Democratic!) presidents ever!

KYJurisDoctor wrote on September 12, 2007 10:24 PM:

I have NOTHING against Ted Olson, but give me LARRY THOMPSON, instead!

http://osi-speaks.blogspot.com/2007/09/u-s-attorney-general-list-is-narrowed.html#links

phil james wrote on September 12, 2007 10:44 PM:

Question: What did Reid agree to give away behind closed doors so he could come out guns blazing on this proposed appointment? The real issue of the day is Iraq of course which it looks like the Dems will bend over once again on. The new AG whoever they are will get to preside over a toally politicized and ineffectual Justice Dept for what, a year maybe? Big deal. Dems are getting nothing.

Kent Mueller wrote on September 12, 2007 11:53 PM:

Let them nominate Olson, even if he is a stalking horse. We've seen them play this card before; remember TIA as a smoke screen, with the ridiculous and ever-faithful Poindexter at the helm and the Orwellian eye-in-a-pyramid logo; they knew full well it would get shot down like a stray mylar "Barney" balloon drifting through a rural southern county, and meanwhile they instituted nearly every aspect elsewhere in the bureaucracy.

The Bush administration is hoping to show up the Democrats as obstructionist and, yeah, Bush has the bully pulpit. But the Bush crowd is forgetting that the general public is no longer interested in nonvisual stories that play better in newspapers than on a screen. If they were serious about Olson, he'd already be appearing on Fox holding up a photo of Britney Spears stepping out of a limo and saying "This! This is what we must protect America's youth from, this filth!" and firing up the base. Indifference to gnawable issues is what's kept the US Attorney scandal and wiretapping revelations on low boil.

Of course, for over a year now Bush and the Christian right are all but officially "Just friends."

All the Democrats have to do is compile a long list of questions, all reasoned, all well-spoken and thought out, that highlight the Bush administration's malfeasance re the Constitution, Bill of Rights, checks and balances -- every issue from Abu gharib to Wiretapping.

Let them dance around these questions, Olson and the real nominee both, with those lame steps this crowd is now famous for. Stick a fork in them. No one has much use for the Bush gang these days, and even the GOP is wishing they'd take the hint and keep quiet until it's time to go away.

Old habits are hard to break though, so play it through. If they're foolish enough to tout Olson bring the hearings right up to the Xmas congressional break and pause it on a hopeful note: "Well, we're certainly impressed by the responses of the honorable Mr. Olson so far, and look forward to bringing these hearings to a proper conclusion shortly after we return from recess."

Bush would be a fool to rush through a recess nomination in light of that and the Bush game plan would be thoroughly disarmed by the Democrats having kept concerns about the rule of law front and center in what little public consciousness exists.

pw wrote on September 13, 2007 12:04 AM:

As usual the republikans have the spineless dems by the balls. If they don't confirm any bushie nominee then they will be stuck with the acting one, a die hard bushie, until the end of the bush "lagacy".

pw wrote on September 13, 2007 12:04 AM:

As usual the republikans have the spineless dems by the balls. If they don't confirm any bushie nominee then they will be stuck with the acting one, a die hard bushie, until the end of the bush "legacy".

PJ White wrote on September 13, 2007 1:33 AM:

Ah, yes. The Dems will bravely oppose Olsen unless Bush says, "Boo!" Then they will cave. Even if they didn't approve him, which is unlikely, Bush has someone even worse waiting in the wings. He has an endless supply of these assholes, each one worse than the last. And the Dems are utterly useless. Remember our elation after the Nov. 2006 election? Were we ever fooled! We might as well still have a Repugnican majority in both houses.

RobbyLove wrote on September 13, 2007 3:42 AM:

More blustering by a bunch of do-nothings. If I didn't know any better, I'd think that Reid, Pelosi and Bush had some sort of secret handshake and agreed ahead of time that they'd talk big but do nothing.

Prove me wrong.

RobbyLove wrote on September 13, 2007 3:45 AM:

Reid is a disgrace. Remind me: What has he done to (a) reign Bush in and (b) fulfill the mandate of the 2006 election?

Nancy? Care to comment?

The Oracle wrote on September 13, 2007 4:13 AM:

One has to really wonder about Ted Olson.

How exactly does he feel about top officials in the Bush administration getting his wife killed in the 9/11 attacks?

His wife, Barbara, was on one of the hijacked airplanes. The Bush administration blew off the mounting evidence in 2001 that al Qaeda was determined to strike inside the United States, preferring instead to obsess over their long-planned invasion of Iraq and deposing of Saddam Hussein. The Bush administration dropped our nation's guard, essentially allowing 9/11 to happen, and getting about 3,000 of our fellow citizens killed, including Ted Olson's wife, Barbara.

So, has anyone ever asked Ted what his thoughts are about his good buddies in the Bush administration getting his wife killed on 9/11? Or does he even care?

thepeoplechoose wrote on September 13, 2007 7:02 AM:

Let Bush nominate whoever he wants. The when the hearings roll around if the nominee utters one word that is inconsistent with or hedges on his or her public or private record then just tell them no appointment for you buddy.

Rachel wrote on September 13, 2007 7:50 AM:

If Olsen is indeed married, he's on his 4th, yes, 4th wife...do we need someone like this administrating justice? Afterall, over half our population is female...

Betty wrote on September 13, 2007 8:56 AM:

Good Mr. Reid, let your continuance as Majority Leader hinge on that statement.

Johann wrote on September 13, 2007 9:42 AM:

For the Oracle who posted on September 13, 2007 4:13 AM:

"One has to really wonder about Ted Olson.

How exactly does he feel about top officials in the Bush administration getting his wife killed in the 9/11 attacks?"

Probably grateful since it allowed him to recycle to another wife.

There have been stories about government officials who refused to fly the week of 9/11/01 with the implication that they knew that something was going to happen using airplanes.

Evan wrote on September 13, 2007 10:04 AM:

As usual, the Democrats (and Democracy, for that matter) are one step behind the Madman Bush and Reptillian Cheney. Compared to them Al Gonzales looked pretty good! Of course, Busy & Cheney are a bit distracted, what with hunting down those weapons of mass destruction they got so excited about.

But I digress with no progress. Reid will back down because all the Democrats seem to know how to do is cave. The American people seem so captivated by the West Wing idiots that it takes a good scandle like Whitewater, with thousands of lives and billions of dollars lost (and that was just in Kenny Starr's ofc) to wake them up. Most of them forgot why Bush sent us to war in the first place. Which was . . . let's see, I know this . . .

But it's so simple. If Reid, or anyone else, ever finds a backbone (HA!), Bush will simply dissolve the Congress (he doesn't know what they do anyway) and Cheney will deny Congress ever existed in the first place. If they could end habeus corpus without anyone noticing, and pass the thoughts-are-too-illegal Patroit act, they can do anything. So disbanding the legislative branch shouldn't be too tough; just one more shining star in the Busy/Cheney legacy.

Evan wrote on September 13, 2007 10:05 AM:

As usual, the Democrats (and Democracy, for that matter) are one step behind the Madman Bush and Reptillian Cheney. Compared to them Al Gonzales looked pretty good! Of course, Busy & Cheney are a bit distracted, what with hunting down those weapons of mass destruction they got so excited about.

But I digress with no progress. Reid will back down because all the Democrats seem to know how to do is cave. The American people seem so captivated by the West Wing idiots that it takes a good scandle like Whitewater, with thousands of lives and billions of dollars lost (and that was just in Kenny Starr's ofc) to wake them up. Most of them forgot why Bush sent us to war in the first place. Which was . . . let's see, I know this . . .

But it's so simple. If Reid, or anyone else, ever finds a backbone (HA!), Bush will simply dissolve the Congress (he doesn't know what they do anyway) and Cheney will deny Congress ever existed in the first place. If they could end habeus corpus without anyone noticing, and pass the thoughts-are-too-illegal Patroit act, they can do anything. So disbanding the legislative branch shouldn't be too tough; just one more shining star in the Busy/Cheney legacy.

Ygor wrote on September 13, 2007 10:33 AM:

*Sigh* Ted Olson. Are we not living through the movie "Revenge of the Nerds XIII". You know, the one where the nerds team up with the jocks to humiliate and abuse the people who were actually nice to them in High School.

Heil Mary wrote on September 13, 2007 2:18 PM:

Bluebeard Olson has been widowed 3x. Ballerina Barbara may not even be dead. Because they are Opus Deiers, divorce and an anullment would be forbidden. Fake black ops martyrdom was a perfect way for Barbara to exit their marriage, boost her book sales and help with the Nazi Bush/pedophile Vatican world enslavement agenda. Disinfo blogger Tom Flocco reported that she was arrested in Europe a few years ago with a Vatican passport and counterfeit money. She's too evil to be dead and is probably shacking up with some facsist mogul in Europe. During the Clinton years, I ran into Ted while he was ILLEGALLY leafletting WHITE WOMEN ONLY in the DC subways, urging them to overbreed to prop up "collapsing Social Security". I had seen this same Nazi drivel in The Washington Times, so I got in his face, called him a mother-killing, pedophile sweatshop owner, and reported him to a Metro attendant. He was well-dressed and spoke in a distinctive gravelly voice. I don't know if Metro police caught up with him and I didn't know who he was until after 9/11. He would definitely exploit the DOJ to police the wombs of all women he's not personally screwing (who are allowed contraception and abortions, mind you) because the rest of us are just throwaway broodmares for his pedophile Vatican and Bush oil heists.

Heil Mary wrote on September 13, 2007 3:22 PM:

Oracle, I wondered exactly the same thing. His suspicious lack of rage against the pretend incompetence of the Bushistas PROVES TO ME THAT HE WAS IN ON THE 9/11 INSIDE JOB COUP. His alleged calls from Barbara have been proven by several investigators to be impossible lies. Her "claims" helped set up heretic Muslim patsies as the alleged perps for Bush's oil heist invasions. Ted probably isn't angry because he knows Barbara is STILL ALIVE-that's why no priest for his 4th wedding. He shacked up with Barbara before their wedding and probably plans to live in legal sin with No. 4 until Barbara secretly croaks for real. I suspect he and Barbara planned to split but learned they couldn't get a Catholic anullment, so she volunteered to play a martyr for Bush's Fourth Reich rampage. Having met Ted and experiencing his cold contempt for the billions of women who suffered gruesome childbirth death or maiming, and learning he was widowed twice before Barbara, I can tell you he is an experienced sociopathic misogynist. Bluebeard Olson should be his name.

Heil Mary wrote on September 13, 2007 3:25 PM:

Oracle, I wondered exactly the same thing. His suspicious lack of rage against the pretend incompetence of the Bushistas PROVES TO ME THAT HE WAS IN ON THE 9/11 INSIDE JOB COUP. His alleged calls from Barbara have been proven by several investigators to be impossible lies. Her "claims" helped set up heretic Muslim patsies as the alleged perps for Bush's oil heist invasions. Ted probably isn't angry because he knows Barbara is STILL ALIVE-that's why no priest for his 4th wedding. He shacked up with Barbara before their wedding and probably plans to live in legal sin with No. 4 until Barbara secretly croaks for real. I suspect he and Barbara planned to split but learned they couldn't get a Catholic anullment, so she volunteered to play a martyr for Bush's Fourth Reich rampage. Having met Ted and experiencing his cold contempt for the billions of women who suffered gruesome childbirth death or maiming, and learning he was widowed twice before Barbara, I can tell you he is an experienced sociopathic misogynist. Bluebeard Olson should be his name.

Randy the Republican wrote on September 13, 2007 3:55 PM:

You democrat liberal socialists are simply fools. I really pity you.

olo wrote on September 13, 2007 7:36 PM:

Reid is a BSing pussy !

This must be about the 6578375654th time he's said "I intend to do everything I can... " to do something he failed or refused to do.

olo wrote on September 13, 2007 7:54 PM:

Oh -- and @ randy (doesn't randy mean stinky genitals or something?)

Go commit an anatomically impossible act on your poop chute.

Randy the Republican wrote on September 14, 2007 9:18 AM:

Dear Olo

Do I need to repeat my previous statement because evidently you did not get it the first time?

v. popvli wrote on September 14, 2007 4:00 PM:

randy,

just because you say it doesn't make it so.

democrats aren't socialists.

just like republicans aren't fascists.

though each side might like to believe one of the two statements, it doesn't provide enlightening debate or discourse on real issues of importance to the country - like iraq, checks and balances, executive privilege, immigration, health care, &c. - to call eachother dirty political names.

so please posit a contention worthy of engagement. or go to europe if you want to call people socialists. you'll have more luck finding them there.

Randy the Republican wrote on September 14, 2007 4:56 PM:

V. Popvli,

According to Merriam Webster's Dictionary, Socialism is defined as, "a social system based on government control of the production and distribution of goods".

All democrat talking heads profess the virtue of large government, government control of virtually everything in our lives and the redistribution of wealth. If this is not socialism in its most simplistic form, I do not know what is.

It is also very apparent that the Democrat party of FDR, Harry Truman and JFK no longer exists. It is now being run by the "kook" left fringe such as the "Move on.org's" of the world. This in itself is destroying the moral fabric of our God ordained country.

The war were are now fully engaged in on terrorism is very real and if we don't stop it now, I am not sure it can be when our children are grown. Please help me understand why you feel diplomacy will deliver us from modern day Nazi's. Look at the mistakes of our past in dealing with these despot clones.

Please answer my question honestly: Who do you think OBL and his minions support in our national elections? From some of the comments your democrat party presidential candidates are spewing, I would say they are reading from the same playbook as Al-Qaeda. Or at the least, playing into their hands.

V. Popvli wrote on September 14, 2007 6:26 PM:

Randy,
Government doesn't control the production of goods in the U.S. Democrats certainly don't support that idea. I'm pretty sure both parties are against state owned enterprises. you can find those in china and russia.

We democrats also don't advocate that the government should control the distribution of goods. what makes you think we do? Do any democrats support USPS taking over all product distribution duties? I'm pretty sure we don't.

we're also not for government control of everything in our lives. take abortion for instance.. right to privacy... right to make phone calls without fear of surveillance.. civil liberties... we democrats fight pretty hard to prevent the gov from controlling many aspects of our lives.

moveon.org is not the democratic party. nor do i think our party is run by 'kooks.' and people have been complaining about the moral fabric of society unraveling since the 19th century. has it unraveled yet already? what examples would you cite that suggest that it is more unraveled now than 10 or 20 years ago? what harms have resulted? have there been any benefits of this so-called unraveling? seriously, the moral-fabric-unraveling claim was made during school desegregation, during the civil rights movement, and with respect to gay rights as well. Title IX anyone?

"The war were are now fully engaged in on terrorism is very real and if we don't stop it now, I am not sure it can be when our children are grown. Please help me understand why you feel diplomacy will deliver us from modern day Nazi's. Look at the mistakes of our past in dealing with these despot clones."
what about WMD, was that real? whether or not it was the "right thing" to get rid of Saddam, was it really smart to go into Iraq on false pretenses? i think diplomacy, allowing the UN weapon inspectors to do their work in Iraq, would have helped us avoid the war that Bush wanted so badly. Then our resources wouldn't have been drained and we could prosecute operations in Afghanistan much better, much more effectively. Where would OBL be if we'd had 100K troops in Afghanistan by Christmas of 2001? What if we'd decapitated Al Qaeda and tried Bin Laden in an American court in 2002 or 2003? Where would the terrorists be then?

I don't know who OBL and his people support in our elections. The fundamentalist islamic candidate maybe. You can bet that neither democratic nor republican party has fashioned a platform that was meant to cater to fundamentalist islam. And given the following quotes, who do YOU think OBL supports? the guys who want to catch him or the guys who don't care where he is?

"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him."
- G.W. Bush, 9/13/01
"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

Heil Mary wrote on September 14, 2007 7:53 PM:

Bill White, a former business partner of James Bath and George W. Bush, has proof that the Bushes shared joint money laundering bank accounts with the bin Ladens. Modern day Nazis are the GOP, thanks to the Vatican, Dulles brothers and the Nazi Bushes smuggling 30,000 Nazis into North and South America. Prescott Bush was involved in a bungled 1933 assassination attempt on FDR. He and other American corporate Nazi tycoons hired Gen. Smedley Butler to overthrow FDR in 1934 and set up death camps HERE for Jews, the poor and liberals. While Butler heroically blew the whistle on them, Congress dropped the ball. I am disgusted that Randy the Republican doesn't get it that he is the new Nazi and Muslims are the new Jews because Bush/Exxon/Randy covet their oil. 9/11 was an inside job by the Bushes, Cheneys, and sex and cocaine trafficker/WTC insurance scammer Larry Silverstein. Shame on Randy for supporting GOP Nazi treason, genocide, pedophilia, and Treasury looting.

Randy the Republican wrote on September 16, 2007 4:42 PM:

Dear "Heil" Mary,

Again, it looks as if I need to repeat my September 13th (3:55pm)statement for you. Have you ever considered a diet of lithium tartare?

v. popvli wrote on September 18, 2007 2:42 PM:

hey randy, looks like bush is the one who needs some lithium tartare. he sounds like a totally different person in march 2002 than he was in september of 2001. check it out.

panic at the disco london wrote on December 24, 2007 2:14 AM:

wkfhjczd9zjrs6 panic at the disco london panic at the disco london