But when confronted with the fact of how is is (to be polite) ’stretching’ the truth, his reply is to say “So what?” Are you kidding me? Who the hell are these people (22% or so) that still believe this junk he is spewing?

BUSH: One of the major theaters against al Qaeda turns out to have been Iraq. This is where al Qaeda said they were going to take their stand. This is where al Qaeda was hoping to take–

RADDATZ: But not until after the U.S. invaded.

BUSH: Yeah, that’s right. So what? The point is that al Qaeda said they’re going to take a stand. Well, first of all in the post-9/11 environment Saddam Hussein posed a threat. And then upon removal, al Qaeda decides to take a stand.

Now most won’t dwell on the fact that he continues to lie about what a threat Saddam Hussein was, but that is overlooked this time because of the more idiotic remark of “so what if al Qaeda wasn’t in Iraq” before we blew it up, they came there to take a stand, so it turned out to be the “right” move? Even his spin is getting more sorry and obvious. Yet people continue to believe this? Simply astounding.

The EPA document says that mandating a clean-up level for perchlorate would not result in a “meaningful opportunity for health risk reduction for persons served by public-water systems.”

The conclusion, which caps years of dispute over the issue, was denounced by Democrats and environmentalists who accused the EPA of caving to pressure from the Pentagon.

The really sad part about this is when officials don’t even realize how transparent they are when they try to spin things like this. Take EPA official Benjamin Grumbles the EPA’s assistant administrator for water:

“We know perchlorate in drinking water presents some degree of risk, and we’re committed to working with states and scientists to ensure public health is protected and meaningful opportunities for reducing risk are fully considered,” Grumbles said.

Reducing risk going to be considered? Isn’t that their tantamount job, to ensure Environmental Protection? They acknowledge their is a risk, but they have to weight whether the risk is “serious enough” to clean it up? What do we have to do, wait for some elected official or celebrity to suffer a fatal or at least very tragic circumstances, then we can have a rally and Congressional hearings, and THEN move to protect us against something we already know is a problem?

How many days do we have left of this clown in the White House? Can’t we find a way to gag him until January 20th?

A 76-page FBI affidavit said the 51-year-old Democrat was intercepted on court-authorized wiretaps over the last month conspiring to sell or trade the vacant Senate seat for personal benefits for himself and his wife, Patti.

Well, look at that. It looks like U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, can actually stay within the confines of the Constitution, use our legal system properly to acquire a lawful court order and still get the (alleged) bad guy. So maybe that Bush Executive Order “allowing” illegal wiretapping wasn’t so critical after all?

I mean heck, the Iraqi government got to negotiate and vote on it, so why don’t lawmakers here get to see Bush and Co.’s handy work? It affects our troops, and potentially (we don’t know for sure, since we don’t have an official version) leaves our troops potentially liable to answer in an Iraqi court, so why is this being held so close to the vest? What is the secret? And why Joe, aren’t you looking into it? This is the work of your committee, the committee you were so damned desperate to hold on to your chairmanship of, so get on it already, will ya’ Joe?

While Bush sees no reason to pardon those involved in torture, but even Senator McCain (we can stop calling him the Republican Presidential nominee now can’t we?) has said that waterboarding is torture, (though he voted against banning the controversial technique). It was illegal in 1947 when President Roosevelt dismissed a General for waterboarding in the Phillipines, just as it was in 1968 during Vietnam. Whether VP Cheny endorses it or not, it is torture and world sees it as such. Allowing these crimes to go unanswered is simply not the right thing to do.

Back in May Henry Paulson informed us that “the worst of the financial” crisis was over. Then with the bailout package Paulson changed horses midstream, by changing policy on bailout from buying “toxic” mortgage assets, to buying stock. Then of course only last week he said the markets were stabilizing that that he was unlikely to tap the remainder of the bailout funds. Is it any wonder Forbes has called Paulson the worst Treasury Secretary in modern times?

Now, I have actually supported most of the bailout realizing that doing nothing was far worse an option. But even I am now getting frustrated with this. I mean, even as the crisis was starting well over a year ago, somehow Citigroup saw “no red flags” and continued down this path.

Say what you want about automakers, they have attempted to adjust (albeit a bit late) to the market. Citigroup essentially doubled down on their toxic mortgage bets and made a bad situation worse. So why do they get to just offload their mistakes on the American people? I have heard what I thought were just sour grapes comments about Paulson and giving money to his financial “buddies” only. It is starting to sound just a little less like sour grapes than it did before.

From the official transcript(emphasis added):

Q The first one is the Endangered Species Act. Could you just clarify what the administration is seeking by way of a rule change? Would it, in fact, eliminate the requirement that agencies consult with independent scientists before moving forward with –

MS. PERINO: I don’t have it with me, Elaine. I mean, I know conceptually what we support, and I know that the Endangered Species Act is a tangled web that doesn’t actually help support any species, including our own. So I’ll refer you to Interior Department for that. (Laughter.)

Q So you’re proposing eliminating the agency? (Laughter.)

It would be so much funnier if it wasn’t true that this is what we have dealt with for the past 8 years in replacement for a transparent government.

Now, this has been tried and failed before, but the Bush administration is trying an end run around this time by attempting to pass this off as “protection from discrimination” in employment. Just how can I be so sure that this is an “end run” and not just protection of employment rights as it is “proposed?” To determine that, you only have to look at who is currently protesting the proposal, and who is backing it.

According to the New York Times article, three officials from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, including its legal counsel has opposed the ban and also goes on to point out:

The protest from the commission comes on the heels of other objections to the rule by doctors, pharmacists, hospitals, state attorneys general and political leaders, including President-elect Barack Obama.

So, who has come out in favor of this? Not surprisingly, the proposal is supported by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Catholic Health Association, which represents Catholic hospitals.

Now before anybody says, “well they can just go somewhere else.” It is not always that clear and simple. This mandate could effectively wipe out existing State laws that require insurance companies to pay for contraceptives, could leave Medicaid patients without care within a reasonable area of their homes and other such problems. It could even in some cases be used almost as a weapon, as it was pointed out in this example listed in the same article

The Ohio Health Department said the rule “could force family planning providers to hire employees who may refuse to do their jobs” — a concern echoed by Cecile Richards, president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

So effectively those against Planned Parenthood could seek jobs there, refuse to provide the support that women used the facility for, and be protected in their jobs by the law, rendering thing inoperable. It may sound far fetched on the surface, but who would believe that a group that is supposed to put “family” first (like Focus on Family) would spend in excess of $500K in order to ensure two people who love each other can’t get married because they don’t “approve” of the lifestyle. In this case they could actually make money while doing their damage.

This can’t be allowed. We cannot allow this lamest of ducks to get this one last opportunity to slap women in the face on the way out the door.