But instead of a landmark debate, Republicans found themselves filibustering their own amendment to stop it from coming to the floor on Wednesday for a straight up-or-down vote -- out of fear that it might fail to get even 51 votes, much less the 67, or two-thirds majority, required to amend the Constitution. Republicans apparently were taken by surprise when Democrats, sensing a huge victory, offered to lift their own objections and proceed to direct consideration of the measure.

O'Reilly introduced the segment by complaining that we are at war and need to be united, but that newspapers like the New York Times are running biased stories, dividing the country and aiding the enemy. "The spin must stop--our lives depend on it," O'Reilly gravely intoned. He then characterized the Times story that day as claiming that the Guantánamo detainees were "innocent people" and "harmless." He said the paper's article "questions holding the detainees at Guantánamo."

I noted that the Times had said nothing of the sort. And I pointed out that the article relied on a CIA study finding that the detainees seemed to be low-level and had provided little valuable intelligence.

That didn't convince O'Reilly, however, who again criticized the Times for misleading its readers by terming the detainees innocent and not dangerous. I replied that he was misleading his own viewers, by exaggerating what the Times had said. "No, I'm not," he retorted. So far, the usual fare on newstalk television.

But then I decided to go one step further: "It seems to me like the pot calling the kettle black, Bill, because I just sat here five minutes ago as you re-recorded the introduction to this show to take out a statement from the head of the 9/11 commission stating that there was no evidence of a link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11."

Sure enough, when The O'Reilly Factor aired later that night, both Thomas Kean's statement about 9/11 and my charge about O'Reilly deleting it were missing. All that was left was Bill O'Reilly, fuming at the liberal media's lack of objectivity and balance, and ruing the divisive effect "spin" has on our national unity. (Read the Full Article)

A third source, an official who works under ISI's director, Lieutenant General Ehsan ul-Haq, informed tnr that the Pakistanis "have been told at every level that apprehension or killing of HVTs [i.e., high-value al Qaida targets] before [the] election is [an] absolute must." What's more, this source claims that Bush administration officials have told their Pakistani counterparts they have a date in mind for announcing this achievement: "The last ten days of July deadline has been given repeatedly by visitors to Islamabad and during [ul-Haq's] meetings in Washington." Says McCormack: "I'm aware of no such comment." But according to this ISI official, a White House aide told ul-Haq last spring that "it would be best if the arrest or killing of [any] HVT were announced on twenty-six, twenty-seven, or twenty-eight July"--the first three days of the Democratic National Convention in Boston. (link via TPM)

In some ways, it is perplexing that conservatives don't roar their support of the World Court's decision condemning Israel's construction of the wall slicing through Palestinian land. Or at least they should support the parts that read like a strong anti-"takings" decision protecting property rights:

Israel is accordingly under an obligation to return the land, orchards, olive groves and other immovable property seized from any natural or legal person for purposes of construction of the wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. In the event that such restitution should prove to be materially impossible, Israel has an obligation to compensate the persons in question for the damage suffered.

This is the most basic statement of required takings compensation doctrine that exists, yet conservatives don't even seem to care. This highlights how unhinged is conservative support for every abuse by the Israeli regime, since they blithefully support actions by Israel that they normally denounce as economic evil.

Of course, the takings compensation portion of the World Court decision is only part of the decision, but the basic idea that the wall will fatally disrupt the economic viability of Palestinians corralled into the remaining portions of the West Bank has been the basic criticism all along. Yes, the Wall is also an international land grab by Israel, but it is its deliberate economic disruption of life for the Palestinians that is most condemned.

In my article, Implications of the ICJ Decision I chose instead, to first of all set out what the court decided, to show it went far beyond declaring the fence illegal. It also declared that the Palestinian people exist, that all settlements are illegal, the Jerusalem is occupied territory and that the UN has a sacred trust to hold all the territories for them.

LOOMING GAY MARRIAGE VOTE IN SENATE PROMPTS NEW 'OUTING' WAVE ON CAPITOL HILL. As the US Senate vote on the proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriages approaches, a handful of gay activists have upped the stakes in the fight. DC Attorney/internet consultant John Aravosis -- who was also a Congressional aide on Capitol Hill for more than five years -- is threatening to "out" closeted gay/lesbian federal elected officials who support the amendment or top aides to those federal officials. Aravosis, who publishes the liberal AmericaBlog site, has run ads in the gay Washington Blade newspaper announcing his plans. Another DC gay activist -- Mike Rogers -- has announced similar plans. In furtherance of this outing campaign, Aravosis identified a top aide to US Senator Jim Inhofe (R-OK) as a closeted gay man. While Inhofe has long had an announced office policy that he will not allow any known gay people to work on his staff, he explained that he will not fire the aide because that senior environmental advisor technically works as Inhofe's staffer on a Senate committee instead of working directly on Inhofe's personal staff. Since then, Aravosis has outed the finance director of a Florida US Senate candidate who is running a pro-amendment TV spot. Aravosis has not yet outed any elected officials in this campaign -- but he's vowed on the site that he will do so if he gets sufficient info.
Posted by Ron Gunzburger - 07.12.04 | COMMENTS (257)