Reid Still Doesn't Get It

Americans by and large know that if they break, or even bend, the law there is a price to pay. Well, unless you are a corporate CEO or part of the Executive Branch of government. THAT is the message being sent by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid -- who should know better. Unlike our president, Reid has been around awhile.

It's understandable that President Obama wants to remain focused on fixing the mess left behind by the Bush administration, but Reid should support Speaker Pelosi's call for an investigation on torture.

Senate Democratic leaders, joining forces with the Obama White House, said they would resist efforts by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other prominent Democrats to create a special commission to investigate the harsh interrogation methods that the Bush administration approved for terrorism suspects.

At a meeting of top Democrats at the White House Wednesday night, President Obama told Congressional leaders that he did not want a special inquiry, which he said would potentially steal time and energy from his ambitious policy priorities, and could mushroom into a wider distraction by looking back at other aspects of the Bush years.

The Senate majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, and other top Senate Democrats endorsed Mr. Obama’s view on Thursday, telling reporters that they preferred to wait for the results of an investigation by the Senate intelligence committee expected sometime “late this year.” But Ms. Pelosi renewed her call for an independent panel.

Mr. Reid, who repeatedly denounced the use of harsh interrogation techniques when Mr. Bush was president, suggested that naming a special panel would signal an intent to exact “retribution” and he sought to paper over the disagreement with members of his own caucus, like Senator Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, who want a commission.

Hummm ... let's think about this.

ret·ri·bu·tion (rět'rə-byōō'shən) n.
Something justly deserved; recompense.
Something given or demanded in repayment, especially punishment.

Seems appropriate for the actions of the previous administration.

And what about our Constitution? Is it just a piece of paper, or is there meaning behind the words written? George Bush & Co. didn't seem to think it meant much -- but many of us do.

So come on Reid, it's time to get on board with what the American people want.


MUST READS:

Is Cheney Winning the Torture Debate?
By Eric Etheridge

Abu Zubaydah’s FBI Interrogator Removes the Legal Cornerstone of the Torture Regime
By emptywheel

Flashback: Bush’s FBI Director Said Torture Didn’t Foil Any Terror Plots
By Greg Sargent

Bush Daze

George W. Bush: Delusional to the Bitter End

This headline jumped off the page:

Aides Praise Bush's Resolve
Some say president's reputation has been unfairly maligned for crises that were out of his control.

Are they kidding???

But wait, it gets even better.

Even for a declared optimist, Bush has appeared remarkably sanguine in this season of discontent. The economy is melting down, his own party has shunned him and Tuesday's election is shaping up as a searing rebuke to his eight years in office.

Yet according to allies inside and outside the White House, Bush's mood remains buoyant and his attention is focused on the global financial collapse. In private meetings with business leaders, Bush has made a point of saying that he is happy the crisis happened on his watch so the next president and a new economic team do not have to grapple with it.

Would someone please tell this asshole there probably wouldn't have been a financial meltdown if the Supreme Court hadn't picked him over Al Gore! And this next comment is classic:

"His high energy level and spirit sets the tone for the rest of us," said Kevin Sullivan, Bush's communications director. "There's been no time to worry about any of this other stuff. . . . He believes the American people expect us to finish strong and to leave things in the best possible position for his successor."

And Bush is giving everyone a pony. Do he and his spokespeople think we're stupid? Okay, I can hear you all saying a collective "yes."

And if you thought that was delusional, wait until you read this:

Others inside and outside the administration, however, say the upbeat talk masks disappointment and frustration among many White House staffers, who believe Bush's reputation has been unfairly maligned for a series of calamities -- from the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to the financial crisis -- that were beyond his control and which he handled well. GOP nominee John McCain's escalating attacks on Bush's tenure have added to irritation, these people said.

"Everybody kind of wanted to spend the last 100-plus days doing some legacy things, and the financial crisis has thrown a wrench into that," said one prominent Republican who regularly talks with senior White House officials.

"You have a combination of no legacy stuff, a horrible economic mess and the likelihood that Obama is going to win," this person added. "There is a real sadness there."

GOOD! I'd hate to think I'M the only one sad about his presidency!

And to leave you with good news:

None of this would matter, of course, if not for Bush's deep and abiding unpopularity. Bush has not commanded approval from a majority of the nation since early 2005, making him arguably the most disliked president since polling on the question began in the 1930s. A Washington Post-ABC News tracking poll last week put Bush's approval rating at 24 percent...

I told you there was more good news! So, 43 rides off into the sunset at 24. It couldn't have happened to a more deserving person.

.

Jon Stewart on The Bush/Wall Street Meltdown

Naomi Klein's Shock Doctrine Coming True

George W. Bush came into office with a surplus, and will leave this country in the greatest debt in our nations history when he leaves office next January.

The Washington Post reports:

The Bush administration today sent lawmakers a historic $700 billion emergency rescue plan that allows the Treasury to buy the troubled mortgage securities that have been toppling major financial firms and are at the heart of Wall Street's turmoil.

The package, the most sweeping government intervention in the markets since the Great Depression, was $200 billion higher than lawmakers had been told yesterday to expect. It also does not include the $200 billion that officials said earlier this month the government will spend on the rescue of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

To accommodate the spending, the package also would also raise the federal debt limit to $11.3 trillion from the current $10.6 trillion. The debt now stands at $9.6 trillion.

Let's put this into perspective. It took the United States 200 years to become a trillion dollars in debt. The first administration to dramatically increase the debt was the Reagan administration, who left the country nearly $3 trillion dollars in debt.

I didn't think it possible for anyone to be worse than Ronald Reagan, but George W. Bush has proven me wrong. When Bush leaves office the national debt will be close to $11 trillion dollars.

Our biggest worry isn't about a terrorist attack, our biggest worry is that one of the nations lending us money will call in the loan.

There is still time to impeach the whole lot of them -- and it can't happen a minute too soon.

Blocking Care for Women

By Hillary Rodham Clinton, Democratic senator from New York, and Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America

LAST month, the Bush administration launched the latest salvo in its eight-year campaign to undermine women's rights and women's health by placing ideology ahead of science: a proposed rule from the Department of Health and Human Services that would govern family planning. It would require that any health care entity that receives federal financing — whether it's a physician in private practice, a hospital or a state government — certify in writing that none of its employees are required to assist in any way with medical services they find objectionable.

Laws that have been on the books for some 30 years already allow doctors to refuse to perform abortions. The new rule would go further, ensuring that all employees and volunteers for health care entities can refuse to aid in providing any treatment they object to, which could include not only abortion and sterilization but also contraception.

Health and Human Services estimates that the rule, which would affect nearly 600,000 hospitals, clinics and other health care providers, would cost $44.5 million a year to administer. Astonishingly, the department does not even address the real cost to patients who might be refused access to these critical services. Women patients, who look to their health care providers as an unbiased source of medical information, might not even know they were being deprived of advice about their options or denied access to care.

The definition of abortion in the proposed rule is left open to interpretation. An earlier draft included a medically inaccurate definition that included commonly prescribed forms of contraception like birth control pills, IUD's and emergency contraception. That language has been removed, but because the current version includes no definition at all, individual health care providers could decide on their own that birth control is the same as abortion.

The rule would also allow providers to refuse to participate in unspecified "other medical procedures" that contradict their religious beliefs or moral convictions. This, too, could be interpreted as a free pass to deny access to contraception.

Many circumstances unrelated to reproductive health could also fall under the umbrella of "other medical procedures." Could physicians object to helping patients whose sexual orientation they find objectionable? Could a receptionist refuse to book an appointment for an H.I.V. test? What about an emergency room doctor who wishes to deny emergency contraception to a rape victim? Or a pharmacist who prefers not to refill a birth control prescription?

The Bush administration argues that the rule is designed to protect a provider's conscience. But where are the protections for patients?

The 30-day comment period on the proposed rule runs until Sept. 25. Everyone who believes that women should have full access to medical care should make their voices heard. Basic, quality care for millions of women is at stake.

---------------------------------------------

TAKE ACTION

Those who are anti-choice, anti-family planning see the period of transition between administrations as a window of opportunity. In its final months, they're pressing the Bush administration to do one ridiculous thing after another. We need Planned Parenthood to make sure that common sense wins out over ideology. And Planned Parenthood needs your help, right now. Act now, and share this message with others.

It's the Economy, Stupid

Senators Sheldon Whitehouse, Claire McCaskill and Hillary Clinton discuss the woes of Bush-McCain economic policies.

Clinton: What we have seen over the course of the last eight years is an administration that refused to recognize the threats lurking in our economy. No matter what lurked just beneath the surface or what problems were facing middle-class families. Now, we know that many C.E.O.’s are paying lower tax rates than their receptionists. We know that President Bush and those who carry his mantle seek to lower those taxes even further. Middle-class families have seen their wages decline even as the cost of living has skyrocketed. This administration has the worst job creation record in 70 years.

Millions of families were locked into ballooning and unaffordable adjustable-rate loads as this administration stood by denying there was a crisis. Regulators and regulations designed to keep pace with the markets have been steadily chipped away by Washington Republicans even as companies experimented to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars in ever more complex and risky financial instruments.

The question every voter must answer before casting their ballot is: "Are you better off today than you were eight years ago?"

.

The Source of Uncle Sam's Deficit

Dr. Bruce Prescott, at Mainstream Baptist, has a great post illustrating the current deficit problem. He writes:

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has published a report about "How Projected Surpluses Became Deficits." The chart above puts the information in a nutshell.

I really didn't get much from the Bush tax cuts. I think it was something like $60 a year. I'd gladly give it back with interest if it would help stabilize the economy of our country.

I wonder how many people in the upper income percentiles would do the same?

Excellent question. Any guess as to the answer?

.

Attorney General Protects Lawless Justice Department Staff

"Not every violation of the law is a crime" ... Clearly Attorney General Michael Mukasey didn't grow up in my household. My mother had a certain look, and when I saw that look I knew I'd better stop whatever it was I was doing, or there would be hell to pay. You see, we were punished when we did something wrong ... but that doesn't happen to someone who is part of the Bush Administration inner circle.

Attorney General Michael Mukasey on Tuesday rejected the idea of criminally prosecuting former Justice Department employees who improperly used political litmus tests in hiring decisions, saying he had already taken strong internal steps in response to a “painful” episode.

I'd be curious to know what "pain" Mukasey is feeling? How exactly will this hurt you, Mike?

Two recent reports from the Justice Department inspector general and its internal ethics office have found that about a half-dozen officials at the Justice Department — all but one now gone — systematically rejected candidates with perceived “liberal” backgrounds for what were supposed to be non-political jobs and sought out conservative Republicans.

In a speech Tuesday morning to the American Bar Association in New York, Mr. Mukasey acknowledged that some critics and commentators have called on the Justice Department to take what he called “more drastic steps” in dealing with the scandal, including prosecuting those at fault and firing those hired through flawed procedures.

“Where there is enough evidence to charge someone with a crime, we vigorously prosecute,” he said. “But not every wrong, or even every violation of the law, is a crime,” he said. As the inspector general’s report acknowledged, the hiring violations were such a case, because the wrongdoing violated federal civil service law, but not criminal law, he said.

“That does not mean, as some people have suggested, that those officials who were found by the joint reports to have committed misconduct have suffered no consequences,” Mr. Mukasey said. “Far from it. The officials most directly implicated in the misconduct left the Department to the accompaniment of substantial negative publicity.

“Their misconduct has now been laid bare by the Justice Department for all to see,” he continued. “As a general matter in such cases, where disciplinary referrals are appropriate, they are made. To put it in concrete terms, I doubt that anyone in this room would want to trade places with any of those people.”

Yeah, who would want a multi-million dollar job with some K Street lobby group? Isn't that where most former conservative Republicans miscreants go?

Mr. Mukasey also said it would be unfair, and possibly illegal, for the department to go back and reassign or dismiss those lawyers and other employees who were hired in part because they were seen as trusted conservatives. “Two wrongs do not make a right,” he said.

So let me get this straight ... it's okay to fire nine United States attorneys and replace them with hand-picked conservative Republicans, but to reverse the process would be "possibly illegal." Then how can the actions of the staff you refuse to prosecute not be illegal, and how can something illegal not be a crime?

All this makes my head spin ... could someone please get me a dramamine?
.

Georgia on my mind

Russia invades Georgia, while Bush sits back enjoying the Olymlpics. Will history remember Bush as the "vacation president?"

And what about his relationship with Putin? I guess Bush didn't see this when he looked deeply into Putin's eyes.

And the timing on Putin's part is excellent. The U.S. military is strapped with two wars while the administration pounds the war drum about Iran. Our economy is in shambles. And our lame Congress just went out for its August recess.

And ... the world's attention is on the Olympics this week, so it's a perfect time for an invasion!

So how did the administration respond?

Well, as mentioned above, Bush thought it more important to watch beach volleyball. Condi Rice couldn't be bothered actually GOING to Russia to complain. The New York Times reports:

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice sent a mid-level State Department official, Matt Bryza, to the region to back up mediation efforts which are being led by Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner of France. [...]

Democratic critics of the Bush administration criticized the administration’s moves so far as weak. Richard C. Holbrooke, the former United States ambassador to the United Nations, noted that President Nicolas Sarkozy of France was leading the efforts to mediate.

Ms. Rice, Mr. Holbrooke said, should be on a plane to Moscow, particularly given the administration’s close ties to Georgia, and its encouragement of that country’s efforts to join NATO.

“Their idea of an envoy is Matt Bryza, who is not an envoy at all since he doesn’t have the international standing,” Mr. Holbrooke said. “What administration in history would not have sent somebody to Moscow immediately? Why are we not in their face?”

Thank goodness France is taking this seriously.

.

Never Forget

Graphic by Tengrain at Mock, Paper, Scissors

Rove Cited for Contempt

The Associated Press reports:

A House panel Wednesday voted to cite former top White House aide Karl Rove for contempt of Congress as its Senate counterpart publicly pursued possible punishments for an array of alleged past and present Bush administration misdeeds.

Voting along party lines, the House Judiciary Committee said that Rove had broke the law by failing to appear at a July 10 hearing on allegations of White House influence over the Justice Department, including whether Rove encouraged prosecutions against Democrats.

The committee decision is only a recommendation, and it was unclear whether Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., would allow a final vote. Rove has denied any involvement with Justice decisions, and the White House has said Congress has no authority to compel testimony from current and former advisers.

If Congress doesn't have the spine to impeach George Bush and Dick Cheney, the least we deserve is to see Karl Rove behind bars.

The American people have paid a price ... Iraqi civilians have paid a price ... and journalists and program hosts like Phil Donahue, Ashleigh Banfield, and Bill Maher have paid a price.

The Bush Administration has taken no responsibility, or paid any price, for their actions.

Contact the Speaker and urge her to hold Karl Rove accountable.

.

Hillary Clinton Stands Up for Reproductive Rights

Sen. Hillary Clinton takes on President Bush's attempt to limit women's access to birth control at a Planned Parenthood press conference.

Read her post at RH Reality Check, which is cross-posted at Huffington Post.

"The Bush administration is up to its old tricks again, quietly putting ideology before science and women's health. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is poised to put in place new barriers to accessing common forms of contraception like birth control pills, emergency contraception and IUDs by labeling them "abortion." These proposed regulations set to be released next week will allow healthcare providers to refuse to provide contraception to women who need it. We can't let them get away with this underhanded move to undermine women's health and that's why I am sounding the alarm."

TAKE ACTION

Tell Bush's HHS Secretary to protect women's health!

Dear Secretary Leavitt,

I am appalled at the proposal now under consideration at HHS which will endanger family planning services and undermine the health of women across the country. I strongly urge you to refute this outrageous policy that threatens to affect Medicaid and Title X programs that are important to millions of families.

I stand with Hillary Clinton and women and men across America in speaking out against this proposal. We've had enough of putting ideology over science and failed policies harming healthy families.

Signed,

In her email message Sen. Clinton says: "We've worked hard to guarantee women have access to a full range of health and family planning services, and we can't let the right wing undermine those efforts. This issue is far too important not to act, so I hope you'll join me today in speaking out to protect women's health." I hope you do, too!

Rove ignores subpoena, refuses to testify on Hill

Is anyone surprised? From the start Karl Rove & Co. have viewed themselves as above the law. Why should a little thing like rule of law, or upholding the Constitution stop them now?

No one has paid any significant price for the lawless behavior of this administration. Scooter Libby and Alberto Gonzales received the equivalent of a slap on the wrist. Other than Dick Cheney and the president himself, no one is more responsible for what has happened over the past seven and a half years than Karl Rove.

The Associated Press reports:

Former White House adviser Karl Rove defied a congressional subpoena and refused to testify Thursday about allegations of political pressure at the Justice Department, including whether he influenced the prosecution of a former Democratic governor of Alabama.

Rep. Linda Sanchez, chairman of a House subcommittee, ruled with backing from fellow Democrats on the panel that Rove was breaking the law by refusing to cooperate — perhaps the first step toward holding him in contempt of Congress.

The White House has cited executive privilege as a reason he and others who serve or served in the administration should not testify, arguing that internal administration communications are confidential and that Congress cannot compel officials to testify. Rove says he is bound to follow the White House's guidance, although he has offered to answer questions specifically on the Siegelman case — but only with no transcript taken and not under oath. [...]

A decision on whether to pursue contempt charges now goes to the full Judiciary Committee and ultimately to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Would anyone want to bet on the outcome of this? Didn't think so.

.

Dana Milbank: Economic Anxiety Disorder or One Nervous Bushie

The Washington Post:

Think you’re worried about the economy? Phillip Swagel is a wreck.

The assistant Treasury secretary for economic policy, Swagel came out for his monthly economic briefing yesterday, 90 minutes after the Labor Department reported that the country had shed jobs in June for the sixth straight month.

It was a hopeless spin assignment — but Swagel, the administration’s sacrificial lamb for the day, had to try. And so Swagel, bookish and bespectacled, entered the Treasury Department’s briefing room with evident trepidation. He nodded and offered smiles every which way. His heavy breathing, picked up by the microphone, could be heard in the back of the room. Read on…

What is there to say other than ... YIKES!


h/t to Logan Murphy at Crooks and Liars

Christopher Hitchens: "Believe Me, It's Torture"

Let me say upfront that I'm not a Christopher Hitchens fan, but I do want to give him the credit due for putting himself through this. I couldn't have done it.

How does it feel to be "aggressively interrogated"? Christopher Hitchens found out for himself, submitting to a brutal waterboarding session in an effort to understand the human cost of America's use of harsh tactics at Guantánamo and elsewhere. VF.com has the footage. For more on this visit "Believe Me, It's Torture," in the August 2008 issue of Vanity Fair.

Soldier Suicides at Record Level

Washington Post staff writer Dana Priest reports:

Lt. Elizabeth Whiteside, a psychiatric outpatient at Walter Reed Army Medical Center who was waiting for the Army to decide whether to court-martial her for endangering another soldier and turning a gun on herself last year in Iraq, attempted to kill herself Monday evening. In so doing, the 25-year-old Army reservist joined a record number of soldiers who have committed or tried to commit suicide after serving in Iraq or Afghanistan.

"I'm very disappointed with the Army," Whiteside wrote in a note before swallowing dozens of antidepressants and other pills. "Hopefully this will help other soldiers." She was taken to the emergency room early Tuesday. Whiteside, who is now in stable physical condition, learned yesterday that the charges against her had been dismissed.

Whiteside's personal tragedy is part of an alarming phenomenon in the Army's ranks: Suicides among active-duty soldiers in 2007 reached their highest level since the Army began keeping such records in 1980, according to a draft internal study obtained by The Washington Post. Last year, 121 soldiers took their own lives, nearly 20 percent more than in 2006.

At the same time, the number of attempted suicides or self-inflicted injuries in the Army has jumped sixfold since the Iraq war began. Last year, about 2,100 soldiers injured themselves or attempted suicide, compared with about 350 in 2002, according to the U.S. Army Medical Command Suicide Prevention Action Plan. [...]

The conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan have placed severe stress on the Army, caused in part by repeated and lengthened deployments. Historically, suicide rates tend to decrease when soldiers are in conflicts overseas, but that trend has reversed in recent years. From a suicide rate of 9.8 per 100,000 active-duty soldiers in 2001 -- the lowest rate on record -- the Army reached an all-time high of 17.5 suicides per 100,000 active-duty soldiers in 2006.

The stress that Bush has placed on these soldiers is criminal. If anyone should face charges is should be him. When this incident occured, Whiteside at first faced a possible sentence of life in prison if found guilty of the charges against her.

Whiteside's two immediate commanders brought charges against her, but Maj. Gen. Eric B. Schoomaker, the only physician in her chain of command and then the commander of Walter Reed, recommended that the charges be dropped, citing her "demonstrably severe depression" and "7 years of credible and honorable service."

The case hinged in part on whether her mental illness prompted her actions, as Walter Reed psychiatrists testified last month, or whether it was "an excuse" for her actions, as her company commander wrote when he proffered the original charges in April. Those charges included assault on a superior commissioned officer, aggravated assault, kidnapping, reckless endangerment, wrongful discharge of a firearm, communication of a threat and two attempts of intentional self-injury without intent to avoid service.

An Army hearing officer cited "Army values" and the need to do "what is right, legally and morally" when he recommended last month that Whiteside not face court-martial or other administration punishment, but that she be discharged and receive the medical benefits "she will desperately need for the remainder of her life." Whiteside decided to speak publicly about her case only after a soldier she had befriended at the hospital's psychiatric ward hanged herself after she was discharged without benefits.

Justice for these soldiers will only come the day George W. Bush is charged and sentenced for the war crimes he and his administration have committed in this war based on a lie.

In Her Own Words
Listen as Army 1st Lt. Elizabeth Whiteside shares her story.

9/11 Panel Study Finds That C.I.A. Withheld Tapes

Is anyone surprised? The most corrupt administration in history continues to go about their business untouched. And you thought Ronald Reagan was the "Teflon president."

Tapes destroyed ... was Bush involved? At this point during the Nixon presidency he was boarding a helicopter to leave Washington, DC for good! Does the same fate await George W. Bush? Don't hold your breath.

The New York Times reports:

A review of classified documents by former members of the Sept. 11 commission shows that the panel made repeated and detailed requests to the Central Intelligence Agency in 2003 and 2004 for documents and other information about the interrogation of operatives of Al Qaeda, and were told by a top C.I.A. official that the agency had “produced or made available for review” everything that had been requested.

The review was conducted earlier this month after the disclosure that in November 2005, the C.I.A. destroyed videotapes documenting the interrogations of two Qaeda operatives.

A seven-page memorandum prepared by Philip D. Zelikow, the panel’s former executive director, concluded that “further investigation is needed” to determine whether the C.I.A.’s withholding of the tapes from the commission violated federal law.

In interviews this week, the two chairmen of the commission, Lee H. Hamilton and Thomas H. Kean, said their reading of the report had convinced them that the agency had made a conscious decision to impede the Sept. 11 commission’s inquiry. [...]

A C.I.A. spokesman said that the agency had been prepared to give the Sept. 11 commission the interrogation videotapes, but that commission staff members never specifically asked for interrogation videos.

Oh, don't ask don't tell! But I don't think this is going to save them.

The review by Mr. Zelikow does not assert that the commission specifically asked for videotapes, but it quotes from formal requests by the commission to the C.I.A. that sought “documents,” “reports” and “information” related to the interrogations.

Mr. Kean, a Republican and a former governor of New Jersey, said of the agency’s decision not to disclose the existence of the videotapes, “I don’t know whether that’s illegal or not, but it’s certainly wrong.” Mr. Hamilton, a former Democratic congressman from Indiana, said that the C.I.A. “clearly obstructed” the commission’s investigation.

Is it too much to ask that SOMEONE in the Bush Administration be held accoutable for their actions? Seven years into this mess it appears that it is.

States just say NO to abstinence only funding

More and more states are deciding to just say "NO" to abstinence-only sex education funding. The WaPo reports:

The number of states refusing federal money for "abstinence-only" sex education programs jumped sharply in the past year as evidence mounted that the approach is ineffective.

At least 14 states have either notified the federal government that they will no longer be requesting the funds or are not expected to apply, forgoing more than $15 million of the $50 million available, officials said. Virginia was the most recent state to opt out.

Two other states -- Ohio and Washington -- have applied but stipulated they would use the money for comprehensive sex education, effectively making themselves ineligible, federal officials said. While Maryland and the District are planning to continue applying for the money, other states are considering withdrawing as well.

Until this year, only four states had passed up the funding.

This is further evidence that Congress needs to find it's backbone and stand up to the president on the budget. Bush wants money trimmed from the overall amount, so let's take if from this ineffective program that states are rejecting? Are they considering this? No, Congress is poised to increase funding for abstinence-only sex education from $176 million to $204 million, with most of it going to community organzations. Sounds like faith-based community organizations to me.

"This wave of states rejecting the money is a bellwether," said William Smith of the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States, a Washington-based advocacy and education group that opposes abstinence-only programs. "It's a canary in the coal mine of what's to come."

"We hope that it sends a message to the politicians in Washington that this program needs to change, and states need to be able to craft a program that is the best fit for their young people and that is not a dictated by Washington ideologues," Smith said.

Smith and other critics said they hoped that if enough states drop out, Congress will redirect the funding to comprehensive sex education programs that include teaching about the use of condoms and other contraceptives.

"I think this could be the straw that breaks the camel's back in terms of continued funding of these programs," said John Wagoner of Advocates for Youth, another Washington advocacy group. "How can they ignore so many states slapping a return-to-sender label on this funding?"

States are beginning to speak out about the dangers of abstinence-only sex education.

"Why would we spend tax dollars on something that doesn't work?" asked Ned Calonge of the Colorado Department of Health and Environment. "That doesn't make sense to me. Philosophically, I am opposed to spending government dollars on something that's ineffective. That's just irresponsible."

"These programs are dangerous," said Jonathan Stacks of the Illinois Caucus for Adolescent Health. "We're trying to get people across the state to raise their voice on this issue. I think once those voices are heard, the legislature and the governor won't have any choice but to back the will of the voters."

Wake up Congress, and vote the will of the people -- whether it's for funding for comprehensive sex education, ending the war, or impeaching the most unpopular president in history.

The latest installment of Bushed!

Loved this line!

Olbermann: “So you’ll be resigning, then?”