There's an elephant in the living room. It's the $700 Million that Woodward reports Bush as having spent to prepare for War in Iraq back in July of 2002 - long before General Tommy Franks claims that his Commander-in-Chief had instructed him to prepare for War in Iraq.

The appropriation of the money, Woodward suggests, may have come from the money appropriated by Congress to wage War in Afghanastan.

The White House isn't talking. Perhaps, because few in the "Liberal Media" seem to be bothering to ask. So I will.

Having perused the US Constitution just now again, it still seems clear that only Congress may authorize the spending of US Tax Dollars.

Given the lack of explanation for this questionable, and possibly unlawful, expenditure by the President it's no wonder Team Bush is being silly enough to try and attack John Kerry on his war record! Even though such attacks inevitably lead back to questions of Bush's own military records (or lack thereof). I suppose the gambit to exhaust folks with Scandal Fatigue over a 30 year old issue, ridiculous in the case of Kerry's record, but on-the-mark in regards to Bush who's released records are still conspicuously absent of many key documents, is a goose chase the Administration would rather see followed by the sycophants in the Media rather than a potentially lethal question of High Crimes and Misdemeanors by Bush while in office just a year or two ago.

Of the scant reporting on the topic so far, Cass R. Sunstein in Salon offers a rather to-the-point examination of the possible authority from Congress that Bush may have felt had allowed him to use such funds in this clandestine expenditure.

It seems there are two different Congressional Acts from which Bush may have drawn his authority::

He raises a very good question. But is anybody other than Sunstein (and me and a handful of others in the blogosphere) actually asking it? If they aren't, why aren't they? How lazy is this supposed "Liberal Media" anyway?

But back to the point and the other legislated possibility:

Don't know. But John Kerry might have thrown ribbons instead of medals over the fence in 1971! And Michael Jackson has fired his attorneys!

But I digress...

...Ah, there ya go. The "rule of law". We know it applies to Presidential Blowjobs, worthy of a Constitutional Crisis when lied about. But the secret, perhaps illegal, expenditure of $700 million of tax payer money to prepare for a war against a sovereign nation which --- even by the vaguest terms (and the terms were vague indeed when finally authorized by Congress several months later) - hadn't yet been approved by the branch of governement constitutionally mandated to do so is, apparently, just another one of those things not worth worrying about for the "Liberal Media".

After all, Kobe Bryant is still facing rape charges! And Rush Limbaugh's medical records may be used as evidence in a criminal prosecution against him!

The beat goes on. The fatigue sets in. And that's precisely what Karl Rove and Friends are counting on.

In the meantime, I'd love to remind the made-up and hair-sprayed crowd in the "Liberal Media" set that Woodward actually earned his reputation as an investigative reporter by actually investigating and reporting. I realize that remaining on Scott McClellan's "must call" list is important to keep your face regularly on the Nightly News, but so is doing the dirty work of following up on the tough issues that the American Public needs to know about. Even if the man who might have committed such illegal appropriations of American Funds wasn't running for re-election. The fact that he is, makes it even more important. Please get to work!

Doing some behind the scenes server work, and the COMMENTS may have been un-commentable for a few hours on Monday. Should all be cleared up now. Please comment away as you see fit. Or not. - BF

Various quotes of note from a few of the Sunday News Shows:

Joe "Anonymous" Klein on The Chris Matthews Show:

The Bush Administration's new man in Iraq, U.N. Special Envoy Lakhdar Brahimi, on This Week in re: the possibility of full-frontal attacks on the insurgencies in Fallujah and Najaf:

Hope so. But we'll see. One could apply that argument to every mis-step the Bushies have made so far in their "War on Terror" and yet they never paid it any mind prior to today.

Newsweek's Farid Zakaria, also on This Week, adds the old Neocon-ignored chesnut :

In the meantime, here's Brahimi on Bush throwing in with Sharon on the Palestinian "Right of Return" issue:

If true, it's another good point, since even by the most Conservative standards, it is understood that peace --- if it's ever to come to Israel/Palestine --- will be brokered by negotiations lead by the United States. All pretenses of impartiality in the matter would seem to be completely gone as of now.

And finally, Republican Senator Jon Kyl on the War in Iraq:

So far, the most conservative estimates of Iraqi Civilian Casusualties is a minimum of 8930 and a maximum of 10,781. John McLaughlin reports the number of Iraqi Civilians Killed at over 14,000.

That's all in a country with a population of a little more than 24.5 million according to the CIA World Factbook.

The United States --- with a population of 290.5 million --- lost 3,000 civilians on 9/11. We got kinda unsettled and angry at the perpetrators of that event as I recall.

You can do the math. Any idea how the Iraqis might feel about Americans at this point?

(Not to mention their 1.1 BILLION Arab brethren?)

And just to pile on, I'll add this quote again for perspective on it all. From George HW Bush (Dubya's Dad) in his 1998 Memoirs:

Father knows best, I guess.

From TIME's "Numbers" column last week (Sources - Washington Post and NYPD):

Josh Marshall caught the following this morning:

Good question, Josh.

No, in fact, the "conservatives" absolutely love having their hackles raised by Democrats who either use or nearly use or they can bait into using (Hello, Hannity!) the "L" word. As if calling the President of the United States a "liar" (well, this one anyway) would be the absolute proof of the name callers Lack of Patriotism or Hate Americanism. Thus, that word is usually avoided by pundits, and certainly the media.

But I guess Kerry's not the President, yet? So it's okay?

Anyway, another "Liberal Media" myth shattered. From that headline, it would again seem to prove that ABC, at least, is not part of that elite "Liberal Media".

On the actual substantive point --- and it's truly beyond me why Team Bush would want to keep going back to this same well, since it always gives Bush Opponents permission to remind everyone of Bush's Lack-of-Military Record --- Marshall reminds us that Bush has challenged the military records of every opponent he's ever faced while running for President.

He (or more accurately his Attack Monkey Surrogates) have now challenged the records of all three Gore, McCain and Kerry.

I suppose it's a good thing Pat Tillman didn't live to run against George W. Bush at some point.

Marshall offers Kerry the following pretty-decent advise:

Good advice. Let's see if the Kerry Operatives are paying attention to Josh Marshall.

UPDATE: Since posting the above, ABC has now changed it's headline on the story to: "Medal Dispute, EXCLUSIVE: Why did Kerry change story about Vietnam medals?" - To which one might add "Why did ABC News change it's headline inferring that John Kerry is a Liar"?

That straight-faced report courtesy of Media Watch on the FOX News Channel.

We report, you decide.

You still can't beat The McLaughlin Group for lively, entertaining Sunday Talk.

While McLaughlin's (usually) self-aware pomposity is at least half the fun, the spirited half hour --- sometimes substantive, sometimes less so --- never fails to amuse.

Interestingly enough, after having lost track of "The Group" for the last several years until I finally found them again recently out here on Saturdays and on PBS none the less, McLaughlin himself has taken a suprising turn to the Far Left. At least in regards to his views on Iraq and all the countless flaws thereabouts wrought by Team Bush.

None the less, Eleanor Clift still makes my ears bleed.

Last night's fumbled sign-off was a classic:

Bye-bye!

Charlie Rangel called for it over a year ago - before we sent 700+ to die in Iraq.

His point, as I took it at the time, was that perhaps this country would be a lot more judicious when it chose to wage Optional Wars if everyone in America had a real stake, or was likely to know someone who did.

As the death of Pat Tillman yesterday in Afghanastan finally helped remind us, these "wars" are real and there are real Americans who are getting killed over there every single day. Not simply numbers, but real Americans dying.

The notion that a bunch of men - all of whom exploited opportunties to opt out of putting their own life on the line to serve our country in war when they had a chance to do so - are now so cavalierly willing to send off the sons and daughters of others to fight a war that needn't have been fought is nothing less than appalling.

As well, it is my understanding that there is only one - that's right just one - sitting member of the US Congress (including 535 members of both the House and Senate) who has a child in the active service.

As the curtain has been drawn back to expose the real reasons for the War in Iraq (hint: it didn't have much to do with a "War on Terror") and as the faulty premises on which it was sold to the Congress and the American People come to light (hint: there were no WMD's as everyone else in the world told them), it seems time to take another look at the resources America and it's (mostly) Elected Officials are so willing to expend so quickly on dubious and deadly military excursions.

When Dubya's daughters Jenna and Barbara are forced to serve the country in the military, perhaps George won't be as quick to pull the trigger before attaining a true level of certitude that such action is truly warranted to defend our country and it's interests.

Bring back the Draft and perhaps the real consquences and costs of War will become real again. Not just another ratings bump for Fox News.

When everyone in America has a son, a daughter or a next door neighbor that might be shipped off to fight and die in one of these things, perhaps it'll become as real as it became for just a few minutes this morning, when someone that more than just a few Americans actually had heard about was killed in the bargain.

As we were rolling back from a few peaceful days in the desert this week, steam was building in the Republican Attack Machine against John Kerry's war record. That, in and of itself, should be jaw-dropping coming as it does from the blustering "We Support our Troops!" crowd. I guess by troops, they don't mean John Kerry. But it seems Americans are becoming immune to such baseless and unsubstianted attacks - and perhaps that's the whole point.

So, kudos are due Kevin Drum (formerly blogging as CalPundit) at The Washington Monthly for putting things in a bit of perspective...

None the less, I'm sure such to-the-point perspective won't keep the chattering usual suspects from repeating their contemptable claims over and over again until every uninformed DittoHead in America buys it. Or until everyone else is so sick of it they simply give up caring. Mission accomplished.

I'd been pondering some kind of a satirical blog item for some time that would line up all the former Bush folks that have been branded as "liars" for exposing information that the Bushies didn't want exposed. It's a growing list of rather impressive and credentialled individuals who have patriotically spoken up and subsequently found themselves systematically trashed by the Whitehouse Attack Monkeys and their loyal band in the Rightwing Echo Chamber.

And then, incredibly, I came across a page called "Meet the Liars: The People Leading the Reckless Charge Against President Bush and the War on Terror" at BushPresident2004.com:

Surely this was a satirical Anti-Bush website in disguise, no?! Incredibly - and sadly - after several astounding pages browsed, I learned that it wasn't.

UPDATE: As eagle-eyed satire exposer and Brad Blog commenter Larry pointed out, the site in question is indeed a satirical one! So kudos to the folks at BushPresident2004.com for putting one over on me! Well done! I guess the lesson is either that I should read more closely next time, or that real Republican sites have become so outrageously ridiculous that they have become virtually indistinguishable from the fake ones making fun of them!