] U.S. forces stormed a Najaf house belonging to a radical
] Shiite cleric, who has led a deadly uprising against
] coalition and Iraqi troops for more than a week, as
] American and Iraqi soldiers launched a major assault
] Thursday on his militiamen.

I believe the phrase that they're looking for here is "Will no one rid me of this troublesome priest?"

Yahoo! News - U.S. Forces Storm Shiite Cleric's House

] The lone Justice lawyer sent from Washington to help told
] his Detroit colleagues "he had no intention of
] participating in the trial" and refused to assist when an
] urgent issue arose involving a witness and the State
] Department, the Detroit office wrote.
]
]
] The Washington lawyer "spent the same 10 (trial) weeks in
] a hotel at taxpayers' expense when he was not playing
] basketball in the evenings," the memo stated.

Gotta love this one. The White House holds up as an example of what a fine job they're doing in the "War on Terror" and their example is a case that it appears the Justice Department did everything possible to screw. Just another indication of the sort of quality moves I've come to expect from the shrub administration.

AP: Superiors Hindered Terror Prosecutors

The following is Section 1 of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Now, I can understand why some people, especially religious groups are opposed to the idea of gay marriage. I think they're wrong, but that's not the point of this. Here in the rather questionable state of Missouri, they just passed a marriage definition into the state constitution and in doing so, have created a consequece I don't think they ever considered.

Under the US Constitution, no one can make a law (in this case amandment to the state constitution) that abridges the privileges of any citizen. Because the government recognizes marriage, the recent action means gay people no longer are eligible for it. Well they are, but we'll deal with part 2 of this mess in a minute. Part 1 is, they can't marry the people they wish to marry. Under that standard, the government now has two options. They can either strike down the state amendment, restoring the primacy of federal rule, or, they have a second option, and this gets even more convoluted, they can strike marriage as something no longer recognized by the government.

There's also a third option which is part 2 of this and should be much much more entertaining, which is of course the sham marriage, but that's not really an option.

So why is one of the first two ideas what will have to happen? Well, it says right there in the "bible of government" that everybody is equal under the law, as eligible for any any right or privilege they give as anyone else. Now they can place some sorts of restrictions on these, and have. You have to be a certain age to get a driver's license and if you do certain things, they can take it away, but everyone is eligible until they do something to make themself ineligible. If you follow the rules, everyone can do everything under the law.

Not anymore.

So, what happens now is anyone's guess. The only two options are strike the rule, or abolish government recognized marriage. Marriage is a mostly religious institution anyway, so maybe what the step is, government can only recognize civil unions, and leave marriage to the church. (The IRS would go nuts trying to fit that on a 1040, but no one likes the IRS anyway) I don't think that solution makes anyone very happy because it means changes for all kinds of people. Insurance companies would be forced to retool all their rules because just like the government, companies can't discriminate on religious grounds (which marriage would now be) and states would not be able to do both marriages and civil unions because that falls into the category of "separate but equal" which was struck down under Brown v Board of Education.

I would deeply like to thank the current administration for this pile of crap. They've chosen to make screwing over hate and discrimination a centerpiece of American daily life and are doing their best to make it the law.

] The U.S. military has launched a new operation in
] Afghanistan (news - web sites) involving thousands of
] troops to protect the upcoming presidential election, the
] top American commander said Tuesday.

We're so worried about problems that we're looking at postponing our own elections. What the hell makes us think we can protect them in a place run by the random regional warlord?

U.S. Seeks to Protect Afghan Elections

] lawmakers opted for an ill-conceived program that has
] become a disappointment for seniors, a boondoggle for
] drug companies and a rapidly rising burden for taxpayers.

Now normally USA Today gives one viewpoint and their second OpEd piece is a counterpoint from someone who disagrees with them. Either they couldn't find anyone to argue or maybe that "Drug Discount" is just as screwed up as they think it is.

Answer? It's even more screwed up than they think it is. And who is the idiot who thought this would be just great? Complaints can be sent to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Attn: Village Idiot.

McPaper Attacks!

] Bush noted problems cited in the Senate report, including
] a shortage of human-gathered intelligence and poor
] coordination among intelligence services. But he did not
] comment on ideas proposed for reforming America's
] intelligence network

Hey George? They told you what the problem was, everyone has KNOWN what the problems was. Your solution? Add ANOTHER agency that doesn't talk to anyone! Way to go...

Yahoo! News - Bush Defends Decision to Invade Iraq

] U.S. officials have discussed the idea of postponing
] Election Day in the event of a terrorist attack on or
] about that day, a Homeland Security Department spokesman
] said Sunday.

How about, "don't even think about 'postponing elections' you damn fascists." Gee George, why don't you burn down the capitol and blame that on Al Qaeda too. There's historical precedent for that working. Of course there's also historical precedent for the entire rest of the world getting together to kick the ass of the jackass who did it, but why worry yourself about that?

Election Theft Part Two

] Sen. Pat Roberts, a Kansas Republican who heads the
] committee, told reporters that assessments that Iraq had
] chemical and biological weapons and could make a nuclear
] weapon by the end of the decade were wrong.
]
]
] "As the report will show, they were also unreasonable and
] largely unsupported by the available intelligence," he
] said.

Yep, so much for those WMD's. So now that we've got close to 900 dead and over 5000 wounded to protect the world from something that never existed, can we please get the hell out of the goddamn desert?

Yahoo! News - Report: CIA Gave False Info on Iraq

] But the chairman of the new federal Election Assistance
] Commission complained Thursday that he was rebuffed when
] he wrote to Ridge seeking to discuss election security
] issues, including how to handle rescheduling the election
] if it were to be disrupted by an attack.

Oh yeah... This inspires confidence. "Hey, you're going to get attacked!" "What can you tell me?" "Sorry, I'm too busy to talk to you. You're the one who's going to be attacked."
WTF?

Yahoo! News - Ridge Warns of Election Terror Plot

...There were no exuberant scenes of jubilation which greeted the fall of Saddam Hussein's statue on Firdous Square on April 9, 2003, when U.S. troops swept into the capital.

I think what they meant to say was that there were no cheering crowds now, as opposed to the statue incident, but then, having seen the overhead shot of the statue coming down, there weren't any crowds then either, so oddly, they got this right even though it's not what was meant.

Not what they meant but...