When corrupt lobbyists call the White House...

...we'd all hope that the White House would hang up the phone. But what do we hope for when the White House is the one calling in the first place? From the article Abramoff and Rove Had 82 Contacts, in today's NY Times:

The House Government Reform Committee report, based on e-mail messages and other records subpoenaed from Mr. Abramoff’s lobbying firm, found 485 contacts between Mr. Abramoff’s lobbying team and White House officials from 2001 to 2004, including 82 with Mr. Rove’s office. The lobbyists spent almost $25,000 in meals and drinks for the White House officials and provided them with tickets to numerous sporting events and concerts, according to the report, scheduled for release Friday...

Mr. Rove has described Mr. Abramoff as a “casual acquaintance,” but the records obtained by the House committee show that Mr. Rove and his aides sought Mr. Abramoff’s help in obtaining seats at sporting events, and that Mr. Rove sat with Mr. Abramoff in the lobbyist’s box seats for an N.C.A.A. basketball playoff game in 2002.

After that game, Mr. Abramoff described Mr. Rove in an e-mail message to a colleague: “He’s a great guy. Told me anytime we need something just let him know through Susan.” The message was referring to Susan Ralson, Mr. Abramoff’s former secretary, who joined the White House in February 2001 as Mr. Rove’s executive assistant.

Here's an interesting Bill Maher thought...

...on the topic of impeachment, from an interview with The Onion's A.V. Club:

The A.V. Club: On last season's Real Time finale, you joked about George W. Bush being impeached for lying about a fish he caught, and today at The Huffington Post, you called more seriously for impeachment over the wiretapping scandal. Do you think there's any chance of Bush actually being impeached?

Bill Maher: Well, it really depends on what happens with the elections in November, and what happens to the makeup of Congress, doesn't it? I mean, the Republicans are certainly never going to impeach Bush. Which is sort of hilarious, if you look at how little it took by comparison to get Bill Clinton impeached. If America wants it done, they're going to have to elect people who'll do it. Not that I think that should be that much of a priority in this election, given what a lame duck Bush is.

I'd agree with everything but that last part.

For once, Bush speaks of peace...

...as well as of respecting Islam, and even of the terror in Darfur. His tone lacks the march-to-war edge of his other recent comments, which is refreshing, even if trivial in terms of actual policy - perhaps an indication of how starved for peace talk I am. From a speech today:

"My country desires peace," Bush told world leaders in the U.N.'s cavernous main hall. "Extremists in your midst spread propaganda claiming that the West is engaged in a war against Islam. This propaganda is false and its purpose is to confuse you and justify acts of terror. We respect Islam."

On the crisis in Sudan's violence-wracked region of Darfur, Bush delivered strong warnings to both the United Nations and the Sudanese government, saying both must act now to avert a further humanitarian crisis. If the Sudanese government does not withdraw its rejection of a U.N. peacekeeping force for Darfur, he said, the world body should act over the government's objections..."If the Sudanese government does not approve this peacekeeping force quickly, the United Nations must act."

With more than 200,000 people killed in three years of fighting in Darfur and the violence threatening to increase again, Bush said the "credibility of the United Nations is at stake." (Full AP coverage here)

A quality bit by Jon Stewart...

...on the unscrupulous use of the question mark ("?") by the sensation vendors in the major media, at outlets like CNN and Fox News. Stewart is both hilarious and on-target in his commentary...as he points out, a TV byline that reads "Democrats: Soft on Terror?" is about as fair and balanced as "Your Mother: A Whore?"

See the video via Mediabistro here. To see Stewart's recent interview with Bill Clinton, check The Daily Show's website.

On this 9/11, check Tom Tomorrow ...

...as usual, his commentary is right on:

To read the rest of this week's installment, start here.

Japan's got a new prime minister on the way...

...he's a foreign policy hawk who wants to change Japan's constitution, which renounces war and prohibits the country from developing a substantial military. And does this sound familiar? Both his dad and his granddad were big shot Japanese politicians, and he's known as a "strong leader" because he takes some hard-line stances. Boo.

Politician Says Japan Should Revise Pacifist Constitution
By Norimitsu Onishi, The New York Times

TOKYO, Sept. 1 — Shinzo Abe, the nationalist politician who is favored to become Japan’s next prime minister, said today that Japan should revise its pacifist constitution, as he formally declared his candidacy in an internal party election scheduled for later this month.

In his declaration to run for the presidency of the governing Liberal Democratic Party, Mr. Abe, the chief cabinet secretary, also said that Japan should seek a larger role in the world and further strengthen its alliance with the United States...

Mr. Abe is almost certain to succeed Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi, who will retire later this month in accordance with party rules. Succeeding Mr. Koizumi in the party’s top post would automatically make Mr. Abe the nation’s leader as well, because the Liberal Democrats control of the lower house of parliament, which chooses the prime minister...

His image as Mr. Koizumi’s heir apparent was further solidified after North Korea tested long-range missiles in early July. The incident played to Mr. Abe’s strength as a hawk, and he wasted no time in suggesting that Japan should debate whether to acquire the military capacity for a pre-emptive strike.

At 51, Mr. Abe would become postwar Japan’s youngest prime minister, and the first born after World War II ended. He is considered less experienced than his two rivals, having held no cabinet position before his current one.