Blue Dawn Politics

Officially Shut Down

2007-06-29T11:22:00.000-04:00

As many of you have already figured out and may have heard from me, I have stopped contributing to Blue Dawn. It's an issue of time- I will only allocate X amount of minutes per day to blogging, and I have decided to exclusively focus my blogging time on my DailyKos daily diary, the US Attorney Daily Update. Please check in at DailyKos at around 5:30 PM EDT every weekday for the latest info on the US Attorney Purge...

Taibbi Hit- Campaign Journalism

2007-04-13T18:12:00.000-04:00

Matt Taibbi, good as usual.

More About Imus

2007-04-13T18:06:00.000-04:00

I really don't want to talk too much about him, because it seems like everytime I get in the car and flip between Air America and ESPN Radio, Imus is all those guys can talk about. It's as if all the famous rich white guys in radio suddenly are shocked that one of their own got s--tcanned for some naughty talk. But I digress.

This diary on Daily Kos is long, but worth it, and it does a pretty good job of summing up how I feel about Imus. Also, here's a quote that relates to a conversation I had with my wife about Imus a few nights ago:

Similarly, from that period to this, I half wonder whether there is a storm over the utterly enfranchised Imus now where there wasn't before in large part because of the underlying anger and skepticism at the media in general that is pervading many, many of these discussions -- the feeling, once again, that we've all been duped, and that these figures that appear on our television sets not only aren't as smart as they keep telling us they are, but that in actual fact they're pretty damn hollow, and pretty damn narcissistic, and pretty damn mean, and pretty damn dumb. Except this time, the media figures that America is angry at aren't some low-class televised hangers on, it is the uppermost rungs of our discourse, the people who decide life and death and taxes and war. And Imus, we have been told, is one of their rulers? No, seriously -- are we fucking kidding?

You can tell, viscerally, when the American public is collectively in a foul mood and looking for a little payback -- it happened to the Republicans last November, an election of intended retribution pure and simple, but the anger at the media itself for many of the same faults has not been sated. It's a broad-based anger that we've been taken advantage of, snookered by hollow people who have been leading America into directions that have been empty at best, and intentionally destructive at worst, and worst of all filling the airwaves with narcissistic self-promotion over how great they've been to do it.

Under this broader premise, Imus certainly isn't the only gopher in this hole, he's just the dumb bastard that happened to stuck his head out first?

I'd say that's about right. Americans are fed up, with a lot, and they've had enough, and no, they're NOT going to forgive and forget this incident, thank you very much.

Seriously, though, take 5 minutes to read the post, it's worth it. Then stop talking about Imus and move on.

US Attorney Daily Update: April 12, 2007

2007-04-12T17:13:00.000-04:00

NEWS ON INDIVIDUAL ATTORNEYS

(As far as I can see, NO NEWS...)

1. Fired San Diego USA Carol Lam: From April 11, Josh Marshall gives a rundown on why Carol Lam's firing is highly, highly suspicious. Look, eventually Congress will have to stop asking why she was fired, because the Administration will either lie or simply not answer the question. It's time to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate obstruction of justice charges here.
2. Fired New Mexico USA David Iglesias: From April 4, do not forget that Republicans Pete Domenici and Heather Wilson are still in deep trouble for their role in Iglesias' firing. As Muckraker reminds us, Sampson's testimony merely served to confirm our worst suspicions about his firing- that they got Iglesias fired because he refused to indict Dems on the eve of an election. Domenici and Wilson will eventually have to fess up about what they did and who they talked to at the White House and the DoJ. And now the Office of Special Counsel is investigating the firing of Iglesias (h/t TPMMuckraker). Go read it.
3. Former Los Angeles USA Debra Wong Yang:
4. Fired Seattle USA John McKay: From March 29, In early testimony, Sampson doesn't specifically recall any Republican dissatisfaction over John McKay's refusal to investigate "voter fraud" in the 2004 gubernatorial election. But as noted above, he does sort of remember complaints coming in from Karl Rove to the Attorney General about not pursuing "voter fraud" cases.
5. Fired Arizona USA Paul Charlton: From March 29, Sampson was only aware of Charlton's investigation of Republican Rick Renzi through news accounts. Under questioning, Sampson states that Charlton's firing was due to "policy disputes," not performance issues. So now we've got two US Attorneys that even the DoJ admits were not let go for "performance" reasons.
6. Fired Nevada USA Daniel Bogden: From April 10, kind of unrelated, but I thought I'd post it anyway. Republican Jim Gibbons, under investigation for defense contracting shenanigans, sees enemies everywhere. Idiot.
7. Fired Arkansas USA Bud Cummins: From April 2, Cummins speaks out.
8. Reassigned Guam USA Frederick Black:
9. New Hampshire USA Tom Colantuono:
10. New Jersey USA Chris Christie:
11. Minnesota USA Rachel Paulose: From April 11, Republican Minnesota Senator Norm Coleman is "deeply disappointed" that Paulose has alienated her staff. That's according to this post (h/t eartha for her comment here) and this article, but I'm looking around for a link that has the official text of his letter. For her part, Paulose apologized to her staff. What exactly she apologized for, we still don't know, because she's not making any public statements.
12. Fired Western Michigan USA Margaret Chiara:
13. Former Western North Carolina USA Robert J. Conrad, Jr.:
14. Kentucky USA David Huber:
15. Southern Mississippi USA Dunn Lampton:
16. Middle North Carolina USA Anna Mills Wagoner: From March 29, from Sampson's testimony, this USA was on an early list, but was taken off on advice from Monica Goodling. Why was she on an early list?
17. Milwaukee USA Steven Biskupic: From April 11, was he about to be purged? Why wasn't he? What stopped Sampson and Goodling and Rove and Gonzales from firing him?
18. Connecticut USA Kevin O'Connor: From April 10, does this mean Mr. O'Connor is a "loyal Bushie?" And why must we insist on absentee US Attorneys?

CONGRESSIONAL ACTIVITIES

- Dems are pissed about the RNC's "lost" emails, and are probably going to investigate this.

- Specifically, Senator Leahy is very pissed, saying on the Senate floor that the White House is lying about the emails.

I'm glad to see he's not afraid to use the 'L' word, and not giving up yet.

- Subpoenas have been authorized for everything. Documents, emails, officials testifying, etc. Now, when will they fracking issue the damn subpoenas, and seize those documents, hard drives, etc.? The more they wait, the more things will get "lost" or "mishandled."

- Dear Alberto: don't delete your emails. Oh, and your friend Karl might be breaking the law. Sincerely, Henry Waxman. Text of the letter here.

WHITE HOUSE AND DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ACTIVITIES

- About the RNC's "lost emails." Yeah, oops.

- Dan Froomkin writes about the conference call held last night by the White House about the missing emails. A lot of questions went unanswered, according to Froomkin. Read his piece, it's worth it.

- CREW reports that there could be 5 million emails "lost" between 2003 and 2005. I haven't read the report yet, because it seems that CREW's server is crashing, but...5 million?!? And this is not the RNC's "lost" emails, this is within the Executive Office of the President, as clear a violation of the Presidential Records Act as we're ever going to get. I think I'm going to throw up.

- Conflict of Interest, defined. DoJ lawyers beat up on Dems with investigations of "corruption" and "voter fraud," all the while also working for the Republican Party in an official capacity.

- Kyle Sampson liked testifying so much the first time around, he's going back to Congress for a second time, although this time it will be a "follow-up interview."

- Save the date. Alberto testifies and makes a bigger ass/liar of himself next Tuesday.

PERSPECTIVE

- Behold those evil "vote fraud" criminals, as the New York Times shines a light on all those "voter fraud" investigations.

- Karl Rove loves "voter fraud", because according to this piece, it handed him a victory when his candidate lost the popular vote. The fun never stops.

- Jesselyn Radack writes that emails are forever, and IT guy jpadgett explains why it's really implausible that those emails are "lost."

- Kagro X, again, reminds us why Congress should not dick around on this and be ready to (wait for it) impeach. Quote:

The last time around, the word was that the most important thing about winning back the majority in Congress was subpoena power.

Well, either Congress has that power or it doesn't. Right now, for all the outrage the Bush White House is producing, Congress still doesn't have the e-mails.

Before we're asked again to "focus our energy" on the elections, let's hear a little bit from Congress about how they'll be focusing their energy right now.

To wait for the judicial branch to do the legislative branch's work is only to ensure the eventual Iran-Contrafication of the current spate of scandals.

As Kagro X says, either Congress has its own powers (e.g. subpoena power), or it doesn't. And if Congress is not willing to fight for its own powers, then, well, I guess we know how important it is to elect Democrats, don't we?

- Glenn Greenwald finds a pattern of behavior (h/t Kagro X).

- RandomSequence writes about something that's been on my mind with these alternate email addresses: communications security. One of the purposes of the Presidential Records Act, which White House staffers seemed to openly flaunt, is to secure and protect the sensitive communications of our highest level government officers. This alternate emailing is not only a problem with legal compliance, but of national security as well. It needs to stop.

- From me, as you can see from yesterday's diary, I was pretty upset about the lost emails, for multiple reasons. My main frustration with the "lost" emails stems from my instinctive (or defeatist, pessimistic) belief that this represents another criminal scandal for which the Bush Administration will avoid responsibility. Where is everybody else on this? Is this the end, or just the beginning?

Good Riddance

2007-04-11T19:18:00.000-04:00

Imus is gone. Good. He was an a--hole.

Clearing the Air on Pelosi's Syria Trip

2007-04-11T19:17:00.001-04:00

Thank you, Richard Holbrooke, for neatly summarizing how much bulls--t this story is (BTW, loooved your singing on "The Colbert Report"). And I almost want to thank David Gregory for not interrupting Holbrooke and letting him say his peace, but no- I really just want to smack Gregory for suggesting Speaker Pelosi is running a "shadow foreign policy" in the first place. Christ almighty, David, you suck.

Amtrak and High Speed Rail

2007-04-11T18:34:00.000-04:00

While perusing a blog post about government spending, the author dropped this link in to an old report that defends the continued funding of Amtrak.

For the record, I have not read the report, because it doesn't appear to be available anymore. I did read the Executive Summary of and introduction to the report, which I presume to be the gist of the entire report. Here's the key passage that seems to be the foundation for the whole defense of Amtrak:

The unexamined underlying assumption such attacks [on Amtrak] is that passenger rail service is a private good. In other words, the service ought to be able to defray its expenses and show a profit by charging customers. This assumption makes an adverse judgment on Amtrak automatic. Amtrak is "failing" only because it is assumed it ought to pay for itself.

The fact is that no transportation mode in the United States pays for itself. All modes have been subsidized. Highways do not pay for themselves; they are financed by excise taxes on motor fuels, taxes not necessarily related to the use of highways. Air travel is subsidized as well. Hence the decision to reject subsidies for intercity passenger trains is arbitrary and inconsistent with public policy.

Notice the logical leap taken there. We "mistakenly" punish Amtrak for not being profitable, while subsidizing all other modes of transport. But I do not view Amtrak as a transportation "mode"- I view Amtrak as a transportation service, no different than United Airlines, Yellow Trucking, or Maersk Shipping. Do we really consider those private and profitable companies to be "modes" of transportation? Should we stop expecting those companies to be profitable, simply because as "modes" they represent a public good? Of course not, and we shouldn't do it with Amtrak either.

I know there's a lot of fear among the left that privatizing Amtrak will essentially kill rail traffic throughout most of America. My response to that is, Amtrak has already done that. For those of us who don't live in the DC-New York-Boston megalopolis corridor, we don't see the benefits of Amtrak. We only know that we can't get a reasonable train trip from our moderately-sized hometown to our destination (or even to a hub airport).

In short, Amtrak does not serve most of America, so why should most of America care about "saving" Amtrak?

There's a better way to reintroduce and reinvigorate passenger rail service in America- instead of government funding for a failing and abysmal passenger rail service, have the government fund passenger rail infrastructure (which is the real definition of a transportation mode). Government has never been good at providing a service, so government should just stay out of the service business altogether, and look to simply support private service entities.

BruceMcF's diaries on Daily Kos outline how we could start developing High Speed Rail (HSR) here (Part 1), here (Part 2), and here (integrating HSR), along with a diary here on developing "express" and intercity rail (you might want to skim this one). The point that he repeatedly makes is that the government does not have to go all out on funding HSR, or funding regular passenger rail (i.e. Amtrak). The government can simply set up a few ground rules that will enable smart, sensible infrastructure investments, which will in turn enable HSR to flourish. Right now, with the government maintaining Amtrak's monopoly (and constantly funding Amtrak's shortfalls every few years), that will not happen.

It's time to let Amtrak die.

Mainstream Media and CNN's Suzanne Malveaux- Lying B-tches, All of Them (UPDATED)

2007-04-06T14:05:00.000-04:00

After seeing CNN's Suzanne Malveaux say this:

I give a hat tip to Atrios for putting up this:

Which reminds me that I should finally and at long last see "Network" end to end. BTW, if you want to figure out what the problem is here, go here, here, and here to see a factcheck of the ridiculous bulls--t being spewed by media outlets, and also go to TalkingPointsMemo here and here to understand why this is so disappointing and tiresome. (sigh) I hate the MSM, I really do- we've seen this so many times before, and until we stop watching, we'll see it again and again and again. I'm mad as hell and I just can't take it anymore.

UPDATE: CNN has been the worst on this story. Take action here.

Apparently Danny Ocean Works at ABC News

2007-04-05T18:28:00.000-04:00

Glenn Greenwald absolutely depantsed ABC News after their horrendous report on Iran's nuclear "capabilities." First, read his piece here (be sure to scroll through the updates), then come back here and read this exchange from "Ocean's 11"--

Danny Ocean: All right. I know a guy. We were in the joint together. Anybody pulls any job in the Western U.S., he knows about it. Give me 24 hours, I'll find out who took your money.

Terry Benedict: (dismissive, incredulous) You know a guy. (To security) Contact the police. I'm sure he's in violation of his parole.

Anyone who's seen the movie will understand the irony of trusting somebody who "knows a guy."

Dick Cheney is Creepy. Just Look at Him.

2007-04-04T17:40:00.000-04:00

Gee Dick, was there something you wanted to add (from behind that bush)? Maybe a "Go F--k Yourself!" or a shotgun blast to somebody's face?

More on the Tainted Wheat Gluten

2007-04-04T17:28:00.000-04:00

The FDA finally decided to identify the importer of the tainted wheat gluten. That's the good news. The bad news is that the FDA had received warning of the tainted gluten, and sat on it for three weeks before issuing a recall. Heartless.

An Inside Look at the Democratic Party

2007-04-04T17:26:00.000-04:00

Tom Tomorrow shows us how the Democratic Party really works. As it turns out, I'm just a mindless borg following the orders of Michael Moore and George Soros. Quite a snarkalicious little cartoon.

Ah, Wheat Gluten

2007-04-03T14:46:00.000-04:00

By now, we've heard about the massive recall of pet food across the country because of contaminated wheat gluten. But let's note the wheat gluten that was supposedly contaminated was "food grade" wheat gluten, as opposed to "feed grade" wheat gluten. That means it's possible this contaminated wheat gluten has gotten into the human food supply chain. Well, it's just some weird-ass 'wheat gluten' that probably only gets used in obscure food products- no big deal, right?

Well, seeing as my wife and mother-in-law are allergic to gluten, our household is very aware of how often it is added into to our food products. Short answer- it's everywhere, and if the contaminated stuff got into the human supply chain, we're going to have some serious difficulty containing the problem. DailyKos diarist AmericanRiverCanyon has more on how widely used wheat gluten is, and I highly recommend you read his post on this.

The Supremes Weigh In On Global Warming

2007-04-03T14:30:00.000-04:00

Well, this is good news. The Supreme Court declares that the Federal Government must deal with (i.e. regulate) greenhouse gases. But before we get all giddy, let me make two points:

1. The Bush Administration has been rebuked before by the Supreme Court, to no apparent effect (see Bay, Guantanamo). Just because the Supremes say the Administration has to do something, doesn't mean the Administration will do something. Obviously this is a great way to start things for the next Administration, but we still have to wait 18 months for that.

2. The decision was a narrow 5-4 victory, with the dissenters complaining about the standing of the plaintiffs. The validity of their complaint aside, this is yet another example (Hamdan v. Rumsfeld also comes to mind) of how crucial it is to get Supreme Court appointments right, and to fight them tooth and nail when they're wrong. We are still paying the price for allowing idiot Clarence Thomas on the bench, and Sam Alito looks scary to me. I can only hope that John Roberts moderates himself over time, and becomes another Suitor or O'Connor.

Where We Discover Consequences

2007-03-29T11:18:00.000-04:00

The kidnapping/arrest/detention of 15 British soldiers by Iran has been making some waves over the past few days. A lot of attention has been paid to whether the Brits were in Iraqi waters, Iranian waters, and who exactly is "right" about this situation. But let's step back for a moment and think about this.

Let's assume best case scenario: suppose the British soldiers were in fact in Iraqi waters when the Iranians just up and kidnapped them. Given the past few years, the Iranians have a valid argument to say, "So what? What gives you the right to not have your soldiers kidnapped, when you've been doing it to other people for years?"

After all, the British and American governments have engaged in "extraordinary renditions" of thousands of people across the globe, and given that those people haven't had any trials of any sort, it's difficult to understand the rationale for those kidnappings. And this is my point: this is what happens when you decide to break the rules.

A close friend of mine pointed this out right before the invasion of Iraq: if we invade Iraq without UN approval, how can we complain if North Korea does the same to South Korea? If China does the same to Taiwan? (side note: that was the fundamental reason why he opposed the Iraq War, and once again let me remind everyone of how wrong I was to initially support the Iraq invasion. I understood and agreed with his point, but at the time I felt finding WMDs would have been able to provide some sort of "justification" for what we did.)

The Americans and Brits have violated UN Charters and Geneva Conventions with these renditions and with the invasion of Iraq, thus setting a precedent for other countries to engage in the same type of lawless behavior. We cannot credibly claim that we're the only countries allowed to ignore international law, and thus our breaking of international law signals to other nation-states their own right to do the same thing.

This is just the beginning. There will be other instances of nation-states engaging in lawless behavior, and we will have a very difficult time restoring any sense of order to the global community, because of our own lawlessness. Our difficulties on this will continue for a long time past whenever the hell we get out of Iraq. Just add it to the list of long term consequences to President Bush's actions.

Iraq Funding- Where Do We Go From Here?

2007-03-29T10:54:00.000-04:00

So the House and the Senate have passed Iraq War funding bills, and both have timetables attached to the funding. Given that, President Bush has already stated his intention to veto the funding bill that comes to his desk. So what now?

Chris Bowers and David Sirota started the discussion, and mcjoan continues it. Essentially, the political dilemma is that passing a "clean" funding bill (a bill with no pork attached, and, more importantly, no timetables and no troop readiness requirements) will get signed by President Bush, at the expense of ever getting out of Iraq before a new President takes office. But, anything less than a "clean" bill will get vetoed by President Bush (if you believe his public pronouncements), and may not even get passed in Congress, given that so many Dems are reluctant to continue the open-ended commitment in Iraq. So, once again, what now?

I think David Sirota hits the nail on the head in his post. We're deep into political maneuvering here, and so it really does become an exercise in politics. Thus, the compromise and weakened bill that has already passed (and will presumably be vetoed) must be strengthened, not compromised and weakened further. Sirota explains (emphasis mine):

The beauty of the situation, however, is that a majority of Congress will now [be] on record supporting the current supplemental with its binding antiwar provisions, meaning a majority of Congress has already taken whatever political "hit" they will take, and there's no real political incentive to back off. If you've already voted for something you think you are going to get attacked on, even if you turn around and vote for something far weaker, you are still going to get attacked for your original vote. That's Politics 101, and every politician in Congress who's ever run a television ad knows that. Democrats standing their ground and demanding an end to the war is no longer risky, both because of public opinion, and because they are already on record making such demands.

So we know that Dems should stand their ground and perhaps even increase the restrictions on Iraq War funding. But that's tricky, too- how should we do this? Sirota again provides a few examples (emphasis mine):

Democrats don't have to send Bush back the exact same supplemental bill with the exact same language. The specific binding language to end the war in the current supplemental is not unique - that is, there are many ways to achieve the goals of that language in a binding way without simply copying and pasting that exact language into the new, post-veto supplemental.
Democrats could, for instance, call Bush's bluff on timetables and take out the sections about a timetables completely - all while tightening the troop training requirements and removing the waiver that lets Bush get out of such requirements. That has strong public support and would effectively end the war, because troops are simply not being trained and equipped fast enough to sustain the current rotation schedules in Iraq. Similarly, Democrats could put a provision in circumventing Bush by ordering military generals to join with a bipartisan, congressionally appointed commission to construct, within a month, a plan for withdrawal within a year that will automatically have the binding force of law. I'm just coming up with scenarios off the top of my head, but the point is that the possibilities to appear flexible while holding firm to binding antiwar goals are limitless and further, that achieving both is essential.

So maybe we don't need a timetable. Maybe all we need are really airtight troop readiness requirements that will essentially reduce our presence in Iraq. We'll see how this pans out (it's possible Bush will back down and just accept the funding with the timetables), but I see it as a good sign that Progressives are already thinking about the next step on the road to getting out of Iraq.

Light Posting explanation

2007-03-29T10:51:00.000-04:00

As you can see, I haven't put up much on this blog lately, mainly because I've been focusing on the US Attorney story, and I decided not to keep flooding this blog with US Attorney daily updates. Those daily updates will continue, however, so if you're interested in keeping up with the US Attorney story, you can go to my DailyKos diary page here.

Aside from that, I'm hoping to return to a regular, consistent posting schedule that deals with stories unrelated to the US Attorneys.

US Attorney Daily Update: March 22, 2007

2007-03-22T18:35:00.000-04:00

- Senate voted to authorize subpoenas. One of the more notable aspects to this was that it was a voice vote, because apparently few Republicans wanted themselves on record. Republican Senator Grassley, for what it's worth, made sure to note that he voted 'aye' to authorize subpoenas.

- Also, let me highlight something in the video seen above. Yes yes, Specter is a sniveling, groveling little bootlicker, but let's also take note that he's lying when he says (paraphrase) "we can always get a subpoena later." The WH offer explicitly required no subsequent subpoenas, in addition to all their other requirements (just look on page 2 of the letter here). If Dems took the White House up on their offer, they would NOT be able to call back Rove et al with a subpoena. It's possible Arlen doesn't know this, but I doubt it, which makes his statement a lie.

- Kyle Sampson will testify next Thursday before the Senate Judiciary Committee (h/t TPM).

- The snowball has really picked up speed and people are starting to expand their horizons on past DoJ activity. Political appointees allegedly interfered with the tobacco lawsuit (h/t EZ Writer). Now, the DoJ denies any wrongdoing, and the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) concurred after its internal investigation, but again, this is the problem that the Bush Administration has created- eroding the credibility of the Department of Justice. Because of the US Attorney Purge, we are forced to revisit and in some cases (IMO especially in this case) reexamine what the DoJ did. There is no telling how weakened our DoJ will be because of the Bush Administration's actions.

- Fired San Francisco US Attorney Kevin Ryan really was fired for performance reasons (h/t TPM). But he was only fired at the last minute, begrudgingly, and after a judge threatened to publicly complain about him. He was one of the USAs deemed strong by Kyle Sampson, but weak by former Deputy Attorney General James Comey. This "loyal Bushie" did not perform well, yet he would have avoided the purge, if it weren't for the judge's threat. That really makes me think we should look at all the other 85 USAs.

- And we're back to wondering exactly why Arizona USA Paul Charlton was fired. Hungrycoyote has pointed out one reason, but beware that the link provided is not for young eyes (lots of "sinful" webads all over the article ;). Hungrycoyote has provided a tamer link for those of you (like me) with delicate, delicate sensibilities.

- ROTFLOL! The 18 day gap in emails is actually a "lull," not a gap, according to the DoJ (h/t TPM). Lordy lordy.

- I missed this, and that was probably not an accident (h/t ckntfld). During all the furor last week over Alberto Gonzales' role in the US Attorney purge and calls for his resignation, etc., he very quietly made two appointments: a new head of the Public Integrity section, and a new head of the Fraud section. I'm sure the incessant turnover at the Public Integrity section, responsible for public corruption, has absolutely nothing to do with the Abramoff investigation (h/t dengre). Nope, nothing to see here. Move along, folks.

- SnowJob didn't do very well this morning, in my opinion. He picks a fight with Harry Smith at CBS, and also claims that Congress has no oversight ability on ABC. I know the White House probably thinks they're doing a good job delivering their talking points, but in both videos I can hear a lot of exasperated sighing going on by the TV anchors. One other thing that bugs me about SnowJob, and also many members of the MSM, is that it's all just a friendly game- in these video interviews, lots of smiles, lots of jokes, lots of laughs, ha haaaaa! Ha haaaa, you're lying Tony, but you don't care and neither do I! Ha haaaaa! To be fair, SnowJob is much more smirky (especially during the CBS interview), but ugh, they're all such d--ks.

- To be clear, Tony Snow did not slip up in his interviews this morning when he claimed Congress has no oversight capability. He clarified at the press briefing today (h/t TPMMuckraker), but he essentially made the same point: Congress can't oversee the President. The authoritarians in the White House are slowly but ever so gently pulling off their sheep's clothing.

- Former US Attorney Rudy Giuliani speaks on the issue (h/t TPMMuckraker). Finally. And doesn't say much. Follow the link if you must, but really, he doesn't say much.

US Attorney Daily Update: March 21, 2007

2007-03-22T18:33:00.000-04:00

- Well all righty then. President Bush will fight any attempt to subpoena his aides about the US Attorney Purge, and he will take it to court if he has to. A small editorial from me: although we are on opposite sides of this issue, I am grateful to President Bush for recognizing the need to address this Constitutional Crisis now, as opposed to in another investigation further down the road. Regardless of the outcome of this public debate, better to get it out in the open and address it than kick it down the road for another issue, another year, another Presidency. This assumes that he's not just blustering, and won't back down, say, around 4:45 PM EDT Friday afternoon by allowing them to testify. Personally, I also think that will happen, but for the moment, thank you President Bush for forcing the country and this Congress to deal with this Constitutional Crisis.

- Speaking of said subpoenas, the House Judiciary Committee voted to authorize issuing subpoenas to Karl Rove, his deputy Scott Jennings, former WH Counsel Harriet Miers, Deputy WH Counsel William Kelly, and Attorney General's Chief of Staff Kyle Sampson (h/t TPMMuckraker). The Senate Judiciary Committee is still set to vote to issue subpoenas tomorrow, and that's when we'll see just how far the Administration is willing to go with their Executive Privilege.

- Apparently, there is an 18 day gap in the document dump on Monday, and it's a pretty key gap. SnowJob doesn't know anything about it, though he's sure there's a good explanation. TPM has more, but h/t to whoever initially found that in TPM's research thread on the document dump.

- Speaking of SnowJob, Glenn Greenwald points out that he had a strong opinion about Executive Privilege back when Clinton invoked it. Money quote:

Taken to its logical extreme, that position would make it impossible for citizens to hold a chief executive accountable for anything. He would have a constitutional right to cover up...Most of us want no part of a president who is cynical enough to use the majesty of his office to evade the one thing he is sworn to uphold -- the rule of law.

Nice editorial you got there, SnowJob. You sound pretty outraged- outraged!- at a President hiding behind Executive Privilege.

- Somebody's finally starting to ask questions about other suspicious hiring & firing. Nonpartisan group Democracy 21 (who?) writes a letter asking for more information about the DoJ's investigation of Jack Abramoff (h/t TPMMuckraker). Text of the letter here.

- Fired New Mexico US Attorney David Iglesias writes an editorial in the NY Times, and it's pretty damning. Tomorrow we'll learn from Robert Novak that his wife is a covert CIA agent...

- Fired Arizona US Attorney Paul Charlton asked the DoJ for guidance on questions regarding his investigation of Republican Rick Renzi (h/t hungrycoyote or TPMMuckraker, I'm not sure which). We are all speculating, but I think ALL of these firings merit a much, much closer look, along with closer looks at who WASN'T fired, and who has been fired over the past few years.

- And here's another USA to look at- former Western North Carolina US Attorney Robert J. Conrad, Jr (h/t a gnostic). He was replaced before he could interrogate former Republican Congressman Charles Taylor about his role in a bad loan scam at the bank he owns.

FWIW, Mr. Conrad has denied any political interference in the investigation, but that's almost not the point. The mere fact is that these "wild" claims of political interference in local investigations and prosecutions are more credible today than they were prior to the USA Purge. Degrading the credibility of the DoJ hurts America, and that's exactly what the Bush Administration has done here.

US Attorney Daily Update: March 20, 2007 (UPDATED)

2007-03-20T19:17:00.000-04:00

UNCLE! UNCLE UNCLE UNCLE! This story seems to be expanding exponentially, and I'm having difficulty staying on top of it...

- Thankfully, we seem to have stalled for a moment here, and I blame the massive size of last night's document dump on that. Bottom line: we still(!) have not progressed on the Carol Lam front. Despite the thousands of pages released last night, very little dealt with Carol Lam (section 1-1 of the document dump here). As far as I can see, the earliest document dealing with her "border crimes" problem was an October 2005 letter (section 1-1 page 25-26) from 19 members of Congress (more on that in a sec) to the DoJ complaining about the virtual "catch and release" program the DoJ had for immigrations violations. First, as I saw in the documents, the DoJ (through Assistant AG William Moschella) defended Carol Lam's handling of border crimes (section 1-1 page 44-46 in a letter to Senator Feinstein), citing a lack of staff resources as the problem, not a lack of priority on Lam's part (section 1-1 page 47-49 in a response letter to Darrell Issa). But second, I thought it interesting who signed that complaint letter (along with 18 other members of Congress)- none other than Duke Cunningham, who was under investigation by Carol Lam at the time. As such, I'm sure it's just a coincidence that the only egregious example of "catch and release" specified in the letter occurred in Carol Lam's district. As Josh at TPM notes, apparently Duke thought Carol Lam was focusing on too much corruption too. No no, nothing to see here, now move along...

- TPM's first thoughts on the document dump here. Patrick Fitzgerald is examined by the WaPo, because he was given a "middling" rating according to Administration officials.

- What's missing from the document dump? Well, anything that might indicate White House involvement, that's what. Tim Grieve at Salon's War Room reminds us (no idea if the link works, too many firewalls) that the DoJ is not claiming this document dump is comprehensive, and is actually actively withholding White House documents, because of...because of...well, just follow the link and see if you can make sense of the DoJ's argument here.

- Going beyond for a moment who originally decided to fire these USAs and why- who is deciding on the replacements, and why? Rayne put up an excellent diary pointing out that a heavyweight Republican donor will be "recommending" replacements for San Francisco USA Kevin Ryan and (wait for it) San Diego USA Carol Lam! Yikes.

- Senate passes 94-2 a bill that should close the Patriot Act loophole that started this mess (h/t TPMMuckraker). We'll see.

- Who's testifying where. Apparently, AG Gonzales will not testify in front of the House Appropriations Committee this Thursday, as previously planned (h/t BarbinMd). That may mean something, or it may mean nothing (personally, I think it means something). The White House just released a statement that will "allow" Karl Rove and Harriet Miers to give "private interviews" to the Senate Judiciary Committee (h/t Jay Carney at Time's Swampland). UPDATE: here's the text of the letter. My former Senator Leahy has vowed to get White House officials to testify in public, so I highly, highly doubt this will work. On Thursday there will be a vote to issue subpoenas to Karl Rove, former WH Counsel Harriet Miers, and deputy WH Counsel William Kelly, and this response has probably sealed the deal. The House Judiciary Committee will vote tomorrow to authorize subpoenas for those same people (h/t ThinkProgress).

- I don't want to delve too much into the talking points portions of the document dumps, because I'm not sure there's much to see there- in my opinion, it's mostly partisanship, personal spitting matches, and political maneuvering, as opposed to criminal conduct. I do want to point out this post by TPMMuckraker, however, with the purpose of hammering home, yet again, that most of the "problems" with the purged USAs cited by the DoJ are complete bulls--t. If the "problems" keep coming up as bogus and after-the-fact, as they have so far, then the DoJ employees involved with this purge keep edging closer and closer to obstruction of justice, especially with Carol Lam. Don't let anyone tell you that this is scandalous, but not necessarily illegal- this continues to look and smell like obstruction of justice.

- I've kicked Time magazine around for not aggressively covering this story, so let me just point out that Ana Marie Cox at Time's Swampland appears to have picked up the ball and ran with it. She's doing a good job combing through the emails, and also Going Astronaut^TM on fellow Swamplander Michael Kinsley for shrugging his shoulders on this story. Having said all that, however, I speculate that she and others at Time have valuable Administration sources that they have not (aggressively) tapped yet (she previously had IM conversations with WH official Dan Bartlett, but that didn't go very far), so I hope to see more out of her. McClatchy and TPM are still top dogs on this, with WaPo coming in a respectable third.

MUSINGS ON WHERE TO EXPAND THE US ATTORNEY STORY

- But let's not get so obsessed with Carol Lam that we forget all the other angles. There are many, many problems with this US Attorney Purge, and it points to many other possible instances of corruption in this Administration and DoJ. Let's not forget that many USAs have turned over in drips and drabs over the past few years, or that many USAs that WEREN'T purged are doing some, well, INTERESTING things. Guam USA Frederick Black (occams hatchet provides a good summary), Arizona USA Paul Charlton (h/t Glenn Greenwald, behind Salon firewall), Los Angeles USA Debra Wong Yang (leveymg's been doing work on this), New Hampshire USA Tom Colantuono (good work Betsy Devine), New Jersey USA Chris Christie, Kentucky USA David Huber, New Mexico USA David Iglesias, Southern Mississippi USA Dunn Lampton (h/t hungrycoyote)...these people are worth looking into.

- Also, many USAs are "interim" appointments which, according to the new infamous Patriot Act provision, has no time limit and no Senate confirmation requirement. So the "interim" USAs should be looked at as well. Fourteen have been made "interim" since the new provision, and that list is here. theghostofkarlafayetucker has been pointing that out, and I've encouraged him to keep working on it. I encourage anyone reading this diary to beg him to keep working on this part of the story.

- One more thing. There are 93 USAs across the country and only 8 were purged, meaning there are many other USAs who have been at least indirectly affected by this. Have any media outlets gotten comments on this purge from all the other USAs, and how it affects their respective offices? Is this purge perceived as a signal to everyone else? There is statistical evidence that makes this question valid and newsworthy.

As MissLaura pointed out on the frontpage today, let's put people-powered energy into this investigation. I think we'll all feel surprised/disgusted/validated by what we find.

As much as I loved Michigan basketball coach Tommy Amaker, it was time for him to go...

UPDATE: I thought I'd highlight a passage from Glenn Greenwald's piece about Paul Charlton. Recall that Paul Charlton butted heads with the DoJ and the FBI because he wanted to require law enforcement agents to record confessions and interviews of suspects, which various agencies did not want to do. Glenn points out some things to think about WRT the objections made by the DoJ (emphasis in original):

This is rather notable for multiple reasons. Initially, the conduct of agents in interrogations would only be at issue where the defendant was claiming that the statements or confessions were coerced -- or otherwise obtained using methods that cast doubt on the reliability of the statements. In such cases, federal agents -- in the absence of a recording -- would still be asked about what they said and what they did in order to prompt the responses or confessions. Thus, even in the absence of a recording, their conduct during the interrogation would be known to the jurors -- unless they lie about what they did and conceal their behavior....The difference between recording v. no recording is not whether the conduct of federal agents will be an issue in a trial. The difference is whether there will be an accurate or inaccurate record of what these law enforcement agents are doing to extract statements and obtain confessions. Yet here, every federal law enforcement agency is expressly arguing against recordings because they want to conceal from the jury what they did (or because they want to conceal what the defendant actually said).

UPDATE II: the Decider has spoken (h/t RenaRF). I only caught portions of it, so follow the link for a transcript of his speech. But let me just put the big thing he said in bold and capital letters: HE WILL OPPOSE ANY ATTEMPT TO SUBPOENA WHITE HOUSE OFFICIALS ABOUT THEIR ROLE IN THE FIRINGS. He also said the AG acted completely appropriately, and the offer delivered today was a reasonable proposal. I'll catch the rest later tonight, but in the meantime...holy s--t. I don't think the Decider realizes that he's essentially dared Leahy and Conyers to call his bluff. He will lose this battle, and he will end up in court trying to convince a judge (and the American people) that he has a right to hide things from Congress and the American people, and while he's doing that this story will drag on and on...and on. Wow.

US Attorney Daily Update: March 19, 2007

2007-03-19T19:28:00.000-04:00

- We've been hearing a lot about the "performance reasons" that necessitated firing this group of USAs, with the White House and the Department of Justice throwing out several explanations before settling on "insufficient investigation of voter fraud" charge as a recurring theme with some of the USAs. Now, as many have already pointed out, "voter fraud" is mostly a myth, and is simply trumpeted by Republicans in order to justify more stringent voter registration laws (which, coincidentally, disproportionately affect groups more likely to vote for Democrats, like minorities). But it's interesting to note that not even that red herring works as a justification (h/t TPMMuckraker), as we learn today that New Mexico USA David Iglesias received a lot of praise for his work investigating voter fraud. I mean, A LOT of praise- the DoJ invited him (and only one other USA) to teach at a voting integrity symposius. Would you do that with someone who was supposedly "incompetent" at investigating "voter fraud?"

- On Saturday, sort-of-ex Chief of Staff to Alberto Gonzales Kyle Sampson released a statement (via his lawyer) saying his big mistake was in not organizing "an effective response" to the charges of impropriety with the USA firings. So, we've got a conflict here: AG Gonzales, Deputy AG Paul McNulty, and McNulty's aide William Moschella (the three who falsely testified to Congress about the firings), have said the mistake Sampson made was in not effectively communicating with others at the DoJ, the WH, and Congress, but Sampson is saying that the DoJ and the WH knew what was going on. TPM has more here, and take note of how Sampson's statement has "evolved."

- Again, Carol Lam comes to the forefront, and again, timing is the issue. Carol Lam notifies DoJ of her intention to execute search warrants on CIA official Dusty Foggo, and DoJ (via Kyle Sampson) sends an email THE VERY NEXT DAY to the White House (to White House Counsel William Kelly) suggesting Carol Lam is a real problem and should be fired (h/t Kos). No, no, nothing to see here.

- Speaking of which, SnowJob tries to explain away that timing, and comes up dishonest. What a surprise. Josh at TPM goes through an extensive and lengthy analysis, and I encourage you to read it, but let me attempt to boil it down a bit.

SnowJob claims that WH and DoJ officials were concerned about Carol Lam's immigration enforcement as far back as January 2005, which is simply not true- there's no meaningful mention of her immigration enforcement, and it's not clear she was on the chopping block back then. Further, Sampson's May 2006 email about Carol Lam (cited above) makes no mention of her immigration enforcement. Indeed, the first mention of Carol Lam's immigration enforcement comes 3 weeks later, in which Sampson asks "has ODAG [Office of Deputy Attorney General] ever called Carol Lam and woodshedded her re immigration enforcement?" Theoretically, this expresses concern that she's not doing her job properly, but remember that Sampson is asking if the DoJ has even RAISED the issue with Carol Lam, AFTER she's already been determined (by Sampson) to be "a real problem." In light of SnowJob's explanation on Carol Lam today, it's my opinion that the WH continues to offer NO CREDIBLE EXPLANATION for Carol Lam's firing, and her firing continues to look suspicious.

- AG Gonzales Death Watch. Speaker Pelosi calls for "a new Attorney General" (h/t TPMMuckraker). InTrade puts AG Gonzales at a 44% chance to last through March, a 21% chance through June, a 30.5% chance through September, and a 14% chance through the end of the year. Those are all based on last transaction, so the numbers look a little wonky.

- Newsweek has put together a pretty complete writeup of the story so far. Although the article oozes DC "wisdom" that does too much shoulder shrugging, note that TPM has culled some gems from this story. Newsweek provides good behind-the-scenes color in this one, so I think it's worth reading.

UPDATE: a few have pointed out the connection that ThinkProgress made to the White House (h/t Linda in SFNM). I don't know, it looks juicy, and knowing these bastards it's probably true, but I want to hold off until I see more evidence. I do like that people keep focusing on Carol Lam. She's the key.

I Learn a Little More About Hummers

2007-03-16T18:19:00.000-04:00

FUH2. They really are obnoxious cars, aren't they?

US Attorney Update: March 16, 2007

2007-03-16T18:16:00.000-04:00

- TalkingPointsMemo releases a comprehensive timeline of the US Attorney Purge, based on what we know so far. One curious and somewhat interesting point: Carol Lam was on a list of suggested USAs to fire before she expanded her investigation into the CIA, Republican Jerry Lewis, and Defense contractors. Let's note, though, that she was put on this list after she convicted Republican Duke Cunningham.

- White House not ready to cooperate with Congress for their US Attorney hearings (h/t TPMMuckraker). No documents will be forthcoming until next week, so the White House says. Really, are Dems politicians shocked at this? Come on, issue the subpoenas and let's get moving.

- 1...2...3! 3 Republicans to call for Attorney General Gonzales to resign! Ah ah ah!

- Late yesterday, purged US Attorney David McKay called for a Special Prosecutor to investigate what happened (h/t Lapin).

- Oh yeah, and about Seattle US Attorney David McKay's potential replacement, former Republican Congressman Rick White? Yeah, well, he's not authorized to practice law in Washington State (h/t TPM). Ah well, at least he'll investigate all those claims of "voter fraud"...

- More editorials. This from the Albuquerque Tribune calls for AG Gonzales to resign or be fired, and was caught by MissLaura because it took a few good swipes at NM Republicans Pete Domenici and Heather Wilson for their role in this mess. This from the NY Times, which, quite honestly, just plain SLAMS the White House's and Republican Party's "concern" about investigating "voter fraud" (h/t mcjoan).

- Where did the idea to fire all 93 US Attorneys come from, anyway? Well, it's not clear, but from the emails released yesterday, Karl Rove, Harriet Miers, and Alberto Gonzales were discussing the idea very, very early. And all three of them considered loyalty to be a high priority- specifically, those USAs who were "loyal Bushies" could stay, those who weren't would get pushed out the door. TPM discusses this a little more, and here's a notable exchange from SnowJob's morning briefing:

QUESTION: Can I follow on ... I'm unclear. Is it still operative that Harriet Miers was the one who thought up to fire everybody?

SNOW: First, let's ... I don't know. We know that ...

QUESTION: Harriet ...

SNOW: ... and what I'm saying is, there was a ... the original Kyle Sampson memo that everybody saw that said it was Harriet's idea. I think the thing that we can say with assurance is that Karl remembers her raising it to him and his saying he didn't think it was a good idea. I don't think ... I don't think it's safe to go any further than that, because that is all at this juncture.

QUESTION: But what do we do with the information we had from you that it was Harriet Miers' idea?

SNOW: Well, I mean, it has been described as her idea, but whether it is ... I don't know where ... I don't want to try to vouch for origination, but let's ...

QUESTION: Is that exactly what Congress wants to get ... I mean ...

SNOW: Well, let me ... you know, here's ... again, let's put all this in context. The President has the presidential authority to replace anybody he wants. And so it is ... but furthermore, it is ... this is an idea. This is not ... I'm not even ... it's not even clear that this is a recommendation as much as a musing, a possibility: Okay, we're coming into a new administration, we've just had an election ... what are some of the options? How do we think about making sure that we've got the best team available for a second term?

Wow. Lot of flop sweat there, Tony. Keep trying.

- TPM has highlights of SnowJob's morning briefing here, and highlights of the afternoon briefing here. Only really one notable exchange, involving Harriet Miers thinking or not thinking up the idea to fire all 93 USAs (see above). Beyond that, I don't see much here. The WH Press Corps and SnowJob did a lot of dancing on what exactly "loyalty" means, and how much it played a part in deciding who gets fired, yada yada yada. Sometimes everyone, including the Media, can get a little too cute about such things.

- A little editorializing by me. You would think that after this dumb, embarrassing, arrogant post from the WASHINGTON BUREAU CHIEF at Time magazine, that Jay Carney and other Time bloggers would be all over the US Attorney story, trying to regain credibility lost in all their "wise" shoulder shrugging and yawning. With the exception of a few short posts here and there by Karen Tumulty and Ana Marie Cox however, you'd be wrong. Time has been mostly silent on this story, and as far as I know, has not even called for AG Gonzales to resign. This surprises me- if nothing else, sheer ego should be motivating them to catch up to (and get ahead of) TPM, the NY Times, and most other news organizations.

Virginia (my brother's alma mater) wins solidly. Wa-hoo-WA!

US Attorney Update: March 15, 2007 (Updated)

2007-03-15T18:22:00.000-04:00

- To anyone that thought that Abu Gonzales was really just an idiot in over his head with kinda sorta good intentions, Murray Waas throws ice cold water on that (h/t Buffalo Girl). Money quote, right in the first paragraph:

Shortly before Attorney General Alberto Gonzales advised President Bush last year on whether to shut down a Justice Department inquiry regarding the administration's warrantless domestic eavesdropping program, Gonzales learned that his own conduct would likely be a focus of the investigation, according to government records and interviews.

How convenient.

- From the AP, subpoenas have been approved by the Senate Judiciary for Department of Justice employees Michael Elston, Kyle Sampson, Monica Goodling, Bill Mercer and Mike Battle, as well as the six attorneys they had a hand in firing, but the Committee decided to postpone subpoenas for White House employees Karl Rove, Harriet Miers, and Bill Kelly (h/t TPMMuckraker). According to TPM, quoting Senator Charles Schumer, some Republicans on the committee "blocked" subpoenas for those three, whatever that means.

- SnowJob strikes again, as he brushes off, well, pretty much everything. TPM has the highlights of the briefing this morning, as well as the full transcript. Also, here's a little highlight from the afternoon briefing. SnowJob's doing the best he can, but still...you can almost feel the flop sweat in his answers. Sadly, only one question about Carol Lam, who is crucial to the effort to understand & show what happened here.

Q: Tony, if Congress goes deeper into why Carol Lam was removed...

SNOW: Yes.

Q: Are you confident that there is evidence to show that she was removed not to sidetrack her from the corruption investigations?

SNOW: Absolutely. Absolutely. As a matter of fact, one of the corruption charges was being handled by an entirely different US attorney, up in Los Angeles. No, look, she should -- good for her for prosecuting Duke Cunningham.

- Late yesterday, Senator Feinstein publicly stated her belief that Carol Lam's firing was improper (h/t TPM). She's been on this from the beginning, and it looks like she'll keep going, and keep focusing on the important point of the USA purge- Carol Lam. Inexplicably, she's not ready to call for Abu Gonzales to resign(!).

- The (small, financially minded) crowd gives Abu a 40% chance of keeping his job through March, a 37% chance through June, and perhaps a 8-10% through the end of this year. Unfortunately, no permalinks, just follow the link, click on 'Current Events,' and then click on 'White House' and you'll see it. I like Intrade, and someday when I have the time I'll put my money where my political mouth is.

- Um, this feels important and significant to me, but I'm really having trouble wrapping my head around it. White House staffers are using email addresses with outside domains (owned by the RNC of course), possibly in order to avoid complying with the Presidential Records Act. I think TPMMuckraker says it better than me.

Wow, Stanford got their butts kicked. In the words of Stephen Colbert: Eat It, Condi!

UPDATE: this just in, Alberto Gonzales lied. Again. About his and Karl Rove's role in just who exactly originally thought up the idea to fire ALL 93 US Attorneys after the 2004 election (h/t hungrycoyote). Good lord. At this point this Administration really, really needs to adjust to the new reality that plain old lying won't work with Congress (and the American people, and the media, etc.) anymore.

Unf--kingbelievable

2007-03-15T18:16:00.000-04:00

Just follow the link. This is yet another reason to surf around the international papers for news (h/t blksista at DailyKos), as opposed to just the lazy US papers. I want to scream when I read this stuff.

Hi. Lari. Ous.

2007-03-15T18:15:00.000-04:00

We must laugh, otherwise we'll just end up crying our eyes out. (h/t DailyKos)

US Attorney Update: March 14, 2007

2007-03-14T16:50:00.000-04:00

Apologies for not giving an update yesterday. Although there was a lot of news, there was also a little bit of a pause, as the White House absolutely DUMPED a ton of documents (mostly emails) on the Media yesterday. Once again, Hat Tip to Talking Points Memo for, well, just about everything here.

- Abu Gonzales holds a press conference, gets choked up, and admits mistakes were made...by somebody else without his knowledge. Oy, is anybody buying this load of crap? (h/t to Crooks & Liars for the video, as I'm still trying to figure out how to insert video clips into my blog).

- About the Attorney General's Chief of Staff Kyle Sampson resigning? Eh, not so much.

- While we're on the topic, meet Kyle Sampson.

- Carol Lam is the story here. She's the reason why so many red flags were raised in the blogosphere about the mass firing. And we have an email from Kyle Sampson describing her as a "real problem" back in May 2006. Although the email itself contains a lot of vague wording, the timing of the email makes the intent obvious- she was about to expand her investigation into the upper reaches of the CIA, the Department of Defense, and powerful Republican Congressmen. But THAT'S when the White House decided her inadequate prosecution of border crimes was a serious problem? None of this passes the smell test. TPM has more on the timing.

- Those US Attorneys who didn't play ball: Guam USA Frederick Black, New Mexico USA David Iglesias, San Diego USA Carole Lam, and Seattle USA David McKay. To be fair, I personally see corruption behind the decisions to fire these USAs, even if there isn't yet a smoking gun. But again, follow the links and decide for yourself.

- Two Dem Presidential candidates, and many newspapers have called for AG Gonzales to resign. first Repub to call for resignation. He's not a Presidential candidate, but he will be running for reelection in '08. In New Hampshire.

We Need Troops, Except Not Those Kind...

2007-03-14T16:36:00.000-04:00

General Peter Pace embarrasses himself, the military, and possibly this Administration by calling gays immoral. Beyond the stupidity of such a bigoted comment in the wake of the Ann Coulter mess, shouldn't he be more concerned with finding fresh recruits to replenish the rapidly breaking Army, rather than publicly airing his own personal issues?

General Pace, beggars can't be choosers, and if your Army is so desperate that you'll sign up criminals, white supremacists, and the mentally disabled (scroll down a bit to see the news article), then you really have no "moral" high ground to refuse openly gay individuals.

Coulter Count - Up to 9

2007-03-14T16:22:00.000-04:00

Nine! Nine newspapers! Ah ah ah!

US Attorney Update: March 12, 2007

2007-03-12T17:10:00.000-04:00

As you'll see from the links, many many hat tips to TalkingPointsMemo:

- As of Friday, repealing the PATRIOT Act provision that enabled this unilateral, partisan mess was not going to be opposed by the Administration. But today we learn that Republican Senator John Kyl might block any attempt to close this...this...this "loophole," for lack of a better word.

- If it's partisan and shameless, then you had to know Karl Rove was involved. Democratic Senator Charles Schumer is calling for Rove to testify.

- Those US Attorneys who I speculate did play ball: Bush "Pioneer" (title given to those who raise $100k or more for the Decider) and New Jersey USA Chris Christie, New Hampshire USA Thomas Colantuono, and Kentucky USA David Huber. Again, I'm speculating, so follow the links and decide for yourself.

Coulter Count

2007-03-12T17:06:00.000-04:00

Seven newspapers have decided to drop Ann Coulter. I feel like Sesame Street's The Count..."Seven! Seven newspapers! Ah ah ah!

Lapdogs

2007-03-12T16:12:00.000-04:00

In between several of his posts on the FBI's admission of gross abuse of National Security Letters (NSLs), Glenn Greenwald takes a moment to reflect on one of the key characteristics of Bush supporters/authoritarian followers. Specifically, they exhibit blind (and, at this point, unjustified) faith in the good intentions of our authority figures- police, military, Executive branch, etc.

We expect and encourage blind faith and obedience in dogs, however, not people. We (should) expect more from ourselves, given our (allegedly) higher levels of reasoning. In the case of authoritarian followers, however, we see vigorous reluctance to think independently and rationally. We see it a lot, and Glenn does a nice job pointing out the most recent examples.

That is why I have great difficulty respecting or trusting Republicans today. How can I respect or trust a person who looks at the Iraq War, Katrina, Walter Reed, FBI spying, etc. and just shrugs his/her shoulders? Because they exhibit little opposition to what has happened, I am left to conclude they either approve of what's happened, or are so freakin' passive that they can't even summon the energy to speak up. They're either brutally immoral or they're lapdogs, and either way, I can't respect or trust a single one of them.

As we discover more problems with the Bush Administration, and get into more fights with these people over the next few years (over the Iraq War, Global Warming, Universal Health Care, etc.), we should remember not to fear them. When confronted, lapdogs and bullies always back down. Always.

Our Fighting Wounded

2007-03-12T16:06:00.000-04:00

Our military is getting so desperate for troops, they're throwing the injured back into the battle. Why don't we just draft all the right wing bloggers that are desperate to continue this war?

Heckuva Job #2 Resigns

2007-03-12T15:54:00.000-04:00

Lieutenant General Kevin Kiley, the man who oversaw (and ignored) the mess at Walter Reed, has resigned. Democratic freshman Senator Claire McCaskill (whose qcampaign I contributed to) thinks that VA Secretary Jim Nicholson should resign too, given that he has no competence.

About That New PATRIOT Act Requirement

2007-03-09T16:24:00.000-05:00

Remember that huge-ass fight the Administration had with Congress back in December 2005, about renewing the PATRIOT Act? Remember how the whole warrantless surveillance issue complicated the debate? Remember the settlement that was reached, that required the FBI to report more stringently on the thousands and thousands of National Security Letters (NSLs) the FBI was using to spy on people? Remember the signing statement that the Decider attached to the renewal, essentially "opting out" of that requirement that Congress fought over?

No? Well, wakey wakey, eggs and bakey. The FBI Inspector General has concluded that many agents are breaking the law, because they're not complying with the new NSL requirements. Glenn Greenwald points out that this goes directly to the President, since he's the one who claims that the law does not need to be followed.

(sigh) And we all hoped that those egregious signing statements weren't being taken literally...

Softer On the Eyes

2007-03-09T16:19:00.000-05:00

Ok, I've essentially reversed the colors on my blog. Personally, my eyes liked the dark background and light text, but too often I heard that hurts people's eyes, so...I hope you like the change!

Why The US Attorney Story Matters

2007-03-09T15:59:00.000-05:00

Although I've followed this story for awhile, I did not write about it because the details are a little arcane and the story keeps developing more tidbits on a daily basis. But now it's time, so here I go. If you're already aware of the story, then feel free to skip past the marked off portion.
----------------
A few years ago, a staffer for Republican Senator Arlen Specter inserted a provision into the PATRIOT Act that allowed the Bush Administration to replace US Attorneys at will, without getting confirmation from the Senate. Stick a pin in that and fast forward to a little over a month ago, when the Administration abruptly fired 8 US Attorneys, including one Carol Lam, the prosecutor who convicted Republican Duke Cunningham on bribery. Cue the raising of a red flag.

The Administration (through sworn testimony by AG Alberto Gonzales) cited "performance reasons" and had some odd replacements- one was a "protege" of Karl Rove. "Performance reasons" was also an odd explanation, given Carol Lam's excellent work and the fact that all 8 received glowing performance reviews.

Then the actual US Attorneys spoke up, and pointed out that at best contradictory explanations were given for their firing, or at worst no explanation was given at all. Some openly speculated that politics contributed to their firing. One US Attorney was contacted by Republican Congresswoman Heather Wilson and Republican Senator Pete Domenici about dropping an indictment on a Democrat a few days prior to the midterm elections.

All of a sudden the mass firing started to stink, and the "performance" reason looked like total bulls--t (and, because he was under oath, possible perjury by AG Gonzales). Recently, the fired US Attorneys testified in a hearing and reiterated all this, and through this hearing we also learned that Republican Congressman Doc Hastings (through his chief of staff) contacted another of the fired US Attorneys, asking him to investigate "voting irregularities" in the wake of a very tight election that put a Democrat in the governor's mansion.
----------------

Essentially, that's where we stand now- with not only a stink, but a pattern of stink (of politics influencing the legal process). But it's still all very arcane, and what's the big deal about hiring & firing a bunch of lawyers based on partisan activities anyway?

USAs are the top federal cops for each state- they decide on what to investigate, when/who/if to indict, etc. Heck, even FBI agents report to them. US Attorneys, from the perspective of our legal system, are a big deal. And so, firing them because they refused to knuckle under to (Republican Congressional and Bush Administration) pressure to investigate Democrats in the runup to midterm elections, should be a big deal as well. It's easy to dismiss this as just a bungled partisan scheme by the Bush Administration, but it really does go farther than that. This story represents an ongoing (and perhaps successful) effort by the Bush Administration and the Republican Party to politicize our top cops...to politicize our law enforcement...to politicize justice.

That's not something to brush off, I don't use those terms lightly, and I'm not the only one using those terms. When a Republican can commit crime X without any repercussions, but a Democrat can get investigated, indicted, or prosecuted for being "suspected" of crime X, then we've really gone off the tracks here.

This story is by no means over. We're going to find out more. For example, as Paul Krugman points out, the story so far only covers punishing US Attorneys that didn't play ball with the Administration and the Republican Party- what about the US Attorneys that did play ball?

As an example Krugman provides, should we scrutinize the subpoenas that went out to Democratic Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey, just weeks before the election in November? It conveniently played into the opponent's "corruption" meme. And the Republican US Attorney that issued those subpoenas has inexplicably lost interest in the investigation, now that the election is over. Should we take another look at the New Jersey US Attorney's motivation for the subpoenas? Should we ask him if any members of Congress or the Administration contacted him about this investigation? I think so, but we'll see.

I cannot overemphasize this point: politicizing law enforcement will severely polarize and destabilize our society and democracy, even more than we've already seen. If a Republican can rob a bank, but a Democrat gets investigated for walking near a bank, then we're in deep, deep trouble. This is a big story, even though the TV networks and major news magazines have yet to pick it up. We will learn more.

Check in to TalkingPointsMemo at least once a day if you want to stay tuned on this story, but also check out these specific posts:

Josh Marshall reminds us that oversight brings these things to light
Mark Kleiman writes that this is just the beginning
Arianna Huffington talks about the corruption in general

ixNay on olarPay earsBay

2007-03-09T15:14:00.000-05:00

Apparently, the Bush Administration realizes it's not good politics to remind people that it's killing the Coca-Cola mascots. Stephen Colbert is probably going to dissent from the Administration on this, since he believes bears are all Godless killing machines.

Hilarious Cheers & Jeers

2007-03-09T09:38:00.000-05:00

There is a regular DailyKos contributor, Bill in Portland Maine, who does a Cheers & Jeers post a couple of times a week. It's always funny, but this one was especially good. Did you know the Terror Alert system, or what I and many others call the Fear-O-Meter, is turning five next week? I encourage you to read the entire post here (to get the feel for the C&J humor), but I loved this post so much, I decided to include almost the entire post...

From the GREAT STATE OF MAINE...
The Color of Fear Turns Five

Circle next Monday on your calendar, preferably with a yellow highlighter. As of March 12, we've spent five years cowering under the federal government's color-coded Terror Alert System.

As regular readers of C&J know, every Friday I update the terror alert status in my "By the Numbers" section. The only thing I ever change, though, is the number of days the system has been in place (1,817 as of today). I never have to change the color because it's always the same: yellow ("Elevated" risk). I believe the exact shade is called "Republican Blogger's Underpants While Walking By Army Recruiting Station" yellow.

And what's a patriotic citizen to do when the Fatherland is at Code Yellow? Not much, it turns out. Just continue to be alert for suspicious activity and report it to authorities. ("Hello, police? I think the neighbors are making brownies with enriched uranium again...") Yellow is a cozy terror alert level. After five years it fits like grandpa's favorite old sweater. When I see the little reminder crawling along the bottom of the screen on Fox News in the morning, I know it's gonna be an elevated-risk, don-your-kevlar-knickers kind of day. It's the Fabulous Fifties all over again (minus the "Duck and Cover" drills, of course---that would be silly).

There are, of course, two higher threat levels, each with its own action steps. Level Orange---"High" risk---usually precedes an election and requires citizens to vote Republican or die. Level Red---"Severe" risk---is issued when the sky is alabaster and skin is dripping off your bones. It's the perfect time to dig into all those yummy emergency rations you've socked away. ("More powdered pork chops, dear?")
And what of lowly level Blue ("Guarded" risk) and Green ("Low" risk)? They're scrapin' by, moonlighting as paintball targets at kids' birthday parties. And workin' the 12 steps. Always workin' the 12 steps.

So this morning I lift my three-ounce bottle of hair gel (safely tucked away in its TSA-approved, quart-size ZipLoc bag) and toast the color yellow. And if you're in the neighborhood today, you're welcome to join me at my 2 O'clock tremblaerobics class. Bring your own mat.

Thank you, Bill in Portland Maine, for making me shoot coffee out my nose. TGIF, everyone!

The Walter Reed Scandal and Our Local Shame (Updated)

2007-03-08T10:17:00.000-05:00

By now, everyone has heard about the terrible conditions and treatment our wounded Iraq War veterans face when treated at Walter Reed Hospital. Perhaps it's worthwhile to note that Walter Reed is just the tip of the iceberg, and conditions and treatment of our war wounded have significantly deteriorated at many of our VA facilities, but I think we should take this opportunity to think more generally about what's going on.

First, let's note that Henry Brown, our local Republican Congressman for South Carolina's 1st District, is on the Veteran's Affairs subcommittee, and approved of the cutbacks that directly led to the appalling conditions at Walter Reed and approved of cutbacks to come in 2009 and 2010. For years, the Bush Administration and the Republican Party have successfully cut or willfully underestimated funding of our VA programs, and Henry Brown has offered little more than limp-wristed opposition, if any at all.

By reelecting him year after year after year, however, we approve of this. It is hypocritical of us to look at Walter Reed with horror, only to turn around and reelect the Congressman who played a willfully negligent part in that horror. I, for one, never voted for Henry Brown. But most of you did (61% in the last election). Thus you cannot disassociate yourself from this disaster- elections have consequences, both for politicians and for voters. If you continue to reelect this man, then you must admit to yourself and to your friends that what happened at Walter Reed isn't horrible enough for you to change your vote. Further, by approving of this man's contribution to the Walter Reed scandal, you cannot act 'shocked! shocked!' when a similar, future act of government apathy and incompetence occurs on Henry Brown's watch.

Think about how (or if) you'll express your disapproval in 2008, when we will presumably have had two more years of the Iraq War, with thousands more Americans dead, and many more thousands entering Walter Reed and other VA hospitals- the same war (and escalation) that Henry Brown blindly supports today, and the same Walter Reed that Henry Brown didn't care enough to fully fund yesterday. Think about the next natural disaster (hurricane in SC? earthquake in CA?), when our government will fail to respond again- the same government that failed to respond to Hurricane Katrina, with the same Henry Brown uttering not one peep of outrage at the ineptitude and apathy of the Bush Administration.

You'll notice that I assume our government will fail to respond to the next natural disaster, which brings me to my second point- that this bureaucratic bumbling, stagnant and/or decline in funding of essential services, corrupt privatization and contracting schemes, and outright dishonesty is the natural result of Republican governance. Republicans love to tout the benefits of "small government," only to pretend that the same "small government" philosophy had nothing to do with the cutbacks at our VA hospitals. Republicans love to claim to be "serious" and "responsible" leaders, only to privatize services and award 'no-bid' contracts to friends and donors whenever possible, break the law when convenient, and (in Congress' case) look the other way when all this comes to light.

No, like it or not, what happened at Walter Reed is NOT an anomaly, nor will the next scandal be an anomaly. Or have we all forgotten about:

Halliburton overcharging our military for fuel and food, while poisoning our troops (with insufficient water purification)?
the Coalition Provisional Authority LOSING $11+ billion (with a 'b') in cash in Iraq?
"Heckuva job" FEMA Director Mike Brown?
Condi buying shoes in NY, President fundraising in CA, and Vice President God Knows Where (probably in a bunker) when Katrina hit?
Republican Jack Abramoff's bribery?
the horror of Abu Ghraib, followed by the virtual legalization of Abu Ghraib with the Military Commissions Act?
Republican Congressmen Duke Cunningham and Bob Ney's influence peddling?
lack of armor for our soldiers and vehicles in Iraq?
Republican Mark Foley, and how badly Republicans wanted him to stay in office?
outing a CIA agent?
no WMDs in Iraq?
"Wanted: Dead or Alive" for Osama Bin Laden years ago, to essentially 'Osama who?' now?
"Mission Accomplished," the insurgency is "in its last throes," "stay the course"?
no involvement by Saddam Hussein in 9/11?
Dubai Ports World managing some of our biggest ports?
refusal to implement 9/11 Commission recommendations?
Department of Homeland Security's pork barrel funding to (red state) Indiana, at the expense of (blue states) New York, New Jersey, and California?
"Osama Bin Laden Determined to Strike Inside US" Presidential Daily Briefing, that was promptly ignored by the President?

I'm sure I've left lots of things off this list, which partly proves my point. How long does the list have to get before we admit that the screwups are expected, not shocking? When will it become apparent that this is a pattern, an inevitable result of Republican governance generally, and Henry Brown's governance specifically? When will enough be enough for YOU?

We should be ashamed of Henry Brown, because of what he enables, yet we continue to reelect him and Republicans like him year after year after year. I recently had a short conversation about Walter Reed with someone who described himself as "a conservative, but I'm not happy with what happened at Walter Reed." It's not the first time I've heard someone describe themselves as "Republican/conservative, but..." To me, that's not good enough- how can you support a political party on one hand, but then disavow yourself from the inevitable actions of that same political party on the other? As you can see from the list above, Walter Reed is NOT out of the ordinary for Republican governance, and it's well past time Republicans start owning up to the crises that they themselves contribute to by consistently voting for these jackasses.

If after all this time and all these screwups, you're still a self-identified Republican/conservative, then you yourself own Walter Reed and all these other messes- this is how you want your government to behave. Think about that the next time there's another "shocking" scandal in this Administration.

UPDATE:
A reader pointed out to me that Walter Reed is not under the jurisdiction of the Veterans Administration, and the mess at Walter Reed is outside of the VA. Looking over my post, I see that I too often conflated Walter Reed and the VA, and I apologize for the error. Having said that, though, I stand by my overall point: that poor conditions at Walter Reed (and VA hospitals) are an inevitable result of Republican governance, and reelecting Henry Brown inevitably contributes to these problems.

(sigh) Coulter

2007-03-08T10:12:00.000-05:00

So Ann Coulter makes an offensive & insulting remark (no I will not link to her), again, while speaking at ConPAC, again. Let me add my voice to Markos' here.

It's not Ann Coulter herself or her remarks that are the biggest problem (though let's not forget that her comments are indeed a problem). Although this is just a hunch, I don't think even Ann Coulter believes the things she says. She's just coming up with new and more outrageous things to say because she knows it will get her more airtime and sell more of her books.

No, this is my talking point- it's not Ann Coulter per se, it's the popularity of Ann Coulter that's the problem. It's not that she refers to Arabs as "ragheads" per se, it's that her books sales spike after saying it that is the problem. It's not that she calls for murdering a liberal Supreme Court justice (according to her a joke, but I didn't get it) per se, it's that she gets a standing ovation for it that's the problem. It's not that she attacks the 9/11 widows, it's that she subsequently gets invited to speak at ConPAC that is the problem.

As far as the Republican Party and the conservative movement is concerned, she is not a fringe extremist- otherwise, why is she invited to speak at ConPAC (the annual gathering of leading conservatives) year after year after year? If she represents the conservative movement generally, and her hateful comments seem to be well-received by conservatives (through book sales and speaking fees and standing ovations), then what does that say about the conservative movement?

Conservatives, this hateful bigot is YOUR BIGGEST STAR! What does that say about YOU?

The Building Conflict Within the Left Wing (Updated)

2007-02-28T18:38:00.000-05:00

Jeff Faux and Brad DeLong scratch and claw at each other about the issue of globalization/free trade pacts/domestic job market/protectionism/wealth inequality & disparity. All those issues get wrapped up, chewed up, and spit out for political points. The post, a one sentence a**holeish question, is really snarky, but make sure to read the comments- they make some very good points and continue the discussion admirably.

The issue of free trade pacts in general (be it NAFTA, CAFTA, MFN with China, etc.) is a very real and significant cleavage within the left wing. Just in the past few years, CAFTA has been a huge sore point (and a huge rallying point) for the Netroots and Progressives in general. This issue will get bigger, though, and I believe will become a huge problem for the Democratic Party.

Many progressives feel that job security is a worthwhile goal and, with the right government support, an achievable goal. They feel that with increased job security there will be greater middle class enrichment, ultimately the driver of any country's economic growth.

On the other hand, moderates feel that free trade pacts simply recognize the reality that poorer and less developed countries will produce our TVs and sneakers cheaper. Since we're a consumer economy, benefiting the consumer should therefore trump other concerns, like job security.

As much as I sympathize with Progressives, I do fall in line with the moderates on this. Consider me a defeatist on this front- I just think that the Pandora's box of globalization has been opened, and we are never going to be able to go back. In essence, those jobs that moved to Mexico or China or wherever are gone forever. Forever.

Further, I don't think future trade agreements (or, rather, the refusal to sign these agreements) will change this trend. As time goes by, corporations show less and less loyalty to their host countries, and so they'll always shift their manufacturing tasks to the cheapest country. Sure, we could theoretically protect some jobs from moving to Country X by not signing a trade pact with Country X, but that will do nothing to stop the movement of those same jobs to Country Y, where we've already signed a trade pact (thus the Pandora's box aspect of globalization). Either way, those jobs are moving out, so what's the point of fighting the trade pact du jour?

There is a threshold that we should not cross, however. For instance, at what point does insecurity about jobs (negatively) affect consumer spending, and thus start to trump the pursuit of cheaper sneakers and TVs? Nobody knows, but that doesn't mean that threshold doesn't exist- just ask Japan.

I'm open to new ideas on trade pacts and globalization, but only if the overall aim is to restore and rebuild the middle class of America. I'm not interested in protecting jobs just for the sake of protecting jobs- a vibrant capitalist economy prevents such luxury. Schumpeter's "creative destruction" has always ruled the day and will continue to do so.

Knowing what I know now, the only way I see to restore and rebuild the middle class is for our government to create and/or foster new industries (e.g. alternative fuels), and at the same time throw a lot more money and effort into our education system. The political viability of this strategy, however, is a different question entirely.

To wrap this up, though, the economic problems America faces must start at a much higher strategic level than just a debate about trade agreements, which is where I think conflicts will continue to rage inside the left wing. Ultimately, signing the trade pact du jour matters less than relentlessly pursuing overall societal goals- what do we want America to look like 50 years from now?

This is why I'm very interested in restoring, rebuilding, and strengthening the middle class. A society dominated by the middle class is a society with inherent egalitarian and human rights instincts, as opposed to a severely stratified society with inherent "winner take all and f**k the rest" instincts. We've been trying out that society for the last 10+ years, and I don't like what I see...

UPDATE:

Oh my. When I originally said these two were scratching and clawing at each other, I was just trying to be cute- I didn't realize this would turn into an intellectual pie-fight:

Jeff Faux's response to the post linked above

Then Brad DeLong responds

Then Faux again

Then DeLong

Then Faux

Then DeLong

Then Jo-Ann Mort chimes in, supporting Faux

Oy. If you're interested in reading through all these posts, help yourself. As for me, I'll revisit the debate much, much later- I have s**t to do.

Newsflash! Immigrants Not So Scary!

2007-02-28T18:32:00.000-05:00

It turns out those scary, scary brown people coming over the border aren't so scary after all. Study shows that immigrants raise wages and are very law-abiding. Perhaps my mother-in-law could read this.

A Peek Inside Gun Culture

2007-02-28T18:29:00.000-05:00

Just a peek, mind you. This article doesn't offer much except comprehensive detail on how previously-esteemed gun rights advocate Jim Zumbo was destroyed in a matter of days by his constituency.

After reading this, I was amazed at the speed, efficiency, and sheer ruthlessness the gun people showed in taking one of their own down. No hesitation, no reluctance, no reflection on Zumbo's contributions, no introspection- just "he's not one of us anymore, therefore fuck him." Wow.

Much to the dismay of my wife and (presumably) others in my circle, I don't care about gun restrictions. Although I would never, ever own a gun, I really don't care if assault weapons are easily obtained by the masses. I theorize that we Americans are a violent sort, and if we didn't have assault rifles and handguns, then we'd be killing each other with knives and billy clubs. Or different kinds of guns, or whatever.

I suppose I'm open to having my mind changed on this, but after years and years and years of having assault weapons be theoretically available to lots and lots of people (even criminals), have we really taken a step back? Are we at greater risk of dying by firearm (or assault rifle) today than we were, say, five or ten years ago?

Again, perhaps I'm wrong- I haven't done any research on this, I'm just shooting from the hip (pun intended). If that's the case, then I should see some numbers proving me wrong. But I doubt it. I bet that assault rifles are only purchased and used by crazy militia types. Let them have their super duper weapons, and just make sure those people leave us the fuck alone.

Olbermann- oh good grief!

2007-02-28T18:26:00.000-05:00

Keith Olbermann Goes Astronaut^TM on Secretary of State Condi Rice. I especially liked two things he said in here. First, the Administration now reminds him of that Avis commercial where the tagline was "you ever get the feeling some people have just stopped trying?" And second, near the end, he says "you can't cherry-pick LIFE." Perfect.

The Wonder that is the American Public

2007-02-28T18:19:00.000-05:00

Okay, the point of this post is to point out the landmines that Republican Presidential candidates face in '08, and that's all well and good. No, the American public does not yet know how old John McCain is or how many divorces Rudy Giuliani has had or of what faith Mitt Romney is. Yes yes, that's all well and good, but look at the raw data on people's guesses on McCain's age. 3% of Americans believe he is between the age of 35 and 44! WTF?!? This is a small number, but it's still statistically significant.

Let that sink in. 3% of Americans believe 70 year old John McCain apparently fought in VietNam, was captured, imprisoned and tortured as a freakin' infant. Ladies and gentlemen, I present the wonder that is the American people.

Quazy Quebecois!

2007-02-26T17:57:00.000-05:00

Ah, I love making fun of French Canadians, so this video made my day... (h/t Wired's Danger Room)

Generals Say 'Back Off,' and American Media Still Needs a Clue

2007-02-26T13:02:00.000-05:00

Whoa. I continue to be surprised at the level of resistance to a new war with Iran. Mind you, I'm not surprised that there is resistance, but I am very surprised at where the resistance is (and is not) coming from. Specifically, the military seems to be doing everything they can to get this Administration under control, and this article is the latest example: they can't openly defy the Administration on its war decisions, but the generals can bring a lot of indirect pressure to make war a very costly political decision for the Administration. And it seems to be working.

But I'm also surprised at who is not resisting this new war: the American media. The legacies of Judith Miller at the New York Times, the firings of anti-war voices Phil Donahue on MSNBC and Aaron Brown on CNN, the Washington Post's admission of grave error in the wake of non-existent WMDs, etc...all that embarrassment led major media outlets to make public vows to be much more skeptical of Administration claims in the future. Except that they're breaking their own vows, as Glenn Greenwald wrote about a few weeks ago.

So, we have the military, relatively immune from the Iraq War public relations fallout, doing everything they can to avoid the same mistake in Iran. And we have the media, badly burned, embarrassed, and humiliated in the Iraq War public relations fallout, willing to do it all over again.

Amazing.

Gobsmacked, part 918(!)

2007-02-21T10:03:00.000-05:00

Not that I'm actually counting, but this happened so close to my last gobsmacked episode, that I can't help but keep track.

Almost indescribable- that's what I think of the story of Abdul Taw'ala Ibn-Ali Alishtari. No, this isn't yet another example of the US government kidnapping, imprisoning, and torturing a completely innocent person (although that's happened more than enough).

No, our government has arrested and arraigned Mr. Alishtari, where he pled not guilty to charges of terrorism financing, material support of terrorism, and money laundering. AP story here, but I first heard about this from TalkingPointsMemo, and they've got a good rundown here. And let's not convict him yet, he is innocent until proven guilty- although so is Jose Louis Padilla, Khalid al-Masri, Maher Arar, and God knows who else that we've left rotting in Gitmo, and we have yet to hear Republicans stand up for their rights. But I'll come to that later.

Now, from these articles, you can see that Mr. Alishtari has given $15,000 to the Republican Party over the past three years, (according to his resume) was named a National Republican Senatorial Committee "Inner Circle Member for Life" in 2003, and was appointed to the NRCC's "White House Business Advisory Committee," and was named the NRCC's New York state businessman of the year in 2002 and 2003. The Democrats have a nice little post about his Republican ties here ("membership has its privileges" indeed).

All of a sudden Republicans care very much about due process, as you can see from their statement here. Long story short, the Republicans aren't giving back the money he gave unless and until he's convicted.

My God- isn't that the least they could do, and shouldn't they be just a little bit embarrassed by this? Oh, that's right, as TPM points out in the above post, this is the party that refused to give back money contributed by a sex predator (Mark Foley), a convicted briber (Jack Abramoff), a convicted bribee (ex-Rep. Bob Ney), and another alleged member of a terrorist organization (Yasith Chhun, head of Cambodian Freedom Fighters).

They do not recognize or understand their own greed and hypocrisy. That's the only answer I have that explains how these people look themselves in the mirror. And, getting back to all the others left imprisoned and probably tortured in Gitmo that Republicans have rushed to judgment on- would a donation from their families to the GOP get them released, or at least a fair trial? Is that all Republicans want- just a little something to grease their palms, and they'll look the other way on anything? After Mark Foley, have they learned nothing?

Once again, I am just...GOBSMACKED! I am NOT looking forward to my wife teasing me about this...

It's A Guy Thing

2007-02-19T16:43:00.000-05:00

And, according to this film, civilization relies on these rules.

Update from Hillary: It's Not Poop, It's Pate

2007-02-19T11:28:00.000-05:00

Well, I think this ends the debate on exactly why Hillary voted to authorize the Iraq War. And let me just stop for a moment to toot my own horn- I was right, she's a hawk, and she really doesn't think the Iraq War was a mistake after all. It's not poop on the carpet, it's a robust and "resolute" pate that should be savored and enjoyed for its "firmness" in the face of controversy, not cleaned up and thrown away.

So to those of us expecting or desiring an admission of error, we can all f--k off, apparently...

From the article (emphasis mine):

Yet antiwar anger has festered, and yesterday morning Mrs. Clinton rolled out a new response to those demanding contrition: She said she was willing to lose support from voters rather than make an apology she did not believe in.

“If the most important thing to any of you is choosing someone who did not cast that vote or has said his vote was a mistake, then there are others to choose from”

First of all, does it mean anything to either the Clinton campaign, the voters, or the reporters that this is, um, the third explanation for her IWR vote? And some wonder why she's perceived as too political and calculating. Kos does a good job analyzing the article here, but there's more than just her Iraq War stance. There's also this (emphasis mine):

Her approach to leadership and national security was forged during her eight years in the White House: She believes in executive authority and Congressional deference, her advisers say, and is careful about suggesting that Congress can overrule a commander in chief.

Jesus. Tapdancing. Christ. Where the Hell has she BEEN the last 6 years that she doesn't see the dangers of abdicating too much power to the President?!?

She's spoken of this before (with husband Bill's actions in Kosovo), and I believe this significantly factored into her IWR vote- that Congress should step aside for the President in matters of national security. This belief perhaps explains her tone-deafness with the anti-war crowd- she just doesn't think the Iraq War is her responsibility, partially or otherwise. That's the President's domain.

I strongly disagree with that sentiment, and think that path leads to authoritarianism. Perhaps I'm wrong, though. I believe this is yet another test for (moderate) Dems to flesh out their beliefs, and find lines in the sand that no Democrat should ever cross. So here we go:

- Do (moderate) Dems hate the general idea of a Unitary Executive, or just the idea of a Republican Unitary Executive?

- In (moderate) Dems' minds, does Congress have a meaningful role in warmaking in general, or does only a Democratic Congress have a meaningful role in warmaking?

Speaking for myself, let me say, No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. Please, God, don't make us go through another 4-8 (or, given the precedent, unlimited) years of a Unitary Executive Hawk President that's unable to recognize, much less admit, mistakes on national security.

Poop on the Carpet

2007-02-15T13:35:00.000-05:00

(Wife comes home from work, sees dog poop on the carpet and husband sitting on the sofa.)

Wife: What's this?! Is this dog poop on the carpet?

Husband: Well, yes, it is. Bad dog!

W: Weren't you supposed to take care of the dog?

H: The dog misused his authority and misled me.

W: (perplexed). Whatever. Why haven't you cleaned it up?

H: Well, I'm not for a precipitous cleanup of the poop, but I'm not for the poop staying there indefinitely either.

W: (flabbergasted) Huh?

H: Umm, if you let me get that new plasma TV, I'll clean up the poop.

W: (irritated) Uh, we'll discuss the plasma TV later. But, why is there dog poop on the carpet in the first place?

H: What do you mean? The dog pooped- the dog is responsible for the poop on the carpet.

W: (incredulous) No, I mean, didn't you realize the dog was going to poop on the carpet if you didn't walk him?

H: I told you, I was misled by the dog, and the dog misused his authority.

W: (bewildered) Huh? How?

H: Okay, maybe I realized from the early days of when we had the dog, the dog seemed obsessed with pooping on the carpet. But that's why there's poop on the carpet- because he was obsessed with pooping on the carpet, not because of anything I did.

W: (curious) But don't you think you should have walked the dog?

H: If I had known then what I know now, then yes, absolutely I would have walked the dog.

W: (incredulous again) But you just said you knew the dog was obsessed with pooping on the carpet. So why didn't you walk him?

H: (no answer)

W: Don't you think it was a mistake to not walk the dog?

H: (angrily) No, the mistake was made by the dog for pooping on the carpet.

W: So you weren't wrong for not walking the dog?

H: Look, I lived through 9/11 and am still dealing with its aftereffects.

W: (annoyed) That makes no sense. The dog pooping had nothing to do with 9/11.

H: Please stop focusing on this one issue- I'm so good at cooking, cleaning, and doing the laundry, and that's far more important than a little poop on the carpet isn't it? Now, let's talk about that plasma TV.

W: (disgusted) So, you're not going to clean up the poop right now?

H: Well, I'm certainly against more poop on the carpet. And I told you, if I get the plasma TV, then I'll clean up the poop.

...

As a married man, I know exactly how acceptable my wife would find my behavior here (and apparently so does David Sirota), yet Team Hillary seems to think this is perfectly fine. The Democratic Primary voters will determine who is right, but I hope my little skit succeeded in showing some of the absurdity behind Mrs. Clinton's efforts to avoid admitting error.

Digging a little deeper into this issue, however, I see that debating Hillary's Iraq problem on DailyKos has essentially danced around the issue of whether she is, deep down inside, a war hawk, and the implications of her hawkishness. Specifically, what is she closer to believing:

- that unilateral, aggressive wars and occupations can be condoned, provided they are managed competently by the Executive Branch?
or
- that peace is, inherently, better than war, and must be maintained at very high costs, with an extremely high burden for going to war?

There seems to be some consensus (or at least an unwillingness to debate) that Hillary is not a hawk, and that things would have been/would be different with her as President. But I believe Hillary actually is a hawk, and thus can't be trusted to keep us out of Iran, let alone get us out of Iraq. For example, here's video of her endorsing unilateral military action against Iraq (f'ing long download, with looneytoons CodePinkers singing up front), contradicting her current claim that "she wouldn't have gone to war in Iraq" if she were President (h/t FreedomLovingPatriot).

Perhaps I'm wrong, though, and she's not a hawk. In which case, I seek proof. Where is the evidence that she is not a hawk? When has she denounced war in general?

Hawks talk tough, but at the end of the day, there's a lot of poop on the carpet. Personally, Hillary's vow to end the war in Iraq if she's elected President rings hollow- if she's so committed to ending the war, why isn't she proposing an end or submitting a withdrawal plan now? "Because we don't have the votes" is NOT an acceptable reason for declining to do the right thing.

I want to hear more before I trust Hillary to lead this nation. Right now, I'm not sure I can trust her to even walk the f--king dog...

The Road to Tehran (Updated)

2007-02-14T18:18:00.000-05:00

Josh Marshall does a pretty good job of 'stop and think' on the Bush Administration's efforts to link the Iranian government with attacks on our troops in Iraq. And note the debunking here of CNN's Barbara Starr, as she idiotically goes through the motions of uncritically repeating (and inflating) Administration claims on Iran's actions. It's as if the mistakes leading up to the Iraq War never happened with some "journalists." My wife occasionally puts CNN on when I'm not looking, but I think at this point we really can't trust the mainstream media outlets- not when the most trusted of them, CNN, is being blindly idiotic. Again.

But getting beyond whether Iran is really supplying weapons to insurgents or if insurgents are getting them from the black market or elsewhere, I think it's extremely important to understand that, by hook or crook, this Administration is determined to go to war with Iran. There really is no other explanation for their (intentionally) misleading claims on Iranian actions, and coy refusal to provide any, you know, evidence of an Iranian connection. Given this Administration's history, I don't think this is really a stretch.

But do WE want to go to war with Iran? I and others have said before that the political interests of President Bush are not necessarily the same as the national security interests of the United States of America. That's a bold statement with big implications, especially when you consider how much politics drives the national security decisions of this Administrations (some examples as an aside: the Administration penciled in the war in late fall '02 to early spring '03 because "you don't do a new product rollout in the summer"; President Bush's decision to NOT fire Donald Rumsfeld before the midterm elections, because of the negative impact on Republicans; and let's not forget, outing a CIA officer working on Iranian nuclear proliferation, to stifle questions on war justifications during the '04 reelection; and on and on).

So, given that we have a President willing to use national security assets as an extension of his own partisan political machine, how much benefit of the doubt should we give him when he talks about (paraphrasing) 'Iran supplying IEDs to insurgents'? Not much, but let's just suppose- suppose President Bush is really telling the truth this time, and the Iranian actions are really indirectly killing our troops. Now what?

Again- do we want to go to war with Iran? Now is the time to ask these questions, because we have very few options on the table to stop our Commander in Chief from starting another war. With all the accusations, rhetoric, and general saber-rattling, I speculate the Administration's strategy is hoping (or, rather, pushing) for an "accident" of sorts, maybe along the border, that then crosses into Iran, or justifies military retaliation (i.e. bombing) in Iran. Whatever the method, I believe the Administration will find some way to start a war with Iran, because they want a war with Iran.

But do WE want that war? Personally, I don't, but I'll be curious to see if not only the media and the Administration, but the American people are willing to make the same mistake twice.

UPDATE:

Let's not forget, Iran approached the United States to initiate negotiations. Significantly, everything was on the table- their nuclear program, support of terrorism...everything. So what did our government officials do? Ignored the request, and formally complained about Switzerland initiating the request to begin with. Here's the outline of what was to be discussed.

Selling Defeat

2007-02-14T18:10:00.000-05:00

Odom's editorial will probably just serve as fresh meat for the wingnuts who want to smear withdrawal advocates as "defeatist." But is it defeatist to acknowledge the reality of defeat? When is calling for withdrawal NOT defeatist, in the eyes of war advocates? Specifically, when was it NOT defeatist to advocate withdrawal in VietNam? Essentially, this is the debate about the Iraq War- are we winning, and/or is it winnable? Everything stems from that.

The answer to the first is a resounding 'NO!'. Trying to define 'winning' is hard enough, if not impossible, but the Bush Administration has been toiling away at this occupation for almost four years, with too few troops, and too little (if any) emphasis or regard for proper reconstruction and general competence. I see no indication that the Bush Administration, and specifically President Bush, will change tune, even if we knew what the strategic objective was. So no, I don't believe we are winning.

But that's not the whole debate, because the second question also highlights cleavages on the left side of the political spectrum. There are Dems running around that essentially believe we just need to "do it right" in Iraq, and everything will be fine (looking at you, Hillary). But again, I believe a foreign occupation will always end in defeat, because the occupying nation will not be willing to make the necessary sacrifices to assimilate/subjugate the new territory. And so, no, I don't believe this war is winnable.

Those two beliefs drive my support for withdrawal. Defeat is a very tough sell, however, so I'm wondering exactly when the American public will collectively accept defeat. Only then will they push, and push HARD, for our government to get the hell out of Iraq.

Moving Editorial on "Interrogation"

2007-02-14T18:09:00.000-05:00

Or what I like to call, "torture."

I Do Diplomacy

2007-02-12T18:04:00.000-05:00

To: Prime Minister of Australia John Howard
From: Me
Re: Your Criticism of Senator Barack Obama

Prime Minister Howard:

Blow it out your ~~kangaroo-f**king~~ ~~pantywaisted~~ ~~Bush-wannabe~~ ass.

Cordially,

Me

P.S. Senator Obama sends his regards (emphasis mine).

"If Prime Minister Howard truly believes what he says, perhaps his country should find its way to contribute more than just 1,400 troops so some American troops can come home...It's easy to talk tough when it's not your country or your troops making the sacrifices."

Welcome Jon Swift

2007-02-12T09:39:00.000-05:00

Well, that was fast. Before I even sat down to think about blogrolls I'd like to be added to, Jon Swift gets the ball rolling by proactively adding me (thank you). So, everyone, please welcome Jon Swift. He is a self-described "reasonable conservative" who only gets his news from Rush Limbaugh and Fox News. Oy, maybe I can convince him to swear off ALL mainstream media, and only use this intertubes thing.

Check his blog out if you get the chance.

Upcoming Blog Modifications

2007-02-09T17:49:00.000-05:00

In the wake of this arbitrary blogroll trimming done by DKos, Eschaton, and other big blogs, I've decided to become a little more serious about my blogroll. You will see a lot of new blogs listed on the right, blogs that I am regularly reading. I will do this for two reasons:

1. Personal philosophy: although I wasn't personally affected by the slaughter, I take offense to the idea that the blogroll on DailyKos needed to be arbitrarily trimmed down. I strongly disagree with the inherent assumption that space is limited/precious on a website and/or blog, and I don't see the harm in simply adding more and more blog links to your roll. What's the big deal? Also, this could have been handled by Markos in a much more professional manner- namely, he could have reorganized his blogroll to be hierarchical (i.e. his favorites at the top), or he could have opened up the decision to the DKos community (i.e. agree to keep the top finishers in a straw poll). But simply cutting off these good, high traffic sites without any real explanation? That's just unprofessional.

2. Increase traffic: I've been writing on this blog for about 6 months now, and I think it's about time I start putting some effort into attracting more visitors to this blog. Ultimately, I'd like to open this blog to a lot more writers, but I doubt I can persuade anyone to contribute content to this blog if I can't guarantee that anyone will read it (although if you're interested in contributing, drop me an email to discuss). So, traffic must come first, and a quick (and possibly effective) way to improve that is to open up the blogroll to anyone who opens up their blogroll to me. So here is my official policy, which I first heard about from Jon Swift: whoever puts my blog on their roll will automatically get their blog on my roll, except for spam and porn.

So, DailyKos will no longer be on my blogroll, but many others will be added. Over the next few weeks, look for changes and introductions to new blogs on the blogroll. Only time will tell if that will mean anything.

Finally Someone Takes on CNBC Commies

2007-02-09T17:45:00.000-05:00

Ah, Fox News has done it again. CNBC, according to Rupert Murdoch, is not friendly enough to business, so Fox will be launching a business news channel to compete with CNBC that will be friendlier(!?) to business. Oh my. I'm speechless...again. What exactly is in the water at News Corp (Fox News' parent corporation)?

Dead Eye Dick's Investment Manager Regains His Senses

2007-02-09T17:43:00.000-05:00

Really, just go read this. There are some good stats that may surprise you, but I (and the author) keep coming back to the fact that this is one of Dick Cheney's investment advisors, and he's really pissed about Dick Cheney's energy policies. Wow.

Shut Up, Just Please Shut Up!

2007-02-07T11:47:00.000-05:00

Come on, just stop it. Stop it. Stop it. Stop it. Just stop complaining about having to work a regular workweek like the rest of us. Every time I hear about a Republican complaining about doing a 5 day workweek, I want to get in my car, drive to DC, and punch the little s--t in the mouth. Jesus H. Christ.

PLEASE. STOP. COMPLAINING. AND. DO. YOUR. JOBS.

Weird Veronica Mars Episode (Updated)

2007-02-07T11:42:00.000-05:00

I don't watch Veronica Mars, but I've heard it's popular, and this story caught my eye because, well, why the hell is a teen show catching the attention of Think Progress and the liberal bloggies? Because the producers/writers/somebody decided to run a show based on the premise that the morning after pill can cause a miscarriage, that's why.

Completely untrue (Think Progress has more), but also bizarre- couldn't the producers have figured out a way to make the story work without pushing a complete and utter falsehood as part of the premise? For a male analogy, they may as well have had Veronica investigate who put anabolic steroids in a guy's water bottle that then caused his dick to fall off...

UPDATE:
Apparently this dustup grew out of incorrect promo materials sent by the TV network. The episode deals with the morning after pill, but it did not apparently claim the morning after pill caused the miscarriage. I don't know, I didn't see the episode, so whatever...

Why Do We Listen to Them?

2007-02-07T11:35:00.000-05:00

I've finally found a good explanation for why the DC Punditocracy should be eliminated, or marginalized, or changed, or something. Atrios distills it down to a single point: What Are They For? Go read it, it's concise and well thought out.

They, and their words written in newspapers and magazines and spoken on the talk shows, either matter, or they don't. If Joe Klein (see Arianna Huffington ~~smack him around~~ go astronaut on him here and here) or Tom Friedman (too many links) or other supposedly "liberal" pundits want to avoid responsibility for not taking a stronger stand against the Iraq War before it began, by implicitly arguing that their opinions wouldn't have changed anything, that's at least kinda sorta defensible. Maybe.

But then the question remains: if their opinions don't affect anything, then why should we listen to them? Answer: we shouldn't.

F--k 'em.

Requiem for Pax Americana

2007-02-07T11:34:00.000-05:00

The model of maintaining a democracy at home and an empire abroad is unsustainable, according to Chalmers Johnson. Good essay, I recommend it.

Gobsmacked, Part 917 (Updated)

2007-02-06T15:55:00.000-05:00

Just when I think Republicans and the Administration wouldn't dare commit political suicide, they do it. This surprises me over and over and over again. My wife mocks me every time I'm surprised, and to show her I'm not a naive idiot I become even more cynical of Republicans, only to be shocked by yet another act of political stupidity. Again and again...lather, rinse, repeat.

Recall the non-binding Warner-Hagel resolution the Senate intended to pass, essentially telling the President the Senate opposes the escalation in Iraq. Keep in mind, this was a non-binding resolution, so it had no weight on our foreign policy. It was simply a 'Sense of the Senate' type of thing. Hell, even us anti-war folks were upset, because it seemed a waste of time, and the point (that the Democratic Congress opposed the escalation) had already been made. Besides, the Decider had already stated he's moving forward with the escalation, so this resolution was no big deal, right?

Well.

Through some parliamentary maneuvering by Republicans yesterday (TPM gives the best rundowns here and here, and DailyKos discusses it here), Republicans have effectively filibustered this resolution. They stopped debate on a non-binding resolution. Wow.

Once again, I am surprised, because I don't see the political wisdom in shutting down a proclamation against escalation. Question: with this filibuster, what have Republicans done long term? Answer: reinforced the meme to the American public, yet again, that the Iraq War is a Republican war.

Republicans (should) very much realize the Iraq War is a disaster, both in real terms and political terms, and escalation is even less popular (see Update below). So why fight tooth and nail against a statement that opposes escalation even more meekly than the American public does? I don't have an answer, but I speculate that Republicans bet they can create some smoke and mirrors show that will persuade Americans to vote for Republicans in 2008, despite the Iraq War.

But if that's what Republicans think, then I make two points:

First, inherent in that gamble is the belief that opposition to the war is fragile. But that's absurd. The mainstream media supported and still supports this war, and many Democrats feared speaking out against this war and still act too timidly in their opposition. In essence, anti-war voices were marginalized and remain marginalized, yet the American people overwhelmingly oppose this war. Therefore, the American people have decided to oppose this war, all by themselves, and despite all the pro-war voices bombarding them on a daily basis. One doesn't do something like that lightly, and one will thus not reverse that decision lightly. Americans want to get the hell out of Iraq, and SwiftBoat Veterans version 2.0 won't distract Americans from that electoral goal in 2008.

Second, and more disturbing, inherent in that gamble is the belief that Americans are stupid- stupid enough to be fooled back into voting for a warmongering party in 2008, after they repudiated that party in 2006. Americans may be slow to catch on, but they're not so stupid as to make the same mistake again. They realize that Bush is an idiotic madman, Cheney is disturbingly evil, the Republican Party is corrupt, and the Iraq War was a mistake built on lies spewed by these people.

Seriously, what exactly do Republicans think they can do to change those perceptions? Based on my first point, I believe it's impossible to change those perceptions, and Republicans should just learn to operate in this new environment. President Lincoln's words are all too true- you can fool some of the people all the time (around 30%, based on recent polls), you can fool all the people some of the time, but you can't fool all the people all the time.

For six stinking years, the Bush Administration and the Republican Party fooled 50.1% of the people, and distracted them from the horror and consequences of the Iraq War. But those days are over. Nothing will bring those days back, and filibustering a resolution that the American people support will only further alienate the Republican Party from the American people.

Once again, I am surprised by the political stupidity of such action. And once again, my wife will make fun of me. Damn.

UPDATE:

On second thought, perhaps Republicans just flat out do not realize how unpopular and disastrous the Iraq War really is. Only 13% of Republican Congressmen believe Global Warming is man-made. If they're this disconnected from the reality of Global Warming, in general how connected to reality can they be?

New NIE on Iraq

2007-02-02T15:51:00.000-05:00

The key judgments of the new National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraq came out today. Here's the official document, and Talking Points has more.

At the risk of being overly simplistic, we're basically f--ked. We have about 2-3 more Friedmans (12-18 months) before Iraq really deteriorates (because right now we're merely on the verge of deteriorating? Huh?). But, if we withdraw, that rapid deterioration will occur almost immediately. My what a lovely choice- would you like a douchebag or a turd?

Look, I'm not naive about the problems that we'll have when we withdraw. My feeling has always been that withdrawal, while not a good option, is the least bad option we have. I believe we've already lost the Iraq War- when you lose, you don't get to dictate terms or ensure a pleasant landing. That's why starting a war should always be an absolute last resort- because the cost of losing makes war inherently very risky.

The sooner we realize and deal with our defeat, the better off we'll be long term. And withdrawal forces us to deal with our defeat immediately. Thus, we must withdraw, sooner rather than later.

Why Is He the Only One Laughing?

2007-01-31T15:59:00.000-05:00

Umm, I know I've expressed my feelings on President Bush's personality very clearly, but I think he's getting worse.

Let me set the scene for you. Imagine you get in a car you're not familiar with, and there are a bunch of people standing in front of the car. You turn the key, and the car lurches forward a few feet, and startles and scatters those people.

Now, close your eyes, picture that scene in your mind, and imagine what you would do next. Now, open your eyes. Ask yourself, would you laugh and then drive the car to the exact spot where everybody was just standing? Do you know anybody that would? Check this out.

I really, really want to see video of this, but I don't think it's going to change my mind. He's mad. He's absolutely lost it. He's out of his fucking mind, and he's in control of the most powerful military in the world. (shudder).

Iran-Contra: the Waystation between Watergate and the "Unitary Executive"

2007-01-31T15:37:00.000-05:00

If you have the time (an hour and a half), refresh your memory on the Iran-Contra scandal from the Reagan Era. Why should you refresh your memory? Because it's the same people involved! See here, here, and here. Abrams, Poindexter, Negroponte, Cheney, Gates (our new SecDef)...even Ollie North is back, albeit as a talk radio personality.

None of this is news, but I just thought it would be helpful to remember who is exactly involved with this disaster of a Presidency. Now you know why catastrophic polls and the electoral disaster in November haven't changed this Administration's behavior one bit- they never cared a bit about the people's will or the long-term health of our country anyway. Same f--king people, same f--king arrogance, same f--king lawlessness.

This video is bit long (!), so I'll probably view it this weekend.

The War on the War Has Begun (Updated)

2007-01-30T17:30:00.000-05:00

This is how it begins.

Russ Feingold, who just finished conducting a hearing on Congress' role in wartime (and specifically whether Congress can order the President to withdraw from a given theater of conflict), has announced he will introduce legislation that will, essentially, give the President six months to get out of Iraq before Congress starts withdrawing funding. I haven't read the bill yet, so I'm not quite clear on the details, but I think it's safe to say the general debate on the Iraq War has shifted (and continues to shift) away from 'how do we win?' to 'how do we get out?'

Also, Glenn Greenwald uncovers what Republicans were saying about Congressional war powers...in 1993. It's quite appalling to see so many Republicans absolutely begging to get out of Somalia, without giving much thought to the limits of Congressional power on the President in a time of war blah blah blah. Republicans- for Congressional mandates to withdraw before they were against it. Fucking flipfloppers. St. McCain's statement is especially striking.

Now, many, many things have to happen before we can begin withdrawal from Iraq. Looking at these two examples, if I had to bet money, Feingold's legislation won't have enough support to even break a filibuster, let alone override a certain Presidential veto. And the mainstream media won't question Republicans on their previous statements, so I doubt they will suffer for their hypocrisy.

But it's important to note that the War on the War has begun, with the American public and the Democrats on one side, and the President and Republicans on the other side.

Look, we don't magically wake up one day and poof!, we're out of our foolish, incompetent, fraudulent war/occupation. No, what we're witnessing here are the twin virtues of agenda control and incrementalism. Because Democrats control both Houses of Congress, they can set the agenda, and continue to introduce more and more legislation finding different ways to get out of Iraq. And each and every time the Democrats do that, the White House will have to scramble to rally support for its failed plan, and Republicans will have to get in front of cameras to once again defend the continuation/escalation of the occupation.

Probably each and every time, the Republicans will be able to knock back any withdrawal mandates from Congress. And even if withdrawal/defunding legislation did get through, it wouldn't have enough votes to get past the Decider. But these victories for the Republicans would come at a heavy price. Each and every time a piece of legislation comes up, the American public would be reminded, yet again, that this is a Republican war, with Republican support, and only Republicans are opposing withdrawal. And, perhaps, each and every time Republican support would waver just a little more, a few nervous '08 candidates would hem and haw just a little bit longer. Eventually, given enough public pressure and political advice, one or two or a few would bolt from the President and his war- permanently.

Eventually, enough Republicans would bolt to override a Presidential veto, which is when the sparks would really fly. No way would the Commander-in-Chief/Decider/Unitary Executive accede to the wishes of Congress on matters of national security. No way.

By then, we'd be facing full on the Constitutional Crisis that has existed for far too long- a President who does not respect the Rule of Law, the Separation of Powers, or the Will of the American People. Hopefully by then we would settle this Constitutional Crisis once and for all.

How long will all of this take? Much longer than it should, and it's entirely possible we won't get this done before President Bush leaves office (presumably tabling, once again, the Constitutional issues raised by the authoritarian supporters of President Bush). Regardless, we've got a long road ahead of us, but we've at least begun the journey to get out of Iraq.

UPDATE:

Barack Obama has launched his first volley by introducing legislation mandating all troops should be out of Iraq by March of 2008. That's essentially a 12 month timetable. Wow.

Taibbi Hit - Hillary's Announcement

2007-01-30T11:01:00.000-05:00

Matt Taibbi has his take on Hillary's announcement in Iowa, and, well, he's not impressed. Neither am I. Only once did she mention the Iraq War, and only then when a veteran in the crowd asked her about it. She proceeded to not answer his question, and blather on about health care for veterans. Ugh.

What Happened to My America?

2007-01-29T10:12:00.000-05:00

Glenn Greenwald writes an eloquent and (a rarity) concise post about the latest with Maher Arar. For those unaware, Maher Arar is a Syrian-born Canadian citizen that was kidnapped and tortured by the United States, without the Canadian government's consent or (prior) knowledge.

Mr. Arar has since been released, and the Canadian government has formally apologized to Mr. Arar and compensated him for damages. That's what Canada did. The United States, on the other hand, used the bulls--t State Secrets Doctrine to get Mr. Arar's lawsuit thrown out, and still, to this day, refuses to take Mr. Arar off the no-fly list or the terrorist watch list.

Now, Mr. Arar has been exonerated. He's not been found guilty of anything, and he's paid an awful price for my government's ~~incompetence~~ ~~bigotry~~ paranoia. Yet, as Glenn points out, either out of spite or pathological inability to admit error, my government continues to "suspect" him as a terrorist (by keeping him on these lists).

Every time I read about Maher Arar or Khalid El-Masri or Jose Louis Padilla, I lose a little more faith in what I believed for so long- that this country is worth fighting for. This country raised me, protected me, educated me, and enriched me- this country is all I've ever known, and I've loved it for as long as I've been alive.

But can I really say this forever and ever, regardless of what my government does? No.

I used to believe the US was a force of good, a force of morality, a force of peace, prosperity, and equality. Sure, maybe I could've been more cynical, but so many unthinkable thresholds have been crossed that naivete doesn't explain it all. Torture? That's what the Nazis and Soviets did, the US was better than that. Kangaroo courts? That was for Kafka and Orwell to dream about, that would never happen here. Unjustified warmaking and oppression? Hitler (and Saddam) did that, we would never elect a sociopath.

The list keeps getting longer, and quite honestly, I don't know how much longer I can see that list grow before I throw up my hands and say 'f--k it, we're moving to Canada!' After all, as we see with Maher Arar, they'll at least admit when they're wrong, try to soften the damage, and fight relentlessly to protect their own citizens against oppression by other governments. How bad could Canada be, eh?

Who Wants Out?

2007-01-29T10:01:00.000-05:00

Lieutenant General William Odom, that's who. He served under President Reagan.

Now, he's been playing this tune for awhile, but if you want to see a perfect example of why he believes we're not accomplishing anything in Iraq, see this graphic video (warning: it is graphic, including multiple beatings).

When Does the Greed Stop?

2007-01-26T17:17:00.000-05:00

Take the time to watch this 7 minute speech by Senator Kennedy of Massachusetts. It is passionate and inspirational, and at the same time energizing and angering. Take the time to watch this, and remember the questions Senator Kennedy asks:

1. What is the price that you want from hardworking Americans?
2. What is about working men and women that you find so offensive?
3. When does the greed stop?

Drop a line to Senator Kennedy and give him some love.

(Let's also note that our own Senator Jim DeMint and Holy St. McCain voted on an amendment to eliminate the federal minimum wage, and leave it to the states to set their own. Disgusting- when does it stop?)

Close to the Green Zone

2007-01-26T11:58:00.000-05:00

Interesting piece on a battle on Haifa Street in Baghdad. Haifa Street is about a mile and a half from the Green Zone, and the pictures showed a pretty nasty fight. I've often wondered if the violence in Baghdad has been creeping closer and closer to the Green Zone- it's hard to tell when most of the news reports simply say 'in Baghdad today, blah blah blah...' I'm still wondering, but now I'm wondering if journalists, embassy officials, military staff, etc., are starting to work on evacuation plans. There appeared to be lots of gunfire, explosions, and even US military involvement- all less than two miles away, and probably visible from higher floors in the Green Zone. Just wondering.

Oh, and by the way, CBS decided not to run the piece on the network- only on the website. I suspect the footage of dead bodies had something to do with that.

The Pied Piper Syndrome

2007-01-25T09:56:00.000-05:00

Anonymous Liberal sums up the political quandary Republicans have put themselves in with this war. As satisfying as it is to watch Republican politicians stew in their own juices, I would much rather they save their party, and in so doing, help get us out of Iraq before 2009.

I don't think it will happen, but a man can dream.

The Childishness of Escalation and Lindsey Graham

2007-01-25T09:49:00.000-05:00

While enjoying my coffee Friday morning, I read a relatively extensive interview of Lindsey Graham by the Post & Courier regarding the Iraq War, and his statements so shocked me that I almost spit my coffee out. While talking about the importance of Iraq, Senator Graham failed to embrace any hard choices in Iraq, and thus failed to take any responsibility for the Iraq War.

I am struck by the incoherence and pointlessness of all of this. Senator Graham said the Iraq War is hugely important, which is why we must do everything we can to win. He also said the Bush Administration didn't put enough troops in Iraq to begin with, and that was one of the mistakes we made. (As an aside, a fact check- Senator Lindsey Graham never complained about how the Administration managed the Iraq War, and only called for more troops in Iraq mid-November 2006. Up until then, according to Lindsey Graham, everything was peachy keen. I wonder what happened to "change" his mind?)

Well, okay, whatever, if you believe the Iraq War is a truly Epic Struggle of Global and Historic Importance, then by all means loudly call for more troops. Loudly call for many more troops, enough troops to ensure success, and then add a few more troops in there just to be sure- after all, this War is Ever So Important, so we shouldn't take any chances.

But that's not what Senator Graham is doing. When asked specifically if he thought President Bush's escalation of 21,500 soldiers would do the job, he responded by saying "given the new mission, yes."

Huh...? What new mission? Isn't the mission, according to President Bush, unchanged to still create a stable, secular democracy allied with the United States in the War on Terror? Also, he's extremely concerned about the ramifications of losing the Iraq War, but he thinks a mere 15% increase in force size should do it? Let's not forget, this doesn't really raise our presence, not in the long term sense- this escalation merely returns our force size to our 2004 presence. We know how that force size worked out in accomplishing our mission.

This doesn't make sense, yet by embracing this war for so long, Republicans like Senator Graham have forced themselves into these hard choices- either oppose escalation and implicitly turn towards withdrawal, or support this piddly political tinkering in order to stave off withdrawal and defeat...at least until after 2008.

This shouldn't be a hard choice, considering we're messing with American and Iraqi lives here- sparing lives should trump sparing Republican egos. Such a half-hearted measure, designed to avoid responsibility and "hand off" this disaster to the next President (or in Senator Graham's case in order to get through the next election) is disgusting and shameless, and should be opposed.

Unless you really, really believe in this war, that is. If you really believe in "winning" the Iraq War, then you must also by definition support not a subtle but a massive increase of our force size in Iraq. We're talking on the order of at least 500,000 to 1 million troops in Iraq. The current commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus (whom Senator Graham tells us we should listen to), explicitly called for this when he co-authored the Counterinsurgency Field Manual (here's some quickie analysis on it). Thus, you cannot support "winning" in Iraq without supporting a force size of at least half a million soldiers. And I dare say a force size of half a million or more soldiers would require a draft.

So, how many of you are willing to support a draft in order to "win" in Iraq? Yeah, I didn't think so. But how many of you are willing to stand up and say we cannot win, so we must withdraw? Yeah, not many there either (though count me in). Senator Graham knows we're too prideful to admit defeat in order to stop a pointless war, and knows he won't pay a political price for postponing our defeat. He's playing on our emotions in order to avoid responsibility for this catastrophe. Yuck.

I coached many teenage swimmers that claimed they wanted to make States or Sectionals or whatever, but were then unwilling to put in the necessary work to give themselves the best chance at achieving those goals. They avoided the responsibility of hard choices (which essentially became a choice to keep doing the same thing). With kids, you can sometimes expect and forgive such behavior.

We should demand more, however, from our Senator. Senator Lickspittle Goober has childishly chosen to avoid responsibility for this pointless war, which essentially is a choice to continue this pointless war. We have lost, yet Huckleberry can't bear to face the repercussions, and will instead plug his ears and say "nyah nyah nyah, the 21,000 should do the job."South Carolina and the families of our future dead soldiers deserve better than a child.

...

I encourage all of you to call Senator Graham's office (202 224-5972) or email him and let him know how you feel about this escalation. If you do, see if you can get answers to these questions (I couldn't):

1. When did Senator Graham realize we didn't have enough troops in Iraq? What changed his mind?

2. In the Post & Courier interview, Senator Graham encouraged all of us to listen to General Petraeus's plan. Does Senator Graham agree with General Petraeus, given the general believes a minimum of 20 combat soldiers per 1000 of population are required to defeat an insurgency? Would Senator Graham support an escalation of 500,000 soldiers? 1,000,000 soldiers?

3. Is there any situation or condition on the ground in Iraq that would change Senator Graham's mind about withdrawal? Could he ever support withdrawal, or does he implicitly support a permanent military presence in Iraq?

If you do get any answers to these questions, please drop me a line and let me know what they said.

The Coming Constitutional Crisis (Updated)

2007-01-10T09:43:00.000-05:00

I said previously (maybe in one of my Quick Hits, but I don't know where, so no link) that although I believe the Iraq War should be Priority #1 for the Democratic Congress in 2007, the Bush Administration would force a Constitutional Crisis by resisting any kind of investigation or oversight by this Congress.

We may have a two-fer.

Democrats have steadily ratcheted up the rhetoric on the Iraq War, starting with Speaker Nancy Pelosi's call for a "justification" of the escalation on Meet the Press on Sunday, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Speaker Pelosi's joint letter to President Bush strongly opposing an escalation. A few days ago, firebrand Congressman John Murtha (D-PA) announced plans to block any funding of the escalation, and yesterday, Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) introduced legislation to require Congressional authorization to escalate the troop levels in Iraq.

Many conservative nutbags (no I will NOT link to them) and even Senator Joe Biden (D!-DE) have expressed doubt about the Constitutionality of Congress limiting the President in his escalation. But, already, the Center for American Progress has done a fact-check and come up with many examples of when Congress placed limits on the President's military maneuvers.

Also on Monday, Tony Snow received a lot of questions about Congressional opposition to escalation, and said "the President can exercise his own authority," if he believes Congress is wrong in denying funding. SnowJob might be bluffing, but I doubt it. It sounds almost as if President Bush will escalate regardless of what Congress does or if 80+% of the American people oppose it.

This escalation issue, which Josh Marshall believes was originally intended as a political punt to hand this war off to the next President, is heating up really, really fast. Only a few days into the 110th Congress, and denial of funding is the buzzword.

So, Iraq is clearly the issue that Congress and the Administration want to deal with right now. And you can see where the Constitutional Crisis comes in: if Congress passes (with a veto-proof majority) legislation that blocks funding of the escalation, then I predict President Bush will go ahead with the escalation anyway.

Now, that's a very big 'if' and I'm speculating about the President's response, but honestly, would it really shock anyone to see Republicans start to distance themselves from this war, and subsequently see the Decider ignore the American people, Democrats, the Generals, and a few "wimpy" Republicans? Don't be shocked if it happens. By now, nothing should shock you about this guy- he believes he should answer to no one, and for 6 fucking years he's been right. But he's not (and never has been) connected to reality, and he hasn't accepted the fact that the Democrats are in control now, and the American people are behind the Democrats in ending this war. More importantly, and more revealingly, he doesn't care. He's the Decider.

Think about that for a moment. If I'm right, the President will stage a coup. The Congress, expressing the will of the people and operating well within its Constitutional rights, will try to control the deployment of the military. The President will essentially ignore that, and move the military wherever he damn well pleases. If this happened in some banana republic, no one would hesitate to call this a coup.

Congress will try to end our nightmare in Iraq and discover how much abuse the Administration has engaged in, and the Decider will dare them to take drastic steps to rein him in. This is what lies ahead for us, and despite some Dem fretting here and here, this is what always lay ahead of us. Buckle up, and nut up.

UPDATE:

The troop "surge" is already underway, according to ABC. I think this is a more telling aspect to the inherent cowardice of the Administration. They'd rather preempt the debate than engage in it, because they know they'd lose. The heat's turning up, because I doubt Senator Kennedy will back down. We shall see how committed Dems are to getting the hell out of Iraq, because they'll have to lobby hard to obtain a veto-proof majority in the Senate to pass the Kennedy bill. And even if they succeed, President Bush would ignore the legislation, once again throwing us back into Constitutional Crisis mode.

This Crisis will exist until we deal with it, or until 2009.

12/19 Quick Hits

2006-12-19T17:30:00.000-05:00

The Holiday season has disrupted my blogging a bit, so I apologize if my posts have been spotty as of late. My posting will continue to be erratic through the New Year, but please continue to check in.

1. While American Jose Padilla rots in a cell, after 3+ years of illegal imprisonment and unjustified torture, white guy and neo-Nazi Van Crocker gets convicted in a real trial for plotting to commit a terrorist attack against African-Americans. So, to recap:

- a Hispanic guy thrown in jail using all sorts of extraordinary & un-Constitutional powers? Lots of media hype when he's detained. Not much since then, considering he didn't do those things he was accused of.
- a white neo-Nazi caught using old-fashioned police work (warrants, judicial orders, etc.)? Nothing to see here, folks. Move along.

2. Baghdad basically out of power. From an electrical power perspective, Baghdad has been cut off and isolated. I'm worried.

3. Oh, and those schools we're building in Iraq? You know, one of those "good" stories that the media wouldn't report on? Yeah, well, they're actually closing down.

4. The Lower 9th in New Orleans still devastated. 25% of the homes have applied for demolition permits, but only 3% have applied for electricity service. It looks like people are not coming back, at least not for awhile.

5. Darfur's genocide isn't going away. At the risk of being a shallow idiot, after seeing "Blood Diamond" this past weekend I became a little more attuned to the problem (or horror) of child soldiers. Take a look at this, and take a look at the entire photo essay, and then tell me you want to keep throwing blood, treasure, and time into Iraq.

6. This isn't the most newsworthy item, but I wanted to drop it in here anyway. Bob Barr, former Republican Congressman from Georgia, quits the GOP and joins the Libertarian Party. Now, Bob Barr's no angel, since he was one of the guys leading the charge for Clinton impeachment. He is at least consistent, however, since he's now screaming to impeach George W. Bush for the same thing (breaking the law). His move will probably mean nothing, but you never know. Sometimes things snowball- we could see a large group of (principled) Republicans leave the party en masse, if they become convinced the Republican Party stands for nothing.

12/13 Quick Hits

2006-12-14T09:44:00.000-05:00

1. If you had a child today, before that child turned 35, there would be no arctic ice left in the world, according to this report. If I remember correctly from An Inconvenient Truth, that could potentially throw Europe into an Ice Age. Does anyone still think al-Qaeda is a bigger threat to our existence than Global Warming? DailyKos diarist DarkSyde provides perspective.

2. Over the years I've made several business trips to Miami, and the running joke was Miami is so great because "it is soooo close to the United States." Congressman Tom Tancredo took that thinking to the level of offensive bigotry by calling Miami "a Third World Country," and received criticism for those comments. He also was invited to visit Miami by Republican Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (of Florida), but he declined the invitation unless it included "a stay at a five-star beachfront resort." Say what you want about bigots, but they're at least classy- 'nothing less than a five-star beachfront resort will be graced by my old white racist ass!'

3. Interesting way to think about the Iraq War- by comparing its popularity to other issues deemed too controversial by Democrats, like gay marriage and legalizing marijuana.

4. Christ almighty, this isn't a f--king game, guys! The Pentagon (and presumably, the Bush Administration) want to 'double down' in Iraq. Bush's New Way Forward = more troops, apparently. People, we are headed for war on this war. The only way we're getting out is if Congress has the balls to withdraw funding. They've got the mandate from the American people (see #3), but time will tell if Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are willing to cut this disaster off.

5. Although he's a bit of a blowhard, his natural irreverence gives him the ability to speak truth to (or mock) power. For that, I like Jack Cafferty.

Why I Shed No Tears for Lincoln Chafee- a Study in Context

2006-12-14T09:32:00.000-05:00

A few nights ago, The Daily Show's guest was outgoing Rhode Island Senator Lincoln Chafee. Now, Senator Chafee has a reputation as a fiscally conservative, socially liberal moderate, and also as a genuinely nice guy. For years, that enabled him to get reelected as a Republican in a liberal New England state. And he came across as a reasonable, nice guy on The Daily Show as well. The audience seemed to like him, Jon Stewart liked him and, although shocked by his candor, seemed sympathetic to his status as one of the last moderates in politics.

Before the election, a friend of mine felt the same as Stewart- mourning the loss of moderation in politics. I say the same thing now I said to him then- I shed no tears for nice-guy Chafee, because the "moderateness" of Chafee has proven a myth. Assuming Sheldon Whitehouse (the Democrat that walloped him in the election) is not that much better on Progressive issues than Chafee, I maintain that Whitehouse was still, by far, the preferable choice. How can that be?

Because of the context of reelecting Chafee, that's how. The Democrats have control of the Senate by one vote, and with Chafee the Republicans would have control. By reelecting Chafee, voters would also reelect the following:

- Senator James Inhofe to chair the Senate Environment Committee, a man that (I s--t you not) believes Global Warming is a hoax perpetrated by the media.

- Senator Pat Roberts to chair the Intelligence Committee, a man who hasn't and won't investigate pre-war intelligence failures, or for that matter anything done by the Administration.

- Senator Arlen Specter to chair the Judiciary Committee, a man who loudly claims to protect Habeas Corpus and a woman's right to choose, only to then vote for the Military Commissions Act and vote to confirm John Roberts and Sam Alito to the Supreme Court.

- Senator Ted 'Internet Tubes' Stevens to chair the Appropriations Committee, a man who got the federal government to pay for the infamous Bridge to Nowhere (instead of sending that money to New Orleans), and who desperately wants to drill for oil in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).

I could go on, but the point is obvious. There is nothing moderate about an Environmental Committee Chairman who believes Global Warming is a hoax, an Intelligence Committee Chairman who believes we shouldn't look into our intelligence "failures" (or lies, depending on what we find), a Judiciary Committee Chairman who would throw away Habeas Corpus and stack the Supreme Court with anti-choice nominees, or an Appropriations Committee Chairman who would bilk mainland US taxpayers of $450 million for a bridge in Freakin' Bumfuck, Alaska. There is nothing moderate about any of that, yet that is exactly what you would get with "moderate" Lincoln Chafee.

You cannot look at each candidate's reelection bid in isolation- the context of majority control and benefits to the Progressive Movement in general must be considered. Just as you should not sympathize with the devil, you should not sympathize with the devil's enablers (like Senator Chafee). Considering the last six years of Total Republican Domination, I'm extremely glad to see Senator Chafee go, and along with him the chairmanships of Senators Inhofe, Roberts, Specter, and Stevens.

Markos at DailyKos originally made this point here, and to his credit he's been pounding this drum for awhile. Individual progressive interest groups (like NARAL or the Sierra Club) benefit more when they all act in concert, as an entire movement. One would think that just makes sense- a Democrat is far more likely to be friendly to, say, environmental issues or women's choice than a Republican. But historically, and including this election, these interest groups have played dumb, merely asking for a politician to score high on checklists and specific votes, regardless of the context of those issues or the impact of his/her Party affiliation. If the Progressive Movement is to advance generally, these groups must start supporting the Democratic Party generally.

Given his recent sympathetic appearance on The Daily Show, I feel compelled to remind everyone of the nightmarishly-high cost of reelecting a nice-guy, socially moderate Republican. Mr. Chafee, over these past few years you've had many chances to do the right thing by putting principles before your party. You failed to do that, and took the easy route by being a "nice" guy and "getting along" with everyone. So I say to you, good riddance!

12/11 Quick Hits

2006-12-11T17:54:00.000-05:00

1. For the love of God, will nothing get through to this man? Read this, then ponder some questions. First, why is he so obsessed with his place in history? Shouldn't the President focus on making good decisions? And second, if he's going to plant memes about his own historical "rightness," why is he trying to do that with the leaders of the opposition party? What the hell goes through that alcohol-soaked cocaine-riddled brain of his?

2. The Foley Report is out here, and Vanity Fair has a piece here. Interesting note: Democratic Congressional leader Rahm Emanuel knew about the emails as far back as Fall 2005, and (as far as I can tell) didn't do jackshit. Oh, and he lied about his knowledge of Foley's behavior. Again, my blood is boiling on this- what the hell are these politicians thinking letting this guy roam free? Every time I read about the Foley scandal, I shake my head at the politicians who condoned this behavior and think, "who are these people?" I have to ask the same about Emanuel- who is this guy? I've never warmed to him, and this is a very good reason to not like him at all. What a hypocritical asshole!

3. Taliban Gone Wild, Afghanistan edition. As Josh Marshall asks here, did anyone ask Secretary of Defense nominee Robert Gates if he thinks we're winning the war in Afghanistan?

4. And, according to recent reports, the Iraqis want out...literally. Approximately 100,000 Iraqis per month are leaving the country, creating a refugee population of about 2.3 million. I always use California as the demographic analogy for Iraq- similar landmass, albeit Iraq is a little less populated. But that proves my point better. First, suppose some catastrophe hit California and caused 100,000 Californians to move into neighboring states and regions- can you imagine the visibility that tragedy would receive? For that matter, can we even imagine a tragedy large enough to cause that kind of mass exodus? It's that level of tragedy that is occurring in Iraq, people. And it's only going to get worse.

5. I love it when old media types try to "catch" bloggers in a scandal. This one takes the cake, though. A guy on MyDD writes a satirical post about using aliases, and a TV jackass takes it literally. He does a whole 3+ min video segment...on something that a blogger (obviously) made up. Greg Sargent has the full story, along with all the relevant links, and some very pointed questions.

6. Outgoing UN Secretary General Kofi Annan weighs in on American actions across the globe the past few years. He loves what we've done with the place! Actually, no he doesn't, he's quite troubled about us, even if he doesn't mention America by name for most of the editorial...

Guys, Let's Not Fight

2006-12-08T17:45:00.000-05:00

(note: I posted this in a diary on DailyKos, in response to Markos' own post here and Chris Bowers' post here. I strongly recommend you read Bowers' post first, then Kos. Then you can either read this post or you can read the diary, since it's the same text. Lots of comments on the diary, though, so maybe you want to read through that. In any case...)

Guys:

We get that you don't want an impeachment fight, because the media will be hostile and Republicans will scratch and claw and scream (as if waiving impeachment will change that). We get that you think it's pointless because there aren't enough votes to convict in the Senate (today). We get that you're tired of the Bush Presidency, and you want to move on.

It's fine if you don't want to lead the fight for impeachment. It's even fine if you disagree and think it will be a bad idea. It's fine if you think universal health care is more important than the Rule of Law. It's fine if you believe our priorities should be elsewhere.

It's fine if you disagree. But don't get in the way, not now.

Kos, you have often said that this people-powered movement isn't about you, and doesn't really have "leaders" who dictate the agenda. If you believe that, now's the time to prove it. Step away from this issue, at least for now. Don't insult us with the "vendetta" smear (we'll get plenty of that from Republicans) or throw marbles under our feet with preemptive opposition. Don't undercut the investigations that we all want by taking accountability off the table.

If you don't want an impeachment fight, fine, but then let others take the lead on this issue like Glenn Greenwald or MoveOn or Kos diarists jimstaro, kizzle, simplify or Jerome a Paris. We can do this, but not if you, Bowers, and others in the Netroots preemptively fight us before investigations have even begun. Show that you're willing to maintain unity with other Dems on the principle of Accountability (which must allow for punishment). Stand with your fellow Dems and support the spirit of the People-Powered Movement.

Favoring impeachment before investigations might be irrational. But opposing impeachment before investigations definitely is. So sit down, and don't talk about opposing impeachment until you know what you're condoning.

I can't speak for others, but seeing Netroots leaders like yourself and Bowers condone Presidential crimes before you even know the scope of those crimes bitterly disappoints me. Seeing you pine for investigations while simultaneously trying to close the door on accountability for those investigations stuns me.

For now, step aside on this issue, and let others take the lead. We're in this together, so let's not fight.

12/5 Quick Hits

2006-12-05T18:55:00.000-05:00

1. They were right, and we were wrong, and kudos to Washington Post's Walter Pincus for pointing that out.

2. Following up on yesterday's story about Jose Padilla (#2 in Quick Hits here), conservative columnist (and completely unqualified law professor) Ann Althouse surprises all of us yet again. Read this very short post, then ponder how to communicate with her. I mean, really...what do you say to people like this?

3. Whoa. I've never been a fan of the "War on Drugs," but after reading this and this awhile ago, I decided it was time we end that war by decriminalizing and regulating some drugs. After reading this, however, I'm once again frightened at what my government has done and will do to people who dare consume drugs not sold by Merck or Pfizer. Hat tip to Glenn Greenwald for pointing out this story, but also just like Glenn let me disclose that the Observer appears to have taken credit for work done by NarcoNews.

4. Secretary of Defense nominee Robert Gates says, simply and succinctly, that we are not winning the Iraq War.

5. And in a followup to this story a few days ago, it turns out nutjob Dennis Prager was appointed by President Bush to the Holocaust Memorial Council just this past September. In other words, taxpayers are funding this jerk's calls for the overthrow of our government.

6. Keep crying, 41, keep crying. And while you shed your blue-blooded, silver-spooned tears, remember that thanks to your offspring, hundreds of thousands of people cried for the deaths of their loved ones (but I'm sure some dirty tricks in a campaign are much worse). Keep crying, asshole, keep crying.

Perspective Hit- Entrapment

2006-12-04T18:20:00.000-05:00

So given the Iraq War disaster, it looks like we'll be getting into some serious soul-searching on the national level, along with some mild psychoanalysis of Our Dear Leader. Once again, Josh Marshall at TalkingPointsMemo does a little head shrinking. More importantly, this article on psychological entrapment is quite interesting, and I highly recommend it. I have two personal experiences to relate on entrapment:

1. For a little bit of investing advocacy, I used to run around a message board for this telecom equipment company named Corvis. This company had so much useless hype, but let's be honest, what tech company didn't back in 2000-2001? No, what drew me to playing devil's advocate with the hopeful investors on this message board was the level of emotion involved. They were all so personally invested in the success of this company, and I felt that was unhealthy for the investors. Despite disappointing and moneylosing quarter after quarter, year after year, these investors stayed in the stock (or even doubled up on their investment), in hopes that the stock price would rebound to their original purchase price. Deep down inside, they all probably knew the company was failing and the stock wasn't going to rebound, but by selling the stock they knew they guaranteed their loss. Staying in the stock enabled them to stay hopeful, and postponed the inevitable. Eventually, the company went bankrupt, the bondholders took what little was left, and the stockholders got nothing.

2. Off and on I have had mild debates with my father about the Iraq War and what we should do. To be clear, he is certainly not pro-war, but strangely he can't bring himself to advocate for a withdrawal timetable either. I'm not even sure if he realizes that's his position, but I see it every time he mournfully observes, "we're in a quagmire- we can't stay, but we can't leave." Every time I correct him on this, and every time he backs off, but then a week or so later he'll say the same damn thing again. I don't think he's alone- I bet there are millions of Americans that know deep down inside we can't win this thing, but like my father they just can't bear to guarantee the defeat by withdrawing. Looking for new solutions or a "change of course" from a new Secretary of Defense or from the Iraq Study Group enables us to stay hopeful, and postpones the inevitable.

Of course we can leave, and deep down inside everybody knows we're going to be doing that eventually anyway. Like a money-losing stock, though, advocating leaving means we can't be hopeful anymore, and that's just not in our nature. On the other hand, do we really want to sacrifice more American and Iraqi lives, all so we can feel better about what we've done? I don't, which is why I advocate withdrawal.

We (and I include our leaders in government) won't be able to collectively advocate withdrawal unless we let go of what we've lost. That doesn't mean we forget or ignore what's happened. Rather, we make our decisions today based on what we think is best for tomorrow- regardless of how much time, blood, and money we have already sunk into the Iraq War. And looking towards the tomorrow from today, I think it's obvious that it makes more sense for us to get out of Iraq and get back into Afghanistan.

12/4 Quick Hits

2006-12-04T18:12:00.000-05:00

1. Interim UN Ambassador, possible slavery advocate, and just generally undiplomatic dickwad John Bolton resigned his commission, effective in the next few days. Good riddance.

2. One day, we will be ashamed of what we've done to Jose Louis Padilla- the American citizen who was arrested without charge on American soil, imprisoned indefinitely, and allegedly tortured. The NY Times (free registration required) offers up more insight into what we've done to him, and it ain't pretty. Glenn Greenwald has more.

3. The largest commercial insurer in New Orleans cuts and runs from commercial insurance in New Orleans. YOYO (You're On Your Own) strikes again.

4. The lame-duck House has scheduled a vote to expand offshore oil drilling in the Gulf Coast. I prioritize this because, although you can't tell from the story, this indirectly affects the Lowcountry and South Carolina. This bill is a compromise of a previous version that sought to open up almost ALL coastal waters to offshore drilling- including South Carolina's coastal waters. We should watch this very closely, because our own Henry Brown strongly supports opening up South Carolina's coast to offshore drilling, and this (lame-duck) Congress is known for inserting shit into bills at the last minute.

5. Enough rhetoric! Just a nice little diary pointing out how pragmatism can work for the Progressive movement as well. I'm not sure I buy into it, but I still recommend you read this.

Taibbi Hit- Midterm Election Diary

2006-12-04T18:10:00.000-05:00

(note: I generally run to Matt Taibbi's writing like a maggot to rotting flesh. He provides very unique and biting commentary, while making us laugh so hard we forget to cry. This post is a little dated, but I'm going to start linking and reposting a lot of his stuff. Enjoy)

Money passage, or rather long train of thought:

It's not a coincidence that the early White House hopefuls were all herded on the air the instant the polls closed. Once the last vote is counted, the next story is the next race. All politics has to be contained within the parameters of that who's-winning narrative.

What the Congress actually does, how it actually spends its money, what happens in its committees - it's all irrelevant, except insofar as that activity bears on the next presidential race. That's why the "experts" on these panels are so unanimous in their belief that the Democrats should lay low for the next two years and not push their subpoena powers. They all think pushing it in Congress would negatively affect the Democrats' White House chances. In other words, it's bad strategy for the next football game, just like Howard Dean's crazy antiwar stance was deemed "too liberal" for the gridiron by the same geniuses a few years ago - even though history ultimately proved Dean right on that score, for all his other flaws.

Our national political press is narrowly focused, schooled in inch-deep analysis, and completely results-obsessed. It's a huge and expensive mechanism bedecked with every conceivable bell and whistle (did anyone else catch the giant cyber-globe display frantically spinning behind Anderson Cooper's head? I thought I was going to have an aneurysm) and designed to roam the intellectual range of a chimpanzee. It also has no sense of humor. When the Daily Show spoofed the networks with its "Midterm Midtacular," dragging the venerable Dan Rather out and coaxing a scripted piece of instant "homespun" analysis out of him (he said Hillary Clinton ran away with her race like "a hobo with a sweet potato pie"), the real journalists freaked out. Joe Scarborough led a panel of experts who denounced the show as not that funny; one guest compared Rather's bit to Muhammad Ali's crudely scripted appearances on Diff'rent Strokes, saying it was "awkward."

The reality is that Stewart's array of grotesquely pointless special effects and intentionally buffoonish commentary is an improvement on the real thing, and the real thing is an accurate reflection of our actual politics. Which means, basically, that we're fucked, stuck in an endless cycle of retarded lottery coverage -- 300 million people watching a bunch of half-bright millionaires in ties guess the next number to come out of the chute. I hope we're all insane. Otherwise, what's our excuse?

Learn the Taibbi. Know the Taibbi. Love the Taibbi.

I Called It! Dissemination edition...

2006-11-30T19:22:00.000-05:00

Hey, I said it first! Eric Schmidt, CEO of Google, believes that the dissemination power of the Internet will fundamentally change the way we conduct our politics.

That's what I said here, back on October 12th. Where's my f--king hat tip?

11/30 Quick Hits

2006-11-30T18:56:00.000-05:00

1. President Bush is a low class prick. Just go read it.

2. A Federal judge rules that President Bush does not have the authority to unilaterally designate groups as "terrorists." I was unaware that the Administration claimed this authority, and I'm a little hesitant to derive any greater meaning from this ruling. Any ruling that aims to protect the right to free association, is a good thing, however, so let's at least give a little golf clap.

3. No comment, but I do have an arrogant little smirk on my face.

4. More details on the Global Warming court case here and here. The arguments are finished, now we wait for the Supreme Court to rule.

5. Some committee, handpicked by President Bush over a year ago, was just briefed on the warrantless surveillance program, and declared themselves "impressed" by the civil liberties protections put in place by the NSA. Well, gosh oh golly gee, I feel so much better now. I guess illegal programs are good things after all! I like Anonymous Liberal's post on this the best, because he succinctly and clearly outlines, yet again, why this program is a problem. Glenn Greenwald also talks about it here.

6. A judge orders FEMA to resume housing payments to Katrina victims. It's hard keeping track of how many ways Katrina victims are being f--ked by our government, but it's good that at least this was remedied (in the short term). Also note the judge called FEMA's behavior "Kafkaesque."

What is America? (Updated)

2006-11-30T18:50:00.000-05:00

I linked and mass emailed this editorial yesterday, hoping to get a little feedback. Those that did respond trashed it, and one went further to point out that swearing to uphold the Constitution with a hand on a religious text holds more than a little irony. True true, and thanks again to those who wrote in with their opinions. Here are my thoughts.

This editorial touches on more than just religious freedom or freedom of speech or the Constitution. This editorial points out a new cleavage that exists in our society today- specifically, what do we consider America to be? What is America?

Is America a collection of white christians and some really nice real estate, needing protection above all else? If we believe that, then it's entirely appropriate to require Congressman-elect Keith Ellison to swear in on a bible. After all, we're a Christian nation, and Islam, as a threat to Christianity, by definition threatens our country.

Or, is America more than just a well financed, well armed, and religiously motivated street gang? Is America a collection of beliefs that together constitute freedom, needing protection above all else? If we believe that, then it's not only wrong but a gross offense against America's beliefs to require Congressman-elect Keith Ellison to swear in on a Bible. After all, if we support freedom as a belief, then we support freedom for everyone, not just the Christians and the whites.

I really believe this is the fundamental debate, and I really want to push for honesty in this debate. I grew up believing that the Founding Fathers risked everything, including death, in order to oppose tyranny and give freedom a sanctuary. Like them, I place a higher priority on protecting freedom than people.

Some don't truly believe that, however, whether they admit it or not. (side note: those same people are apparently so "proud" of their beliefs that they declined to defend this editorial. How courageous.) Some believe countering a threat could require sacrificing civil liberties, to protect against another 9/11. Some, essentially believe people should be placed ahead of freedom.

I and the Founding Fathers disagree. Our Founders very much placed freedom ahead of people- they knew by signing the Declaration of Independence and opposing the British Empire they risked their own lives and the lives of their fellow Americans. Fortunately it didn't come to that, but at the time of signing they didn't know how the Revolutionary War would turn out. They signed anyway, because they believed freedom was worth fighting and dying for- isn't that the definition of putting freedom ahead of everything else, including people?

A week or so ago, author Mel White (Religion Gone Bad) spoke to the gay community in Charleston. A friend attended and asked, 'how can the religious right so openly advocate the violation of the fundamental principles of our nation's founding? How can they do it without at least tacitly admitting they are advocating for the radical reversal of our nation's structure?' The answer, according to Mel White, is that religious conservatives go back earlier than the nation's founding, to the landing of the Pilgrims on Plymouth Rock. At that time, the Pilgrims decreed the land of America a Christian nation. Everything since then, implicitly, has been a violation of that "original intent."

They are free to believe that, and this editorial aligns neatly with that belief system. Let's be clear, however- by essentially advocating for a government based on religion, they advocate for a theocracy. And by advocating for a theocracy, they oppose the principles that founded this nation, and advocate a radical overthrow of our government.

So let's be honest and talk about the editorial in those terms- the overthrow of our government to install a Christian theocracy. Is that what you believe America truly is, or should be? What is America, to you?

UPDATE:

Dennis Prager concedes his requirement to swear a Congressman in on a Bible "may well be" un-Constitutional. He also conceded that the sky "may well be" blue (snark). But not to worry, Christianists- in that same link, Prager vows to continuing pressing this issue, and the American Family Association will be pursuing legislation requiring Reps and Senators to swear in on a Bible.

Stop the Presses

2006-11-29T18:28:00.000-05:00

Read this editorial, then let me know your thoughts in comments or email. I have two posts waiting in the wings, but I will not publish them yet. This takes precedence.

I want this story to simmer on the blogosphere for awhile, and I will write about it tomorrow.

11/28 Quick Hits

2006-11-28T19:54:00.000-05:00

1. I had previously noted the Religious Right's early, babystep efforts to combat global warming, hoping liberals and evangelicals could find common ground there. Well, that ray of hope has been extinguished. The head of the Christian Coalition steps down (free registration required) because nobody in the coalition actually wants to fight poverty or climate change, which is what he wanted to do. Fantastic- tell me again What Jesus Would Do?

2. Charlie Savage at the Boston Globe does a wonderful job digging into Vice President Cheney's political past. It turns out he's been an authoritarian since his days working for Nixon. I always assumed this, but I was surprised at how explicit his views were during his days as a Wyoming Congressman and as Secretary of Defense in the first Bush Administration. We just weren't looking, or we never imagined. In any case, I urge you to read this article, because it contains a lot of chilling statements- the President's ability to violate the law, creating an environment to intimidate the press, etc.

3. If Bill O'Reilly is bleating about the "War on Christmas," then it must be the holiday season. This week's target: Crate & Barrel! Dun dun DUN....

4. NBC and MSNBC decide to actually call the Iraq Civil War a Civil War. Also just in- NBC and MSNBC also decided to call a spade a spade. Oh, but wait- the Washington Post, Fox News, USA Today and others decide to obey the wishes of the Bush Administration, and call the Civil War something else, like "sectarian violence." CNN, unfortunately, is part of the group refusing to call this a civil war- take a look at their own Michael Ware (here and here) going as far as he possibly can without explicitly calling it a civil war, obviously on instructions from management. (sigh).

5. A good update on the overall picture on Network Neutrality. If you don't recall, here's a good primer/background on Net Neutrality, and why it's important.

11/27 Quick Hits

2006-11-27T18:23:00.000-05:00

1. Global Warming goes to court. This is an important case that will essentially dictate to the EPA whether carbon dioxide should be treated (and regulated) as a pollutant. I have NO idea how this case will go, but I'm looking around for analysis. In the meantime, here's the story.

2. SusanG at DailyKos has an interesting take on this story (free registration required). Mining company courts Navajo nation for mining rights, Navajo nation refuses, mining company accuses Navajo leaders of engaging in anti-democratic behavior. Huh? Just go read it.

3. Josh Marshall provides yet another way to understand the lunacy of President Bush's "stay the course" strategy. Here is the comment in its entirety (yes, it was that good):

"Recently I heard President Bush take a line I believe he said he got from Henry Kissinger to the effect that the only way the United States can be 'defeated' in Iraq is if we ourselves pull up stakes and leave. Thus the whole drama is one of national stamina and nerve.

I've seen little better illustration among the Iraq War advocates of the interrelationship of 'defeat', 'victory' and denial.

A very wealthy man can keep pouring money into a failed business venture forever. So, if he chooses to use his vast wealth to paper over his business failure, he can say pretty much the same thing: The keys to victory are in my hands. The only way this venture can fail is if I lose my nerve and stop investing.

But of course this is only the very questionable advantage of the very rich and the very powerful: the ability to fund or prop up denial indefinitely.

And so it is with the president and whoever is still buying into his arguments. If all reality can be denied, then there really is only one way you can be defeated: when you yourself say you've been defeated."

4. A nice general outline of what an ethical Congress should look like.

5. For those of you interested in the 2008 Presidential race, here is a good rundown on where the potential nominees stand on the Iraq War. I make only one comment, WRT to Barack Obama: it's not enough to offhandedly suggest we should withdraw our forces 4 to 6 months from now, because you're basically punting on the issue, perhaps hoping it will somehow go away. Atrios has already put him on the calendar, but does anyone really expect Barack Obama to loudly call for immediate withdrawal next May? Senator Obama, if you'll only support a withdrawal beginning 4 to 6 months from now, then you need to start discussing withdrawal NOW. Saying you want to wait 4 to 6 months is a cheap political trick, and you should be better than that.

6. I have a draft of a post somewhere that discusses the Republican Party's inability to actually govern! They're so gung-ho about small government and free markets and trickle down economics, that they just have no room in their brains to deal with any governance. Witness the outgoing Republican Congress' inability to pass spending bills, and their intention to simply dump the mess on the Democratic majority in January. That's the party of "personal responsibility" for you!

7. In case you were wondering why I don't want Congresswoman Jane Harman to chair the House Intelligence Committee (you probably weren't), Glenn Greenwald comprehensively outlines why she's totally wrong for the job. I don't support Alcee Hastings either, who according to DC pundits is the only other alternative. I call bulls--t on that, though- there's got to be somebody better than Harman, a strong supporter of both the Iraq War and illegal surveillance, and Hastings, an impeached federal judge. I really hope Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi finds somebody not named Hastings or Harman for this post.

8. Congressman Charles Rangel of New York has been pounding the table about a draft for years, but this time around he may be serious about it. I absolutely do not support a draft, because an all-volunteer military is far more capable and economical than a conscripted one, but I absolutely want to have a national debate about the draft. Look, Rangel's point is right on: we would have never gotten into Iraq in the first place, and, presumably, won't get into future Iraqs in the second place if relatives and friends of politicians risk dying as well. Why should the less fortunate (e.g. poor, minorities) disproportionately bear the burden of our mistaken wars? Why not force everyone to personally face the consequences of the wrong war at the wrong time for the wrong reasons?

I don't want to bring back the draft, nor do I want Congress voting on bringing back the draft, but I do want testimony and hearings to discuss exactly who is dying in Iraq. I want the Bush Administration, the TV networks, and the DC press corps to explain to Congress why the sons and daughters of the poor, blacks, and hispanics should continue to die in Iraq, while the sons and daughters of the affluent, white, and elites should continue to escape the consequences of Iraq.

Lawrence O'Donnell has more. His take is interesting, but for balance I urge you to read Vanity Press's criticism of Rangel's theatrics.

9. NPR obtained audio recordings of those wonderful military tribunals dressed up to look like valid court trials. This is our first glimpse at the real world consequences of the Military Commissions Act and President Bush's claim to all sorts of un-Constitutional powers.

Charge them or release them. If we continue to hold these people without prosecuting them in a real trial, then we're no better than a street gang, protecting our turf by kidnapping possible rivals. We should be better than this.

10. DailyKos diarist jimstaro shows the way to get the impeachment ball rolling without Congress. I will be taking part in this, and I encourage you to do so as well. There's a bit of hand-wringing in the Democratic Party and the liberal blogosphere about impeachment. Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi and DNC chair Howard Dean have both emphatically said impeachment is "off the table," and even DailyKos founder/liberal blogger Markos Moulitsas-Zuniga thinks impeachment is a waste of time.

I vehemently disagree. We can't have accountability without punishment. And if we as a nation collectively look the other way on illegitimate war, war crimes of torture and kidnapping, criminal surveillance, and un-Constitutional exercises of power, then I have to ask the question: when won't we look the other way? If we don't have the political will to impeach these guys, then I don't believe we have the political will to impeach anyone.

The founders created impeachment partially as a deterrent against possible crimes by future Presidents. If we won't ever use this tool, however, then we won't ever deter future crimes. A President- any President- unencumbered by the law and undeterred by impeachment is too powerful, and will be too susceptible to abuses of power. We must impeach.

Holiday Break

2006-11-21T18:57:00.000-05:00

I will be frying and eating turkey, watching football, and staying far, far away from political news until Monday, November 27th. (Although, let's be honest, I will be throwing my silly political opinions around the dinner table, annoying my wife, family, and in-laws. Ahh, I love Thanksgiving!)

No new posts until Monday. Happy Thanksgiving, everyone!

11/21 Quick Hits

2006-11-21T18:53:00.000-05:00

Not too many hits today, I'm guessing because of the upcoming holiday:

1. From the "who's also a bigot?" department, Michael Richards (aka "Kramer" on Seinfeld) goes off on a racist rant while doing a comedy routine. This link also includes an apology from a wrecked Richards, but he has to do more to get my sympathy. I don't care how shook up you appear to be (in the apology), if you impulsively use the n-word when you get angry, there's something deeply wrong with you.

2. A new report describing Iraqi civilians' attitudes towards the American occupation. It's not pretty. They want us out- what a shock!

3. Last week I discussed with a friend my problem in trying to rationalize the opinions of the Post & Courier's editorial board. I'm not surprised that I disagree with the editorial board, but I'm constantly & continuously surprised at the weak, illogical, and/or deceitful arguments from the P&C. We concluded that I have serious trouble assuming I'm smarter than anyone, but especially with people in important/powerful positions- like the President, Secretary of Defense, or the editorial board of a moderately sized newspaper.

Slowly, I'm coming to grips with the idea that editors at some smaller newspapers are ill-informed yahoos with chips on their shoulders. Witness the beauty of this editorial from Lexington, that longs for the day when "flower children are pushing up petunias" and predicts we will have war with Iran and North Korea, so those damn hippies better get with the program, blah blah blah. This drivel wouldn't disturb me so much except that a whole bunch of f--king Kentucky yahoos probably read and agreed with this f--king Kentucky yahoo's opinion. All of us, but especially the South, desperately need to get past our foolish pride, calm down, and act rationally. The Iraq War is a failure and a defeat for America, so let's deal with that. The hippies had nothing to do with it, so leave them alone.

4. Animated penguins hurt America, according to Neil Cavuto of Fox News.

11/20 Quick Hits

2006-11-20T19:19:00.000-05:00

1. Glenn Greenwald covers Vice President Cheney's speech to the Federalist Society from a few days ago. It's important to understand the thought process of a person like Dick Cheney, and thus understand why he is a threat to our free society (that's right, I said it out loud). As much as I want to put off investigating the illegal surveillance activities of the Bush Administration, this Administration will continue this illegal activity until fully confronted by Congress. As Glenn says in this post, "this constitutional crisis will exist until it's confronted."

2. Fox wants their own version of "The Daily Show" that skewers the political left. Instinctively, I want them to take their best shot at satire, and let the chips fall where they may, but something tells me they're just going to endlessly fund yet another show that simply attacks while pretending to be funny, but in reality doesn't draw in a lot of viewers (e.g. Bill O'Reilly). I guess I'm not that supportive of more "artistic welfare" for conservative voices that can't hack it on their own (i.e. get the ratings). Umm...good luck?

3. Sy Hersh at the New Yorker offers some insight on the Administration's intentions towards Iran. Short story: the CIA reports that there is no evidence that Iran is building nuclear weapons, and (surprise!) the Administration is ignoring the CIA and trying to conceal their conclusions.

4. The Rumsfeld Doctrine, which emphasizes high-tech military agility over troop size, is being reconsidered (free registration required), and perhaps rejected. I don't fully object to Rumsfeld's initial premise that the military complex needed to be drastically overhauled- he's right about that. How he went about doing that, however, was exactly the wrong way. An invasion/occupation (of Iraq) is not the ideal place to test his theories- when it comes to number of troops, you want to err on the high side. Unfortunately, he erred on the low side, and we see the effects of that right now.

5. Illegal surveillance won't be legalized during this lame-duck session, according to this article. President Bush desperately wanted to avoid accountability for his authorizations of illegal surveillance, but he's running out of time. Tick tick tick, Mr. President.

6. So while President Bush has been busy not learning the lessons of Vietnam ("we'll succeed unless we quit"), he's been standing on Vietnamese soil. The irony is too rich to comprehend. Josh Marshall has more, much more on the irony/obscenity of President Bush's comments on the Vietnam War.

7. Henry Kissinger, long a supporter of staying in Iraq, now declares it impossible to "win" in Iraq. We need to get out, NOW!

Farewell, Bo

2006-11-17T14:24:00.000-05:00

One of the greatest Michigan football coaches, Bo Schembechler, has passed away on the eve of one of the greatest games of the greatest rivalry, Michigan-Ohio State. He was responsible for reviving the rivalry when he became the head coach in 1969, and he has been an integral part of the Michigan family for decades.

I'm sorry you won't be there with us tomorrow, Bo. God Bless and God Speed.

11/16 Quick Hits

2006-11-16T17:47:00.000-05:00

1. Well, it's a start. Chris Dodd announces he will be introducing legislation designed to roll back the Military Commissions Act (MCA). I haven't looked at the bill yet, but conceptually I would rather the entire MCA be scrapped and they start over. That way there's no confusion about torture (because the McCain Amendment already "clarified" that), and Habeas Corpus is reestablished. Alas, no Congressman would ever willingly scrap old legislation, because no one person could take credit for it, whereas introducing new legislation can be largely credited to the sponsors.

2. A great, great piece by DailyKos diarist bruh1 discussing the new reality of national politics as it relates to the South. Again, it's not that Dems should stop making inroads in the South, but they should embrace the notion that they don't need the South in order to advance the Progressive agenda.

3. (sigh), I'm supposed to be surprised or 'shocked! shocked!' at this bit of news, but I'm not. Al-Qaeda and the Taliban are back in Afghanistan, conducting an insurgency campaign of roadside bombs and suicide attacks. They picked up those techniques in Iraq, according to the CIA. So, two wars, and two defeats so far for President Bush.

4. Whoa, "very low food security" will now enter our vernacular. 12% of Americans can't consistently put food on their tables. Literally. Wow.

5. Steny Hoyer is elected Majority Leader for the next Congress. I don't like that guy, for a few reasons that I won't bore you with, and I would have preferred John Murtha. Now it seems that Jane Harman, another Democrat I don't like for reasons I won't bore you with, will probably chair the Intelligence Committee. (sigh) Well, it was a good 9 days of the Democratic Party machine running smoothly and staying unified, but now it looks like the old guard of the Democratic Party (you know, the guys that led the Party into the minority in the first place) is asserting itself again. They are asserting themselves, to the party's detriment.

6. Yuck. I've never liked how the Cuban exile community has way too much influence on our foreign policy with Cuba. Now it looks like that community is corrupt too.

7. Glenn Beck presumes guilt with the first Muslim Congressman Keith Ellison, unless he can "prove...that [he's] not working with our enemies." Some bigots scare me and some bigots disturb me, but this bigot just infuriates me. I really just want to punch him in the face, just to see him cry. Ugh.

Using Reality to Influence Policy

2006-11-16T17:46:00.000-05:00

Using Reality to Influence Policy
From Tom Clancy's Debt of Honor (emphasis mine):

""Jesus, Robby, can we do it?" Jack asked. The question, posed in the simplest terms, had implications that even he could not yet appreciate. Admiral Jackson was slow to lift his eyes from the overhead photos, and his voice suddenly lost its rage as the naval officer's professional judgment clicked in.

"I don't know yet." He paused, then posed a question of his own. "Will we try?"

"I don't know that, either," the National Security Advisor told him. "Robby?"

"Yeah, Jack?"

"Before we decide to try, we have to know if we can."

Admiral Jackson nodded. "Aye aye."

...

As I note in my Quick Hits today, Afghanistan has once again become a safe haven for al-Qaeda, and military leaders openly speculate that Iraq will become another safe haven if we withdraw our soldiers. I agree- it seems logical that al-Qaeda would gain a new safe haven if the US military withdrew from Iraq.

To be clear, I do not wish to see al-Qaeda gain safe haven anywhere. "So," I can hear the war supporters shrieking already, "if you don't want to give al-Qaeda safe haven, how can you advocate withdrawal of our soldiers from Iraq? Why shouldn't you advocate 'staying the course' to ensure al-Qaeda does not gain safe haven in Iraq?"

Because I live in the reality-based world, that's why. I understand the simple fact that while there are many things the United States should do in the world, there are few things the United States can do in the world (especially now). And understanding what we can do directly impacts what we should do.

Put aside who's at fault for the Iraq War catastrophe for the moment (although we all know who's responsible). Reality dictates that without a radical change in strategy (more on that later), we cannot continue the occupation! We cannot maintain security in Iraq (here and here), we cannot maintain a standard of living in Iraq (here and here), we cannot prevent al-Qaeda from entering Iraq, and we cannot secure the oil in Iraq. We have not done it, therefore without a change we cannot do it. With that in mind, it doesn't matter if we want to withdraw or want to deny al-Qaeda another safe haven or want to accept defeat. Reality already made those decisions for us. At this point, we can choose to either radically increase our commitment to Iraq, or accept the reality of our defeat and withdraw completely.

How should we increase our commitment to the Iraq occupation? Before we explore the options, let's understand the Order of Battle (OrBat), which is a summary of our forces and our enemy's forces. Reports estimate the insurgency in Iraq to number between 20,000 and 200,000. US soldiers in Iraq number at 144,000.

Classic military doctrine states that, depending on tactics, we need force supremacy of possibly 10:1 in order to quell the insurgency in Iraq (here or here), which would dictate an increase of between 200,000-2 million soldiers in Iraq. According to John McCain, however, we only need another 100K soldiers to relieve our forces and stabilize the country. On top of that, according to the Bush Administration, we really only need another 20K soldiers for "one last push" to secure Baghdad and allow our existing forces to stabilize the rest of Iraq (at which point, presumably, the "Mission Accomplished" fairy will appear and sprinkle "Best President Ever" dust all over George W. Bush).

Who's right? It doesn't matter, because reality nullifies each of those strategies. In reality, we don't have 200K, or 100K, or 20K soldiers waiting in reserves. Reality dictates that if we want 20K, 100K, or 200K extra soldiers, we will have to conscript them (i.e. draft them), or pull them from other regions of the world. Reality also dictates we will need more, much more, in reserve, to respond to an increase in insurgency size (see my analysis here to understand why we need to increase our troop presence to compensate for Iraqi civilian deaths). Reality demands a much, much larger sacrifice than we've given so far.

So, do we fold our cards and cut our losses, or do we double down in the hopes of pulling out victory? I know the Administration doesn't look at it in those terms, but f--k them- they're looking to cover their asses, not do what's best for the country. With a Democratic majority in Congress, we now have the opportunity to rationally explore our options in the Iraq War. What matters now is what the people want to do- what you want to do.

Do you want to fully commit to "winning" in Iraq? As I tried to show in my opening passage, before you decide what we should try, you have to know what we can try. So, understand that to ensure victory, we must commit to sending 200,000 or more of our kids to this war. If you're not committed to doing that, then you're not committed to winning in Iraq. Period.

Personally, I'm not prepared to risk another twenty thousand, one hundred thousand, or one million of our young men and women for a cause that's hazy and whose chances of success are slim. That is only my opinion, however, and now that the Democrats are in charge, it's time everyone gives voice to their own opinion.

What do you want to do in Iraq? Before you answer that question, you must understand what we can do in Iraq.

11/15 Quick Hits

2006-11-15T18:18:00.000-05:00

1. Speaking of beating a dead horse, my desire to see the DC press corps either radically turn over its personnel or just plain f--king disappear knows no bounds, and again I make no apologies for it. Jonathan Schwarz writes an anecdote about Richard Cohen (you know, the guy that lamely proclaimed Stephen Colbert "so not funny"), and exposes the aristocratic mindset of the press corps. Glenn Greenwald writes more about Richard Cohen here.

2. And speaking of media people behaving badly, take a look at this absolute DOOZY of an internal Fox News memo that HuffingtonPost got a hold of. If you ever had any doubts about the network's "fair" and "balanced" behavior, check this out. Seriously, holy crap.

3. The Banana Republicanizing of America. I read this opinion piece by Senator-elect Jim Webb, and his eloquence astounded me. 'This is why I fight,' I thought as I read it. Every American should have the same opportunities that I had as a rich white boy, yet we have rapidly moved away from opportunity equality. This is why I fight, and apparently this is why Jim Webb fights too.

4. Glenn Greenwald slaps around Germany for claiming 'universal jurisdiction' in its prosecution of Donald Rumsfeld. I have to admit, I did not think through the implications of this case properly, because I made the bad assumption that Germany was acting primarily on behalf of German citizen Khaled al-Masri (who was mistakenly kidnapped, imprisoned, and tortured by the US). That is not correct- no German citizens are involved in this case, and none of the alleged crimes took place on German soil. Glenn sets me straight, and here's the money quote (emphasis his):

"As always, exotic and extreme powers - whether it be unchecked executive powers to break the law, the ability to criminalize the expression of certain opinions, the power to eavesdrop with no oversight, having foreign governments assert "universal" jurisdiction - ought not be cheered on simply because they happen to be exercised in a way that seems desirable, or against individuals who are dangerous or destructive in some way. There is a responsibility to assess those powers as a general principle - not only when wielded by those whom one likes against those whom one dislikes, but to assess their potential for abuse and how they might be used by different governments towards different ends."

5. I laughed my ass off at this cartoon strip, but before you go over to look at it, know the following: "Freedom Pundit" is asshat Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit (no I will not link to him), "Hindrocket" is asshat John Hinderaker of Powerline Blog (no I will not link to him), and you better damn well know who Karl Rove is.

6. Southerners should now wake up to the reality that they do not dictate the politics of the nation, and might never again. The Republican Party has been reduced to the Southern Party, and looky looky, they're in the minority. It's not a coincidence. In this electoral tidal wave, Dems made almost NO progress in the South, but nonetheless kicked the crap out of Republicans nationally. One cannot escape the conclusion that the Democrats do not need to win the South to win control, and that will be to Southerners' detriment. We did it to ourselves, and it's time we move into the 21st century with the rest of the country. Markos analyzes here, and here's a book discussing this new phenomenon. To be clear, I don't believe Democrats should ignore the South (and I don't think Kos believes that either), but I do think it's important for Southerners to understand they're not the center of the political universe anymore.

7. General Abizaid flatly rejected St. McCain's call for more troops in Iraq. Also, he flatly rejected Carl Levin's call for a withdrawal timetable. And to top it all off, he wasn't satisfied with the status quo. He said 'no' to more troops, he said 'no' to less troops, and he said 'no' to staying the same. I'm confused- what's winning again?

The Liberal Pledge, by (gasp!) Michael Moore

2006-11-15T17:45:00.000-05:00

November 14th, 2006

To My Conservative Brothers and Sisters,

I know you are dismayed and disheartened at the results of last week's election. You're worried that the country is heading toward a very bad place you don't want it to go. Your 12-year Republican Revolution has ended with so much yet to do, so many promises left unfulfilled. You are in a funk, and I understand.

Well, cheer up, my friends! Do not despair. I have good news for you. I, and the millions of others who are now in charge with our Democratic Congress, have a pledge we would like to make to you, a list of promises that we offer you because we value you as our fellow Americans. You deserve to know what we plan to do with our newfound power -- and, to be specific, what we will do to you and for you.

Thus, here is our Liberal's Pledge to Disheartened Conservatives:

Dear Conservatives and Republicans, I, and my fellow signatories, hereby make these promises to you:

1. We will always respect you for your conservative beliefs. We will never, ever, call you "unpatriotic" simply because you disagree with us. In fact, we encourage you to dissent and disagree with us.

2. We will let you marry whomever you want, even when some of us consider your behavior to be "different" or "immoral." Who you marry is none of our business. Love and be in love -- it's a wonderful gift.

3. We will not spend your grandchildren's money on our personal whims or to enrich our friends. It's your checkbook, too, and we will balance it for you.

4. When we soon bring our sons and daughters home from Iraq, we will bring your sons and daughters home, too. They deserve to live. We promise never to send your kids off to war based on either a mistake or a lie.

5. When we make America the last Western democracy to have universal health coverage, and all Americans are able to get help when they fall ill, we promise that you, too, will be able to see a doctor, regardless of your ability to pay. And when stem cell research delivers treatments and cures for diseases that affect you and your loved ones, we'll make sure those advances are available to you and your family, too.

6. Even though you have opposed environmental regulation, when we clean up our air and water, we, the Democratic majority, will let you, too, breathe the cleaner air and drink the purer water.

7. Should a mass murderer ever kill 3,000 people on our soil, we will devote every single resource to tracking him down and bringing him to justice. Immediately. We will protect you.

8. We will never stick our nose in your bedroom or your womb. What you do there as consenting adults is your business. We will continue to count your age from the moment you were born, not the moment you were conceived.

9. We will not take away your hunting guns. If you need an automatic weapon or a handgun to kill a bird or a deer, then you really aren't much of a hunter and you should, perhaps, pick up another sport. We will make our streets and schools as free as we can from these weapons and we will protect your children just as we would protect ours.

10. When we raise the minimum wage, we will pay you -- and your employees -- that new wage, too. When women are finally paid what men make, we will pay conservative women that wage, too.

11. We will respect your religious beliefs, even when you don't put those beliefs into practice. In fact, we will actively seek to promote your most radical religious beliefs ("Blessed are the poor," "Blessed are the peacemakers," "Love your enemies," "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God," and "Whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me."). We will let people in other countries know that God doesn't just bless America, he blesses everyone. We will discourage religious intolerance and fanaticism -- starting with the fanaticism here at home, thus setting a good example for the rest of the world.

12. We will not tolerate politicians who are corrupt and who are bought and paid for by the rich. We will go after any elected leader who puts him or herself ahead of the people. And we promise you we will go after the corrupt politicians on our side FIRST. If we fail to do this, we need you to call us on it. Simply because we are in power does not give us the right to turn our heads the other way when our party goes astray. Please perform this important duty as the loyal opposition.

I promise all of the above to you because this is your country, too. You are every bit as American as we are. We are all in this together. We sink or swim as one. Thank you for your years of service to this country and for giving us the opportunity to see if we can make things a bit better for our 300 million fellow Americans -- and for the rest of the world.

Signed,

Michael Moore