You remember how the malAdministration is rebranding GWOT (Global War On Terror) as GSAVE (Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism) (back)

Well, alert reader pantsonfire pointed out what is so damned obvious that it was hard to see:

GSAVE =Je[sus] Save[s]

And damn if it didn't take me another 48 hours to see what's even more obvious:

GSAVE = Je[sus] Save[s] = The Crusades

Guess that "crusade" quote from Dear Leader was a Freudian slip, eh? Chortle.

It being the Sabbath and all, by some folks' reckoning anyway, I couldn't just leave the place with that Tales of the Talibamians for people to wake up to.

(via IAIANCAD.org I know nothing else about this site except somebody posted this link over at Atrios' house the other night to prove some other point altogether.)

This little item caught my eye. RDF, my brother, this one's for you:

Another missionary was traveling from Gallup to Albuquerque in the early days. Along the way he offered a ride to an Indian who was walking to town.

Feeling he had a captive audience, he began cautiously to promote his message, using a soft-sell approach.

"Do you realize," he said, "that you are going to a place where sinners abound?"

The Indian nodded his head in assent.

"And the wicked dwell in the depths of their iniquities?"

Again a nod.

"And sinful women who have lived a bad life go?"

A smile and then another nod.

"And no one who lives a good life goes there?"

A possible conversion, thought the missionary, and so he pulled out his punch line: "And do you know what we call that place?"

The Indian turned, looked the missionary in the eye, and said, "Albuquerque."

Put this in the Talibornagain file I guess...

The Alabama Supreme Court issued a 100-+ page ruling in a child custody case. Why did it take so many pages? Because seven of the nine judges filed separate opinions. Why did they have to do this?

Because they could not agree on which Bible verses were most applicable to the case in question.

I swear to Go....well, I just affirm to you I am not making this up. I wish to Go...well, I wish very strongly that I were:

(via Alabama news roundup)

MONTGOMERY, Ala. (AP) — A divided Alabama Supreme Court decided a child custody dispute Friday with a history-making decision citing legal precedent, the Bible, and parents' relationship with God.

Justice Tom Parker, who wrote a dissenting opinion, noted that in the more than 7,100 cases in the Supreme Court's database, "this is the first case in which Justices of the Court have issued seven separate opinions."

Their opinions totaled 100 pages, which is unusually long for the state's highest court. The other decisions released by the Supreme Court Friday averaged 30 pages.

Five justices concurred with the lower court's decision, with noting that the father "had never spent 24 hours alone with his son."

Citing Psalms 127:3-5, [Justice Lyn Stewart] wrote that children are a gift from God, but they come with responsibilities.

In a lone dissent, Parker quoted from Romans 13:1-2, which says "there is no authority except from God." Parker wrote that God, not the state, has given parents the rights and responsibilities to raise their children.

The math:

The House voted 217-215 in favor of the U.S.-Central American Free Trade Agreement, or CAFTA, early on Thursday morning, with 15 Democrats joining 202 Republicans in support.
(via Reuters)

So, faced with the chance to hand Bush a stinging defeat, 15 Democrats betrayed their party to hand Bush a victory.

Guys, you can't win the game if you keep handing the ball to your enemies!

Oh, wait, I forgot. The Washington Generals never to win, don't they? But boy, do they make Meadowlark Lemon look good. I read all the headlines about Bush being "on a roll"—et tu Froomkin—and "legislative victories" and all, and my B.S.S. syndrome spiked really bad.

So these guys want me to live with B.S.S. for the rest of my life?!

NOTE And now Nancy Pelosi is whining about ethics. Nancy, it was your job to win the vote!

First, we bust some industrious potheads who were tunneling under the Canada-US border. Now, this.

Vancouver — Marc Emery, Canada's most prominent pro-marijuana activist, is facing the possibility of life imprisonment in the United States for selling marijuana seeds over the Internet to U.S. customers.

In a stunning development, RCMP officers arrested the self-proclaimed “Prince of Pot” in Halifax yesterday after a U.S. federal grand jury indicted him on charges of conspiracy to distribute marijuana seeds, conspiracy to distribute marijuana and conspiracy to engage in money laundering.

The charges stem from Mr. Emery's lucrative sale of marijuana seeds, an activity he has carried on from his Vancouver base with minimal legal penalty for 10 years.

...U.S. drug-enforcement officials said they will seek Mr. Emery's extradition from Canada to stand trial in Seattle, where conviction on either of the marijuana charges carries a minimum prison term of 10 years to a maximum of life.

...“I am pleased to announce that he is out of business as of today,” Mr. Benson told a Seattle news conference. “His overblown arrogance and abuse of the rule of law will no longer be on display. Like other drugs, marijuana harms the innocents.”
(via Globe and Mail)

It's a good we don't have other international law enforcement issues to deal with. But even if we did, I think it's important that we send a message to arrogant druggies who thumb their noses at the law and live a life shielded from accountability for their own actions. Unless we make a clear statement of zero tolerance for this kind of activity, there's no telling what crimes these sociopaths may wind up committing.

Hope they checked out his thumb. It looks like there's something wrong with it (back).

The AP story has some detail:

President Bush, who has been spending hours riding his mountain bike - even in Europe - was getting his regular physical exam Saturday.

The 59-year-old commander in chief usually gets his annual physical during the summer, but the 2004 election campaign postponed his last one until Dec. 11, 2004.

That's odd. Why would the campaign do that? Does anybody know if the results were released?

Aside from minor health ailments [which would be?], doctors pronounced Bush in a "superior" fitness category - or the top fifth percentile - for men his age.

So why does Bush keep falling off his bike?

Wonkette.

But that's their story, and they're sticking to it.

I guess Bush got so excited—along with WaPo, even Froomkin, fer gawdsake—that the Republicans actually passed some legislation that he got all cocky. First thing you know, He starts strutting again, next thing He's... Well, giving the thumbs up sign.

(Isn't passing legislation something that a Partei that controls all three branches of government is supposed to do?)

Here's the pitiful end of the Denver Three story. In its entirety!

The Secret Service has determined the identity of a mystery man who forcibly removed three people from a March appearance by President Bush in Denver, but it has decided to not press charges.

In a letter sent to three Colorado members of Congress, the Secret Service said that its investigation is over and that it will not name the man because no charges were filed.


The terse letter -- released by the Colorado lawmakers -- puts to rest a months-long Secret Service probe into the identity of the man accused of impersonating a Secret Service agent to kick three anti-Bush Democrats from the president's rally.

The people became known as the "Denver Three" as their crusade to unmask the mystery bouncer took them all the way to Capitol Hill. They said they were confronted by a man -- dressed in an official-looking suit and wearing an earpiece similar to ones plugged into the ears of Bush's security detail -- who forced them to leave an event simply because they had an "No More Blood for Oil" bumper sticker on their car. The man never said he was an agent, but he threatened to arrest them if they did not obey his orders. The White House said he was a volunteer who was not operating in any official capacity for Bush. "Hopefully the White House will put in place procedures for town meetings that allow all views to be heard and that respect all law-abiding individuals," Rep. Mark Udall (D-Colo.) said in a statement.
(via WaPo)

"Hopefully," forsooth. How pious. How... How powerless.

Does Representative Udall have a custodial relationship with his balls? Has Udall been out of the country for the last year? Was he out of the country for "election" 2004? Because some of us have noticed that Bush is all about allowing only views he agrees with to be heard—see WMD fiasco, where everyone who agreed with Bush even though they were all wrong was promoted—and his "Town Halls"—both in "election" 2004 and in the Social Security bamboozepalooza this year—were staged, ticketted events to which only Republicans were invited (though naturally Democrats, as taxpayers, were allowed to pick up the tab).

The bottom line is this:

It's now officially OK, no problemo, copacetic, strictly legal for a Partei brownshirt to impersonate a Secret Service officer. Man, I'm going to go sign up today! Free armbands! I've always wanted to play a cop! Now I can!

John Bolton attempts to strangle to death the truth about himself before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Capitol Hill, Monday, April 11, 2005.


Lets revisit - shalt we - a showery April afternoon on Capitol Hill:

Horrifying, personal John Bolton story by amyindallas.

Fri Apr 15th, 2005 at 07:15:42 PDT
My best friend since college, Melody Townsel, was stationed in Kyrgyzstan on a US AID project. During her stay there, she became embroiled in a controversy in which the oh-so-diplomatic John Bolton was a key player. She described the incident in a letter to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee members (who have thus far responded with a yawn), and I wanted to share it with a larger audience.

Here's a small taste:

"Mr. Bolton proceeded to chase me through the halls of a Russian hotel -- throwing things at me, shoving threatening letters under my door and, generally, behaving like a madman."

[...]

Here's the entire text of her letter:

Dear Sir:

I'm writing to urge you to consider blocking in committee the nomination of John Bolton as ambassador to the UN.

In the late summer of 1994, I worked as the subcontracted leader of a US AID project in Kyrgyzstan officially awarded to a HUB primary contractor. My own employer was Black, Manafort, Stone & Kelly, and I reported directly to Republican leader Charlie Black.

After months of incompetence, poor contract performance, inadequate in-country funding, and a general lack of interest or support in our work from the prime contractor, I was forced to make US AID officials aware of the prime contractor's poor performance.

I flew from Kyrgyzstan to Moscow to meet with other Black Manafort employees who were leading or subcontracted to other US AID projects. While there, I met with US AID officials and expressed my concerns about the project -- chief among them, the prime contractor's inability to keep enough cash in country to allow us to pay bills, which directly resulted in armed threats by Kyrgyz contractors to me and my staff.

Within hours of sending a letter to US AID officials outlining my concerns, I met John Bolton, whom the prime contractor hired as legal counsel to represent them to US AID. And, so, within hours of dispatching that letter, my hell began.

Mr. Bolton proceeded to chase me through the halls of a Russian hotel -- throwing things at me, shoving threatening letters under my door and, generally, behaving like a madman. For nearly two weeks, while I awaited fresh direction from my company and from US AID, John Bolton hounded me in such an appalling way that I eventually retreated to my hotel room and stayed there. Mr. Bolton, of course, then routinely visited me there to pound on the door and shout threats.

When US AID asked me to return to Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan in advance of assuming leadership of a project in Kazakstan, I returned to my project to find that John Bolton had proceeded me by two days. Why? To meet with every other AID team leader as well as US foreign-service officials in Bishkek, claiming that I was under investigation for misuse of funds and likely was facing jail time. As US AID can confirm, nothing was further from the truth.

He indicated to key employees of or contractors to State that, based on his discussions with investigatory officials, I was headed for federal prison and, if they refused to cooperate with either him or the prime contractor's replacement team leader, they, too, would find themselves the subjects of federal investigation. As a further aside, he made unconscionable comments about my weight, my wardrobe and, with a couple of team leaders, my sexuality, hinting that I was a lesbian (for the record, I'm not).

When I resurfaced in Kyrgyzstan, I learned that he had done such a convincing job of smearing me that it took me weeks -- with the direct intervention of US AID officials -- to limit the damage. In fact, it was only US AID's appoinment of me as a project leader in Almaty, Kazakstan that largely put paid to the rumors Mr. Bolton maliciously circulated.

As a maligned whistleblower, I've learned firsthand the lengths Mr. Bolton will go to accomplish any goal he sets for himself. Truth flew out the window. Decency flew out the window. In his bid to smear me and promote the interests of his client, he went straight for the low road and stayed there.

John Bolton put me through hell -- and he did everything he could to intimidate, malign and threaten not just me, but anybody unwilling to go along with his version of events. His behavior back in 1994 wasn't just unforgivable, it was pathological.

I cannot believe that this is a man being seriously considered for any diplomatic position, let alone such a critical posting to the UN. Others you may call before your committee will be able to speak better to his stated dislike for and objection to stated UN goals. I write you to speak about the very character of the man.

It took me years to get over Mr. Bolton's actions in that Moscow hotel in 1994, his intensely personal attacks and his shocking attempts to malign my character.

I urge you from the bottom of my heart to use your ability to block Mr. Bolton's nomination in committee.

Respectfully yours,

Melody Townsel
Dallas, TX 75208

daily kos

Maybe Mr. Bolton (him with the yellow cake crumbs stuck to his upper lip-hair) will scamper up and down the hallways of the UN shoving mysterious forgeries under strange doors and snapping a wet towel at Kofi Annan! Woo-hoo! Now that's a real adult at work. Afterall, character matters.

"Mr. Bolton proceeded to chase me through the halls of a Russian hotel -- throwing things at me, shoving threatening letters under my door..."

Jesus, ya know what? In a real world, with any kind of so called country justice, someone would just walk up to a sibilant patent-leather paperclip puff like Bolton and cork the stupid son-of-a-bitch right between the eyes. *KNUCK!* Just like that. Rock the stupid bastard right back on his heels, spin him around, and then finish him off with a swift kick in the ass. Send him shiny shoes over toupee back down the corridor of whatever mysterious hotel hallway he came from with his confetti of threatening letters fluttering after him in the trailing draft.

Of course our national make believe tough guy and former prep school cheer-lad: George W. "The FABULOUS" Bush, will undoubtably (according to anonymous administration officials) scamper off to the playground, gather the sorry shoulder-chip loser Bolton up in his arms, pin a little shiny star on his forehead, and appoint the contemptible fool to some Swingset Bully post. That stands to reason. Takes a sore sorry-assed failure to know one. All this during recess of course. When the adults are out to lunch.

*

bringing dignity and honor to the airport...


Character matters:

[George W. Bush] Presidential behavior: Will uphold the dignity and honor of the office of president. He refuses to answer questions about whether he"s ever used drugs and won"t discuss mistakes he made when he was younger because he doesn't want his daughters or other children to imitate bad behavior. - back link

What will we tell the children?

For photo (source) above and additional commentary visit dixychik at Sweet Liberty News

GALLUPING POLLS; today's race to the bottom results - 43 finishes 44 on a fast track to the glue factory:

PRINCETON, NJ -- A new Gallup Poll finds a decline in George W. Bush's job approval rating. After standing at 49% approval in the prior two CNN/USA Today/Gallup polls conducted this month, now just 44% of Americans say they approve of Bush, a new low mark for the president.

[...]

The July 25-28 Gallup Poll finds 44% of Americans approving and 51% disapproving of the job Bush is doing as president. Bush's prior low approval rating was 45%, which occurred once in March and once again in June of this year. gallup.com

mommy, why is president Bush waving to the American people like that?

*

So the Bible says, and it still is news...

Yes, Karen Hughes, the new Minister of Truth Associate Under Assistant Uber Secretary of State (or something) for Propaganda Public Affairs is already making an impact!

Sure, Bush screwed the pooch in the Global War on Terror (ports, Iraq clusterfuck makes terrorism worse) but you know what we can do, says Karen? We can rebrand it! That's the kind of thing that suckers will always fall for...

And GWOT sounds so awkward! And all those jokes: Like "They don't know GWOT." It's too much.

So, how about GSAVE? The Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism! (Someone at the WhiteWash House must be a closet Corrente reader; we called for a Campaign Against Fundamentalism (back) in March 2004. Of course, the malAdministration will hijack the name while brutalizing the substance—that is, all fundamentalists are the enemy everywhere... But still.)

So, GSAVE, pretty good. But here's where Karen's real genius shines through. I started wondering—Why Global Struggle? "Global" is so Birkenstock, so earthy crunchy, so global warming... People like Al Gore or that Kerry are global... "Planet"? PSAVE? Karen gets a mental image of Mr. P-****, moves on quickly...

World? World Struggle Against Violent Extremism? Hmm. Like that "World Struggle" thing, sounds like World War, like FDR...

WSAVE?

Now, if Karl Rove weren't hiding under his desk, chewing his hands, he would have rammed that "W" right down all our throats. Never mind all the jokes, like "saved W's narrow ass in two elections."

But Karen is so much more subtle than Karl. She saw that the "SAVE" was the important part. After all, in a Godly White House, what could be more important than being saved—and saving the world? So stick with Global. And speak directly to the base.

That Karen! Always on message!

UPDATE Sometimes things are just too obvious to see. As alert reader pantsonire points out, subliminally:

GSAVE = Je[sus] Saves

Speaking directly to the base, alright!

Sure, as GrannyInsanity caveats, "Tinfoil Hat Time".... And surely the idea that Bush would nuke Iran after a second 9/11-style attack on the U.S.—while yet again vacationing at His "Prairie [gag] Chapel" "Ranch"... Well, it's just too weird to contemplate, isn't it?

Still, as Xan pointed out and Granny reminds us, there was that mysterious task force...

But since there's no election in 2005, I'd say the odds are a lot lower than another 9/11-style attack in 2006....

Especially since I thought he was the type of judge who would defer to precedent:

The Bush administration will not give Senate investigators access to the federal tax returns of Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr., White House and congressional officials said yesterday, a break with precedent that could exacerbate a growing conflict over document disclosure in the confirmation process.

Although nominees to the high court in recent decades were required to provide their three most recent annual tax forms, the administration will neither collect such documents from Roberts nor share them with the Senate Judiciary Committee, the officials said. Instead, the Internal Revenue Service will produce a one-page summary.
(via WaPo)

Say, correct me if I'm wrong here, but I thought Congress was a co-equal branch of government under the Consitution. So why can the President see Roberts's tax return, and not Congress?

Especially since past nominees have revealed their tax returns?

Could it be that Roberts deducted contributions to... What?

Bolton had already distorted intelligence and been wrong about the war, the two top qualifications for promotion in Wonderland the Bush White House. So, I guess lying to Congress (back) must have tipped the balance—in Bolton's favor.

President Bush intends to announce next week that he is going around Congress to install embattled nominee John Bolton as the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, senior administration officials said Friday.
(via AP)

And I guess Bush figures He stonewalled those pesky intercepts that Bolton asked for successfully... The ones that Congress—a theoretically co-equal branch of government—was never allowed to see....

Don't know whether this would be getting significant coverage in the US if the London bombing arrests weren't competing with it (it's all but invisible on CNN), but in the Commonwealth, it's a close second:

After 35 years of bombs and blood a quiet voice ends the IRA's war

The IRA yesterday declared that its war against Britain was over. Even in the long debased hyperbole of historic moments in the Northern Ireland peace process, this was a monumental announcement.

Its statement, unprecedented in its clarity, was delivered on a DVD by a soft-spoken IRA volunteer called Seana Walsh, who at 50 is typical of the now middle-aged rank and file of the organisation. He had spent 21 years in prison and was one of the IRA "blanket men" during the hunger strike and dirty protests in the Maze prison in the 1970s and 1980s.

Standing in front of an Irish tricolour, he announced that from 4pm a "formal end to the armed campaign" had been ordered. All IRA units were ordered to "dump arms". The IRA vowed to complete its long-running decommissioning process as quickly as possible by "verifiably [putting] its arms beyond use".
(via Guardian UK)

And the Brits quickly reciprocate:

British army cuts bases after IRA peace move

Belfast — The British army began closing or demolishing military installations in the Irish Republican Army's rural heartland Friday in a rapid response to the IRA's declaration to renounce violence and disarm.

Soldiers started to dismantle or withdraw from three positions in South Armagh, a rebellious borderland nicknamed "bandit country," where soldiers still travel by helicopter because of the risk of IRA dissidents' roadside bombs.

The move came a day after IRA commanders promised to disarm fully and directed to their units to dump their weapons and use "exclusively peaceful means" from now on.
(via Globe and Mail)

So that's how one long, twilight struggle ends. And it only took 35 years.

And it’s true we are immune
When fact is fiction and tv reality
And today the millions cry
We eat and drink while tomorrow they die

The real battle yet begun
To claim the victory jesus won
On Sunday bloody sunday

So, if Congress and the Executive are co-equal branches of government, why shouldn't Congress be able to see every document that Roberts and his handlers should see? I mean, what could there be for "political deputy" (back) Stealthy John Roberts to hide?

Administration officials say they will refuse to make available a larger number of documents dating from Roberts' time in the solicitor general's office from 1989-1993.

We'll have some reasons the WhiteWash House might not have wanted to do that this evening. Farmers been into Lexis again...

In a sentence that could just as easily apply to his own confirmation proceedings as to [O'Connors], Roberts wrote on Sept. 17, 1981, "The approach was to avoid giving specific responses to any direct questions on legal issues likely to come before the court, but demonstrating in the response a firm command of the subject area and awareness of the relevant precedents and arguments."
(via AP)

"Firm command"? Sounds like Dobson to me, chortle... Say, maybe Roberts is part of a theocratic sleeper cell after all...

It's Friday, 5:00, when the White House likes to dump documents that it hopes nobody will read.

Plus, Congress is going into the August recess!

Readers, what'll it be? The Bolton nomination?

http://democrats.senate.gov/askroberts/.

Buh-bye:

The State Department reversed itself on Thursday night and acknowledged that
President Bush's U.N. ambassador nominee gave Congress inaccurate information about an investigation he was involved in.

The acknowledgment came after the State Department had earlier insisted nominee John Bolton's "answer was truthful" when he said he had not been questioned or provided information to jury or government investigations in the past five years.

And why was Bolton's answer "not truthful"? Wait for it...

"When Mr. Bolton completed his form during the Senate confirmation process he did not recall being interviewed by the State Department inspector general. Therefore his form as submitted was inaccurate in this regard and he will correct the form," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said.
(via Reuters)

Look, I can understand how Stealthy John Roberts would forget whether or not he was a member of the most powerful theocratic front organization in the country. That's the sort of thing that could happen to anyone.

But how on earth could Bolton not remember being interviewed by the State Department inspector general? Is that the sort of thing that happens to Bolton every day? Was the General just not in uniform? Did Bolton confuse him with the inspector admiral? Was wind from the fan in Bolton's office blowing his moustache over his eyes when the General came to call? Was Bolton so busy licking Wolfie's comb that he didn't notice who walked in the door? WTF?

How do the Republicans find do it? How do they find the energy to lie all the time?

An alert reader mentioned that we'd been on CNN; farmer dug out the quote. Abbi Tatton hosts CNN's "Inside the Blogs". From her fan site, "I Luv Abbi Tatton":

Ms. Tatton's arms seemed a little more tan than usual ... So the first topic tackled was Roberts's Federalist membership. Ms. Tatton quoted Corrente's point that if they were evasive on a simple thing like this, then it didn't bode well for larger things. But she then noted Washington Monthly's dismissal of the issue as minor. Lastly she quoted Pejmanesque's saying of the issue, in effect, "Is that all?"

The post is here Too had our demand for the "private advice" Roberts gave Jebbie in Florida 2000 didn't get mentioned... Especially since that story got abandoned, when it turned out (back) that Roberts was running rehearsals for the Republican lawyers arguing Bush v. Gore, which wouldn't exactly be "private advice," would it? Our ever-changing stories... Reminds you of the WMD fiasco, doesn't it?

So, if anyone from CNN is reading this now, it would be nice to have an answer to the following question:

Given that Roberts was a member of a "cabal" (back) of former Rehnquist clerks, did he have any private contacts with Rehnquist (or Scalia) before Bush v. Gore was heard, and were the results of any of those contacts fed back into the "rehearsals" Roberts organized for Bush's lawyers?

Just asking.... It would be irresponsible not to speculate!

What a shame. David Corn writes:

Once the Plame/
CIA leak became big (mainstream-media) news in September 2003--when word hit that the CIA had asked the Justice Department to investigate the leak, which had appeared in a Bob Novak column two months earlier--friends of the White House, including Novak, started saying that Valerie Wilson wasn't really under cover at the CIA and, thus, the disclosure of her employment at the CIA wasn't worth a federal case (or investigation).

White House allies asserted that while Valerie Wilson may have technically been a clandestine CIA official, in practice she wasn't. So all this bother over the leak was much ado about nothing.

Novak, for example, downplayed Valerie Wilson's covert status in an October 1, 2003 column, in which he vaguely described how he had originally learned of her connection to the CIA.

Should Novak be taken at his word on this point? Until now, the public only knew of his side of his conversation with the CIA. But The Washington Post published a piece on Wednesday that provides the CIA's version of this exchange. And it is significantly different from Novak's account. The paper reports,

[Bill] Harlow, the former CIA spokesman, said in an interview yesterday that he testified last year before a grand jury about conversations he had with Novak at least three days before the column was published. He said he warned Novak, in the strongest terms he was permitted to use without revealing classified information, that Wilson's wife had not authorized the mission [to Niger taken by former Ambassador Joseph Wilson] and that if he did write about it, her name should not be revealed.

So how many contradictions can you find? Novak indicated he had one substantive conversation with a CIA official about Valerie Wilson and he received no clear signal that revealing her name would cause any significant trouble. Harlow said there were two conversations and that in each one he warned Novak about using her name. (Harlow also said he told Novak that Valerie Wilson had not authorized her husband's trip. Remember, several Rove defenders have maintained that when Rove spoke to Time's Matt Cooper--and told Cooper that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA and had authorized his trip to Niger--he was merely trying to make sure that Cooper published an accurate account of what happened. Yet the CIA says she did not authorize this trip. Rove was feeding Cooper misleading information.)

Novak's claim that the CIA did not wave him off now stands contested. Will [Novak] run a correction?
(via WaPo)

Funny how all the carefully constructed Republican stories on TreasonGate keep falling apart, isn't it?

But the Republicans manufacture lies like Doritos: "Crunch all you want, we'll make more."

Okay, I hate to open a can of worms here, but I just spent a while in a county jail where such questions are the only entertainment aside from playing cards for cigarettes.

When you hear a spokesperson for Bu$hCo telling another galling lie, or when you hear a corporate pigsty spokesperson defending yet another rape of the Native people (or anyone else for that matter), or when a law enforcement figure hassles you for being who you are, which is your preferred method of coping? (Leaving aside prayer, ill-plannned direct action--see note below--and angry rants.)

A. Jim Beam
B. Ezra Brooks
C. Homemade Likker
D. Combination of the above and leafy green substance
E. Listening to old blues records with or without the above
F. Sex, with or without or with any or all of the above

Suggest another bourbon, substance or activity at your own volition.

NOTE: DO NOT RESIST ARREST VIOLENTLY.

This ran yesterday, and I figured that before I could get it posted it would be all over the place. I know it's not a Rove Traitorgate story, or a Roberts Hiding Records story, but this could break open more than might first seem to be the case.

And, as in all good melodramas, if it does lead to getting slime on the record in open court, under oath and all that, it will be the Republican Party's own hypertrophied sense of greed, entitlement and Scroogishness that let it happen:

(via Richmond VA Times-Dispatch)

The Republican Party of Virginia is suing its liability insurance carrier, seeking nearly $1 million in reimbursement for the GOP's payout to settle a lawsuit over the eavesdropping scandal and attorneys' fees the insurer refused to cover.

The state GOP contends in a complaint filed in U.S. District Court in Richmond that the Union Insurance Co. of Lincoln, Neb., breached its contract by not covering the $750,000 the party paid in December to Virginia Democrats who sued over two intercepted conference calls.

The lawsuit also seeks $200,000 for legal bills from the GOP's nine-month court battle with Democratic legislators and other party officials who alleged top Republican operatives violated their privacy rights.

The party contends it should have been covered because it did not know about or condone the espionage on calls made March 22 and 25, 2002, among Democratic lawmakers and, briefly, Gov. Mark R. Warner. The Democrats from across the state met by phone to discuss legal strategy for challenging the 2001 Republican-authored legislative redistricting plan.

The party's former executive director, Edmund A. Matricardi III, secretly monitored the calls and pleaded guilty in 2003 to a single federal count of intercepting a wire communication.

His boss at the time, former state GOP Chairman Gary R. Thomson, pleaded guilty to a related misdemeanor and stepped down as chairman. He listened with Matricardi to part of the second Democratic conference call.

The Republican Party contends that as a corporation, it was harmed by the unsanctioned mischief of rogue operatives.

Yep, you read that right: the party's paid executive director and the state GOP Chairman are "rogue operatives." Hmm, where have we heard this phrasing before? Guantanamo, perhaps? Abu Ghraib, maybe? Ohio?

The Virginia Republican Party wants to be able to break the law AND have their insurance companies pay the fines when they get caught. But now that they've been stupid enough to put this case in US District Court, I would think that Union Insurance Company might be in a position to demand records of anything Messrs. Thompson and Matricardi did, since the claim is that they were "rogue operatives."

Virginia Democrats should be over this like....well, I was going to say "like stink on shit" but that would be crude and lower the discourse.

Surely, all of you reading here, have become all to familiar with the common vocalizations of the Clucking Right-Wing Harien Cuckoo. The repetetive cacaphony of shrill high pitched shrieks and alarmist cacklings that warn us each morning, for instance, when we open a newspaper or turn on a car radio or arouse from electronic slumber the babbling boob-toob, that some variety of liberal predatory judicial horror is soaring high overhead waiting to pounce. You know what I mean. aaaaack aaaack ack teee viss judgiss! aaaack aaack ack teee viss judgiss!

Sound familiar? Sure it does. You've all been subjected to that panicky ongoing racket (and similar noises) for years and years or you wouldn't be here now reading this. aaaaack aaaack ack teee viss judgiss! aaaack aaack ack teee viss judgiss!.

And of course, as years of careful study have revealed, most of this clamour and roil is actually a deceptive ruse, a noisy distraction, a feathery cloak of sorts, for the Clucking Right-Wing Harien Cuckoo's own calculated nest robbing exploits. Which of course it carries out in the arboreous shadows, or, frequently, under the cover of an approaching apocalyptic shit-rain of fabulous designs. Or whatever. Or whenever and however and wherever it can get away with it. aaaaack aaaaack...!

So I was recently excited to discover that one particular specimen of the genus hypocrisis krinein cuculus americanus had come careening, seemingly out of nowhere, at breakneck speed, and plowed headlong into my own humble garden variety bay window. Where the stunned fever bit bugger dropped like a wet divot right there on the ground at my feet. I picked up a stick and poked at it to see if it was still alive and if it was indeed what I suspected it was. And sure nuff the hellbound avian critter rolled right over and looked up at me with its little bead-shot eyes, opened its crooked beak, and identified itself in its own familiar squawk: aaaack tee viss judgiss!, aaaaack teeee viss judgiss!

Anyone know a good taxidermist? One that's willing to skin em alive?

Driving that train, high on disdain (July 2, 2000):

WASHINGTON _ The conservative drive to remake the Supreme Court hit a few speed bumps this term.

Long dedicated to reversing "activist" rulings of the 1960s and '70s, conservatives fell short of rolling back three frequently targeted court precedents: Opposition to prayer in school, Miranda restrictions on police questioning and abortion rights.

"Taking this term as a whole, the most important thing it did was make a compelling case that we do not have a very conservative Supreme Court," said John G. Roberts Jr., an attorney who worked toward that goal in the Reagan and Bush administrations. "Take the three biggest headline cases_ Miranda, school prayer, abortion. The conservative view lost in each of them."

But Roberts and others noted that conservatives also celebrated a fair share of victories. While rejecting student-led prayer at high school football games, the court upheld some federal aid to parochial schools. It refused to overturn the long-disputed Miranda ruling but gave police officers the right to chase and detain people who attempt to flee. ~ [FROM: Conservative drive to remake Supreme Court hits some speed bumps this term, by David Jackson, The Dallas Morning News, Sunday, July 2, 2000]

"Damage control central". Fielding for the Gipper and covering all the bases (Sept 4, 1984):

Every legal problem affecting the presidency -- major scandal or trivial request -- is funneled to Fielding and his seven lawyers, a group he fondly refers to as "a great little law firm."

It is in many ways the most powerful little law firm in town. It does what law firms everywhere do for a big client: spot trouble and keep the client out of it, or, if that is not possible, pull the client out of trouble once he is in it.

The White House counsel reviews every speech Reagan gives, every bill he signs or vetoes, every announcement, every official action and every matter that might in some way have legal significance to Reagan and the office he holds.

Most of what the firm does is confidential. But in the past 3 1/2 years, Fielding or one of his lawyers has been involved in looking into, resolving, explaining, burying or dealing with problems and issues such as the selection of Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the Environmental Protection Agency furor, the questioning about purloined Jimmy Carter documents that was dubbed "Debategate," and the propriety of top Reagan aide Michael K. Deaver's publishing a diet book.

[...]

It can be "pretty heady stuff" for someone not long out of law school, concedes 29-year-old John G. Roberts Jr., another Harvard Law Review editor and a former clerk to Justice William H. Rehnquist.

[...]

Despite their varied backgrounds, the lawyers on Fielding's staff share several characteristics, including a staunchly conservative political viewpoint and a passionate loyalty to President Reagan.

[...]

"The whole job is to iron out or spot problems," [Sherrie] Cooksey said in a recent interview, "to give legal advice to protect the president and the office of the presidency."

[...]

Wendell Willkie II, grandson of the Republican presidential nominee in 1940,... [...]

If people in the administration do not know what to do with something or have a seemingly insoluble problem, the first inclination is "send it to Fielding" and let the lawyers figure out a solution, Willkie noted. "This is damage control central." ~ [FROM: 'Great Little Law Firm' Is Troubleshooter For the President, The Washington Post, September 4, 1984, by Al Kamen]

Damage control alert: watch for more Clucking Right-Wing Harien Cuckoos to come seemingly out of nowhere, at breakneck speed, and careen headlong into our national picture window...

Aaaaaaack tee viss judgiss! Aaaaaack tee viss judgiss!

*

Due to various obligations and an impending trip out of town, I have been and will be pretty much MIA here till next week, but Lambert has been doing such a fine job covering the Roberts and Rove issues that I don't feel too bad.

And this is a bad time to not be able to write, because so many noteworthy things are happening, it's almost impossible for one person to keep up. With that in mind, Sidney Schanberg over at The Village Voice has a few pointers for those of us whose circuits are threatening to blow from the information overload, and need some tips on selective sourcing:

"For a person who has limited time to keep up with events, skip television news—except perhaps when a major event occurs somewhere in the world and television allows you to watch it live. One exception to the rule is BBC News; it's serious and thorough. And its tone is a refreshing antidote to American TV's breathless and hyped presentation of the news...

it's important to regularly read a major paper like The New York Times or the Los Angeles Times or The Washington Post or The Wall Street Journal. These are papers that give you a broad spread of information every day...

(Regarding the Internet) the best method for understanding—and accepting—the confusion and absurdities of the world is to visit multiple sources of news, say, a newspaper or two, plus a site or two on the Internet you're comfortable with. By comfortable, I don't mean a site that carries material you agree with.

More often than is healthy, the press becomes a herd, focusing on one story and one story only until the public is begging for respite. That's been happening with the Karl Rove story...This is called now-you-see-it-now-you-don't journalism.

Finally, since honest journalists and the companies they work for make mistakes fairly regularly, like other professions and the rest of humanity, one thing the consumer should look for is whether a news company is good at acknowledging mistakes in a timely and clear and prominent manner. That's a news organization you want to include in your daily diet."

Last night as I watched The News Hour on PBS, I noticed how Ray Suarez handled the upcoming CAFTA vote and the issues involved: in typical TV journo fashion, he had two representatives sit across from each other to give their opinions and spin facts. Rather than interview each one in turn and ask educated, penetrating questions that would have made the parties defend and explain their statements, to get to the truth, Ray just went back and forth like a high school debate team referee, monitoring the time so they could avoid running over.

This is what passes for journalism on TV. Debate teams monitored by high school study period teachers. And why it's more important than ever to be able to pinpoint where and how to get real information in the least time possible.

Looks like The Man in the Grey Turtleneck got it right from the start: Stealthy John Roberts is a Made Man.

Of course, the standard hagiography is that Roberts is not only a brilliant writer of briefs, a lawyer's lawyer, but a human being whose modesty, nay, whose humility... Oh God. My B.S.S. is spiking again. Anyhow, you know the line by now; say it once, why say it again?

Fortunately for the reality-based community, farmer did a LexisNexis search—don't Pravda on the Potomac and Izvestia on the Hudson have Lexis? Or are they so anxious bang out at five to go have dinner with each other and the rest of the Beltway 500 that they don't have time to check their own archives?—and he came up with a lot of interesting information. We'll share all of it, but tonight I have to put out the candle in my tiny room under the stairs at The Mighty Corrente Building, so I'll just share this one tidbit:

It turns out—and, hard to believe though it may be, the hagiography almost seems designed to conceal this—that Stealthy John has been a stone Republican operative all along:

Copyright 1989 The Washington Post
The Washington Post
September 22, 1989, Friday, Final Edition
SECTION: FIRST SECTION; PAGE A25; THE FEDERAL PAGE;TALKING POINTS
HEADLINE: Starr's 'Political' Deputy
BYLINE: Maralee Schwartz, Al Kamen
BODY:
Solicitor General Kenneth W. Starr is expected to name Washington attorney John G. Roberts Jr. to be the "political" deputy in the solicitor's office, the government's advocate before the Supreme Court.

Roberts, 34, a former clerk to Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, met Starr when both worked as aides to Attorney General William French Smith in the early Reagan years.

The job, counselor to the solicitor general as well as deputy solicitor general, was created in 1982 after strong conservative criticism that the traditionally independent office was not forceful enough in pushing the administration's social agenda at the high court. Of the five deputies in the office, the political deputy is the only non-career appointee.

Well, well, well. Stealthy John, the "political deputy." And here I thought he was the Son that Mother Theresa could never have had...

So—leaving the [shudder] "social agenda" aside for a moment—what I would like to know is what advice Stealthy John the "political deputy" gave when Bush the First decided to give Caspar Weinberger a Christmas present in the form of the pardon that enabled Weinberger to avoid trial in the Iran-Contra affair—a trial at which Bush the First would have been called as a witness. (back) After all, we know how Bush the Second feels about his Dad.

We'll just have to ask Stealthy John, won't we? And since his memory is so bad, we'll need documents to help him out... And whaddaya know? It's the documents from Stealthy John's tenure as Ken Starr's "political deputy" that Bush isn't willing to release.

I wonder why?

NOTE Of course "political deputy" Roberts will vote against Roe. He, and the theocrats who deputized him, have been working for twenty years to do exactly that. You think they're going to let a doctrine like stare decisis stand in their way?

We all know how faulty Robert's memory is—he couldn't remember if he was, or had ever been, a member of the Federalist Society—and that's why we need more documents. To help him out. And one question we've been wanting to ask Roberts is this one: What "private advice" did Roberts give Jebbie during Florida 2000? Since, after all, Roberts was "in the shadows" there for 37 days (back)

Well, apparently Robert's handlers have decided they won't be able to duck the question of why Roberts was in Florida, so they've decided on a modified, limited hangout:

ohn Roberts played a broader behind-the-scenes role for the Republican camp in the aftermath of the 2000 election than previously reported ...

My goodness! Who would have thought? I mean, besides those nasty liberal bloggers.

-- as legal consultant, lawsuit editor and prep coach for arguments before the nation's highest court, according to the man who drafted him for the job.

Ted Cruz, a domestic policy advisor for President Bush and who is now Texas' solicitor general, said Roberts was one of the first names he thought...

Until now, Gov. Jeb Bush and others involved in the election dispute could recall almost nothing of Roberts' role ....

How odd! So now, the issue isn't what they're telling us—it's what they're holding back. Because you know they would give us nothing unless they hoped to conceal worse. (For our younger readers, the "modified, limited hangout is from Nixon's old Watergate playbook, which, believe it or not, is still in use today!)

.... except for a half-hour meeting the governor had with Roberts. Cruz said Roberts was in Tallahassee helping the Bush camp for ''a week to 10 days,'' and that his help was important, though Cruz said it is difficult to remember specifics five years after the sleep-depriving frenetic pace of the 2000 recount.

Note the pre-emptive alibi....

[L]ike Cruz, [Roberts] was a member of a tight-knit circle of former clerks for the court's chief justice, William Rehnquist -- a group jokingly referred to as ``the cabal.''

Jokingly? So why am I not laughing?

Soon after getting the call from Cruz, Roberts traveled from his Washington office at Hogan & Hartson to Tallahassee to lend advice and help polish legal briefs. Later, Roberts participated in a dress rehearsal to prepare the Bush legal team for the U.S. Supreme Court.

Actually, the first stories had Roberts giving "private advice" (back) to Jebbie.

So it looks like we've got a multi-layer modified, limited hangout. Layer #1 would be the "private advice" line (note how this sets up a claim of attorney-client privilege). Then modified limited hangout layer #2 would be this "dress rehearsal" thing. I mean, a dress rehearsal isn't exactly private, right? So it will be interesting to find out what layer #3 is. (There seem to be a lot of unforced errors in handling this Roberts thing. First, the Federalist Society thing, now this. Is everyone on the Bush A team dealing with their pending indictments, or what?)

''It was a conference room full of people and John was there. I had known him for 20 years by that point, and I highly respected his opinions,'' Olson said.

This is "private advice"?

And now comes the essential point:

The Republicans assigned lawyers to one of five teams: the U.S. Supreme Court, the Florida Supreme Court, local county litigation, trial attorneys and military affairs. Though apparently on the federal team, Roberts' name appears on no legal briefs, a fact that Cruz attributes to Roberts' modesty.

''He already had a name. He didn't need the recognition,'' Cruz said.
(Miami Herald via Josh Marshall)

Well, well. I'm certainly with Cruz on this one. After all, lawyers are known for their modesty...

But—bear with me here—doesn't the bare possibility exist that Roberts viewed his... Let's not call it "modesty"... Or "anonymity"... How about stealthiness... Yes, that Roberts viewed his stealthiness as a prime professional asset that he wished to preserve? After all, there are some guys who prefer to work the back rooms—especially when having no paper trail has already been one successful strategy (Souter) for getting a seat on the Supreme Court.

NOTE I still want to know what the "private advice" was.

NOTE It would also be interesting to know if Roberts, as a fully paid up member of "the cabal," had any private contacts with Rehnquist (or Scalia) before Bush v. Gore was heard, and whether the results of any of those contacts were fed back into the "rehearsals" he was holding.

NOTE And I also want to know if Roberts thinks Bush v. Gore was rightly decided. If they want to fight Florida 2000 all over again (perhaps as misdirection to avoid fighting Ohio 2004 again?) I say, Bring it on.

NASA: No Flights Until Foam Issue Fixed.

Now, if only we could get our winger friends.... Aw, forget it.

Please excuse my absence from the Mighty Corrente Building. There are two places I despise, hospitals and jails, and because of failing to follow simple rules I learned 35 years ago I had the grand opportunity to spend a little time in both fine institutions. I’ll spare you the gory details, but I am now back among the living and I hereby publicly thank my neighbors (you know who you are) for not letting the place go to hell while I was gone.

Of course things keep going to hell, anyway…

If you live in New Mexico, or not, for that matter, act NOW—some goddam NREC judge has just okayed uranium mining in places called Crownpoint and Church Rock. These are Navajo communities, and the Navajo Nation president outlawed uranium mining on the rez earlier this year. But the devious bastards at Hydro Resources, Inc. are going to set up on “checkerboard” places that aren’t technically on the rez and mine uranium using (scarce) water. There’s plenty of local outrage, but what needs to happen is the NM Dept. of Environment and Governor Richardson need to outlaw uranium mining statewide. Otherwise there will be hundreds if not thousands of new uranium victims, mostly Native, mostly poor. For more info, contact the NM Environmental Law Center (I can't get a link to their website for some reason) and join the cause!

Note they don't try to deny the truth of the story. They just punish anyone with the temerity to SPEAK the truth. Of course the usual tactic of a business--particularly a retailer--offended by a pipsqueek newspaper reporter is to pull their advertising. This is hard for the Buzzards of Bentonville to do since they do next to no advertising in local papers. Just one of the many things they fail to contribute to the local economy:

(via Alabama news roundup)

PENSACOLA, Fla. (AP) — Wal-Mart is lifting a local manager's ban on selling the Pensacola News Journal at area stores.

A company spokeswoman says the ban was imposed in response to a column he considered derogatory to the retailer.

Columnist Mark O'Brien wrote the article in June 19th editions.

In the article O'Brien, cited a New York Times report that Georgia's health care program included more than ten-thousand children of Wal-Mart workers. This was costing taxpayers nearly ten (m) million dollars a year.

Wal-Mart Stores Incorporated spokeswoman Sharon Weber says that the company should not have removed the newspapers from the store. She says they should be available by the end of the week.

Sure wish Costco would hurry up and get to west Tennessee...

UPDATE: An excellent diary over at dKos about this matter has some details the AP piece did not, like that the Wal-Mart management's original demand was that the Pensacola paper fire the writer of the column before they would let the paper be sold at their stores again! Such lovely people they are...

Now twelve papers (including the Providence Journal) have their knickers in a twist about "offensive content":

Gary Trudeau has a Doonesbury cartoon where President * calls Karl Rove "turd blossom." So they're not running the strip.

But Bush does call Rove "turd blossom" (part of his bullying habit of giving people nicknames)

So where does the offense really lie?

NOTE Yeah, so maybe I'm not being sensitive enough to parents who don't want to answer questions like "Mommy, what does 'turd blossom' mean?" But couldn't we just view that as a teachable moment?

Here's what Bush wants to hide:

Roberts's work in the solicitor general's office from 1989 to 1993, under the first President George Bush. Democrats say they need the documents because they could shed light on the nominee's thinking about issues that may come before the Supreme Court.
(via Times)

Hmmm... What could have been happening then? Well, here's one thing:

Independent Counsel's investigation did not develop evidence that proved that Vice President Bush violated any criminal statute. Contrary to his public pronouncements, however, he was fully aware of the Iran arms sales. Bush was regularly briefed, along with the President, on the Iran arms sales, and he participated in discussions to obtain third-country support for the contras. The O.I.C. obtained no evidence that Bush was aware of the diversion. The O.I.C. learned in December 1992 that Bush had failed to produce a diary containing contemporaneous notes relevant to Iran/contra, despite requests made in 1987 and again in early 1992 for the production of such material. Bush refused to be interviewed for a final time in light of evidence developed in the latter stages of the O.I.C.'s investigation, leaving unresolved a clear picture of his Iran/contra involvement. Bush's pardon of Weinberger on December 24, 1992, preempted a trial in which defense counsel indicated that they intended to call Bush as a witness.
(Times)

Like father, like son, huh? Why is it that whenever the Republicans take power, they start setting up a secret government and shredding the Constitution? Nixon/Plumbers/Watergate, Reagan/Ollie et al./Iran-Contra, Bush/ name it... /name it... So the broader theme of questions to develop for Roberts would be Republican abuse of power, wouldn't it?

One wonders if Bush the First took legal advice from the Solicitor General before he pardoned a potential witness against him.

And one wonders if John Roberts left a paper trail when Bush did so.

Well, there's only one way to find out!

NOTE That Times summary of Lawrence Walhs's Iran-Contra report has a lot of good detail on Repubublican mendacity and criminality back when it was morning again in America. The scum also rises, and the only change is that they've gotten a lot better at it. Walsh makes Kenn Starr look like the weakling he was. I mean, Starr spent $70 million investigating a blow-job and dumping a truck load of soft porn on Capitol Hill 'cause that whole land deal thing turned to shit. (Haw! If Clinton cared about money, he would have been rich!) Walsh, by constrast concluded: "The investigations and prosecutions have shown that high-ranking Administration officials violated laws and executive orders in the Iran/contra matter." And Walsh was right. Which is why Bush pardoned the criminals.

Here's a little snippet from the documents that the White House deemed fit for consumption by non-insiders:

Roberts showed a hint of irreverence in passing along documents from Alabama on the state's prayer law, signing off on a July 29, 1982, note with "Amen."
(via AP)

Um, absent telepathy (or context the story doesn't give us) how do we know Roberts was being "irreverent"? When I say "Amen," I'm agreeing with what's been said.

Just asking...

But two beards? That's a little excessive. (via Kos)

No, but seriously, folks. We still don't know who gave "Jeff '8-inch, cut' Gannon" his White House day pass, day after day after day. Or to which White House orifice office he was, um, escorted.

And we still don't know which, um, handler passed "Gannon" the "internal government memo" purporting to show that Valerie Plame suggested that Joseph Wilson be sent to Niger to investigate Saddam's (non-existent) yellowcake uranium.

If it wasn't Rove, who could it have been?

You know what I think? If you give a timetable, you're conceding too much to the enemy.

Give them nothing. Make them work for it all.

And besides, how can we set a timetable when we don't know the scope of the work? The Republicans have yet to release all of Robert's papers....

We don't use cable TV. so I rely on my DSL to enjoy what little Daily Show I can get. And this evening I watched Stewart's interview with Rick Santorum. MY Congressman. Lucky fucking me. Stewart was kind and generous and delicate with him, and asked him the kinds of courteous, complex questions we could never hope to hear on the dogfight shows of cable news and Sunday mornings. He was a gentleman the likes of which Santorum, with all his faux decorum and Boy Scout demeanor, will never really be. And what burned itself into my memory wasn't Santorum's blather about homosexuality, or single mothers, or the state of the culture. It was this:

When asked about his ideal family, he said, "A man and a woman, raising their OWN child." Their own child. Not someone else's. Their own.

So all you adoptees out there, who, like me, were raised by non-biological parents, you can now join the ranks of the kids raised by gays, or in single parent homes, or in foster homes or orphanages, as kids who fucked up Rick's American Dream.

Am I being too sensitive, or deliberately twisting his words? No. This is what he said, and he meant it. The ideal home raises it's own kids, not someone else's. What we are supposed to do with all the children waiting for homes, I'm not sure, but it's clear that whatever is done, it will only be a paltry shadow, a pale imitation, of that magnificent thoroughbred nuclear remnant of the 50's that Rick so adores.

And what's even clearer, given his record, and that of the Jehovahmite right-wing, is that the embryos have it all over the kids on the waiting lists. After all, this is the guy who voted with the rest of the faux-life Republican senators to allow the EPA to continue testing insecticides on poor kids.

Just ask Jeb Bush. He doesn't give a shit about the kids in the system, either.

Via Kos.

Oops. I don't mean "smear." I mean "misattribute" a quotation to Kos that isn't from him.

God. The DLC can't even get a good, Republican-style smear going. What good are they, anyhow?

Although it would be nice to know what would happen if Roberts bishop, or the Pope, told Roberts they would deny him communion if he voted to keep Roe "settled law"... Oh wait, the Bishops or the Pope don't have to do that; they've already done it, by denying elected representatives communion on the same grounds.

But here's a question we could ask Roberts. Remember this little story, from "election" 2004:

The Republican National Committee has asked Bush-backing Roman Catholics to provide copies of their parish directories to help register Catholics to vote in the November election, a use of personal information not necessarily condoned by dioceses around the country.

In a story posted Thursday on its Web site, the National Catholic Reporter said a GOP official had urged people who attended a Catholic outreach event in January to provide parish directories and membership lists to the political party.

"Access to these directories is critical as it allows us to identify and contact those Catholics who are likely to be supportive of President Bush's compassionate conservative agenda,'' wrote Martin J. Gillespie, director of Catholic Outreach at the RNC. ``Please forward any directories you are able to collect to my attention.''
(via the archives, deep beneath the bedrock of One Corrente Square)

So, did the Republican National Committee ask Roberts's parish for its directory? If so, did Roberts know about it? And if he did know, what did he do? And what does he think of the practice?

Of course, maybe Roberts has "no recollection." Or didn't serve on that committee...

Just asking...

Yep, this photo is from the DLC's Columbus ingathering.

And what is this banner saying, visually? Well, exactly what those nasty leftwing bloggers are saying: Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. The DINOs are Republican Lite. (But why would anybody vote for a fake Republican when they could vote for a real one?)

Way to craft that message, guys!

What next? "Mission Accomplished?"

You can reward good behavior by purchasing a Harpers from the newsstand this week. Finally, somebody covers the, um, irregularities in Ohio 2004. There is an "online forum" in audio on the site, but the full article is only available in print. So I'll type in some extracts from Mark Crispin Miller's article, "None Dare Call It Stolen." Warning: This is going to be long; and I've left out the corroborating detail in favor of getting to the bottom line:

On Election Day, twenty-six state exit polls incorrectly predicted wins for Kerry, a statistical failure so colossal and unprecedented that the odds against it happening, according to a report last May by the National Election Data Archive Project, were 16.5 million to 1.

The press had little to say about the strange details of the election—except, that is, to ridicule all efforts to discuss them. This animus appeared soon after November 2, in a spate of articles dismissing any critical discussion of the outcome as crazed speculation.

On January 5, Representative John Conyers of Michigan, the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, released Preserving Democracy: What Went Wrong in Ohio. The report was the result of a five-week investigation by the Committee's Democrats, who reviewed thousands of complaints of fraud, malfeasance, or incompetence surrounding the election in Ohio.... Although they were invited to join, Republicans chose not to join in the inquiry.

Although Conyers trod carefully when the report came out, insisting that the crimes did not affect the outcome of the race (a point he had to make, as he told me, "just to get a hearing") his report does raise "grave doubts regarding whether it can be said that the Ohio electors selected on December 13, 2004 were chosen in a manner that conforms to Ohio law, let alone Federal requirements and Constitutional standards." The report cites "massive and unprecedented voter irregularities and anomalies" throughout the state—wrongs, moreover, that were hardly random accidents. "In many cases," the report says, "these irregularities were caused by intentional misconduct and illegal behavior, much of it involving Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell, the co-chair of the Bush-Cheney campaign in Ohio."

The first phase of malfeasance entailed, among many other actions, several months of bureaucratic hijinks aimed at disenfranchising Democrats, the most spectacular result of which was a "wide discrepancy between the availability of voting machines in more minority, Democratic, and urban areas as compared to more Republicanm suburban, and exurban areas.

The second phase of lawlessness began the Monday before the election, when Blackwell issued two directives restricting media coverage of the election. ... Both cases were immediately struck down on First Amendment Grounds. Contrary to a prior understanding, Blackwell also kept foreign monitors away from the Ohio polls. "We thought we could be at the polling places before, during, and after" the voting, said Soren Sondergaard, a Danish member of the team. Denied admission to the polls in Columbus, he and his partner went to Blackwell, who denied them letters of approval, again citing the Ohio law banning "loitering" outside the polls.

To what end would election officials risk so malodorous an action? We can only guess, of course. We do know, however, that Ohio, like the nation, was the site of numerous statistical anomalies—so many that the number is itself statistically anomalous, since every single one of them took votes from Kerry.

The electoral fraud continued past Election Day, but by means far more complex and less apparent than the bullying that marked the day itself. Here the aim was to protect the spoils, which required the prevention of countywide hand recounts by any mans necessary.

Some 1,300 Green Party and Libertarian volunteers monitored the count throughout Ohio. [Numerous examples of malfeasance in county after county omitted.] Finally, Democratic and/or Green observers were denied access to absentee, and/or provisional ballots, or were not allowed to monitor the process, in Summit, Huron, Putnam, Allen, Holmes, Mahoning, Licking, Stark, Medina, Warren, and Morgan counties. In short, the Ohio vote was never properly recounted, as required by law.

This Democracy can survive a plot to hijack an election. What it cannot survive is our indifference to, or unawareness of, the evidence that such a plot has succeeded.
(via Harper's Magazine, August 2005, p. 39 et seq.)

My bottom line: Bush's "election" in 2004 was just as valid as his "election" in 2000. That is, not at all.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

I'd like to be able to say "never again." But readers, how?

NOTE Given that the DLC held its latest meeting in Ohio, yet had nothing to say of this, I hold out little hope for them.

Air America, for example (scroll down). See Scott duck! Duck, duck duck! Via Atrios.

First, Tom makes Froomkin. Now this post makes the CJR. And awhile back, this post made DU (which is down to our alert readers, who pointed us to Colonel Gardiner's resarch (here (back) and here):

If it weren't for the smoke from the pit, you'd see me blushing.

More red meat, anyone?

Reid has it exactly right. Call Roberts "credentialled" and leave it at that. Give the Republicans nothing.

Schumer has it exactly right. Lots and lots of questions:

Sen. Charles E. Schumer met Thursday with Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr. and gave him 87 questions that Schumer said he might ask at upcoming confirmation hearings.

Ranging from general inquiries about judicial philosophy to Roberts' opinion on controversial cases such as the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision on abortion, the questions are designed to show what kind of justice Roberts will be, Schumer said.

Schumer, a New Yorker and the top Democrat on the Judiciary subcommittee that oversees judicial nominations, termed the 55-minute meeting with Roberts as cordial. But Schumer said it did nothing to persuade him to oppose or support Roberts' nomination.

"I told him my mind was totally open," he said. "I'd like to be able to support him."

Schumer who has led the effort to kill Republican judicial nominations that Democrats consider extreme opposed Roberts' 2003 appointment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit because Roberts had refused to spell out his judicial views during his confirmation hearing.

Roberts should answer such questions this time, Schumer said.

"You want to learn how someone thinks," Schumer said. Given Roberts' short tenure as a judge, "we have very little to go on."
(via Buffalo News)

And Leahy has it exactly right. The Republicans are—surprise—planning to conceal what little paper trail Roberts has under the cloak of attorney-client privilege—where the client is not you, the citizen and taxpayer, but the President.

"It's a total red herring to say, 'Oh, we can't show this,'" [Leahy] said on ABC's This Week.

He said that Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, former federal appeals court judge Robert H. Bork, former Attorney General Edwin W. Meese III and others had given up documents written while they worked for the Justice Department.

"Those working in the solicitor general's office are not working for the president," Leahy said. "They're working for you and me, and all the American people."
(Baltimore Sun

And given that Roberts's memory is so poor—first he has "no recollection" that he was a member of the Federalist Society; next he'll have no recollection that he asked WaPo to print a correction saying he wasn't, when he it turns out he was—we really can't blame Schumer for trying to help him out. Written answers to questions do concentrate the mind wonderfully, don't they?

So, all in all, Reid, Schumer, Leahy are doing just fine. "Credentialled," "keep an open mind," "sure would like to vote for the guy," "lots of questions."

Pretty simple, if you keep your mind on the play, right?

Enter the Washington Generals!

Whiney Joe! It's like watching a trainwreck:

Sen. Joseph Lieberman, one of 14 senators who helped avoid a confrontation over judges earlier this year, said their message to Bush essentially was, "Don't send us an extremist that's going to blow the place up, and first look [Good so far!] is that that's exactly [Not so good, undermines "first look"] what he has not done."

"In other words, he's sent us somebody that's got impressive [Worse and worse, further undermines "first look"] academic and legal credentials [a little discipline, back on message] and seems to have a record [Warning! Warning! Roberts has no record!] of personal honor [TRAIN WRECK]," Lieberman said on the Don Imus radio show, suggesting a smooth confirmation for the 50-year-old federal appeals court judge.
(via )

"Personal honor," forsooth? Nobody who's drunk the Kool-Aid, as Roberts has, can have personal honor (back). That's what the Kool-Aid drinkers lose!

Diane Feinstein! Another train wreck!

"He clearly is, I think, a very unusual person, because you do get the direct feeling of humility and modesty [Is this gratuitous, or what?], and yet he apparently is very precise in his writing [if not his memory], his judging, his ability to put cases together when he was an attorney," said Feinstein, D-Calif., the only woman on the 18-member Senate Judiciary Committee that will hold hearings on the nomination.

"I don't think there's anybody on the court quite like he will be in that sense, because my sense [TRAIN WRECK] is that he really grapples with the law [Oh, Diane... Shouldn't that be the minimum criterion?] and the interpretation of the law rather than any extraneous points of bias [Unlike, well, who exactly?]," she said after the hour-long meeting in her office.

But Feinstein, who voted for Roberts for his appeals court seat two years ago, said she would have trouble supporting his elevation to the Supreme Court if she determines he would vote to overturn the Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion. [And because Feinstein led with all that bootlicking foofraw about Robert's humility, her bottom line is totally lost.]

"It would be very difficult for me" to support Roberts if he opposes Roe, Feinstein said. She said that to some extent she believed she had determined where Roberts stood on Roe but added she would save details for his confirmation hearings.
(via San Francisco Chronicle)

C'mon, Diane. Work with me here. Wouldn't it have been simpler, better, easier to just say something like this?

"Even after spending an hour alone with Judge Roberts I couldn't figure out where he stood on Roe, despite his credentials. So, [taking a leaf from Schumer's book], while I'd like to be able to support Judge Roberts, I'm sure that, along with my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee, I'll have many questions at the hearings in October."

But No-o-o-o-o-o:

Asked Monday about Democratic opposition to Roberts, Feinstein said: "There is not a lot of controversy surrounding him. There just isn't."

Sayeth the Washington General: "There aren't a lot of points to be scored. There just aren't." God.

Both Feinstein and Lieberman set themselves—and their fellow Democrats—up to lose. How can they vote against a candidate of such "personal honor"? Such "humility"?

Stick with "credentialled," "keep an open mind," "sure would like to vote for the guy," "lots of questions."

Give the Republicans nothing. That's for losers.

NOTE Of course, the thuggish White House tactics have already begun. Great headline: "White House Warns Dems on Roberts Papers". See where being nice gets you, Diane? Joe?

Damn.

I just spluttered my coffee all over keyboard. Give me a minute.

OK. All cleaned up. Except for a few stains.

Like Al From.

The usually reliable Ron Brownstein writes:

COLUMBUS, Ohio -- The Democratic Leadership Council, an organization of influential party moderates....

Um, "influential" where, exactly? Exactly influential in the Beltway 500, that's where.

... named Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton today to direct a new initiative to define a party agenda for the 2006 and 2008 elections.

First, Newt, now this. Hillary's smart, no question, and it's always good to write the agenda, but lie down with dogs, get up with fleas. I mean, Newt? The only woman in America who named "the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy"—and you know whichever winger replicant's body they switch Rove into before he does the perp walk is going to run that footage 24/7 come 2008—now wants to make nice with the conspirators, and party with Al From like it's 1994. But you know what? After 11/7 (2000), "everything changed." Anyhow, good luck to her.

Indeed, Al From, the DLC founder, said in an interview that the plan was not intended to "be a lowest common denominator agenda" assembled by compromising among all elements of the party.

No, indeed. It will be an agenda designed so that loser Beltway consultants can yet again sink their mandibles into the decaying carcass of what used to be the party of the New Deal.

All this suggests that strains could develop between Clinton's desire to write a plan popular with as wide an array of Democrats as possible and the DLC's hope of crafting a sharply focused centrist road map — even if that means continued conflict with liberals that Clinton may be reluctant to antagonize.
(via AP)

Oh, wait. No, I got it wrong. From's plan won't designed so that loser Beltway consultants can yet again sink their mandibles into the decaying carcass of what used to be the party of the New Deal.

It will be a "sharply focused centrist road map."

Alright, then.

Pussies.

NOTE Anyone notice the dateline on the story? Columbus, Ohio? Ground zero for the Republican theft of election 2004, and these guys have nothing to say about that. Including Hillary, I might add. Total silence. Nothing. Zip. Nada. Zilch. I guess that might get in the way of the "sharply focused centrist road map."

Well, Sludge, Time's Blog^{of the Year}, and C [cough] BN all came out with the story that Hillary was going to vote for Roberts.

Gosh, how could these paragons of journalistic integrity and blogger ethics—these independent voices—all be wrong? All at the same time?

Please give this matter your prayerful consideration....

NOTE I love the phrase, "the Drudge Report is reporting." It's so... post-factual.

Out of respect for Tinfoil Hat Boy, who gently chided me for a "nyah, nyah" post about my life outside the cuckoo's nest, I will let Krugman's observations about Toyota's choice of Canada over Red State America for its new auto plant to pass without gloating.

Instead, I will note first that Krugman paints a too-rosy view of the state of universal health care up here. As a neighbor, who'd moved back to Canada from San Francisco in the 80s to get emergency medical care, put it wistfully the other day, "Of course, that was back when we had a world-class health-care system...." While from a business' point of view it's largely irrelevant what the quality of care is, as long as it does not have to bear the costs, the level of dissatisfaction in Canada is demonstrably up. The greatest sign of that discontent underlay a recent landmark ruling by the Supreme Court, that found that a Quebec law barring parallel private health insurance to be a violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights, insofar as it forced citizens to wait inordinate lengths of time for surgery. In the case at hand (or perhaps, hip), the plaintiff had been forced to wait over a year to get hip replacement surgery, during which time he had become addicted to painkillers.

No one would argue that being forced to wait a year for hip surgery is acceptable, and the usual claque of privatization enthusiasts promptly hailed the Court's decision as the beginning of the end for Canada's health care monopoly. But the way the decision was written makes that far from clear. For one thing, the decision appeared to be grounded, not on right of contract or free association, but the government's failure to fulfill its promises to the citizenry, a failure that the government seems to have acknowledged and promised to fix. For another, there is no discernible groundswell to move towards a mixed system (there is private health care available but from what I can tell, it's largely restricted to the peripery of available services).

In fact, the phrase "two-tiered health system" seems to have a lycanthropic effect on Canadian voters similar to what "tax increase" has on Americans. Here in our little Brigadoon-by-Lake-Kootenay, there have been serious cuts in health care services over the last few years at the hands of the Liberals and Premier Gordon Campbell. The response: in the May Provincial elections, the locals sacked the hapless Liberal MLA and replaced him, not with a privatization Conservative, but the NDP challenger. Informal polls I've seen show dogged commitment to maintaining the ideal of universal health care, even if it means raising premiums. (Yes, Virginia, Canadian health care is not "free", but the current maximum premium for a family is $C128/month. For the less well-off and for smaller families, the premium drops to around $20.) Still, it's something of a conundrum to me how the current health care system can be hurting when the government is running a budget surplus, the loonie is at a ten-year high, and GDP is growing at a healthy clip. (Royal Bank of Canada recently projected GDP growth to exceed that of the US in 2006.) Health care's heyday, by contrast, was an era of the 60 cent loonie and Bush-level fiscal deficits. Part of it is undoubtedly the same demographic shift that underlies our Social Security debate, but that can't be all of it. Despite being an American, I don't have a knee-jerk answer. I'm sure one of our savvy Canadian readers can educate us?

I was going to also expatiate a bit on Krugman's passing observation about the relative economic performance of Canada, but that's going to have to wait for another post.

This story about a story about a story is itself a bit old (it ran on Saturday I think) and the ruling itself is about a little incident so far back that it seems downright Jurassic. Before getting any more meta-storical here, let's look at the item:

(via Atlanta J-C) (registration, sorry):

BALTIMORE — Sinclair Broadcasting did not violate federal election law by running portions of a documentary critical of John Kerry's Vietnam-era anti-war activities, the Federal Elections Commission announced Friday.

Sinclair... was criticized for what the Democratic National Committee said was a plan to order its stations to show the documentary, "Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal," in the weeks leading up to the Nov. 2 presidential election.

The DNC filed the FEC complaint on Oct. 12,

!

contending that showing the film would be an illegal in-kind contribution to President Bush's campaign. Kerry's campaign asked that each station carrying the program give a similar amount of time to Kerry supporters.

After shareholders complained such a broadcast could hurt their investment in the company,

A bit of selective memory here, eh? The way I remember events, we here in the blogosphere raised unholy hell about this, and it was only then that "stockholders complained" blah blah blah. Anyway....

Sinclair announced that only segments of the documentary would be shown during a program examining the use of such documentaries to influence elections. The program aired Oct. 22 on 40 Sinclair stations.

Sigh. See headline above.

Now we get to what seems to me to be an oddly buried item--the FEC's rationale for the above decision:

The FEC said the commission's media exemption applied in the case.

Commissioner Ellen Weintraub wrote in a statement about her decision on the case that it was "important to emphasize that the press exemption shields press entities from investigations into alleged coordination."

"This agency cannot and should not attempt to arbitrate claims of media bias or breaches of journalistic ethics," Weintraub said.

In fact the longer I look at it the odder Weintraub's first comment is. There is a "press exemption" which allows "press entities" to "coordinate" with...uh, who exactly? Might one presuppose, given that one of the accusations was that Sinclair was, if not "coordinating," at least "giving a big fat sloppy blowjob" to George W. Bush and the RNC in general by demonizing his opponent, they mean "coordinating with one candidate in an election without any trace of balance or fairness"?

Sure sounds like it to me. I must need another seminar on blogger ethics.

Meanwhile, In Iraq, there's this one guy who really gets around:

"he U.S. military on Sunday said it was looking into how virtually identical quotations ended up in two of its news releases about different insurgent attacks.
Following a car bombing in Baghdad on Sunday, the U.S. military issued a statement with a quotation attributed to an unidentified Iraqi that was virtually identical to a quote reacting to an attack on July 13."

Oh. Well, then. Here are the statements themselves as the Army originally released them:

1.) "The terrorists are attacking the infrastructure, the ISF and all of Iraq. They are enemies of humanity without religion or any sort of ethics. They have attacked my community today and I will now take the fight to the terrorists."

and

2.) "The terrorists are attacking the infrastructure, the children and all of Iraq,' said one Iraqi man who preferred not to be identified. 'They are enemies of humanity without religion or any sort of ethics. They have attacked my community today and I will now take the fight to the terrorists."

There you go with those unattributable sources again. But with these guys, propaganda is nothing new.

Remember the question we asked (back): Is Roberts, or has Roberts ever been, a member of the Federalist Society?

And remember John Roberts's eminently parseable denial that he had "no recollection" of belonging to The Federalist Society, the uber-winger front organization whose "elves" worked with Linda Tripp, White Feather's Mom, and Ken Starr to overthrow Clinton, and to which F/Buckhead, he of superscript fame (back, belongs?

Of course you do.

Well, a look at the 1997-1998 Directory for the Federalist Society would have refreshed Robert's memory:

Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr. has said that he has no memory of belonging to the Federalist Society, but his name appears in the influential, conservative legal organization's 1997-1998 leadership directory.

So, the hagiography was good only to wrap the rotten mackerel of the Bush administration. What a surprise!

Having served only two years on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit after a long career as a government and private-sector lawyer, Roberts has not amassed much of a public paper record that would show his judicial philosophy. Working with the Federalist Society provides some clue of his sympathies. The organization keeps its membership rolls secret [I wonder why?] , but many key policymakers in the Bush administration are acknowledged current or former members.

In conservative circles, membership in or association with the society has become a badge of ideological and political reliability. Roberts's membership was routinely reported by news organizations in the context of his work in two GOP administrations and legal assistance to the party during the contested 2000 presidential election in Florida.
(WaPo via Democratic Underground)

It gets better. Not only did Roberts, um, forget that he was in the Federalist Society's Leadership Directory, he forgot that he was on the Steering Committee:

Roberts is one of 19 steering committee members listed in the directory, which was provided to The Post by Alfred F. Ross, president of the Institute for Democracy Studies in New York, a liberal group that has published reports critical of the society.

Federalist Society Executive Vice President Leonard A. Leo said that either he or another official of the organization recruited Roberts for the committee. Roberts's task was to serve "as a point of contact within the firm to let people know what is going on" with the organization.

Nice position for a spot of D.C. networking, eh?

And it sure was nice of Leo to come forward and clear up the confusion in the media on this point. Oh wait, he didn't?! I wonder why not?

And now, let the parsing begin!

Membership in the sense of paying dues was not required as a condition of inclusion in a listing of the society's leadership, Leo said.

So, Roberts was a leader, just not a member. Roberts was a Steering Committee member, just not a Society member. Check.

Last Wednesday, the day after Bush announced Roberts's nomination, the officials working on the nomination asked the White House press office to call each news organization that had reported Roberts's membership in the Federalist Society to tell them that he did not recall being a member.

Excellent work by the nomination team! Especially the "did not recall" part. That way, the White House press office was technically telling the truth! [How refreshing for them.] But the "being a member" part is good too, since you can be a leader and a steering committee member, without being a member!

Asked yesterday if the White House would have done so knowing about the leadership directory, [Whitewash House flak Dana] Perino said "Yes."

I'll bet. What else could she say?

So.

Here's a simple little statement of fact, a question that should be very easy to answer. To repeat: Is Roberts, or has Roberts ever been, a member of the Federalist Society? And, since he who is faithful in little is faithful in much, all the White House had to do was answer "Yes." But, with typical arrogance—they must have imagined that nobody would simply look up Roberts's name—they had to issue a carefully worded and eminently parseable denial.

So, Schumer is right. Lots of questions for Roberts. Lots and lots and lots. Because if the White House starts spinning on a question so simple, what else will come up if we really start digging?

For starters, let's get an answer to this one:

What "private advice" did Roberts give Jebbie during Florida 2000? After all, Roberts "operated in the shadows for 37 days" (back), so he must remember something!

A little Sunday Schooling... Say, maybe we can get this carved on a ten-ton rock and paraded round the country. Whaddaya think?

I. Thou shalt have no other gods but power and money.

II. Thou shalt make unto thee graven image of power and money.

III. Thou shalt take the name of the LORD thy God.

IV. Remember election days, to rig them wholly.

V. Impoverish thy father and thy mother.

VI. Thou shalt kill.

VII. Thou shalt commit perjury.

VIII. Thou shalt steal.

IX. Thou shalt bear false witness against thy enemies.

X. Thou shalt covet every thing that is thy enemy's.

So, show me a revised commandment that's not the sober truth, given what we've witnessed since 2000.

In commments, farmer points out that the episode quoted by the Sunday Herald (back) comes right out of The Taguba Report (PDF):



NOTE Again, the rapist is doing evil, no question. A "bad apple," as George "The Buck Never Stops" W. Bush would put it. But don't fall for the Rovian wedge issue of "blaming the troops." To repeat (back):

So, the real responsibility—yes, for the true evil doing—shouldn't be placed on the troops, but on Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Gonzales. They are the evil-doers with command responsibility; they are the evil-doers who, even today, laugh at the idea that they will be held to account for their crimes; they are the evil-doers who, by not "sweating the details," put the troops in the position to lose their honor as soldiers and men and women; they are the evil-doers who, fallen themselves, caused others to fall. "It would be better for them to have a great millstone fastened round their necks and be drowned into the depth of the sea."

To me, the "great millstone" quotation applies whenever someone in a position of power abuses the trust placed in them. So, a guard raping a teenage boy? Millstone material. The commander in chief who, with a wink, a nod, and a shrug, gave that guard permission to become a rapist? Millstone material, too.

From Twain's "The War Prayer":

"It was indeed a glad and gracious time, and the half dozen rash spirits that ventured to disapprove of the war and cast a doubt upon its righteousness straightway got such a stern and angry warning that for their personal safety's sake they quickly shrank out of sight and offended no more in that way."

Mark 701 has excellent links on child torture at Abu Ghraib.

Via Scotland's Sunday Herald:

It was early last October that Kasim Mehaddi Hilas says he witnessed the rape of a boy prisoner aged about 15 in the notorious Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. “The kid was hurting very bad and they covered all the doors with sheets,” he said in a statement given to investigators probing prisoner abuse in Abu Ghraib. “Then, when I heard the screaming I climbed the door … and I saw [the soldier’s name is deleted] who was wearing a military uniform.”

In another witness statement, passed to the Sunday Herald, former prisoner Thaar Salman Dawod said: “[I saw] two boys naked and they were cuffed together face to face and [a US soldier] was beating them and a group of guards were watching and taking pictures and there was three female soldiers laughing at the prisoners. The prisoners, two of them, were young.”

Proof of the widespread arrest and detention of children in Iraq by US and UK forces is contained in an internal Unicef report written in June.
(via Sunday Herald, 01 August 2004)

Of course, this aspect of America's growing Gulag—Why'd you apologize, Dick Durbin? It just made us look weak!—has been simmering for some time. Seymour Hersh in 2004 (back)

[HERSH] Some of the worse that happened that you
don't know about, ok. Videos, there are women there. The women were
passing messages saying "Please come and kill me, because of what's
happened". Basically what happened is that those women who were
arrested with young boys/children in cases that have been recorded. The
boys were sodomized with the cameras rolling. The worst about all of them is the soundtrack of the boys shrieking that your government has.

I've got the strangest feeling that Jesus wasn't in favor of torturing children. What did he say... Let me refresh the memory of my KoolAid-drunk Republican friends:

It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.
(Luke 2:17)

Is there any wonder that Bush and Cheney are trying to suppress the Darby's Abu Ghraib photos and videos? Because, sure as shooting, if the Abu Ghraib pictures and videos made these guys look good, they would have leaked them already.

"So long as the people do not care to exercise their freedom, those who wish to tyrannize will do so; for tyrants are active and ardent, and will devote themselves in the name of any number of gods, religious and otherwise, to put shackles upon sleeping men."---Voltaire

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."---Wm. Pitt


From the June 17, 2005 letter from Physicians For Human Rights to William Winkenwerder, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs at the Department of Defense, on the occasion of the announcement of new guidelines for health professionals involved in or peripheral to interrogations:

"The UN Principles state that “It is a contravention of medical ethics for health personnel, particularly physicians, to be involved in any professional relationship with prisoners or detainees the purpose of which is not solely to evaluate, protect or improve their physical and mental health.”
We note, especially, that this ethical rule is absolute, and has nothing to do with the patient-physician relationship. The physician'’s professional status requires this ethical stance regardless of his relationship with the individual. This is especially important in the interrogation context, where physicians and other health personnel not involved in direct patient care are most susceptible to unethical involvement in abuses.
Rather than applying (your new Medical Program Principles and Procedures) to those “involved in any professional relationship with prisoners,” the new guidelines would apply only to personnel with “any provider-patient treatment relationship with detainees.” That rule allows physicians, psychologists and medics not directly involved in patient care to participate in interrogations and to inflict harm on patients. It means that health personnel can be assigned to assist interrogators, be present or monitor interrogations, review medical records of detainees for the purpose of assisting interrogations, and even – though we have no evidence that this has happened – engage in interrogations themselves. Indeed, it amounts to an invitation to do so."

The DoD's June 27 response to PHR's concerns was merely to rephrase the essence of its policy, with the reassurance that it would:

"...ensure clear separation of duties between personnel providing healthcare to detainees and behavioral science personnel consulting with interrogators".

In other words, let's keep our heads, people: the assurances of ethical treatment only apply to health professionals NOT involved in the torture and interrogation of detainees. Mengele wannabees everywhere cheered, no doubt.

In keeping with the spirit of this non-effort at reassuring the public of our government's ethics related to the treatment of its prisoners, earlier this week the DoD also refused to comply with a court order to release photos and videos related to the abuse of prisoners held abroad---no doubt to spare Americans further anguish over the prospect that we could be complicit in anything so incompatible with our self-image of Girl Scout rectitude.

And now we see Dick Cheney bringing those unmatchable intimidation tactics of his own to bear on Republican senators who have been trying to pass legislation that would at least make an attempt to safeguard against further abuses in the future:

"The legislation, which is still being drafted, includes provisions to bar the military from hiding prisoners from the Red Cross; prohibit cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of detainees; and use only interrogation techniques authorized in a new Army field manual.
The three Republicans are John McCain of Arizona, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and John W. Warner of Virginia, the committee chairman. They have complained that the Pentagon has failed to hold senior officials and military officers responsible for the abuses that took place at the Abu Ghraib prison outside of Baghdad, and at other detention centers in Cuba, Iraq and Afghanistan."

McCain is also looking at including a provision to end extraordinary rendition. Granting access to the IRC? Prohibition of the same kind of treatment that would be found unconstitutional by an American court? Interrogations by the book? This stuff could hardly be less onerous, yet it shakes this corrupt and hateful administration down to its blood-soaked shoes. The very possibility that the Infant-in-Chief and his nanny might not be allowed to get their own way gives them the shivering fits. This is how the "We Don't Do Torture" president responds to the prospect of such restrictions:

"On Thursday, just before Mr. Cheney's meeting, the White House warned in a blunt statement that Senate approval of a Republican or Democratic amendment was likely to prompt Mr. Bush's top advisers to recommend he veto the measure."

I suppose while we're in the mode to bring Scott McClellan's words back to haunt him, it's worth ending with this, from his March 17 press briefing of this year:

"The President has made it very clear that we do not condone torture. He's made it very clear to the government that we do not torture. And the President does not believe we should export torture."

But just in case, they want to leave their options open.

The LA Times has a long story about the arrest, interrogation, and release of Cyrus Kar, a dual citizen of the U.S. and Iran, who went to Iraq to make a film about Cyrus the Great. Here are some extracts from his story.

Note, before we start, that the FBI has completely exonerated Kar, who is now free and back in the U.S.

Kar hires a cab to go film a bridge, and gets arrested at a checkpoint:

Kar didn't like the taxi driver they got at the central depot, near the Iraqi Museum, the hiring spot for long-haul cabs. "He didn't look trustworthy, but we didn't have a choice," he said.

They set off, chatting briefly with the driver, who they learned was a Sunni.

When they got to a checkpoint after 5 p.m. ... the car was pulled over, and soldiers looked at passports, visas, permits.

Everything seemed in order until someone popped the trunk and pulled out brown plastic garbage bags. Karr said he hadn't seen inside the trunk because they had carried only a small movie camera, Kar's dog-eared copy of Herodotus and cue cards for the narration they planned to do on the bridge.

At an Iraqi police station, officers lined up his things — including the camera and microphones — like exhibits. Kar's map, showing all of his carefully marked ancient sites, was placed on the wall. On the floor, the police placed about three dozen mechanical devices. Kar thought they looked like water heater gauges.

They were, in fact, washing machine timers—useful for making IEDs. From the first interrogation:

"One guy kept saying, 'You're going to be in big trouble…. You're going to be famous in the highest levels of government, from the secretary of defense up to the president. You're an enemy combatant. You're an American terrorist…. You're the next John Walker Lindh.' "
(via LA Times)

Interesting, if what the interrogator is saying is true; there really is a direct route that intelligence follows from the field right to the West Wing (one wonders if Abu Ghraib photos have travelled along this route).

After the driver was questioned, one of the American interrogators told Kar, "Hey, Cyrus, just wanted to let you know we talked to the cab driver and he admitted the gauges were his." ... He said they were taken to a room where everything from the taxi — their belongings and the timers — was spread out on a table, like exhibits. The three men were told to kneel in front of the items so they could be photographed, he said. ... Kar said he demanded to know why they were doing this to him and his cameraman when they knew the timers weren't theirs. ... "Don't worry about it," he said the officer told him. "I put it in our report that the driver admitted they weren't yours."

Again, as at Abu Ghraib, we have the photographed tableau for the files. (In fact, Kars was moved to Abu Ghraib briefly before being moved to Camp Cropper.)

[There,] Kar was taken to be interviewed by two FBI officers, whom he identified as "Donna Peterson" and a man named "Robert."

During the interrogation, Kar said, he was asked one question that startled him.

"Are you registered to vote in California?" [Kar] was asked.

He said he was.

"Who did you vote for?"

He hesitated. "For a split second, I realized what a political prisoner must feel like in a fascist state," Kar said he thought to himself.

"I voted for Kerry," Kar said he told the agents, and then proceeded to justify his vote. "But I believe in Bush's foreign policy. I believed in bringing democracy to countries where … bullies kept kicking people when they were down."

"How come you're so on top of politics?" he said one of the agents asked.

"Because as a voter you should be informed," he said he told them. "I'm a teacher. I teach. At a university. I should know some things."

Then they asked him his religion, Kar said. "I felt it was an invasion of my innermost beliefs, but by the same token I thought it might be one element that might help clear me." Kar said he told the agents he was raised as a Presbyterian but now considers himself a Zoroastrian, "the religion of ancient Persia before they were invaded by Muslims in 640 A.D."

Kar's family is informed that he is cleared, but Kar is still held:

Kar made his final call to his Los Angeles relatives that day. "We told him that the FBI had cleared him," Folger said. "He was shocked and frustrated by that information. It sounded as if they were telling him over there that they were waiting for him to be cleared here in the United States, while here in the U.S. they were telling us they were waiting for him to be cleared over there.

Three days later, on Friday, July 1, [Lt. Col. Carol V. Haas, the commandant of Camp Cropper] came to Kar's cell and told him he would have a hearing on July 4 because "your status under Article 4 of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, 12 August 1949 … is in doubt."

Translation: Kar was being held as an "unlawful combatant"—since how else would his status under the Geneva convention be in doubt?

The July 4 tribunal is held:

The written notice Haas gave Kar said he had the right to attend the hearing, present evidence, call witnesses and examine evidence, but that he could not have a lawyer.

He requested that the interrogators from the military and the FBI be called as witnesses, and that all their reports and notes be provided. He requested that his cameraman be brought as a witness. "I wanted to get him out of Abu Ghraib," if only for a day, Karr said. He also asked for the results of his polygraph exam.

On the morning of Independence Day, his hearing was convened. All the government witnesses, he was told, were "unavailable."

All the reports were "classified."

His polygraph exam showed "no deception."

Then the sergeant brought out the picture of Kar with the washing-machine timers. "I said I recognized it," he said. "They asked if I had a statement.''

Kar, pent up, launched a diatribe. "I said, 'Your system is flawed. My imprisonment is based solely on stupidity. There is no escape valve at the first rungs of the ladder of this bureaucratic machine and it causes innocent people to be rounded up for no reason and incarcerated for no reason.

" 'Your people created something out of nothing by taking that picture,' " he said he told them. "I started cussing like a sailor. . . . I told them I felt betrayed by my own government, a government I served honorably in the Navy."

After 15 minutes of deliberation, the panel declared him innocent, Kar said. "They said we have found you to be an innocent civilian."

Well.

This story helps us connect a few dots. Consider only the Constitutional aspects:

1. The legalese in Kar's story strongly suggests that at least one U.S. citizen has been denied his Constitutional rights to a trial and a lawyer as an "unlawful combatant." How many others are there?

2. The administrivia in Kar's story strongly suggests that there's an extra-constitutional/extra-statutory chain of command from the interrogation units right to the White House; the pictures and reports are potentially weapons of disinformational warfare. That would be why, after the FBI cleared Kar, a hearing had to be held anyhow: two chains of command. [A confused chain of command and secret records held on digital media are both handwriting of The Fog Machine, back.] Where are the pictures and reports now, and who is holding them?

Now consider the kind of polity we are becoming under the Republicans:

1. It's an article of faith among Republicans that Democrats are traitors. Of course, we know that the Republican Noise Machine has been propagating this meme, unchallenged, for years; we know that Rove is planning a "stab in the back" 2006 mid-term, blaming "the enemy within" for the Republican clusterfuck in Iraq (back); and all we have to do is read the (Ketchum funded? 101st Fighting Keyboarders to know what the base believes. It's important for us to realize that the Republican view that Democrats are traitors is not a mere matter of rhetorical excess, or "entertainment"; it's an article of faith.

But even I didn't expect the idea that Democrats are, by definition, traitors to appear in FBI interrogation procedures! [Note that the FBI agents are good bureaucrats; they have procedures and undergo training. Therefore, it's highly unlikely that the FBI is asking the question "Who did you vote for?" as a jeu d'esprit. Further, they probably don't get to ask that question to a lot of Iraqis. Leading one to ask, where else are they asking that question, and who are they asking it to?

2. How long will it be before such interrogations become routine domestically? Suppose I refuse to open my bag when I take the train in the morning? Or suppose I decide to wear Bush mask for the cameras, and security doesn't like that? When I'm pulled out of the line and taken to the office to be interrogated, will I be asked how I voted?

NOTE It is odd, is it not, that the whole apparatus of social control over public transportation that, suddenly, everyone is so eager to impose applies primarily in Blue States? It's as if the only people who are to exempt from surveillance live and work in the suburbs (no way to check their bags!), and drive cars to work (no video in the car!) Meanwhile, maybe somebody can explain to me how searching the bags of blue state commuters is going to protect us from a loose nuke in a shipping container? A danger that the Iraq clusterfuck has already increased?

Did Alberto Gonzales take time out from his busy day writing memos enabling torture to run the shredder when the first investigation opened into the Plame Affair? Frank Rich writes:

When the president decided not to replace Sandra Day O'Connor with a woman, why did he pick a white guy and not nominate the first Hispanic justice, his friend Alberto Gonzales? Mr. Bush was surely not scared off by Gonzales critics on the right (who find him soft on abortion) or left (who find him soft on the Geneva Conventions). It's Mr. Gonzales's proximity to [TreasonGate] that inspires real fear.

As White House counsel, he was the one first notified that the Justice Department, at the request of the C.I.A., had opened an investigation into the outing of Joseph Wilson's wife. That notification came at 8:30 p.m. on Sept. 29, 2003, but it took Mr. Gonzales 12 more hours to inform the White House staff that it must "preserve all materials" relevant to the investigation. This 12-hour delay, he has said, was sanctioned by the Justice Department, but since the department was then run by John Ashcroft, a Bush loyalist who refused to recuse himself from the Plame case, inquiring Senate Democrats would examine this 12-hour delay as closely as an 18½-minute tape gap. "Every good prosecutor knows that any delay could give a culprit time to destroy the evidence," said Senator Charles Schumer, correctly, back when the missing 12 hours was first revealed almost two years ago. A new Gonzales confirmation process now would have quickly devolved into a neo-Watergate hearing. Mr. Gonzales was in the thick of the Plame investigation, all told, for 16 months.

Thus is Mr. Gonzales's Supreme Court aspiration the first White House casualty of this affair. It won't be the last.
(via NY Times)

First, hubris. Then, nemisis.

And the bottom line:

The real crime here remains the sending of American men and women to Iraq on fictitious grounds. Without it, there wouldn't have been a third-rate smear campaign against an obscure diplomat, a bungled cover-up and a scandal that - like the war itself - has no exit strategy that will not inflict pain.

Yessiree, the insurgency is in its "last throes."

Not. This story from the Times is full of odd details, straws in the wind. None of it's good:

They just keep getting stronger.

Despite months of assurances that their forces were on the wane, the guerrillas and terrorists battling the American-backed enterprise here appear to be growing more violent, more resilient and more sophisticated than ever.

"We are capturing or killing a lot of insurgents," said a senior Army intelligence officer, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to make his assessments public. "But they're being replaced quicker than we can interdict their operations. There is always another insurgent ready to step up and take charge."

At the same time, the Americans acknowledge that they are no closer to understanding the inner workings of the insurgency or stemming the flow of foreign fighters, who are believed to be conducting a vast majority of suicide attacks. The insurgency, believed to be an unlikely mix of Baath Party die-hards and Islamic militants, has largely eluded the understanding of American intelligence officers since the fall of Saddam Hussein's government 27 months ago.

On Tuesday, masked insurgents gunned down two moderate Sunni leaders who had been helping to draft Iraq's permanent constitution. The killings, carried out in the middle of a busy Baghdad street in heavy traffic, appeared to be calculated to squelch the voices of moderate Sunnis, and to prevent anyone else from stepping forward.

The immediate effect seemed to play right into the insurgents' hands: moderate Sunni leaders announced that they were suspending their efforts to help draft a constitution, laying down several conditions for their return.

Insurgents have killed moderate Sunni leaders before, but the shootings of Mejbil al-Sheik Isa and Damin al-Obeidi on Tuesday were especially striking: the men were killed after months of coaxing by Iraqi Shiite leaders and American officials intended to bring moderate Sunnis like them into the constitutional process.

In Baghdad, it is commonly understood that the recent success of the insurgency lies in part in the weakness of the Iraqi government. The Sunni leaders who were slain, for instance, were traveling with a single guard, whom one of the Sunni leaders had provided at his own expense. Pleas by the two Sunni leaders to the Iraqi government for protection had apparently gone unheeded.

Then, on Thursday, the rebels struck again, kidnapping the top Algerian diplomat in Iraq and a colleague. ... As with the slaying of the moderate Sunni leaders, the kidnappings have seemed, so far, to have secured exactly what the insurgents wanted. No Arab government has yet sent an ambassador to this country.

One other recent development in the insurgency - and a possible explanation of its ability to bring in recruits from around the Arab world - is the reach and sophistication of its public relations.

Most of the main insurgent groups - like Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia and Ansar al Sunna - regularly post updates of their exploits on the Web. Scarcely a day passes when one of the groups has not announced another attack with either video or printed notice.
(via Times)

So, lemme get this straight:

1. The insurgents are as strong as ever.

2. The insurgents have great PR and a steady flow of recruits.

3. American intelligence knows nothing about them.

4. The insurgents, because neither the American military, Negroponte's death squads, nor Allawi's government can provide security, have recently scored two major successes: (a) delegitimizing the effort to write the Constitution (needs to be done next month, remember) and (b) delegitimizing the Allawi government internationally by denying it consulates.

So maybe somebody can find the pony in here; I sure can't. And maybe some future historian can explain to all of us how Bush cured American of the VietNam syndrome once and for all by getting us bogged down on an urban battlefield in the middle east. Stalingrad, anyone?

In other Iraq happy talk, recruitment is tanking. Remarkable, isn't it, how all the spokesmen say that it's "war" that's the problem, instead of saying that it's this war, and the lies that got us into it, that are the problem. Also, nobody's making any sacrifices but the troops (and the dead Iraqi civilians, of course), and the troops are noticing. Why this would be surprising, I don't know; the deal Bush made with the country is pretty clear: "Go shopping," he said.

And to top it all off, as farmer points out (back) our soldiers are fighting and dying so that the sharia can be enshrined as the basis of Iraqi law. WTF?

At this point, someone is probably asking, "But lambert, what is your solution?!" Well, I know what Rove's solution is: Cut and run by the 2006 midterms and blame liberal traitors (back). But as a member of the reality-based community—and I know this sounds like a cop-out, so if someone has a better idea I'd love to hear it—I just don't see how proposing a solution is possible; the entire situation is so polluted by Republican disinformation that I don't see how it's possible to make any judgment about it.

So, the only solution is to get Bush outta there, first. Then we can start cleaning up the lies and go from there.

Did you ever read a Russian novel from the Tolstoy/Dostoevsky era? Do you remember the cozy booths in Moscow restaurants hidden by curtains, where lovers and ne'er-do-wells could escape to consummate their desires, and lose their miseries? I need one of those. And then a phaeton to get out of town fast and find a place where no human hand can find me.
Via Atrios, I see John Gibson, resident Fox News troll, speaks for the civilized Western world:

"I love the way the Brits have 10 million cameras sticking up the nose of every citizen no matter where they are, except in the loo."

If you need a cleverly worded satiric comment to bring home the horror of the implication inherent in this sentence, you're not going to get it here. I'm too numbed out by the infinite possiblity of human hatred.

Sometimes you just have to take what the universe serves up, and figure it out for yourself.

(Cross-posted, in the interest of full disclosure, blah blah blah.)

As Atrios says, Roberts is a "made man":

Roberts' writings stored at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library [from when Roberts was an assistant to then Solicitor General, Ken Starr] give a sense of a partisan eager to defend the president and keep lawmakers and bureaucrats in line.
(via WaPo)

But the (really idiotic) headline—"Roberts' White House Papers Show Sly Wit"—is just wrong; we also see a young man determined, even then, to leave no paper trail. At least in the counsel we have from Roberts (not all is yet availabe) he seems very concerned with brushing over the traces. Very carefully:

[ROBERTS] "There should be little press interest" ... "Those denials were, and continue to be, particularly controversial and there is no need to mention them" ... "Once you let the word out there's a blacklist, everybody wants to get on." [That sly Republican wit! Especially picquant considerding Nixon's enemies list and the McCarthy era!] ... [I]t is probably best simply to acknowledge receipt of his speech," Roberts told Fielding, "and tell him you look forward to reading it."

See what I mean? Of course, there are many papers that have not yet been processed by the archives. Naturally, with a candidate whose record is as thin—and whose commmentary is so deliberately elusive—there will be lots of questions to ask...

Kim Il-Sung must think Bush is really, really in trouble:

North Korea has told the United States it would welcome a visit by President Bush or Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to help normalize ties, Japan's Kyodo news agency said on Saturday
(via Reuters)

Only Bush can go to North Korea... And it would be entertaining to watch the flipflopping as Bush rationalizes the trip—which will, no doubt, take place when Rove's indictment is an "imminent threat."

Because if you play for the Washington Generals, you're playing for the team that always, always loses:

The committee's top Democrat, Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (Del.) met with Hughes privately Thursday and said in a statement -- read by Lugar at the hearing -- that he could not attend because of previous commitments but is "particularly interested in and supportive of the {Karen Hughee's] nomination [as an undersecretary of state for public diplomacy and public affairs]," and that Hughes will bring "new energy and creativity to our public diplomacy efforts."
(via WaPo)

Gag me with a spoon.

NOTE Translation: "Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs" means "Republican Disinformational Warfare (Foreign Front)". As opposed to "Repubublican Disinformational Warfare (Domestic Front), which "the architect," Herr Rove, is still in charge of.

Well, that's all I need to know!

The Bush administration in recent days has been lobbying to block legislation supported by Republican senators that would bar the U.S. military from engaging in "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment" of detainees, from hiding prisoners from the Red Cross, and from using interrogation methods not authorized by a new Army field manual.

Vice President Cheney met Thursday evening with three senior Republican members of the Senate Armed Services Committee to press the administration's case

It was the second time that Cheney has met with Senate members to tamp down what the White House views as an incipient Republican rebellion. The lawmakers have publicly expressed frustration about what they consider to be the administration's failure to hold any senior military officials responsible for notorious detainee abuse in Iraq and the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Golly! They "expressed frustration"! I bet they even went to far as to "share their concerns"! If these Repubublicans had an ounce of decency or honor (or had a custodial relationship with their testicles) they'd just pass the damn law! Or is rape OK as an instrument of US foreign policy? ("Shining city on a hill" and all that...)

Neither Cheney's office nor the lawmakers would say exactly what was discussed at the meeting, citing a routine pledge of confidentiality.

God, everyone's giving routine pledges of confidentiality these days, aren't they? I guess that's the first thing you do, after you drink the Kool-Aid. What's that old AA saying? You're only as sick as your secrets?

The Republican effort is intended partly to cut off an effort by Senate Democrats to attach more stringent demands to the defense bill regarding detainees. One group, led by Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.), has proposed an amendment calling for an independent commission -- similar to the Sept. 11 commission -- to look into administration policies on interrogation and detainee abuse.
(via WaPo)

Good idea. And let's ask Roberts what he thinks about Attorney General Gonzales calling a ratified treaty, the Geneva Convention, quaint, and writing the memos (back) to justify the torture at Abu Ghraib.

OK, so I got the Dobbs thing wrong. Heck, I could use some slack myself (in fact, that's what I like about Philly.

But I think this time I've got it right:



Movie buffs out there, I'm sure you get this one right away...

"Public and private freedoms are protected provided they do not conflict with moral values and public decency." ~ His Serene Eminence President Rick Santorum (in loco parentis).

Additional details: the new Constitution

in full (draft) here: Carnegie Endowment

*

Disgusting. Delay, stonewall, deny.

Someone should ask Roberts how he would rule. Would he allow Darby's Abu Ghraib photos and tapes to be released? Or "defer" to the executive and cover up the torture?

You know, there's a book, almost two thousand years old, that has something to say about this, something a propos.... I wonder if any of these [cough] Christians have ever read it?

For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
(John 3:20

Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

And it's going to take a lot of sunlight to clean up the Bush administration.

UPDATE Wonder if those screaming boys being raped at Abu Ghraib is in the Darby material Bush is trying to suppress? Makes this little jape seem lighthearted and trivial, doesn't it?

UPDATE So much for the rule of law:

Lawyers for the Defense Department are refusing to cooperate with a federal judge's order to release secret photographs and videotapes related to the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal.


The lawyers said in a letter sent to the federal court in Manhattan late Thursday that they would file a sealed brief explaining their reasons for not turning over the material, which they were to have released by yesterday.

Somebody should ask Roberts, "Boxers or sealed briefs," eh?

No but seriously, folks: My understanding has always been that following the orders of a Federal judge isn't optional. Bush seems to think that it is. And I wonder what Roberts thinks? Does he believe in the rule of law and the seperation of powers? Perhaps somebody should ask him.

From Julian Borger in the Guardian. Last paragraph:

Meanwhile, a parallel investigation is under way into who forged the Niger documents. They are known to have been passed to an Italian journalist by a former Italian defence intelligence officer, Rocco Martino, in October 2002, but their origins have remained a mystery. Mr Martino has insisted to the Italian press that he was "a tool used by someone for games much bigger than me", but has not specified who that might be.

A source familiar with the inquiry said investigators were examining whether former US intelligence agents may have been involved in possible collaboration with Iraqi exiles determined to prove that Saddam Hussein had a nuclear programme.
(via Guardian)

Of course, Seymour Hersh had this story in 2003, back... Although with a slightly diffent twist.

The logic is going to be just the same as the Rovian counterstrike on Bush being AWOL from TANG: Because the Killian memos were not provably true, all the other evidence on Bush being AWOL is false. (Say, has anyone ever collected the $10,000 reward for saying saying Bush was actually serving his country during his missing year?)

And in this case: Former CIA traitors deceived Bush in this one case, therefore CIA traitors deceived Bush in all cases...

So many dots, so little time!

According to Steve Clemons via Atrios.

Who wants to bet that the Echelon intercepts that Bolton got from the NSA—the intercepts (back) that Senators are not allowed to see, though Bolton, the under-assistant-secretary of something-or-other, was—had to do with the plot to out Valerie Plame?

Too tired to work out a timeline, but it would be irresponsible not to speculate....

NOTE Or, if not Plame, the broader disinformational warfare campaign run by the W.H.I.G. (back).

Since he's only been a judge two years, and seems forgetful about his affiliations—oddly, has "no recollection" of whether he is, or ever has been, a member of the Federalist Society, back—we really have no alternative to asking a lot of questions... Based on documentary evidence (as opposed to hagiographical planted stories and personal testimony from oh-so-objective wingers).

And here's an interesting tidbit:

Democratic officials also said Friday they want access to all material regarding Roberts at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in California. Roberts served in the White House counsel's office from 1982-1986 [when his anti-Roe brief was filed]. He was principal deputy solicitor general in the administration of President George H.W. Bush.

The Reagan Library, in Simi Valley, Calif., holds an unknown number of documents relating to Roberts, arranged by subject matter. While material in some subjects are designated on the library's Web site as available to the public, most is not.
(via AP)

Well, getting these documents shouldn't be a problem. After all, the Reagan library (in Texas, naturally) is run by the National Archives—paid for with our tax money. And there can't be any national security issues, this is all domestic material.

So I'd expect this material to be released tout suite. After all, Bush's new attitude of taking the "advise and consult" clause seriously should extend to giving the Senate Judiciary Committee members the material they need to do their work. Eh?

Via Associated Press:

CAIRO, Egypt - As many as seven explosions struck the Red Sea resort of Sharm el-Sheik on the southern tip of the Sinai Peninsula early Saturday, targeting several hotels and killing at least 25 people, witnesses and police said.

Saturday's explosions at 1:15 a.m., when many tourists would have been asleep, shook windows a mile away. Smoke and fire rose from Naama Bay, a main strip of beach hotels in the desert city popular with Israeli and European tourists, witnesses said.

A police official in Sharm el-Sheik said at least 25 were killed and 110 wounded in multiple explosions targeting the Ghazala Gardens and Movenpick hotels in Naama Bay and the Old Market area nearby. Other officials in Sharm said there may have been as many as seven blasts: three in Naama Bay and four in the market.

Amal Mustafa, 28, an Egyptian who was visiting with her family, said she drove by the Ghazala Garden — a 176-room four-star resort on the main tourist strip in Naama — and it was "completely burned down, destroyed."

continued..., see: Egypt Blasts Kill at Least 25, Wound 110.

*

I love a charade!

I always felt that Bush calling in all those Senators for their "advice" on selecting Sandra "Swing Vote on Bush v. Gore" O'Connor's replacement was a charade, just because talking to anyone but lackeys and true believers from the base is the kind of thing Bush so obviously hates to do. (Exhibit A: Social Security "barnstorming" tour.)

But now I don't just feel it; I know it. The Times actually has a reporter willing to rise from his knees, look around, and do a little reporting. And efore we issue 50-year-old "blank slate" John Roberts a free pass to a lifetime appointment on the court, we might want to examine what the Republicans have been doing to make straight the way for him:

For at least a year before the nomination of Judge John G. Roberts to the Supreme Court, the White House was working behind the scenes to shore up support for him among its social conservative allies, quietly reassuring them that he was a good bet for their side in cases about abortion, same-sex marriage and public support for religion.

So much for "consultation," eh? The Roberts campaign is (yet another) example of a well-planned informational warfare campaign executed by the Bush White House—the current spate of hagiography being a typical component of such campaigns (as we know from the run-up to the Iraq war).

But with a series of personal testimonials about Judge Roberts, his legal work, his Roman Catholic faith, and his wife's public opposition to abortion, two well-connected Christian conservative lawyers - Leonard Leo, chairman of Catholic outreach for the Republican Party, and Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of an evangelical Protestant legal center founded by Pat Robertson - gradually won over most social conservatives to nearly unanimous support, even convincing them that the lack of a paper trail was an asset that made Judge Roberts harder to attack.

So, Roberts is a stealth nominee. Surprise!

Mr. Leo said he told wary social conservatives that even though Judge Roberts had not ruled on abortion or other issues his other opinions showed "a respect for the text and original meaning and a presumption of deference to the political branches of government."

For example, Mr. Leo told allies, Judge Roberts had supported the administration's argument that executive privilege protected Vice President Dick Cheney's meetings about energy policy...
(via NY Times)

Ah! Roberts is sound on the Cheney task force! Thank God. For a moment, I thought that ordinary, unsanctified citizens might be able to take a look at the decision-making processes of the Godly! (I hate to think what "deference" is a synonum for...)

But wait! There's more:

Supporters of Judge Roberts bolstered their case with the opinions of two leading legal thinkers in the movement to oppose abortion rights: Prof. Robert George of Princeton University and Prof. Hadley Arkes of Amherst.

At a dinner with friends after Judge Roberts's appeals court confirmation, Professor Arkes said, he had suggested that nominees questioned about Roe v. Wade should turn the tables to put the senators on the defensive, asking them whether they understood the implications of the ruling. "He didn't rule it out, but he didn't think the hearings could be turned into that kind of seminar," Professor Arkes said.

[Akers] had presumed they both believed [Roe] should be overturned, Professor Arkes said, because they were with friends who shared that view. But he said Judge Roberts never said so explicitly. "He is a very, very careful guy."

Yes, this has all the handwriting of a Rovian disinformational warfare operation:

1. The press "catapulting the propaganda" (all that hagiography)

2. The candidate's mysterious antecedents (no paper trail, "no recollection" (huh?) of being a member of the Federalist Society (back)

3. Discreet Republican operative ("very careful," no doubt, in the "private advice" he gave Jebbie in Florida 2000 as well (back)

And most revealing of all:

4. The winger dogs aren't barking in the night. That means they think they're going to get what they want (i.e., someone who's even loonier and has less regard for the Constitution than Albert "Torture Memo" Gonzales).

So, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain! There's no reason to ask Roberts any questions (since it's those pesky questions that eliminate the "fog of war" in disinformation campaigns). That, at least, is what the Republicans are counselling:

On his second day of making courtesy calls to key senators, Roberts generally received warm receptions, especially from Republicans who spent more time advising him how to handle his upcoming Judiciary Committee hearings than probing his judicial philosophy. Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), citing court nominees who won unanimous confirmation, said he told Roberts: "It seems like the less they say to the committee, the better off they are."
(WaPo

Good advice, Charles! Of course, Grassley's a winger, so he's part of the base, and already "in the know." Over the past year, he'll have been briefed, so he can emit his disinformation at the proper place and time.

But shouldn't the two-thirds of the country that isn't part of the base be given the opportunity to find out who Roberts really is?

Say, by asking questions?

Just asking...

Two days ago, in response to a query by Mrs. T about having a place to answer questions, famer threw open the door to Corrente Interrogation Chamber #001.


Correntians examine the facts.

As the responses meandered here and there for the better part of a day, Pansypoo suggested the possibility of an open thread.

I'm bogged down in work and didn't have time to write about David Brooks, that old stand-by, whose columns are now approaching weirdness on the level of a Furry convention.

Nor do I have time to write about the surpassing hypocrisy of Mr. We Don't Do Torture threatening to hold the US defense budget hostage if he has to be held accountable for the treatment of prisoners.

And I don't have time to point out the truly slapstick adventure of our dear Secretary of State in Sudan yesterday, whose staff got slapped around, and who was bereft of an interpreter for awhile because the Sudanese shock troops refused to let one in.

Anyway, I'll be out for a bit.

So have at it, all you seekers of slack.

Oh, man. Wow. Get a load of that one. How I want to. But it would be wrong. Very wrong. What would Mom say. Or Laura. If she were awake. Oh. O-o-o-o-h....

NOTE Julius blog has the full archive.

PERJURY!

Karl Rove... Married to the guy with the most cigarettes...

Philly in the summer? No—the Roberts hagiography!

Please. Just spare me. I don't care about his cute kids, his nice guy demeanor... Any of that stuff. Two things I'd like to know:

Is Roberts, or has Roberts ever been, a member of the Federalist Society? The WaPo story is mysteriously unenlightening. The headline is "Federalist Affiliation Misstated". But the text of the story reads as follows:

And practically everyone -- CNN, the Los Angeles Times, Legal Times and, just yesterday, The Washington Post -- has reported Roberts's membership as a fact. But they are wrong. John Roberts is not, in fact, a member of the Federalist Society, and he says he never has been.

"He has no recollection of ever being a member," said Dana Perino, a White House spokeswoman who contacted reporters to correct the mistake yesterday.

How... very parseable. I mean, how could somebody forget? And isn't it interesting that the White House is actually calling reporters to, er, "correct" the story?

How this urban legend got started is not clear. The issue probably got clouded in part because the Federalist Society's membership is confidential; individual members must decide whether or not to acknowledge their affiliation

So the headline is wrong, isn't it? The headline should read that Roberts says he isn't a member of the Federalist Society, or, even more precisely, can't seem to remember whether he was or not. Look, I don't care if Roberts lied to us. He's a Republican, so we expect that. But should someone with a memory that bad really be on the Supreme Court? Why, he might forget about the Bill of Rights! Oh, wait...

And the other thing I'd like to know:

What "private advice" did Roberts give Jebbie during Florida 2000? As we noted yesterday (back) Roberts gave Jebbie "private advice" until the Supreme Court selected Bush. But it's hard to see why whatever Roberts said should remain private when he might be called upon to decide the next Bush v. Gore. It certainly does seem that Roberts made every effort to cover his tracks:

As the 2000 presidential recount battle raged in Florida, a Washington lawyer named John G. Roberts Jr. traveled to Tallahassee, the state capital, to dispense legal advice.

He operated in the shadows at least some of those 37 days, never signing a legal brief and rarely making an appearance at the makeshift headquarters for George W. Bush's legal team.

[U.S. Rep. Tom Feeney (R-Fla.), then speaker of Florida's House of Representatives]speculated that Senate Democrats might well ask Roberts for his view of the Bush-Gore recount outcome. But he advised Roberts to duck.

"I don't know that there is any political benefit to answering that question," Feeney said.

Well, I'm an optimist, unlike Feeney. I can't believe that Roberts, the son that Mother Theresa never had, would have anything to hide. So maybe someone should just ask him. E.J. Dionne agrees:

Like the chief justice, Roberts has been a loyal Republican Party operative. He was reportedly involved in the Bush legal effort in 2000 to block further recounts in Florida. We always knew that the Supreme Court conservatives who helped put this president in office were paving the way for an even more conservative court. Roberts's nomination is the fruit of that effort. Surely he should be questioned closely about one of the most outrageous decisions in the court's history and his role in the Florida fiasco.
(via WaPo)

Stealthy Republican operative ... No paper trail... No "recollection" of whether he's a member of the organization whose "elves" orchestrated the coup against Clinton... "Private advice" to Jeb Bush in the run-up to Bush v. Gore... Lots of questions. Lots and lots of questions.

And we haven't even gotten to Roe. Like, will "devout Catholic" Roberts stand up for "settled law" when the Pope decides Roberts can't take communion? And we haven't gotten to Gitmo, either. Or Roberts as corporate lawyer. (I guess that's better than being a trial lawyer, right?)

This one's not over. The Dems are smart to admit Roberts has got the credentials, let the story simmer, and keep the focus on Rove.

And Raw story says, Bloomberg.

Go read Billmon now.

And do what he says.

CRUMBLEZONE! Flee to higher ground.


Public service announcement - blogroll additions follow:

5 new Liberal Coalition blogs:
1- Dodecahedron
2- firedoglake
3- Liberty Street
4- Science and Politics
5- Welcome to Gilead

ALSO ADDED TO BLOGROLL:
Multilateral (an NTodd production) a hub of liberal blog alliances including Liberal Coalition members.

Watching America News from different sources around the world. Many include English translations. (thanks robin)

News America Now

Fire on the Prairie (In These Times blog/includes radio show feeds)

Blogometer (via The Hotline/National Journal)

Christian Right watch

Patriot Daily

And of course the immortal magician of Mortal Jive himself, MJS.
Mortal Jive

check those out and then report immediately to the interrogation room for donuts.

*

Something about that... crazed look in the eyes....

And we know Roberts hasn't drunk the Kool-Aid why, exactly?

Because he's a member of the Federalist Society? (Someone should ask him if he approves of the "elves"—or if he was one). Because his wife is a pro-lifer Schiavo loon? Because he wrote a brief in suppport of overturning Roe? Because he gave Bush the kind of power at Gitmo that Nixon only dreamed of? Because he gave Jebbie "private legal advice" during Bush's coup in 2000?

If there's one thing we can learn from what Republicans have become under Bush, it's that they are utterly without personal honor; that's what "drinking the Kool-Aid (back) means. (I could write a list, but it's late and there's so little time.) So when it comes to saying Roe (or any precedent) is the "settled law" of the land, why on earth would we believe them?

The lesson of Bush 43 is that when the Republicans finally take power, they move very fast, very hard, and pesky old rules and past promises of moderation no longer apply.

So when the Republican radical right finally make O'Connor's swing vote their own, why on earth would we expect them not to behave the way that they already have?

Well, the honeymoon was nice while it lasted. London Mayor Ken Livingstone, whose eloquence in response to the terror bombings in his city moved nearly everyone across the political spectrum, has found just how far decency gets you when it doesn't serve the interests of the lunatics running the asylum. Speaking on Radio 4 yesterday of what drives suicide bombers, he stated the obvious:

"You've just had 80 years of western intervention into predominantly Arab lands because of the western need for oil. We've propped up unsavoury governments, we've overthrown ones we didn't consider sympathetic."
(via The Scotsman UK)

... and went on to hazard that the bombers just might have been motivated by concrete grievances, rather than free-floating homicidal rage. Really? Ya think? Four Arab youths with apparently no history of even political involvement, let alone radical activities, happily strap on backpacks full of explosives to kill as many innocent civilians as they can, and you think there might be an articulable motive (however morally unjustified)?

Certainly Tony Blair wants such DoublePlus Ungood thinking rubbished out, and the sooner the better. Doing what struck me as an uncannily creepy impersonation of President Pinocchio on CBC Television, Blair blathered on about the bombers' unappeasable armageddonite fantasies while familiar spasmodic smirks flickered across his face, his jaw periodically jutting foward like a barroom drunk trying to pick a fight. Is this tic diagnostic of the compulsive liar generally, I wonder?

Somewhere I read that one sign of the delusional mind is the conviction that the laws of the universe don't apply. And what else is this dogged belief that Western actions have no negative reactions, than a denial of Newtonian physics? On Riggsveda's recommendation last week, I went out and bought a copy of Paul Williams Roberts' A War Against Truth. Among its many virtues (controlled outrage, verbal dexterity, caustic irony) one that I did not expect was its merciless recounting of the cynical betrayal of the Arab world by the Western powers after World War I (and one that continues to this day)-- a story I, at least, knew only in general, if also unflattering terms. It was only then that I realized the larger actual scope of the book's title. Betrayed people have long memories.

A Canadian neighbor remarked to us the other night that during her years living in San Francisco in the late 80s, she was struck by how, even then, Americans still couldn't talk honestly to one another about Vietnam. I remarked that it looked like our collective neurosis was on its way to siring an offspring in Iraq. "Oh, but Iraq is even worse, because you have no idea how to get out."

As long as politicians can't even state the most elementary truths about the course they've set us on, that's not going to change.

UPDATE: Patrick Cockburn says much the same thing I was trying to, only better, here.

But look, he's a nice guy with a lot of integrity (as much as any Kool-Aid drinking Republican can ever be a nice guy. Or have integrity).

And even though he's only been a judge for two years, he's got great credentials. Heck, he's a member of the Federalist Society!

So, I think we should just trust the President on this one.

NOTE At this point, with so much so clear, is there any Republican who hasn't drunk the Kool-Aid.

UPDATE Here's an interesting little nugget from WaPo:

As a long-standing member of the Republican National Lawyers Association who gave Gov. Jeb Bush (R) private legal advice during the 2000 presidential election recount in Florida, Roberts has clear political loyalties.

Hmmm, I wonder what the nature of that "private legal advice" could have been? Maybe someone should ask him. After all, it would be nice to know how Johns (Roberts?) would have ruled in Bush v. Gore. Or whether he believes Bush v. Gore is "settled law." Say, I wonder if Jebbie recommended him to Inerrant Boy? With, say, 2008 in mind?

UPDATE Robert's (John's?) wife is the pro bono counsel for Feminists for Life. Nice site, slick marketing. So I poked around and found this little crotte of oozing sanctimony:

Feminists for Life expresses our heartfelt sympathies and condolences to the family and friends of Terri Schindler-Schiavo on her tragic passing. We extend our deep regrets to all who worked to save Terri's life. Her gentle and joyful spirit, though impaired and imperfect, touched many hearts. She reminded us that life is a precious and fragile gift that needs to be respected and protected--sometimes through great and heroic efforts. We mourn Terri's passing with deep sadness. Patricia Heaton, honorary Co-Chair of Feminists for Life, joins us in saying that "We have to honor her, and honor her life."

God. Terri's brain was atrophied and half its normal size (back). She was in a persistent vegetative state. If there is a God, She'll strike down the Republicans who used Terri Schiavo's living corpse as a political football. And Terri Schiavo will look down from Heaven and laugh.

So, maybe someone should ask Roberts what he thinks of the resolution of the Schiavo case. And maybe whether he gave Jebbie any "private legal advice" on that case.

Bush didn't really want to do this thing with the Dread Pirate Roberts for weeks yet, Wee Scotty's fanciful tales to the contrary. But President Rove really needed his little figurehead to get out and gibber loudly enough to take the heat off for awhile...

(via Froomkin)

...[According to a new survey from] the Pew Research Center, 49 percent [of the public] said they believe the president is trustworthy, while almost as many, 46 percent said he is not. Bush was at 62 percent on this measure in a September 2003 Pew poll and at 56 percent in a Gallup poll in April.

Asked to provide one-word descriptions of Bush, the top ten words that came to respondents' minds were: Honest, incompetent, arrogant, good, integrity, determined, liar, stupid, idiot, strong.

Compared to five months ago, the words "leader" and "fair" dropped out of the top ten, while "stupid" and "determined" made it in.

And what was it last night with the weird jaw-twitch at the end of every sentence? Can falling poll ratings cause TMJ? Rumor has it (not that I watch Cuckoo Bananas Travelling Babble Shows if I can possibly avoid it) that his little staged speech in front of Bored Uniformed People today showed him in full verbal meltdown. If I thought he was actually in charge of anything I'd be deeply concerned.

Scotty finally beams up.

Enjoy the party, Mr. Doohan.

Last night Lambert and Leah weighed in with their pieces on Bush's new nominee for the Supreme Court, John Roberts. Mine, also from last night but not yet posted here, follows:


Well, by God, this should prove an endless source of amusement for about a fortnight.


UPDATE: So it's Roberts, hand-picked by Bush for his current position on the D.C. Court of Appeals. Most recently he made the news last Friday by chiming in with that insufferable prick A. Raymond Randolph to uphold the decision that the military commission set up to try "enemy combatants" was constitutionally legal, in the case of Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a driver for bin Laden accused of war crimes:

"The court said it was well established that the Geneva Conventions "do not create judicially enforceable rights" - that is, accusations of a violation may not be brought in a lawsuit.
The appeals panel also held that Judge Robertson (the lower court) had been incorrect in maintaining that Congress had not authorized Mr. Bush to set up the commissions. Congress gave him the authority to do so, the panel said, in three resolutions dealing with terrorism. In one, the lawmakers authorized the president "to use all necessary and appropriate force" against anyone who had abetted the Sept. 11 attacks, and granted him the authority to act to prevent international acts of terrorism.
In addition, the appeals court said the commissions were not bound by the rules of courts-martial, like allowing for defendants to be present at all times."

Even allowing for the usual lawyerly exaggeration indulged in by defense attorneys, Hamdin's attorney's take on it sounds pretty close to the bone:

"Today's ruling," Mr. Katyal said, "places absolute trust in the president, unchecked by the Constitution, statutes of Congress and longstanding treaties ratified by the Senate of the United States."

To me as well, the ruling said that Bush had been empowered by Congress and the Constitution to do pretty much as he damned well pleased. And there's no one with whom I'd prefer NOT to entrust unchecked power over the country than that morally-challenged infant in the Oval Office.

This is who Bush wants to appoint for a lifetime of Constitutional rulings. Well, you knew it wasn't going to be Felix Frankfurter.

Destroying the family one ungodly marriage at a time. A call to sanctimonious action from Father P-Niss (you can call me Padre)


It Takes a P-Niss to know an asshole when he sees one (and I don't mean know in the biblical sense):

In "It Takes a Family: Conservatism and the Common Good," Santorum finds fault with two-income families, cohabitation before marriage and working women, who have chosen not to stay home with their children, he contends, "because of the influence of radical feminism, one of the core philosophies of the village elders." He also compares abortion to slavery.

"Judging from the blog traffic, women of nearly all ideological stripes are less than happy about what he's written about women working instead of staying home with their children," said Jennifer Duffy, an independent analyst with the nonpartisan Cook Political Report. "He appears to ignore that some women work because they have to." [See: GOP Senator in Democrats' Cross Hairs, By Faye Fiore LA Times]

"Cross Hairs", thats'a pretty good one...but anyway...

Frankly I don't really give a flying fornicating screw (metaphorically speaking of course) what or what not Rick Santorum finds fault with one way or another on almost any count. But that has never stopped me from beaming virtuous advice to my fellow man on behalf of the greater common good. That's just the kind of godsend fellow I am. Therefore, I must say, that if I had a daughter (and I don't mean had in the biblical sense) I wouldn't want her shacking up with a potential Rick Santorum either. Whether she intended to eventually marry the silly cluck or not, that wouldn't matter, because I just wouldn't like it. And, if they ever did eventually marry, I'd be tempted to fire off an email to the Pope himself and have the the whole unseemly business annulled. Come to think of it that isn't a bad idea.

So then, I implore all concerned parents out there - those of you with your cross hairs in a snarl - those of you who are the elders of wayward sons or daughters of the Catholic persuasion - who have children who are married to some asshole - those of you who have been subjected to such unholy matrimonial bonds preceeding forth from such romantic cohabitational evolutions on the part of those who hath sprang from your loins - I beseech each of you, my disabused brothers and sisters, take matters into your own elderly hands and communicate to the Holy See your self-righteous revulsion at your children's earlier obstinate insubordination to the Higher sway. pro bono publico!

Take immediate action now! Put the pious fear of God back into the irreverent sinners. Write to the Pope [address to: The Pope, Italy, forward: summer vacation residence] and demand an immediate annulment of your defiled backsliding children's unhallowed unions. For the greater glory of God and church and country and man!

Especially if the family feminazi bitch... i mean poor misled misses!... the poor dear misled help-mate better-half misses... is slipping out of the home each afternoon to service the needs of the local WalMart and ultimately the slave wage retail philosophies of the village elders.

Remember: It takes a family idiot to ruin a village! I think William Faulkner wrote that... or maybe not... whatever...

So write those letters now. Do it for Jesus and the children and the common good. And don't forget to tell 'em Rick Santorum sent you.

Keep those tithes and sweaters coming.

amor vincit omnia

This is a bad joke, right?

"All of the estimated 10 million to 12 million illegal aliens in the United States would have to leave the country under an immigration bill introduced on Tuesday by two conservative Republican senators...
The Kyl-Cornyn bill calls for the creation of a machine-readable, tamper-proof Social Security card that would be issued to every American in the workforce to prevent illegals from getting jobs.
It would also fund the hiring of 10,000 new Department of Homeland Security personnel dedicated to weeding illegal immigrants out of the workforce and an additional 1,000 for detecting immigration fraud.
Companies that hired illegal immigrants would face tough fines.
Additionally, the bill would authorize the recruitment of 10,000 new Border Patrol agents over five years and a $2.5 billion investment in unmanned aerial vehicles, cameras, barriers and sensors along the Mexican border.
The senators did not give a total cost for the bill but a fact sheet distributed with their proposal contained partial costs of well over $12 billion."

Aside from collapsing the economies of California and Texas, and decimating gated communities throughout the country (what could be more poignant than the prospect of the wealthy cutting their own grass, raising their own kids, and cooking their own food?), this would drain huge amounts from the treasury at a time when we can't even pay our national bills as it is.

Illegal immigrants are some of the most dedicated workers and motivated people in the world, and because of their exploitation by our upstanding fellow-citizens, they make everyone's life easier and cheaper here in the land of the American Dream. They are focused on making their lives and those of their families better, and if what they do was done by a Kenny Lay we would call it admirable and worthy of millions in stock options. No truly punitive laws have ever been levied on the employers making their fortunes on the backs of these folks because the government has always known what a cornerstone illegals have been to the economy, and so they have effectively blinked at the millions of employer violations right under their noses, and illegals have become nearly slave labor in some areas, unable to complain about wages or working conditions for fear of reprisals.

Because of this, the proposed bill has about zero chance of passing , but it does make for a nice empty gesture toward creating a demon class at a time when they so desperately want to have an enemy to distract from their many power grabs and criminal endeavors. If we really wanted to deal usefully with the problem, we would find a way to absorb these folks into the economy and accept the gift of their skills and labor. Such acknowledgement would effectively raise their wages and working conditions, helping raise the wages of many low-wage Americans in the process. They give back far more than they take, and if we want to do anything, it should be to break the back of the black market that feeds on their labor and makes billions for American business in a scenario more reminiscent of a drug dealing empire than a legitimate economy.

Mrs. T writes (in comments):

Corrente should put up a place for answering questions. I found a few things I wanted to see what you guys thought of. None of it fits into what everyone is posting though... just a thought.

Ok: submit questions in the comments below and everyone can answer away, or not answer away, or any combination thereof. Whatever the case may be.

Have at it.

*

Here's why Cheney thinks it's OK to tell Powell to go before the UN and sell the American people on war with Iraq when "the facts and the intelligence were fixed around the policy. Writes Derrick Jackson:

According to Vanity Fair, Cheney himself urged Powell to go ahead and stake his national popularity on the nonexistent evidence by saying to Powell, ‘‘Your poll numbers are in the 70s. You can afford to lose a few points.’’
(via Globe)

No question of ethics here. Or of Powell's own personal honor (now so sadly besmirched). All politics, 24/7.

Yes, with the Republicans, it's all politics, back. The Republicans really will say or do anything. They drank the KoolAid, back. No wonder they abuse their power.

And in primetime, too.

Sorry, Judge Roberts, no Rose Garden ceremony for you. Well, those were always quaint, weren't they. Not really in keeping with that high-octane, turbo-charged rightwing Republican Party of today, with all its powerful new ideas.

I'm writing about quarter of the hour when the President will appear before the nation, with his Supreme Court candidate. As if any one whose paid attention to this presidency could have any doubt about what we're about to see and hear.

This will be the accommodating President, the uniter, not the divider; he will present his choice of John Roberts as a gesture of moderation; the President will praise himself for his good-faith consultation with Senate Democrats, and them for consulting with him. That he essentially ignored all their concerns he will not point out. Nor will he, I'm guessing, portray Judge Roberts as a worthy successor to the judicial philosophy of Scalia and Thomas. Remember, this evening he will be uniting us.

The commentariet will pretend not to notice that both the President's phone calls and meetings with Democrats and his ultimate choice of a man closely identified with the most partisan policies of the Republican party, whom the President himself appointed to the Fifth Circuit, are mere gestures of reconciliation, or bringing the country together, not the thing itself. Is there any more constant characteristic of George W. Bush's presidency than this theatre of appearances?

There is no doubt that Roberts has the legal pedigree, and the smarts that will make it difficult oppose him. I'm not sure, myself, it's worth it for the Senate Democrats to mount too vigorous an effort.

Some effort, yes. If not to defeat him, to question his judicial beliefs as a way of demarking how they differ from liberal conceptions of jurisprudence. But on our terms, not the Republicans. I think the public interest groups would be well to do the same thing. This guy isn't Bork. We can't roll out that kind of effort. With a guy this young, I also think it's a mistake to permanently alienate him from any possibility of rethinking his own positions. That does happen, especially when the political winds shift sufficiently to make a Justice worry about being totally out of step with mainstream Americans.

I think there will be general interest on the part of the American public in this process of confirming the Roberts nomination. Perhaps we should see that process as an opportunity to roll out some new ways to talk about the big judicial issues liberals care about, and the underlying constitutional principles upon which they are based. Republicans have been winning the "define your opponents before they get a chance to" game for decades now, with great success. We know that were a majority of Americans to finally see what's underneath all those pretty, shiny, buzz-phrases, Republicans would not be able to say with such confidence that America is a conservative country. We saw just that happening when Republicans rolled out those same election-winning ideas to justify intervening in the Terri Schiavo case.

Ah, the President is approaching the East Room lectern...

UPDATE Via Buzzflash, Robert's Campaign contributions. $1000 to Bush...

Meanwhile, Dean gets to work at once:

"It is disappointing that when President Bush had the chance to bring the country together, he instead turned to a nominee who may have impressive legal credentials, but also has sharp partisan credentials that cannot be ignored.

"Democrats take very seriously the responsibility to protect the individual rights of all Americans and are committed to ensuring that ideological judicial activists are not appointed to the Supreme Court. The Senate Judiciary Committee will now have the opportunity to see if Judge Roberts can put his partisanship aside, and live up to a Supreme Court Justice's duty to uphold the rights and freedoms of every American and the promise of equal justice for all."
(via Americablog)

Not bad.—Lambert

Look out...

Alert reader MJS heaves the following over the transom of The Mighty Corrente Building:

The Bad Magician is hot, cranky. He turns his head and breaks a window: he falls outside and keeps right on falling.

The battle for America was fought by Romans on Golgotha: they won but turned away and the Savior jumped off of his cross and tap danced in a dream all the way to Washington D.C. Information littered the hallways in vast, moaning piles. Arms flailed inside the mounds, withered, died. The capital building smelled like Crisco.

The Bad Magician spies a large punch bowl that men in suits stand next to. They are talking and laughing and dying. Inside the punch bowl the blood of the Savior makes a Sangria. Everyone drinks Vintage Jesus and spits it out and then drinks it in again. The heads of the men become the Kool Aid icon, and they crash into each other whenever they turn to make a point. Broken glass is everywhere, and the sticky blood of the Savior mixed with the Kool Aid turns the floor into a bus terminal. Large buses arrive and drive the Glass Head Men into the sky where they burst into firework displays, and ash falls like the dust of history all over the cars in the parking lot.

The Bad Magician pours himself the Kool Aid mixed with the blood of the Savior. He dreams that everything is God.

Karl Rove outs Jesus, and smirks and toys with his horns. The lights come on in the city. A judge is born.

Hot, cranky? I didn't know the Bad Magician was from Philly...

NOTE For the "Kool-Aid" post that seems to have precipitated this monster riff, see Delusional Republicans, back.

Who knew?

And it's definitely not ethics. Let alone defense of the country or upholding the Constituion.

Of course we knew that.

Any party that would talk about "marketing" a war, and then use a war vote to fight (and win) the 2002 midterms, and would then use terror alerts as operant conditioning during the 2004 election (Gaslight watch, back)...

Well, as I say, we knew it. But now we're learning it all over again, except in excruciating, nauseating detail, point by talking point. Listen to how the truth manages to slip from the mouth of this unnamed Republican flak:

The anti-Rove agenda, said one, "is not going to win [the Democrats] a lot of red or even purple states." Said another surrogate, "After holding their collective breath early last week, the GOP is now breathing fire in defense of Rove. If there is no crime, there is only politics. Lay off, Democrats. Plus anytime Moveon.org starts protesting no small number of people say, 'Ah, more crap from the left.' "
(via Useless News and World Distort)

Don't you just love it when Republicans try to help Republicans win—and then beg us to lay off? All together now: A-w-w-w-w!

But savor those words: "If there is no crime, there is only politics." Seems everybody's agreed now that this is how the Republicans operate now. Howard Fineman of Newsweek quotes in CJR:

In the World According to Karl Rove, you take the offensive, and stay there. [E]verything is political -- and everyone is fair game.
(via CJR)

God, it's like we're all back on campus in the '70s, dealing with the Trots. Except the Trots have joined the Republican party and now they're running the country.

Of course, Rove would have been smart to offer, because Bush would never accept the resignation. Afer all, Rummy offered to resign, Bush wouldn't accept it, and Rummy's slaughtered a lot more people for no good reason than Rove ever has.

President Bush today sidestepped a question about whether his top adviser, Karl Rove, offered to resign over the leaking of a covert CIA operative's identity and said he would deal with the issue when an investigation into the case was over.

"My answer really hasn't changed from 24 hours ago. It's the same answer," Bush said at a news conference with Australian Prime Minister John Howard.

"I'll be glad to repeat what I said yesterday which is there is an ongoing investigation and people shouldn't, you know, jump to conclusions in the press until the investigation is over," Bush said. "Once the investigation is over I'll deal with it."
(AP Houston Chronicle)

Oh, man. Who ya gonna believe? Me or your lyin' eyes? One reason Bush is so insulting is that He must believe we don't keep track.

Way back at the inaugural, when at least some of us might have had hope, Bush's administration was going to be "the most ethical administration in history."

Yesterday we get this:

After originally saying anyone involved in leaking the name of the covert CIA operative would be fired, Bush told reporters: "If somebody committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration."
(via WaPo

And today Bush wants us to believe he said this:

"Once the investigation is over I'll deal with it."

and that's the same thing as what he said Monday.

Reminds me of a kid who doesn't want to clean up his room. "A-a-a-a-w Mom, can't I do it tomorrow?"

Hey, I've got an idea! Why doesn't Bush just walk across the hall and ask Rove? How hard can that be?

NOTE And speaking of how hard can that be... I'm glad Bush has dropped that really unfortunate locution where He says he want to "get to the bottom" of TreasonGate. Bush must be reading Corrente! (back)

So many watches... What is this, Switzerland? [rimshot]

Well, the malAdministration is a target rich environment?

latest ridulous lie? It wasn't Novak who outed Plame, it was David Corn.

Oh. My. God.

So, John Roberts.

It looks like Bush resisted poking the Dems in the eye with a sharp stick.

Since that's what He always does when he gets the chance, it seems like TreasonGate and/or His lame duck status has weakened him, and He's got to tack toward the middle.

Or appear to do so. The Department of Changing the Subject swings into action—On prime time

The early line on Roberts is that he's quiet and lawyerly, with a Souter-like lack of paper trail.

Then again, could Roberts be a submarine candidate? A stealth Scalia?

Could be. What Roberts said in his last confirmation hearing:

Pressed during his 2003 confirmation hearing for his own views on the matter, Roberts said: "Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land. ... There's nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent."
(via Newsday)

And why was he asked that?

Roberts did co-write a brief that stated, "We continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled."

Of course, it may be that a war crimes trial for Gitmo was uppermost in Bush's mind:

Roberts was part of the three-judge panel that handed the U.S. government a critical victory last Friday, ruling that the military tribunals at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, could proceed.
(via Reuters)

Yeah, maybe Bush has nominated a genuine, responsible conservative who hasn't been divinely guided to the revelation that what Christ wants is a rollback of FDR's New Deal.

Isn't it pretty to think so?

Every time, every single time, we give Bush the benefit of the doubt, we get burned. Maybe the Roberts nomination will be the exception. I doubt it.

NOTE Apparently, Roberts is practicing Catholic. That used to be fine, until some Catholic bishops started denying their U.S. Senator and Representive parishioners communion if they supported Roe. If Robert's bishop did that, would it affect Robert's rulings? Perhaps someone should ask him.

UPDATE Here's the Alliance for Justice paper on Roberts (from Kos). Nothing "extraordinary" here (yeah, I know the baseline has changed), though it is interesting how Robert's all of a sudden argues for a living Constitution when a strict interpretation might suggest that a corporation has obligations to its retired workers.

From Board of Directors, the MEPC (Middle East Policy Council) seem to be about as mainstream and establishment a think-tank as you can get: Lotta guys from Boeing, George McGovern balanced by Frank C. Carlucci, Yankel Ginzburg balanced by Fuad A. Rihani....

And what did they go and do? They published an article in their quarterly journal that reads like it was written by one of those nasty left-wing bloggers! Let 'er rip!

From W. Patrick Lang, formerly of the DIA:

Drinking the Kool-Aid
hroughout my long service life in the Department of Defense, first as an army officer and then as a member of the Defense Intelligence Senior Executive Service, there was a phrase in common usage: "I will fall on my sword over that." It meant that the speaker had reached a point of internal commitment with regard to something that his superiors wanted him to do and that he intended to refuse even though this would be career suicide. The speaker preferred career death to the loss of personal honor.

This phrase is no longer widely in use. What has taken its place is far more sinister in its meaning and implications. "I drank the Kool-Aid" is what is now said. Those old enough to remember the Jonestown tragedy know this phrase all too well.

What does drinking the Kool-Aid mean today? It signifies that the person in question has given up personal integrity and has succumbed to the prevailing group-think that typifies policymaking today. This person has become "part of the problem, not part of the solution."

What was the "problem"? The sincerely held beliefs of a small group of people who think they are the "bearers" of a uniquely correct view of the world, sought to dominate the foreign policy of the United States in the Bush 43 administration, and succeeded in doing so through a practice of excluding all who disagreed with them. Those they could not drive from government they bullied and undermined until they, too, had drunk from the vat.

The recent PBS special on Frontline concerning Iraq mentioned that senior military officers had said of General Franks, "He had drunk the Kool-Aid." Many intelligence officers have told the author that they too drank the Kool-Aid and as a result consider themselves to be among the "walking dead," waiting only for retirement and praying for an early release that will allow them to go away and try to forget their dishonor and the damage they have done to the intelligence services and therefore to the republic.

What we have now is a highly corrupted system of intelligence and policymaking, one twisted to serve specific group goals, ends and beliefs held to the point of religious faith. Is this different from the situation in previous administrations? Yes.

Instead of including such veterans in the planning process, the Bush team opted for amateurs brought in from outside the Executive Branch who tended to share the views of many of President Bush's earliest foreign-policy advisors and mentors. [T]his created an environment in which any shared belief could become sacrosanct and unchallengeable. A situation like this is, in essence, a war waiting for an excuse to happen. If there is no "imminent threat," one can be invented, not as a matter of deliberate deception, but rather as an artifact of group self-delusion. In normal circumstances, there is a flow of new talent into the government that melds with the old timers in a process both dynamic and creative. This does not seem to have happened in the Bush 43 administration. Instead, the newcomers behaved as though they had seized control of the government in a silent coup.
(via Middle East Policy Journal)

Hmm... "Seized control of the government in a silent coup..." I wonder why that would have been?

An alert reader pointed me to this article (can't remember which alert reader; let me know so I can give you a shout-out) and when I read it, I thought, it's all over for Bush. The establishment has finally turned against him....

Then I re-read the date of the article—Summer 2004.

Sigh.

I guess what the article does show is:

(1) We were right all along. The entire process by which we went to war was foully corrupt. We called it then, and we were right.

(2) The Bush administration seem to be (we can only hope, seems to have been) uniquely virulent in modern politics. In previous administrations, these guys would have been the "wise men" ushering Johnson or Nixon out of office, telling them gently that it was all over. No such luck.

(3) The entire Rove-ian saga—especially the continuous drip, drip, drip of leaks about the run-up to the war—is coming either from those who have drunk the KoolAid and repented, or those who saw formerly respected colleagues become like "the living dead."

(4) Deprogramming the remaining Bush loyalists is going to be very difficult. I can still remember Republicans raising their arms and swearing a personal oath of fealty to Bush. Once you've drunk the KoolAid that deep, it's going to be very hard ever to get clean.

Human rights advocate Wayne LaPierre is incensed that:

a) Cities under seige from gun violence and desperate to make it stop have the temerity to try to defend themselves, and

b) He doesn't get to play banana republic dictator

Here's what the NRA hath wrought in Columbus, Ohio:

"Looking to punish this city for enacting a ban on assault weapons, the National Rifle Association announced on Monday that it had canceled plans to hold its national convention here in 2007, an event that was expected to pump more than $15 million into the local economy...
The announcement came five days after Mayor Michael Coleman signed legislation outlawing the sale of certain kinds of military-style semiautomatic weapons and requiring people who purchased such guns before the law's effective date, Aug. 12, to register them with the police.
Columbus officials and gun control groups condemned the rifle association's decision, calling it an effort not only to embarrass the Council but also to bully the State Legislature into passing a bill that would invalidate the Columbus ban and prohibit other cities from enacting similar measures. A Republican lawmaker is expected to introduce such legislation this fall."

But the blackmail could come to an end if only the state would see reason, and eliminate the citizenry of Ohio from this whole sticky democracy business:

"He added that the rifle association would consider holding a future convention in Columbus if state lawmakers passed a bill invalidating the Columbus ban and pre-empting local governments from passing similar measures. Cincinnati, Cleveland, Dayton and Toledo already have similar bans in place, gun control advocates said."

Why would the NRA think any state would let them shoehorn themselves into a position hitherto reserved only for the constituents of a state's elected lawmakers? Maybe this:

"More than 40 states have enacted such pre-emption laws, many of them as a result of N.R.A. lobbying. But Ohio has a long tradition, enshrined in its Constitution, of giving municipalities wide latitude to set local policies. As a result, any effort to stop cities from enacting gun restrictions would almost certainly face court challenges, gun control advocates said."

Bully for Ohio. Unfortunately for Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, PA has no such provisions, and the entire state has become just another chapter of the NRA. And federally elected officials have become merely lobbyists for their culture of life agenda.

Eric Rudolf would be damned pleased.

follow the yellowcake road, follow the yellowcake road... follow, follow, follow, follow... follow the yellowcake road

*

I read the Canadian news today, oh boy:

Same-sex marriage bill must stand, majority say
In wake of Tory vow to repeal legislation, poll suggests 55 per cent want it untouched

Ottawa — Canadians do not want their political leaders to undo historic legislation allowing gays to legally marry in the wake of a pledge from the Conservatives that they would do just that if elected.

In a new poll conducted for The Globe and Mail/CTV, 55 per cent of Canadians surveyed say the next government should let same-sex legislation stand, while 39 per cent would like to see an attempt made to repeal it. A further 6 per cent said they did not know.

The results appear to bolster Prime Minister Paul Martin's remarks two weeks ago that Canadians do not want to revisit the issue, despite a promise by Conservative Leader Stephen Harper that he would rescind the law if he becomes prime minister in an election expected next winter.

"The Liberals have been successful in defining same-sex as an issue of rights, not as a moral issue" said Tim Woolstencroft, managing partner of polling firm the Strategic Counsel.

"And that prevails. Rights will also win over other issues."
(via Globe and Mail)

Try to imagine the above quote in the mouth of any American political strategist. The idea of a polity largely separating its personal views from the issue of elementary human rights--why, it's almost fiendish in its pragmatism.

Pinching myself, I read on:

Pollsters said Mr. Harper's promise to repeal the legislation may be helping to consolidate Liberal support. For example, Canadians who are undecided on whether to support the Liberals or the NDP may find themselves opting for the Liberals if they fear Mr. Harper would follow through. Pollsters said they also found that while Conservative supporters are the most likely to favour an attempt to repeal the legislation, "potential" Conservative voters are more likely to prefer that the current legislation stand.

Mr. Harper's position may only consolidate his Conservative base, they said, and not expand his support to other groups.

A world where wedge issues backfire: When will the nightmare end?

He also said the issue has found surprising resonance with Canadians, who mentioned it as the second-most notable achievement of Mr. Martin's minority government since it took office in June of 2004. The health-care accord that promises billions of dollars in new cash to the provinces was first.

When offered a list of options, 19 per cent chose same-sex marriage as the most notable achievement; 28 per cent picked the health-care accord. The tsunami relief effort was next at 14 per cent, while a series of preliminary daycare deals was chosen by 10 per cent of respondents.

Daycare. Daycare. My guess is that "Staying clear of the clusterfuck in Iraq" wasn't on the list of options. I wonder what Americans would identify as their Administration's most notable achievements?

Via the now-much-profiled Man in the Grey Turtleneck we are directed to this little story about Times editor Bill "Helen" Keller (none so blind as those who will not see, eh?):

Keller also declined to discuss which legal options her attorneys were pursuing to possibly have Miller released early: "My hope would be that [Special Prosecutor Patrick] Fitzgerald would end the investigation and disband the grand jury so she can get out."
(via E&P)

Words fail me.

Well, no, they don't.

Keller really is in the tank for Bush, isn't he? Of course, you could write a politely worded missive to Byron "I don't suck like Okrent" Calame, and ask him.


Did they make Judy check her kneepads at the door, I wonder?

Laughter really is the best medicine.

In comments, Leah writes about Inerrant Boy's presser this morning:

[In this morning's news conference] with the Indian Prime Minister, there was an immediate question about Rove; from the moment the Prez started on the sentence "There is an on-going serious legal investigation in progress," or words to that effect, there was the rumble of audible laughter. Bush continued on to note with disapproval that instead of the serious investigation, the whole thing is being played out in the press. [And so on.]

The one thing an Emperor without any clothes can't bear is laughter.

Does anyone have a pointer to a video that includes the laughter? We should really try to propagate this.

UPDATE I suspect that the endlessly repetitive "always on message" behavior of the Bush and his creatures is what is (finally!) exciting derision among His knowing auditors. From philosopher Henri Bergson's "Laughter: An Essay on the Meaning of Comic":

We will now pass from the comic element in FORMS to that in GESTURES and MOVEMENTS. Let us at once state the law which seems to govern all the phenomena of this kind. It may indeed be deduced without any difficulty from the considerations stated above. THE ATTITUDES, GESTURES AND MOVEMENTS OF THE HUMAN BODY ARE LAUGHABLE IN EXACT PROPORTION AS THAT BODY REMINDS US OF A MERE MACHINE. [Caps in the original]

“The gestures of a public speaker, no one of which is laughable by itself, excite laughter by their repetition.” The truth is that a really living life should never repeat itself. Wherever there is repetition or complete similarity, we always suspect some mechanism at work behind the living.

("A really living life should never repeat itself"... What a suggestive critique of Bush's [cough] "culture of life"...)

It's really a classic case of karma, isn't it? Bush's repetitive, mechanical, speech, his talking points, are in fact an artifact of Rove's always "on message" political machine. The very success, the very pervasiveness, of Rove's machine is what excites laughter.

Note the irony: Rove's strategy has always been to attack his enemy's greatest strength and turn it to weakness. And here a great strength of Rove's machine—message discipline—is being turned into weakness before our eyes. We can but hope that as they have always done in the past, Bush and Rove will repeat their behavior, but more forcefully, since this will only excite greater laughter.

Maybe not a tipping point... But perhaps a chuckling point?

One doesn't know where to begin.

How about here? With a time-out from the several intersections of shit and fan, (Rove/Plame, Iraq, TGWOT, the new link between GITMO and Abu Ghraib, Supreme Court nominations), to take note of a subject too often overlooked, the condition of us working folk and that once-thriving institution, the labor movement, which used to have a major impact in the lives of all who toiled for others, whether or not they belonged to a union. Would that more of us who work for a salary realized the large negative impact on our working lives of the shrinking labor movement.

Check-out Nathan Newman's regular roundup of labor news, now available at the Labour Blog at TPMCafe. Been wondering what in hell is going on with the AFL-CIO and the five member unions who are threatening to pull out? Get the inside dope on that and stuff you didn't know enough to wonder about.

One of the linked to stories is a NYTimes piece on Costco, and its policy of decent treatment for its employees. Also at TPMCafe, Jonathan Cohn has an interesting piece on the NYTimes piece, "The Antidote to Wal-Mart," which asks some interesting questions about Costco as a model employer.

Michael at Reading Al zeros in brilliantly on a piece of the NYTimes piece that tells you all you need to know about Bush's ownership society; a hint; it has to do with how Wall Street feels about Costco's employment policies.

While there, do not miss Michael's equally brilliant dissection of Ben Stein getting "real," even a bit misty-eyed, as he offers an appreciation of "those who earn modest wages and keep the whole system going." Don't miss it; just click here!

Don't worry, we'll be getting back to those shit-hitting-the-fan subjects, so stay tuned. And as a start, while your at TMPCafe, check out this little gem from Anne Lamott about suffering, and not looking away, Ken Mehlman, and the way in which we're all Yossarian now.

I always wondered what Bush meant when He promised "the most ethical admintration in history," and now I know:

Ethical adj. 1. Not actually convicted of any crime. 2. If convicted of a crime, pardoned.

I'm glad that's cleared up:

President Bush said Monday that if anyone on his staff committed a crime in [TreasonGate,] the CIA-leak case, that person will "no longer work in my administration."
(AP via WaPo)

Bush, meanwhile, keeps on dodging questions about the actual persons involved:

Bush yet again sidestepped a question on the role of his top political adviser, Karl Rove, in the matter.

Nor will Bush say if any wrong has been committed, which, from the "ethical" standpoint, is the real issue ("It Doesn't Matter," back. )

[Bush] did not respond directly to a reporter's question on whether he disapproved of Rove's telling a reporter that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA on weapons of mass destruction issues.

Meanwhile, Scott "Sucker MC" McClellen is still issuing carefully parsed non-denial denials:

And White House spokesman Scott McClellan has said Rove _ as well anyone who works now at the White House _ continues to have the president's confidence.

(I guess the AP story was so hot off the press that they couldn't turn the underscores into italics, so I did that for them.)

Hmmm... Anyone who works "now"? Who in the W.H.I.G (back) isn't working in the White House how? Condi and Hadley are over at State, KaWen Hughes is, wherever she is, Cheney's creatures are either in Cheney's hidden location or the EOB... Gee, seems like the only one Bush has any confidence in is Rove! Well, well.

Of course, there are other potential fall guys, especially if Rove's story that someone in the press told him Plame's name, instead of the other way round.... Like maybe Jeff Guckert? Treating Guckert as a member of the press for the sake of the argument? It would be irresonsible not to speculate!

Rove has not disputed that he told Cooper that Wilson's wife worked for the agency. But he has insisted through his lawyer that he did not mention her by name, nor did he intend to "out" her.

I've always wondered about the hidden subtext of "outing," eh? Funny how familiar everyone on this case is with the phrase...

Pass the popcorn!

Juan Cole has an excellent suggestion:

(via Informed Comment)

Al-Zaman says that the Iraqi parliament has decided that a moment of silence will be held throughout Iraq on Wednesday at noon in honor of the victims of bombings at New Baghdad and Musayyib. I hope my readers will consider observing it, as well. The bombings have been monstrous and have deliberately killed children and families.

We did it for the transport bomb victims in London. Friday alone, in Iraq, was, what, three and a half Londons?

(That sort of math is, admittedly, stupid and pointless, particularly when "another London"--defined as "around 50 people going about their normal lawful affairs killed by bombs"--happens about every day, day and a half in The New Iraq(tm).)

Who could possibly object? Yeah, I know, the Usual Suspects...but this is not, officially anyway, for all Iraqi bombing victims, just the ones killed that particular day by those particular incidents. Hell, if Glorious Leader had half a brain (or if said brain wasn't under intense investigation at the moment) he would propose it himself and order flags lowered that day. Fat chance.

A moment of silence seems so little to do as to be almost insulting, or at least meaningless...but it isn't

Remember--Wednesday noon.

There does not seem to be anything in the realm of profanity--a subject to which I have given a certain amount of study--sufficient to cover a statement like this:

(via Atlanta Journal-Constitution)

DENVER — A Colorado congressman told a radio show host that the U.S. could "take out" Islamic holy sites if Muslim fundamentalist terrorists attacked the country with nuclear weapons.

Rep. Tom Tancredo made his remarks Friday on WFLA-AM in Orlando, Fla. His spokesman stressed he was only speaking hypothetically.

Talk show host Pat Campbell asked the Littleton Republican how the country should respond if terrorists struck several U.S. cities with nuclear weapons.

"Well, what if you said something like — if this happens in the United States, and we determine that it is the result of extremist, fundamentalist Muslims, you know, you could take out their holy sites," Tancredo answered.

"You're talking about bombing Mecca," Campbell said.

"Yeah," Tancredo responded.

Tancredo...had a 100 percent rating last year from the American Conservative Union his votes and positions on issues.

It's early yet, maybe later after caffeine intake I can think of a vile enough term for this idiot. Reader assistance is gratefully solicited. It would also be nice to think of a way to apologize to the world's one billion or so Muslims for the fact that this lunatic holds elective office of any description in this country.

All that reminds me of is the whole Jeff Guckert thing, and then my B.S.S. acts up, and my stomach can't take much more of this.

NOTE Yeah, so the whole Bush-rubbing-bald-guy's-heads thing is nothing more than displacement, OK?

As for the question, What did the President know and when did he know it, Dick "Fuck Yourself" Cheney knew... Oh, wait, Cheney's not the President. I forgot. Let me start over with a better lead.

Was Novak's famous "second source" "high administration official" and Cheney lackey "Scooter" Libby? (I've always loved the name, Scooter. Bet he wears a whale tie!) Looks like it:

The vice president's chief of staff, Lewis Libby, was a source along with the president's chief political adviser [Karl Rove] for a Time story that identified a CIA officer, [Time magazine] reporter [Matt Cooper] said Sunday [on Meet the Press], further countering White House claims [lies—Ed.] that neither aide was involved in the leak.

Until last week, the White House had insisted [lied—Ed.] for nearly two years that Libby and Rove had no connection to the leak. Plame's husband is Bush administration critic Joseph Wilson, the top U.S. diplomat in Iraq at the start of the Persian Gulf War.

The White House refused last week to repeat its denials [lies—Ed.] about Rove's involvement. The refusal came amid the disclosure that Rove told Cooper on July 11, 2003, that Wilson's wife apparently worked at the CIA and that she had authorized a trip he took to Africa in 2002. The White House on Sunday declined to comment [stonewalled—Ed.] about Libby, saying the investigation was ongoing.
(via Times)

Well, well. Lift a rock and another member of the W.H.I.G. (White House Iraq Group, back) scuttles out. It would be interesting to know if the other members of the W.H.I.G.—Karen Hughes, Libby, Andrew Card, Mary Matalin and James Wilkinson, as well as Condi and her creature Stephen Hadley—knew anything about the Rove-ian bankshot of smearing Joe Wilson by outing Valerie Plame. Say, the W.H.I.G. held regular meetings, right? Wonder if this is in the minutes? Maybe that's why Fitzgerald wants All their records?

You know, this whole thing reminds of that great old Agatha Christie novel, Murder on the Orient Express. The whodunnit is totally confusing, clues pointing every which way and cancelling each other out, until Hercule Poirot figures out that the reason the clues could only make sense if they were all in on it, is that, indeed, they were all in on it.

And Cheney, though he of course he worked through a straw (Libby) was in on it too. After all, the goal of W.H.I.G. was to "fix the intelligence and the facts around the policy." And Libby was the one who handed stovepiped intelligence to Cheney, so Cheney could go to the CIA and "fix the intelligence" by browbeating the analysts until they fell in line with the policy. So Cheney's in this up to his wrinkled turkey neck. It's not just Rove any more.

Pass the popcorn!

The NYTimes puts this on the front page with a straight face:

"Charges Filed Against Hussein for 1982 Massacre of Shiite Villagers"

"Today's statement represents the announcement of the first formal charges against Mr. Hussein. Other crimes for which Mr. Hussein is likely to face eventual prosecution in separate trials include the Anfal campaign of the late 1980's, in which as many as 150,000 Kurds were killed; the chemical weapons attack on the Kurdish town of Halabja in March 1988 that killed about 5,000; and the repression of a Shiite rebellion in southern Iraq in 1991, in which 150,000 people are believed to have been killed. Also under investigation by the tribunal are the executions of more than 200 Baath Party leaders after Mr. Hussein seized power in 1979."

To quote Tim Roth from Reservoir Dogs, "I'm fuckin' dyin' here!" Take a look at this, from 1983:


Nineteen-eighty fucking three! Now, if Rumsfeld and Cheney and Reagan and all the fucking family values assholes that were hijacking our government back then really gave two shits about the vicious deaths of innocents by tyrants, do ya think you'd have been seeing this tender moment? Let me put it into words for the more left-brained among us:

"he National Security Archive at George Washington University today published on the Web a series of declassified U.S. documents detailing the U.S. embrace of Saddam Hussein in the early 1980's, including the renewal of diplomatic relations that had been suspended since 1967. The documents show that during this period of renewed U.S. support for Saddam, he had invaded his neighbor (Iran), had long-range nuclear aspirations that would "probably" include "an eventual nuclear weapon capability," harbored known terrorists in Baghdad, abused the human rights of his citizens, and possessed and used chemical weapons on Iranians and his own people. The U.S. response was to renew ties, to provide intelligence and aid to ensure Iraq would not be defeated by Iran, and to send a high-level presidential envoy named Donald Rumsfeld to shake hands with Saddam (20 December 1983)."

Thanks to George Washington University for the data.

Thanks to George W. Moron (that's an insult, not an ad hominem attack) for the irony.

Thanks to the dead and traumatized survivors of the years when Saddam was our buddy, for being the faceless tools with which this administration's bottom-feeders made a fortune in career-building assets.

Dontcha feel better now?

And safer! Don't forget safer!!

Lifestyle Section

Antique swag roadshow:

IRAQ: SADDAM HUSSEIN'S CAR SEIZED IN JORDAN

Amman, 15 July (AKI) - Jordanian border guards have blocked an attempt to smuggle a limousine belonging to toppled Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein from Iraq through Jordan and then onto the United States. The black Mercedes-Benz IS600 was stopped at a Iraqi-Jordanian border crossing and its occupants, several Iraqi nationals, were arrested, the deputy director of Jordanian customs, Khalf al-Hazima told the Jordanian daily al-Rai on Friday.

Authorities believe the car was stolen from one of Saddam Hussein's numerous palaces in Iraq in the aftermath of the US-led invasion in 2003.

According to al-Hazima, the incident is the latest of many attempts to smuggle into Jordan valuables pillaged from Saddam's palaces. (Ham/Aki) Jul-15-05 11:23 AKI link

Meanwhile, more good ownership society news for all you Mercedes-Benz IS600 enthusiasts out there:

IRAQ: A LUXURY HOTEL TO OPEN IN KURDISTAN

Suleymaniya, 15 July (Aki) The Kurdish Autonomous Region is getting a new hotel. The 28-floor luxury hotel, which will be built in the town of Suleymaniya, is part of a 60 million dollar tourism project led by Kurdish businessman Faruq al-Mullah Mustafa. He is also behind the creation of the first Iraqi mobile network, and announced other big investments such as a big cement company, and the first ever cable-car in Iraq, connecting the hotel to a nearby mountain.

The ambitious project is meant to encourage foreign investment in Kurdistan, whose economy is presently dependent on small companies. On the other hand, Mustafa stresses, the absence of big multinationals makes it a still-untapped market and an interesting investment opportunity.

The Kurdish businessman is nevertheless aware of the work needed to attract foreign investors in this remote area of northern Iraq. And he is calling for an improvement of the legal framework as well of the security. (Shs/Aki) Jul-15-05 18:00 AKI link

Maybe Charlie Wilson and Miss Snowflake will show up at the pool-bar and buy everyone Stingers.

*

It's a quiet, gloomy morning in Philly. Not much happening here. Unlike Iraq. I've resolved to let my blogsibs handle cleaning out the Rovian stable, an important work that they are doing just fine without my clueless interspersions.
I just wanted to talk about Iraq:


The world is still out there.

Yglesias over at Tapped has picked up on the Robert Pape interview Juan Cole linked to last week, and it's good to see this piece getting some feet at a time when it seems people don't want to write or talk about anything except Karl Rove. Why?

Because while the Rove story is exciting and gives liberals an outside hope of bringing down the worst administration in American history (yes, I know how hyperbolic it sounds, but I stand by it), what is happening in Iraq and the motivations underlying that slaughter will have resonance for us far beyond the domestic mess Bushco have made.

Think of it: 27 children targeted and murdered; 87 dead and over 100 wounded Iraqs just yesterday; 29 dead and 111 wounded on Friday. These numbers are huge, and no one in the blogworld with the exception of some Mid-east wonks seems to be paying much attention. And in the background, thrumming along like a bassline to a threnody, the kidnappings of ordinary people go on. The implications for Americans (let alone Iraqis) are becoming enormous. As Cole noted yesterday, Philly Inquirer reporter Trudy Rubin recently returned from a visit to Iraq to report the American-trained Iraqi troops vastly unprepared to take on the protection of their own country (not even counting those that are in bed with the guerillas or too frightened and inimidated to be of much use). In the meantime, the longer these horrors go on, the longer the Iraqis have to mull over our inability to make them stop.

We continue to mourn the London dead, but our media blithely throws off these growing numbers of newly-murdered Iraqis as though they were lottery numbers, to be posted out of necessity, but not to be dwelt on--this, too, is an ongoing source of bitterness for many Muslims. Imagine this being said by an American father after a suicide attack on a local gas station in Washington, PA:

"After the bomb I went over there and found my son's head. I could not find his body,"

The upshot is, we're going to be stuck there for a very long time, despite all the bullshit-you-blind spin Bush has been trying to put on this abattoir, unless we're willing to:

--cut our losses;
--swallow our pride; and
--accept that there will be massive reprisals upon our departure

Because, what happens if we accept this Hobson's choice and do leave? The Sunnis, who have been prominently behind many of these suicide attacks (though not all) will likely be massacred by the Shite majority. The Kurds, who are better organized and armed, may be able to take care of themselves, but I doubt they will be exempt from being dragged into a savage civil war.

And if we don't? Well, Robert Pape lays it out:

"The central fact is that overwhelmingly suicide-terrorist attacks are not driven by religion as much as they are by a clear strategic objective: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from the territory that the terrorists view as their homeland. From Lebanon to Sri Lanka to Chechnya to Kashmir to the West Bank, every major suicide-terrorist campaign—over 95 percent of all the incidents—has had as its central objective to compel a democratic state to withdraw...

Not every foreign occupation has produced suicide terrorism. Why do some and not others? Here is where religion matters, but not quite in the way most people think. In virtually every instance where an occupation has produced a suicide-terrorist campaign, there has been a religious difference between the occupier and the occupied community. That is true not only in places such as Lebanon and in Iraq today but also in Sri Lanka, where it is the Sinhala Buddhists who are having a dispute with the Hindu Tamils. When there is a religious difference between the occupier and the occupied, that enables terrorist leaders to demonize the occupier in especially vicious ways."

Not quite the usual explanation--that it's because they "hate freedom", or they envy our wealth, or they resent our technological superiority. Those are tropes we comfort ourselves with because they make us feel good about things we're already too smug about. They don't challenge us to re-think our relationship with the world and our claim to all that wealth.

And what stops these attacks?

"Many people worry that once a large number of suicide terrorists have acted that it is impossible to wind it down. The history of the last 20 years, however, shows the opposite. Once the occupying forces withdraw from the homeland territory of the terrorists, they often stop—and often on a dime."

It's a hard decision to make. If we leave, the country will likely erupt into full civil war, at least for awhile, and we will have to either take steps in conjunction with other nations to alleviate the suffering, or stand by and watch the carnage unfold (we had no problem with that in Rwanda, or even now in the Congo and Sudan). But this doesn't take into account the hopeful likelihood that other Muslim countries will probably step in to help, which may also offer us a chance to create goodwill by making alliance with them in doing so.

If we hang on, I can't see this ending any differently than Vietnam. That is, we dig in and our pride and our piss-poor grasp of reality keep us there while thousands of Americans and Iraqis pay the price, until the drainage on the Treasury and the size of the funeral pyre become so gargantuan that finally, finally, Joe Schmoe will get it, and the whole mess collapses in a heap of unseemly evacuations. This doesn't even take into consideration the possiblity of a draft, which will only hasten things.

Pape's interview should be required reading for everyone who wants to know how to stop terrorism, or at least suicide bombings. The problem is, what he's telling us, we don't want to hear.

(Originally posted at my own site.)

So says Georgia10 at Kos.

WTF? It's all making my head explode!

Like one big, and very unhappy, family...

The hungry sheep look up, and are not fed, But swoln with wind and the rank mist they draw, Rot inwardly, and foul contagion spread (Milton)


Justin Raimondo (AntiWar.com) writes:

When Rove and his shills blabbed to reporters and anyone who would listen, they didn't realize that they were aiding and abetting an elaborate ploy to stick it to the CIA.

Seen against the backdrop of the fierce intra-bureaucratic war that broke out in the administration in the run-up to the Iraq war – with the CIA and the mainline intelligence and diplomatic communities pitted against civilian neoconservatives in the upper echelons of the Pentagon and the Office of the Vice President – the outing of Plame and her colleagues amounts to an act of espionage committed out of a desire to exact revenge. The leakers meant to retaliate not just against Joe Wilson, through his wife, but against the "old guard" that was resisting the campaign to lie us into war. When the CIA wouldn't go along with the neocon program and "spice up" their analyses with Ahmed Chalabi's tall tales and the outright forgery of the Niger uranium documents, the War Party struck back at them with the sort of viciousness for which the neocons are rightly renowned.

The neocons had a fix on their target; now the question was how to get someone else to pull the trigger.

"they're coming after you". see earlier post below

Raimondo continues:

In his book, The Politics of Truth, Joe Wilson says as much:
"Apparently, according to two journalist sources of mine, when Rove learned that he might have violated the law, he turned on Cheney and Libby and made it clear that he held them responsible for the problem they had created for the administration. The protracted silence on this topic from the White House masks considerable tension between the Office of the President and the Office of the Vice President.

[...]

Ambassador Wilson knows who his enemies are, and he pointed to them in his book and in an interview with Joe Conason in Salon:
"Gleaned from all those crosscurrents of information, the most plausible scenario, and the one that I've heard most frequently from different sources, has been that there was a meeting in the middle of March 2003, chaired by either [Cheney's chief of staff] Scooter Libby or the vice president – but more frequently I've heard chaired by Scooter – at which a decision was made to get a 'work-up' on me. That meant getting as much information about me as they could: about my past, about my life, about my family. This, in and of itself, is abominable. Then that information was passed at the appropriate time to the White House Communications Office, and at some point a decision was made to go ahead and start to smear me, after my opinion piece appeared in the New York Times."

"Salon: You mention two other names: John Hannah, who works in the Office of the Vice President, and David Wurmser, who is a special assistant to John Bolton, the undersecretary of state for arms control and national security. Last Wednesday, their names both appeared on a chart that accompanied an article in the New York Times about the Pentagon's Office of Special Plans and the war cabal within the Bush administration. Did these people run an intelligence operation against you?"

"Wilson: I don't know if it's the same unit, but it's very clear, from what I've heard, that the meeting in March 2003 led to an intelligence operation against my family and me. That's what a work-up is – to try to find everything you can about an American citizen."

[...]

Who in the administration would've had access to the specific information regarding Plame-Wilson's role in a deep-cover CIA operation involving nuclear proliferation? Why, the man who was the State Department deputy secretary in charge of "weapons of mass destruction" – the somewhat irritable if not downright reckless John Bolton, would-be ambassador to the UN, who played a central role in promulgating the Niger Uranium Myth.

Conveniently, two of Bolton's assistants, David Wurmser and John Hannah, also worked in Cheney's office. [...]

The trail winds its way through other familiar thorny thickets... so continue reading: ...Who Leaked to the Leakers?, July 15, 2005 - by Justin Raimondo

Scooter Libby: "totally obsessed with Wilson," NY Daily News



*

How do we know?

No 5:00PM document dump!

And a tip of the Ol' Corrente Hat to The Amazin' Froomkin for citing Tom's post.

The following is courtesy of our visiting lyric genius, MJS.

I am only posting it with the clear understanding that all of you who read it here will take yourself over to where MJS now blogs on his very own weblog, called MORTALJIVE. There you will find much to be amused by and even more to wonder at. Take your time, poke around, you'll discover, no surprise, that MJS is a powerful writer in several mediums and a wholly original presence on the web.

Enjoy him here, and then enjoy him there.

SWEET JESUS CHRIST COME ON DOWN

Karl Rove
Karl Rove
Deep inside his cove
Tried to play checkers with chess
To move one ahead
He left another dead
Will someone kindly clean up his mess?

Treason is hard
Treason is mean
To turn one's back on kith and kin
Jesus once said
(He was neither blue or red)
That which you do to them you do to me

Without Judas kiss
There is no Christian myth
Without Karl Rove
The future dims
Two years he had
To just say "My bad"
He's the kind that only mouths the hymns

(chorus)
Sweet Jesus Christ
Sweet Lord above
Redeemer for the sins of all mankind
We were so lost
And knew not the cost
Sweet Jesus Christ come on down!

Liberals deny
The true god in the sky
You can trust them to hate America
When Saddam Hussein
Lost his tyrant's reign
The liberals cried and cried and cried

Look over there
Big trouble over there
Don't wast your time looking here
We know the way
To lead the USA
Just turn that dial up on fear

When the day is done
When the light is gone
When the game has all played out
We will prevail
We will not fail
Treason is just a word that liberals shout

(chorus)
Sweet Jesus Christ
Sweet Lord above
Redeemer for the sins of all mankind
We were so lost
And knew not the cost
Sweet Jesus Christ come on down!

Karl Rove
Karl Rove
Deep inside his cove
Tried to play checkers with chess
To move one ahead
He left another dead
Will someone kindly clean up his mess?

Treason is hard
Treason is mean
To turn one's back on kith and kin
Jesus once said
(He was neither blue or red)
That which you do to them you do to me

Without Judas kiss
There is no Christian myth
Without Karl Rove
The future dims
Two years he had
To just say "My bad"
He's the kind that only mouths the hymns

(chorus)
Sweet Jesus Christ
Sweet Lord above
Redeemer for the sins of all mankind
We were so lost
And knew not the cost
Sweet Jesus Christ come on down!

+++
MJS


P.S.: Please do not miss the Farmer's important compendium of things you need to know about Rove and Mr. & Mrs. Wilson, right below this post, just scroll or click here.

Via Guardian UK:

Mr Rove told the grand jury in testimony last year that he specifically remembered Mr Novak telling him that Ms Wilson worked for the CIA, AP reported its source, identified only as a person working in the legal profession, as saying. Mr Rove told the grand jury that by the time Mr Novak had called him, he believes he had similar information about Mr Wilson's wife from another reporter but had no recollection of which reporter had told him about it first, the source said.

Mr Rove testified that Mr Novak originally called him days before Ms Wilson's identity was revealed in July 2003 to discuss another story. The conversation eventually turned to former ambassador Joseph Wilson, who was strongly criticising the Bush administration's Iraq war policy and the intelligence it used to justify the war, the source said.

According to Mr Rove's testimony, Mr Novak told him he had learned and planned to report in a weekend column that Mr Wilson's wife had worked for the CIA, and the circumstances on how her husband travelled to Africa to check bogus claims of alleged nuclear material sales to Iraq.

Another journalist, Time reporter Matt Cooper, identified Mr Rove to the grand jury earlier this week as the source for his story regarding Ms Wilson. Mr Cooper refused to "scoop" himself by discussing precisely what Mr Rove told him before he can publish his story on the pages of Time. Mr Rove told the grand jury that four days later, he had a phone conversation with Mr Cooper and - in an effort to discredit some of Mr Wilson's allegations - told Mr Cooper that Mr Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, though he never used her name.

A third reporter, New York Times staffer Judith Miller, is also believed to have known Ms Wilson's identity. She is currently serving a prison sentence for contempt, after refusing to betray a journalistic confidence and testify about her source before the grand jury.

Mr Novak has refused to discuss his sources or his involvement in the investigation. - more: Guardian UK

THE PROHIBITION AGAINST “CONFIRMING” CLASSIFIED INFORMATION
Confirmation confirmed?:

October 2003:

In a new column about his role in the affair, Novak said Ms Plame's unmasking was not a "planned leak". He said that her identity came in passing during a conversation with a "senior administration official".

He wrote: "It was an offhand revelation from this official, who is no partisan gunslinger. When I called another official for confirmation, he said, 'Oh, you know about it'."

[Sound Familiar?] Karl Rove's loyalists are promoting a new version of the Valerie Plame leak to the New York Times. Now, they say, Novak called Rove on July 8 and told him about Valerie Plame, and Rove merely said, "I heard that too.." - Talk Left

But in July, Novak told Newsday that the sources had come to him with Ms Plame's name. "I didn't dig it out, it was given to me. They thought it was significant, they gave me the name and I used it." - [Julian Borger, The Guardian (UK), October 2, 2003 - via Lex Nex]

Newsday: Columnist Names CIA Iraq Operative, July 21, 2003.

"they're coming after you".

Wilson's credibility was attacked by allies of the administration and the Washington Post reported that the White House was livid about his article which essentially said the president had misled America. Then a friend told Wilson of a conversation he had with conservative columnist Robert Novak.

The friend had been walking along the street with Novak and casually asked him about the uranium story. "Wilson's an asshole," Novak had replied.

"The CIA sent him. His wife Valerie works for the CIA... She sent him."

A couple of days later Wilson got a call from Walter Pincus, a veteran intelligence reporter from the Washington Post, to say "they're coming after you".

The following Monday Novak wrote his now infamous column. In it he disclosed that Wilson's wife "Valerie Plame is an agency operative on weapons of mass destruction." He said two senior administration officials had told him Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the uranium report.

The column brought her career of covert action over 20 years to a sudden end - and possibly compromised her sources. - [The Irish Times, July 9, 2005 - via Lex Nex]

Larry Johnson, a former CIA officer, said he was trained 14 years ago with Valerie Plame, a specialist on weapons of mass destruction,...

[...]

"She's under cover, working in a clandestine situation, and it was exposed for the sake of cheap, tawdry politics. Assessing the damage for this could be difficult and will take some time.

"I'm a registered Republican and I'm sickened by this," he added. "I've spoken with four colleagues who have since left the agency who worked with her. And they are livid." - [The Guardian (UK), October 2, 2003 - via Lex Nex]

More...
on suspicious nature of grand jury testimony being leaked:
talk left
liberal oasis

Novak to Rove/Rove to Novak:
Think Progress.org

Scooter Libby - "totally obsessed with Wilson," NY Daily News

"Classified State Department Report Taken Onto Air Force One Thought to Be Source of Plame’s Identity": Was Ari the other leaker?

*

(As noted before, my fellow Correntians have been doing a workmanlike job on the Rove-Plame story, and you can catch up by scrolling further down.)

Back in May at my own site I chronicled the tragic life of one of the many little ones who end up in the clutches of the incompetent, negligent, and malicious Florida Department of Children and Families, which has been responsible for so many murdered, maimed and missing kids during the incumbancy of Jeb Bush.

Nothing has changed:

"A 21 year old Tampa man is charged with murder after his 3-year old son was pummeled into unconsciousness and then died.
Ronnie Paris Jr. went on trial for his own life this week in a Tampa courtroom. The toddler's mother, Nysheerah Paris, testified that her husband thought the boy might be gay and would force him to box...(and) told the court that Paris would make the boy fight with him, slapping the child in the head until he cried or wet himself. She said that on one occasion Paris slammed the child against a wall because he was vomiting.
Prosecutor Jalal Harb said that in 2002, the Florida Department of Children & Families placed the child in protective custody after he had been admitted to the hospital several times for vomiting.
He was returned to his parents Dec. 14. A month later he went into a coma and was rushed to hospital. Six days later he was removed from life support and died."

Now, setting aside the question as to why DCF allowed this child to be returned to his "home", I wonder why even after his death, Florida's taxpayer-supported child welfare service, overseen by Jeb "King of the Culture of Life" Bush, still appeared to be MIA:

"Following the child's death Tampa police Detective Anthony Zambito thought there was something suspicious. He testified that he questioned both parents closely at the hospital. But it wasn't until investigators questioned them separately Feb. 1 that the boy's mother talked about the abuse."

February fucking 1st! Two months after the child was admitted to the hospital with fatal injuries, and not a word about DCF's involvement.

Now I realize that this child wasn't as cute as a fetus, and not as care-free as a blastocyst, but surely these people who have the gall to hold themselves up as paragons of moral righteousness and the keepers of the sacred flame of life might be able to find some small place in their hearts for the welfare of the helpless children already here and suffering.

(Previously posted at It's My Country, Too)

We have been experiencing some (possibly) electro-magnetic pulse-induced technical difficulties with both Haloscan and Blogger this a.m., which could presage either nuclear attack or invasion by Martians, depending on which novels you read.

Please bear with us, and contact Michael Chertoff--


--if you have any questions.

(Lambert and my other blogsiblings have been doing a fantastic job tracing the developments of Rove's flame-out. Scroll down and check in.)

Nice work, all you culture-of-life-family-values fans. The current climate of wildly unregulated and unchecked weapons flow from manufacturers into the hands of criminals and terrorists gets an assist toward even greater unaccountable:

"The gun industry is likely to win sweeping protection against civil liability lawsuits in the U.S. Senate this month, reflecting a more firearm-friendly Senate after the 2004 elections, lawmakers said on Thursday.
Idaho Republican Sen. Larry Craig, lead backer of the legal protections bill, said he was confident it would win Senate approval with few if any unpalatable amendments."

Larry Craig has a fascinating voting record, chock full of tidbits like his votes against allowing background checks on purchasers at gun shows (twice) and against trigger locks that save kids' lives. He's a staunch ally of the NRA--that culture of life fraternity that never met a weapon it didn't want to fuck like a bunny--and he thinks the new pro-deadly weapon Congress is just the opportunity to give his brothers-in-arms what they want. On the other hand:

"Brady (Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence) center president Michael Barnes said that even in a "tougher political environment" the group hopes to rally opposition to the liability bill and attach amendments, including one to require background checks at gun shows.
The bill is a top priority for the National Rifle Association..."Unfortunately, as long as gun-ban advocates are able to burden firearm manufacturers with the costs of defending themselves in court, the entire gun industry is at risk of being eradicated," the NRA said on its Web site.
"We'd like to close loopholes that would allow criminals and terrorists to buy weapons without background checks," Barnes said, adding, "It's hard to believe that we wouldn't be able to muster a majority now" given the fears of terrorism."

Hard to believe if you're a normal, thinking person, but not hard at all if you're in love with death, as our favorite, Peggy Noonan, likes to say. Especially if terrorism isn't something you really care about except as a political straw man for leveraging your job security on the Hill. Tell me again, who is it that's pro-life around here?

For those who like their dramas poignant, Senator Dianne Feinstein, a co-author of the now-expired 1994 assault weapons ban, is trying to inject amendments into the bill that will make it at least a little less wignutty:

"For instance, instead of trying to reinstate the assault weapons ban, she said she would try to limit sales of powerful 50 caliber weapons so that they could only be sold through federally licensed dealers, not at gun shows."

Wouldn't that be special? But with these people, no regulation is acceptable. We now have a situation where nearly half the Congress is allied more or less to the wild-hair philosophies, xenophobia, and deep-rooted misanthropy underpinning American survivalism. When it's every man for himself, who cares who else dies, even in a culture of life?

WASHINGTON - Presidential confidant Karl Rove testified to a grand jury that he learned the identity of a CIA operative originally from journalists, then informally discussed the information with a Time magazine reporter days before the story broke, according to a person briefed on the testimony.
(via MSGOP)

Am I the only person who realizes that it doesn't matter how Rove found out? Rove simply shouldn't have disclosed anything at all.

His response should have been "I don't know" or "I can't comment on that." When Rove confirmed it or commented in any way, he broke the law. He disclosed it and therefore broke the law and it really doesn't matter how he found out.

It may clear his boss (Cheney) or his child (Bush) of any wrongdoing but it doesn't clear him.

This pathetic cover story is a red herring folks. It's as simple as that.

Times "scoop" a distraction (naturally)
The Times doesn't have a scoop—it has a damp squib. Since Drudge was pushing it, that was obvious. At most, it means Rove and Bush are moving into the modified limited hangout stage. Yawn.

The White House Iraq Group
Billmon's right (via Armando):

By defending the Wilsons, Left Blogostan simply helps Right Blogostan keep the focus off of Rove and his White House dirty tricks operation. It boggles the mind that more than a year after Fitzpatrick subpoened the records of the "White House Iraq Group," and nearly a week after the Newsweek story highlighted the obvious connection between Plame's outing and the administration's WMD disinformation campaign, virtually nothing about this shadowy committee has appeared in the mainstream press.

Because the White House Iraq Group is where Wilson is trying to point us. Of course, he has to go to Raw Story to do it:

Raw Story: Let’s start with what your theory is on how the highly classified status of your wife as a NOC (a person of Non-Official Cover and a high level CIA asset) was leaked to others outside of the CIA. What is your theory and how have you come to it?

Wilson: Well, my view of this is based on what people have told me. It is not so much my theory but what others have told me about this.

Shortly after Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei (Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency) announced to the UN Security Council in March, 2003 that the documents that the State Department provided him were forgeries, I went on CNN and said that I thought the government new more about this than it was letting on.

My understanding is that shortly thereafter, a meeting was held - sometime in March of 2003 - in the offices of the Vice President at which it was decided to do a “work up” on me. A work up means to run an intel op to glean all the information you can about “me.” My understanding is that at a minimum, [Cheney's chief of staff] Scooter Libby was at this meeting.

But in retrospect looking at this, the natural group [of people] who would meet to discuss something like this would be the White House Iraq Group (WHIG).

Raw Story: Right, and the group includes Karl Rove as part of that main group of six.

Wilson: Yes, that would include Rove. I believe it is Rove, Karen Hughes, Libby, and others.

Raw Story: Also: Andrew Card, Mary Matlin and James Wilkinson as well as others who advised then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and her deputy Stephen Hadley.

Wilson: [The White House Iraq Group] would be the natural group because they were constituted to spin the war, so they would be naturally the ones to try to deflect criticism. Now, some of those people would have very high security clearances.

Connecting the dots
OK. Finally we've got some names. The W.H.I.G. was in charge of "fixing the facts and the intelligence around the policy." The ringleaders are Hughes, Libby, Card, Matalin, Wilkinson, and, of course, Rove.

A scenario: Wilson's Op-Ed on the fake yellowcake story appears. For once, someone tells the truth, and that throws the process of "fixing" the facts into jeopardy. So the W.H.I.G. commissions a workup on Wilson [tinfoil hat time: Using echelon intercepts obtained through John Bolton]. The work-up reveals that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, was in the WMD section of the CIA. So, for W.H.I.G., it's a two-fer: Take down one truthteller, Wilson, by smearing him, saying Plame got him a choice foreign posting (to Niger?! Never mind). And take down a second truthteller, WMD expert Plame, by outing her while smearing Wilson. A classic Rovian bankshot! And a second bankshot: Rove plants the smear with some lackey in the press [tinfoil hat time: on the payroll; Ketchum? Iraqi National Congress? See below], it echoes round to Novak, Novak calls Rove, and Rove confirms it. Mission accomplished!

You lift up the rock just a little bit, and Wow! Look what scuttles out!

The connection to make here is W.H.I.G. to Colonel Gardiner's resarch (here (back) and here):

My research suggests there were over 50 stories manufactured or at least engineered that distorted the picture of Gulf II for the American and British people.

We've seen that the Bush White House has been conducting a PsyOps campaign: Information Warfare against the American people. Manipulating the terror alerts during Election 2004 was one front of the campaigm (timeline, back). Planting all those news stories (aluminum tubes, biological warfare trailers, all that crap) was another. [It felt like whack-a-mole at the time; this was the summer when we were all just starting out at Eschaton, and as soon as we'd smash one story, another one would pop right up! Well, surprise! It didn't just feel like whack-a-mole—it was! And the general in charge of both fronts? Why, Karl Rove.]

Outing Valerie Plame and smearing Joe Wilson was just one, very small W.H.I.G. operation. There are plenty more such operations to be discovered.

Follow the money?
What I would like to know—trying to think like Jeff "8-inch, cut" Guckert here for a moment—is whether any of the writers (or editors) of the 50 planted stories were actually, er, funded. Suppose W.H.I.G.—Hughes, Libby, Card, Matalin, Wilkinson, and Rove—had a $50 million slush fund to spend on "fixing the facts and the intelligence." (With over $8 billion "missing" in Iraq, certainly a slush fund of that size is quite a reasonable assumption.) If Armstrong Williams charged the going rate, $50,000,000 / $250,000 = 200, um, assets. Of course, 500 people in the Beltway control our national discourse, and that would mean that almost half of 'em were on Rove's payroll. Yeah, maybe my tinfoil hat is a little too tight... But that would explain why the role of W.H.I.G. isn't part of the story. Eh?

This story is now making the mainstream at Kos and Eschaton, so I figured I'd repost this repost from a week ago.

After all, Rove's boss, Dear Leader, outed a CIA mole in Al Qaeda during Election 2004 and nobody said "Boo!"

So I think everybody who's yelling "treason" should just pipe down. Our President and his wise, discerning advisors know what they're doing and we should just trust them. [Damn! Even irony makes my B.S.S. spike! Where's that damn bucket?]

Here are the relevant links from our master "Gaslight Watch" page, where we give the timeline for incidents where Bush politicized "terror" intel to win election 2004 (or, if you prefer, "win" "election" 2004):

08-06-2004 and 08-06-2004 (Bush blows an AQ mole), 08-07-2004 (the Times covers for him), ... 08-08-2004 (Kevin Drum blames liberals for panicking Bush so he outed the mole), 08-09-2004 (Condi says outing a mole is OK when you do it on background), 08-10-2004 (Condi tries to put the toothpaste back in the tube)

NOTE The stories say that "US officials" outed the AQ mole. I wrote Bush on the assumption that Bush is responsible for what his underlings do, and that in any case his underlings don't do things like reveal intelligence sources and methods without checking with their boss. And we all know how Bush feels about leaks....

NOTE Alert reader pansypoo and Google led me to Colonel Sam Gardiner. He connects a lot of the dots. A must read, since it puts Plame and the politicization of intelligence into a much broader context. I'll try to put this in context later today.

UPDATE For more on Colonel Gardiner, see here (back) and here.

Froomkin's live chat:

New York, N.Y.: If you had to guess, when will Fitzgerald complete the investigation?

Dan Froomkin: When the job is done.

Hey, that's good enough for the president? Why not me?

[Rim shot. Laughter. "Hey, I just flew in from DC, and boy..."

Here's a straw in the wind:

"Rove is not just any White House staffer. He is the man," said Scott Reed, a Republican consultant with close ties to the White House. "They haven't named it the `Roval Office' at this point, but that's coming down the pike. At least they should call it the `Rove Garden."'
(via Chicago Tribune)

Or possibly the Larval Office...

No, but seriously foks, when "Republican consultants with close ties to the White House" start making jokes about Karl Rove, it looks to me like a sign that Rove's mojo is definitely weakening....

Well, it looks like the Republicans won't be able to get their paws on your guaranteed retirement money after all. They're busy busy busy, and they just may not have time:

House leaders said Wednesday that they can't take up a Social Security bill before this fall, dealing a serious blow to any hope that Congress might enact an overhaul of the nation's retirement system this year.

But any House bill would have to be reconciled with any measure passed by the Senate. The House is scheduled to adjourn for the year on Sept. 30, giving it virtually no time to negotiate a final piece of legislation with the Senate.

Bush, who barnstormed [sic] across the country promoting his Social Security plan for months earlier this year [before tickets-only Republican audiences], hasn't mentioned it in more than two weeks.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan rejected suggestions Wednesday that the president was backing off. "It's a high priority for the president, and we continue to work with Congress and urge Congress to move forward to strengthen Social Security," he said.

But with a vacancy on the Supreme Court, Bush will have to focus his time and political muscle over the next two months on winning confirmation for his nominee.
(via Kansas City Star)

What a shame.

Nice to see that Beltway Dem Rapid Response Team taking credit for the victory. Oh, they're not? (And they justifiably could. The Dems did well on this one. So why not stand up for something they did right?)

As in, "Karl Rove could end up in a cell, married to the guy with the most cigarettes."

Well, we can dream, can't we? Because what would America be, without dreams?

A number of legal experts, some of whom are involved in the case, said evidence that has emerged publicly suggests Rove or other administration officials face potential legal threats on at least three fronts.

The first is the unmasking of CIA official Valerie Plame, the original focus of special counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald's probe. But legal sources say there are indications the prosecutor is looking at two other areas related to the administration's handling of his investigation. One possible legal vulnerability is perjury, if officials did not testify truthfully to a federal grand jury, and another is obstructing justice, if they tried to coordinate cover stories to obscure facts.

Several people familiar with the investigation said they expect Fitzgerald to indict, or at least force a plea agreement with, at least one individual for leaking Plame's name to conservative columnist Robert D. Novak in July 2003.
(via WaPo)

Excellent:

Senate Democrats moved forcefully into the controversy surrounding Rove on Thursday, calling for legislation to deny security clearances to officials who disclose the identity of an undercover agent.

Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., sought to attach the proposal to a spending bill for the Department of Homeland Security, and aides said he hoped for a vote by day's end.
(via CBS)

Seems like the voice of sweet reason to me. I mean, how could even the most knuckle-dragging Republican think it was OK to have a security clearance if you blow an agent's cover? So, it should pass 100-0, right?

I'm just wild about Harry!

NOTE The lead is clear on the concept: the issue is whether Rove disclosed Plame's identity. The rest of the story confuses the issue by using the Republican talking point that Rove disclose Plame's name. Obviously, there are all kinds of ways to disclose Plame's identity without mentioning her name directly. "Joseph Wilson's wife," for example.

John McKay's comment below reminded me of this wonderful old skit from Emo Phillips:

""I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off.So I ran over and said "Stop! don't do it!"
"Why shouldn't I?" he said.
I said, "Well, there's so much to live for!"
He said, "Like what?"
I said, "Well...are you religious or atheist?"
He said, "Religious."
I said, "Me too! Are you Christian or Buddhist?"
He said, "Christian."
I said, "Me too! Are you catholic or protestant?"
He said, "Protestant." I said, "Me too! Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?"
He said, "Baptist!" I said, "Wow! Me too! Are you Baptist church of god or Baptist church of the lord?"
He said, "Baptist church of god!"
I said, "Me too! Are you original Baptist church of god, or are you reformed Baptist church of god?"
He said, "Reformed Baptist church of god!"
I said, "Me too! Are you reformed Baptist church of god, reformation of 1879, or reformed Baptist church of god, reformation of 1915?"
He said, "Reformed Baptist church of god, reformation of 1915!"
I said, "Die, heretic scum," and pushed him off.""

Thanks to Sneaking Suspicions, who posted it and made it easy to find.

So I suppose you could say the Reverend Pat Robertson was anticipating the future with hope when he vomited up this prayer back in July 2003:

"We ask for miracles in regard to the Supreme Court...
One justice is 83-years-old, another has cancer and another has a heart condition. Would it not be possible for God to put it in the minds of these three judges that the time has come to retire?"

But mayhaps the Old Man is not pleased with His good and faithful servant, as evidenced by this:

"U.S. Chief Justice William Rehnquist, whose thyroid cancer has prompted speculation he might resign, was released from the hospital on Thursday after being admitted with a fever earlier this week.
Supreme Court spokeswoman Kathy Arberg gave no details on the condition of Rehnquist, 80, saying only, "He's been released and he is at home."

Sometimes the main effect of having a public religion is to embarass those of its adherents who insist on making fools out of, not just themselves, but the entire theology.

David Brooks imagines the country is on an inevitable slide towards Christian statehood, and suggests Bush not fight the feeling anymore...go ahead and give the Supreme Court nomination to someone who, in his droll opinion, has a "powerhouse" philosophical intellect, such that apologies for the maneuvering of Chistianism into the Constitution can help establish a brave new world of federally-funded parochial schools, Salvation Army shelters, and Old Testament amusement parks:

"First as a professor and now as a judge, (Michael) McConnell has outargued those who would wall off religion from public life. He's a case study of the sort of forceful advocate of ideas you have a chance to leave the country as your legacy."

As if we don't already have enough of a Bush "legacy" to mop up over the next couple decades. But this one could help install mandatory blue laws again and siphon your taxes right into the Catholic church:

"The problem with the Separationist view, he has argued in essays and briefs, is that it's not practical. As government grows and becomes more involved in health, charity, education and culture issues, it begins pushing religion out of those spheres. The Separationist doctrine leads inevitably to discrimination against religion. The state ends up punishing people who are exercising a constitutional right."

Yes, as Jon Stewart says, maybe someday we can look forward to a day when Christians can worship openly, maybe even wear small symbols of their religion around their necks...why we may even one day elect a Christian president...or 43 of them in a row!

"In another case, a physiology professor at a public university was forbidden from delivering an optional after-class lecture at the university entitled "Evidences of God in Human Physiology," even though other professors were free to profess any secular viewpoints they chose."

Imagine! Allowing a "secular" viewpoint in a science class! Truly we have become as beasts!

"McConnell argued that government shouldn't be separated from religion, but, as Madison believed, should be neutral about religion. He pointed out that the fire services and the police don't just protect stores and offices, but churches and synagogues as well."

So the solution to this thorny separation issue is to eliminate fire and police protection for sections of entire communities? And if we don't, that is somehow the logical nail in the coffin of separation of church and state? This is "powerhouse" philosophizing according to Brooks, who is well-known for his own powerhouse brand of logical reasoning, the "madman theory of how the world works". Using this logic, he soldiers on:

""When speech reflecting a secular viewpoint is permitted, then speech reflecting a religious viewpoint should be permitted on the same basis." The public square shouldn't be walled off from religion, but open to a plurality of viewpoints, secular and religious. The state shouldn't allow school prayer, which privileges religion, but public money should go to religious and secular service agencies alike."

Of course. When we start equating "secular" and "religious" such arguments make a twisted kind of sense... if you believe they are equivalent.

But they aren't. Because let's drop the codewords here, Dave. "Religion" as it is used by you hearty advocates of "religious freedom" does not mean the whole brightly colored world of religious and philosophical viewpoints. It means, and ONLY means, Christianity, as at least Roy Moore has enough scruple to be honest about. And that means, in the long run, these people intend to establish a state religion where Christianity is ascendant, and whose theology will be able to eclipse all others through the power of the state.

And that is exactly what the founding fathers guarded against when they wrote the Constitution.

Caption this:

So who or what exactly has worked Commander Mooncalf into a punchy excitable tizz? Plus, from the look in his eyes, he looks like a man with a bee up his pantleg. Is this one of those "gotta pee - gotta pee..." kind of things? Or, is Bu$h engaged in some kind of battle fabulous royale, flailing away at his own inner demons?


No one else in this photo appears to be too upset about anything. The guy in the necktie to Bu$h's left looks down right bored. The shiny headed guy to his right looks like he might be reading the Daily News.

Let's face it -- this looks like a photo of some crazy guy in a subway station. Screw loose and fancifully free. Which, to this point anyway, seems to pretty much sum up the entire G.W. Bu$hCo so called presidential reign of terra.

*

We do have one, right? Are they lying low? Playing rope-a-dope? Pursuing an incredibly sophisticated Fabian strategy?

I mean, the entire Republican establishment goes into radio silence for 24 hours and then emerges speaking identical talking points defending Unka Karl—none of which are on point, and all of which were settled way back in 2003 when the Plame Affair just broke. Dealing with this should be child's play for a party with a will to win.

So the Dems are where on this? Watching in awe as Meadowlark Lemon yanks their shorts down again? WTF? [Except, of course, for Howard Dean. Jeebus, I know the rehab from a spinal transplant is brutal, but does Dean really have to do everything for these guys?]

NOTE I know picturing Karl Rove as Meadowlark Lemon may be a stretch—but picturing the Beltway Dems as the Washington Generals isn't. Get it together, guys!

Mush from the wimp:

President Bush deflected questions today about the alleged role of one of his top advisers in leaking the identity of a CIA agent, saying he would not discuss the matter until an investigation is complete.

In a brief exchange with reporters at the White House after a Cabinet meeting, Bush refused to say whether he has spoken to the adviser, Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove, about the leak or whether he believes Rove acted improperly.

The White House has previously said Rove was "not involved" in the leak, but an internal Time magazine e-mail shows he mentioned that Wilson's wife was a CIA agent to Time reporter Matthew Cooper before she was publicly identified by name as an operative in a July 2003 op-ed piece by syndicated columnist Robert D. Novak. Rove, through his lawyer, has confirmed that he talked to Cooper but denied providing Plame's name or leaking classified information.

Asked today if he has spoken with Rove about the Plame matter and whether he believes Rove "acted improperly in talking about it with reporters," Bush said: "I have instructed every member of my staff to fully cooperate in this investigation. I also will not prejudge the investigation based on media reports. We're in the midst of an ongoing investigation, and I will be more than happy to comment further once the investigation is completed."

Pressed on the matter and asked if it was appropriate for his spokesman to deny Rove's involvement in 2003, Bush essentially repeated his previous statement.
(via WaPo)

Asked for a comment, Bush said "I'll let Ken Mehlman and the media whores that Rove still owns do my talking for me."

Really?!

Not really.

It would sure be nice if the story broadened from the White House circling the wagons to the remarkably coordinated talking points broadcast by the Republican Noise Machine. Gosh, it's as if they're all reading from the same script, or something....

FWIW, I think the worm actually turned during the last light plane scare in DC. The one where Capital Hill got evacuated, the White House got evacuated, but nobody told the press, who were left to fend for themselves in the White House...

From the Netherlands trial of the murderer of filmmaker Theo van Gogh:

The Muslim extremist on trial in the slaying of filmmaker Theo van Gogh confessed Tuesday, saying he was driven by religious conviction. "I don't feel your pain," he told the victim's mother.

At one point, he addressed the victim's mother, Anneke, who was sitting in the public gallery. "I have to admit I don't have any sympathy for you," he said. "I can't feel for you because I think you're a nonbeliever."
(via AP)

Of course, that's a Muslim fundamentalist. Naturally, our own home-grown fundamentalists have very different attitudes... Right?

NOTE Oddly, the World's Greatest Newspaper omits the money quote. Maybe they're so whipped by the "Christian" right that even the prospect of angry email causes them to pull their punches?

This is a story I've been following for years before blogs were ever thought of--which is not to be confused with how long the case has actually been going on, which is nigh onto 10 years--but I just thought I'd throw it in so everybody could (1) take a break from Rove Frogmarch Watch, and (2) enjoy some nice, clear, non-weaselly words from a government official:

(via WaPo)

In a scathing rebuke of the federal government's treatment of Native Americans, a federal judge yesterday ordered the Interior Department to include notices in its correspondence with Indians whose land the government holds in trust, warning them that the government's information may not be credible.

U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth, who has presided for nearly 10 years over a class-action suit on behalf of 500,000 Indians whose land the government has leased to mining, ranching and timber interests, issued one of his most strongly worded opinions on the case. [snip]

Lamberth wrote: "For those harboring hope that the stories of murder, dispossession, forced marches, assimilationist policy programs, and other incidents of cultural genocide against the Indians are merely the echoes of a horrible, bigoted government-past that has been sanitized by the good deeds of more recent history, this case serves as an appalling reminder of the evils that result when large numbers of the politically powerless are placed at the mercy of institutions engendered and controlled by a politically powerful few."

The Interior Department, in a statement, said [snip. They said "Boo hoo hoo, he's talking mean about us!"]

Yesterday, he wrote that "the entire record in this case tells the dreary story of Interior's degenerate tenure as Trustee-Delegate for the Indian trust, a story shot through with bureaucratic blunders, flubs, goofs and foul-ups, and peppered with scandals, deception, dirty tricks and outright villainy, the end of which is nowhere in sight."

Ahh. Like a cool breeze on an overheated day, ain't it? I commend these words to other members of the judiciary, who may wish to cut and save them for use in other cases in the near future.

If only we could get them to shut up like this the rest of the time.

If only they could be half as efficient and effective with all their Patriot Act powers and high technology as Britain is with Scotland Yard.

If only they would be honest about the impact of terrorism and what we really have to fear.

If only the President of the United States wasn't such a total embarassment to every American on earth.

The stuff of dreams.

Yes, they're sending out for pizza in the WhiteWash House again! But where's that guy Jeff, uh, "Jeff," when we really need him?

Raw Story has the memo that gives the Republican talking points. Josh Marshall responds. (And the Beltway Dem rapid response team is... um... MIA again. WTF?)

If there was ever any doubt left in the reality-based community that there is a VRWC, the past two days have eliminated at. Yesterday, not one single Republican would say a word about Rove. Today, they're all reading from the same script. Gotta admire the discipline, though!

NOTE Thanks to alert reader gym. What, yet another substitute gym teacher?

One tip to alert reader Dr. Sardonicus, for pinging Kevin Drum to put Corrente on the Washington Monthly blogroll, and tip two to Kevin Drum, for doing it.

It's always nice to know we can throw a little red meat over the high walls that surround the Beltway....

A nice quote from Howie:

Times Editor Bill ["Helen"] Keller, by the way, told me that criticism of [Judith "Kneepads"] Miller was "repellent" and coming from the "partisan fringe."
(via WaPo)

Look, I'm with the libertarians on legalized prostition, and it follows logically that I believe it's wrong that Judy Miller's in jail. So Keller and I are of one mind on that issue.

But if Keller's right, and only a "fringe" cares about the single-sourced Chalabi-fabricated stenography that Judy wrote on WMDs, stenography that "supplied the war" for Bush in Iraq just as surely as William Randolph Hearst supplied the Spanish-American War to Karl Rove's idol, William McKinley... Well, if Keller's right, the polity is in a lot worse shape than I thought.

But I think more people care than Keller thinks. If you care, you could drop a line to the Times ombudsman, Byron "I don't suck like Okrent" Calame.

NOTE Here are some of our posts on Judy "Kneepads" Miller, the sad state of the Times, and how the Times views the blogosphere, just in case you want some ammo in your politely worded and well-reasoned missives. 5/08/2005 (Good for a laugh; Judy Miller's employer gives lecture on blogger ethics); 4/10/2005 (Okrent preens himself for the Time's single Pulitzer on railroad accidents (!)); 10/10/2004 (Okrent seems to have a problem when the left writes in, but not when the right works the refs); 8/29/2004 (the Times doesn't want to be a newsgathering organization anymore); 5/26/2004 (Times mea culpa on war coverage somehow omits Judy Miller's name); 4/25/2004 (Okrent: The customers are wrong); 4/11/2004; (Howell Raines on our parade; mentions "unsourced rantings" of bloggers while somehow omitting to mention how the Times got punk'd by single sourced stories from Judy Miller); 3/22/2004 (Hearty laughter from readers as Times crudely buries Clarke revelations on A18, and assigns the story to Judy Miller!).

Bush Said to Be Monitoring Housing Boom.

Get out while you can!

A very nice headline from AP:

On Rove's Behalf, the White House Issued Denials, Which Have Now Fallen Apart
(via AP)

Followed by a great lead from reporter Pete Yost:

The White House is suddenly facing damaging evidence that it misled the public by insisting for two years that presidential adviser Karl Rove wasn't involved in leaking the identity of a female CIA officer.

And good background:

Rove told Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper that the woman "apparently works" for the CIA and that she had authorized her husband's trip to Africa to assess allegations that Iraq was trying to obtain yellowcake uranium for nuclear weapons, according to a July 11, 2003, e-mail by Cooper obtained by Newsweek magazine.

And some no longer operative quotes from Scott "Sucka MC" McClellan:

It was McClellan who provided the previous assurances about no role for Rove, but he refused to repeat those assurances Monday.

"Did Karl Rove commit a crime?" a reporter asked McClellan.

"This is a question relating to an ongoing investigation," McClellan replied.

McClellan gave the same answer when asked whether President Bush has confidence in Rove, the architect of the president's successful political campaigns.

The investigation was ongoing in 2003 when McClellan assured the public Rove wasn't involved, a reporter pointed out, but the spokesman refused to elaborate.

I wonder why not?

I sense a new terra alert coming on, I can just feel it...

Sent to me by a friend, with atribution but no link. I thought it was worth passing on, especially as it came from a South Carolina red-stater:

As America continues the move to supplant Iran as the world's most populous theocracy by 2008, education, particularly in the sciences, needs to begin realignment to reflect the mandate of the 2004 elections. Post-science America will replace liberal and humanist errors with the following truths:

• "Empirical data" is one of satan's favorite playthings.
• Professors shouldn't be allowed to present the "theory" of gravity as fact.
• The federal judiciary leads the army of the anti-Christ.
• As the Bible clearly states, bread is literally Jesus' body; "bakeries" are a giant humanist hoax.
• Condoms actually help the AIDS virus by giving it a little bounce. *
• Mel Gibson was sent by God; Lethal Weapon IV contains biblical meanings. **
• Sex education should give equal time to the possibility of virgin birth; there is, after all, inerrant precedent.
• A squirt of Pat Robertson's hair tonic can cure cancer.
• Many female legislators are witches; others are lesbians; some are both.
• Geometry is just satan's way of getting children to draw his symbols.
• There are no such things as germs; "bacteria" is a secular attempt to explain away evil.
• IMAX theaters are the "satan domes" prophesied in the Bible.
• Global warming is simply a sign that God is responding to the prayers of the northern red states.
• Whenever a paleontologist "...discovers a fossil...", God gets a chuckle.
• Flowers are pollinated by angel fairies, not sexually active insects.

* Already a feature of the current administration's abstinence-based sex "education".
** Maybe not so far off. On 24 May 05, the NRP denounced the recently released Star Wars III as a thinly veiled indictment of the Bush administration.

Please feel free to add your own...

(Thanks to thesmokinggun.com, and Lloyd Dangle)

This sort of thing makes my gorge rise:

"The number of Americans who believe the war in Iraq has made the United States less safe from terrorism spiked sharply after last week's terror attacks in London, according to the latest CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll.

President Bush's approval rating, meanwhile, edged up slightly, according to the poll of 1,006 Americans conducted Thursday through Sunday." Emphasis mine.

That's right. Bush's approval rating amongst the clueless went up from 43% to 45% since he climbed on top of that pile of unfortunates who were caught in the blasts in London last week and brayed his usual empty bragadoccio. Yet fewer of these same Einsteins felt, in the same breath, that going to war in Iraq was worth it (down 2%), and more felt that the Iraq war has made us less safe (up 15%).

It's practically an axiom that when a war breaks out, leaders can get away with almost anything and still retain the faith and support of their people; it's just human nature. But it's human nature of a very primitive sort, and somehow I'd hoped we had gotten to the point where figuring out that something is bad for us is a reason to avoid it. Instead, we find ourselves trapped inside this nightmare by a vast army of our countrymen and women who would just as likely go along with a new, improved Final Solution as they would a new brand of toothpaste, so long as it comes with a cloud full of rhetorical vapor from a daddy-figure spouting the Old Testament, and the concomitant approval of the lapdog press.

I seem to be spending the evening taking cheap shots at Bush.

But... But... Well, does the phrase "target rich environment" mean anything to you?

The latest, from Jesse at Pandagon:

After returning from the summit on Friday, Bush visited the British Embassy in Washington and signed a book of condolence and laid a wreath in front of the ambassador's residence.

Bush said the London attacks were a reminder of the "evil" of the Sept. 11 attacks and underscored that the United States and its allies were fighting a "global war on terror."

"We will stay on the offense, fighting the terrorists abroad so we do not have to face them at home," Bush said.

Well, leave aside the fact that Bush was just in the UK for G8 and it probably would have been a very friendly and honorable gesture to America's lone actual poodle ally to go lay the wreath in London, instead of flying back to DC and then laying the wreath at the British Embassy. Fer gawdsake. I mean, WTF? Was his ticket non-refundable or something?

But take a look again at what Bush said, at a memorial to the British dead: "We... fight the terrorists abroad [i.e., in the UK?] so we don't have to face them at home [i.e., in the US]."

I wonder how the British dead, who were "at home," would say to that, if they could still speak?

Would they say, in the words of Tonto's immortal joke, "What do you mean, we?"

NOTE The darker view? The statement is another troubling sign of Bush's sociopathy. The London dead are, to him, purely instrumental. He just isn't capable of empathy, of recognizing that other humans actually exist. (See Dear Leader's Troubling Symptoms, back.)

I understand, I really do. I mean, it's easy to see how a kid growing up in Bush's privileged position would come to think that the law was optional—the drunk driving thing, the TANG thing, Leadfoot's little episode, those lovable twins with their fake IDs, even Bush vGore—but Bush really needs to understand, now that he's an adult, that when Congress passes a law that applies to the Executive branch, he needs to remember his oath of office and carry it out.

For example: Last week, David Broder (of all people) drew our attention to this law in particular:

President Bush is facing an early legal deadline to deliver what he has been most resistant to providing: a set of specific benchmarks for measuring progress toward military and political stability in Iraq.

Under a little-noticed provision of the defense spending bill passed by Congress in May, Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld has until July 11 to send Capitol Hill a "comprehensive set of performance indicators and measures of stability and security" two years after the fall of Saddam Hussein.
(via WaPo)

July 11? Why, that would be today! And has Bush obeyed the law? What do you think?

Kennedy protested that the Bush administration did not meet Monday's deadline for a report on the war in Iraq. In the report, required as part of a war spending bill passed two months ago, the Defense Department was supposed to update the progress of training Iraqi security forces and give Congress an estimate of how many troops will be needed in Iraq through 2006.

Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said the report is in the final stages and that Pentagon officials are consulting with Congress about the timing for submitting it.
(via AP)

Gee, I guess I must be really confused about how our Constitutional system works.

Congress (and a Republican Congress, mind you) passes a law saying deliver a report by July 11.

So Bush (a) doesn't deliver the report on time and (b) is "consulting" with Congress about when to submit it. But the law is the law; what's to consult about? Why not just submit the report by deadline?

NOTE I love the URL that AP used for this story (which was about Bush's latest He Man speech at Quantico):

ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush

Let's get out our magic decoder rings:

ongoing_publicrelations_whitehouse

Almost as if there were truth to those nasty rumors Colonel Gardiner's been floating, about a campaign of strategic deception designed to sell Americans on the war....

Big words:

"[BUSH AT QUANTICO] In the face of such adversaries there is only one course of action: We will continue to take the fight to the enemy, and we will fight until this enemy is defeated."
(via AP)

Small stick:

The Army National Guard, a cornerstone of the U.S. force in
Iraq, missed its recruiting goal for at least the ninth straight month in June and is nearly 19,000 soldiers below its authorized strength, military officials said Monday.

The Army Guard was seeking 5,032 new soldiers in June but signed up only 4,337, a 14 percent shortfall, according to statistics released Monday by the
Pentagon. It is more than 10,000 soldiers behind its year-to-date goal of almost 45,000 recruits, and has missed its recruiting target during at least 17 of the last 18 months.

"The recruiting environment remains difficult in terms of economic conditions and alternatives," the Army said in a statement released Monday.
(via AP)

So, "take the fight to the enemy" with what army?

As for the Army's pitifully transparent rationale that the economy's too good for people to server their country... Did it never occur to them that the volunteers they ask to fight our wars might not like being lied to? And that they might be smart enough to figure out when that was happening?

Lambert wanted stories from my trip to Ciudad de Juarez. So... I remember being about halfway across the bridge at Juarez, the big one with the commercial traffic. Usual jam-packed, bumper-to-bumper with sidewalks likewise. It’s gotta be 110 degrees. Anyway, at this halfway point, there’s a Native woman probably arrived from the interior recently—dressed that way, anyhow—and she’s hunkered down in a rare shady spot suckling a baby under her long head scarf. Three other kids of hers are hustling the slow moving traffic. They’re dressed in rags. The little girl has a toy horse. No rider, just a saddle and the horse. Like what you could buy at the dollar store for a buck, or a yard sale for 25 cents. As I was giving the lady a dollar ("por el nino), a man rolled down his window and asked the little girl how much for the horse. She held up three fingers. He gave her three bucks and she ran back to her mom with it like it was a million. The guy looked at me and said, “I just couldn’t stand it, watching her. Besides, my granddaughter will love it.” A guy I was talking to at the Mercado said that the average wage in the factories is anywhere from 3-7 dollars a DAY. The pants, boots, whatever are partially assembled in Juarez for slave wages and then shipped to El Paso where they’re “Made in the USA.” Average wage there: 7-10 dollars an HOUR. Advice, cowpokes: buy your boots in Mexico. As long as they’re under $400, no duty. And $400 will buy you custom fit boots in Mexico, where craftsmanship lives on.

I hope AMLO and his “Poor people first!” campaign takes off like wildfire and that he avoids rides in small planes. And I dream of open borders.

There are other stories—the mariachis who play beautiful sad songs for you as you sit and drink beer in the plaza. I asked one how it was making a living that way. He said, as near as I can tell with my horrible Spanish, that it’s good. He sharpens his chops, and on a good day plays from 10-8, making anywhere from $2 to $5 a song (tips). And sharp chops these guys have! Their instruments may be held together with duct tape and baling wire, but by god, well, there was one 12-string player I ended up paying twice just to hear “Para donde vas?” and “Red Rose of San Antonio.” Flying fingers and then soulful chords, and a rich mellow voice.

One day I may just sell the farm and move down south. Maybe. It ain’t paradise, but there’s a lot to learn, and a lot to be done. If nothing else, helping these poor women avoid becoming whores or corpses.

I just read this post over at Kevin's blog. Go read it. (My comment to this post is here.) Oh yeah, and read this over at the Chronicle website as well.

I'll wait.

Okay. As some of you (probably a smaller and smaller number every day) may remember, I used to blog over at the History News Network a couple of years ago. (Back in those days, 3,000 visitors a day got you in the top 50 or so blogs in traffic but I digress.)

Anyway, I always swore I'd blog about this once I got tenure and promotion, so I will do so now. While it didn't cause any major problems, I believe that I have suffered at least some consequences from blogging without using a pseudonym. It was back in the spring of 2003 that I received a phone call from my chair asking me to come down to his office. When I arrived he shut the door and handed me a rather strangely-worded letter written directly to the president of my institution accusing me of antisemitism on my blog with regard to Richard Perle. (I believe it was this post that really agitated this crackpot.)

You have to remember that back in those days, wacko conservatives were accusing people of antisemitism for doing anything and this was your standard sort of letter like that. They wanted antiwar people to just shut up -- especially on the internet. This was the period of Insty's "objectively pro-Saddam" bullshit and all that.

My chair told me that the dean had requested that he make me stop blogging. My chair had flatly refused, saying this was America and there was this thing called academic freedom and freedom of speech. He told the dean he had read my blog, this was a false charge and there was nothing to to it.

At this point the dean told my chair that I had to remove my institutional affiliation from the blog page, which I did ultimately do. The folks at HNN were quite outraged by this and thought it was petty and ridiculous. This all happened just a few months before I was to go up for tenure and promotion and it did spook me quite a bit. Fortunately, it came out okay, I was promoted and tenured the next year and nothing was ever said about this incident again.

But, anyway, I guess my main point in all of this is to say that if you are on the job market in any way, you probably shouldn't be blogging using your real name, use a pseudonym. It's easy to do and that's what you should do.

I have to admit that I've applied for a select few jobs the last few years since I started blogging and haven't gotten a call one since that point. Before my HNN blog, I usually would get some sort of interview or phonecall but I don't anymore.

Of course, this all may just be a coincidence. It may be that I'm not a good candidate or, knowing the tacky nature of academia, departments generally would prefer to hire someone they can pay $28,000 per year at the assistant professor level than someone who may actually know what the hell they're doing.

However, I do have my suspicions that the blogging thing has cost me in job searches over the last few years. Heck, if you google search my name, my defunct blog at HNN still comes up as the top link.

Am I paranoid? Delusional? Or am I correct?

What do you think?

NOTE Welcome, Washington Monthly readers, to The Mighty Corrente Building.

Atrios comments here about the media's obsession with the technical parsing of the law as it may apply to the Bush White House in the Plame case.

I would just add that this sudden attention to the letter of the law would be more inspiring if it had been applied half as rigorously to Paula Jones' claim of sexual harassment against then-Governor Clinton. Anyone familiar with sexual harassment law could tell right out of the box that she had no claim, no matter which one of her increasingly lurid, self-contradictory tales one chose to believe. And indeed, when the case did come to trial, it immediately ran aground on these issues. But throughout the obsessive coverage of the case in print and on TV, I don't recall once hearing anyone point this out.

Instead, the press temporarily embraced a concept of sexual harassment that resembled something the Khmer Rouge (or at least Andrea Dworkin) might come up with: any sexual contact between a nominal superior and a subordinate was ipso facto a quasi-criminal offense.

But this time only issues of national security are involved, not sex, so it's not like we need to get too bent out of shape about the larger picture.

The Repubublicans seem to think there is one, but me, I'm not so sure.

Readers?

AP does a nice job of "they said then/they say now" in the lead:

For two years, the White House has insisted that presidential adviser Karl Rove had nothing to do with the leak of a CIA officer's identity. And President Bush said the leaker would be fired.

But Bush's spokesman wouldn't repeat any of those assertions Monday in the face of Rove's own lawyer saying his client spoke with at least one reporter about Valerie Plame's role at the CIA before she was identified in a newspaper column.
(via AP)

And what's with Rove's lawyer, Luskin, having expertise in money laundering (Josh Marshall)? I mean, Luskin gets paid in gold bars? WTF? Given that Coingate is screaming out to be a money laundering story (back), as is the pro-Iraq domestic PsyOps operation identified by Colonel Gardiner...)

As we said (back):

Rove's plan has two parts:

1. Cut loose from Iraq before the 2006 elections
2. Blame the Democrats for the ensuing clusterfuck

Part deux came into view first, as Rove rolled out his "stab in the back" rhetoric (back)

Now Part One comes into view, from yet another British memo:

The United States and Britain are drawing up plans to withdraw the majority of their troops from Iraq by the middle of next year, according to a secret memo written for British Prime Minister Tony Blair by Defense Secretary John Reid.

The paper, which is marked "Secret -- UK Eyes Only," said "emerging U.S. plans assume that 14 out of 18 provinces could be handed over to Iraqi control by early 2006," allowing a reduction in overall U.S.-led forces in Iraq to 66,000 troops. The troop level is now at about 160,000, including 138,000 American troops, according to a military spokesman in Baghdad.

The undated memo, which was reported in the newspaper The Mail on Sunday, stated that "current U.S. political military thinking is still evolving. But there is a strong U.S. military desire for significant force reductions to bring relief to overall U.S. commitment levels."
(via WaPo

"Strong military desire"? Because Bush broke the army....

Bush "fixed the intelligence and the facts around the policy" to get us into the war, to win the 2002 midterms, and now, to win the 2006 midterms, He's going to pull us out...

Can there be anything more shameful and disgusting?

NOTE One wonders whether the same propaganda apparatus identified by Colonel Gardiner (back) (50 planted story lines in the run-up to the war) will be used to generate the necessary "feel good" stories about Iraqi re-construction....

Now the quibbling has started, with a defense of Rove on that last refuge of the guilty: a technicality. Rove's attorney, evidently not the brightest bulb on the string in this regard, blatantly assures America that Rove may have referred to Plame, but not by name. Further, to quote this morning's WaPo article by Josh White:

"To be considered a violation of the law, a disclosure by a government official must have been deliberate, the person doing it must have known that the CIA officer was a covert agent, and he or she must have known that the government was actively concealing the covert agent's identity."

Ah what a tangled web. But don't rush for the smelling salts yet---the wheels of justice and the special prosecutor's office grind exceeding slow:

"Although the information is revelatory, it is still unknown whether Rove is a focus of the investigation. Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, has said that Special Prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald has told him that Rove is not a target of the probe. Luskin said yesterday that Rove did not know Plame's name and was not actively trying to push the information into the public realm."

Never named her, eh? But then there's this: Think Progress does such a great job of a side-by-side comparison here that I just ripped off the entire post (see the Newsweek article for further details):

"July 3, 2005: Rove’s Lawyer Lies To Bloomberg

Here’s what Karl Rove’s lawyer, Robert Luskin told Bloomberg News on July 3, 2005:

[Karl Rove] did nothing wrong, did not disclose Plame’s identity, and did not reveal any confidential information.

According to TIME reporter Matt Cooper’s e-mail, here is what Karl Rove told him sometime before July 11, 2003:

[I]t was, KR [Karl Rove] said, wilson’s wife, who apparently works at the agency on wmd issues who authorized the trip.

This was before the Novak column appeared on July 14. At that time, the fact that Joe Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA was confidential information.

(On other occasions, Luskin has said Rove never “knowingly” disclosed classified information. But he did not use that qualifier with Bloomberg News.)"

Via Buzzflash. Let's have his head now, thank you.

So, I'm taking the train over the border from Canada, and the customs and immigration guys come into the car to check us all out. And who do they haul off to the cafe car to interrogate? An old Chinese guy who can't speak more than a few words of English.

And then, for good measure, they bring in a dog ("Good girl! Good girl!") to sniff his seat, presumably for bombs.

Oh, I am feeling so much safer. Actually, I'd be happy to feel 5% less safe for a 100% reduction in stupidity, annoyance, and loss of basic liberties.

A very weird transition, coming from Canada, a sane country not at war, back to the States, a crazed country at war.

Then, to top it all off, I have to take SEPTA from 30th Street Station to get home. The sounds, the sights, the smells.... Ah, Philly, an experience like no other!

From Beyond Baghdad by Paul William Roberts, Harper's July 2003:

"'Get this motherfucker!' the first soldier shouted to no one in particular.

After the grace and concern of the Arabs, this jolt of American culture unnerved me. I removed the turban in an attempt to convince them I was friend and not foe, but the combination of tightly wound cloth and heat left my hair looking like a toupee basted in Vitalis or motor oil.

The second soldier patted me down roughly, then scrutinized my Harper's press card minutely. I had just got myself ready to defend its authenticity when he said, 'What the fuck is Harper's?'

For the first time in my life I wished I was on assignment for National Review, to which I hastily compared Harper's--inasmuch as they were both magazines with a political focus.

'It have naked chicks in it?' he asked next.

'Not as many as we'd like...'"

I love Roberts' style, which is why I'm exhorting you to get the book shown here when it comes out on October 10, 2005.

Paul William Roberts is a Canadian expert on Iraq and a maverick journalist with a black sense of humor and fluency in the Iraqi culture born of decades of intimate familiarity. While other journalists were huddling in the Palestine Hotel or traveling in relative safety as embedded mascots, Roberts was one of the few who struck out on his own and actually stayed amongst the Iraqis. His previous weblog can be found here (complete with gems like the then-home addresses of Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Perle), and his most current website is here.

Links to previous articles, helpful in getting to know him, are here, except for the article which introduced me to him, Beyond Baghdad-Lost in the cradle of civilization, which was published in Harpers' July 2003 edition but is unavailble online. His book review in the September 28, 2003 Globe and Mail, Pax Americana and the Bush Doctrine, cannot be directly accessed except after payment, but is cached here, with some distracting HTML.

The news of his most recent book is exciting; I promise you he is a fascinating read. And the Globe and Mail has made the first chapter available online here, so you can get to know him, too, if you don't already.

That almost phantom-like figure, "The Editors" at "The Poor Man," are present today online, in yet another reincarnation.

For those of you who, like me, sometimes hesitate to click on that magic link which will transport us almost instantly to that estimable blog, for fear that yet another shock of non-recognition as to form and graphics will loose our own tentative grasp on the continuity of reality, please, do not hesitate today.

Yes, you will find yourself, once again, amidst changes, including a new blogname and format. But you will also find...a form of sublimity.

Before supplying you with the link, I owe it to all of you to provide this "Readers Advisory" as to discretion you may want to exercise in approaching your reading experience, to wit, it might be well if you set aside any libations you might be imbibing, and you would also be well advised to give your bladder an opportunity to evacuate itself.

Good. Now then, if you're ready, here is the link.

"It is vitally important that you click this link"

In case you might not take my word for it, the above is a quote from Digby at Hullabaloo.

We at Corrente endorse Digby's injunction.

I shall only add that if you fail to click here, many bad Bush-like phenomenon will continue unabated.

Not only click here, but send this vitally important link to ten friends with similar instructions, including one that they are to send this link to ten other friends, different from your list of ten.

You will be defending the value of wit, generosity, and a better world for all of us, not to mention giving credit, at last, to the originator of that invaluable term of art, "blogtopia."

Please, do not delay, and click here.

I don't know for sure what the origin(s) of the name al Qaeda might truely be. But there are various theories out and about with respect to such questions and Lambert posted a link in a comment thread below which will deliver you into the hands of one Marc Perkel, who claims to be "the most dangerous mind on the internet", and who is discussing a recent BBC documentary film titled "The Power of Nightmares" which discusses such matters as the origins, impact, and even existence of al-Qaeda and how the dreaded AQ is used as a foil to scare the living shit out of just about anyone concerned. Or something like that. I haven't seen the film myself. Marc Perkel's post is here: al-Qaeda is Fiction.

By the way: I have no idea if Marc Perkel is the most dangerous mind on the internet or not... but that's besides the point, afterall, you can be whatever you want to be on the internet. If I told you that I was a sturgeon fisherman who lived in a bungalow on the shores of the Aral sea you'd pretty much just have to take my word for it. Thems is the breaks. But this isn't about me or my fondness for caviar and isinglass or even Marc Perkel's supposedly dangerous mind for that matter. This is about the BBC film noted above and some things that Marc Perkel wrote on his blog. Specifically things like this (on the origins of the name al-Qaeda):

It appears however that might have gotten it wrong on the claim that Al Qaeda was and invented term by New York Prosecutors. The article in The Nation seems to refute that premise. However the size and scope of the organization has been greatly exagerated.

On the other hand I had someone do a Lexis-Nexis search that shows the term appearing first in late 1998 at the New York trial. Nothing before that. That would indicate that the term might have been invented there. The word Al Qaeda translates into "the base" which is a generic term and because of that this issue might never be completely resolved.

Ok, got that? Issues of size and scope aside - the name al-Qaeda "might have been invented" in 1998 by prosecutor types. Plus, I'm not exactly sure who "might" have got "it" wrong (as Perkel writes above) since Perkel seems to have left out an *I* or a *they* (or any explanation of who specifically may have got "it" wrong) - and so - I'm not sure if Perkel is talking about himself getting "it" wrong or the BBC film makers getting "it" wrong. But that's not really all that important either.

What I'd like to point out is that a quick search of Lexis-Nexis will turn up at least a couple of references to al-Qaeda prior to 1998. The only catch is this: search "al-Qa'ida". Or "al Qaida". As opposed to "al Qaeda". Spelling matters this time.

Also: I haven't yet read the entire Nation article Perkel cites and links to in his post so I'm not sure what Peter Bergen has to say on the subject but you can read it here: See Peter Bergen's Beware the Holy War: The Power of Nightmares.

Further along in Perkel's post he excerpts material from the BBC documentary which offers the following:

VOICE OVER: The reality was that bin Laden and Ayman Zawahiri had become the focus of a loose association of disillusioned Islamist militants who were attracted by the new strategy. But there was no organisation. These were militants who mostly planned their own operations and looked to bin Laden for funding and assistance. He was not their commander. There is also no evidence that bin Laden used the term ''Al Qaeda'' to refer to the name of a group until after September the 11th, when he realized that this was the term the Americans have given it.

What's interesting here is that one of those pre 1998 articles which mention "al-Qa'ida" (and can be found via a Lex-Nex search) includes a paragrah which suggests the possibility that Ayaman Zawahiri may have been the one who gave al-Qa'ida its name. Maybe. Perhaps even the original founder, so to speak, of al-Qa'ida (in some manner or form or another). From Al Ahram Weekly, April 14, 1994:

"I left Egypt with enormous popular and official support which was only appreciated later with shock by the regime. All the procedures were legal when I left in the middle of 1985, went to Jeddah and from there to Pakistan where I worked as a doctor with the Mujahedin," Zawahri said. When he settled in Peshawar he established, with Bin Laden's financial help, Al-Qa'ida (the base) to host Arab volunteers.

Abdullah Azam, by then living in Peshawar, also had an active role receiving volunteers through the 'Mujahedin Services' office which he ran and which was financed by Bin Laden. He used to house them in the 'Ansar' hostel and later put them through their military training in the 'Sada' camp. Sherif recalls that Azam was known to be a Muslim Brother while the Sada camp was fully sponsored by the Brotherhood.

The Ansar was not the only refuge for Egyptian-Afghans in Pakistan. When Zawahri managed to convince Bin Laden to establish Al-Qa'ida, Jihad members from a variety of Arab states came to have a hostel of their own. Adli Youssef also managed to establish a camp in 1989 with the full financial and military support of Abdel-Rasul Sayaf, an Afghani leader. This was later named after Adli's alias Abu Shuhayb, when he was killed during an operation in 1990.

Note: Steve Coll, author of Ghost Wars, places Zawahiri in Peshawar, and meeting bin Laden, in 1987. Which would make sense given the timeline above.

Similarly, a 1996 article written by Carol Giacomo (Lex-Nex) which appeared in Australia's Courier Mail stated the following:

By 1985, Bin Laden had drawn on his family's wealth plus donations from sympathetic merchant families in the Gulf region to organise the Islamic Salvation Foundation, or al-Qaida. Al-Qaida recruitment centres and guesthouses in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan enlisted and sheltered thousands of Arab recruits and his foundation also funded camps in Afghanistan and Pakistan, the report said.

The "report" Giacomo notes is a US State Department report on bin Laden's activity and funding of different extremist operations and so on. Giacomo writes:

THE United States yesterday accused wealthy Arab businessman Osama Bin Laden of being one of the most significant financial sponsors of Islamic extremist activities in the world. The State Department said Ramzi Yousef, alleged mastermind of the February 1993 bombing of the World Trade Centre, lived for three years at a Bin Laden-funded guesthouse in Peshawar, Pakistan.

So obviously the name al-Qa'ida was rattling around in the pipes years before 1998. So we can put that one to rest. But what is also interesting, as it relates to the name al-Qaida, is the mention of the Islamic Salvation Foundation. Why is that perhaps interesting you ask? (some of you probably already know why). Its interesting because of this:

In October last year, an item appeared on an authoritative Russian studies website that soon had the science-fiction community buzzing with speculative excitement. It asserted that Isaac Asimov's 1951 classic Foundation was translated into Arabic under the title "al-Qaida". And it seemed to have the evidence to back up its claims.

Huh! Whaht? The article continues:

"This peculiar coincidence would be of little interest if not for abundant parallels between the plot of Asimov's book and the events unfolding now," wrote Dmitri Gusev, the scientist who posted the article. He was referring to apparent similarities between the plot of Foundation and the pursuit of the organisation we have come to know, perhaps erroneously, as al-Qaida.

The Arabic word qaida - ordinarily meaning "base" or "foundation" - is also used for "groundwork" and "basis". It is employed in the sense of a military or naval base, and for chemical formulae and geometry: the base of a pyramid, for example. Lane, the best Arab-English lexicon, gives these senses: foundation, basis of a house; the supporting columns or poles of a structure; the lower parts of clouds extending across a horizon; a universal or general rule or canon. With the coming of the computer age, it has gained the further meaning of "database": qaida ma'lumat (information base).

Interesting isn't it? The plot thickens too. You can read the whole thing (it's a long one) at The Guardian (UK). See Review: Essay: War of the worlds, by Giles Foden, August 24, 2002.

I'm going to stop right here for now so you can read Perkel's post and what Bergen has to say in the Nation and Foden's Assimov/Foundation theory analysis as well. And then I'll finish this thing off. I have my own little theory on all of this and how it all ties together. Which is all probably complete bullshit... but whadda ya want from a cranky fish surgeon who lives in a bungalow with a couple of dangerous talking deer on shores of the Aral sea.

*

Really, I think it's too soon for me to start presuming to speak for Canadians, after living here all of 2 weeks (though it would be an exceedingly American thing to do). From what I've observed, however, Deanna presents her countrymen's case pretty accurately.

From Ronald Glasser's article in the July Harper's (only available in print), A War Of Disabilities:

"Some 12,500 American G.I.s have been wounded in Iraq. Eight soldiers have been wounded for every one killed, about double the rate for Korea, Vietnam, and the Gulf War. The percentage of soldiers who have undergone amputations is about twice that of any of our past military conflicts; nearly a quarter of all the wounded suffer from traumatic head injuries, far more than in our other recent wars...The true legacy of this war will be seen not in the memorials to those lost forever but in the cabinets of files in the neurosurgical and orthopedic wards at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, in the backlog of cases at Veterans Affairs."

Advances in combat medicine and protective armor mean more and more soldiers avoid lethal injuries and are kept alive at the site and the field hospital, while the nature of the conflicts and weapons being used lend to particularly scattered impacts. Ceramic plates inside Kevlar have been a resounding success:

"This body armor protects the chest, back, and upper abdomen, preventing damage to the torso and allowing many soldiers to survive other serious injuries."

But the trade-off is a questionable blessing:

"Saving more soldiers also means higher numbers of amputees and of those blinded and brain-damaged."

Our soldiers have never fought a war like this. As Glasser notes, almost 70% of injuries have been caused by roadside IEDs. Unlike in previous wars, where soldiers were usually attacked and hit from the front or above, this particular kind of combat means they are often hit while riding in vehicles ("...that are not as well armored as their own chests"), and struck from below, beside, or behind:

"Nearly half of all U.S. troops wounded in Iraq since the fall of Saddam have been hit in the lower extremities; 25% have been injured in the hand or arm...Body armor protects a soldier's 'center mass', but the explosions shatter and shred arms and legs."

The high number of soldiers who have lost upper extremities means a high number of expensive prostheses (much more expensive than those for lower extremities) Simply being close to blast sites when IEDs go off can result in internal brain damage--the victims remain functional for the most part, but suffer significant lifelong disability. The number of soldiers with brain injuries, including those life-changing concussions that are often under-diagnosed and are "notorious for their delayed onset", is extremely high. And aside from the destructive effects these injuries will have on the returning vets, their families and their communities, there is a staggering cost to be paid economically:

"The three types of upper-extremity prostheses offered by the military range in price from $5000 to $100,000; patients are given one of each, in order to use them in different situations, In the past two years, there ahve been numerous multiple amputees who have need double and triple prostheses.
Traumatic brain injuries will also create long-term economic problems...
Right now the majority of casualties, including amputees, are kept within the Dept. of Defense's military-hospital system--embedding the costs in a mammoth military budget of some $600 billion annually...
But the wounded stay within the DOD health-care system only as long as they remain on active duty. Every wounded soldier will soon become a veteran and will...be forced to receive any ongoing care through Veterans Affairs. There is little to suggest that the VA--an overburdened and underfunded system--can handle the wounded from Iraq once they are released from Department of Defense care."

The VA is one the place in the DOD that, for all his overheated rhetoric, Bush has failed to adequately fund, in part thanks to his appointee, VA head James Nicholson, who failed to ask for money he knew the agency needed. In fact, the treatment of returning injured soldiers has been one of the great shameful chapters of the horror novel that has been the Bush administration. Most interesting, Democrats in Congress saw the shortfalls coming this past spring and tried to get additional funding included, which Bush and the Republicans both refused to pass. Now we have this:

"The average wait for a VA decision on an initial claim for disability benefits is 165 days; to rule on an appeal of one of its decisions, the VA takes, on average, 3 years. (...some 13,700 veterans have dies as they were waiting for their cases to be resolved.) In Minneapolis the waiting period for an orthopedic appointment at a VA hospital can be more than six months, and patients there have been told to expect a further decrease in services over the next budget period...Hundreds of billions have been given to the Pentagon to pay for this war; to pay for the war's aftermath, VA discretionary funding for 2006 is to be increased by only one-third of 1%."

He ends with a statement from Max Cleland, former head of the VA under Carter, and himself a triple amputee Vietnam vet:

"The VA can't handle what they have to do now; how are they going to handle the flood of physical and emotional casualties, many of whom will be the responsibility of the VA for the rest of their lives?" (Emphasis mine.)

In conjunction with the extensive cuts Bush has made in social programs and medical care, can anyone say the local communities will be able to pick up the crucial care being lost to the crippled VA?

UPDATE: For more info on the plight of returning servicepeople and what you can do to ease it, go here and explore the links.

Sweet Jesus:

"An influential cardinal in the Roman Catholic Church, which has long been regarded as an ally of the theory of evolution, is now suggesting that belief in evolution as accepted by science today may be incompatible with Catholic faith.
The cardinal, Christoph Schönborn, archbishop of Vienna, a theologian who is close to Pope Benedict XVI, staked out his position in an Op-Ed article in The New York Times on Thursday, writing, "Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense - an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection - is not."

Intelligent design, anyone? Noting that the cardinal is "close" to The Former Inquisitor Now Known As Pope makes me curious as to what TFINKAP may have said to this "ally of the theory of evolution" to make him back down so far. The cardinal himself claims his feelings toward evolution have been "mis-interpreted" for years and this is simply a clarification--which just happens to come on the heels of the installation of a pope so reactionary he makes John Paul seem almost anarchist.

But have no fear, young charges:

"Cardinal Schönborn, who is on the Vatican's Congregation for Catholic Education, said the office had no plans to issue new guidance to teachers in Catholic schools on evolution. But he said he believed students in Catholic schools, and all schools, should be taught that evolution is just one of many theories."

Whew! Dodged a bullet on that one, eh? Now they can just put evolution on the shelf with the other creation myth specimens and teach it alongside the theory of Genesis, the theory of Shu and Tefnut, the theory of the giant frost ogre Ymir, and the theory of Pele and the fire god.

The Bablylonians have a pretty lengthy one--better set aside a separate class for that.

UPDATE: I see that the Op-Ed page of the NYTimes sees it my way, too.

Too bad WaPo doesn't seem to. Oh well, they all go the same parties....

add our vote to the chorus of social conservative groups clamoring against a possible nomination of Alberto R. Gonzales to the Supreme Court. Because of his central role in decisions taken by the administration to flout international law in pursuing the war on terrorism, Gonzales was a poor choice for the attorney general's office — as we stated earlier this year — and he would certainly be a disastrous choice for the Supreme Court.

As White House counsel, Gonzales, a longtime friend of President Bush, wrote a memo in early 2002 arguing that detainees in Afghanistan and in other war-on-terrorism theaters were not subject to Geneva Convention protections, which he shrugged off as "quaint."

Had he been a responsible counselor to his client, Gonzales would have urged Bush not to take the expedient shortcuts that led to the scandals at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere, and the unlawful detention of U.S. citizens denied access to counsel.

Even Justice Antonin Scalia, among the most conservative of jurists, was outraged by the White House's assertion, built on Gonzales' advice, that the executive branch could suspend the rule of law to fight terrorism. "The very core of liberty secured by our Anglo-Saxon system of separated powers has been the freedom from indefinite imprisonment at the will of the executive branch," wrote Scalia.

But where are the liberal advocates and Democratic senators who opposed Gonzales' nomination as attorney general? Is a torture-supporting nominee to the court really an acceptable lesser-of-evils these days?
(via LA Times)

I would rather have an honest reactionary on the Court than a torture-enabling weasel like Gonzales; enabling torture—and destroying the rule of law into the bargain—is about as close to raw evil as it's possible to come.

NOTE I'm willing to give Reid a pass on saying Gonzales is acceptable; to me, that's a pretty good sign that it will never happen, because the wingers won't permit it. So, Reid can sound the note of sweet reason in complete safety.

Though, God knows, it took long enough:

Gov. Bush, brother of President Bush and a devout Catholic convert, said there were indications of a 40- to 70-minute gap between the time Michael Schiavo discovered his wife after she collapsed 15 years ago and the time he called for medical assistance.

But Pinellas County State Attorney Bernie McCabe, who conducted the probe, wrote Bush on June 30 that there were explanations "far more likely and logical than any involving criminal wrongdoing" surrounding Schiavo's collapse.

In a reply to McCabe dated July 7, Bush said he would stop the investigation. "Based on your conclusions, I will follow your recommendation that the inquiry by the state be closed," Bush wrote. The letter was distributed on Friday.
(via Reuters)

Yep. Evidence and reasoning. What concepts. I know it's hard for wingers and Self-Identified Christians to get their heads around, but maybe if they give the matter prayerful consideration....

BBC World Service said early this a.m. that more credence was being given to the Islamic jihadist website claiming responsibility for yesterday's London blasts, but nothing conclusive has yet been learned. For all the discussion over how coordinated the attacks were, I can't help note that the destruction was actually miniscule compared to what it could have been, and because of that, I'm tempted to think the people who did it might be pretty rank amateurs, thank God.

But, ah, back to where we were so rudely interrupted...

So this much we all should know by now:

1.) Revealing the identity of a CIA covert operative is a crime under the Espionage Act of 1917 and the Intelligence Identities and Protection Act.

2.) Karl Rove was one of the the persons who gave this prohibited information to Matthew Cooper.

3.) Robert Novak published this information as a blatantly political favor to Rove and consequently assisted in a crime.

4.) Judith Miller, who published nothing, went to jail.

5.) Rove, who committed a treasonous crime, and Novak, who aided and abetted him, remain free and face no charges, and in fact continue to pull hefty paychecks, get plenty of face time, and retain some semblance of respectability.

6.) Bush promised back in September 2003 to take action against anyone found to have leaked the info.

7.) Until Miller and Cooper entered the picture, the entire Plame case had obligingly dropped off the radar so far as Bush and his promises were concerned.

So where are all you patriots now, you fighters of wars and defenders of flags? What have you done to attend to this this underhanded attack on the nation's intelligence capabilities? When can I expect to see Karl Rove "frog-marched" off to jail, as Joe Wilson once so colorfully put it? And what charges will you make against a president who so obviously covered for his consigliere all this time?

(Graphic via Screw The Government.)

Club for Greed
Stephen Moore, one of the dumbest guppies ever hatched from a think tank, gets flushed down his own "fabulous" gilded toilet:

Club for Growth beats on its own meat (via NYT - login not required)

By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK
Published: July 8, 2005
WASHINGTON, July 7 - A rift among the handful of millionaires behind the Club for Growth, a conservative fund-raising powerhouse, has degenerated into accusations of stolen donor lists and betrayed principles.

The dispute began in December when Stephen Moore, the organization's president, was privately ousted by the group's board and publicly announced his resignation. But as the disagreement becomes public, it threatens to confuse or divide other supporters of the group.

[...]

The dispute spilled out into the group's broader membership in late May, when Mr. Moore sent many of the club's members a fund-raising letter for his new group. "As you may have heard, I left the Club for Growth after I lost control of a board fight and was forced to resign as president and C.E.O. - despite our fabulous electoral successes in 2004," Mr. Moore wrote in the letter.

[...]

Some faulted what they called Mr. Moore's disorganized management in part for the narrow defeat of Representative Pat Toomey, one of the candidates the club backed most heavily, in his Republican primary challenge to Senator Arlen Specter in Pennsylvania.

boo-hoo.

Schiavo fiasco
Jeb Bu$h (R- the "In God We Trust" state) blows through the toll booth and scurries back down his damp hidey-hole before the Talibornagain can snatch him up by the tail and roast him over a slow fire:

Florida Closes Schiavo Freak Show (via NYT - login not required)

TALLAHASSEE, Fla., July 7 (AP) - A state attorney has found no evidence that Terri Schiavo's collapse 15 years ago involved criminal activity, and Gov. Jeb Bush on Thursday declared an end to Florida's involvement in the matter.

"Based on your conclusions, I will follow your recommendation that the inquiry by the state be closed," Mr. Bush said in a two-sentence letter to the prosecutor, Bernie McCabe of Pinellas and Pasco Counties.

Thank God for hurricanes.

*

theocracy rising...

International Herald Tribune
Shiite theocracy takes hold in Iraqi oil city
By Edward Wong The New York Times | FRIDAY, JULY 8, 2005:

[...] The men here, just a block from the Ministry of Religious Affairs, sell instruments by day and perform at weddings in the evening.

"They say it's forbidden by Islam," Ali, 18, said as he went back to his own shop, its shelves stocked with drums. "We're afraid of everything. I'm afraid of it all. I'm afraid even when I'm talking to you."

The once-libertine oil port of Basra, 560 kilometers, or 350 miles, south of the capital and far from the insurgency raging in much of Iraq, is steadily being transformed into a mini-theocracy under Shiite rule.

There is perhaps no better indication of the possible flash points in a Shiite-dominated Iraq, because the political parties that hold sway here also wield significant influence in the central government in Baghdad and are backed by the country's top clerics.

Efforts to impose strict Shiite religious rule across Iraq would almost certainly spur resistance from Sunni Arabs and the more secular Kurds. But here in Basra, the changes have accelerated since the January elections, which enabled religious parties to put more radical politicians into office.

Small parties with names like God's Vengeance and Master of Martyrs have emerged. They work under the umbrella of more established Shiite groups, but many Iraqis suspect them of being agents of the Iranian government. One of the leading parties was formed in Iran by an Iraqi cleric living in exile during the reign of Saddam Hussein.

The growing ties with Iran are evident. Posters of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the leader of the 1979 Iranian revolution, are plastered along streets and even at the provincial government center.

[...]

Few women walk around without a head scarf and full-length black robe. A young woman who gave her name as Layla said she could wear jeans without a robe a year ago. But seven months ago, as she strode from her house, a group of men came up to her and warned her that she was improperly dressed. She says she no longer goes out in public without a robe.

Religious Shiites do not have to legally enshrine Shariah, Islam's version of divine law, to exercise their will. Enforcement of Islamic practices is done on the streets, in the shadows.

"We're trying to do it culturally, rather than impose it by law," said Furat al-Shara, a representative for the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, a Shiite political party that holds powerful positions in the national government.

Sheik Abdul Sattar al-Bahadli, a top official in the Sadr movement prominent in the National Assembly, summed up the conservative view: "If Shariah exists everywhere in the world, in China, Korea or Japan, for example, and not just in Iraq, everyone will be happy."

*

Via the BBC:

Iranians to train Iraq's military

Mr Dulaimi is on his first official visit to the Islamic Republic
Former enemies Iran and Iraq say they will launch broad military co-operation including training Iraqi armed forces. "It's a new chapter in our relations with Iraq," said Iranian Defence Minister Admiral Ali Shamkhani.

He was speaking at a joint news conference in Tehran with his Iraqi counterpart Saadoun al-Dulaimi.

Relations between the neighbours - who fought a bitter war from 1980 to 1988 - have improved greatly since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein in 2003.

[...]

This is the first visit to Iran by an Iraqi military delegation since the war, in which a million people died, started.

The promise of co-operation comes despite repeated accusations by the US - which has about 140,000 troops in Iraq - that Iran has been undermining security there.

"No one can prevent us from reaching an agreement," Mr Shamkhani said when asked about possible US opposition.

[...]

Sensitive issues

Among other areas of co-operation, Mr Shamkhani listed mine clearance, anti-terrorism, identifying those still missing from the Iran-Iraq war and training and re-equipping the Iraqi army.

"We have come to our Iranian brothers to ask them for help and we have not yet started on the more sensitive issues," Mr Dulaimi said.

I hope none of the stunted growth in The NRO Corner was damaged when Michael Ledeen's head exploded. Meanwhile, from across the big pond, via Avedon Carol at The Sideshow:

Remember that story last week about how the newly-elected president of Iran was one of the captors in the Iranian hostage crisis during the Carter administration? Well, it wasn't true - so who was responsible for this interesting lie? And why? ~ more: News and Stuff

Also via The Sideshow:

The evening of a long day
The view from my back door looks like Maxfield Parrish did the lighting.

I see Gene Lyons agrees with me about how dumb it is to ask Rove for an apology for his creepy remarks: "Apologies are appropriate for foolish remarks made in the heat of argument. Rove read from a script. The White House handed out copies. Besides, what would an apology from that flabby little apparatchik be worth? He's the human equivalent of a fear-biting dog: His Master's Voice." (And in case you missed her response to Rove, she said, My name is Molly Ivins and I speak for myself.")

More from London: The Sideshow

*

Tony Blair is talking as if he believes it was anti-globalization people who set off the bombs this morning in London. It seems too soon to call. There have been strangely few casualties reported: 2 dead so far despite the fact that one person "said his friend had seen 'the bus ripped open like a can of sardines and bodies everywhere'". Eyewitness accounts here.

We can hope that the surprising calm in the city reported by a BBC manager on NPR is indicative of a lack of damage, rather than shock. My heart goes out to them.

UPDATE: Local NPR station WHYY is saying latest reports from ITN are that 50 are dead, hundreds injured, though ITN's site hasn't caught up, evidently.

In PA, NJ, DC and NY (and probably elsewhere) the law is bearing down on transportation centers to be ready for any potential attacks, a hint of which I got this a.m when disembarking from my commuter train in downtown Philly only to be met by a clutch of dark-clad cops in unfamiliar uniforms, who watched us as we passed by.

BBC World Service reported that a "jihadist website" claimed responsibility, but then had Mideast expert on who raised doubts as to the authenticity of the source.

Bush is babbling his usual buzzwords.

UPDATE: Excerpts from Ken Livingstone's statement here:

"I wish to speak through you directly, to those who came to London to claim lives, nothing you do, how many of us you kill will stop that flight to our cities where freedom is strong and where people can live in harmony with one another, whatever you do, how many you kill, you will fail."

—Lambert

UPDATE: That flypaper theory isn't looking so good now, is it? And, what is it, $200 billion and counting? Expensive flypaper. And thank God only conventional weapons were used. Feeling safer now?—Lambert

UPDATE: Figures on the deaths have been revised downward to 33, with the caveat that they are expected to rise as information comes in. In the meantime, the received wisdom is quickly congealing around al-Qaida or something like them as the source of these attacks, partly based on the similarity to the Madrid bombings. Personally, I'm waiting to pass judgement, simply because everything at this point is simply guesswork. What is definite, though, is that the transportation situation in London is a horror, with the entire subway network shut down, one of the rails, and all the buses in central city. (Anyone who has ever lived or spent time there knows what this means.) The story on this from BBC makes it sound as though bomb scares are continuing to stream in, complicating matters further.---Riggsveda

UPDATE: More than 1000 injured so far. Transit is gearing back up--buses starting to run, rails back on with continuous disruptions. They currently anticipate having the Tube back up tomorrow.---Riggsveda

UPDATE: Finally, after being shut out all morning, I got through to Reuters, which is noting that Chertoff has ordered an orange ("high") alert for U.S. trains and subways. Oh, goody, an interesting ride home. In Philly, SEPTA has put extra security on at the stations. And Bush has instructed Homeland Security to be "extra vigilant". I feel better now.---Riggsveda

UPDATE: Latest figures indicate 37 dead. People are amazingly calm there, and holding up with bravery and mutual kindness, despite some horrendous injuries.

A lot of world leaders, including Blair, are making assumptions as to who did this and what motivation they had. It's estimated that at least 24 people had to have been involved to carry it out. Since none of us can say one way or the other, and recalling the quickness with which people were ready to lay the blame for the Oklahoma bombing at the foot of Muslims, I think it might be a good idea to retain a healthy skepticism about all possible scenarios, at least for now. It could indeed be some mutation of al-Qaida, or it could just as well be some obscure group of nobodies bent on some strange mission no one ever heard of before. What's certain is that there is so much anger, hurt, and horror seeking an outlet--any outlet--that it's important to ensure such a release doesn't end up causing more pain and horror. Or, as I wrote elsewhere, let's hope that crazy assholes in and out of government office can refrain from witch hunts and panicked and/or exploitative law-making (in spite of all previous evidence that renders such hopes unlikely).---Riggsveda

UPDATE The BBC has a map of where the explosions occurred:

Damn, Russell Square, right near where I stayed the last time I was in London, and where Virgina Woolf (nee Stephens) lived. Fuckheads. —Lambert.

UPDATE: It chills me when people say the targets of a terrorist attack deserve what they get. The truth is that violence in response to injustice always creates a spiral of endless retaliation that lives on through generations and, even when it appears to have been put to rest, has a tendency to re-surface much later (see Yugoslavia). Nothing feels quite as good as a good grudge.

No matter what the history, no matter how understandable, no matter whose ancestors and predecessors did however much dirt, there can never, never, never be a reason to kill people one doesn't know for a principle one may think is sacrosanct.

And I don't want to hear that old serenade about how there are no "innocents" and how so-and-so have blood on their hands and sins of the fathers, blah, blah, blah. People have been justifying their most ghastly crimes throughout the millenia using one high-talk bullshit principle or other, whether it was based on theology, philosophy, or political theory. None of it matters. Living things matter. And until we start placing living things above intellectual masturbation, we'll keep picking these old scabs, re-opening these old wounds, and bleeding all over each other like mutual Aztec sacrifices. And not one goddamned thing will ever change.---Riggsveda

UPDATE: So now it begins---

"I say, first Declare War on Syria with our Coalition (Brits, Japanese, Baltic Nations, Israel, Australia) with a tactical approach to moving into Iran."

"Muslims everywhere, this is what your religion has brought to this world: murder, torture, honor killings, kidnappings, bombings, rape, medievalism and mayhem.
You must be so proud of your crusade to bring mankind back to your century, the 7th."

"If you were Blair, what would you do?
My suggestion: 1000 bombers from all non Islamic countries would fly over Mecca. Drop leaflets saying 'next time...'.
And then the next time, well that's war, isn't it?"

Oh, enough, you get the idea. Conservative bloggers like Michelle Malkin are babbling paranoid scenarios about the left blaming Israel for trying to subversively start a war, but it looks to me as though it's the right that's spoiling for one. Now that so many of them are already busy in Iraq, I wonder where they'll find more poor and minority kids to fight one?---Riggsveda

UPDATE Even though the flypaper theory is now inoperative, here's a theory that's coming true: The blowback from Iraq is going to be a lot worse than the blowback from Afghanistan I (which produced AQ, if you recall).

Although the Afghan war against the Soviets was largely fought on a rural battlefield, the CIA report said, Iraq is providing extremists with more comprehensive skills including training in operations devised for populated urban areas.

Say, does a coordinated attack on London's mass transit system sound like an "operation devised for [a] populated urban area"? The blowback from Iraq is already happening, isn't it?—Lambert

UPDATE I really have to apologize. Sometimes my zeal runs away from me, and I say things that just aren't fair to the weasels apologists advocates of the Iraq war. Take the flypaper theory. The whole idea is to fight the terrorists, but not on American soil, so Americans don't get killed. And the fact that the latest bombing took place in London doesn't disprove the theory at all: In fact it proves it! After all, the attack still wasn't on American soil, was it? And a tip of the Ol' Corrente Hat goes to whoever finds me a winger blog that makes that argument, but without irony.—Lambert

FINAL UPDATE FROM RIGGSVEDA: Death toll is up to 38, but probably won't stay there, and the hunt is on for the killers, who are now believed to be al-Qaida or al-Qaidaesque. It's been a heartsickening day. I understand the anger and bitterness being expressed here and elsewhere, but I don't have the heart to deal with it anymore. Hold the people you love close tonight, and be grateful for every moment you get with them--they're all that matter in the end, and you don't know how much more time you may get.

From Gandhi, but the contexts are mine---

For those on the right who believe only war will succeed in spreading freedom:

"What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy?"

For those on the left who believe violence may be the only solution for the disenfranchised of the world:

"Victory attained by violence is tantamount to a defeat, for it is momentary."

wrote Al Neuharth, publisher of USA Today, the nation's largest daily newspaper.

"Al, I knew Walter Cronkite, and you're no Walter Cronkite!"

Snark from Corrente? No, Al Neuharth looking in the mirror!

Skippy the Bush kangaroo:

dear mr. neuharth:

we read your op-ed piece of june 30 titled "what iraq needs is a walter cronkite," in which you bemoan the lack of a national figure that america trusts to tell the truth about that war.

we can only assume you were writing with irony, mr. neuharth. it's certainly too bad you don't know anybody who runs a national newspaper that all of america reads, because then you could get them to publish the truth about the iraq war.

you could get your friend to continually run stories about the downing street memos, which the international press has been writing about for over two months, and which prove that the british government knew that george bush had plans as early as july of 2002 to invade iraq , but wanted to frame the reasons for the war in a way that the american public would accept (in other words, lies about weapons of mass destruction).
(via Skippy the Bush Kangaroo)

I found this at Oliver Willis... It's a measure of how jaded I've become that I read Neuharth's editorial when it came out, and the ironies and incongruities never crossed my mind. "Of course we don't have a Walter Cronkite. What a shame!" Sometimes, the enemy gets inside your own head, starts making your assumptions for you, and you don't even notice...

Well, this time, it was raining (unlike the last time, when they lied and said it was, back).

President Bush collided with a local police officer and fell during a bike ride on the grounds of the Gleneagles golf resort while attending a meeting of world leaders Wednesday.

Bush suffered scrapes on his hands and arms that required bandages by the White House physician, said White House spokesman Scott McClellan.

The police officer was taken to a local hospital as a precaution, McClellan said. Police said the officer suffered a "very minor" ankle injury.

It was raining lightly at the time.
(via AP)

But still, isn't it pretty hard to run into a cop on your bike, even in the rain?

Scotch whiskey at the nineteenth hole? Heavy tranks before dinner with the Queen?

UPDATE Oh,and [cough] President Bush? Happy Birthday.

UPDATE Scott "Sucka MC" McClellan says Bush was going at a "pretty good speed" when he crashed.

Not too smart in the rain, eh?

Kinda like a metaphor in miniature for the whole Bush presidency, isn't it? Bush acts out his risk-taking behavior thing, pushing too hard as usual, nobody bothers to talk him out of it anymore because he's too stubborn to listen, somebody innocent gets hurt, and Bush would look like an idiot if all his enablers didn't immediately conspire to minimize the episode. Beyond disgusting. Good thing He was wearing a helmet; we wouldn't want him to suffer any more brain damage....

Well, this should prove entertaining as hell.

So I'm listening to CBC Radio just now, where they were carrying listener reaction to an earlier interview with Canada's New York Times correspondent, some guy named Krause. He had opined that the level of public discussion was higher in the United States. This is too stupid to merit refutation (though a number of Canadian listeners did just that). Aside from the fact that, for this to be true, Canadians would have to be flinging feces at one another on "The National," it also demonstrated perfectly that, to work in the US media, you first have to drink the jingo Kool-Aid.

Again, what liberal media?

Froomkin points out what everyone else ignores:

More than four in 10 Americans, according to a recent Zogby poll, say that if President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should consider holding him accountable through impeachment.

But you wouldn't know it from following the news. Only three mainstream outlets that I can find made even cursory mention of the poll last week when it came out.

Could there by anything that 42 percent of Americans agree on that the media cares about so little?
(via WaPo)

Note that when we in the reality-based community uncover more and more of how Bush "catapulted the propaganda" to get us into the war (Towards a Grand Unified Theory of Republican Governance, back), we will be tapping deeply into this sentiment.

Go Howard:

"We have not spoken about moral values in this party for a long time," Dean said. "The truth is, we're Democrats because of our moral values. It's a moral value to make sure that kids don't go to bed hungry at night. ... It is a moral value not to go out on golf trips paid for by lobbyists."
(via AJC)

And the Beltway Dems who are Delay Lite? Well, confession is good for the soul....

Following up on my earlier post on Colonel Gardiner's research:

Introduction
Yes, I'm quite taken with the idea that the right model for Republican governance is strategic Information Warfare against the American People (IWAAP) (thanks, farmer, for that meme) (or those, at least, who are "oppositional" or presumed to be—i.e., about half the country).

I'm hoping that building this model can become the story of 2006, which it can be, if we work it. On a purely sense-making level, the story is appealing because it explains so much; IWAAP really is a Grand Unified Theory (wait for the first and predictable denunciations to use the words "conspiracy theory"). Further, it Roves the Rovians, by turning their greatest strength, the ability to stay on message, into a weakness ("they'll say anything to hold onto power"). Finally, it re-frames and leverages the hard work we've done over the last year on Republican lying. But lying is something a six year old does, or an average politician; a carefully planned and extra-constitutional campaign of strategic deception, directed against the very people who must support—and fight and die in—the war... Well, if we can make that stick, and there are free and fair elections in 2006 and 2008 (I know, a big assumption), and the Dem regulars don't screw the pooch (another big assumption), the nation's experiment in Constitutional government may have another 200-year run.

Republicans identify governance, politics, and war
We've always known that the Republicans identify governance, politics, and war; in their minds, there really is no difference between (say) an Iraqi suicide bomber and a Democrat trying to get into a Bush rally wearing a Kerry t-shirt; both are "oppositional" and to be dealt with by any means necessary. (It's too bad for the country, and for the dead, that the Republicans, though brilliant at political warfare, are appallingly bad at the real thing—probably because they have no skin in that game.) Another way of putting this is that Limbaugh and the rest of the VWRC aren't engaging in rhetorical flights, or entertainment, when they call anyone who opposes them a traitor; it's what they really believe, and we should take them at their word. It's the same with the 101st Fighting Keyboarders; they too, really believe they are fighting the same war that the troops are fighting.

How are the Republicans using Information Warfare against the American people?
So the question becomes: How does IWAAP work? Obviously—on the theory of "know your your enemy"—research and study (and experimentation and new tactics and new language) are needed; but Colonel Gardiner's thinking is a good place to start.

One aside: We know from the Howler that the SCLM "Doesn't do self-critique". That means that not only is there no coverage of the IWAAP story, there isn't even a language to discuss it! (As Orwell knew well, you can't think the thoughts if you don't the words.) So I've had to invent the words—and lots of times I wish the words could be improved—after all, in Information Warfare, words are weapons! "IWAAP" is awkward; "Goebbels Watch" should be replaced; and so on. Alert readers, please help!

So let's start with Colonel Gardiner's key use case:

From my research, the most profound thread is that WMD was only a very small part of the strategic influence, information operations and marketing campaign conducted on both sides of the Atlantic. These are the stories on which I ended up doing detailed research. In each case, I attempted to find when and where the story originated, which officials made statements related to the story and then look at how it came out. Obviously, I am reporting on those where the outcome differed from the story. My research suggests there were over 50 stories manufactured or at least engineered that distorted the picture of Gulf II for the American and British people. I'll cover most in this report. At the end, I will also describe some stories that seem as if they were part of the strategic influence campaign although the evidence is only circumstantial. What becomes important is not each story taken individually. If that were the case, it would probably seem only more of the same. If you were to look at them one at a time, you could conclude, Okay we sort of knew that was happening. It is the pattern that becomes important. It's the summary of everything. To use a phrase often heard during the war, it's the mosaic.

And now let's assume that Colonel Gardiner's use case is true (as I believe it to be). What are the logical consequences? What institutional structures would need to be in place in order to plant 50 false stories about Iraq in our "free" press?

1. What is the terrain on which IWAAP is being fought? The SCLM (right there, it looks like we need a better name. MSM doesn't cut it, either). Note that in order to "plant" stories, you must have a writer's active cooperation, but you may need an editor's, since a story must pass an editor to get into print. (Most leftish vituperation focuses on "name" writers like Judy "Kneepads" Miller and not, oddly, on management.) It would be interesting to know if any editors are on the IWAAP payroll; see "Six Bush media whores down. 194 to go. Who are they?".

2. Any war has to be run by somebody, so Who is the IWAAP high command? Well, there's that vocabulary thing again. "High command" is the wrong word, because the IWAAP is obviously extra-constitutional. So let's call the high command the IWAAP Junta, and ask ourselves who would be in it? [NOTE: Alert readers, please suggest better words for this. "Junta" connotes the extra-constitutional nature of the Bush regime, and will be all-too familiar to Latin American voters, but perhaps is too close to the F word to be persuasive.] Short answer: Bush, Rove, Cheney, and anyone else who got promoted after election (or, if you will, "election") 2004. Poor old Colin Powell, obviously, was not part of it. However, Rice is; as is Karen Hughes. Some heads of private corporations are, as well. After the election, we all wrote "Look how all the liars got promoted!" That was true; but what we should have written was that Bush was using a performance-based metric: Those who successfully planned and executed a successful IWAAP campaign were promoted.

3. A war takes money to fight, and cost is generally no object, so What about the money? As we know from previous Republican attempts to set up extra-Constitutional forms of government (Nixon's plumbers and Reagan's Iran-Contra "off-the-shelf" program of covert operations), IWAAP needs a slush fund. Off the top of my head, I can think of three sources of slush fund money available to the Information Warfare Junta: (1) The $9 billion that is mysteriously missing (Chump Change) in Iraq (here one recalls that the Coalition Provisional Authority was infested with Republican operatives (back), and that the entire effort was rife with possibilities for money laundering; (2) the $200 million or so that Bush is using for PR; and (3) laundered campaign contributions, as in Coingate (a story which died down awfully suddenly, didn't it?)

4. Warfighters are organized into a chain of command, so What is the IWAAP order of battle? I suggest that there are two main components: Call them IWWAP Grey and IWAAP Black (as in black operations; obviously (?), there is no IWAAP white; IWAAP is, by definition, covert).

Planting the 50 pro-Iraq war stories in the MSM would fall under the heading of IWAAP Grey (what Colonel Gardiner calls "Strategic Influence"). So would PR stunts like "saving" Jessica Lynch, or concealing the fact that Pat Tilman was killed by friendly fire. So would the administration's "public diplomacy" efforts (example) Karen Hughes would be the obvious candidate to run IWWAP Grey for Bush.

But Republican history with the extra-constitutional structures they set up is that they always slip into illegal campaigns, financed by slush funds, to destroy "opposition"—including domestic, political opposition. (In the Republican mindset, or at least the mindset of those Republicans who enable the Informational Warfare Junta, there is no such thing as a loyal opposition, since opposition is by definition disloyal; hence, it's not merely morally justified, but necessary, to use the weapons of information warfare domestically. So this behavior is to be expected.) Let's call these efforts IWAAP Black; Karl Rove would be the obvious candidate to run IWAAP Black.

5. So, Are there dots to connect in the domestic operations of IWAAP Black? I think there are. Off the top of my head, here are the names of some stories that, though they are treated as separate, are all starting to look like skirmishes in the same big war, IWAAP. the Plame Affair (what did Rove know and when did he know it?); Guckert/"Gannon" (Ol' Eight-inch, cut was an IWAAPS foot-soldier, since he was planting stories. But who gave him his White House pass?); Killian Memos (Who was the woman who gave Killian the memos? Or was Killian himself the cutout?); Coingate (Noe's "missing" coins and campaign contributions are an obvious slush fund; what was it used for?); The Denver Three (the Secret Service didn't throw the Denver three out of a Bush rally, but someone impersonating the Secret Service did; but how did this someone get Presidential access?) The dots common to all of them are: planted stories; slush funds; IWAAP foot-soldiers with mysterious access; Karl Rove. Not all stories have all dots; as Colonel Gardiner says, "It's the mosaic."

6. And Are there dots to connect in the PsyOps of IWAAP Grey? I'm sure there are, but the research is harder to do. It might be useful to take Colonel Gardiner's work as a starting point, see who the reporters with whom the stories were planted were, then see who their editors were, and look for correlations with other administration actions. That would probably take a LexisNexis account, though. Would anyone like to donate one to Corrente, so that we can conduct a program of research?

I'd like to sum up... But right now I feel this is too big to sum up. Readers?

I've nearly given up on trying to understand how logic informs anything said or done by these people we have allowed to infest our government, most especially the so-called "opposition party". First, they evidently think we have so many Franklin Roosevelts currently at loose that getting rid of term limits is simply a capital idea, and that the wisdom of the "people" and the infallibility of our vote-counting system is so great (as evidenced by, say, the last 5 years) that we shouldn't hesitate to let a president serve an open-ended term whenever Diebold, Scaife, and The American Enterprise Institute deem it suitable.

And then there is the question as to how even individuals as brain-damaged as the Dems Mary Landrieu (La.), Joe Lieberman (Conn.), Ben Nelson (Neb.), Bill Nelson (Fla.), Mark Pryor (Ark.) and Ken Salazar (Colo.) could believe, after all we know, that Alberto Gonzales would make a great Supreme Court justice; and how a man who wrote some of the great legal quibbling of our time, that enabled us to become equated with hypocrisy and torture on a global scale, could possibly be considered "a good man" and "a terrific human being".

Based on his track record, this is a man who would most likely pick and choose only the most expedient parts of the Constitution to uphold, and probably after redefining the word "citizen" to apply only to those his masters would prefer. Oddly, the possiblility has put the Reactionary Right's wingnuts on alert, and the grumblings from Outer Slobbovia on Gonzales' lack of street cred have forced the Bushco dog-handlers out into the light to whip them back in line:

"The White House and the Senate Republican leadership are pushing back against pressure from some of their conservative allies about the coming Supreme Court nomination, urging them to stop attacking Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales as a potential nominee and to tone down their talk of a culture war.
In a series of conference calls on Tuesday and over the last several days, Republican Senate aides encouraged conservative groups to avoid emphasizing the searing cultural issues that social conservatives see at the heart of the court fight, subjects like abortion, public support for religion and same-sex marriage, participants said.
Instead, these participants, who insisted on anonymity to avoid exclusion from future calls, said the aides - including Barbara Ledeen of the Senate Republican Conference and Eric Ueland, chief of staff to Senator Bill Frist, the majority leader - emphasized themes that had been tested in polls, including a need for a fair and dignified confirmation process.
Mr. Ueland acknowledged that he and others had been working almost since the vacancy occurred last Friday with Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's resignation to persuade conservative activists to steer clear of divisive language.
"Every contact we have with these folks is 'stay on message, stay on purpose,' " Mr. Ueland said. "The extremism of language, if there is to be any, should be demonstrably on the other side. The hysteria and the foaming at the mouth ought to come from the left."

But all this is still speculation, And as for those Dems who might ask troubling questions of the once and future King George during the "advise and consent" consultation specified by said Constitution--such as exactly who he has in mind to nominate--don't trouble your pretty little heads, darlings:

"Consultation is in the eye of the beholder,” said Amy Call, a spokeswoman for Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), who is traveling in Africa. “The president can choose whatever level of consultation he thinks is appropriate. The Constitution doesn’t lay out any specifics for that. It’s up to the president what he wants to accomplish in this meeting."

See there? What do you know? Just shut up and let the grown-ups handle it. And if that means whatever Georgie wants, Georgie gets, why, I'm sure Gonzales will be able to backtrack through the Constitution and find some obscure clause for mangling that will justify it.

"...the strategy paper recommended ways to influence various groups of Americans to "correct" the impressions..., what another planning document would call "perceptional obstacles." "Themes will obviously have to be tailored to the target audience," the strategy paper said." ~ Robert Parry / 1996.

Then and Now:

Office of Public Diplomacy | From SourceWatch

The Office of Public Diplomacy, officially known as the Office of Public Diplomacy for Latin America and the Caribbean, was part of a White House ordered PR plan in the 1980s to provide cover for the secret CIA war in Nicaragua. CIA director William J. Casey initiated the propaganda campaign after meeting with private sector PR men. Walter Raymond, Jr., a CIA propaganda expert, moved over to the National Security Council to get the program up and running. Raymond is reported to have instructed his OPD subordinates to "concentrate on gluing black hats on the Sandinistas and white hats on UNO [the contras' United Nicaraguan Opposition]."[1] (http://www.consortiumnews.com/archive/lost12.html) Raymond picked Otto Reich to run the new OPD, which was housed in the State Department. Despite the unraveling of the Iran-Contra scandal, the full story of the OPD -- a covert, illegal, inter-agency propaganda campaign aimed at US citizens and Congress -- never received full public scrutiny.

"prohibited, covert propaganda activities"

[Excerpts follow] See all documents: National Security Archive / GWU.edu / Public Diplomacy and Cover Propaganda The Declassified Record of Ambassador Otto Juan Reich / A National Security Archive / Electronic Briefing Book / Edited by Thomas Blanton / March 2, 2001:

The Bush administration has floated the name of Otto Juan Reich for possible nomination as Assistant Secretary of State for Latin American Affairs (see Al Kamen, “In the Loop,” The Washington Post, 15 February 2001). Mr. Reich served in the Reagan administration as assistant administrator of the Agency for International Development (AID) from 1981 to 1983, then as the first director of the State Department’s Office of Public Diplomacy for Latin America and the Caribbean (S/LPD) from 1983 to 1986, and finally as ambassador to Venezuela.

Mr. Reich’s tenure at the Office of Public Diplomacy generated major controversy during the exposure of the Iran-contra scandal and left an extensive document trail, some of the highlights of which are included in this Briefing Book. For example:

* The Comptroller-General of the U.S., a Republican appointee, found that some of the efforts of Mr. Reich’s public diplomacy office were “prohibited, covert propaganda activities,” “beyond the range of acceptable agency public information activities….” The same September 30, 1987 letter concluded that Mr. Reich’s office had violated “a restriction on the State Department’s annual appropriations prohibiting the use of federal funds for publicity or propaganda purposes not authorized by Congress.” [...]

Edited for length. Due to additional quoted material entire post can be found here: farm runoff

Related - see Lambert's post below:
...Towards a Grand Unified Theory of Republican Governance

*

Farmer made a great call with that Goebbels quote in the epigraph at right. Sounds awfully familiar, doesn't it?

Anyhow, at the urging of Pansypoo and other alert readers, I looked at the research Col. Sam Gardiner (USAF, retired) did. It's interesting. The title really got me thinking: Summary of a Study of Strategic Influence, Perception Management, Strategic Information Warfare and Strategic Psychological Operations in Gulf II. Here's a quick excerpt from it:

It was not bad intelligence. It was much more. It was an orchestrated effort. It began before the war, was a major effort during the war and continues as post-conflict distortions.

what has happened is that information warfare, strategic influence, strategic psychological operations pushed their way into the important process of informing the peoples of our two democracies. The United States and the UK got too good at the concepts they had been developing for future warfare.

They told us what they were going to do. The Department of Defense created a rather significant press storm early in 2002 when it was revealed that there were plans to create an office to do strategic influence. Efforts to create the office were brought to a halt with White House agreement. In November, the Secretary of Defense announced in a press conference on board an aircraft on the way to South America that he was just kidding when he said he would not do strategic influence. The White House gave a similar warning. Andrew Card, the President s Chief of Staff told us they would do a major campaign to sell the war. Alastair Campbell, Tony Blair s just-resigned Strategy (and communications) Director, was orchestrating the same on the other side of the Atlantic. The research then was to discover what they did and how they did what they said they were going to do.
(the PDFs are here)

I like the notion of a concerted disinformation operation being run from the West Wing to sell the Iraq War. (Gardiner details, but, frustratingly, does not link to, numerous stories that, to the informed eye, look like they were planted in support of this information.) I also like the notion that Bush is, in essence, treating all opposition as an act of war, and using psyops techniques against it. Black operations too, probably. (The division of the country into those who can get tickets to Bush events, and those who cannot, should have given us the heads-up that this would happening. "If you're not with us, you're against us.")

I'd want to go further and ask the question; Now that this enormous disinformation apparatus is in place, is selling the Iraq war the only purpose it's been used for? The history of past Republican administrations is not encouraging in this regard.

It would be nice if Paul Lukasiak and Colonel Gardiner could get together on this....

NOTE I think this story has legs. It's the mechanics of how "the facts and the intelligence were fixed around the policy." Not only is it the how, it's the who.

So, a couple of questions. First, does anyone know of a PDF to HTML converter that works under Linux? I'd like to convert Col. Gardiner's research into HTML so that people could link to it. Second, I'm trying to think of a good name/meme for this topic—better than "Goebbels Watch." InfoFascism? DataFascism? Maybe something without the F word, which, though correct, may not propagate as we would wish?

What do you call a country where a friend of El Presidente is immune from criticism?

How about a banana republic?

NOTE As regular readers of Corrente will be aware, this post is "toning down" my rhetoric. In fact, all the writers at Corrente work tirelessly to bring a new civility to our political discourse. We thoroughly debunk all vile rumors, especially those that would scandalize the faithful; to take one of many examples, that Bush fucks goats.

CREDIT Image in the public domain from Adrian Pingstone at Wikipedia.

Yes, a little beach reading: The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. And if your reading diet isn't rich enough in irony, try a little Gibbon:

The Christians were not less averse to the business than to the pleasures of this world. The defense of our persons and property they knew not how to reconcile with the patient doctrine which enjoined an unlimited forgiveness of past injuries, and commanded them to invite the repetition of fresh insults. Their simplicity was offended by the use of oaths, by the pomp of magistracy, and by the active contention of public life, nor could their humane ignorance be convinced, that it was lawful on any occasion to shed the blood of our fellow creatures, either by the sword of justice, or by that of war; even though their criminal or hostile attempts should threaten the peace and safety of the whole community...

The Christians felt and confessed, that such institutions might be necessary for the present system of the world, and they cheerfully submitted to the authority of their Pagan governors. But while they inculcated the maxims of passive obedience, they refused to take any part in the civil administration or the military defense of the empire. Some indulgence might perhaps be allowed to those persons who, before their conversion, were already engaged in such violent and sanguinary occupations; but it was impossible that Christians, without renouncing a more sacred duty, could assume the character of soldiers, of magistrates, or of princes.

This indolent, even criminal disregard for the public welfare, exposed them to the contempt and reproaches of the Pagans, who very frequently asked, what must be the fate of the empire, attacked on all sides by the barbarians, if all mankind should adopt the pusillanimous sentiments of the new sect?

To this insulting question the Christian apologists returned obscure and ambiguous answers, as they were unwilling to reveal the secret cause of their security; the expectation that, before the conversion of mankind was accomplished, war, government, the Roman Empire, and the world itself, would be no more.

It may be observed, that, in this instance likewise, the situation of the first Christians coincided very happily with their religious scruples, and that their aversion to an active life contributed rather to excuse them from the service, than to exclude them from the honours,of the state and army.
(The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, "The Christians and the Fall of Rome", 1776

Yet how different matters are today, when we see the pastors of suburban megachurches, exhorted by wise and discerning leaders like Doctor James Dobson, signing up the young men and women in their flocks for service in Iraq!

Oh,wait... The pastors aren't doing that? I wonder why?

NOTE In the interests of basic fairness, I should note that "Christians" cadres in the Air Force, by giving proselytization official sanction, and harassing "filthy jews," are doing their part. But then, that's all about giving the theocrats control over nuclear weapons, isn't it? (I mean, another set of theocrats besides the Pakistanis....)

Had a lovely trip to Mexico again. It’s nice to be there where the whole mood is different, and over the years I’ve really grown fond of the markets and outdoor bars and food vendors and sad abuelas selling rosaries by the church and soccer games that are like huge outdoor parties. All that said, the downer is the grinding poverty caused by a line in the sand and a trickle of a river, the ease with which one can cross into Mexico from Fortress America and the difficulty one has getting back in, and the presidential campaign coming up over there. But, hey, I only got shaken down twice by the Border Patrol this time, and I can understand—the DHS sign said “Terror Threat: ELEVATED.” Apparently the polls dropped more while I was gone. I spent my money on things I didn’t need or want and then left them where someone else could find them and sell them again. I drank copious beer and liquors and fruit drinks—one guy claimed that his juice drink would make me handsome and young. It didn’t work, at least yet (Although I did bring home a nice blanket and two bottles of El Presidente. Planning ahead for winter, y’know.)

I read an article in the The Progressive before I left about the challenge Vicente “Big Business Bush Tool” Fox and the PRI face from Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador (AMLO, for short), whose slogan is “Los Pobres Primero!” (the poor first!). I had my eyes open for signs of discontent. And I can see that, in spite of the intimidation his supporters face, there’s a real grassroots movement to get him on the ballot and in office. He’s running anywhere from 15-20 points ahead in the polls say the papers. The people getting rich in the NAFTA factories hate him, you can bet that Bu$hCo hates him, and yet there he is. You won’t see it so much in the border towns, where the powers that be are getting fat off NAFTA, but even there, in Juarez and Nuevo Laredo, the poor are somehow sporting buttons. (Although I know Lula has been a disappointment in Brazil somewhat, and Hugo Chavez still has promises to keep to the people, it’s a good trend.)

Coming back and looking at the steel walls and cyclone-wire topped fences and guard towers, I began dreaming of the day when some Mexican president would visit, say, Juarez or Tijuana and make a speech, something to the effect of “Mr. Bush, tear down this wall!” Or for a set of circumstances to occur that would cause a reverse migration from north to south.

The scenes in the little villages farther in, at least as far as I could go without papers or hefty bribe money, is like The Grapes of Wrath come alive again. And in the cities like the Okies who made it to California broke.

And I come home to annoying patriotic displays that ignore the real consequences of Fortress America and imperial expansion and economic domination. At least the local paper was kind enough to include a big paper flag insert. Those burn so much easier than cloth, eh?

Ah, well. The revolt of the cockroach people, as Oscar Zeta Acosta put it, cannot be far away. One day the halogen lamps will be turned on, and we won’t scurry to the hidey-holes no more. And with Hiroshima Day coming up on August 6th, there are plans to be made to raise nuclear consciousness right out in the daylight.

Deep in my heart, I do believe
We shall overcome someday.

Is there a bigger ass in print than Nick Kristof? Claims Kistrof:

But the fact is that Mr. Bush has done much more for Africa than Bill Clinton ever did, increasing the money actually spent for aid there by two-thirds so far, and setting in motion an eventual tripling of aid for Africa. Mr. Bush's crowning achievement was ending one war in Sudan, between north and south. And while Mr. Bush has done shamefully little to stop Sudan's other conflict - the genocide in Darfur - that's more than Mr. Clinton's response to genocide in Rwanda (which was to issue a magnificent apology afterward).
...
The liberal approach to helping the poor is sometimes to sponsor a U.N. conference and give ringing speeches calling for changed laws and more international assistance.

In contrast, a standard conservative approach is to sponsor a missionary hospital or school. One magnificent example is the Addis Ababa Fistula Hospital, where missionary doctors repair obstetric injuries that have left Ethiopian women incontinent.

...Nobody gets more bang for the buck than missionary schools and clinics, and Christian aid groups like World Vision and Samaritan's Purse save lives at bargain-basement prices.

Reality
Unsurprisingly for someone who tries to favorably contrast this Administration's inaction in the face of the ongoing genocide in Darfur with the Clinton Administration in Rwanda (did I hear you volunteer to peacekeep in either case, Nick? Then why not STFU up about that too?), Kristof neatly fixes up the Bush Administration's lie that is has already already tripled aid to Africa, turning it now into something he's "set in motion." Yes, and I set in motion an end to world hunger when I sent $50 to Doctors Without Borders yesterday. In fact, according to the figures that Kristof appears to be using, the Adminstration has increased aid to Africa by 56%, not "two thirds", and that figure only comes by including emergency food and security assistance; exclude this, and the figure drops to 33% .

Jeffrey Sachs, formerly of the World Bank, and hence someone, unlike Kristof, who knows what he's talking about, puts the Administration's achievements in perspective:

Total annual U.S. aid for all of Africa is about $3 billion, equivalent to about two days of Pentagon spending. About $1 billion pays for emergency food aid, of which half is for transport. About $1.5 billion is for "technical cooperation," essentially salaries of U.S. consultants. Only about $500 million a year — less than $1 per African — finances clinics, schools, food production, roads, power, Internet connectivity, safe drinking water, sanitation, family planning and lifesaving health interventions to fight malaria, AIDS and other diseases.

Besides his slightly creepy Third World gynomania, no Kristof column would be complete without an implied indictment of alleged liberal hostility to religion. What is the Addis Ababa Fistula Hospital? A neo-con showcase for how World Vision and Franklin Graham's Samaritan's Purse are doing God's work free from hamfisted liberal atheistic government do-gooders? In fact, the project began in the 60s, became a hospital in the 70s, is Australian in origin, has a no discernible missionary purpose, and has has it principal US sponsor the Fistula Project--formerly the American Friends Foundation for Childbirth Injuries, a Quaker project.

Meanwhile, Samaritan's Purse is quite reticent about its support, if any, for the hospital.

As for Kristof's apologetics on behalf of "Bush's signature foreign aid program", the Millennium Challenge Account, well:

[T]he MCA has so far failed to gain any traction and now faces sharp budget cuts by Congress precisely because it has been so slow in disbursing aid.
...
While Congress has appropriated 2.5 billion dollars for the MCA over the past two years, the new agency has so far approved just four projects, in Honduras (215 million dollars), Nicaragua (175 million dollars), Cape Verde (110 million dollars) and Madagascar (108 million dollars), as well as 400,000 dollars for administrative expenses.

”The MCA exists in name only,” according to [Center for American Progress' Susan] Rice, who stressed that the agency, whose director, Paul Applegarth, announced his resignation earlier this month, illustrated the gap between the administration's rhetoric and what it was actually doing.

Oh, and Bob Geldof and Bono? Tell me the sudden drop in aid to Africa under Clinton in 1995 didn't have anything to do with the Republican takeover of Congress. No? Then you can STFU, too.

Saw the Neville Brothers do a transcendant version of Sam Cooke's A Change is Gonna come. here are the lyrics:

A Change Is Gonna Come
(Sam Cooke)
As Performed Sam Cooke (1964)

I was born by the river in a little tent
And just like the river, I've been running ever since
It's been a long time coming
But I know a change is gonna come

It's been too hard living, but I'm afraid to die
I don't know what's up there beyond the sky
It's been a long time coming
But I know a change is gonna come

I go to the movie, and I go downtown
Somebody keep telling me "Don't hang around"
It's been a long time coming
But I know a change is gonna come

Then I go to my brother and I say, "Brother, help me please"
But he winds up knocking me back down on my knees

There've been times that I've thought I couldn't last for long
But now I think I'm able to carry on
It's been a long time coming
But I know a change is gonna come

Kinda like the Dem's theme song. The real ones, not the DINOs....

In honor of the Fourth, our nation's birthday:

First, let us define our terms.

What is the Bull Shop? Why, our present political discourse of course, and the lack of the genuine article. Think of the Bull Shop as a travelling road show: Its outlets can be found through-out the SCLM: The Bull Shop has been franchised by Rightwing talk radio, and made into a home office of sorts for the Republican Party, the conservative movement, and the religious right.

In addition, the shopping of bull is now almost synonymous with politics.

It shouldn't be.

That view, that politics is inherently corrupt, that the single identifying characteristic of a democracy is elections, and that elections are primarily a matter of perceptions, slogans, and being on message, and that candidates and their campaigns are rightly judged on their skills at presenting a simple, understandable argument, however lacking in facts, truth, or even logic, are among the outstanding products of the Bull Shop.

Politics ought to be understood as the way a democracy works, as the means by which the government governs with the consent of the governed.

What is The China? Why our beloved democratic republic, of course. And all that those words entail - the land itself, its history and ours, the people who were here and the people who came here, and have continued to come, that ever enriching flow of immigrants from everywhere, our founding documents, our arts and letters, that epic story, tragic and inspiring, by which we understand ourselves to be Americans.

The china are the common denominator that one would have thought unite all Americans. Not so, say the rightwing. I won't bore you with even a thumbnail account of the charges laid against us.

In response, there has been much lively discussion of how the left might better craft its messages. I think these discussions are useful; I think George Lakoff has something to contribute; I think thinking about memes and framing is okay.

What I'm more skeptical of is the notion that we have to find some liberal equivalent of rightwing rhetoric. Bull is the enemy of democracy. We don't need to refine our own version of it. Not with all that wonderful china that is only waiting to be taken out, dusted off, and made new again.

Recently, Farmer reminded us, by way of Lauren Bacall, that liberals can lay claim to their fair share of American icons.

Inspired by that post, Corrente is undertaking an on-going series which will attempt to browse among that endless variety of American china to find and mine those liberal elements that we feel speak to all Americans, (actually, most, or the majority will do). This project will also involve correcting, when necessary, some of that rampant rightwing historical revisionism that has so distorted the American story.

What better day than the Fourth of July to present for your re-evaluation, George McGovern. No, not the George McGovern of today, that charming, eighty-year old, still vital ex-Senator whom everybody now likes.

Imagine it's 1972; I know, many of you weren't born then, but neither were you around for most of American history. George McGovern, a soft-spoken Senator from a small western state, (or is South Dakota, mid-western?), challenges the entire Democratic power structure, insisting that a presidential candidate should be chosen by the people, not by party operatives and office holders. Not only does he win, he changes the nominating process permanently.

Candidate McGovern then proceeds to rack up one of the more complete defeats in American presidential history. He only wins two states, Nixon, 48, including, significantly, all of the South.

Three years later, when Richard Nixon was exposed in the various scandals gathered under the Watergate label as the corrupt, criminal, Tricky Dick he was in 1972, there was almost no discussion of McGovern having been vindicated, and almost no re-evaluation of the way Nixon won - branding McGovern as unAmerican, as lacking in patriotism, as not tough enough to guide the ship of state, as anti-main street America and anti-military, despite McGovern's history as a war hero who piloted 35 missions over Germany in WW2, an accomplishment, along with his Distinguished Flying Cross, which McGovern refused to mention during his campaign. Nixon, and his henchman, Spiro Agnew waged one of the dirtier campaigns in presidential annals, with the complete support of mainstream media.

Since then, McGovern has continued to be judged almost solely by his loss to Nixon, and the McGovern campaign has become the benchmark from which can be measured the slow decline of the Democratic party as a vital political force, able to articulate and speak to the aspirations of mainstream Americans, and that crucial moment when the Scoop Jackson Democrats were defeated by a coalition of flower power students and peacenik academics. McGovern, we're often told, made the Democratic party into a dovish, extreme, out-of-touch, losing party. Even his democratizing of the nomination process has continued to be seen as a negative achievement; nothing more dangerous than too much democracy.

Here's Howard Fineman playing historian in a column occasioned by the Rathergate memo scandal:

The crusades of Vietnam and Watergate seemed like a good idea at the time, even a noble one, not only to the press but perhaps to a majority of Americans. The problem was that, once the AMMP declared its existence by taking sides, there was no going back. A party was born.

It was not an accident that the birth coincided with an identity crisis in the Democratic Party. The ideological energy of the New Deal had faded; Vietnam and various social revolutions of the '60s were tearing it apart. Into the vacuum came the AMMP, which became the new forum for choosing Democratic candidates. A "reform" movement opened up the nominating process, taking it out of the smoke-filled backrooms and onto television and into the newsrooms. The key to winning the nomination and, occasionally, the presidency, became expertise at riding the media wave. McGovern did it, Gary Hart almost did (until he fell off his surfboard); Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton rode it all the way.

"AMMP" stands for American Mainstream Media Party, Fineman's invented concept for what he takes to have been some sort of alliance between the Democratic Party of McGovern and the press.

Think for a moment; is it conceivable that McGovern could have lost forty-eight states if he'd had a mainstream national press trying to get him elected? Nor did McGovern win the nomination because he'd wowed the media with his slick operation. Fineman's entire column is, well, bullshit, not to put too fine a point on it.


So just how extreme were the ideas of George McGovern in 1972?

How out of touch? How dovish? How bluestate?

Here's your oppotunity to judge for yourself, as we proudly present McGovern's 1972 acceptance speech, delivered at the Democratic convention in Miami, unfortunately, around three o'clock in the morning. Almost no one saw it, or paid attention to it. The delay was caused by complications in choosing a vice-presidential running mate, and that disorganization was indicative of problems to come.

I remember hearing that speech and thinking to myself, my God, if people will just listen to him, this man could win. The speech was as simple, eloquent, straightforward and sensible as any presidential speech you've ever heard.

I've been looking for a copy of it for about a year. Re-reading it, I remain as impressed, and it occurred to me that an awful lot of younger liberals have never read it and might be astonished to see how un-extreme were McGovern's ideas. (I'm unable to give you a URL, because when I found it I copied it to my hard drive, and the url disappeared.) What follows is a slightly edited (to take out salutations, etc) version. We'd love to hear your reactions to reading it.

Miami Beach, Florida

July 14, 1972

Chairman O'Brien, Chairwoman Burke, Senator Kennedy, Senator Eagleton and my fellow citizens, I a’m happy to join us for this benediction of our Friday sunrise service.

I assume that everyone here is impressed with my control of this Convention in that my choice for Vice President was challenged by only 39 other nominees

edit

So tonight I accept your nomination with a full and grateful heart.

This afternoon I crossed the wide Missouri to recommend a running mate of wide vision and deep compassion, Senator Tom Eagleton.

I'm proud to have him at my side, and I’m proud to have been introduced a moment ago by one of the most eloquent and courageous voices in this land Senator Ted Kennedy.

My nomination is all the more precious in that it is a gift of the most open political process in all of our political history.

It is the sweet harvest of the work of tens of thousands of tireless volunteers, young and old alike, funded by literally hundreds of thousands of small contributors in every part of this nation.

Those who lingered on the brink of despair only a short time ago have been brought into this campaign, heart, hand, head and soul, and I have been the beneficiary of the most remarkable political organization in the history of this country.

It is an organization that gives dramatic proof to the power of love and to a faith that can literally move mountains.

As Yeats put it, "Count where man's glory most begins and ends, and say: My glory was I had such friends."

This is the people’s nomination and next January we will restore the government to the people of this country.

I believe that American politics will never be quite the same again.

We are entering a new period of important and hopeful change in America, a period comparable to those eras that unleashed such remarkable ferment in the period of Jefferson and Jackson and Roosevelt.

Let the opposition collect their $10 million in secret money from the privileged few and let us find one million ordinary Americans who will contribute $25 each to this campaign, a Million Member Club with members who will not expect special favors for themselves but a better land for us all.

In the literature and music of our children we are told, to everything there is a season and a time to every purpose under heaven. And for America, the time has come at last.

This is the time for truth, not falsehood. In a Democratic nation, no one likes to say that his inspiration came from secret arrangements by closed doors, but in the sense that is how my candidacy began. I am here as your candidate tonight in large part because during four administrations of both parties, a terrible war has been chartered behind closed doors.

I want those doors opened and I want that war closed. And I make these pledges above all others: the doors of government will be opened, and that war will be closed.

Truth is a habit of integrity, not a strategy of politics, and if we nurture the habit of truth in this campaign, we will continue to be truthful once we are in the White House.

Let us say to Americans, as Woodrow Wilson said in his first campaign of 1912, "Let me inside the government and I will tell you what is going on there."

Wilson believed, and I believe, that the destiny of America is always safer in the hands of the people then in the conference rooms of any elite.

So let us give your country the chance to elect a Government that will seek and speak the truth, for this is the time for the truth in the life of this country.

And this is also a time, not for death, but for life. In 1968 many Americans thought they were voting to bring our sons home from Vietnam in peace, and since then 20,000 of our sons have come home in coffins.

I have no secret plan for peace. I have a public plan. And as one whose heart has ached for the past ten years over the agony of Vietnam, I will halt a senseless bombing of Indochina on Inaugural Day.

There will be no more Asian children running ablaze from bombed-out schools. There will be no more talk of bombing the dikes or the cities of the North.

And within 90 days of my inauguration, every American soldier and every American prisoner will be out of the jungle and out of their cells and then home in America where they belong.

And then let us resolve that never again will we send the precious young blood of this country to die trying to prop up a corrupt military dictatorship abroad.

This is also the time to turn away from excessive preoccupation overseas to the rebuilding of our own nation. America must be restored to a proper role in the world. But we can do that only through the recovery of confidence in ourselves.

I treasure this nomination, especially because it comes after vigorous competition with the ablest men and women our party has to offer.

-- my old and treasured friend and neighbor, Hubert Humphrey;

-- a gracious and a good man from the state of Maine, Ed Muskie;

-- a tough fighter for his own convictions, Scoop Jackson of Washington;

-- and a brave and spirited woman, Shirley Chisholm;


-- a wise and effective lawmaker from Arkansas, Wilbur Mills;

-- And the man from North Carolina who over the years has opened new vistas in education and public excellence, Terry Sanford;

-- the leader who in 1968 combined both the travail and the hope of the American spirit, Senator Eugene McCarthy;

-- And I was as moved as well by the appearance in the Convention Hall of the Governor of Alabama, George Wallace. His votes in the primaries showed clearly the depth of discontent in this country, and his courage in the face of pain and adversity is the mark of a man of boundless will, despite the senseless act that disrupted his campaign. And, Governor, we pray for your full recovery so you can stnd up and speak out for all of those who see you as their champion.

Now, in the months ahead I deeply covet the help of every Democrat, of every Republican, of every Independent who wants this country to be a great and good land that it can be.

This is going to be a national campaign, carried to every part of the nation -- North, South, East and West. We’re not conceding a single state to Richard Nixon.

I should like to say to my friend, Frank King, that Ohio may have passed a few times in this convention, but Tom Eagleton and I are not going to pass Ohio.

I shall say to Governor Gilligan, Ohio is sometimes a little slow in counting the votes, but when those votes are counted next November, Ohio will be in the Democratic victory column.

Now, to anyone in this hall or beyond who doubts the ability of Democrats to join together in common cause, I say never underestimate the power of Richard Nixon to bring harmony to Democratic ranks. He is the unwitting unifier and the fundamental issue of this national campaign and all of us are going to help him redeem a pledge made ten years ago -- that next year you won't have Richard Nixon to kick around anymore.

We have had our fury and our frustrations in these past months and at this Convention, but frankly, I welcome the contrast with the smug and dull and empty event which will doubtless take place here in Miami next month.

We chose this struggle, we reformed our Party, and we let the people in. So we stand today not as a collection of backroom strategies, not as a tool of ITT or any other special interest. So let our opponents stand on the status quo while we seek to refresh the American spirit.

I believe that the greatest contribution America can now make to our fellow mortals is to heal our own great but very deeply troubled land. We must respond -- we must respond to that ancient command: "Physician, heal thyself."

Now, it is necessary in an age of nuclear power and hostile forces that we’ll be militarily strong. America must never become a second-rate nation. As one who has tasted the bitter fruits of our weakness before Pearl Harbor in 1941, I give you my pledge that if I become the President of the United States, America will keep its defenses alert and fully sufficient to meet any danger.

We will do that not only for ourselves, but for those who deserve and need the shield of our strength -- our old allies in Europe and elsewhere, including the people of Israel who will always have our help to hold their Promised Land.

Yet I believe that every man and woman in this Convention Hall knows that for 30 years we have been so absorbed with fear and danger from abroad that we have permitted our own house to fall into disarray.

We must now show that peace and prosperity can exist side by side. Indeed, each now depends on the existence of the other. National strength includes the credibility of our system in the eyes of our own people as well as the credibility of our deterrent in the eyes of others abroad.

National security includes schools for our children as well as silos for our missiles.

It includes the health of our families as much as the size of our bombs, the safety of our streets, and the condition of our cities, and not just the engines of war.

If we some day choke on the pollution of our own air, there will be little consolation in leaving behind a dying continent ringed with steel.

So while protecting ourselves abroad, let us form a more perfect union here at home. And this is the time for that task.

We must also make this a time of justice and jobs for all our people. For more than three and half years we have tolerated stagnation and a rising level of joblessness, with more than five million of our best workers unemployed at this very moment. Surely, this is the most false and wasteful economics of all.

Our deep need is not for idleness but for new housing and hospitals, for facilities to combat pollution and take us home from work, for better products able to compete on vigorous world markets.

The highest single domestic priority of the next administration will be to ensure that every American able to work has a job to.

That job guarantee will and must depend on a reinvigorated private economy, freed at last from the uncertainties and burdens of war, but it is our firm commitment that whatever employment the private sector does not provide, the Federal government will either stimulate or provide itself.

Whatever it takes, this country is going back to work. America cannot exist with most of our people working and paying taxes to support too many others mired in a demeaning and hopeless welfare mess.

Therefore, we intend to begin by putting millions back to work and after that is done, we will assure to those unable to work an income fully adequate to a decent life.

Now beyond this, a program to put America back to work demands that work be properly rewarded. That means the end of a system of economic controls in which labor is depressed, but prices and corporate profit run sky-high.

It means a system of national health insurance so that a worker can afford decent health care for himself and his family.

It means real enforcement of the laws so that the drug racketeers are put behind bars and our streets are once again safe for our families.

And above all, above all, honest work must be rewarded by a fair and just tax system.

The tax system today does not reward hard work: it’s penalizes it. Inherited or invested wealth frequently multiplies itself while paying no taxes at all. But wages on the assembly line or in farming the land, these hard – earned dollars are taxed to the very last penny.

There is a depletion allowance for oil wells, but no depletion for the farmer who feeds us, or the worker who serves as all.

The administration tells us that we should not discuss tax reform and the election year. They would prefer to keep all discussion of the tax laws in closed rooms where the administration, its powerful friends, and their paid lobbyists, can turn every effort at reform into a new loophole for the rich and powerful.

But an election year is the people’s year to speak, and this year, the people are going to ensure that the tax system is changed so that work is rewarded and so that those who derive the highest benefits will pay their fair share rather than slipping through the loopholes at the expense of the rest of us.

So let us stand for justice and jobs and against special privilege.

And this is the time to stand for those things that are close to the American spirit. We are not content with things as they are. We reject the view of those who say, "America -- love it or leave it. " We reply, "Let us change it so we may love it the more."

And this is the time. It is the time for this land to become again a witness to the world for what is just and noble in human affairs. It is time to live more with faith and less with fear, with an abiding confidence that can sweep away the strongest barriers between us and teach us that we are truly brothers and sisters.

So join with me in this campaign. Lend Senator Eagleton and me your strength and your support, and together we will call America home to the ideals that nourished us from the beginning.

From secrecy and deception in high places; come home, America

From military spending so wasteful that it weakens our nation; come home, America.

From the entrenchment of special privileges in tax favoritism; from the waste of idle lands to the joy of useful labor; from the prejudice based on race and sex; from the loneliness of the aging poor and the despair of the neglected sick -- come home, America.

Come home to the affirmation that we have a dream. Come home to the conviction that we can move our country forward.

Come home to the belief that we can seek a newer world, and let us be joyful in that homecoming, for this "is your land, this land is my land -- from California to New York island, from the redwood forest to the gulf stream waters -- this land was made for you and me."

So let us close on this note: May God grant each one of us the wisdom to cherish this good land and to meet the great challenge that beckons us home.

And now is the time to meet that challenge.

Good night, and Godspeed to you all.

What a gross insult to every principal of the founders: The "President" of "all the people" holds an event to which only Partei members are invited. Yes, His Independence Day speech. (Before a highly telegenic cheering crowd, bien sur).

And then, having explicitly disinvited me, He graciously allows me to pick up the tab in the form of my taxes.

I must have missed the memo.

You know, the memo where the text of the Declaration of Independence got changed:

"We hold these truths to the self-evident, that all Republicans are created equal..."

Can you help think of a present for Him?

NOTE No gold, frankincense, and myrrh jokes, please!


(And see Bloomberg make an ass of himself here.)

The leading purveyor of the slightly stale conventional wisdom, David "Bigfoot" Broder, has does a little reportage on Iraq:

President Bush is facing an early legal deadline to deliver what he has been most resistant to providing: a set of specific benchmarks for measuring progress toward military and political stability in Iraq.

Under a little-noticed provision of the defense spending bill passed by Congress in May, Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld has until July 11 to send Capitol Hill a "comprehensive set of performance indicators and measures of stability and security" two years after the fall of Saddam Hussein.

While public support for a pullout has grown, almost no one in Congress is advocating such a step.

What serious people are asking of the administration is a set of yardsticks by which the situation in Iraq can be realistically measured -- and accountability established for a strategy to reach those goals. That is something the president has refused to provide, beyond his cliched declaration that "the United States will stay as long as necessary -- and not one day longer."

It is hard to understand his resistance to this perfectly reasonable demand for a set of metrics by which all concerned -- Congress and the administration, service members and their families, and the general public -- could judge what is happening.
(via WaPo)

Yeah, well.

OK, so to Broder, "serious" means "someone like Joe Biden." And to anyone outside the kind of people Broder goes to dinner with, Bush's refusal to set metrics is entirely understandable.

Still, this is good news for the reality-based community.

Although the number I want to know about is 8.

As in, "What happened to the $8 billion dollars that Bush just 'lost'?"

One of the nice things about Harry Reid is that he doesn't look in the mirror and see a President (yeah, Joe Biden, I'm talking about you).

Here he is, ever so gently and reasonably setting Bush up:

"I am convinced this is an opportunity for the president to bring the country together," Reid said during a news conference at UNLV's William S. Boyd School of Law. "We do not need a lot of acrimony."

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, 75, announced Friday that she was retiring from the Supreme Court, creating the first vacancy on the high court in 11 years.

During his brief remarks to reporters, the Nevada senator praised O'Connor for her moderate opinions on the bench and encouraged Bush to look to the Senate for qualified nominees.

He specifically mentioned Republican Sens. Mel Martinez of Florida and Mike Crapo of Idaho as examples of several current and former senators with the credentials to serve on the Supreme Court.

"I just hope it is someone similar to Sandra Day O'Connor," Reid said.

Although Democrats are not looking for a showdown, Reid indicated they would resist a nominee deemed too conservative.

"There is no reason for this to be knockdown, dragged-out fight in the Senate," he said. "How easy this is, is up to the president."
(via Las Vegas Sun)

And we all know what a uniter Bush is....

What Bush says:

Speaking with reporters Friday, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan said the administration would undertake "more thorough consulting" on the high court vacancy.
(via LA Times)

Of course, anything is "more" than zero...

What Bush does (not quite the same thing):

The president spoke Friday with Sen. Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, and placed a call to Reid, although they did not connect, according to White House and congressional officials.

Good thing Cheney let Bush handle Leahy, eh?

But what's with "not connecting" to Reid? The President of the world's only superpower can't manage to place a call?

Always nice to see an operative from the party of personal responsibility denying everything. AP does pretty well on this one, laying out the facts right beside what Gonzales says.

The attorney general condemned abuses by American soldiers at the Abu Ghraib prison outside Baghdad, blaming them on a few individuals, not official U.S. policy.

"To believe that memos and decisions at the top created an environment that led to abuses would lead one to the conclusion that these abuses were widespread, at many locations and by many people. From the best we can tell, it really related to the actions of the night shift at one cell block at Abu Ghraib," he said.

As White House counsel in President Bush's first term, Gonzales helped develop the administration's legal strategy in the fight against terror. He wrote a memo in 2002 contending that Bush had the right to waive anti-torture laws and international treaties that provide protections to prisoners of war. Critics have said the memo helped lead to abuses of the type seen at Abu Ghraib.

At his Senate confirmation hearing, Gonzales denied any of the memos he wrote or reviewed in the White House had anything to do with the abuses.

Gonzales also defended the administration's policy - essentially repudiated by the Supreme Court and now being fought out in lower courts - of detaining certain terrorism suspects for extended periods without access to lawyers or courts. He also drafted rules for the military war tribunals created after the Sept. 11 attacks.
(via AP)

Except, um, in Bush'ss Dirty War torture is widespread, despite the Big Lies of Bush and his operatives.

Quoting (almost in its entirety) from Trish O'Kane in the Montgomery Advertiser(Alabama):

This July Fourth, the hood seems a more fitting patriotic symbol than the flag. For we the people, as a nation, have donned one so we do not have to face ourselves or the family members of people like Dilawar.

It was the eve of a Muslim holiday that December. A shy, thin, unschooled 22-year-old, Dilawar was an aspiring taxi driver in the village of Yakubi.

Dilawar's mother wanted the entire family together for the holiday and asked him to pick up three sisters from neighboring villages. Dilawar needed gas money, so he went to work in a nearby city.

He collected three passengers. On the way home, he passed Camp Salerno, a U.S. base that had been attacked that morning. Afghan militiamen stopped the taxi and turned Dilawar and passengers over to U.S. soldiers as suspects.

The three passengers ended up in Guantanamo, where they spent over a year before they were sent home without charge.

Dilawar was sent to Camp Bagram, another U.S.-Afghan base. He arrived Dec. 5. It was a U.S. camp where torture was routine, according to a nearly 2,000 page confidential Army investigation file given to the New York Times by a military official. Dilawar's story and others were published in the New York Times on May 20. Twenty-four hours before Dilawar arrived, another prisoner named Habibullah died after four days of being beaten and kicked. Soldiers told investigators they beat him while he was chained to the ceiling. The autopsy reported bruises on Habibullah's chest, arms and head, and deep contusions on calves, knees and thighs.

In sworn statements to Army investigators, soldiers described a female interrogator at Bagram stepping on a prisoner's neck and kicking another in the genitals. One Bagram interrogator was nicknamed "the monster," and a group of Bagram soldiers were called "the Testosterone Gang."

Dilawar lasted five days. Interrogators later told Army investigators they believed he was an innocent man who simply drove his taxi past the base. He was tortured by Americans his own age who said it was "funny" to hear him cry "Allah" when they hit him. One soldier estimated they hit Dilawar in the legs over 100 times in 24 hours. Dilawar died when his heart failed due to "blunt force injuries to the lower extremities."

Military coroners declared both deaths "homicides." One coroner described Dilawar's legs as "pulpified."

Dilawar died in December of 2002. Between 2001, when Cheney made this statement, and 2005, at least 108 prisoners have died in U.S. custody in Iraq and Afghanistan (Associated Press, March 16, 2005.) Just one death occurred at Abu Ghraib.

Take off your hood and read the Army reports published online thanks to the American Civil Liberties Union (www.cid.army.mil/Documents and aclu.org/torturefoia/).

This is what you will see by the dawn's early light:

Our flag waving over a sprawling prison network of some 42 camps holding 11,000 prisoners in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo. The government admits to "detaining" at least 50,000 since US military operations began.

Our soldiers using a dead Iraqi to wave hello on a DVD called "Ramadi Madness," and brutalizing Iraqi prisoners. Army documents published in March 2005 described the DVD (see Palm Beach Post website).

Abu Ghraib prisoner Manadel Al-Jamedi, suspended by the wrists, hands cuffed behind his back, in a practice called "Palestinian hanging." Al-Jamedi died in a shower room during a half-hour interrogation by the CIA and Navy Seals (Army account in Associated Press story, Feb. 17, 2005.)

An Iraqi father begging for his teenage son's life as our soldiers stage a mock execution (Army documents published April 19, 2005.)

Two Iraqi prisoners on a bridge, and three U.S. soldiers behind them, pushing them off. One prisoner could not swim and drowned. His family found his body 12 days later (Army report published July 15, 2004.)

Is this what so proudly we hail, at the twilight's last gleaming?

So, what's "widespread"? If 108 deaths isn't, then what is? 1008? 10,008?

Note please, democrats [lowercase deliberate] can't be simple-minded at opposing this. What the torturers did was wrong; they were moral agents who shouldn't have done what they did. But don't get suckered into "blaming the troops," because that's just what Rove wants you do to; to him, torture is just another wedge issue.

The Stanford experiment shows that the tendency for those with power to abuse those without power is a natural tendency that all humans share ("human nature"). And you can look at the entire Bush "gulag" (I'd say 42 camps makes a gulag, wouldn't you?) as a gigantic Stanford Experiment, where the bosses say "Get it done, I don't care how; just don't tell me." Newsweek reported:

It is unlikely that President George W. Bush or senior officials ever knew of these specific techniques, and late last week Defense spokesman Larry DiRita said that "no responsible official of the Department of Defense approved any program that could conceivably have been intended to result in such abuses." But a NEWSWEEK investigation shows that, as a means of pre-empting a repeat of 9/11, Bush, along with Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and Attorney General John Ashcroft, signed off on a secret system of detention and interrogation that opened the door to such methods. It was an approach that they adopted to sidestep the historical safeguards of the Geneva Conventions, which protect the rights of detainees and prisoners of war. In doing so, they overrode the objections of Secretary of State Colin Powell and America's top military lawyers—and they left underlings to sweat the details of what actually happened to prisoners in these lawless places. While no one deliberately authorized outright torture, these techniques entailed a systematic softening up of prisoners through isolation, privations, insults, threats and humiliation—methods that the Red Cross concluded were "tantamount to torture."
(via Newsweek)

Again, what the Stanford Experiment proves is that in any "lawless place," those without power (the prisoners) will be abused by those with power (the torturers). (The Stanford Experiment was brought to a halt early because the abuse was so awful.)

So, the real responsibility—yes, for the true evil doing—shouldn't be placed on the troops, but on Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Gonzales. They are the evil-doers with command responsibility; they are the evil-doers who, even today, laugh at the idea that they will be held to account for their crimes; they are the evil-doers who, by not "sweating the details," put the troops in the position to lose their honor as soldiers and men and women; they are the evil-doers who, fallen themselves, caused others to fall. "It would be better for them to have a great millstone fastened round their necks and be drowned into the depth of the sea."

NOTE Gosh, remember when the House Republicans were prating about "the rule of law," back in the days of Monica's blue dress? How far away, how innocent those times seem now...

C'mon, Diane. You can do better than this!

Democrats are urging Bush not to pick a fight by nominating someone they might regard as a conservative extremist. "I hope that it is a mainstream conservative ... someone who really speaks to the great bulk of Americans," California Democrat Dianne Feinstein said on "Fox News Sunday."

"I think the president would do well to reach into the mainstream, to try to bring people together over this appointment, and I think it's very do-able," she said.
(via Reuters)

Always nice to see a Beltway Dem confining themselves to permanent minority status.

Not, of course, that one would ever need to parse the words of a Republican. But just in case:

However, an attorney for Rove, Robert Luskin, said his client "never knowingly disclosed classified information" and that "he did not tell any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA".
(via Daily Telegraph)

Hmmm...

Parse 1: "Knowingly." That speaks to the part of the law that says it's a crime to knowingly disclose an intelligence operative's identity. Not really too strong a defense, I'd say. Even though Bush himself got away with it during the campaign (back)

Parse 2: "tell any reporter." Hmmm... Is Bob Novak a "reporter"?

Parse 3: "worked for the CIA" What if Rove gave Plame's cover and told Novak to look into it?

Just asking....

The thing that's always bothered me about the idea of impeaching Bush because he lied his way into a war is the precedent of FDR. After all, it's reasonably clear that FDR was determined to help Britain against the Nazis (Lend Lease) well before the American people were ready for it. It's also clear that in this, as in so much else, FDR did what was best for the country.

But then it occurred to me:

That was then, this is now.

The Republicans, by impeaching Clinton, substantially lowered the bar for what constitutes grounds for impeachment.

And if lying about a blowjob is an impeachable offense, why isn't lying about the casus belli for a war that cost thousands of American dead, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi dead?

Eh?

Via The Huffington Post:

Since I revealed the big scoop, I have had it reconfirmed by yet another highly authoritative source. Too many people know this. It should break wide open this week. I know Newsweek is working on an 'It's Rove!' story and will probably break it tomorrow. ~ Lawrence O'Donnell - 07.02.2005 / Rove Blew CIA Agent's Cover

Editor&Publisher update 1:

Plame Grand Jury Wants Records for Air Force One Phone Calls | By E&P Staff | Published: July 02, 2005 2:35 PM ET

NEW YORK Adding to the growing intrigue in the Plame case, the grand jury investigating the leak of the covert CIA operative's name subpoenaed has a wide range of White House documents, including records of telephone calls from Air Force One and information relating to an internal working group dealing with Iraq, government sources confirmed to CNN on Friday.

[...]

Many of the documents subpoenaed Friday relate to the White House Iraq Group, a little-known task force. Newsweek reported that the group was created in August 2002. The Newsweek report cites an earlier Washington Post article that lists senior political adviser Karl Rove, Bush advisers Karen Hughes and Mary Matalin, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice and Vice President Dick Cheney among the group's members.

Update 2: If you click the link to the E&P headline above (Plame Grand Jury Wants Records...) you will now see the following:

Story originally posted here was accurate but out-of-date and posted in error.

By E&P Staff

Published: June 29, 2005 2:35 PM ET

NEW YORK Story posted here for about an hour Saturday afternoon was accurate, but from 2004, and has been pulled from the site. We apologize.

Update 3 / Nothing to see here: Go read Josh Marshall commenting on the Newsweek article relating to Lawrence O'Donnell's earlier claims:

Mike Isikoff's piece on Rove's role in the Plame case is now up on the Newsweek website. But the picture it paints seems a bit murkier than what Lawrence O'Donnel suggested.

[...]

What's implicit in Isikoff's report, however, and in the Tribune too, is that the special prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald is after Rove for some felony arising out of the case (perjury after the fact? conspiracy?) but not the immediate and original act of leaking the name.

Talking Points Memo

*

The End
"...the end - Of our elaborate plans, the end - Of everything that stands, the end - No safety or surprise, the end - I'll never look into your eyes...again - Can you picture what will be, - So limitless and free - Desperately in need...of some...stranger's hand - In a...desperate land - Lost in a Roman...wilderness of pain - And all the children are insane, All the children are insane... This is the end." (lyrics: The Doors)

KARLA

THE ROAD TO IMPEACHMENT

(Associated Press, Nov. 8, 2006) [...]

The sudden decline of the Republican Party and the likely downfall of the Bush-Cheney administration follows a cascade of catastrophes and unexpected reversals of fortune for the White House during the second Bush term.

THE ECONOMY: The American economy is in deep recession and, many economists fear, on the brink of depression. Heedless of warnings by economists from both parties, Bush and the Republican Congress continued its policy of deep tax cuts to the wealthy, the dismantling of social services, and huge deficits with no end in sight. Recognizing at last the unsustainability of these policies, the international financial community lost all confidence in the dollar, and, as a result, the value of the dollar against world currencies plummeted. Then the economic dominoes proceeded to fall. The price of imported goods skyrocketed and became unaffordable to ordinary Americans. International banks (primarily Chinese and Japanese) refused to continue their support of Bush's budget deficit which forced the US to raise interest rates dramatically. Consequently, debt-ridden US consumers have lost their homes, disposable family income has shrunk, businesses have closed, and unemployment is rising to levels not seen since the Great Depression of the thirties. However, this time the bankrupt US government can not supply unemployment compensation or other relief. The suffering public has put the blame for this disaster directly upon the Republicans and the Bush Administration.

THE MEDIA: After the 2004 election, it was widely believed that Republican-corporate control of the mainstream media had guaranteed a permanent Republican "lock" on the federal government. Not so. Soon thereafter, the public finally began to wake up to the fact that it had been lied to by the media and, just as important, that it had been denied vital information about the misdeeds of the Congress and the Administration. As a result, the media audience fell dramatically, creating a crisis in advertising revenue. In the meantime, the internet became the primary source of news to the public. Attempts by the Bush-friendly FCC and the Congress to stifle the internet failed in the face of public outcry. There was then a re-birth of investigative journalism which immediately received widespread support, thence advertising revenue. Investigative journalists then proceeded to uncover a rogue's gallery of "White House Horrors" -- the instigators of the Valerie Plame affair, the suppression of accurate intelligence information, the sellout of public resources and institutions to private "investors," unbid "sweetheart" contracts to firms such as Halliburton, and much more.

[...]

[...] When reminded by a journalist that two "senior White House" officials had revealed the CIA affiliation of covert agent Valerie Plame, thus endangering her and her contacts abroad, McClellan verbally attacked the reporter as "coming close to providing aid and comfort to the enemy" by questioning the Administration. He added: "Though the Democrat Party tends to forget it, our country is engaged in a war against terrorism, and all Americans should watch carefully what they say and do. Raising questions about the Administration's veracity and war-policies might make the terrorists think that the American government is weak and unable to confront them. This could make our country more vulnerable to attacks."

[...]

"But this extremist crew will not go easily into their dark night. If they're going to go down, they probably are willing to take the country down with them."

"For the good of the country, and for what little is left of their reputations, Bush and Cheney should resign. If they do not, they can anticipate being dragged through the trauma of impeachment. My guess is that if they resign, they might be able to 'plea-bargain,' as it were, and the country would go easier on them for their crimes."

Above excerpted from: "GOP Swept from Power in 2006 - Impeachment Looms" - By Bernard Weiner and Ernest Partridge
Co-Editors, The Crisis Papers - May 31, 2005

Editor&Publisher:

Time Inc. To Hand Over Notes in Plame Case, As 'NYT' Protests - By Joe Strupp | Published: June 30, 2005 10:02 AM ET

Time Inc.'s statement also included a lengthy explanation from Norman Pearlstine, Time magazine's editor in chief, about why the company chose to hand over the documents,... continued here...

*

Veeeeeddy eeeenteresting story making the rounds tonight. Didn't see it myself (Watch McLaughlin? I'd sooner go to a meeting of the county sewer & waste management commission, both for interest in the subject and coherence of the usual presentation) but I'd consider a story from Editor & Publisher pretty well confirmed...

NEW YORK Now that Time Inc. has turned over documents to federal court, presumably revealing who its reporter, Matt Cooper, identified as his source in the Valerie Plame/CIA case, speculation runs rampant on the name of that source, and what might happen to him or her. Tonight, on the syndicated McLaughlin Group political talk show, Lawrence O'Donnell, senior MSNBC political analyst, claimed to know that name--and it is, according to him, top White House mastermind Karl Rove.

Not a data dump--Lawrence O'Donnel is an old Clinton hand iirc, at any rate no friend of the Perpetrators of the Current Unpleasantness--but interesting timing on Getaway Friday before Independence Day weekend, and the day the O'Connor retirement is sucking up all the political oxygen to boot.

Atrios and Digby are both poking sticks into the burrow to see what crawls out. For your musical entertainment we suggest a medley of "Wouldn't It Be Nice", "Wouldn't It Be Loverly" and "Good Day Sunshine", "Good Morning Starshine", and the like. Or if your taste runs more in that direction, "Helter Skelter." Heh heh heh.

If you've been following this story, it appears that the U.S. may have lost 30-50 soldiers in one shot in Afghanistan. They're being coy with it because they don't want us to gasp out loud.

Um, but fortunately for Bush, Sandra Day O'Connor announced her retirement today so no one in the SCLM will pay any attention to this rather important story anymore.

BTW, how many of you knew that 45 U.S. soldiers had died in Afghanistan in the last three months?

Quote from Son of Xan, age 16, upon learning from TV that Sandra Day O'Connor has announced her resignation from the Supreme Court.

WaPo

And the best nomination we can hope for is Abu Al ("If we just define torture this way then what we're doing isn't torture!") Gonzalez??

Have a happy long weekend all....

This is from, like, a week ago, but I really assumed at the time that it would soon be all over the place without any help from me. As this has inexplicably not happened, I bring it to your attention here. [Heavily snipped and some lines rearranged for brevity]:

(via Jackson MS Clarion-Ledger)

A community petition has amassed 75 names in hopes of silencing two hail cannons at Nissan Motor Co.'s Canton [MS] plant.

The automaker installed the machinery in early 2004 to prevent possible hail damage to thousands of new vehicles placed daily on its shipping yard at the factory.

The hail cannon shoots sonic waves into the atmosphere, releasing a bang that can repeat every five seconds until weather conditions change...Nissan reports it is the first automaker to use the device that prevents hail within a one-mile radius.

"Just turn it off," said Germantown resident Marci See. "It is very loud. Sometimes it shakes my walls, and I keep thinking, 'Is it tearing up my foundation?'"

Jim Pigott of the Germantown subdivision said "it's like having a boom box in your driveway all night long."

This would seem to fall under some Federal regulations requiring permits for operations intended to influence the weather, although I can find no indications that Nissan has applied for any such. And out in Middle of Nowhere County, Mississippi, does anybody really think that minor interests like "the people who live there" are going to override the clout of a car manufacturer?

Naw, I didn't think so either. But you know how we keep being reminded that "local government is closer to the people, so it's more responsive."