I thought we would announce the winner of the
Joke Line Joe Klein mental midgetry award tonight but I fear that the varying amounts of traffic/participation we have had on each night make a cumulative vote total a bit skewed, so we find ourselves in the interest of fairness conducting a runoff. Tonight the top vote getters from each of the previous heats will advance and tomorrow we will have our counter-Oscars when we will award the gold.
Since it was Digby's relentless skewering of Wee Joe that inspired this particular contest in the first place, it is only fitting that
Digby be the wind beneath our wings tonight:
Has there ever been a more useful Republican idiot than Joe Klein? I don't think so. If you don't believe me, check out the huge array of idiotic statements he's written over at firedoglake. Jane says, "No one man can claim credit for the minority status of Democrats today, but Joe Klein can certainly rest easily knowing that he has done more than his fair share." I think he and all his fake liberal pundit friends are the most responsible of all. They are killing us. People on both the left and the right confuse Joe Klein with a real Democrat and mistake his incomprehensible political philosophy for that of the Democratic Party. If there is nothing else that the liberal blogosphere can do, we must make it clear to the American people and the Democratic politicians that Joe Klein speaks only for his elite, insider cadre of cocktail weenie addicts. His opinions are irrelevant to serious Democratic politics.
We humbly accept the challenge. And with that here are tonight's finalists in Joe Klein: In His Own Words:
3. "The possibility of vice-presidential anguish was barely mentioned by most commentators at first. Cheney is a tough customer; Oprahfied "sharing" isn't his way. But then, there he was, with that haunted look in his Fox News interview, saying, "[T]he image of him falling is something I'll never be able to get out of my mind. I fired, and there's Harry falling ..." Hunting had given him "great pleasure" in the past, but he wasn't so sure now. In fact, he sounded a lot like the combat veterans I've spoken with over the years, for whom the living nightmare of firing a weapon under questionable circumstances is a constant theme."
13. "People like me who favor this [NSA wiretapping] program don't yet know enough about it yet. Those opposed to it know even less -- and certainly less than I do."
25. "I've never seen George Bush lose a debate. He is a brilliant minimalist.
36. "Abortion is not mentioned in the Constitution, and so interpretations are all we have. One way to solve this--perhaps the best way--is to put abortion to a vote, as a constitutional amendment or on a state-by-state basis. Issues this important should be decided democratically, don't you think?"
Tough contenders all. Who will wear the coveted crown? Judges the burden is upon you. Since we have all snarked on these particular entries before, tonight is simply a victory lap -- freestyle snark for the fun of it. We will also be announcing the winner of the
Charles P. Pierce Award for Excellence in Klein Snark tomorrow, the winner currently being held in a sealed envelope by the firm of PricewaterhouseCoopers.
Please vote by number, vote early, and since this is not Florida, only once.
|
Margot has found
the perfect job for Amy Ridenour (no, not Dennis Hastert impersonator).
Angie lets us know she was
a real piece of work during her testimony before the Indian Affairs Committee.
Valley Girl gives us
this link to an article about the NCPPR entitled "Tom DeLay's Right Arm" and quotes from The Hill, June 23, 2005:
The Center's chief executive officer, Amy Ridenour, a friend of Abramoff's from their time as College Republicans in the early '80s, testified that Abramoff told her the money was part of an "educational project to tell the American people ... the very impressive story of the ... Choctaw Indians." She accepted an additional $1.5 million contribution in 2003. Abramoff directed her to route that money to the Capitol Athletic Foundation and a company named Kaygold.
And it looks like
Pam Spaulding has been on this one for a while.
Yet another College Republican. What a pernicious mutant breeding ground that turned out to be.
Update: Digby chimes in:
Amy has long been jack, ralph and grover's personal bitch. From Frank Foers great piece about the College Republicans:Back in 1981, Abramoff and his campaign manager, Norquist, promised their leading competitor, Amy Moritz, the job of crnc executive director if she dropped out of the race. Moritz took the bait, but it turned out that Abramoff had made the promise with his fingers crossed. Norquist took the executive director job and named Moritz his deputy. That demotion didn't last long, either. After discovering the talented Ralph Reed, Norquist handed the Christian Coalition godfather Moritz's responsibilities and her office space. They placed all of Moritz's belongings in a box labeled "amy's desk." Even 25 years later, she hasn't shed her role as College Republican doormat. Abramoff used her think tank, the National Center for Public Policy Research, to funnel nearly $1 million into a phony direct-mail firm with an address identical to his own.
Poor Amy. Never cool enough for the real Ratfuckers. While the three little pigs were making millions, she was still doing college republican level dirty tricks: Bilking old people.
Her "think tank" was also used last year by the allegedly liberal NPR to explain why social security privatization was such a great idea. They actually referred to it as non-partisan. I wrote about it here.
I was told by a reader who complained that the executives of the show were appalled when they realized that their producers had no idea that they were dealing with a right wing organization.
I was appalled that NPR producers didn't realize they were broadcasting partisan swill just by the content alone. I had heard the program while driving down the 405 and almost swerved off the clover-leaf when I realized it was going to be unrebutted.
I guess that particular College Republican chestnut of ripping off the elderly is something passed down from generation to generation.
The GOP. They're all about tradition.
|
In January, 2005 Raw Story
published a letter sent by Amy Ridenour of The National Center for Public Policy Research to elderly people under the pretense that they were "saving" their endangered Social Security benefits:
"Should we put most of our time and effort into fighting to prevent liberal big-spenders from draining an estimated $100 billion from the trust fund?" Ridenour asks. "Or should I go head to head against the left-wing's reckless use of $70 billion tax surplus when they promised to put our Social Security first?"
It was one of many "scare letters" designed to terrify the elderly. And it worked. According to the
San Francisco Examiner:
The letters so distressed Shelby, who is 86 and lives in a senior center, that she often sat up nights, fretting over which crisis most deserved her help. Fearful that her benefits might expire, she regularly responded with small donations.
"I didn't know that I could just turn them down," Shelby said. "I was thinking it was something I had to do. . . . I thought if I didn't correspond about Social Security, I wouldn't get my checks."
Shelby is one of millions of seniors nationwide targeted by so-called "fright mail," computer-generated by self-proclaimed public policy organizations in mostly legal but controversial campaigns to raise cash.
(snip)
Amy Moritz Ridenour, president of the National Center for Public Policy Research, says that emotional pitches get results, and insists that would-be donors don't want the details.
"It's just that you're competing with a lot of other organizations. People seem to respond better to emotion than they do with letters that have lots and lots of facts," said Moritz, who said her letters were written by a direct-mail firm, Response Dynamics, but read by her before they were sent. "You have to give something that is light enough that people will be willing to read it upon receipt. . . . If they don't read it right at that moment, all the studies show they never will."
In the Ridenour letter printed by Raw Story, she tells her elderly victims that:
Inside your sealed envelope is information regarding the potential collapse of the Social Security system -- and how it can endanger you and the entire United States senior citizen population."
It is also critical that you share this pertinent information ONLY [sic] with other trustworthy individuals.
In other words don't tell anybody who might tell you this is a scam and interfere with our right to fleece you. A typical tactic used by those who exploit children and the elderly.
Raw Story noted at the time that NCPPR were the group that paid $64,000 in travel expenses when Hot Tub Tom went to Moscow in 1997, and over $70,000 for a trip made by DeLay and his aides in mid-2000 to Europe. Oh and they mention that one of the NCPPR's directors at the time was Jack Abramoff.
Suddenly the NCPPR has
decided that Raw Story has "violated their copyright" by printing the letters, which is such unmitigated bullshit it's hard to know where to begin. The publication of the letters would be a rather text book case of Fair Use, but the point of the cease and desist email doesn't have anything to do with the merits of their claim (virtually none) -- it has to do with the fact that most small organizations don't have the funds to hire lawyers to battle this stuff so it is easier to comply with the request than to fight it.
You can read the excerpted letters
here and
here.
There is a bright side to all this -- it gives the story a whole new life cycle, and awakens people to the machinatians of social mange/professional GOP crooks like Amy Ritenour. Who will not doubt be making a more prominent entry onto the Abramoff stage in the near future.
Nice to be able to accelerate her debut.
Update: Pigboy tells us
Amy has a blog -- and it is quite possibly the ugliest blog I've ever seen. Funny that.
I wonder -- can you blog from the slam?
|
I didn't expect
my post about Michael Brown to cause as much controversy as it did. But it got a conversation going that I think is actually quite interesting so I'd like to carry it a bit further.
Josh Marshall is right -- the release of the new tapes show simply that Brown cared about what was going on, was aware of the potential danger of Katrina and tried to do something to address it. It does not absolve him from a host of other sins we've all devoted much time to documenting from the time Katrina hit. And
as Atrios notes, his current candor does not make Brown a hero. It would have been heroic to step up at the time and tell the public what was happening, at a time when it could have made a difference. That didn't happen.
And
as Digby notes, Michael Brown really didn't have many other options. He was so thoroughly discredited, so completely goated by BushCo. that he didn't have much alternative but to turn on them if he wanted to have a future at all as anything other than the guy who forever fucked New Orleans.
Still, his current actions took some nerve. The kind of nerve people quite frequently can't muster on their own and are much more likely to discover when they know they have people who will back them. Which raises an interesting point of speculation.
As a veteran of many PR trench warfare campaigns, I can tell you that the first thing I would've done once it became apparent that BushCo. was going to throw him under the bus would be to go after Brownie. If I was, say, a big politician who had been targeted by the GOP and lost my seat, or was given to a pugilistic bent, or had an axe to grind over any high-profile Rovian rat-fuck delivered by BushCo. over the years I would've looked at the Katrina disaster, recognized that it was the single worst blow to George Bush's credibility in the public mind and gone immediately to work on the guy who had the potential to deliver me a blue dress moment.
I have no knowledge of what actually happened but the push to rehabilitate Brown does have, at moments, something of an organized feel (particularly the superb timing). And right now, Brown has the ability to do what no other person can -- keep Bush's Katrina inadequacies in the headlines, kicking him when he's down and damaging his poll numbers such that it both paralyzes him and emboldens his opponents.
None of which can work, mind you, if nobody is willing to listen to Brown's story. That Bush let someone with the goods on him get so far out of the fold is an incredibly stupid mistake; Brownie above all others should've been kitted up with some cushy job and bankrolled to into abject silence. It was an outrageous stumble on the part of a beleaguered and embattled administration, one I'm more than willing to take advantage of.
So if you're still speaking, Michael Brown, I'm all ears.
|
Shorter Harry's Reid, in his response to Bill Frist on Friday: "Have you no shame?"
Here is the pertinent part of Reid's
response in full:
“I agree with Senator Frist, the Republican-controlled Senate Intelligence Committee has been bogged down by partisanship. The only way we can restore this important committee’s non-partisan tradition is for Leader Frist and Chairman Roberts to stop bowing to the pressure of the Bush White House and permit the committee to do its job. When faced with strong evidence that the Bush Administration has misused intelligence, misuses that have made America less secure, time and again the Senate Intelligence Committee has ducked its responsibilities and refused to hold the Administration accountable. The recent record of the Republican-controlled committee is most notable for its abdication of authority and responsibility.
“The Intelligence Committee’s meeting on March 7th presents an important credibility test for Senator Frist and Senator Roberts. If both are serious about their desire to let this committee perform its duties, Chairman Roberts will keep his word and permit the committee to conduct a vote on Senator Rockefeller’s reasonable proposal to review the Administration’s controversial domestic spying program.”
It's the accountability, stupid. Please take some time to let your Senators, your local media, the corporate media and whomever else you feel is appropriate that the Republican Leadership's attempt to cheat on behalf of George Bush is just plain wrong. That Bill Frist and Pat Roberts and the Republican leadership of the Senate, along with the Bush Administration, are trying to go back on their word.
The American public should not stand for this, because it is just plain wrong.
If the President of the United States is too scared to allow the Senate Intelligence Committee to do its job over oversight -- then all Americans deserve to know what he and the Republican leadership are trying so desperately to hide about the NSA -- from Senators, from the FISA court judges, from the American public.
What are they trying to desperately to hide about George Bush's role in authorizing the conduct in question? Why is the Bush Administration and the Republican leadership so terrified of oversight that they are willing to throw out decades of Senate tradition and the bipartisan nature of the Senate Intelligence Committee just to protect George Bush?
Bill Frist is trying to use his position to enable the Bush Administration to cheat their way around legitimate oversight. If George Bush wants people to respect his position, perhaps he ought to think about following the rules for a change instead of having everyone bend the rules to suit his needs of the moment. He's a President, not a king, and it is about time someone made that abundantly clear to him.
Note to Bushie: the rules apply to everyone, even you. And if you broke the law, the American public -- including Senators from all political stripes -- have a right to know about it. Enough with the lies and the cheating -- it's time for some accountability.
And just so ya know, Cartman is a crappy role model for Presidential behavior.
(Hat tip to
dmsilev at dKos for the heads up.)
|
Bill Frist on
November 7, 2003, on the floor of the Senate:
The [Intelligence] Committee’s nonpartisan tradition has been carefully cultivated over the years by its members. The tradition is part and parcel of the Committee’s rules, which extend prerogatives to the Minority that are not found in other committee rule books.
For a quarter century, there has been a consensus in the Senate that the Committee’s nonpartisan tradition must be carefully safeguarded. Nothing less is acceptable, given the dangerous and sensitive nature of the subject matter for which it has oversight responsibility. (emphasis mine)
Bill Frist on
March 3, 2006 (via Glenn Greenwald), in a letter to Sen. Harry Reid:
The Committee was established and structured to reflect the Senate’s desire for bipartisanship, and to the maximum extent possible, nonpartisan oversight of our nation’s intelligence activities. If attempts to use the committee’s charter for political purposes exist, we may have to simply acknowledge that nonpartisan oversight, while a worthy aspiration, is simply not possible. If we are unable to reach agreement, I believe we must consider other options to improve the Committee’s oversight capabilities, to include restructuring the Committee so that it is organized and operated like most Senate Committees. (emphasis mine)
So, when it suits Bill Frist's purpose politically to pretend to be a bi-partisan, non-political committee supporter to score points on the floor of the Senate, that's hunkydory.
But when you get down to a question of the majority of the Intelligence Committee members wanting to do their jobs and investigate what is an illegal use of the NSA for domestic surveillance by the Bush Administration...well, that just can't be allowed, and Frist's previous assertion "that the Committee’s nonpartisan tradition must be carefully safeguarded" be damned.
Bill Frist: cheater and hypocrite.
Please, take some time to write, fax and call your Senators, radio talk shows and media folks -- both via e-mail and on any media blog comments threads where this would be approriate to discuss (thanks to reader froggermarch for the idea on this). This craven attempt to manipulate the rules of the Senate because George Bush is too cowardly to face up to the consequences of his decisions cannot be allowed to stand. Bill Frist does not get to cheat without a light being shone on his hypocrisy.
Please, take some time to help us shine a very bright spotlight on this.
|
Since its creation in 1976, the United States Senate
Select Committee on Intelligence has purposely been a bi-partisan, non-political committee. It was specifically designed to minimize the partisanship among Republicans and Democrats, to function as a check on the executive branch's substantial powers of surveillance and intelligence gathering, and to ensure that consideration of the national security of this nation was not done in a politicized atmosphere -- but, rather, with only the best interests of the entire nation in mind.
The balance of the Committee is essential to maintaining this apolitical oversight.
But President Bush doesn't want the Senate to do its job and provide oversight of his illegal use of the NSA for domestic spying without a warrant in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Despite applying substantial behind-the-scenes pressure, there are Republicans on the Intel Committee who put the nation's interest ahead of Karl Rove's dictates, and it looks as though the vote scheduled for March 7 will lead to oversight hearings of this illegal NSA mess. (An enormous thank you to everyone who has participated in
our Roots project -- you have made such a HUGE difference.)
Except for one thing: Bill Frist has decided if they can't win on the merits, then he'll cheat. Frist threatened Harry Reid, in a letter delivered late on Friday, that he would change the composition of the Intel Committee unless they rubber stamped the Bush Administration's repeated illegal activity.
Guess Frist was hoping reporters would miss his smarmy threat of cheating if he dumped it in the late Friday news cycle...too bad for him,
Glenn Greenwald caught it.
Frist specifically threatened that if the Committee holds NSA hearings, he will fundamentally change the 30-year-old structure and operation of the Senate Intelligence Committee so as to make it like every other Committee, i.e., controlled and dominated by Republicans to advance and rubber-stamp the White House’s agenda rather than exercise meaningful and nonpartisan oversight.
Yet again, Republicans are threatening to radically change long-standing rules for how our government operates all because they cannot manipulate the result they want. From redistricting games to changing the filibuster rules, when Republicans are incapable (even with their majorities) of manipulating the political result they want, they use their majority status to change how our government works in order to ensure the desired political outcome.
While Frist’s threat here is, in one sense, of a piece with those tactics, it is actually quite extraordinary and motivated by a particularly corrupt objective. The whole purpose of the Senate Intelligence Committee – the only reason why it exists – is to exercise oversight over controversial intelligence activities. Whatever else one might want to say about the NSA warrantless eavesdropping program, it is controversial on every front. There is no conceivable rationale for the Intelligence Committee not to hold hearings.
This truly is an unprecedented move: the Senate Majority Leader is threatening to make the Intelligence Committee a political rubber stamp because the White House and the Republican leadership are so terrified that the President's actions won't withstand scrutiny and will be found illegal by the Committee.
Bill Frist is nothing but a cheater, who is trying to rig the Committee -- a majority of whose members WANT to provide oversight and actually DO their jobs. This is the single most craven, pathetic and weak move -- the fact that the interests of the nation would be served by an oversight hearing takes a back-seat to Karl Rove's marching orders that George Bush's authority not be questioned. Ever.
Because how dare the American public deserve honest answers, and how dare the United States Senators want to exercise their responsibilities to provide real, meaningful oversight rather than just be a rubber stamp -- even in the face of real, honest questions of illegality.
What, exactly, does Bill Frist and the rest of the Republican leadership think their job is as Senators? I mean, honestly: what is your purpose as a separate branch of government, if not to provide checks and balances through meaningful oversight, on important issues like violations of law and an end-run of Constitutional principles on top in addition to your legislative duties? Why are my tax dollars paying your salary, funding your cushy health insurance, paying your substantial retirement plan -- if you aren't going to bother to do your whole job?
What a bunch of frightened babies huddling in the corner of the Senate, taking orders from Karl Rove and hoping it will all blow over before the elections in the Fall. That Bill Frist would have to resort to cheating to protect the President's flank is just pitiful. That he thinks the American public will just swallow it whole, though, is wrong. Dead wrong.
I'm asking you to take some time today to e-mail, fax, or call your Senators. And to also contact members of the media. Inform them exactly what Bill Frist is trying to do and that you see this tactic for what it is -- cheating -- and that you will not stand for it. If Frist thought he could dump this out with the Friday trash and no one would notice, he thought wrong. Let's make sure he doesn't get away with this tactic.
I have not been able to find one piece of reporting in the corporate media about this today. Let's hang the cheater sign around Bill Frist and George Bush's neck. Please, take some time to call a talk radio show in your area, send out a fax or an e-mail -- anything -- between now and March 7th when the Intelligence Committee votes. The only way the Republican leadership gets away with this is if we all sit back and passively let them do it.
I refuse to let that happen. Bill Frist and George Bush are cowardly cheaters -- and it's time to hold them accountable.
(Painting entitled
"Cheater with the Ace of Diamond" by Georges de la Tour.)
UPDATE:
Georgia10 has more at DKos.
"Operate like most Senate Committees" is code for "controlled by rubber-stamp Republicans and no minority rights." Frist is threatening that if the Democrats demand the President be held accountable for breaking the law, then he'll just change the law to silence them. Typical Republican maneuver, to be sure, but the frequency of the tactic doesn't diminish its repulsiveness.
Georgia10 has some links to Sunday shows, including the Chris Matthews show (which I think is pre-taped on Fridays, but I'm not certain on this -- maybe a reader knows for sure and can let us know in the comments). In any case, please take some time to contact all Senators -- not just the ones on the Intel Committee, but all of them. Your Senators should know that you will not tolerate partisan cheating just so George Bush can continue to illegally spy on Americans without anyone questioning his authority.
NOTE: I made an error regarding Committee composition, which has been corrected above -- it's an equalization by the rules, and not the numbers on the Committee. Glenn has a
great post on this. Thanks to reader Anonymous for the heads up on this -- I was so pissed off this morning, I didn't do my usual research re-check before posting.
|
And thus we arrive at this, the final night of our semi-final round to see who will take home the gold for finding the most gallingly stupid Joe Klein comment of all time. If the past three nights have taught us nothing else, it is that there is no agony of defeat here; each and every comment proffered for entry seems to supersede the one before it for pure noxious flapdoodle.
No one man can claim credit for the minority status of Democrats today, but Joe Klein can certainly rest easily knowing that he has done more than his fair share.
So without further ado, here are tonight's contenders in "Joe Klein, In His Own Words:
29. "And yet, for the moment, Bush's instincts -- his supporters would argue these are bedrock values -- seem to be paying off. The President's attention span may be haphazard, but the immediate satisfactions are difficult to dispute. Saddam Hussein? Evildoer. Take him out. But wait, no WMD? No post-invasion planning? Deaths and chaos? Awful, but ... Freedom! Look at those Shi'ites vote!"
30. "As for Bush, a hopeful sign is that he spent more time talking about poor people when he ran for president than any Democratic nominee I've watched -- since, er, McGovern. His domestic policy was the most creative of any Republican I've ever covered, far more creative than Gore's."
31. RE: Bush's "incredible instincts": "But expertise and deliberation have never seemed more stodgy, unappealing and unconvincing than they do right now."
26. "I think private accounts a terrific policy and that in the information age, you're going to need different kinds of structures in the entitlement area than you had in the industrial age."
33. "Kerry, like many other Democrats, never truly understood this reality. He did not bother to visit the Southern Baptist Convention or any other fundamentalist group to say, Look, we're going to disagree on some issues, but there are lots of things we have in common, and I want to hear your point of view. He did not take a "listening tour" through rural Georgia, Alabama and Mississippi; he simply ignored the South. When Whoopi Goldberg lewdly compared the President to a body part in her southern hemisphere, Kerry -- who was in the audience -- came onstage and said entertainers like Goldberg represented "the heart and soul of America." He did not criticize the mayor of San Francisco when he broke the law to perform gay marriages. He condoned late-term abortions. He had nothing to say about Janet Jackson's Super Bowl breast flash. Unlike Al Gore, he did not even give a speech supporting faith-based social programs. To religious conservatives, he seemed a secular extremist. The Democrats have paid a heavy and honorable price for their support of equal rights -- first for African Americans and now for homosexuals."
34. "I'm not nearly as smart as Eric [ Alterman], to have opinions without bothering to report first. Instead let me react by speaking to the facts. After all, I've lived my life by seeking out facts and then reporting them. One advantage I think I have over other columnists is that I do reporting."
35. "Given the circumstances, there is only one possible governing strategy: a quiet, patient, and persistent bipartisanship."
36. "Abortion is not mentioned in the Constitution, and so interpretations are all we have. One way to solve this--perhaps the best way--is to put abortion to a vote, as a constitutional amendment or on a state-by-state basis. Issues this important should be decided democratically, don't you think?"
37. "I watched the President go through his public paces last weekÂa joint press conference with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, speeches touting Social Security reform and the Patriot ActÂand his stubborn consistency was both admirable and annoying. His unwillingness to drop Social Security reform in the face of lousy polling results is certainly admirable. He has changed the emphasis from semi-privatization of old-age pensions (although he still favors that change) to the solvency of the system, and he has proposed a creative solution, progressive indexing, which would modulate benefits according to income, with the poor receiving proportionately more than the wealthy. This is an idea Democrats would embrace if they had the courage of their "progressive" convictions. But the donkeys appear to be more obsessed with social issues (like abortion rights) than with programs to benefit the poor, and most obsessed with short-term tactics to thwart Bush, regardless of the quality of his proposals."
Remember to vote only once and by number, and that your comments are also being evaluated for snark factor as they contend for the Charles P. Pierce Award for
Excellence in Klein Snark. Mr. Pierce will be selecting the winner of this award from entries made in the comments section, so please defend your choice with craft and passion. The winner of this coveted crown will likewise be awarded a DVD copy of the darkly funny and late lamented show
Action.
Show Joe some love.
First night semi-final roundSecond night semi-final roundThird night semi-final round
|
Mike Stark's O'Reilly action makes it to Olberman. Mike reports he now has dozens more volunteers for a Monday call-in, and that he has told O'Reilly he will cease and desist if he takes down his anti-Olberman petition and apologizes to Keith.
I know, I know, when pigs fly. But it's good old fashioned entertainment for the rest of us in the mean time.
Crooks & Liars has video of the glue coming out of O'Reilly's cracks. Watch if for no other reason than the former prosecutor who says the only person who's done anything actionable here is O'Reilly, and that she thinks he needs to be investigated.
|
Michael Browne's willingness to be honest about what happened during Hurricane Katrina and not be just another ass-coverer for the sins of BushCo. has facilitated one of the most amazing image rehabilitations in blogger history. Over at
The Moderate Voice Joe Gandelman wrote an apology to him, and received this in his comments (Joe believes it is legitimate):
Dear Joe:
I have religiously avoided responding to any of the blogs, but feel compelled to respond to you. Apology accepted. And thank you, too, for the apology.
I have stated on numerous occasions the mistakes that I made and accepted responsibility for those mistakes. And, I hope now that the public, Congress, and especially the Administration, will heed the warnings I wrote to them in 2003, 2004 and 2005, that this kind of disaster was inevitable because of the way the Department of Homeland Security was functioning. I would be glad to provide you copies of those memos if you're interested.
In January, 2005, I came to the conclusion that FEMA was doomed to failure. But rather than quit immediately (which my wife reminds me constantly was a huge mistake for our family) I commissioned an internal study (the "Mitre Report") in order to leave a legacy of how FEMA could make things work that were broken - logistics, supply chains, communications. We were never able to finish that study because of a lack of funding and of course, impending disasters.
The Mitre Report is now in the hands of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, and I hope they make good use of its initial findings and recommendations.
Best regards,
Michael D. Brown
I'll pick up that baton from Joe -- Michael Brown was in over his head but contrary to what I snarked about at the time, the tapes show that he did appreciate the threat and he was trying to get the government to respond. They wouldn't, and they deserve to absorb every bit of scorn that was heaped on Brown at the time for their failure to do so, so I would officially like to transfer my snark. It is to Brown's credit that he's being honest about it now and refusing to be the BushCo. goat. I offer my apologies and hope that others are encouraged to follow in his footsteps.
Update: FWIS "
Michael Brown" responds in the comments.
|
Just got an email from
Mike Stark. One of the people he organized into an O'Reilly call-in, whose crime was uttering the name "Olbermann" on Bill's radio show, was contacted by someone who identified himself as Tony Burdy of Fox Security. For the record,
this is what was said on the radio show:
O'REILLY: Orlando, Florida, Mike, go.
CALLER: Hey Bill, I appreciate you taking my call.
O'REILLY: Sure.
CALLER: I like to listen to you during the day, I think Keith Olbermann's show --
O'REILLY: There ya go, Mike is -- he's a gone guy. You know, we have his -- we have your phone numbers, by the way. So, if you're listening, Mike, we have your phone number, and we're going to turn it over to Fox security, and you'll be getting a little visit.
HILL: Maybe Mike is from the mothership.
O'REILLY: No, Maybe Mike is going to get into big trouble, because we're not going to play around. When you call us, ladies and gentleman, just so you know, we do have your phone number, and if you say anything untoward, obscene, or anything like that, Fox security then will contact your local authorities, and you will be held accountable. Fair?
HILL: That's fair.
O'REILLY: So, just -- all you guys who do this kind of a thing, you know, I know some shock jocks. Whatever. You will be held accountable. Believe it.
So Mike called Fox Security back:
I took the number and called Tony. We had a ten minute conversation. I explained that I run callingallwingnuts.com and that I am recruiting callers to join me in calling Bill's show to protest his smearing of Keith Olberman. Tony explained to me that if he can use his years of experience as a NYC Police detective as a guide, that it can be considered harassment if you repeatedly call somebody. I told him that i was no lawyer, but it would probably take a pretty novel argument to convince a judge that a person was harassing a talk show host by accepting their invitation to call... I also explained that he can sample the wares on my site and see for himself that I've never been rude or disrespectful.
I asked him to tell O'Reilly that we'd be happy if he took the anti-Olberman petition down and apologized to Keith. Tony said that would be an unlikely turn of events, and we left it at that.
Then Mike received another email from
another caller:
I just got a phone call from the head of Fox Security, Anthony Burti, #212-XXX-XXXX. I got the call on the phone I used to call him from the head of Fox News security. He said that harassing phone calls were coming from my phone. I asked him how many? He did not know. I asked him what was said that was harassing? He said that he did not know but that it did not have to be what was said, but how many calls were being made. He tried to make like I made 20 phone calls instead of one, and that I cursed O'Reilly out. All I said was that I was grateful to O'Reilly for turning me on to Olberman. Then he hung up.
I guess O'Reilly was telling the truth, the Falafosphere
does have its own personal storm troopers.
Fifty bucks says Loofah Boy likes to parade around in lace panties and jack boots.
Update: Mike gets more emails from yet another caller:
I called back Fox Security, (unfortunately was not able to tape the call), but Tony was very pleasant, and told me that my phone number had come up on a list of having called Bill "numerous times". I interupted and said "Numerous times? I had to call several times to get through, but today was the first time that I called the Bill O'Reilly show."
He seemed surprised and said that "If that's the case than I apologize for calling you." (I paraphrase here...) Some people have called numerous times and it can rise to the level of harassment based on the number of calls, and it varies from state to state. (it "can" not that it "does"!)
I asked him why security at Fox News was handling an issue that happened at Westwood One. He didn't have much of an answer, accept to say that Bill wanted them to look into it, and they work for the same company. Honestly, he really didn't sound like he wanted to be doing this at all. Then he told me that "you're entitled to like or dislike whoever you want, you know, freedom of speech, but if it rises to the level of harassment, then they have to take it seriously. I commented that "Ol' Bill has some pretty thin skin, huh?" He didn't really answer, then I assured him that I was no threat to Bill O'Reilly.
That's a very good question. If O'Reilly's show is on Westwood One, what the heck does Fox Security have to do with it? And what right would Fox have to be taking legal action?
|
Romenesco:
We've been having some vigorous discussion here -- and have been in correspondence with the ombudsmen of The Washington Post and New York Times -- about various ethical and journalism issues. We thought you'd be interested in these issues, and we'd appreciate your thoughts about them. We also think some of this should raise caution flags for your gatekeeping editors as they assess whether to use copy from competing national news organizations.
First, in this post-Jayson Blair era, we believe newspapers must be more transparent then ever about the sources of their stories. That includes acknowledging when others have beaten us to a big story. The Washington Post and New York Times each failed this standard in recent weeks.
On Feb. 7, Warren Strobel reported on a State Department reorganization that sidelined career arms control experts who don't share the Bush administration's mistrust of international arms negotiations and agreements. Exactly two weeks later, The Washington Post published a virtually identical story by Glenn Kessler. We say "virtually identical" only because the stories were written with different words. There was not a single fact in Kessler's story that was not in Strobel's, the product of weeks of careful enterprise reporting and interviews with 11 current and former government officials. We have asked, through the Post's ombudsman, Deborah Howell, who was once executive editor in St. Paul, for a published acknowledgement of the Knight Ridder story. To date, it hasn't happened. We understand that there has been vigorous opposition from the Post reporter, who has claimed, in essence, that the "trade press" had already widely reported the story, a contention that is in fact not correct. We're waiting to see what happens.
Lil' Debbie is on the case. When she's done covering the local pie eating contest and flogging Dana Milbank for his fashion gafs I'm sure she'll be all over this.
Meanwhile our Roots radio advisor
Mike Stark had scored a
direct hit on Bill O'Reilly with his team of radio callers. At the very mention of the word "Obermann" O'Reilly said Fox Security would personally order the police to deal with it. C&L says Keith will be covering it tonight on Countdown. More must-see TV.
Update: Howie Klein is over at Kos
giving Lieberman a whipping. If you're a Kos member please go hit the "recommend" button.
|
From
aRealPatriot, per
me to me:
There is something known as a [sic] Judah sheep.
These are sheep that lead their own brothers and sisters to their doom and slaughter, then they get out of the way just before they themselves are slaughtered.
The rest of the sheep follow the "Judah" to their own doom, even through the slaughtered screams of their kin before them.
Clearly, there are not only "Judah sheep" among animals, there are those among men that would lead their own to slaughter as well.
The question arises;
Do Judah sheep know what they are doing and what will become of their brothers and their sisters?
I would think most of these "Judah sheep" both sheep and men, probably not, for these sheep and and these men have been conditioned to do what they do. They don't exactly see or understand where they lead those behind them, they think it's their calling in life
However among men there ARE Judah sheep that DO know what they are doing.
They are part of the very plot.
I don't believe people that support this administration even through the legislation that flies in the face of their own best interest, and people that try to convince others that these are good policies actually know that they have become Judah sheep.
Supporting these policies that attack the fiber of the middle class demonstrates the how effective the corporate propaganda machine really is.
I believe most of the middle class in America who vote republican are just sheep, and victims of the corporate propaganda machine, they are shallow and lazy, and they are hypnotized by the marketing strategies of corporate enterprise.
HOWEVER;
The politicians and the media personalities who repeat things like "talking points" do know what they are doing.
People that protect and defend those who forge data and initiate unprovoked war against countries that they know pose no threat to our country.
And people that protect and defend policies that would actually siphon vital resources FROM our fight against terrorism, and take the equipment and funding FROM the boys and girls that desperately need those resources if they are to succeed.
And people that protect and defend policies that create terrorism in countries where none existed before, and policies like those that deliberately destroy the infrastructure of the country we overthrow.
(snip)
And policies that would take our very own money which we invested for generations and giving those assets to the richest people on the planet, people who will never ever spend it...our hard earned money which we earmarked for our retirement, we earmarked your parents health and drug care, and most important, investments we earmarked for our children's college education.
Even your kids future is not a sacrifice too great to these Judah sheep.
It's mind boggling the damage that can be done to this country before the people that enable it realize what's happening.
Name your favorite Judas Sheep.
(
Anonymous pointed out in the comments that it's actually "Judas Sheep." But the point is the same.)
|
I think it's great that a guy who normally gets 200 hits a day can terrify a sitting U.S. Senator just by telling the truth, but how petrified must Lieberman be of Ned Lamont to try and strongarm the Huffington Post into censoring their bloggers?
I guess that "Vote Lieberman: Warmonger" slogan must not be testing out too well.
Anyway, go read about how
Howie Klein is giving Joe Lieberman the running shits. It's a scream.
Update: Howie has more Lieberman
graphics love here, and he's got two more musicians giving statements about
their opposition to Holy Joe. I guess I understand why he's now in the Imodium brigade.
|
Will the Christian Broadcasters Association now face the wrath for
voting Pat Robertson off their Board of Directors like he told the
folks in Dover, Pennsylvania they would for voting against his wishes?
Guess we'll see.
(And how pathetic is it to have your spokesperson say you intended to separate from the board only after you lost the election and you are scrambling to save face? So sad, so very sad.)
(Photo via
Pam's House Blend.)
UPDATE: And now, the Army has a new role:
Concern Troll. Your tax dollars, hard at work...you can't make this shit up.
And "the tea snarf of the day" award goes to Meteor Blades for: "Patwa." Brilliant. Just brilliant.
|
ThinkProgress headline from today:
Before Katrina Struck, Michael Brown Warned Bush ‘The Levees Could Actually Breach’
Major corporate media outlet headlines on the issue of Bush being warned that levees could breach, or that FEMA had done a trial run on this very issue on the year prior to Katrina, or that the President was getting constant updates along with Michael Chertoff at DHS headquarters on the conditions in the Gulf Region:
**crickets chirping**
Yep,
Media Matters is a good read again today.
Hellooooooo, in there?
UPDATE: Just a reminder -- please take a moment to click thru the ads on our blog and peruse the information, the wares, the great stuff our advertisers have for you to see. These ads help defray our blog costs, so please be nice to the folks who buy them and take a peek at what they are offering or with what they would like your help. And now back to our regularly scheduled discussion...
UPDATE #2: Holy mogambo...we've been nominated for a
Koufax for Best Blog. Wow. Thanks, really, just thanks.
|
It's not enough that the President lies about the big things. He lies about the little ones, too. Remember the flap over Kerry ordering his cheesesteak in Philly with Swiss cheese and Rove and his malignant cronies having a field day over it? They set up a photo-op shortly afterward in Philly, with George Bush standing in front of a crowd at a Boeing plant, so he could go
on camera and say:
"This is the 32nd time I’ve been to your state of Pennsylvania," he told the Boeing crowd, "and, you all know the reason why, don’t you? It’s because I like my cheesesteaks Whiz Wit’."
Except for one thing: Bushie likes his cheesesteak with American cheese, and not the Philly-preferred Cheez Whiz and provolone, too. So, no honesty from President Bush about this little cheesy detail?
Hell no.
She reported that Bush actually "prefers his steak absent of the usual Cheez Whiz and provolone, accompanied only by cheese of the American variety," information that she obtained from her own Deep Throat, one Caeser Barnabei, the owner of the well-known cheesesteak shop, Jim's Place. Barnabei, who has fed the Bush camp on previous swings through Pennsylvania and provided "70 to 80 hoagies" for the Bush campaign yesterday, confided to Carey that "the Jim's Special is altered to whet the 'W' appetite."
As
Matt Yglesias put it at the time, George Bush wants to be elected so badly, to do whatever it takes to cover his ass, that he is willing to lie about cheese. A completely unimportant detail to everyone (except perhaps a few die-hard Philly cheesesteak purists in Essington).
Why lie? Because he could. He and Karl and their malignant spin crew thought no one in the media would do any follow-up, that they'd move right on to the next spin cycle and never bother to look in the bottom of the washer for that one lost sock.
Too bad for them some enterprising young reporter did the follow-up (yay,
Kathleen Carey). And too bad for them some enterprising reporter at the AP did a little follow-up of their own on the Katrina briefing video. And too bad we still have that video of the President just sitting on his butt, endlessly staring with that frightened rabbit in the headlights look on his face, after being informed by Andy Card that a second plane had hit the World Trade Center and that we were under attack.
George Bush is a product, with all sorts of fun labeling on the box -- nifty claims of "made with whole grains" and "fortified with vitamins and minerals," but what we're really looking at is a sort of candidate who, when you get down to what is really there, is a whole lot of fluff and nonsense, lots of fillers and ultra-refined crap, with a really good marketing team behind him. He sounds good when the team has everything working like a well-oiled machine, but those moments when he's off-script, off-plan, being "real" as opposed to "scripted," you get a real sense of who he is -- and in a crisis, it's not a pretty picture.
It's this pattern of behavior with this President that concerns me, the real behavior, not the spin and the projection and the tap dance that his Wurlitzer pals try to sell like so many PR folks with a wind-up Energizer bunny in their pocket -- and it ought to concern all Americans.
Faced with a crisis or some question of his leadership, his integrity, pretty much any question at all, George Bush's first response is to freeze, then huddle with his staff and come up with a media response. It's all statement, no actual leadership, no actual work. The PR blitz becomes the entire focus of this Administration -- all campaign mode, all the time, with no real concern for doing the actual work -- for really digging into the nitty gritty and governing.
All hat, no cattle.
And you know, I could really give a rats ass about what sort of cheese George Bush likes on his cheesesteak, because it has no bearing on anything in my life. But when he lies about something larger -- when he makes promises of aid to frightened Gulf Coast residents and then fails to follow-through on those promises after Katrina hits, sitting back and not deploying every resource available while people are dying, even though he promised to do just that, I get pissed.
Or when he just sits in a classroom filled with children with a copy of
"The Pet Goat" in his hands (
video here), for more than five minutes, with all those lives about to be lost in Manhattan and his very first action when he finally gets out of his little chair is to huddle with Andy Card and his PR crew, not call the Pentagon, not call the WH sit room, but to huddle with his PR folks to craft a statement for the media and then ride around on Air Force One for hours, leaving Dick Cheney in charge...well, that "all hat, no cattle" really fits, doesn't it?
Dan Froomkin summed it up perfectly in yesterday's
White House Briefing:
Faced with challenges like these -- an attack on our nation or a natural disaster bearing down on our shores -- we can reasonably expect that our presidents will stand up, demand answers and options, and lead.
If the White House insists that Bush did that with Hurricane Katrina, it is incumbent upon them to back up that claim up with evidence. Otherwise, the image of him mouthing platitudes threatens to become defining of his presidency.
All talk, no action. That's our President in a nutshell, isn't it?
My husband reminded me this morning of a passage from the Bible (
Matthew 15:8, in case you are interested), wherein Christ rebukes the Pharisees for doing a whole lot of talking, but not actually doing what they pretend to believe.
These people draw near to Me with their mouth, and honor Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me.
George Bush likes to do a whole lot of public courting of the religious right. But it is worth a reminder that Christ's example was that you LIVE the teachings -- ALL of them, not just the ones that help give you a wedge issue and get you elected in the short-term, but ALL of them -- because just mouthing the words and then doing as you please is...well...hypocritical and wrong.
And it seems to me that repeated lying, especially when those lies are ones which lead to deaths of Americans, lead to damage to our nation, lead to the ever-widening divide between people who live here because immediate political gain for the short term by using a nasty wedge issue is more important to this President and his malignant spin crew than long-term damage to the nation as a whole...well,
as Jane said, karma can come back to haunt you. And lately it sure seems like that's been happening in spades for George Bush and his Administration, doesn't it?
Lies have a way of catching up to you. When you lie about the little things that don't matter, over and over again, it starts to add up. And maybe you can get away with that, even as President, if it doesn't affect the lives of the American people. It's craven and weak and pathetic as a character question, but if it doesn't really impact the rest of the country and their everyday lives, it can be ignored by a vast number of people, I suppose.
But when you lie about the big things: "I don't think anyone anticipated the breach of the levees." or "we will move in whatever assets and resources we have at our disposal after the storm..." -- but you don't actually mean them or it's just a flat-out lie, and Americans know that you don't mean it and you are lying to them...repeatedly...about
things that matter -- well, then the shit really begins to hit the fan.
Americans remember people pleading for help at the Superdome...for days. They remember FEMA sending refrigerator trucks filled with ice to Maine, instead of to the Gulf Coast, where they were actually needed. They remember the President staying on vacation, getting a new guitar, appearing at public events in California, while dead bodies floated in the streets of New Orleans and people in the Gulf Coast of Mississippi were living under make-shift shelters and scavanging in the local Walmart for baby formula to keep their children alive...for days, after the storm. And the President stayed on vacation, and federal resources sat on idle...for days. (And I see that Michael Chertoff is still drawing a paycheck. Accountability? Hell no.)
The American people see soldiers dying in Iraq and car bombs exploding there on the evening news and no amount of repeated lying to them on television about the insurgency being in its "last throes" makes that go away -- and it doesn't cover the fact that the President and
his Administration knew all along that there was no "mushroom cloud" immediate threat from Saddam Hussein. And that they were told there was a substantial risk for civil war in Iraq -- that could spread to other nations in the Middle East -- if they didn't do the job right from the start. The fact that the Pentagon's plans were horribly underdone, and that we are facing a huge problem there now -- no accountability from Congress, no "second guessing" as the President puts it from the Administration. Well, that's just peachy -- if we just ignore the fact that we've botched things, maybe they'll just resolve on their own, eh? Lovely.
Lies have a way of catching up to you. And for this Administration, the constant stream of lies are catching up to them all at once. No amount of spin can cover the fact that this President is all hat and no cattle.
"Trust me" sure as hell doesn't cut it any more for George Bush, does it? But with Republicans controlling both houses of Congress, there will be no accountability for him either. He gets to continue to be the irresponsible frat boy, lying his way around whatever damage is done, getting away with not doing his job, having other people clean up his messes, only interacting with people who tell him he's doing a heckuva job.
You want to hold George Bush accountable? Elect a Democrat. It's that's simple. Until that happens, George Bush gets to continue to lie, hide, smear, and manipulate with impunity, because the Republican-controlled Congress will just continue to publicly mouth a few platitudes and then refuse to hold any further hearings and let George Bush and his malignant band of cronies do whatever they want without any real oversight.
You want to restore honesty to government? Then put Democrats in office who will hold him accountable. No more rubber stamp for George Bush's lies. No more.
It's time that "all hat, no cattle" learned the meaning of responsibility.
(Graphics love to
BZB's Briarpatch. This photo had such a little ornery boy in his Tom Mix get-up, chasing people around with his pop gun feel to it. So perfect.)
UPDATE: I'm informed by "Tony" that no decent person orders their cheesesteak with provolone. When I was in grad school at UPenn in Philly, I got mine with Whiz and provolone, so clearly I'm not a purist, either. But I didn't insert my own preference above, I got the info from a local reporter who covered the issue initially, so clearly there is some local debate on what constitutes proper cheese on a cheesesteak, too. None of the "cheesy" debate, though, gets around the fact that George Bush actually likes his with American cheese -- and he lied about it, in public, to make himself look better for an election. George Bush can't even be honest about cheese -- what a wanker.
|
The competition has been fierce this week to discern which comment by every B-list Bush apologist's favorite "Democrat" takes the title of Most Revoltingly Stupid Joe Klein Comment of All Time. Project Runway has nothing on the drama heating up in our comments section, just a few more bugle beads and bloomers.
From week to week people like Atrios and Media Matters do a very good job of pointing out the all-Republican, all-the-time composition of most TV news shows. Many in our comments section often wonder "where are the Democrats?" like they have anything to do with it.
The person who gets the coveted slot of "token Democrat" is usually of the Joe Klein ilk. We then get a break from Republicans endlessly repeating GOP talking points to hear a self-professed Democrat endlessly repeating GOP talking points. It's not like the Democrats are telling the bookers "sorry, I'm too busy." This guy gets the air time.
And what does he do with it? Here are tonight's entries for "Joe Klein: In His Own Words:"
19. "One can only imagine the Republican wrath and utter ridicule—the Rush Limbaugh fulminations—if, say, John Kerry had proposed a similar policy: Let's pin our Middle East hopes on the statesmanship of Hizballah and Hamas. But that is where the democratic idealism of the Bush Doctrine has led us. If the President turns out to be right—and let's hope he is—a century's worth of woolly-headed liberal dreamers will be vindicated. And he will surely deserve that woolliest of all peace prizes, the Nobel."
20. "I bow to nobody in my disdain for bloggers. You know, they're all opinions and very little information." (video here)
21. "And I've got to say, Bob, that, you know, usually at this - at this stage of a campaign, with a whole big field of a lot of candidates, you know, it's easy to look on them as a bunch of dwarfs or buffoons, but the Democrats have some really serious and substantive and - and effective candidates out there. Of course, there's another whole brigade of buffoons that are led by Al Sharpton and Dennis Kucinich and Carol Moseley-Braun, none of whom really have a chance to become president, and - and are kind of cluttering up the stage at this point, but there - there are some good, serious candidates out there, too."
22. The Democrats have for the last 10 or 15 years blatantly, shamelessly demagogued this issue. They've offered nothing positive on Social Security or on Medicare or on Medicaid, and it's time for them to compromise here. It's also time for the Republicans to compromise here. One area where you might see, you know, some--one possibility is the old Washington standby, the demonstration project. We might try privatization for some younger, you know, Social Security recipients--not recipients but, you know, contributors, or we might try it in a city or a couple of places. We haven't--we don't know how it's going to work."
23. "But these concerns pale before the importance of the program. It would have been a scandal if the NSA had not been using these tools to track down the bad guys. There is evidence that the information harvested helped foil several plots and disrupt al-Qaeda operations.There is no such thing as a pure political product. The two existing political parties are amalgams of passion and sanity, traditional liberalism and conservatism. Those who win the presidency create harmonic majorities by plausibly balancing these strains."
24. "In less than a second, less time than it takes to tell," Dick Cheney mused last week, his quail-hunting expedition had gone "from what is a very happy, pleasant day with great friends in a beautiful part of the country, doing something I love—to, my gosh, I've shot my friend. I've never experienced anything quite like that before." It was perhaps the most eloquent, emotionally unguarded moment from the notoriously buttoned-up Vice President. He seemed stunned, uncertain for once. And the haunted look in his eyes reminded me of what soldiers in Vietnam used to call the Thousand-Yard Stare—the paralytic shock that comes from seeing the impact that even low-caliber weaponry can have on human flesh.
25. "I've never seen George Bush lose a debate. He is a brilliant minimalist.
26. "And then there is her husband, a one-man supermarket tabloid. A few weeks ago, the New York Post ran a photo of Bill Clinton leaving a local restaurant with an attractive woman, and the political-elite gossip hounds went berserk."
27. "Look, this is a debate we're going to have in this country. And the rules may well change and they maybe should change. But to do it in the way that this has been done, to send the message that we're sending, you cannot guarantee me that we're not creating more militants, more -- and more problems for ourselves."
28. "If Lee does hook large black audiences, there's a chance the message they take from the film will increase racial tensions in the city. If they react violently--which can't be ruled out--the candidate with the most to lose will be David Dinkins."
Remember not only to vote by number, but to vigorously lobby for your choice because the winner of the best Klein snark in the comments section will also receive The Charles P. Pierce Award for Excellence in Klein Snark (to be awarded by
Charles P. Pierce himself) and will also win a copy of the
DVD of Action.
Now is your chance to do to Joe what he does to us every time he opens his mouth. Don't waste it.
First night semi-final roundSecond night semi-final round
|
The latest meme from
TBogg. I'd say it's right up there with his best work -- "The Clenis" and "101st Fighting Keyboardists" (so omnipresent nobody remembers he originated them.) I think "Bush cargo culters" is a perfectly succinct description of those who don't have to have the slightest idea about what Fearless Leader is doing before they know they like it.
Latest case in point --
Ole 60 Grit O'Beirne:
I heard the fellow in front of the weather map saying we can't predict this could happen and then I heard Michael Brown telling us what his gut was telling him. Unfortunately, when I watched, I guess The National Weather Service fellow at his map, we all bring a lot of skepticism to weather reports, Chris. We're habituated to thinking weather reports are wrong....
That woman would get on her knees and blow a tail pipe if Bush asked her to.
(via
TRex)
|
As
mcjoan notes over at Kos, all of Bush's polls are in free fall. Periodically Gosprey sends me bits of interest from the subscription-only conservative
Stratfor report, and I always feel like I'm getting a look into the belly of the beast. Behind all the lies and spin and absurd attempts to put a good face on things, they're freaked:
The point here is not to argue the merits of the Dubai ports deal, but rather to place the business deal in the context of the U.S. grand strategy. That strategy is, again, to split the Islamic world into its component parts, induce divisions by manipulating differences, and to create coalitions based on particular needs. This is, currently, about the only strategy the United States has going for it -- and if it can't use commercial relations as an inducement in the Muslim world, that is quite a weapon to lose.
The problem has become political, and stunningly so. One of the most recent opinion polls, by CBS, has placed Bush's approval rating at 34 percent -- a fairly shocking decline, and clearly attributable to the port issue. As we have noted in the past, each party has a core constituency of about 35-37 percent. When support falls significantly below this level, a president loses his ability to govern.
The Republican coalition consists of three parts: social conservatives, economic conservatives and business interests, and national security conservatives. The port deal has apparently hit the national security conservatives in Bush's coalition hard. They were already shaky over the administration's personnel policies in the military and the question of whether he had a clear strategy in Iraq, even as they supported the invasion.
Another part of the national security faction consists of those who believe that the Muslim world as a whole is, in the end, united against the United States, and that it poses a clear and present danger. Bush used to own this faction, but the debate over the ports has generated serious doubts among this faction about Bush's general policy. In their eyes, he appears inconsistent and potentially hypocritical. Economic conservatives might love the ports deal, and so might conservatives of the "realpolitik" variety, but those who buy into the view that there is a general danger of terrorism emanating from all Muslim countries are appalled -- and it is showing in the polls.
If Bush sinks much lower, he will breaks into territory from which it would be impossible for a presidency to recover. He is approaching this territory with three years left in his presidency. It is the second time that he has probed this region: The first was immediately after Hurricane Katrina. He is now down deeper in the polls, and it is cutting into his core constituency.
"In effect, Bush's strategy and his domestic politics have intersected with potential fratricidal force. The fact is that the U.S. strategy of dividing the Muslim world and playing one part off against the other is a defensible and sophisticated strategy -- even if does not, in the end, turn out to be successful (and who can tell about that?) This is not the strategy the United States started with; the strategy emerged out of the failures in Iraq in 2003. But whatever its origins, it is the strategy that is being used, and it is not a foolish strategy.
The problem is that the political coalition has eroded to the point that Bush needs all of his factions, and this policy -- particularly because of the visceral nature of the ports issue -- is cutting into the heart of his coalition. The general problem is this: The administration has provided no framework for understanding the connection between a destroyed mosque dome in As Samarra, an attack against a crucial oil facility in Saudi Arabia, and the UAE buyout of a British ports-management firm. Rather than being discussed in the light of a single, integrated strategy, these appear to be random, disparate and uncoordinated events. The reality of the administration's strategy and the reality of its politics are colliding. Bush will backtrack on the ports issue, and the UAE will probably drop the matter. But what is not clear is whether the damage done to the strategy and the politics can be undone. The numbers are just getting very low.
Karl Rove did not just arbitrarily decide that "national security" would be the battle cry for the 2006 elections. Losing the "national security" conservatives is an unmitigated disaster for them, and they know it.
The Dubai Ports World deal is set to go through on Monday. Another manifestation of Bush's "hang tough and fuck'em all" leadership strategy? This isn't just another garden variety scandal for the GOP. The implications are much greater. But it would seem that the Administration is treating it as such.
|
I don't want Cecile Richards, head of Planned Parenthood, to feel left out by giving Nancy Keenan all the credit for the new
Mississippi Rapist Rights Bill, so The General has
a few words for her, too.
Feel the love.
Update: Digby on the Utah law which requires parental notification for abortions even if the father molested the girl:
These Republicans admit that women give up their rights when they have sex. Good to know. And they believe a child molesting father's parental rights are more important than the daughter he impregnated. Also good to know.
Thanks, Sammy Alito. You make this all possible.
|
Here's my conclusion after reading
Murray Waas' exceptional new piece in the National Journal today: (1) the President either knew that Saddam posed no immediate threat to the United States and repeatedly lied to the American public and leaders around the world (and allowed multiple members of his Administration to lie about it as well) or (2) he doesn't bother doing his job, and had no idea what information was contained in multiple sensitive national security briefs that he was given over a long period of time, and no one in the Administration bothered to clue him in on this.
You choose.
I've wracked my brain this afternoon to come up with another alternative -- but no matter how I twist it around in my brain, it comes back to "he knew and lied" or "he doesn't bother doing his job."
The information regarding the aluminum tubes and the fact that the WH was aware of alternate uses for them isn't new -- Eriposte covered this issue back on
Nov. 23rd on LeftCoaster in his exceptional series (which is up for a
Best Series Koufax, btw -- congrats!).
What Waas does with this article, though, is put it in terms that major media outlets can distill into real questions for the White House -- and also gives excellent quotes and context to show how the Administration deliberately used each other to spin the false story on the tubes out. (I covered some of this WH story circle jerk, as has Jane, in our reporting on the WHIG. See
here as just one example.)
One of the most damning aspects of
the Waas article is this section, discussing the WH knowing -- via multiple reports from multiple intelligence agencies -- that Saddam Hussein posed NO threat to the US unless we
attacked him first. (In other words, as a defensive action rather than an offensive one, should it come to that.)
The conclusion among intelligence agencies that Saddam was unlikely to consider attacking the United States unless attacked first was also outlined in Senior Executive Intelligence Briefs, highly classified daily intelligence papers distributed to several hundred executive branch officials and to the congressional intelligence oversight committees.
During the second half of 2002, the president and vice president repeatedly cited the threat from Saddam in their public statements. "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us," Cheney declared on August 26, 2002, to the national convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars.
In his September 12 address to the U.N. General Assembly, Bush said: "With every step the Iraqi regime takes toward gaining and deploying the most terrible weapons, our own options to confront that regime will narrow. And if an emboldened regime were to supply these weapons to terrorist allies, then the attacks of September the 11th would be a prelude to far greater horrors."
In an October 7 address to the nation, Bush cited intelligence showing that Iraq had a fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons. "We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVs for missions targeting the United States," the president declared.
"We know that Iraq and the Al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy -- the United States of America," he added. "Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists. Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints."
These were all lies. All of them. The President and his staff knew -- or damn well should have known -- that the information they were feeding all of us, on talking head pundit shows or during national speeches or in testimony to Congress, all of it was lies.
And these lies were fed to a nation already reeling from the horror of 9/11, living in the ghostly shadow of the fallen towers in Manhattan, and looking to this Administration to keep them safe.
This Administration spit on the nation's trust, lied to our faces, and chose to start a war that we never needed to fight.
Because the scary threat that the Administration built to a fever pitch was a precariously balanced house of cards, on a false foundation of mis-used intelligence, cherry-picked so that no opinion that contradicted what George Bush and Dick Cheney wanted ever got into the public domain until we were already in Iraq.
Public statements made by officials in this Administration -- including by the President himself -- were unwavering in their accusations of wrongdoing on the part of Saddam Hussein. On the threat he posed to this nation. On the possibility of a "mushroom cloud." On the potential for nerve agents or other biological toxins being in his possession and being unleashed on the United States by Saddam's ties to al qaeda.
All lies. And all lies that the Administration knew -- or should have known, had they been doing their damn jobs -- were false before they were ever publicly uttered.
The report stated that U.S. intelligence agencies unanimously agreed that it was unlikely that Saddam would try to attack the United States -- except if "ongoing military operations risked the imminent demise of his regime" or if he intended to "extract revenge" for such an assault, according to records and sources....
On numerous other occasions, Cheney, then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and then-U.N. Ambassador John Negroponte cited Iraq's procurement of aluminum tubes without disclosing that the intelligence community was split as to their end use. The fact that the president was informed of the dissents by Energy and State is also significant because Rice and other administration officials have said that Bush did not know about those dissenting views when he made claims about the purported uses for the tubes.
The President of the United States and his advisors have an obligation to the public to be honest and forthright with them if we are going to go into battle to defend our nation. To start a war is the single most critical decision a President ought ever make. For all those mothers and fathers who send their child into battle on behalf of our great nation, we owe them nothing less than full honesty -- and the President owes them nothing less than honesty with himself as to all of the information available before he gives the orders that will potentially send their children to their death.
This President has lost faith with these soldiers and their families. And Congress ought to be ashamed of themselves for providing what little oversight has been done -- they bear just as much responsibility as the President. Our men and women in uniform deserve much better than this.
They are facing death every day in the streets of Iraq because the President was too dishonest, too craven, too lazy to stand up and be honest with the American people about the reasons he was taking the nation to war. But the people who pay the price for this war are not the sons and daughters of privilege by and large -- and too often they are the families who can least afford to pay the price of so great a sacrifice. But pay it they do, for they love their nation. And for their love of country, what they have gotten in return is a President who has broken faith with them, and sent them into battle based on lies ginned up to create an atmosphere that would support Bush's War.
All that false caring about the troops, the praying with the families of the dead, the false bravado of the boo-yah in a speech on a base, is worthless if you didn't care enough about their lives to do the work to start with before they went into battle.
Just as all that false caring about the people in the Gulf Region here in the US is meaningless when you stay on vacation for days after you know how dire the situation is. All of the public staging, the spin, the Mighty Wurlitzer storylines about what a great, genial, wonderful man you are doesn't mean squat if you aren't man enough to listen to criticism when it is warranted -- and to information that contradicts what you want to hear. A real man faces reality, a coward hides in his bubble surrounded by sycophants who tell him only what he wants to hear and feeds him hand-picked audiences to stroke his ego.
To say that I am disgusted doesn't even come close today.
No more lies without accountability.
|
As a direct result of Samuel Alito's confirmation to the Supreme Court, Mississippi now falls in line behind South Dakota to pass a
Rapist Rights Bill:
Gov. Haley Barbour said Wednesday he would probably sign a bill under consideration in the state House that would ban most abortions in Mississippi.
The measure, which passed the House Public Health Committee on Tuesday, would allow abortion only to save a woman's life. It would make no exception in cases of rape or incest.
Barbour, a Republican, said he preferred an exception in cases of rape and incest, but if such a bill came to his desk: "I suspect I'll sign it."
The full House could vote on the bill next week, and it would then go to the Senate.
And yet NARAL and Planned Parenthood continue to support Joe Lieberman and Lincoln Chafee. I'm hearing that they are greatly annoyed at having to deal with "attacks from the left" on this "one little point" that we seem to disagree on. They're catterwauling that this is "just what the right wants."
Number one -- if you're rubber stamping the people who put Alito on the bench, how EXACTLY does that qualify YOU as the left?
Number two -- it's not "one little point." If another vacancy comes up on the Supreme Court, how do NARAL and Planned Parenthood plan to fight it? If it was okay for Lieberman and Chafee to vote for cloture on Alito, what's going to be different the next time? Are they waiting for someone WORSE before they put up a fight?
Number three -- "just what the right wants?" I'll tell you "just what they right wants." They want to be able to steam roll their fundie freaks onto the bench with no organized opposition, which is exactly what they got. I really don't see how we can make them much happier.
Most big feminists, I'm finding out, have no idea that NARAL and Planned Parenthood are supporting Chafee and Lieberman, or that they told their memberships to thank them both for their Alito votes. When they find out they go appropriately apeshit. They've been contacting a much-irritated Nancy Keenan who seems to think choice is a fine price to pay to maintain her own personal access to Republican cocktail parties.
We get coathangers so she can have cocktail weenies.
Not one more penny for either organization until they agree to stop giving it to people like Lieberman and Chafee who put Alito on the bench.
If there is any hope of stopping this juggernaut, I urge everyone to put your money where it will do some good -- to send a wake-up call to the Democratic Party, NARAL and Planned Parenthood that this is bullshit, people are angry and they better smell the fucking coffee.
Give to
Ciro Rodriguez and Ned Lamont.
The fight starts now.
(hat tip to
Joe from Americablog and not to NARAL, whose blogger mailing list I am on)
|
Reuters:
Dubai Ports World's $6.85 billion acquisition of Britain's P&O will close on Friday or Monday, despite an additional 45-day review by the U.S. government in response to security concerns, a U.S. Treasury Department official said on Thursday.
"My understanding is that the deal will not close today," Deputy Treasury Secretary Robert Kimmitt told a Senate panel. "Although they had announced March 2 as the closing date ... that deal will not now close until tomorrow or Monday."
Kimmitt made his statement in response to a question from lawmakers on the Senate Banking Committee.
Can I just say how unhappy I am that Dobbs is allowed to own this thing?
|
The March 7 deadline on the vote by the Senate Intelligence Committee is looming as to whether or not they'll investigate the illegal NSA wiretaps, and the wavering Republicans -- Snowe and Hagel -- need some nudging. So we're asking people to both call and write on behalf of this today; BushCo. is on the ropes right now and the time is perfect to use it to our advantage.
Glenn Greenwald has been doing yeoman's work into this, you can brush up on
talking points here and read his
latest update here. But the basic point is that the Committee needs to vote to look into this.
So pick up your telephones, grab your fax machines and work those keyboards:
Olympia Snowe (R-ME) -- previously indicated she supported amending FISA in some fashion, but voted with Chairman Pat Roberts (R-KS) to adjourn the committee without considering a motion to hold NSA hearings.
Senator Snowe webmailSenator Snowe Telephone Numbers:
Washington, D.C. Office (202) 224-5344
Washington, D.C. toll-free from Maine (800) 432-1599
Auburn office (207) 786-2451
Augusta (207) 622-8292
Bangor (207) 945-0432
Biddeford office (207) 282-4144
Portland office (207) 874-0883
Presque Isle office (207) 764-5124
Senator Snowe Fax Numbers:Washington, D.C. (202) 224-1946
Auburn office (207) 782-1438
Augusta (207) 622-7295
Bangor (207) 941-9525
Biddeford (207) 284-2358
Portland (207) 874-7631
Presque Isle (207) 764-6420
Chuck Hagel (R-NE) Senator Hagel WebmailSenator Hagel Telephone Numbers:
Washington, D.C. (202) 224-4224
Omaha office (402) 758-8981
Lincoln (402) 476-1400
Kearney (308) 236-7602
Scottsbluff (308) 632-6032
Senator Hagel Fax Numbers:
Washington, D.C. (202) 224-5213
Omaha office (402) 758-9165
Lincoln (402) 476-0605
Kearney (308) 236-7473
Scottsbluff Office (308) 632-6295
We're also encouraging people who are from Maine or Nebraska, or have ties to those states, to write carefully crafted letters to local media outlets. Vichy Dems has the contact information for
Maine here and
Nebraska here.
We keep getting fabulous feedback about all the letters we managed to get printed in the local Kansas papers last week (more on that later), and I'm certain we can do the same in Maine and Nebraska. It's a great way to cut through the national media ice, fly under the radar and hit hard in the back yards of these Senators where our efforts can have the maximum impact.
Thanks to everyone for their help on this matter, you're inspirational.
|
A car bomb intended for the US Embassy in Karachi, Pakistan, instead exploded on impact with a vehicle carrying an American foreign service officer,
according to the NYTimes.
A suicide attacker rammed a car packed with explosives into a vehicle carrying an American diplomat in Pakistan's largest city, killing the diplomat and three other people before President Bush's visit to Pakistan. Fifty-two people were wounded.
The blast near the U.S. Consulate and the Marriott Hotel propelled cars into the air and flung charred wreckage as far as 200 yards. It shattered windows at the consulate and on all 10 floors of the hotel, and damaged a nearby naval hospital.
I know a few people working in the foreign service, but I've lost track of postings for a couple of them in the last year. No names have yet been released, but I'm certain that family and friends of those posted in Pakistan are on pins and needles at the moment awaiting news. Thoughts and prayers for all of you -- family, friends, co-workers -- as you wait for the phone to ring.
Working for the United States in a posting as dangerous as Pakistan is a very tough job. Most of our personnel in difficult postings cannot bring their families with them, but they do a tough job -- trying to sell this Administration's abysmal foreign policy pronouncements to an increasingly skeptical world, while still maintaining some semblence of long-term strategic diplomacy with the nation in question, all the while worrying about safety concerns and potential terrorist threats and kidnappings and other assorted threats -- because the nation's interest requires it.
Ever since Valerie Plame Wilson was outed by her own government in an act of political vengeance and intel exposure, recruiting for these tough posts has been difficult indeed. Who wants to trust an Administration who outs its own personnel? The embassies are staffed not just with diplomatic personnel, but also security experts, analysts and others -- and recruiting has suffered over the last few years under the Bush Administration, I am told by several sources in the diplomatic community despite an initial upsurge in applicants after 9/11. The brave men and women who work tirelessly for this nation in positions this dangerous are heroes, plain and simple -- that we have lost at least one today is a tragedy.
I just wanted to say thank you to those foreign service personnel who work diligently in the field for all of the rest of us. So, thank you. Please, stay safe.
The WaPo has more.
(Photo by
Syed Zargham via NYTimes.)
|
Why are the Bush Administration poll numbers tanking? Well, in my opinion, it's all the lying. The American public can forgive mistakes, so long as they are not done with some malignant intent. Apparently they can also overlook some incompetence, so long as they believe the President is working hard at his job.
But when the public begins to think they have been lied to -- repeatedly -- that love goes sour. Very sour. And lately, for the Bush Administration, it's been all about the lying.
For instance, with the UAE ports deal, we were publicly told there was an investigation done with regard to potential national security. Well....not so much,
according to Rep. Peter King (R-NY):
And what bothered me about the whole thing, and I was asking questions at the beginning. I said I had concerns about it. And when I met with people who are on this committee, I was told upfront - this is before they got their act together - that they did no investigating. There was no investigation done. And then I’m watching "Meet the Press" a week ago Sunday, and Secretary Chertoff was on, and he was saying, 'Well, if the American people knew what a rigorous investigation was conducted, they wouldn’t have any concerns.' That’s when I realized they’re not telling us the true story here, and that’s why I’ve come out against the deal, and at least until there’s a form of investigation.
According to
USATodayOnDeadline (via
FiredUpAmerica), quoting CNN's Ed Henry, Rep. King spoke with members of both Department of the Treasury and Homeland Security on this "who were involved in this CFIUS process, and he asked them did you check out whether or not DP World, the company involved, had ties to al Qaeda, and he is telling CNN he was told, quote, Congressman, you don't understand, we don't conduct a thorough investigation."
And, gee, who could have known that the situation in Iraq would devolve into civil war? Erm...
the CIA, well before we ever entered the country for a war of choice? But, the President didn't know about this, right? Well, actually, he did. (Or at least, ought to be charged with knowing, since the information was prepared for him to...you know...do his job. He owes our troops in uniform that much before sending them into harm's way, don't you think?)
"If the entire body of official intelligence analysis on Iraq had a policy implication," Pillar wrote, "it was to avoid war -- or, if war was going to be launched, to prepare for a messy aftermath."
Pillar describes for the first time that the intelligence community did assessments before the invasion that, he wrote, indicated a postwar Iraq "would not provide fertile ground for democracy" and would need "a Marshall Plan-type effort" to restore its economy despite its oil revenue. It also foresaw Sunnis and Shiites fighting for power.
Pillar wrote that the intelligence community "anticipated that a foreign occupying force would itself be the target of resentment and attacks -- including guerrilla warfare -- unless it established security and put Iraq on the road to prosperity in the first few weeks or months after the fall of Saddam."
And yet, the American public was told stories about flowers and candy greeting our troops...and that Saddam had nuclear capabilities (
he didn't), and WMDs (
he didn't), and that oil revenue from Iraq would pay for the war (
it isn't). Oh, and that Saddam was trying to get nuclear materials from Niger (
he wasn't).
Dick Cheney would never drink and shoot? (
He did.)
Medicare reform is going to save seniors money and make things easier for them to get their prescriptions? (
You've got to be kidding me.)
The President promises to fire anyone involved in leaking the name of a CIA NOC to the press? (Rove still working in the West Wing with his security clearance intact, and Libby only resigned the day he was indicted for multiple felonies.)
Fiscal responsibility? (
hahaha -- the Congress is about to raise the federal debt ceiling...again...this time to raise it above the current level of $8.2 trillion. We'd better all hope China stays happy with us, because they own a lot of our debt right now.)
Any domestic spying is done with a warrant? (Well, that's a quaint little Fourth Amendment notion, now isn't it?
And a big fat lie. And it's now being
challenged directly, just fyi.)
And now, yesterday, we learned that the President was told --
directly -- by state, local and federal officials that Katrina posed a "catastrophic" threat to the Gulf Coast. And that the President said the federal government was "fully prepared" to assist in every way. And we all know how well that turned out, don't we?
Here is what the President said to Elizabeth Vargas on February 28, 2006,
about what he knew:
VARGAS: When you look back on those days immediately following when Katrina struck, what moment do you think was the moment that you realized that the government was failing, especially the people of New Orleans?
BUSH: When I saw TV reporters interviewing people who were screaming for help. It looked — the scenes looked chaotic and desperate. And I realized that our government was — could have done a better job of comforting people.
We were told that Dan Bartlett had to put together a DVD of news snippets for the President several days after Katrina hit on the 29th to show him what was going on -- is THAT when the President realized things weren't going well? Days after the hurricane -- and only because a staffer made him watch a video to catch him up with the news...while he was still on vacation...for days after the catastrophic hurricane?
Then there was this gem, "I don't think anyone anticipated the breach of the levees." from the interview with Diane Sawyer on 9/1/05. (
Crooks and Liars has the video clip.)
Having seen clips from this latest tape obtained by the AP, it is going to be very difficult for the White House to spin us back to that veneer that the President was "engaged" in the hurricane planning process -- given that he asks no questions during the briefing, sitting in a conference room at his vacation home in Crawford, with a sparse staff of advisors, all the while state, local and FEMA and other disaster officials are clearly ramping up in the Gulf region. (
C&L has video on this as well.) You see things
like this on the tape:
Bush was dialed into the conference Sunday at noon Eastern time from a meeting room at his ranch in Crawford, with Deputy Chief of Staff Joseph Hagin at his side.
"I want to assure the folks at the state level that we are fully prepared to not only help you during the storm, but we will move in whatever resources and assets we have at our disposal after the storm," Bush said, gesturing with both hands for emphasis on the digital recording. Neither Bush nor Hagin asked questions, however....
"This is, to put it mildly, the big one," Brown said. "Everyone within FEMA is now virtually on call."
Did I mention that President Bush remained on vacation...for days afterward, even after the worst possible scenario came to pass.
Yesterday, Jack Cafferty was reading viewer e-mails on the subject on CNN's Situation Room. Someone wrote into the show with a quote that is particularly apt: "Only the Bush Administration could take a disaster of Biblical proportions, and make it worse."
If you are going to lie about not knowing how bad a disaster will be -- then you should be certain that no video of you being told it will be a disaster exists. In this case, there have been so many preceding lies, the hope this Administration can hold onto at this point is that the American public will just chalk it up to the way things work in Washington.
Except, at the moment, the Republican party controls Congress and the White House. And when you add in all the Abramoff investigations and guilty pleas thus far and the entire GOP KStreet operation, the Duck Cunningham bribery pleas and continuing investigations, the Tom DeLay indictment and investigations and all the rest of the mess, you get a very ugly picture of what the current party leadership of the Republican party has been doing. And it sure as hell doesn't look like the public's business from here, now does it?
It's all about the lying. No accountability, no taking responsibility, none. This President comes off as an irresponsible frat boy who is more than willing to blame anyone else to get his own ass out of trouble. That may work when you are 19 (although it wouldn't have worked with my parents, I can tell you that), but one would think that the President of the United States would hold himself to a higher ethical standard on this. Especially given a situation where people lost their lives.
You want accountability? Then restore some balance in Washington. Elect Democrats to Congress -- because the only way this President is ever going to see some checks and balances is from the opposition party. And lord knows THIS President needs some serious oversight.
No more lies without accountability. Period.
|
We have a very special announcement tonight. Last night we told you that there would be not one but two prizes awarded in
our contest -- the best Joe Klein quote to be voted on by the readers of this blog, and the Charles P. Pierce Award for Excellence in Klein Snark to be awarded by a panel of FDL judges. Our version of the Thalberg.
But we know how these things go -- with decisions this subjective there will inevitably be charges of jury tampering, favoratism and just plain bad taste. And thus we have enlisted the outside assistance of a judge with too much at stake to be swayed by the lures both sexual and chemical inevitably proffered in exchange for such a crown, someone who would never allow his good name to be sullied by succumbing to base and carnal temptations.
The sole judge for the Charles P. Pierce Award for Excellence in Klein Snark will be noneother than Charles P. Pierce himself, who set the gold standard with
this piece.
So sharpen your quills and get ready for tonight's contestants as we enter the second round semi-final of "Joe Klein, In His Own Words":
10. "This month, Democrats may use procedural tricks to stop all Senate business and block a Republican effort to eliminate minority filibuster rights and jam through seven federal judges proposed by the President. The fight may be winnable, but it is a culture of law cul-de-sac. The Democrats will be shutting down the Senate over a matter of process rather than substance, a pinhead of principle most civilians will find difficult to understand. The Armageddon of confirmation battles—over the next Supreme Court Justice—will probably follow soon after, and it may cement a public impression of the Democrats as a party obsessed with the legal processes that preserve the status quo on issues such as abortion, gay rights and extreme secularism—and little else. The political damage may be considerable."
11. "[I will] have a lot more to say on this (NSA) issue next week -- but first I have to learn more about it."
12. "The notion of calling it wiretapping is questionable, I think, although I'm still not entirely sure."
13. "People like me who favor this program don't yet know enough about it yet. Those opposed to it know even less -- and certainly less than I do."
14. "The president has said privately he doubts that he will ever get credit for this eruption of American diversity. But admirably, he has never really asked for credit. He hasn't gone around trumpeting the fact that during his first term, the Secretary of State and the National Security Adviser were the first African Americans to hold those positions. Or that there were four women in his Cabinet. Or that Gonzales would be the first Hispanic Attorney General."
15. "And then there is the pessimism problem. Populists of both strains tend to believe that the system is rigged by dark and powerful forces that prevent the little guy from getting ahead, which means they tend to be angry. They also tend to be dividers rather than uniters. Even the nice-guy populism attempted by former Senator John Edwards in the last presidential campaign had a divisive edge. His theme was "two Americas." Pessimism, anger and unsubtle divisiveness tend to be total nonstarters in American politics."
16. "In fact, liberal Democrats are about as far from the American mainstream on [the NSA spying] as Republicans were when they invaded the privacy of Terri Schiavo's family in the right-to-die case last year. But there is a difference. National security is a far more important issue, and until the Democrats make clear that they will err on the side of aggressiveness in the war against al-Qaeda, they will probably not regain the majority in Congress or the country."
17. "Bill Clinton gives the appearance of taking stands-for some sort of tax cut, some sort of welfare reform, some sort of balanced budget-but these are ploys, mirages: they exist only to undermine positions taken by the Republicans. He doesn't fight for anything substantive-except of course, re-election. ...He has fallen into the dangerous habit of lip synching the presidency: he gives the appearance of leadership, but not the substance."
18. "And so the President finds himself in an exceedingly odd position for a post-Reagan Republican. He is acting like a Democrat, standing for abstract principles and high-minded long-term projects in the face of a public demanding easy answers and immediate results."
Remember to vote by number and only once for the best quote. Your analysis will be evaluated separately for snark factor, so please argue your choice passionately for the benefit of your fellow commenters. The winners will receive a copy of the
newly released DVD of Action.
Bring your best work because
someone -- we don't know who -- is obsessed with searching Technorati for the name Joe Klein.
Let the snark begin.
First Night Semi-Final Round
|
But who knew it was going to be
so direct.
George Bush
with Diane Sawyer, September 1, 2005:
"I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees. They did anticipate a serious storm. But these levees got breached. And as a result, much of New Orleans is flooded. And now we are having to deal with it and will."
But now according to a new tape unearthed by the AP, we see Bush being advised by experts the day before the storm hit:
"I also make absolutely clear to everyone that there is the potential for a large loss of life in the coastal areas from the storm surge" and "I don't think anybody can tell you with any confidence right now whether the levees will be topped or not, but that's obviously a very very grave concern."
Despite this, George Bush made a decision to stay on vacation in Crawford.
From the AP:
Homeland Security officials have said the ``fog of war'' blinded them early on to the magnitude of the disaster. But the video and transcripts show federal and local officials discussed threats clearly, reviewed long-made plans and understood Katrina would wreak devastation of historic proportions. ``I'm sure it will be the top 10 or 15 when all is said and done,'' National Hurricane Center's Max Mayfield warned the day Katrina lashed the Gulf Coast.
Hoping to counteract the damage of the story, the White House
leaked Newsweek transcripts from daily noon FEMA conference calls during and after Katrina to show how engaged and concerned Dubya was. Trouble is, these are transcripts that they had initially refused to provide to congressional investigators:
[T]he administration initially told Congress that the transcript for the Aug. 29 call -- the call congressional investigators were most curious about, given that it occurred as the hurricane was actually battering the Gulf Coast -- did not exist, with officials initially telling Capitol Hill that someone at FEMA or Homeland Security forgot to push the button on a tape recorder.
"Everybody has been looking for that transcript," former FEMA chief Michael Brown said Wednesday.
A White House official unexpectedly e-mailed the transcript to NEWSWEEK earlier today Wednesday morning -- initially without explaining that it was the missing transcript. Two officials familiar with congressional investigations said that the document was turned over to Capitol Hill investigators Tuesday night. Administration officials told both Congress and NEWSWEEK that FEMA officials in Atlanta had taped the Aug. 29 conference call by aiming a video camera at a TV screen rather than following the usual recording procedure. The videotape was subsequently discovered and transcribed.
I can't recall offhand how many times the Administration has invoked the "dog ate my homework" excuse this year, but I'd have to take off my shoes to count them.
They really had to weigh the benefits of this one -- in order to try and prove that a narcissistic, elitist frat boy actually gave a shit about a bunch of dying poor people they had to bust their own lies:
Under questioning by congressional investigators as to why he went home at 10 p.m. on Aug. 29 amid conflicting reports about flooding and levee breaches, Rapuano indicated that the administration did not believe the White House was supposed to be a command center. He says he went home believing that FEMA's Michael Brown had all the resources he needed and that extensive search-and-rescue efforts were under way in New Orleans. Trent Duffy, a White House spokesman, said earlier this year: "The White House is not an operational institution. It doesn't run the nitty-gritty in natural disasters, and it doesn't direct bombing sorties in Iraq."
Some congressional investigators say it now seems somewhat ironic that having belatedly found the Aug. 29 conference-call transcript, the administration is now touting it as evidence of deep presidential -- and White House -- involvement in the crisis.
Once again, the White House proves that when Congress asks for documents for the purposes of a legitimate investigation -- well, that's just beyond the pale, executive privilege, national security, blah blah blah, fill in the blank. But leaking those very same documents to spin the press in a convenient moment of CYA, or if something needs to be declassified as part of a larger PR smear campaign, well that's just fine and dandy.
I don't know what deity might be brewing up this perfect storm of payback for Dubya but he does not seem to be interested in having a friendly conversation with the Boy King at the moment.
(graphic by Dark Black)
|
Just got off the phone with Sara Wheat, Executive Director of NARAL Pro-Choice Texas who told me that NARAL has endorsed Ciro Rodriguez. They've also donated $5,000 to his campaign.
Sarah said, "Ciro was such a strong ally in the US house, with a 100% voting record for supporting reproductive health and pro-choice legislation. With so many right-wing extremists in the US Congress, we need someone like Ciro who understands that most Texans are pro-choice."
This is really exciting and exactly the kind of thing NARAL should be doing -- jumping into primary races when there's a clear-cut distinction between a pro-choice candidate (Rodriguez) and an anti-choice candidate (Cuellar). The endorsement was made by the NARAL national PAC, so despite the fact that they continue to endorse Lincoln Chafee they are doing something right.
We've kicked 'em when they're wrong so let's thank 'em when they're right. Please let NARAL know how much we appreciate their support of Ciro and their efforts to kick the DINO Cuellar back into the unemployment line, and while you're at it tell them you hope they will endorse Ned Lamont in his race against Joe Lieberman:
NARAL Pro-Choice America
1156 15th Street, NW Suite 700
Washington, DC 20005
Main Number: 202.973.3000
Main Fax: 202.973.3096
can@ProChoiceAmerica.org
feedback form
And we're closing in on
our ActBlue page as the single biggest donor to Ciro's campaign. How much would I love to be screaming from the rafters that the largest internet donation to Ciro was pro-choice money? That's a headline. That might just knock some sense into the Democratic establishment. That would be a message that even lunkhead Democratic "strategists" like
Steve Elmendorf and
Bob Doyle -- who plan to use the internet as an ATM for the upcoming election -- will be able to hear.
Remember -- every $50 dollars you give today puts someone on the ground in Texas walking the precinct for next week's primary vote. You can make the lesson so clear that even DC cement heads can understand it
by giving here.
|
Last week we
initiated a campaign to get people in Kansas writing letters to the editors in their local papers with remarkable success. Although many of them haven't yet appeared, numerous people have been contacted by the papers and told that they will in fact be published. We'll have a round-up as soon as we get something more concrete.
The deadline for the new vote by the Senate Intelligence Committee as to whether they will investigate the illegal NSA wiretaps is March 7. In targeting Kansas we've already hit committee Chairman Pat Roberts, and today we want to direct our energies toward writing letters targeting wavering Republicans Olympia Snowe and Chuck Hagel in Maine and Nebraska respectively.
Glenn Greenwald's
post here provides good talking points, and as his
post from today notes that it has become apparent based on news reports that there are other warrantless surveillance programs aimed at Americans besides the one the NYT reported on. All the more reason the committee cannot shirk its duty to investigate.
A contact list of
Nebraska papers here.
A contact list of
Maine papers here.
Remember -- personal, carefully crafted letters from local addresses are much more likely to get printed, so we want to encourage people who actually live in these states, or have some kind of connection with them to do so.
Tomorrow we'll be asking people to call Snowe's and Hagel's offices, so stay tuned.
|
Touching:
Dear Dr. Dobson:
This is just a short note to express my heartfelt thanks to you and the entire staff of Focus on the Family for your help and support during the past few challenging months.
I would also greatly appreciate it if you would convey my appreciation to the good people from all parts of the country who wrote to tell me that they were praying for me and for my family during this period.
As I said when I spoke at my formal investiture at the White House last week, the prayers of so many people from around the country were a palpable and powerful force.
As long as I serve on the Supreme Court I will keep in mind the trust that has been placed in me.
I hope that we'll have the opportunity to meet personally at some point in the future.
In the meantime my entire family and I hope that you and the Focus on the Family staff know how we appreciate all that you have done.
Sincerely yours,
Samuel Alito
The fight against the next repulsive Supreme Court nominee begins
now with a wake-up call to the Democratic party: pro-choice matters, gay rights matter, and don't come calling on the blogosphere with your hand out unless you're willing to fight this Dobson shit tooth-and-nail. Ciro Rodriguez is
neck-and-neck in a Congressional red state race against an anti-choice, anti-gay rights, pro-war so-called Democrat. Every $50 he gets today will
send someone to walk a precinct next week on March 7, the day of the primary.
Let's show up now. Today. When it really matters.
You can donate to Ciro
here.
|
Remember that whole "we'll get Osama, dead or alive" thing?
Still waiting... 4 years, 5 months, 18 days and counting...
(Thanks to
Froomkin on the math. It's an extra good column today. Just FYI. Plus, graphics love to
TBHPolitoons.)
NOTE: Yep, you guys were right. That's what I get for not double-checking. Thanks for the heads up.
|
The WaPo is reporting this morning that more than one in three American servicepeople report suffering from mental distress after returning from Iraq.
It's unfortunate that the Bush Administration and the VA have consistently refused to raise funding for treatment of PTSD and other mental issues to correspond with the increase in our veterans requesting treatment over the last few years. In fact,
it gets worse:
The Administration targeted many severely-disabled veterans suffering with mental health problems by seeking review of their benefits, subjecting them to the trauma of re-documenting their claims even though the errors that prompted the review were the result of administrative mistakes and not fraud, as the Administration implied. The Administration has also halted a congressionally mandated study to examine the long-term health effects of PTSD on Vietnam veterans.
Read more
here -- and it's not just mental health issues that are under-funded.
This is shameful, and something that your representatives in Congress ought to hear about. And something that would make a great issue for a letter to the editor in your local newspaper or a call to a local talk radio show. Our soldiers risk their lives day in and day out -- they deserve a helluva lot better from this Administration than a deliberately underfunded system of support year after year.
We knew going into Afghanistan and Iraq that the number of injured veterans was likely to rise -- as it always does when you engage in an armed conflict. That this Administration and the Republican-controlled Congress failed to plan for this increase -- by budgeting and staffing adequately for it up front -- is dishonest and wrong. And it dishonors the veterans who put their lives and their limbs on the line for all of us. Shame on Congress and the President for failing our veterans at a time when they need us most. For shame.
It's bad enough that this Administration is asking soldiers to
re-pay them for body armor pulled off their bleeding bodies because the proper paperwork wasn't done in the middle of a combat arena, or that foreign troops are
getting priority over our own national guard troops in receiving upgraded body armor from the DoD -- but this VA underfunding issue is really the last straw for me.
Our veterans deserve better. George Bush and his Administration have an obligation to the men and women they send in harms way to provide adequate medical care for these soldiers when they return from the field of combat. We owe them that much. And I expect the Bush Administration and the Republican-controlled Congress to step up to the plate and honor these veterans by doing the right thing.
UPDATE: SteveO, posting at
Bob Geiger's blog, provides a link for you to Hold a Bake Sale to help a soldier get proper body armor.
UPDATE #2: Well, this is
appalling (via Wonkette). Thanks to reader radish for bringing it to my attention. According to Wonkette, the US Marine Corps has decided our soldiers are fighting for Communist China or Stalinist Russia or something -- because they are heavily censoring what our soldiers can or can't read -- including limiting access to any news organizations or blogs who would *gasp* dare criticize the Administration. E-mail access has also been blocked (wouldn't want our soldiers learning anything contrary to what our government wants them to know, now would we?) You know, in the not so distant past, this nation valued the First Amendment and freedom of speech and liberty. It all seems so quaint now, doesn't it? (And who the hell decided that soldiers are gonna stay cheery on the battlefield without access to internet porn? Sheesh.)
|
That memory defense is looking more fuzzy all the time
for Scooter Libby.
"A CIA employee assigned to provide daily intelligence briefs to the Vice President and Libby has handwritten notes indicating that Libby referred to 'Joe Wilson' and 'Valerie Wilson' by those names in conversation with the briefer on June 14, 2003," Fitzgerald wrote in a recently unsealed brief.
The filing suggests Cheney may have been present when Libby griped to his CIA briefer about agency officials slamming the veep in the press.
Seven officials have testified that Libby raised the CIA spy with them before columnist Robert Novak outed her.
Hmmmm...seven officials. Shall we play a game of "Who is pointing the finger at Scooter?" I'm in for Rove in a heartbeat if it saves his butt, but who else has "testified" that Libby raised the issue of Valerie Wilson with them? And who else might he have spoken to that has not yet been asked to give testimony? (WHIG, anyone?)
Will try and get my hands on the filing today, and will report back on any other interesting tidbits. One thing that leapt out at me in
the NYDailyNews article was that "Fitzgerald also revealed that his investigators also confiscated computers."
My, that IS interesting, isn't it. But the question is, whose computers? From the office of the Vice President? From the Executive Office of the President? From a number of WHIG members?
Is this why Stephen Hadley was telling friends that he expected to be indicted back in October of last year? Was this the cause of Rove's nervousness? (Because the FBI marching into your office with a warrant and seizing the computer off your desk can be a bit nervewracking, I'm sure.) Is this what led to the testimony of two Rove aides -- and Rove's fourth G/J appearance?
No idea -- but one thing is certain, that disclosure alone tells me that Fitz's investigative team has been doing things by the book, no matter how much power the people being investigated wield on a day to day basis. And that alone makes me very happy indeed. I've seen what these sorts of investigators can do in piecing together disparate elements to weave an entire backstory into a case -- and I would never, ever want to be in their investigative crosshairs. Especially when they feel they have been lied to, mislead, and obstructed.
You should see what the white collar crime unit guys can do with a hard drive that has been "wiped." I saw a kiddie porn guy break down in tears at a hearing once just seeing what these folks had reconstructed for me out of a hard drive he tried to burn...literally, burn, as in fire. Imagine what they could do with back-up computer tapes and the like, along with a hard drive and a network as intricate as they must have at the White House.
The FBI doesn't take kindly to people flouting the law. And when those people happen to be public officials who take an oath to uphold the Constitution and the laws in the execution of their public duties...well, let's just say that is doubly offensive. All the more incentive to keep digging until you get to the bottom of the scheme, wouldn't you say?
Did I mention that the investigation is ongoing? Oh yeah, more coffee for me today. Lots more digging to do.
(Image via
All Things Beautiful. Thanks to pollyusa for the reminder on this article last night -- I meant to get to it yesterday, but life interfered, so we get a Fitz fix this morning instead.)
UPDATE: By the way, if you have a moment this morning, please take the time to fill out
the Blogads survey. They do this survey every year to get an idea of the sorts of people who read political blogs -- to help them sell advertisers on buying ads on blogs like this one. And those ads help Jane and I to defer the costs of running the blog, and perhaps buy ourselves some new pens, notebooks,
Manolos and such. If you do fill out the survey, please consider answering "Firedoglake" for question #23. Thanks in advance for everyone who does this -- it's a great service for all the bloggers who do work on the political scene for advertisers to understand we have educated, savvy readers. (Thanks to
C&L for the link on this.)
|
Whenever Father Tim, Tweety and others decide to have the rare, one-off episode where they lure a Democrat into their lairs, more often than not the quote-unquote "Democrat" they book is Joe Klein. He then becomes the emblem for the party, the pundit who comes to mind when many Americans think "Democrat." He's the one the bookers have on speed dial, the one chosen to represent the "liberal" viewpoint on a weekly basis in Time Magazine.
Did it ever occur to Joe that the country's low opinion of "Democrats" -- something he is always quick to invoke -- is in large part due to the fact that people instinctively loathe
him?
Here are tonight's entries for "Joe Klein: In His Own Words":
1. "For too many liberals, all secret intelligence activities are "fruit," and bitter fruit at that. The government is presumed guilty of illegal electronic eavesdropping until proven innocent. This sort of civil-liberties fetishism is a hangover from the Vietnam era, when the Nixon Administration wildly exceeded all bounds of legalityÂspying on antiwar protesters and civil rights leaders."
2. "There is evidence that the information harvested helped foil several plots and disrupt al-Qaeda operations. There is also evidence, according to U.S. intelligence officials, that since the New York Times broke the story, the terrorists have modified their behavior, hampering our efforts to keep track of them..."
3. "The possibility of vice-presidential anguish was barely mentioned by most commentators at first. Cheney is a tough customer; Oprahfied "sharing" isn't his way. But then, there he was, with that haunted look in his Fox News interview, saying, "[T]he image of him falling is something I'll never be able to get out of my mind. I fired, and there's Harry falling ..." Hunting had given him "great pleasure" in the past, but he wasn't so sure now. In fact, he sounded a lot like the combat veterans I've spoken with over the years, for whom the living nightmare of firing a weapon under questionable circumstances is a constant theme."
4. "Most polls indicate that a strong majority of Americans favor the [Patriot] act, and I suspect that a strong majority would favor the NSA program as well, if its details were declassified and made known."
5. "Populism is one of the more romantic and less admirable American political traditions. It purports to represent the interests of the little guy -- the people, not the powerful... but more often than not it has manifested itself as a witlessly reactionary bundle of prejudices: nativist, protectionist, isolationist, and paranoid. The central assumption is that the little guy is so aggrieved that he can only be roused to citizenship by an appeal to his basest suspicions. Exploitation and venality are posited as the central fact of American life: The country is being taken to the cleaners by wicked plutocrats."
6. "I'm a so-called journalist who views his job as doing the legwork and then calling them as I see them. And I'm tired of civilians of the left and the right who, in their infinite wisdom, spew vituperative nonsense instead of asking substantive questions when they have the opportunity."
7. "John Kerry--John Kerry's been having a very bad cheese year. First he was going to put a Swiss cheese on his cheesesteak in Philly and now this."
8. "In a way, President Bush is the beneficiary of 40 years of Democratic policy -- not just affirmative action, which helped create a broader, deeper pool of successful nonwhite college graduates, but also the Democratic Party's historic support for civil rights legislation, the feminist revolution and the easing of strict immigration policies in the 1960s, policies long opposed by many Republicans. But the Bush Cabinets have also been very much a reflection of who George W. Bush is and always has been."
9. "The Democrats' relative silence on all this has been prudent, but telling. Their implicit position has been to err toward law. 'The notion that Florida failed to do its job in the Schiavo case is wrong,' said Congressman Barney Frank, one of the few Democrats willing to speak about the case. 'Procedurally, there was a great deal of due process.' Frank was right, but it was a curiously sterile pronouncement, bereft of the Congressman's usual raucous humanity. It exemplified the Democratic Party's recent overdependence on legal process, a culture of law that has supplanted legislative consideration of vexing social issues. This is democracy once removed."
We will have four nights of semi-finals so that we can carefully evaluate each of the entries. Please vote only once and by number, but you are encouraged to passionately defend your choice for the benefit of those who come after you.
There will be two prizes -- one for the best Joe Klein quote, and there will also be a winner of the special Charles P. Pierce award for excellence in Klein Snark
inspired by this piece (to be decided by the FDL panel of judges). Both will win a DVD copy of the dark and brilliant series
Action. We will have three more nights of semi-finals before the final vote (one contestant from each night will make it to the finals), so please give your careful consideration to the task at hand.
Joe always speaks so highly of us, we really need to show up for him.
|
Congratulations Washington Post, your ombudsman is
now a national joke.
(graphic by Valley Girl)
|
Tucker Carlson, Republican Pun-don't on MSNBC, has made quite a fuss about the Libby case from the get-go, trashing Patrick Fitzgerald at every possible opportunity, and blathering sympathetically about Scooter Libby's kids...oh, the kids, for God's sake, the kids. Never mind that had Scooter not committed multiple felonies in the first place...well, Tucker doesn't really care about that, now does he?
But Tucker has a secret.
And unfortunately for Tucker, the secret got published on the
Scooter Libby Defense Slush Fund website...and blabbed all over Washington...and
Arianna found out about it.
But with all he's had to say about the case, there is one thing that Tucker Carlson has failed to mention: That his father, Richard Carlson, is on the advisory committee of the Libby Legal Defense Trust, the GOP-heavy-hitter-laden group that has so far raised $2 million.
Indeed, Richard Carlson was the Early Money Is Like Yeast of Libby defense fund-raisers, having couriered a check to Libby's home the morning he was indicted....
But while Carlson has mentioned the legal defense fund on the air and on his blog (including chiding Cheney for not donating to it), he hasn't seen fit to offer up an "in the interest of full disclosure" type disclaimer.
According to Arianna, this isn't the first time Tucks has failed to mention such a potential conflict involving Daddy and a story on which he was reporting. It's
an exceptional article, filled with all sorts of bits, including all those pesky quotes that Tucker no doubt wishes he could soften or, perhaps, be up front and honest about his bias before opening his yap. I'm afraid "bygones" isn't gonna cut it on this one, Tucks.
Such a teensy detail as "my Daddy's money is keeping Scooter afloat while he's indicted for five felonies" must have just slipped his mind. Perhaps that bow tie is a little tighter than we thought.
Or maybe Tucks ought to ask Libby for the name of that memory expert he hired (Olbermann reported on that this evening, you know facts, names, stuff Tucker might want to consider using on his show) -- might be useful to have the guy on board when he explains things to the producers at MSNBC. I can hear it now:
"Erm...yeah, well, I forgot Daddy had a check messengered to Scooter's house the very day he was indicted. Maybe I should have been more up front about that with you and my viewers."
Oh, ya think? Conflict of interest, much?
Credibility is so tenuous. Especially when you were awfully low on it to begin with...but
Rachel Maddow ought to be hilarious next time she's on the show. That might be worth the price of popcorn all by itself.
|
There's plenty of lingering resentment by musicians against Joe Lieberman's draconian
PMRC censorship measures, and
Howie Klein is having no trouble in his efforts to line them up to speak out against Lieberman and support Ned Lamont. Within minutes of sending out his initial entreaties he got this from Rickie Lee Jones:
Herr Lieberman helped me realize there is not much of a fine line left between the middle of the right and the edge of the left. We have moved so far over that even middle America stands perched on one foot, with it's one strand of hair tossed across its frowning face, trying to straighten the coffee in a cup that will forever be leaning far too right to ever feel balanced again.
No good American can go out into the street today and not turn gray with nausea at the complacency of every single newspaper, financial institution, and influential individual in the conspiracy to keep this unqualified, uneducated, unelected criminal in office. Lieberman was an important candidate, and he, above all of them, is a turn coat who helped to nullify the potency of the left.
Howie has the rest of her letter
here. He's been hearing back from dozens of really big artists and managers and will be posting more in the next few days.
This could get very interesting.
|
The Texas race between Ciro Rodriguez and the DINO Henry Cuellar is heating up. Looks like some unexpected help may be coming from inside the Cuellar campaign, in the form of Cuellar's Democratic strategist (*cough*)
Bob Doyle, whose skills were so meager he failed to get the 50 (yes, 50) signatures he needed to put his Ohio Democratic candidate on the ballot (and who must now run as a write-in).
I have a rather large poodle who could've done a better job.
From today's Roll Call:
An embarrassing last-minute filing snafu in a must-win Ohio open-seat House race has led to a round of behind-the-scenes finger-pointing in Democratic circles, as party leaders sought to assess blame for state Sen. Charlie Wilsons (D) failure to qualify for the primary ballot in the 6th district.
As Wilson announced Friday that he will pursue a write-in campaign to win the Democratic nomination, it was clear that some in the party were looking to Bob Doyle, Wilsons fundraising consultant who was believed to hold great sway over the campaign, to shoulder at least some of the responsibility for the major setback.
"I think in any screw-up like this one, you first look to the campaign manager and then you look to the consultant," said one Democratic operative.
(snip)
[I]n 2004, Doyle further incensed some party insiders on Capitol Hill by working to defeat a Democratic incumbent in a Texas primary.
His client in that race, now-Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas), is currently involved in a biter rematch with former Rep. Ciro Rodriguez (D) in the March 7 primary. Cuellar, a conservative Democrat who touts his ties to President Bush and was recently endorsed by the Club for Growth, is unpopular with liberal party leaders and interest groups.
As head of Sutters Mill Fundraising and Consulting, Doyle has built his reputation on electing moderate to conservative Democrats in tough contests largely in the South and Midwest, risky territory for the party in recent cycles.
But Doyles willingness to work against more liberal candidates, including incumbents, hasn't helped to foster the best relationship with his partys leadership, though he is close with House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), a champion of party moderates.
Meanwhile, within the DCCC, frustration with Doyle has festered in recent years due to the consultants insistence that the committee communicate with campaigns through him, according to knowledgeable Democratic sources. That frustration with Doyle has been amplified this cycle, due to the fact that he has several top-tier clients in races that are viewed as must-wins for Democrats.
Wilson and Ohios 6th district fall into both of those categories.
The open-seat race is among the most competitive in the country, and national Democrats had coalesced behind the socially conservative Wilson early on as their prospect for holding the seat that Rep. Ted Strickland (D-Ohio) is vacating to run for governor.
But last week Wilson was deemed ineligible to appear on the May 2 primary ballot after only 46 of the 96 signatures he submitted were ruled valid four shy of the 50 needed to qualify for the ballot in the Buckeye State.
Wilson has decided to run as a write-in in the primary, on a ballot where two lesser-known and underfunded Democrats will be listed.
(snip)
Wilsons failure to make the ballot opened a wide door for Republicans to raise questions about the competence of his campaign and whether he is ready for a national-level race.
"Charlie Wilsons inept non-candidacy is badly wounded both politically and in terms of his failure to understand the geography of the district he wishes to represent in Washington," NRCC spokesman Ed Patru said in a statement following Wilsons disqualification.
Wilson is not the only highly-touted candidate in a competitive race Doyle is working to elect this cycle.
(snip)
Last year, some party insiders privately questioned whether Doyles close relationship with DCCC Executive Director John Lapp was factoring prominently in his firms ability to score a number of top-tier recruits.
Lapps and Doyles political ties date back to the 1998 cycle and the campaign of Ken Lucas, a conservative Democrat then running for an open seat in Kentucky.
Doyle, who was just getting his new firm off the ground, was a consultant to the campaign and hired Lapp to manage the race.
Lucas, who retired in 2004, is now seeking a comeback and is challenging Rep. Geoff Davis (R-Ky.) in what is expected to be a highly competitive race this November. Doyle is once again working for Lucas.
The Republicans have been taking advantage of the truly awful Democratic "strategists" for years. It's nice to know we may now be able to take advantage of the same -- there's no reason to think they won't be shooting Cuellar in the foot too and staying true to form.
But how many other seats are these people going to cough up to the GOP through cronyism and ineptitude before they're through?
The March 7 Ciro primary is coming up soon so thankfully it may be working on our side for once.
You can give to Ciro
here.
Update: From a
dennisl at Kos:
"You call them 'loser consultants.' I call them 'future Fox News experts on Democratic strategy.'"
|
It's Fat Tuesday, and New Orleans is celebrating the
last day of Mardi Gras. If ever a region earned a party...especially given that
2/3 of Katrina donations have already been disbursed, but there is still substantial remaining need.
Here's hoping for some dry, sunny days ahead for everyone in the Gulf Coast.
Looks like President Bush has a grey cloud following him around today: poll numbers are at 34%, according to the latest CBS News poll.
According to Froomkin, you have to go back pretty far to see numbers that low:
To find other numbers that low in the CBS poll, you have to go back 14 years to Bush's father. Bill Clinton never had it so bad.
To find numbers even lower, you have to go back to Jimmy Carter's disastrous 1979 -- or to Richard Nixon in 1974, who Gallup-polled as low as 23 just before he resigned.
And speaking of the President,
Peter Galbraith has some choice words regarding his decided lack of true Presidential temperament:
In his State of the Union address, President Bush told his Iraq critics, "Hindsight is not wisdom and second-guessing is not a strategy." His comments are understandable. Much of the Iraq fiasco can be directly attributed to Bush's shortcomings as a leader. Having decided to invade Iraq, he failed to make sure there was adequate planning for the postwar period. He never settled bitter policy disputes among his principal aides over how postwar Iraq would be governed; and he allowed competing elements of his administration to pursue diametrically opposed policies at nearly the same time. He used jobs in the Coalition Provisional Authority to reward political loyalists who lacked professional competence, regional expertise, language skills, and, in some cases, common sense. Most serious of all, he conducted his Iraq policy with an arrogance not matched by political will or military power.
Found this
Galbraith article via
Josh Marshall, and it is a great read.
The NYTimes is suing the Pentagon for more documents on the NSA domestic spying progra, according to
the Jurist.
The Times asserts that the Defense Department has not contended that there are "unusual circumstances" prompting the delay, which the act requires to give the government more time to respond. In a separate FOIA lawsuit [JURIST report] filed by the Electronic Information Privacy Center, a federal judge has ordered the Justice Department to produce documents [JURIST report] relating to the NSA spying program, including the guidelines used when deciding whether to monitor an individual's communications.
With Senate committees reviewing whether to provide oversight, or to amend FISA, information the Times or other news organizations could obtain could prove very interesting, indeed.
And on the intelligence front, there are
a lot of unanswered questions about how things are going in the "revamped" intelligence service.
Froomkin also has a review of the latest Libby news, with a hat tip to Jeralyn, Next Hurrah and FDL for reporting on the Libby case, along with links to some more articles on current maneuvers and rulings. Always nice to get a pat on the back, especially from Froomkin.
The WaPo reports that the death toll in Iraq from sectarian violence has topped 1,300 since the mosque in Somarra was bombed. There were 57 deaths today alone in Baghdad, after a string of bombings, according to
the NYTimes.
Things are getting
worse in Sudan, as the violence has now crossed the border into Chad.
Plus, as always,
Arthur is a thoughtful read.
|
Via
Atrios, we find that
Media Matters is documenting the new GOP meme over the UAE ports fiasco: Democrats are "moving to the right" of Republicans on national security. As if the GOP are somehow the true banner carriers here.
As this whole mess unravels they are trying to digest their own history of spin and quite frankly choking on it. Democrats (like John Kerry) have long known that the corrupt GOP machine was all about consolidating its own power with fear mongering and using 9/11 as a means to get its hand on all the war and national security profiteering it could eat. They
never cared about
real national security in the form of actually securing our porous ports, probably the biggest gap in fighting the
true terrorism threat (as opposed to the simple unremitting hatred of brown people that is now blowing back uncontrollably in BushCo.'s collective face) so it's both ironic and appropriate that their undoing should come in the form of the Dubai Ports World deal.
Meanwhile the war bloggers are picking up the
Bill Kristol baton and have discovered what went wrong with the war in Iraq: protests from the left. I think we should let
Glenn Greenwald field this one:
One can bet the mortgage that we'll be seeing a lot more of this over the next few months -- between now and, say, oh, November or so. Those who insisted on this war, who started it, who prosecuted it, who controlled every single facet of its operation -- they have no blame at all for the failure of this war. Nope. They were right all along about everything. It all would have worked had war critics just kept their mouths shut. The ones who are to blame are the ones who never believed in this war, who control no aspect of the government, who were unable to influence even a single aspect of the war, who were shunned, mocked and ridiculed, and who have been out of power since the war began. They are the ones to blame. They caused this war to fail.
(snip)
Virtually every prediction the President and his followers made about this war has proven to be false, while virtually every prediction made by war opponents has proven to be true. The President and his followers controlled every part of this war with an iron fist, ignoring anything which their political opponents said and insisting on the right to exert full-scale, undiluted control over it. And now it has failed. And it's everyone's fault except theirs.
Yes if only we had fallen in behind their superior intelligence, superb planning and visionary leadership none of this would have happened. The logic is ineluctable.
Meanwhile the bitter 101st Fighting Keyboardists take time off from playing paintball
to cry that TBogg is
being mean to them over all this.
Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of WAAAAHHH.
|
Thanks to all your calls, faxes and letters a firestorm has broken out in the Connecticut pro-choice community over the decision of NARAL and Planned Parenthood to ask their members to thank Joe Lieberman for his Alito vote. I'll keep you posted as I hear more, but it looks like the consistent effort we've been applying has really started to take hold. I'm really, really encouraged. Thanks to everyone who has taken time
to make the effort to thank NOW for getting it. We appear to have finally hit the mark.
Velouria left this comment over at the
HuffPo in response to my post about Planned Parenthood and NARAL and I thought it was quite good:
For the record... PPFA was not able to participate in any electoral work until it started it's PAC just prior to the 2004 elections. Until then they had only a C3 status which does not allow for endorsements or money raising for candidates. They then endorsed John Kerry as their first candidate. In addition they have been working the past few years to create a network of national folks to contact lawmakers and raise the volume of pro-choice voices. PPFA (and NARAL) were the main players in the 2004 March For Women's Lives, the under-reported and largest protest in American history (over 1.125 million).
These issues are complex and ever changing. The right has created a battle plan that keeps pro-choice America on the defensive constantly, with trumped up issues like 'fetal pain' and so-called 'partial birth abortion'. It is the American people who voted for right wingers who get legislation after legislation designed to take away reproductive rights. And, in response, PPFA fundraised to fight legislation in the court systems. I betcha many of you have no idea how many court battles they have fought in the name of choice and access to reproductive health care. You are correct in that PPFA, NARAL and other groups failed to win at this point. Much of this is due to many being slow to believe reproductive rights are under attack anyway and called these groups hysterical. There is truth in the accusation everyone failed in framing the issue correctly. It is true that candidates should be cut off when they are not up to pro-choice snuff, and these groups need to be accountable for that. I will agree there have been serious missteps but to write off this very important agency, who is on the front line every day, is lunacy... and quite frankly what the right wants.
PPFA does raise money, but I can tell you it is not nearly as much as the right has in their deep pockets. This battle has been raging on all fronts and has been escalating. Without Planned Parenthood affiliates across the country, many women AND men would have NO health care at all. In addition to providing basic healthcare to the severely underserved and advocating for reproductive rights on a daily basis, Planned Parenthood workers are on the front line in this battle. Many receive clinic bomb threats, anthrax treat hoaxes, hate mail and phone calls, and have to walk a gauntlet of screaming lunatics DAILY. Those folks deserve support. So PPFA not only tries to hold together the battle weary affiliates across the country, it is also working to grow support and fight bad legislation. These groups are not unlike all non-right wing groups and politicians... on the short end of the stick... unaware of how strategic and powerful their opposition had become. EVERYONE blew it and now is not the time to jump ship. We need to tell them to get strategic now and work toward electing sane folks into office.
Absolutely. The people on the front lines of Planned Parenthood are heroes, day in, day out, every day of the week. From the people who are willing to staff clinics in places like South Dakota where doing so can get you killed, to the doctors who risk flying in an out of hostile territory just do do their job out of conviction, to the people in the community who defend its right to be there. These are extremely brave souls who deserve every bit of support we can give them.
But the fact is that Planned Parenthood has now gotten into the political endorsement game, no doubt because they have to. And the credibility that their endorsement lends to political candidates in states where pro-choice actually matters, like Connecticut and Rhode Island, is
huge.
While it's open to debate how much influence NARAL's decision not to support
anti-choice Langevin in the Rhode Island race had on his decision to drop out, it was perceived as significant. Their endorsement may not mean a lot in Alabama, but it means a lot in solidly pro-choice New England states. Further, their decision
to continue to support Lincoln Chafee and Joe Lieberman even after their disastrous vote on Samuel Alito is a signal to other Senators that is okay to vote like this in the future and keep your official pro-choice credentials in the process. NARAL and Planned Parenthood are rubber stamping these votes. How exactly do they plan on coming out and fighting the next Supreme Court Alito-lite nomination if they don't start yanking chains now?
Whenever major media outlets need an official quote from the pro-choice movement, they call NARAL and Planned Parenthood. If they are not speaking up against this bullshit, nobody is.
The problem is that in doing nothing they are actively hurting their own ability to do the good work that Planned Parenthood consistently does. If the South Dakota Rapist Rights bill goes through, it won't matter how many brave souls are willing to staff an abortion clinic, they won't be able to do so. I've said it before and I'll say it again:
there is no more important task right now before the pro-choice movement than changing the balance of power in the US Senate and breaking up the Gang of 14, something that --
as Chris Bower says -- has a very good chance of happening this fall.
If Planned Parenthood and NARAL put themselves in the position of granting the pro-choice seal of approval to people who don't deserve it in places where it's really meaningful they don't really leave us much choice but to go after
them as a way to go after those they continue to endorse.
I wish it were otherwise but it is not. I can scream about how Lieberman and Chafee are not truly pro-choice all day but their constituents aren't going to listen to me or any other blogger if NARAL and Planned Parenthood are telling everyone not to worry, they're great.
It shows just how behind the times these organizations are that they would put so much energy into something like the "March for Women's Lives" in this day and age when the impact of an action like that depends on the media's willingness to cover it, something they quite obviously haven't been willing to do for a good long while.
NARAL in particular is sitting on a
mountain of cash they did not spend to fight the Alito nomination. They need to make a real commitment to make up for this by getting into these races early and committing all that loot they've been hoarding to fighting in the races and apply it where it can actually do some good. This is not a time for moderation. The battle for the next Supreme Court vacancy begins now, and if they don't understand it we're just going to have to keep screaming until they do.
Right now it's imperative that people like Ned Lamont get every dime they can to muster the resources to cut through the media ice. You can do what NARAL and Planned Parenthood don't seem to understand (yet) that they need to do by giving to Ned Lamont
here.
Update: The Supreme Court just dealt
a big blow to pro-choice clincs, saying they could not use extortion and racketeering laws against the clinic bombing, doctor killing forced birth lobby.
|
Jeralyn at TalkLeft has graciously posted a copy of one of the three orders entered by Judge Walton in the Libby case on Monday, so that everyone can take a peek at it. The three orders were issued after the motions hearing, which was held on 2/24/06.
The first two orders ought to come as no surprise -- as they are simply putting the oral orders from the judge into writing. We discussed the hearing information
here and
here, based on what we heard from print and television reporters who attended the hearing.
Essentially, the presiding judge set a schedule for subpoenas for journalists and motions thereon in one order, and denied Libby's attempt to block Fitz from filing information with the judge ex parte (meaning Libby's lawyers don't get to know what it is -- only Fitz and the judge do) about the continuing investigation and why Libby oughtn't get access to certain materials he's trying to get his grubby little hands on -- things that Fitzgerald says are outside the charges in the indictment, and that go to the heart of his ongoing investigation.
(You hear that -- ongoing. As in continuing. As in still working hard on it. You hear that, Karl and Dick and cronies? Ongoing.)
The third order, though, was a bit of a surprise, seeing as it comes out of nowhere from the judge, himself, and appears to directly undercut Team Libby's request for all those pesky PDBs. I've read through this order and agree completely with
Jeralyn's assessment on it:
The third order indicates to me that Libby is going to lose his request for being provided with the Presidential Daily Briefings, and even the documents he will receive will be for a much shorter time period than he had requested. I have uploaded the two page order here.
Essentially, the Judge says he believes Libby's memory defense requires only a description of the subject matter of the daily briefings and documents attached to them, not the entire documents. He also says the relevant time period is not the year of briefings Libby had asked for but only three short time intervals: (1) when he spoke to Miller, Cooper and Russert, (2) when he was interviewed by FBI investigators and (3) when he testified before the grand jury.
The judge suggests that two days leeway on each side of (2) and (3) should suffice.
The judge asks Fitz to provide him with a rudimentary summary of topics, and to give the court some idea of how much time it would take to compile a more thorough summary. This sounds to me like the judge is fed up with his schedule being taken up by less-than-on-point motions and that he has done enough perjury cases in his day to know when he's being asked for evidence which is not material to the charges.
Plus, as the Judge himself said at the hearing, concerns that the Executive branch would refuse to turn over the PDBs as a matter of national security ought not derail the prosecution in this case, given that the PDBs are neither material nor essential. Guess that greymail tactic wasn't so successful after all.
If this is any indication at all of Judge Walton's criminal court temperament, Scooter Libby is going to be tried on the narrow framework of his indictment without much embellishment. And that is not good news for Team Libby.
It's early to speculate on this just yet, because this is simply an information-gathering exercise from the judge. But in my experience, judges know just how heavy the case load is for most prosecutors (and Fitz's briefcase is crammed especially full between this investigation and his duties in Chicago), and they don't hand out homework assignments without a good reason behind them. Meaning, if I were Scooter, I wouldn't hold my breath on getting those PDBs.
Just guessing, but Team Libby likely won't get much beyond this order. (So much for all that cash thrown at Cline thus far, eh? Good thing Babs appears to be good at
bilking the kool-aid impaired donor base fundraising.) And
Jeralyn is absolutely right that if this ends up being the case, it will make Scooter's "memory" defense a much tinier needle to thread.
The big question in my mind is where does Team Libby go from here?
This is where the tension between the lawyers who want Scooter to stand up and fight for himself, perhaps cut a deal now while it is still possible, and get what he can from Fitzgerald rather than risk having the book thrown at him after a conviction at trial and the lawyers who hang with Babs and her crowd, and want Scooter to remain the steadfast and loyal firewall...well, they begin to get a lot more tense as these pre-trial dominoes begin to tumble, don't they?
I mean, there is still the journalist card to play, but if the PDB perspective is any indication -- and that's a stretch, considering I haven't seen enough of this judge to say one way or the other -- but if it is an indication of judicial temperament, Judge Walton doesn't seem to be the sort of judge that puts up with a whole lot of extraneous crap in his courtroom. That would include subpoenas for journalists that have no relationship to the charges, in my mind -- we'll see if Judge Walton agrees with me on that as well.
And between your former boss shooting a man in the face, and now having poll numbers in the low 20s, and the President having poll numbers in the 30s -- well, is that really what you want to bank the whole farm on at this point, if you are under indictment for five felonies and facing further investigation?
I mean, think about it: you are Scooter, sitting at home when you aren't at the wingnut welfare think tank office, and you flip on the teevee, and you are hit with pictures of Iraq sliding into civil war, this port deal with Dubai, NSA spying revelations, more Republican indictments and investigations into members of Congress...it just goes on and on every day.
Can you assure yourself, if you are Scooter, that any pardon at all is even remotely possible...in the next three years, in this political climate, with Bush and Cheney as your trusty knights in severely dented and rusting armor, wheezing along astride a very lame looking duck to carry them forward into battle for the next three years? This is your battle plan for staying out of prison? You want to risk your life and freedom, and the happiness and well-being of your wife and children, on the steadfast loyalty and political capital of Bush and Cheney?
Don't know about you guys, but I wouldn't be holding my breath on that one, either.
Come to the light, Scooter. Fess up. Spill your guts. You'll feel better. Fitzgerald seems like a good listener. You know if things get dicey, Rove would stab you in a heartbeat to save his own pasty ass -- why not be the planter instead of the plantee with that knife, Scooter? Think about it...wouldn't you feel better if you just let it all out?
(Anime image of Chihiro from the amazing
Hayao Miyazake's "Spirited Away." If you haven't seen this film, you really ought to -- this is my personal favorite of all his films. The soundtrack alone is worth the viewing.)
|
From time to time the question arises: when the revolution comes, who will be the first against the wall, the Democratic strategists or the Democratic pundits? And the answer is always the same -- Joe Klein.
Joe really out did himself this week. Ever sensitive to the subtle nuances of Islamic culture, he appeared on
Lou Dobbs and sneered about the opposition to the Dubai Ports World deal as nothing but blatant racism and claimed that killing the deal would only breed more terrorists. Whereas invading a sovereign country, ripping apart its infrastructure, killing its citizens and igniting a civil war can be justified in the name of "fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here." Or some such gibberish.
But it does raise an interesting point. Before Joe gets his blindfold and final cigarette and breaks into
La Marseillaise, what will be remembered as his stupidest, most absurd, most rank and obtuse quote of all time? I know there is a plethora of material to choose from (much of it catalogued over the years by Digby) but I think it is high time to take stock of Klein's atrocities.
Whoever unearths the most ludicrous, most irresponsible, most feeble-minded Klein quote as judged by the patrons of this blog will get a copy of the newly released DVD of
Action, which
TBogg quite rightly lauds for "its brilliance and viciousness and cold bitter laugh-out-loud black humor." (Most people have never seen it but it is quite possibly the funniest thing that's ever been on TV.) Entries will be accepted up until 7pm tomorrow night PST with a semifinal process to be determined. Please keep your entries down to one paragraph; I know it will be hard with the pure heaping piles of
merde with which Little Joe's utterances tend to be laden, but precision is going to be counted a virtue here.
Update: I'm modifying things somewhat -- please provide a link along with your entry for verification purposes. Much appreciated.
|
Just because the jingo-all-the-way crowd is all over it doesn't mean there isn't real danger in the UAE ports deal.
Pollyusa provides
this link to a WaPo story that I think raises the legitimate fears a lot of people have:
Joseph King, who headed the customs agency's anti-terrorism efforts under the Treasury Department and the new Department of Homeland Security, said national security fears are well grounded.
He said a company the size of Dubai Ports World would be able to get hundreds of visas to relocate managers and other employees to the United States. Using appeals to Muslim solidarity or threats of violence, al-Qaeda operatives could force low-level managers to provide some of those visas to al-Qaeda sympathizers, said King, who for years tracked similar efforts by organized crime to infiltrate ports in New York and New Jersey. Those sympathizers could obtain legitimate driver's licenses, work permits and mortgages that could then be used by terrorist operatives.
Dubai Ports World could also offer a simple conduit for wire transfers to terrorist operatives in the Middle East. Large wire transfers from individuals would quickly attract federal scrutiny, but such transfers, buried in the dozens of wire transfers a day from Dubai Ports World's operations in the United States to the Middle East would go undetected, King said.
The article also says that the K-Street crowd have jumped in on the side of Dubai Ports World. Does anyone
really think this administration is going to do due diligence once the chief thieves catch wind of a buck?
Hugh from the comments: "Due diligence in this Administration means counting the money before the bagman leaves."
|
From
CBS News:
Poll: Bush Ratings At All-Time Low
The latest CBS News poll finds President Bush's approval rating has fallen to an all-time low of 34 percent, while pessimism about the Iraq war has risen to a new high.
Americans are also overwhelmingly opposed to the Bush-backed deal giving a Dubai-owned company operational control over six major U.S. ports. Seven in 10 Americans, including 58 percent of Republicans, say they're opposed to the agreement.
CBS News senior White House correspondent Jim Axelrod reports that now it turns out the Coast Guard had concerns about the ports deal, a disclosure that is no doubt troubling to a president who assured Americans there was no security risk from the deal.
They've
now pissed Lou Dobbs off, watch him go apeshit on the C&L clip. And that
Coast Guard thing is the kicker. Squirming out of this port mess is going to be a bitch and a half.
Mr. Bush's overall job rating has fallen to 34 percent, down from 42 percent last month. Fifty-nine percent disapprove of the job the president is doing.
For the first time in this poll, most Americans say the president does not care much about people like themselves. Fifty-one percent now think he doesn't care, compared to 47 percent last fall.
Just 30 percent approve of how Mr. Bush is handling the Iraq war, another all-time low.
By two to one, the poll finds Americans think U.S. efforts to bring stability to Iraq are going badly -- the worst assessment yet of progress in Iraq.
Even on fighting terrorism, which has long been a strong suit for Mr. Bush, his ratings dropped lower than ever. Half of Americans say they disapprove of how he's handling the war on terror, while 43 percent approve.
In a bright spot for the administration, most Americans appeared to have heard enough about Vice President Dick Cheney's hunting accident.
More then three in four said it was understandable that the accident had occurred and two-thirds said the media had spent too much time covering the story
Yeah yeah yeah. I don't know how they phrased those particular questions but only a nitwit would conclude that the Veep had now slipped to an 18% favorability rating based on what -- lack of personal hygiene?
We have an extraordinary window to exploit Bush's anti-popularity and shake up a few Senators with regard to the investigations into the illegal NSA wiretaps. The vote on whether or not the Intelligence Committee looks into the matter is
coming up on March 7, so this Wednesday we'd like to have a Roots action for Nebraska and Maine residents to put pressure on Chuck Hagel and Olympia Snowe not to cave. We'll be encouraging state residents (or those with ties to the state) to write their local papers and others to call both Hagel and Snowe's offices to let their feelings be known.
So please stop by on Wednesday morning, if you know people from Nebraska or Maine please tell them to check us out and take part, and enjoy the fact that BushCo. is now quite vulnerable and we're going to do everything we can to exploit that.
|
The incredible box of photos recently discovered by the Birmingham News gives an amazing view of the civil rights movement in Alabama during the 60s. The photos are both eloquent and haunting, and the decision by the paper to suppress them at the time (they thought they would be "embarrassing" to the city's white community) is something history will most certainly judge them harshly for.
Something like that could never happen now. Oh, wait, what am I saying. Over at Nieman Watchdog,
Paul Pillar takes a look at the free pass given to the 9/11 Commission by the media, and wonders when journalists will begin to ask the appropriate questions:
The 9/11 Commission established as its goal the generation of enough public support to enact a reorganization of the intelligence community. Pursuit of that goal led it to produce a selective and misleading account of strategic intelligence on terrorism, obscuring the actual reasons US counterterrorist policy took the course it did prior to 9/11. The press was remarkably acquiescent in this; as Judge Richard Posner noted in his critique of the commission's work, a combination of political circumstances paralyzed criticism of the commission and led its report to be accepted unquestioningly as "holy writ." The politics of the Congressional intelligence committees have led them to delay repeatedly any public appraisal of how the administration used intelligence on Iraq (in the case of the Senate committee) or not even to attempt to address the subject (in the case of its House counterpart). The commission investigating intelligence on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction produced an otherwise useful report, but its White House provenance constrained it from exploring all the ways in which policy preferences affected the intelligence.
Vigorous and illuminating treatment by the press of similar situations in the future will require it to dig below the public rhetoric and explore the actual bases for policy decisions, which may or may not match the rhetoric and may or may not come from intelligence. It also will require going beyond the issue of "flagrant fouls" in the intelligence-policy relationship and considering the more numerous and more subtle ways in which intelligence can be politicized, both publicly and privately.
The long-lost Birmingham photos were extremely moving and quite inspirational. They document the struggle of incredibly brave people with no money who banded together to fight a powerful elite that controlled the media and did everything possible to keep their message from getting through. But time has a way of unraveling those conspiracies, and history will judge journalists who currently collaborate with power to perpetuate war with lies that go unchallenged just as harshly as it did those who thought it was a good idea to stick that box of photos in a closet some forty years ago.
|
Howie Klein has today's
must-read post. As former head of Reprise Records, Howie was the first-hand witness to the puritanical wrecking ball that Joe Lieberman took to the music industry through his activities with the PMRC:
People often ask me what happened and what was the big deal. Lieberman knew exactly what he was doing-- far better than the batty wives' group that preceded him-- when he insisted on ratings on CDs and it had nothing to do with helping parents supervise their children. Few people understand-- the way Lieberman did -- that in the late 80s something like 70% of all recorded music was sold in stores in malls and that malls have very stringent lease arrangements about their tenants not selling "pornography." Over the course of this controversy two of the Senate's most uptight and close-minded prigs, Sam Brownback and Lieberman, pushed for the kinds of stickers that would make it impossible for the kind of music they objected to -- like anything talking about masturbation or homosexuality, for example -- to be stocked by 70% of American retailers. The effect inside the music business was chilling-- and instantaneous. Suddenly a whole new internal bureaucracy had to be created to police every record and suddenly artists were being pressured -- sometimes overtly and sometimes less overtly -- to cave in to demands by two really reactionary fundamentalists whose values are far from mainstream. In one fell swoop Lieberman destroyed an alliance between young voters and the Democratic Party that had started with John Kennedy's election as he ham-fistedly savaged their culture for his own political ambitions.
People in the entertainment industry have long know that Lieberman is happy to curry the favor of the universal pecksniffs by smashing free speech. He is despised by both conservatives and liberals alike for being -- among other things -- a vicious homophobe, as Howie notes. His adventures in Bush kissing have just allowed the rest of the country to get a glimse of what a toxic little churl he is. Read Howie's post, it's excellent.
The antidote:
Ned Lamont. You can also
visit Ned's new blog.
|
Josh Marshall has two great investigative pieces up that I wanted to be sure everyone read.
The first identifies the "Pentagon official" from the MZM plea on Friday's whose son was passing details on to MZM for their contract negotiations with the DoD (via Josh's discussions with Walter Pincus). [NOTE: Oops, my error -- it was Paul Kiel, the new muckraker reporter and not Josh on this one. Thanks to reader RabbiBob for the heads up.]
The second is a piece on a recent IRS political hit on an anti-DeLay group. Who says there's no revenge in politics these days? Guess you can't get away with anything any more.
Glenn has great analysis of the Specter FISA proposal.
And
Laura Rozen has more dispatches from Pat Roberts hometown paper -- showing that Sen. Roberts might want to actually read his constitution and stuff.
Use birth control? You might want to think about a stockpile, just in case, if you live in a red state.
FiredUpMissouri has more. (I can't help but think about Elaine and the "sponge worthy" episode of Seinfeld. Ahead of its time, that show.)
More questions on Rick Santorum's "ethics" from
Attytood. Wonder if we'll ever get any answers?
Wolcott reviews "V for Vendetta" and gives it two martinis up and very dirty, in the best of ways. (Naughty boy.)
Swopa has an update on Iraq. As does
Juan Cole.
Also, a story that needs wider press, they are covering depleted uranium
at Skippy.
And yes,
Froomkin is a gem again today, considering whither goest the lamest of ducks...and other assorted goodies -- including this gem: the WH first learned that wingnuts were pissed about the UAE deal because Dan Bartlett likes to listen to Michael Savage on the way home from work, and tuned in to the show to hear his own kind ripping the President a new one. Bet that was a fun cell phone call back to the West Wing. *snerk*
In case
you missed this: the President can't ride his bike and wave hello at the same time. Makes you wonder about all those other times life threw him a curve ball, doesn't it? (Or not.)
|
Knight Ridder reports (via
Kevin Drum) that:
Military interrogators posing as FBI agents at the U.S. detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, wrapped terrorism suspects in an Israeli flag and forced them to watch homosexual pornography under strobe lights during interrogation sessions that lasted as long as 18 hours, according to one of a batch of FBI memos released Thursday.
Who are these people? That is considered an interrogation technique? Where did they learn this -- at the frat house in college, for hell's sakes, before the faculty shut it down for hazing?
Larry Johnson has had a lot to say about this subject, including
this op-ed from the LATimes. So have a lot of other former CIA and other intel officers. Would that the Bush Administration had listened to them.
I missed this somehow, and found it this morning doing a search on something else. Just wanted to bring it to everyone's attention because it is worth noting again that
Gen. Miller still works at the Pentagon, with his stars intact on his collar. I'm just sayin'.
(Photo is a still from an episode of
Jeremiah, a series written and produced by J. Michael Straczynski for Showtime. Joe was also responsible for
B5, for the sf fans who read here. Great stuff, and exceptional story and character development.)
NOTE: Oops, forgot to move the Air America note up from the previous thread and I got an e-mail telling me that made it inconvenient to find, so here you go -- ease for our readers is, of course, our primary objective. *g*
I've been asked to be a guest on the
Al Franken Show on Air America this afternoon. Sam Seder is guest hosting for Al. You can listen live to Air America
at this link. I'll be on the show a little after 2 pm ET.
|
I'm going to type this very slowly so that Byron York can comprehend it: when Patrick Fitzgerald says that whether or not Valerie Plame Wilson was a CIA NOC is irrelevent to the case at bar against Scooter Libby -- he means only for the case at bar.
You know, the indictment wherein Libby was charged with perjury, false statements and obstruction. Where Valerie Wilson's job description truly has no relevence to the fact that Scooter Libby is a big liar. And a serial liar at that.
Or that he has acted as the firewall to Dick Cheney and others in the Administration, by throwing a wrench into the investigation.
From York's own article in the
National Review online:
"We're trying a perjury case," Fitzgerald told Judge Reggie Walton. Even if Plame had never worked for the CIA at all, Fitzgerald continued — even if she had been simply mistaken for a CIA agent — the charges against Libby would still stand. In addition, Fitzgerald said, he does not intend to offer "any proof of actual damage" caused by the disclosure of Wilson's identity.
Could that be any more clear, in terms of exactly what Fitzgerald was saying? Could Byron York be any more deliberately disingenuous in his manipulative ride on the spin-mobile describing the proceedings?
What part of the seriousness of being charged with mutiple felonies does not adequately register with Byron York? Perjury is serious business -- I know the National Review sure thought so when Bill Clinton was facing potential charges of perjury, has that somehow changed in their minds now that a Republican is facing a jury of his peers? And what part of "there is an ongoing, continuing investigation" is so freaking difficult to understand -- or does that not sell well to your readers?
Let me explain this very carefully, as though I were speaking to someone who is thick or dull-witted: Pat Fitzgerald charged Scooter Libby with lying. He will present evidence which shows why he thinks Scooter is a liar. If, at some point, he has enough evidence to also charge Scooter with more criminal charges, then he will present evidence regarding those charges.
Prosecutors present the evidence required by the charges within the four corners of the indictment -- they don't throw in extra bits just for fun, or because pundits have their hair net in a twist. The judicial process is not a political game -- and Fitzgerald is not going to treat it as such -- so take Barbara Comstock off your speed dial, Byron, she's feeding you tripe and you oughtn't swallow it whole.
Shorter Byron York: They pay me a salary to write this crap, even though I have no real understanding of the criminal legal process.
Or, in the alternative, I know exactly how the legal process works, I just choose to write inaccurate spin instead, lying to my readers to gain political traction with the kool-aid impaired. Mock me.
NOTE: I've been asked to be a guest on the
Al Franken Show on Air America this afternoon. Sam Seder is guest hosting for Al. You can listen live to Air America
at this link. I'll be on the show a little after 2 pm ET.
UPDATE: From reader
anon_1 in the comments:
The most interesting thing about the York piece is he admits (finally) that Plame was covert. Of course, he whines about it and tries to qualify that fact - hilariously complaining now that she wasn't "covert enough". But you know his last few columns? Where he was darkly proclaiming she probably wasn't covert? Turns out he was wrong and those columns were bullsh**. Shocker. No wonder it took him the whole weekend to write that tripe. He should of titled that column, "Okay I was wrong, so what."
Some days, I just love reading the comments here.
|
The NYTimes reports this morning that governors in this country are concerned about Bush Administration policies which they say are weakening the National Guard.
The National Guard, which traces its roots to the colonial militia, has a dual federal-state role. Governors normally command the Guard in their states, but Guard members deployed overseas in support of a federal mission are under the control of the president.
The governors said they would present their concerns to President Bush and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld on Monday. In a preview of their message, all 50 governors signed a letter to the president opposing any cuts in the size of the National Guard.
"Unfortunately," the letter said, "when our National Guard men and women return from being deployed in foreign theaters, much of their equipment remains behind." The governors said the White House must immediately re-equip Guard units "to carry out their homeland security and domestic disaster duties."
The National Guard carries out important missions here in the States: flood rescues and clean-up, diaster relief, hurricane rescues...the list is endless, and the flood and hurricane seasons are coming up again soon. This is an enormous concern for state governments and disaster planning -- and the fact that the enormous red flags raised by Katrina led folks at the Pentagon to think cutting National Guard numbers was the right move is simply mind boggling.
Is this all politics? Not according to the non-partisan Government Accountability Office, which has the responsibility for providing
oversight on this.
David M. Walker, the comptroller general of the United States, who heads the Government Accountability Office, said the governors had some basis for their concerns.
"The Army cannot account for over half the equipment that Army National Guard units have left overseas," Mr. Walker said. "And it has not developed replacement plans for the equipment, as Defense Department policy requires."
Yep, the Bush Administration -- coming up with new ways to fail to do its job. Sure hope a flood or a hurricane or a tornado or some other natural disaster, or even heaven forbid some terrorist attack, doesn't happen any time soon anywhere near you. There may be too little equipment for these brave folks in uniform to do their jobs.
Feeling safer? Me neither.
UPDATE: I've been asked to be a guest on the
Al Franken Show on Air America this afternoon. Sam Seder is guest hosting for Al. You can listen live to Air America
at this link. I'll be on the show a little after 2 pm ET.
UPDATE #2: And in case you were wondering,
we aren't even close to being ready for the next hurricane season in the Gulf Coast region. Just what those folks need to hear on top of having less-than-sufficient National Guard assets, eh?
|
Well not so early really, May 1998. But certainly in time to be part of the Lynch Clinton party, white sheets and all. From The Hill (Nexis/Lexis):
At its heart, the fiasco over the release of tapes of Webster Hubbell's prison phone calls by Rep. Dan Burton's (R-Ind.) campaign finance probe highlights the sharp divisions that have plagued the House inquiry from the outset.
On the one hand are the political operatives like Oversight Coordinator David Bossie -- workaholic, Burton loyalist, savvy media handler, anti-Clinton zealot and 32-year-old volunteer firefighter from Burtonsville, Md.
They have often found themselves at odds with the professional investigators and trained prosecutors on the staff of the Government Reform and Oversight Committee.
The dispute pitted those who favored building a strong case in the hearing room vs. those who tried their case in the media; those whose approach was methodical vs. those who wanted a more scattershot probe; and those who sought a clear organizational structure vs. those who were more freewheeling.
Political hands, for example, had recommended releasing transcripts of all the tapes of convicted Justice Department official Webster Hubbell's conversations, committee sources said. The professionals were dead set against a general release.
In the end, a compromise was reached in which part of the transcripts were released. Ironically, it was this compromise that gave Democrats a wedge to charge that the Republicans had doctored the tapes, leading to Bossie's forced resignation last week.
While Bossie has been a source of friction between the two camps, his announced departure also seems to have inflamed some tensions.
Some aides have looked on with astonishment in the days following the forced resignation of Bossie, who has remained in his office -- talking with reporters, meeting with staff and reading files almost as if nothing had happened. On Tuesday, nearly a full week after Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) reportedly ordered his ouster, Bossie still maintained his office and had not yet moved his belongings.
Bossie loyalists have continued to assist him, despite his departure from the committee. One committee investigator and friend, Kristi Remington, even accompanied him as he visited in the studio of ABC's "This Week," where he appeared on Sunday morning's broadcast. Remington was shown on camera outside the studio holding Bossie's cellular phone and a briefing book with red tabs marking important pages.
Chief Counsel Richard Bennett, who has run the investigation since last September and has avoided being identified in either the political or professional camp, described Bossie's lingering as routine, saying there was no need for him to be rushed in packing his things.
The political aides, led by Bossie and Chief Investigative Counsel Barbara Comstock, a close ally of his, recommended the release of full transcripts of the tapes.
Meanwhile, professional investigators and prosecutors, whose position was advanced by Bennett, feared that the release of the tapes would be an abuse of the committee's power. The Privacy Act makes it a crime for executive branch officials to release such conversations to all but Congress, which exempted itself from the law.
Overruling his chief counsel and siding with the political aides, Burton ordered that the tapes be released. But in an olive branch to the professionals, the chairman acquiesced to Bennett's desire to have the tapes edited to remove conversations that would constitute an unwarranted intrusion on Hubbell's private conversations.
Bossie and Comstock assigned two committee attorneys fresh out of law school to the tape transcription task. According to witnesses, they did not use official transcription equipment that would have made their jobs easier. Committee aides acknowledge that at least two important transcription errors were made in the process.
A third -- and ultimately more damaging -- error was made in the editing process, aides acknowledge. A conversation exculpatory to first lady Hillary Clinton was also removed.
Aides say the editing was a Bossie and Comstock joint project. "Dave and Barbara were the editors of this transcript," said one source.
Neither could be reached for comment. At deadline time, Bossie had not returned a phone call and Comstock was on her way back from a trip to France.
Republican committee aides differed as to how the mistaken transcript was made. "I don't believe he did it intentionally," Bennett said in an interview. "I believe there was a good-faith effort to accurately edit the tapes."
Another who sides with the professionals said, "I have a hard time believing that this was done by accident."
The first public signs of the rift between political aides and professional investigators occurred last July when Chief Counsel John Rowley resigned, causing three others to leave as well. In his letter to Burton explaining his action, Rowley, a former assistant U.S. attorney, cited Bossie's "unrelenting self-promoting actions."
People close to Rowley described extreme philosophical differences with Bossie, and those differences were also apparent in Bossie's relationships with other professional prosecutors and investigators.
While Rowley tried to be a methodical investigator, Bossie branched out in a hundred directions at once hoping to hit paydirt somewhere. Whereas Rowley insisted upon a firm organizational structure for the probe, Bossie liked things fluid and seemed to answer only to Burton. While Rowley was satisfied with developing a strong hearing record, Bossie worried most about having a strong media strategy, and according to numerous committee aides, constantly leaked materials to reporters.
So tied was Bossie to reporters that committee aides said he carried two cellular phones with him at all times. Though Bossie was reprimanded for leaking confidential documents early in the investigation, he has always denied leaking, even to fellow investigators who know otherwise. "He would expect for you to believe that he never talked to the press," a GOP colleague said. But "I know that both Barbara and Dave talk to the press all the time."
When Dick Bennett arrived in September, many expected to see a change. "Bennett clearly thought, 'I'm in control now,'" said a friend. Quickly, though, he found his power diminished by the drive, institutional knowledge, and political access of Bossie and Comstock. "I think Bennett in the end has succumbed to Bossie," the friend said.
"The people who are in charge of this committee are Dave Bossie and Barbara Comstock -- period," lamented one Republican aide. "Dick Bennett is at best a figurehead of some kind. Almost immediately, Dick Bennett learned that Dan Burton would take sides with Bossie, always. To see a former U.S. attorney who's 50-something years old kowtow to a 32-year-old man who's fireman, that hurts."
Bennett friend Bob Rohrbaugh downplayed any rifts, saying he did not see any while he served as former senior investigative counsel for the committee. "I'm sure the whole matter with Mr. Rowley . . . left a bad taste in people's mouths," he said. But when he came on board in September with Bennett, "I didn't see really the tensions that I expected to see."
Others like Charles Little, a seasoned investigator for the IRS who joined the committee last July, saw the relentless self-promotion of which Rowley warned. He left the committee last fall after only several months. "I knew it wasn't going anywhere," he said.
"Ninety percent of the staff doesn't have a clue as to how to conduct an investigation," he complained. "Ninety percent."
Little said he received a stack of paper when he first arrived and asked committee aides for an overview of the evidence that they were pursuing. Instead of depositions and documents, the papers consisted primarily of press clippings.
"The committee totally operates by the spin placed by the papers the day before," he said. "They reacted within 24 hours of any press article."
"There's no plan," confirmed one remaining committee aide. "I have to underscore that. There's no plan."
Professional investigators also complain that political aides have siphoned off committee talent and resources on projects that do not always have a clear connection to the investigation of campaign finance abuses, such as to assemble feminist viewpoints of alleged sexual harassment in the White House and to catalog all statements critical of the White House by former presidential adviser Dick Morris.
Most committee investigators interviewed said they believe that, despite momentary lapses, the overall investigation has been well-run and highly professional. But they also have to confront lingering doubts even among Republican investigators, one of whom confided this week, "I'm ashamed to be part of something that's so unprofessional."
So basically they've hired the dirtiest, most rat-fucking crook they can find to be in charge of Scooter's loot and PR because really, who else is better suited for the job.
She's no doubt providing the benefit of the insights she got while being
at the DoJ
when they were investigating Scooter to Scooter. And her first official
on-the-job hit was challenging Fitzgerald's whole investigation as lawless and unethical. That takes some set of stones.
(
Update: marky reminds us that this creative tape editing by GOP operatives was all the rage back in the day.)Tomorrow night: Barbara flogs the War on Terra for fun and profit.
Meanwhile, I was checking out our
ActBlue page and I just thought I'd give a bit of a rundown of the totals to date:
Ciro Rodriguez$24,726 Eschaton
$18,572 Firedoglake
$16,605 General Netroots Page
Ned Lamont $14,211 General Netroots Page
$5,848 Eschaton
$5,348 Firedoglake
And that, quoth Paris Hilton, is
hot.
Update: Mike Stark, onen of our Roots radio advisors, is putting together a little radio action for tomorrow.
Should be a hoot.
|
Back in the days when newspapers and magazines were printed on paper once something was committed to ink that was pretty much it, you had to live with it. And while I do look quite fetching in my tin foil hat I generally like to save it for special occasions, but there's something unexplained and a little disturbing going on with internet news scrubbing.
We've seen quite a few instances of it recently and it usually has to do with explosive comments that are unfavorable to the narrative being disseminated by the administration (and quite often the Vice President):
.
Josh Marshall noticed that it happened in a Washington Post article referring to a conversation on Air Force II:
On July 12, the day Cheney and Libby flew together from Norfolk, the vice president instructed his aide to alert reporters of an attack launched that morning on Wilson's credibility by Fleischer, according to a well-placed source. (WaPo, October 30 2005)
. The comments about Sherrifs being turned away from the Armstrong ranch were removed from the
CBS online site:
CBS News White House correspondent Peter Maer reports Texas authorities are complaining that the Secret Service barred them from speaking to Cheney after the incident. (CBSnews.com, February 13, 2006)
.
Katharine Armstrong's references to alcohol being served on the day Cheney shot the old man in the face were scrubbed from the MSNBC site:
"There may be a beer or two in there," she said, "but remember not everyone in the party was shooting." (MSNBC, February 15, 2006)
. Now a comment
Swopa made note of in a WaPo article about the bombing of the Golden Mosque has been deleted:
In Samarra, witnesses said that Interior Ministry commandos and Iraqi police were cordoning the shrine before the explosions took place. (WaPo, February 23, 2006)
CBS PublicEye actually did address what happened to their Cheney article and on its own would seem like a plausible explanation, but these are just a few examples of what appears to be a consistent motif in the mainstream online press. Not to go all 1984, but who is it that's sitting around reading all this stuff, suddenly deciding that these phrases are not okay, then calling up and twisting arms 'til they're taken down?
Bloggers change stuff in their posts all the time, usually as a result of people showing up and pointing out errors. But the presumption is that by the time a story goes up on the washingtonpost.com it's already been approved by the editors and it's not like they're seeing it for the first time online. It's also customary to make a correction note when a major change is made as the CBS Public Eye article noted. That's not happening.
I'm sure there's a partial explanation in the fact that now that things
can be changed there is going to be pressure exerted on reporters to do so. But how are we to know that these comments are erroneous and not merely unflattering and/or inconvenient if nobody takes pains to explain that?
I don't know how or why this is happening but it seems to be occurring with some frequency. It would be nice to hear an explanation.
(thanks to reader David F.)
|
Glenn Greenwald takes a look at Specter's new draft legislation to address warrantless NSA wiretapping and it is predictably ugly:
It does indeed go far beyond simply bringing the NSA program within the purview of the FISA court. What it does is authorize the entire warrantless eavesdropping program itself by directing the FISA court to approve of it every 45 days provided some extremely permissive criteria are met, and in the process, allows eavesdropping without case-by-case warrants. In other words, as Marty points out, it renders legal the lawless NSA program and simply requires the FISA court to rubber-stamp its approval for the program every 45 days.
Nothing in the legislation grants immunity to the Administration for prior lawbreaking, nor would it preclude the legislation Specter said he intended to introduce of requring the FISA court to adjudicate the legality of the program. Clearly, though -- as several commenters in the thread after this post speculated -- Specter's intent seems to be to create an illusion of FISA court oversight over this program while handing the Administraiton legal cover for its previously illegal behavior.
We'll try to have some kind of Roots project action in Specter's back yard soon. If you've got a blog that covers local Pennsylvania politics and would like to take the lead on this like Josh from
Thoughts From Kansas did for
the Kansas project, please email me, we really want to work through local people on this.
|
In the middle of the freak show, that is, and not not on "cable news."
Speaking about the Democrats on
Hardball:
Talk about a wacky thing. They're going after the, quote, hoodlum vote. I mean that, I think, is very racist. Clearly they are going after the African-American vote.
This isn't news any more, it's way past political propaganda and devolved into tabloid TV. Where did they unearth this tacky, ignorant ding dong anyway? She sounds like she's been gargling on O'Beire's 60 Grit (no doubt the wellspring of her political acumen) and dresses like a cocktail waitress from the bowling alley. When she did her special on porn my dog threw up in my shoe.
MSNBC needs to pack her off to Aruba. She can come back on the air when she actually
finds Natalie Holloway.
(special thanks to
TBogg who went dumpster diving for the photo. It would be easier to kill the smell of week-old cat piss.)
|
Talk about taking those lemons and trying your damndest to make some lemonade, eh? The above screen grab is from Fox News on Friday. I found it at
Opinio Juris, and had to share it with everyone here. Lunacy, indeed.
Crooks and Liars has some video of Bill Kristol on today's Fox News Sunday, wherein he says, flat out, that the United States has not made a serious effort in Iraq for the last 3 years. Well, isn't that nice to know?
ThinkProgress has the transcript. Just a warning -- it's infuriating.
Oh, and according to Kristol, this is all Rummy's fault. Is that a bus I hear rumbling along in the distance?
ThinkProgress also has an excerpt from This Week, wherein George Will flat out says that Iraq is already in civil war.
ZAKARIA: It was a very bad week for iraq. The fundamental problem here remains the original one, which is when people don’t have a sense of security because there were not enough American troops, they will revert to their script, their tribal loyalty, the Sunni and Shiite. This happens in every society. That is what is happening, a pervasive sense of insecurity has made them search for security in the things they can find, which is their sectarian identities. But the fact that a few hundred people died — and it is a terrible tragedy — it does not necessarily mean we’re on the brink of civil war. India goes through sectarian violence from time to time. Nigeria does —
STEPHANOPOULOS: What does civil war look like?
WILL: This. This is a civil war.
Should we start calling this the Poppy Bush Rebellion at this point -- wherein the Old Man and his pals try to shake some sense into Junior? Or is this simply what
Buckley is trying to do in his opinion article -- distance the Conservative and Republican brands from the mess that is the Bush Administration before they are irretrievably tarred? (We had a great conversation about this throughout the comments threads yesterday, btw.)
Or maybe, just maybe, has reality begun to intrude on the neocon fantasy island -- to the point that those on the kool-aid fringes are no longer willing to partake? No freaking clue. Would that reality had intruded well before we made the mess in the first place...but it is far too late to be thinking along those lines, isn't it?
Swopa and
Juan Cole have a lot more on where things are and are likely to go in Iraq, including Juan's report that Sistani is now forming a militia.
As if that isn't depressing enough, our prison at the Bagram air base in Afghanistan is
apparently a Gitmo II. Great work, Gen. Miller, great work. Afghanistan, Gitmo and Iraq -- it's truly the torture tri-fecta for that guy, isn't it?
Lovely that Miller's still got a job at the Pentagon, and still gets to polish all those stars on his collar. Especially since it's only been lower level folks that have had to take responsibility for any of the actions unbecoming our military personnel -- heaven forbid the man giving all those nasty orders be held accountable or anything.
Oh, and for those who were asking earlier, I can't find any news on Jill Carroll, either, other than
this latest wire report that there is no news. They haven't heard from her captors in a couple of weeks, but they are still hoping. Let's hold onto that hope along with them.
|
Sometimes, you just have to reaffirm your faith that some hope exists. Somewhere. Somehow. And that education can, indeed, make a dent in some of the hatred and violence and division that seems to be multiplying across the globe these days.
Today,
the NYTimes has an exceptionally written piece about a former Taliban spokesperson who is now attending classes at Yale. It is more of a human interest story than any sort of solution-oriented political and social commentary, but it is a good read nonetheless, and although long, I recommend it with a fresh pot of coffee if you have the time this morning.
In 1989, the Soviets withdrew in defeat from Afghanistan. Mohammad Fazal Hashemi, weary of holy-warrior politics and hypocrisy, opened a shoe shop on the outskirts of Quetta. Shortly before the end of the school year, he told his 10-year-old son that his school days were over — he needed Rahmatullah to mind the store while he worshipped at the mosque.
"Why didn't your older brothers help out?" I asked.
"That's a good question," Rahmatullah said. He was silent for a while, as if 16 years later the blow were still fresh. "Those were the best years of my life," he said at last. "When I dropped out that day, I was crying all the time. I thought I would never see school again. We were in a constant economic crisis, moving from one house to another."
At the shop he cleaned windows, brushed the shoes and battled the dust. To guard the stock against thieves during the night, his younger brother, Asadullah, would lock Rahmatullah inside behind a steel shutter. There was no electricity. He read the Persian poets Sa'di Shirazi and Rumi by candlelight, and the Pashtun Shakespeare, Rahman Baba: "An ignorant man is like a corpse."
To understand what this one man had in his own heart as a child, and still has with everything he has seen and done, is such a gift. This is an article worth the read, for all its contradictions and questions.
The news is often filled with images and articles and snippets from "Afghanistan" or "Iraq" as if they are nations filled with single-minded people who fit some sort of caricature of what we think they ought to be. But we forget, at our peril, that these are nations filled with individual human beings -- who live, eat, work, play and dream, just as we do. And whose culture and intellectual underpinnings run deeply through all of Western civilization.
In our hubris, we too often forget. And this omission and this failure to broaden our understanding, to learn the lessons that were hard earned in history, this is what has brought us to this point today. And why we are all fearful of the headlines to come over the next few weeks.
But we must continue to work on our understanding. To value individual lights, to help them move toward their dreams -- for it has been that lack which has led far too many toward the darkness, toward violence and hatred and death.
Right after 9/11, I searched for some understanding -- I had the education in terms of the geopolitical concerns and the economic pressures and the ideological fight, but I had little to no real understanding of Afghanistan. I picked up a travel book,
"An Unexpected Light" by a fellow named Jason Elliot, which I highly recommend as a good read and a peek into Afghan culture.
One of my fears in all of this is that the constant concern for the violence and safety considerations would cause us to lose sight of individual issues. One of those which has always been important to me is that of women's rights. Afghan women in particular have had to endure so much, and there is still such a long way to go.
Amnesty International issued a report last May which details some of the issues involved for women in the region. With
Osama Bin Laden and his Taliban pals still running around the Afghan/Pakistani mountain region, there isn't a whole lot of security or stability to point toward there being a better environment for women there any time soon.
Isobel Coleman (in Foreign Affairs) presents some of the questions (and perhaps some ideas for answers) on how we move the women's rights issue forward in Afghanistan, in Iraq, and in other nations in the region where women need our support. She talks about the issue in terms of the new environment in Iraq -- but I think some of her thoughts might translate to Afghanistan as well.
I keep thinking back to Colin Powell's "we break it, we own it" warning before we went into Iraq. With so many things going wrong, so many broken pieces, what I'd like to think is that there is some measure of discussion on solutions. While the headlines keep getting more and more bleak, there has to be some hope. Somewhere.
Because the children who live in Afghanistan and Iraq and everywhere else in the world where strife is a daily form of existence go to bed just like my little girl...and dream their dreams.
And I cannot bear to live in a world where we do not consider all those children's dreams to be important. Every single one of them.
|
Here's the list of today's guests on
the Sunday talk shows:
FOX NEWS SUNDAY (WTTG), 9 a.m.: White House homeland security adviser Francis Fragos Townsend , Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.), Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R) and Washington Redskins Coach Joe Gibbs .
THIS WEEK (ABC, WJLA), 9 a.m.: Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.) and actor Richard Gere .
FACE THE NATION (CBS, WUSA), 10:30 a.m.: National security adviser Stephen J. Hadley and Sens. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) and Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.).
MEET THE PRESS (NBC, WRC), 11 a.m.: Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.), Rep. Peter T. King (R-N.Y.) and California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R).
LATE EDITION (CNN), 11 a.m.: Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Tex.), Iraqi national security adviser Mowaffak al-Rubaie , Arab American Institute President James Zogby and Hadley.
By request, today's photo is of a cedar waxwing. I found this shot on a
great wildlife photography site, which has some other lovely photos for a Sunday morning browse.
We're getting a little bit of snow on this chilly morning. Yesterday was in the 60s, today we get snow. Go figure. Now for some hot coffee. Am making a frittata for breakfast this morning -- sausage, potatoes, onion, peppers and cheese. But first, I need to refill my bird feeders -- there's a cardinal mutiny going on outside as I type this.
|
