firedoglake

Having trouble accessing the new site?

2006-06-24T08:37:00.000-07:00

After much hard work we have finally isolated the problem causing numerous
readers to not be able to access the firedoglake.com site. If you try to go
there and receive CPanel page that says "there is no site configured for this
address", then you are one of these people.

The problem lies in the network of name servers around the world that changes
a domain like firedoglake.com into something that computers understand, in this
case an IP address. We are trying to get the situation resolved but this could
take a few days or even a week or so, depending on how long the new information
takes to work its way through the internet.

For people using Windows, I can offer the following solutions to you. First
thing you can attempt to do is flush your DNS. To do that go to start then run
and enter cmd in the box then press ok. This will bring up the command
prompt. From there enter ipconfig /flushdns then press enter. Once that
is complete you can close out the command window. After you are done with that
clear the cache for your browser then restart the browser.

If you are still having problems after that, then you can add a host file to
your system. You need to locate a file called host and open it up with a text
editor (like notepad). This file will be located in your

c:\windows\system32\drivers\etc directory. You may have to substitute
windows for what ever directory windows is actually installed.

Once you open that file up, add the following to the end of the file.

38.98.18.100 firedoglake.com

Then save the file. Again clear your browser's cache and restart your
browser. This should take you to the new site.

I hope this helps out and if anyone has a similar work around for MAC then
please leave it in the comments.

A similar solution is available for MAC. Open the file /etc/hosts in a text
editor. Add the following lines at the end of the file

firedoglake.com A 38.98.18.100

Separate each part with a tab instead of spaces. Again clear your browser's
cache and try again. I can not guarantee this will work on MAC as I have never
tried but it does work on Linux so the chances are good it will.

New Digs

2006-03-21T06:48:00.000-08:00

Please visit us at our new home, firedoglake.com.

Moussaoui Case Stunner

2006-03-21T05:30:00.000-08:00

For every person out there who tried to dismiss Colleen Rowley as an angry, disgruntled employee or an overly-emotional woman or whatever other pathetic excuse was used by people trying to marginalize her voice or to minimize blame for the Bush Administration and the folks at the higher echelons of the FBI -- you look like apologist idiots.

The F.B.I. agent who arrested and interrogated Zacarias Moussaoui just weeks before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks told a jury on Monday how he had tried repeatedly to get his superiors in Washington to help confirm his certainty that Mr. Moussaoui was involved in an imminent terrorist airline hijacking plot.

But, said the agent, Harry Samit, he was regularly thwarted by senior bureau officials whose obstructionism he later described to Justice Department investigators as "criminally negligent" and who were, he believed, motivated principally by a need to protect their careers....

Mr. Samit confirmed that he had told Justice Department investigators that the senior agents in Washington "took a calculated risk not to advance the investigation" by refusing to seek search warrants for Mr. Moussaoui's belongings and computer. He testified that he had come to believe that "the wager was a national tragedy."...

Mr. Samit said two senior agents had declined to provide help in obtaining a search warrant, either through a special panel of judges that considers applications for foreign intelligence cases or through a normal application to any federal court for a criminal investigation.

As a field agent in Minnesota, he said, he required help and approval from headquarters to continue his investigation. He acknowledged that he had asserted that Michael Maltbie, a supervisor in the bureau's Radical Fundamentalist Unit, had told him that applications for the special intelligence court warrants had proved troublesome for the bureau and that seeking one "was just the kind of thing that would get F.B.I. agents in trouble."

Mr. Samit wrote that Mr. Maltbie had told him that "he was not about to let that happen to him." During that period, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court had complained about improper applications from the bureau.

Mr. Samit also acknowledged that he had asserted to investigators that David Frasca, Mr. Maltbie's superior, had similarly blocked him from seeking a search warrant under the more common route, a criminal investigation. Some of the special court's complaints dealt with the idea that law-enforcement officials were sometimes exploiting the lower standard required for warrants in intelligence investigations and then using the information that they obtained in criminal cases.

Mr. Frasca, Mr. Samit explained, believed that once the Moussaoui investigation was opened as an intelligence inquiry, it would arouse suspicion that agents had been trying to abuse the intelligence law to get information for a case they now believed was a criminal one.

So, let's see, the problem has never been the FISA Court nor the field agents, but the attitude of the careerists in DC. And every Administration apologist who has been on the talking head shows for YEARS now trying to lay blame on the FISA judges or the field agents or anyone else who is actually doing the work was full of crap. Because all along, it was the folks in charge who were the problem.

That the Bush Administration may have known this all along, and kept the information from the 9/11 Commission, and every other commission that has studied these issues -- because they were limited in scope in terms of their investigative powers, is unconscionable.

Those Americans and those of other nations who were tragically killed on 9/11 deserve a hell of a lot better than getting confirmation of this only during cross-examination in the death penalty phase of the Moussaoui trial. A hell of a lot better.

NOTE: Obviously, we're still having some sight growing pains. We're back to cross-posting in both places until we can work things out. Thanks so much, everyone, for your patience on this. We're exhausted, but we're going to get this fixed no matter what. Oh, and blogger isn't letting me upload pictures again...will get one up when the glitch goes away.

FDL Late Nite: Feingold Plays Rochambeau With Lincoln Chafee

2006-03-20T22:35:00.000-08:00

Leading Democrat Russ Feingold on Charlie Rose:

I was pleased, Charlie, that Lincoln Chafee, Senator from Rhode Island, a Republican -- even though he didn't say he would vote for it he did not rule out the possibility that censure would be the right answer at some point in time. And that's the spirit in which I offered the resolution this week.

Yeah Republican tower of conviction Lincoln Chafee did say that, didn't he? I'm sure he believes it. Just like he believes in pro-choice -- and voted for cloture on Samuel Alito. Just like he claims to be a progressive from a blue state -- and supported John Bolton.

Chafee believed it okay, on March 15. But on March 16 he released a statement entitled:

Chafee Reiterates His Opposition To Censure Resolution

How brave. How principled. Must've had his chain righteously yanked by BushCo post haste. They don't really care what kind of problems Chafee is going to have running in a progressive blue state, nobody is allowed that far off the reservation no matter how urgent their need to distance themselves from Fearless Leader.

Chafee's numbers are shockingly bad. Yet the voters of Rhode Island get to see another portrait in GOP courage from Lincoln Chafee. And Russ Feingold's censure resolution has not only highlighted Chafee's horrible dilemma, Feingold himself then went on national television and pointed his finger at it.

Can we hear the one again about how Feingold is killing the Democrats' chance to take the Senate in 2006? 'Cos I need a good laugh.

Thanks For Being Patient

2006-03-20T20:52:00.000-08:00

We're still having growing pains into our new site. Fortunately we have great people working on it and we hope to be back up soon.

In the mean time, Digby catches DC Beltway denizen Cokie Roberts sticking her finger in the air and coming up -- bloggers:

Democrats are enjoying their miseries. Jack Reed of Rhode Island said to me this week-end "we have a strong wind at our back and all we have to do is get a sail up, any sail, some sail" but they haven't managed to do that yet.

They were interested to see how Senator Russ Feingold's call for censure worked with the blogosphere, mainly, and also in polls. Because Democrats backed away from his call just dramatically, even Democrats like Nancy Pelosi of California didn't want anything to do with it. But a Newsweek poll out today shows 42% of the people supporting censure including 20% of Republicans. So Democrats are feeling pretty good about where they are in all this.

They waited to see what we were going to say? While there were a few in the blogosphere who decided to sit this one out, the people who took a stand to back Feingold came out looking pretty good. The opinion polls show that there is a lot of public support for censuring the President and it feels like there is a sea change taking place as Democrats (though not Evan Bayh) warm up to the idea of representing what a large part of the country already feels.

I guess we're not so fringe after all.

Late Nite FDL: Incomprehensible Demoralization

2006-03-19T22:07:00.000-08:00

When Nancy Pelosi recently stated that she thought things were "going well" for the Democrats she was no doubt referring to polls that show the Democrats have a 16-point lead in 2006 congressional election preferences.

But this confidence presumes that the Democrats will be able to mobilize the GOTV. The Republicans are very, very good at this and I hear a lot of defeatism amongst netroots Democrats that I am quite worried about. It only seems to grow worse as the Senate Democrats prove so deaf to the concerns of their base as evidenced in their petty, dismissive attitude toward Russ Feingold and his censure resolution.

People have come to believe in the past five years that Karl Rove is all-powerful (he's not), that Diebold can steal every election (they can't), that it is just not worth fighting because defeat is inevitable. That is a very dangerous mindset amongst people upon whom you are counting for those 16 points.

Digby:

If the Democrats lose in November, I'm sure [Eleanor Clift will] find plenty of reasons to blame Democrats, but it won't occur to her that the reason people didn't vote for the D's was because the party listened to people like her and campaigned like a herd of neutered animals instead of listening to their hearts, their minds, their constituents and their leaders who were prepared to take a stand for what we believe in. No, they'll blame the "extremists" who want a safety net and a sane terrorism policy --- and leaders who defend the constitution. It couldn't possibly be that their tired, stale reflexive passivity is to blame when half the base fails to turn out because they just. have. no. hope.

Aravosis:

I'll go beyond Digby. When half the country fails to vote because they realize they're not represented by an political party. Almost half the country supports censuring the president. That's not half the Democratic party, that's half the country.

Voter disenfranchisement isn't something you deal with in October, it's something you deal with now. People need something to believe in, not politicians who shun their values and treat them like some sort of social disease as they dive for the cocktail weenies in the center.

To presume voters will show up for you just because they think they other guy is worse is suicidal.

(drawing by Matt Elder)

Note: This should be our last post on this blog. Thanks to Blogger for giving us such a nice home for so long. We'll see you tomorrow on the other side.

3 Years of War

2006-03-19T19:43:00.000-08:00

2318 dead
March 19, 2003-March 19, 2006

As I ate breakfast yesterday morning, eggs, bacon, french toast, I sipped from a glass of iced tea, the new york kind which always comes unsweetened, I was looking through the Daily News. I usually leave the Times for the internets.

So as I ate, and watched a three year old tell her grandmother about her "breasteses", I read the paper.

Not too far in the paper was a story about an incident in a Queens school. It seems a parent ran into a kid who was bullying his son. He grabbed him up and told him to leave the kid alone. Nothing too weird for New York.

Until.....he pulled out a gun and threatened to shoot the child if he messed with his son again.

Which even in New York, is insane.

The man ran off and then turned himself in at the local precinct.

OK. So why am I telling you about this story? I normally post these things on my blog, but this isn't a local interest story.

The man was an ICE criminal investigator who had spent a year in Iraq with the 69th Infantry as a staff sergeant. The NY Post reported today that he'd had nightmares and looked for help for months. They lost 19 dead, eight in one week.

The Oregonian is running a series on vets with PTSD. A national guardsman flipped out and was arrested in front of his children. He needed his gun and his wife wouldn't give it to him. He also needed help, and he didn't get that either.

His life after Iraq went from bad to worse to jail.

One out of every six Iraq war veterans will suffer some form of post-traumatic stress disorder. Some of it may not show for years.

From the day we crossed the Iraqi frontier, the war has been ongoing. There has never been a day of peace. All of the progress, elections, an Iraqi Army has been illusory. Because the fact is that the day we entered Baghdad, we undid a century's worth of work.

Between the Ottomans, the British and various Iraqi dictators, their twin goals have been to control the Kurds and supress the Shia.

Well, George Bush undid that.

He guaranteed, from the first Humvee which crossed the frontier, that a civil war would eventually result. Ken Pollack, who's godawful dung pile of a book, the Threatening Storm, ramped up support for the war among people who should have known better, never once, ever, considered the strategic issues of Iraq.

Saddam had a 12,000 man personal bodyguard for a reason. There wasn't a day where he couldn't have been killed.

The Kurds had fought the Iraqi government since the mid-1960's, the Shia rose in 1991. Why did the neocons think these people wanted a unified Iraq?

Dick Cheney said his statement about the US being greeted as liberators was true. Sure, if you argue the French liberated Mexico in 1863. Otherwise, we have unleashed an apocalypse on Iraq, maybe up to 250,000 dead.

Bush is still blathering about democracy, like it's magic or something. Well, Iraqi "democracy" has unleashed death squads, and created a parliment which cannot work with each other. After centuries of oppression, the Kurds want a country and the Shia want to run Iraq. Bit of a problem there. Except that the Shia have a friend in Iran and the Kurds have nothing but enemies.

The ability of the US Army, ground down by years of constant deployments and combat, to fight has been degraded to the point that there is real worry that the Army could collapse like it did in the 1970's. The equipment has already been ground down to the point of major refitting.

When Bush is talking about victory, if that victory is an orderly, low violence Iraq, he's dreaming. That isn't going to happen. The only victory which we might get is most of the Army escaping to Kuwait. All this talk of years of occupation and permanent bases is nonsense. Our end in Iraq will come quickly, completely and without much warning.

Redd on CSPAN: No Prisoners

2006-03-19T18:41:00.000-08:00

Reddhedd did a super job on Washington Journal this morning with Paul Mirengoff of Powerline. They had a good exchange over Scooter Libby and Redd, of course, was shining.

Crooks & Liars has the video.

Nancy Pelosi Should Act First, Criticize Later

2006-03-19T15:36:00.000-08:00

Although Nancy Pelosi is not a member of the Senate, she decided to pipe up and discipline Russ Feingold for daring to challenge the hegemony of the GOP:

"I think that things are going well for the Democrats right now," Pelosi told reporters Thursday, alluding to recent data showing that a plurality of poll respondents would prefer a Democratic-controlled House.

So why, she implied, should Democrats risk spoiling the mood?

She rebuffed the call by Sen. Russ Feingold, D- Wisc., to censure Bush for ordering National Security Agency surveillance of al Qaida contacts with persons in the United States without seeking warrants from a court.

"I have no idea why anybody would censure someone before they have an investigation,"” she said.

This would be the same Nancy Pelosi who, as Pach noted, sits in the same House of Representatives with some of the most corrupt Republicans who have ever climbed out of the primordial slime and attempted to walk erect, yet she actively discourages Democrats who want to file ethics complaints against them.

Ari Berman, writing in the Nation:

Meanwhile, Democratic leaders cry out for investigations--but only in their public statements. "The House Ethics Committee must get to work immediately to investigate ethics and corruption cases in the House, including those involving members with ties to Jack Abramoff," House minority leader Nancy Pelosi declared recently, naming DeLay, Ney, John Doolittle and Richard Pombo as deserving of inquiry. Yet according to Bell, Sloan and lawmakers who asked not to be named, Pelosi has specifically told House members not to file complaints. Pelosi, who said through a spokesperson that she has never been a party to any ethics truce, spent six years on the Ethics Committee during the turbulent Gingrich era ("serving my time," she jokingly calls it). Bell suspects that she's worried about retaliatory complaints being filed against Democrats. "There are some members who want to act, and when they bring it up with the leadership they're told to wait a while," says Bell. Congress, he says, "is a self-preservation institution. Members realize that if they rock the boat they endanger their self-preservation. And you can't file an ethics complaint without rocking the boat."

Pombo and Doolittle are facing tough re-election campaigns this November, and the only reason not to do their jobs and wave big, fat red flags around their flagrant ethics violations is incumbency protection. You don't challenge us, we don't challenge you. Their responsibilty to the people who actually elected them is considered not at all.

Pelosi claims there is no truce in place. Which means what, she doesn't know what Pombo and Dolittle have done? I guess that's what she has claimed, though one has to wonder what exactly she hopes to achieve in acknowledging ignorance about something about which the rest of the country is only too well aware.

It's the same frigid recalcitrance that paralyzes the rest of the Democratic establishment -- Feingold's resolution rocks the boat. It makes them all uncomfortale.

Too bad. Pelosi should STFU about Russ Feingold and do her damn job.

Let's Play Strategery

2006-03-19T12:34:00.001-08:00

Ryan Lizza isn't a complete idiot, his piece on Gold Bars Luskin is the best I've read and I thoroughly enjoyed his portrait of McCain's unprincipled backdown from the steel-caged death match with Grover Norquist now that he's eyeing the white house. But since his TNR piece on Feingold this week is emblematic of much conventional wisdom he is, for the moment, a useful idiot:

Feingold is thinking about 2008. Harry Reid, Charles Schumer, and other Democrats are thinking about 2006. Feingold cares about wooing the anti-Bush donor base on the web and putting some of his '08 rivals--Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and Evan Bayh--in uncomfortable positions. Reid and Schumer care about winning the six seats it will take for Democrats to win control of the Senate. Feingold cares about making a political point with a measure that has no chance of succeeding and which, even if it did, would have no actual consequences.

(snip)

So the partisans on the left cheering Feingold appear to have both the policy and the politics wrong. Censure is meaningless. Changing the FISA law is the way to address Bush's overreach. And the only way for Democrats to change FISA is for them to take back the Senate. This week, Feingold's censure petition has made that goal just a little bit more difficult to achieve. What an ass.

Scott Lemieux dispatched the inherent absurdity of this Bayh-esque statement yesterday, to wit: How is changing the law going to deal with the problem of a President who doesn't think he has to obey the law? It doesn't even make sense on its own terms.

But I'd like to address the wholehearted swallowing by the Democratic establishment that this startling little bit of GOP group-think represents. As Jamison Foser says today (via Atrios):

Osama bin Laden may be dead? Good news for Republicans: They got bin Laden! New tapes prove bin Laden is still alive? Good news for Republicans: It reminds people of the threat of terrorism! Democrats don't criticize Bush? Good news for Republicans: Democrats are timid! Democrats do criticize Bush? Good news for Republicans: Democrats are shrill!

That's basic marketing 101, no matter what happens it's good for your team. It shouldn't be surprising to anyone that the media has internalized this so thoroughly they don't even know what they're doing; more puzzling is the fact that the Democrats now seem to be doing so as well.

If you're fighting a war you intend to win, you never. Ever. Say. That. Ever. So when token Democrats like Eleanor Clift step up and say Feingold's actions help the GOP, it can only be reflective of what Digby articulates so well: individuals (not the party) who have decided their lives will be made easier if they just stop resisting, lie back and learn to enjoy being throttled. Russ Feingold's fight -- our fight -- makes it uncomfortable for them to do that. Is there any other reason why they should be oh so much more exasperated with our exasperation than with, say, the President himself?

Even Bill Kristol today acknowledges the political efficacy of Feingold's move :

Kristol: I think Feingold has succeeded in casting a big cloud over the President's program.

Wallace: Do you think it's helping Democrats and hurting Republicans?

Kristol: Absolutely, as long as the charge is out there and not rebutted?

Hume: That is absurd. No politician among those who have been thoroughly briefed on this claims the briefings were insufficient and vagueÂRockefeller does not claim that. Rockefeller has said many things about this program, but he has never said that he wasn't fully briefed that I know of.

Watch the tape at Crooks and Liars. Brit Hume's head explodes. Tell me he is a Republican happy about these charges being made? His only answer is to cook up a lie about Rockefeller, who most certainly has said he doesn't have enough information about the program. Hume fumbled with nary a Democrat in sight.

The idea that somehow this will hurt the Democrats in the 2006 election is beyond witless. That Feingold is being selfish, only stoking his own 2008 chances, throwing 2006 to the dogs. Please. Can someone explain to me how forcing the Republicans to rally around an unpopular President just as they're trying to distance themselves from him is going to hurt the Democrats? Lincoln Chafee knows it -- he's in the fight of his life for his Rhode Island Senate seat, and is notably the only Republican who said Feingold has raised good points and he wouldn't rule out voting for the measure.

If someone had the guts to hammer that wedge they'd put Chafee in an awfully uncomfortable position vis-a-vis BushCo (who must've kicked the shit out of him over it, because he backed down mighty quickly). Isn't that what Lizza says they're desperate to do? But they don't. They send Evan "Lemming" Bayh to trash Russ Feingold.

It was nice to see Dick Durbin back Feingold up this morning, even if he didn't come out and say he'd vote for the resolution. In doing so he seems to be bucking the one thing the Senate Democrats have been quite good at holding party solidarity on -- something they couldn't muster to oppose putting a rabid, Dobson-loving fundamentalist on the Supreme Court.

Is Bill Kristol the only one who's going to point out the obvious? Not only is Russ Feingold rallying a disspirited base frustrated with lack of leadership on the part of big Senate Democrats, this is a full-on disaster for the GOP in November.

R-E-S-P-E-C-T

2006-03-19T12:34:00.000-08:00

Her masters at WaPo still aren't letting Little Debbie Howell touch national politics, but today she does have this to offer:

There's one big intangible in all this: a paper's connection with its readers. Readers who feel respected and who love their newspaper don't depart easily. If Post journalists write every story, take every photo, compose every headline and design every page with readers in mind, and the newspaper is printed well and delivered on time, The Post will be fine.

Indeed. Nice bromide. Shame about the content. And we're still waiting for those factual errors to be corrected. That would be one way to demonstrate respect. Eh?

Spector: Electing Santorum my "top priority in 2006"

2006-03-19T12:11:00.000-08:00

Via ( Avedon (Rittenhouse Review (the Philadelphia Inkwire))):

I strongly disagree with the comments of Jennifer Stockman, on behalf of the Republican Majority for Choice, criticizing U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum ("S. Dakota abortion law is an assault," March 8).

While Sen. Santorum and I disagree on issues, I believe that he has done an excellent job for Pennsylvania and ought to be reelected. Without his support, I would not have won the 2004 Republican primary. Sen. Santorum's reelection is my top priority in 2006.

The organization which identifies itself as the Republican Majority for Choice ought not to be actively seeking to defeat Republican candidates for the U.S. Senate.

U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter

Washington, D.C.

The new, new conventional wisdom

2006-03-19T11:33:00.000-08:00

Of course Iraq is a civil war.

At least that's what everybody's saying on This Week. C&L has the clip; Xan has the interpretive redaction.

Democrats vs. Theocrats

2006-03-19T10:47:00.000-08:00

The Times has an interesting juxtaposition today.

The Good Guy
From Deborah Solomon's interview in the Magazine:

The strongest part of your book argues that Democrats are in desperate need of savvier consultants, their own Karl Rove, to help them build [sic--remember Florida 2000] a political majority. Why would you want them to be more like Republicans?

[KOS] To get their message out, the Republicans created this entire conservative noise machine. They have Fox News and The Washington Times and the 700 Club and just about the entire talk-radio dial. They have this incredible ability to promote whatever the big issue of the day is. There is no partisan liberal media that is working in concert with the Democratic Party in order to sell whatever the party is selling.

The dark overlords of the authoritarian cultist Sith
From Allan Brinkley's review of Kevin Phillips's American Theocracy in the Book Review:

On the far right is a still obscure but, Phillips says, rapidly growing group of "Christian Reconstructionists" who believe in a "Taliban-like" reversal of women's rights, who describe the separation of church and state as a "myth" and who call openly for a theocratic government shaped by Christian doctrine. A much larger group of Protestants, perhaps as many as a third of the population, claims to believe in the supposed biblical prophecies of an imminent "rapture" — the return of Jesus to the world and the elevation of believers to heaven.

Prophetic Christians, Phillips writes, often shape their view of politics and the world around signs that charlatan biblical scholars have identified as predictors of the apocalypse — among them a war in Iraq, the Jewish settlement of the whole of biblical Israel, even the rise of terrorism. [Phillips] convincingly demonstrates that the Bush administration has calculatedly reached out to such believers and encouraged them to see the president's policies as a response to premillennialist thought. He also suggests that the president and other members of his administration may actually believe these things themselves, that religious belief is the basis of policy, not just a tactic for selling it to the public.

Oh, and this little lagniappe from Brinkley:

Phillips's evidence for this disturbing claim is significant, but not conclusive.

Tranlation: "They can't be serious." When, oh when, will we learn to take these people at their word?

It will be, indeed, a long war.

NOTE Of course, the blogosphere (in particular, farmer) has been all over christianism from before beginning. So it's nice to see Phillips join the analytical mainstream on this one.

UPDATE Rapture Index closes down 2 on Oil and lack of activity in Kings of the East. See, oil prices dropped, so the rapture is farther away. So it's bad that oil prices dropped... Maybe we really need look no further than these loons for the source of the malAdministration's blac-is-white-ism.

When the cleaning people don't actually move the vacuum, you know they're FBI thugs

2006-03-19T09:21:00.000-08:00

By now we know that not only does Bush conduct secret, warrantless, illegal electronic surveillance, He conducts secret, warrantless, illegal physical searches as well. So much for The Fourth Amendment.

But that's old--and expected--news. (Would it be simpler just to make a list of Constitutional clauses these guys haven't trashed? Because I'm having a hard time keeping track.) Here's my favorite part of the US News article that broke this story.

Thomas Nelson is the defense attorney who was a target of the latest outbreak of Republican bag jobs, and who, nine months before the NSA story broke, wrote U.S. Attorney Karin Immergut in Oregon that in the previous nine months, "I and others have seen strong indications that my office and my home have been the target of clandestine searches."

And here's one of those indications:

Late at night on two occasions, Nelson's colleague Jonathan Norling noticed a heavyset, middle-aged, non-Hispanic white man claiming to be a member of an otherwise all-Hispanic cleaning crew, wearing an apron and a badge and toting a vacuum. But, says Norling, "it was clear the vacuum was not moving." Three months later, the same man, waving a brillo pad, spent some time trying to open Nelson's locked office door, Norling says. Nelson's wife and son, meanwhile, repeatedly called their home security company asking why their alarm system seemed to keep malfunctioning. The company could find no fault with the system.

Of course, I'm sure this is an isolated incident, perpetrated by over-zealous, brillo pad-waving, apron-wearing field operatives....

Ho Lieberman doesn't need the Times to be his pimp

2006-03-19T08:49:00.000-08:00

Because Joe's an independent, right?

Put down your coffee.

Now read General Paul Eaton on The Times Op-Ed page:

First, President Bush should accept the offer to resign that Mr. Rumsfeld says he has tendered more than once, and hire a man who will listen to and support the magnificent soldiers on the ground. Perhaps a proven Democrat like Senator Joseph Lieberman could repair fissures that have arisen both between parties and between uniformed men and the Pentagon big shots.

I love it! "Proven Democrat..." Proven at what? Repeating Republican talking points on Fox and stabbing other Democrats in the back?

NOTE You can contribute to Lieberman's primary opponent, Ned Lamont, here.

Putting the question

2006-03-19T08:00:00.000-08:00

Bush breaks the law, admits that he broke the law, claims he has the authority to break the law, and does all this with impunity.

I don't see how there can be a bigger issue than Bush's impunity from lawbreaking. If Bush can cherrypick which laws to obey, and when and how to obey them, then he might as well be writing the laws and interpreting them too, besides executing them. That means the end of the separation of powers, the concentration of all power in the executive, and the end of the independent legislative and judicial branches. That means the end of our Constitution.

This is tyranny, exactly in the form the Founders understood and were determined to prevent. Federalist 47:

The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, selfappointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.

So the question I'd like to see posed to every elected representative, Democratic or Republican, is this:

What is your plan to restore Constitutional government in the United States?

NOTE Has it escaped anyone's notice that raising this question would be a very good way to nationalize the 2006 midterms?

UPDATE Alert, and Constant, Reader points out that Gary Trudeau gets it. Funny, though not exactly funnny ha-ha, eh?

Well, That Was Fun...

2006-03-19T06:52:00.000-08:00

Well, that was actually fun. Am back at my hotel -- awaiting my breakfast from room service. Amazing how hungry being up early and talking politics on television can make you. I'm STARVING. And in need of much more coffee before my drive home.

But I wanted to stop in and say thanks to everyone for watching this morning. You guys are the best, do you know that?

The C-Span Washington Journal set has the most amazing view of the Capitol. It was the perfect backdrop for political discourse this morning. A big thank you to Eloise and Lisa at C-Span for taking such good care of me. Peter, the host, has a wry sense of humor -- would have liked to have spoken more with him (I hear he has a good Cher calling into the show story...).

It turns out that Paul Mirengoff and I have a mutual legal acquaintance -- wow, the world is small, eh? And for my very first television interview, I could not have asked for a better conservative counterpart across the desk.

Had dinner with Pach yesterday at a fantastic Vietnamese restaurant somewhere in Virginia. Poor fella, I dragged him around the mall because I left my black cashmere sweater at home (oops!) and had to find something to wear on camera beyond my sleeping t-shirt. We had a great time, though -- and some exceptional food and conversation at dinner. Pach is a peach!

Ahhhh...the room service is here and I must have more coffee. Have I mentioned how great you all are for getting up this morning? This was lots of fun, but I miss my morning routine...and blogspot isn't letting me upload a photo, so I'll have to put up the lovely robin I had picked out for TeddySanFran when I get home later today.

Three Years Of Hell

2006-03-19T05:44:00.000-08:00

Three years ago tomorrow night was when our news channels filled with images of bombs exploding in Baghdad. 9:34pm est. time will mark the anniversary of the actual start of the invasion.

So where have we gone since then? Well we did make it to Baghdad with little effort. We did find Saddam Hussein. That’s about it for the good points..

Now here we sit 3 years later and where are we. We have lost 2,318 soldiers, over 30,000 Iraqi citizens; spent over half a trillion dollars (increasing by $200 million a day) and we sit here, isolated from the rest of the world. What does our President have to say about the war now?

"More fighting and sacrifice will be required," Bush said in his weekly radio address. "For some, the temptation to retreat and abandon our commitments is strong. Yet there is no peace, there's no honor and there's no security in retreat. So America will not abandon Iraq to the terrorists who want to attack us again."

Basically the Bush plan for Iraq is the same it has been since the invasion. Think of it as football. We see upsets time and time again. A team takes to the field with an over optimistic attitude because their opponents rated a large underdog. Of course that over optimistic team comes home with their heads held down low because they were just upset. I am not saying our outcome in Iraq will be the same because we can change the rules. We can redefine what we call a win. True in war, the only winner is war.

In January of 2003, Saddam Huessein vowed to give the Americans “a war like no other they have fought before”. Many people laughed at that comment. Well there are 2, 318 families not laughing now. In fact Saddam has given us exactly what he vowed. The insurgency is that war which Saddam vowed.

Last fall Donald Rumsfeld took to the Sunday morning talk shows to try and build support for the war. One question he was asked on Meet the Press was about the insurgency. Rumsfeld said he does not believe a “robust” insurgency was something they planned for. Of course it wasn’t. What they planned for were people greeting their liberators and throwing flowers and candy at them. It is not a lack of planning, but rather a lack of perspective.

Prior to the invasion, our President did not even know the difference between Sunni, Shiite and Kurds. He thought Iraq was nothing more than “Iraqis”. It is that sort of monochrome view that has helped contribute to this disastrous nightmare.

One of the benefits I have on IntoxiNation, is having a great partner in blogging who shares my same views. The only difference we have is the fact that I am in the United States and he is in the United Kingdom.

In the U.K. public support for the war has always been very low. Tony Blair is now facing some big political challenges and one way he is trying to gain public support is by fixing Iraq. This week the U.K. announced that they were withdrawing 800 troops from Iraq. The next day the U.S. announces they are sending over 700 more troops. Kind of hard to say we are making progress when we have to offset our allies’ withdrawal like that.

This move by Blair was also done the same week a new Downing Street Memo was published in the Guardian.

Senior British diplomatic and military staff gave Tony Blair explicit warnings three years ago that the US was disastrously mishandling the occupation of Iraq, according to leaked memos.
John Sawers, Mr Blair's envoy in Baghdad in the aftermath of the invasion, sent a series of confidential memos to Downing Street in May and June 2003 cataloguing US failures. With unusual frankness, he described the US postwar administration, led by the retired general Jay Garner, as "an unbelievable mess" and said "Garner and his top team of 60-year-old retired generals" were "well-meaning but out of their depth".

Of course we already knew this. There was a five year project headed up in the State Department, which started under Clinton, whose mission was to deal with a strategy when it comes to dealing with a post war Iraq. This project employed some of the brightest minds in our nation when it comes to Iraq and cost the taxpayers’ millions. What did George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld do with this plan? They threw it out. Instead they went into Iraq with no plan because they were that over optimistic team I talked about earlier. In war the greatest enemy is optimism.

In the past three years we have created a breeding ground for terrorists. We have also destabilized the most dangerous region in the world. We ignored the offers of help last year from other Middle Eastern countries and now Iraq is on the verge of civil war – a war which will most likely span across its borders and further destabilize the region as a whole.

Three years later and we got the President out giving his same talking points. The year may be different but the rhetoric is the same. Today you can turn on the television and see General Casey talk about the war. He is scheduled on three Sunday Morning talk shows while Dick Cheney is slotted on Face the Nation. While the citizens of this country mourn what we have lost, we got the cheerleaders out trying to muster support for a highly unpopular war. If they want to gain support then they should be locked in a room in Washington trying to figure out a plan to get us out of this nightmare.

Cross posted at IntoxiNation

(On another note: Great job Reddhedd on Washington Journal this morning)

And They're Off....

2006-03-18T21:12:00.000-08:00

Remember, tomorrow all the cool kids will be watching:

07:45 AM EST
LIVE
Call-In
News Review
C-SPAN, Washington Journal
Christy Hardin Smith, Firedoglake.com
Paul Mirengoff, Powerlineblog.com

Go Redd. We'll be cheering you on.

FDL Late Nite: The Silent Majority

2006-03-18T19:15:00.000-08:00

"A rooster crows only when it sees the light. Put him in the dark and he'll never crow. I have seen the light and I'm crowing." -- Muhammad Ali

According to the Pew Research Center for People and the Press, George W. Bush's overall approval rating stands now at 33%. That's 9% among democrats, 26% among independents and 73% among Republicans. The poll further points out that, since the beginning of his second term, Bush has lost sizable chunks of Republican support. That 73% is down from a 89% in January, 2005. This is the same poll that tells us the most popular, single descriptive word for Bush is incompetent. Oops.

How about Iraq? After all, national security is the republican's signature issue, right? Eh, not so much. According to NBC News/Wall Street Journal's most recent poll, 35% of the public approves Bush's handling of the war while 61% disapprove. And get this: only 4% are undecided, presumably because they have too much to handle walking and chewing gum simultaneously. Oops again.

But aside from Iraq, Republicans still enjoy a national security advantage, right? Look away, Unka Karl (the horror!). NPR released a poll yesterday that includes the following absolutely devastating conclusions in its executive summary:

Democrats win every security debate in this poll and when voters are asked who they trust more on issues including the Iraq war, foreign ownership of US ports, and homeland security issues, Democrats come out on top. The only exception is the nuclear threat in Iran, where Republicans have a narrow 5 point advantage.

[snip. . .]

Democrats have an historic 15 point advantage (52 to 37 percent) in the generic congressional vote, the result of an emerging trend over the last 7 months and serious conclusions drawn about President Bush, the war in Iraq, and the economy.

These results are brought about by independents including mainline Protestants, Catholics, and Baby-Boom college voters moving away from the Republicans and by a crash in key parts of the Republican base. The parties are now running even in the white rural counties and in the counties carried by Bush in 2004. Older blue collar voters - most impacted by the changing economy, and least interested in foreign spending and foreign ownership of American ports - have pulled away from the Republicans.

On November 3, 1969, the spiritual father of today's Republican Party, Richard M. Nixon ("When the president does it, that means it's not illegal."), delivered a speech containing the following famous phrase regarding another failed, idiotic war:

"So tonight, to you, the great silent majority of my fellow Americans, I ask for your support. I pledged in my campaign for the Presidency to end the war in a way that we could win the peace."

That was then; this is now. Today, March 18, 2006, we clearly have a new Silent Majority. It is not heard through the establishment media, though it shows up in the polls. And guess what: that majority includes the coveted likely voters. How do you think they feel about the president asserting the right to sniff panties in your home without a warrant?

I think Harry Reid is catching on. Otherwise, he would not have said of George Bush yesterday, "I really do believe this man will go down as the worst president this country has ever had." Representative Jane Harman got a lesson from the Silent Majority yesterday, too, when she got an earful over at kos (as Jane pointed out last night) over chalenging the president on warrentless wiretapping.

Nope. No more silence from the Silent Majority. And while the netroots/grassroots makes noise on the Internet and on the phone lines into the Capitol, the mass of voters will be heard in November. How will Tweety survive?

Take another look at that man in the picture above. In his day, establishment elites like Tweety wanted him to shut his damn mouth. They wanted him to accept his birth name when he chose another. They wanted him to fight a war he knew was bullshit. He refused. To their unending exasperation, he would not be silent. He's the model for today's Silent Majority. Let's get LOUD!

Today's Silent Majority wants to see action from leaders in Washington, not just timid posturing. In that vein, I have some advice for Harry Reid (Minority Leader) and Chuck Schumer (head of the DSCC) in the Senate: take a look at those polls again. It's time to play some offense. Get in front of the parade by getting behind Feingold's censure motion.

If you do, I'll bet many of the remaining 26% of democrats who currently oppose censure will flip to support it, moving overall population support for censure from 48% to well over 50% (hat tip to eRiposte). Some independents will follow along, too, if you stand together and make your case to a public starving for alternative leadership. (Note: censure polling varies by the wording of the question.) That will boost democratic turnout for the midterms, and also happens to be a political stance for the right fucking principle: the president does not get to break or ignore the law at his whim.

Nancy Pelosi (Minority Leader) and Rahm Emanuel (head of the DCCC) in the House, you have homework, too. Play some damn offense. End the off-the-record ethics truce in the House, and start filing charges. CREW has a fine list you and your senate colleagues have been ignoring for some time. Every indication is this year will hold a nationalized midterm election. Let your people run on accountability and ethics in Washington and ride the wave to glory. This is no time for rope-a-dope.

All this friendly advice comes with a warning: the Silent Majority will not be denied. The tectonic plates of American politics are fundamentally shifting. To those who would get in the way of the new majority politics, consider: like that guy in the picture, we in the Silent Majority know how to handle those who stand in our way.

PS - Don't forget to set your TiVo to record Christy (ReddHedd) on C-Span tomorrow morning at 7:45. We love ya, Redd!

Three Years Later

2006-03-18T18:19:00.000-08:00

Our nation enters this conflict reluctantly -- yet, our purpose is sure. The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder. We will meet that threat now, with our Army, Air Force, Navy, Coast Guard and Marines, so that we do not have to meet it later with armies of fire fighters and police and doctors on the streets of our cities.

Now that conflict has come, the only way to limit its duration is to apply decisive force. And I assure you, this will not be a campaign of half measures, and we will accept no outcome but victory.

My fellow citizens, the dangers to our country and the world will be overcome. We will pass through this time of peril and carry on the work of peace. We will defend our freedom. We will bring freedom to others and we will prevail.

President Bush - Operation Iraqi Freedom
March 20, 2003

The number of troops involved in Operation Swarmer is down from 1500 to 900. There was not one single firefight. Not one major terrorist nabbed. Nada.

The Republicans deserve to lose their edge on national security and foreign policy issues.

... "This is not the only poll that is showing significant problems for Republicans on the generic ballot, significant problems for the president," Bolger says. "We're in a hole, and we're at a point where we've got to start digging our way out, as opposed to digging deeper."

It's not uncommon to see polls where Democrats beat Republicans on domestic issues, such as the economy and jobs, health care and Social Security. But in this poll, when asked which party they trust more on issues such as the Iraq war, foreign ownership of U.S. ports and attention to homeland security, majorities chose the Democrats. ... GOP Losing Edge on Foreign Policy Issues

Unfortunately, Terror Guy's favorite toy is his shovel.

Three years after Bush launched a preemptive attack in Iraq, the Iraqi people have voted, they have a parliament, but chose not to choose a president or cabinet, and Saddam is on trial. What is there left for us to do? Pacification is not our problem. If the Iraqi people want peace they will have to fight for it themselves.

That said, I must admit I'm not a peaceful soul. We're a gun toting family and I was born in red state Missouri and raised on John Wayne. Give peace a chance has never been my refrain. I'm not bragging, believe me, just telling you the root of my rant. Frankly, I don't trust our neighbors around the world. Since we invaded Iraq I trust them even less. That's what has me so concerned. The mantra of the day for me is give strategic redeployment a chance. Three years later, I'm looking at Iran, North Korea and terrorists in other lands. I'm also starting to worry again about Afghanistan. Because while Bush has been playing preemption in Iraq, the Taliban are back, the weather is warming and things are going to get noisy.

But three years after preemption, we're in Iraq to "stay the course" until "victory" is achieved. We all remember the promises, the misinformation, the downright whoppers.

"To suggest that we need several hundred thousand troops there after military operations cease, after the conflict ends, I don't think is accurate. I think that's an overstatement." - Vice President Dick Cheney

“There’s a lot of money to pay for this that doesn’t have to be U.S. taxpayer money, and it starts with the assets of the Iraqi people…and on a rough recollection, the oil revenues of that country could bring between $50 and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three years…We’re dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon.” - Paul Wolfowitz (Source: House Committee on Appropriations Hearing on a Supplemental War Regulation, 3/27/03)

Q: Mr. Secretary, on Iraq, how much money do you think the Department of Defense would need to pay for a war with Iraq? Rumsfeld: Well, the Office of Management and Budget, has come up come up with a number that's something under $50 billion for the cost. - Donald Rumsfeld (Sunday, January 19, 2003)

The cost of the Iraq war is now estimated at $1 - 2 TRILLION.

And what of the mismanagement of the post war peace, the down right incompetence of President Bush and the Republicans to effectively prosecute the post war planning? I've got my own, but here's a sampling of Republican incompetence on Iraq.

Failing to build a real international coalition prior to the Iraq invasion, forcing the US to shoulder the full cost and consequences of the war.

Approving the demobilization of the Iraqi Army in May, 2003 – bypassing the Joint Chiefs of Staff and reversing an earlier position, the President left hundreds of thousands of armed Iraqis disgruntled and unemployed, contributing significantly to the massive security problems American troops have faced during occupation.

Not equipping troops in Iraq with adequate body armor or armored HUMVEES.

Ignoring the advice Gen. Eric Shinseki regarding the need for more troops in Iraq – now Bush is belatedly adding troops, having allowed the security situation to deteriorate in exactly the way Shinseki said it would if there were not enough troops.

Ignoring plans drawn up by the Army War College and other war-planning agencies, which predicted most of the worst security and infrastructure problems America faced in the early days of the Iraq occupation.

Making a case for war which ignored intelligence that there were no Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq.

Predicting Iraq would pay for its own reconstruction.

Wildly underestimating the cost of the war.

Disbanding the Sunni Baathist managers responsible for Iraq's water, electricity, sewer system and all the other critical parts of that country's infrastructure.

Including discredited intelligence concerning Nigerian Yellow Cake in his 2003 State of the Union.

Announcing that "major combat operations in Iraq have ended" aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln on May 1, 2003, below a "Mission Accomplished" banner – more U.S. soldiers have died in combat since Bush's announcement than before it.

Having no real plan for the occupation of Iraq.

Shutting down an Iraqi newspaper for "inciting violence" – the move, which led in short order to street fighting in Fallujah, incited more violence than the newspaper ever had.

Three years of incompetence on Iraq from President Bush and the Republicans who control Congress. We, our country and our mighty military, simply cannot afford a fourth.

guest posted by Taylor Marsh

Feingold and the Censure Resolution: 2006 and 2008

2006-03-18T15:12:00.000-08:00

Hi, it's Scott back from Lawyers, Guns and Money for a cameo appearance.

As a follow up to ReddHedd's post below, yesterday I wrote a post about Ryan Lizza's baffling claim, in response to Russ Feingold's proposed censure of the President, that "[c]hanging the FISA law is the way to address Bush's overreach." Ann Althouse objects, arguing that I am not "the best person to be deciding who's 'vacuous.'" The merits of the ad hominem I will leave to the reader, but I think that Althouse is missing the fundamental point here, and I don't think that what's at stake can be emphasized often enough. There are two issues here: the politics, and the merits. The former issue I see little point in discussing, because whether it's a net positive or negative the political impact of a censure resolution on mid-term elections in November will be negligible in any case. I will only point out another contradiction in Lizza's argument. His argument that the resolution will be politically damaging rests on his assertion that "providing a check on Bush and the Republican dominance of Washington is a key Democratic talking point, but it's being advanced subtly by candidates who still often must distance themselves from national Democrats." But, if a Democratic victory rests on red-state Democrats being able to distance themselves from the Senate leadership--a plausible enough claim--then how can the fact that Feingold's resolution has not produced a unified Democratic caucus be damaging? Lizza's argument gets more puzzling the more you think about it.

But the more important point, which I think Althouse also misses, is that Lizza's claim that supporters of the resolution have the policy wrong is just a transparent non-sequitur. Changing the FISA law is hardly an adequate response to presidential overreaching, given that the administration has asserted the authority to ignore any statutory restrictions placed on its authority to conduct domestic searches. The value of Feingold's resolution is that it draws attention to the point that pundits like Lizza seem unable to grasp: this dispute is not only about the best policy to gather information about terrorists, but is about central questions of the President's constitutional powers and the rule of law. The key issue here is that the President acted--and continues to act years after 9/11, and therefore with plenty of time to request changes in the statute if it was inadequate--against a law passed by Congress. And, as ReddHedd says, claims that FISA is unconstitutional because the President has unconstrained authority over foreign policy are exceptionally weak. It's worth repeating my quote from Cass Sunstein about how contrary to our Constitutional framework such claims of plenary presidential power are:

Yoo emphasizes Blackstone and British practice, arguing that the United States closely followed the British model, in which the executive--the king!--was able to make war on his own. But not so fast. There is specific evidence that the British model was rejected. Just three years after ratification Wilson wrote, with unambiguous disapproval, that "in England, the king has the sole prerogative of making war." Wilson contrasted the United States, where the power "of making war and peace" is in the legislature. Early presidents spoke in similar terms. Facing attacks from Indian tribes along the western frontier, George Washington, whose views on presidential power over war deserve special respect, observed: "The Constitution vests the power of declaring war with Congress; therefore no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until after they have deliberated on the subject, and authorized such a measure." As president, both Thomas Jefferson and John Adams expressed similar views. In his influential Commentaries, written in 1826, James Kent wrote that "war cannot lawfully be commenced on the part of the United States, without an act of Congress."

That's the issue. The administration is claiming powers to act unilaterally with respect to a conflict with no logical end, powers far beyond what Lincoln claimed at the height of the Civil War. Changing the FISA statute not only doesn't address this crucial issue--which the censure resolution, at least, foregrounds--it compounds it by legitimating the President's lawbreaking and contempt for constitutional restraints retroactively. Feingold, unlike Lizza, actually understands the crucial issue at stake. As long as Congressional Republicans refuse to assert congressional prerogatives there's nothing Democrats can do policy-wise, but at least they should be making this point as often as possible.

One area where I agree with Lizza, however, is that this is more about 2008 than 2006, and that's where I'll throw open to the discussion to FDL readers. This probably won't make me a very popular in these parts, but as much as I admire Feingold I think that, ideally, the Democrats would be better served by running a red-state governor than a blue-state Senator. On the other hand, if Matt is right that this strengthens Feingold's odds against Clinton, that can only be good news. If it comes down to Clinton/Feingold, then I think there shouldn't be any contest: Clinton--who ran well behind Gore in New Work, while Feingold ran well ahead of Kerry in Wisconsin--has electability issues that are just as or more serious, and Feingold is much better on the merits. To the extent that it weakens Clinton by highlighting her unswerving commitment to a disastrous and increasingly unpopular war, this is a good thing for the Dems in '08.

Libby's Defense Could Be Our Answer

2006-03-18T10:26:00.000-08:00

The trial of Scooter Libby is still 10 months away but already we are learning that his defense could expose serious problems within the White House, in particular, their claims for the war in Iraq.

Lawyers for Vice President Dick Cheney's former top aide are suggesting they may delve deeply at his criminal trial into infighting among the White House, the CIA and the State Department over pre-Iraq war intelligence failures.

New legal documents raise the potential that I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby's trial could turn into a political embarrassment for the Bush administration by focusing on whether the White House manipulated intelligence to justify the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

In a court filing late Friday night, Libby's legal team said that in June and July 2003, the status of covert CIA officer Valerie Plame was at most a peripheral issue to "the finger-pointing that went on within the executive branch about who was to blame" for the failure to find weapons of mass destruction.

So does this mean one of the administration’s top allies in selling the war to the public could now become a greater asset to revealing the truth that lead is into this mess called Iraq? When it comes down to a threat of jail time that is exactly what could happen.

Since the invasion started three years ago there have been countless documents, reports and documentaries on the subject of “cooked intelligence”. One of the most damaging items has been reports from employees at Langley talking about the vice-President and his excessive “hands on” attitude when it came to the Iraq war. Former CIA analyst Ray McGovern even brought this up during the Downing Street Memo hearings last summer. He spoke of times where Cheney would come in and want “briefings” from the analysts and Tenet would be there with him. This was a highly uncommon practice with previous administrations and in fact put extra pressure on the analysts to say what Cheney wanted to hear.

Now that Scooter Libby is getting ready to go to court, stories like this have a greater chance of gaining more attention. It not only helps build the defense of him being under enormous pressure and the pressure building inside the beltway, but also the lengths this administration was going to in order to protect their lie.

Something else that will help back Scooter's defense is a July 30, 2003 Rose Garden press conference. This was the day President Bush accepted responsibility for the flawed intelligence of the Niger claim. This will help show that those times were in fact tense. At the same time it will be a damaging blow to the White House. Just a few weeks prior to that, the administration was in a full blown “attack Joe (Wilson)” campaign and one of those attacks was outing his wife which lead to all of this.

Perhaps Scooter will be able to convince a jury that he did “forget” about disclosing Plame’s identity. It is a long shot but even if he does, it will expose more truths about what was happening in Washington and to what lengths this administration would go to defend their illegal war. The only hurdle left for our side is hoping that this information is not kept from the public because it is classified. Even if it is we still have the ears of Patrick Fitzgerald listening in and he might just be willing to pursue other angles of this case.

Cross posted at IntoxiNation.

The Constitution Is Not a Legal Technicality

2006-03-18T08:06:00.000-08:00

The indespensible Crooks and Liars has a great clip of Jonathon Turley discussing the illegal NSA domestic spying. Turley disgust and anger is palpible -- watch the clip and see if you don't agree with me on that. And it is anger not just at the Bush Administration for treating our Constitution as if it were some piece of paper filled with legal technicalities -- but he is also furious with Congress for their rubber stamp roll-over on this issue.

...the fact that it was so quick as a suggestion shows the inclinations unfortunately of this administration-it treats the constitution like some legal technicality, and instead of the thing we're trying to fight to protect.

Go watch the whole clip. It's worth a few minutes of your time this morning.

A housekeeping matter: We've removed Kerry and Menendez from the Lions box on the Feingold censure resolution until we can get a firm answer from both their offices on Monday whether the current position is for, against, or on the fence. I didn't feel comfortable leaving them in the Lions category at this point, because we've gotten some mixed signals the last couple of days via regular posters in the comments and via e-mail.

If there was some mistake in putting them there in the first place (as in a staffer in a local office told one reader one thing, and the DC office was saying another), or if someone just got wrong information and passed it along -- whatever -- I want to give both Senator's offices the opportunity to give us the full scoop. And I will pass that information along here on Monday or whenever I can get someone on the record about it.

We don't want to push information that is no longer correct, because that just isn't right -- but at the same time, I'm not saying that either of these Senators won't go right back up on Monday if their offices confirm they are supporting the Feingold resolution. It's just the weekend and I can't exactly get a complete answer until Monday, so this is how Jane and I have decided to handle it in the meantime. Don't read anything into it other than we'll let you know something certain when we know something certain for ourselves. I hope that's clear for everyone -- but if you have questions, post them in the comments and I'll do my best to answer them.

Also, if you've heard news from either Senator's office in the last coupla days -- please feel free to share it in the comments. It isn't fair to tar a Senator with mixed messages coming from staffers who may or may not have been overly-eager, nor is it fair to blame a mixed message on a staffer if it is coming from the elected official. Which is why we will endeavor to get the full and complete scoop for everyone on Monday. (If there are Senators other than Kerry and Menendez that you feel we ought to contact on this as well, please let me know and I'll see what I can do.) Thanks everyone!

The Bush Administration's Infinite Spin Loop

2006-03-18T06:22:00.000-08:00

Elizabeth de la Vega has a great article (via TomDispatch) on the Bush Administration's infinite spin loop regarding the illegal NSA domestic spying program. It's certainly worth a read -- and she hammers the idiocy of "we have been repeatedly breaking the law, but we'd like you to amend it so our illegal behavior won't be so illegal in the future."

If you have any doubt that the NSA spying "debate" is trapped in an infinite loop, you need only review two pieces of evidence. The first, which we'll call "Exhibit A," is an article, dated March 8, 2006, entitled "Gonzales: NSA Program Doesn't Need a Law." Aha, you say, a mere headline. But this is what the article says: "The Attorney General made clear Wednesday, March 8, that the White House is not seeking congressional action to inscribe the National Security Agency's monitoring into U.S. law."

How, you wonder, could that be true? Since December, the President, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, among others, have said that FISA is outdated, not sufficiently agile, ineffective against terrorists, and too paper-intensive. Perhaps the AP reporter misinterpreted Gonzales' remarks…

I now refer you to Exhibit B -- a February 28, 2006 letter from Alberto Gonzales to Arlen Specter, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. In answer to a question about what changes to FISA are needed, Gonzales explicitly says, "The Administration believes it is unnecessary to amend FISA" to accommodate the spying program.

Let's review. Members of the Bush administration have admitted that they routinely ignore FISA. That does not mean, however, that they believe there's anything wrong with the law. On the contrary, the Bush administration does not think the law needs to be changed; nor does it even want the law to be changed. So every time you hear a Bush team member mention problems with FISA, all you need to do is think like a lawyer and the terms "objection.. irrelevant" will come to mind. Under the circumstances, why should Congress waste one more minute trying to amend a law the administration has no desire to see amended?

Nothing like rewarding the law breaker by making actions which violate the 4th Amendment legal for as long as our courts will uphold the law.

Here's the thing: if we sacrifice who we are as a nation, if we sacrifice our commitment to basic freedoms and liberty, if George Bush willfully ignores the laws, the Congress, and the judiciary and just does whatever he wants, we are no longer the America that we have fought for centuries to protect and uphold.

And if we are no longer an America fully committed to our principles, then who is really winning?

UPDATE: Georgia10 has more on why the President is not a king, and why his authority is not plenary when confronted with laws passed by Congress.

FDL Late Nite Bonus Bayh Edition: Spring the Crooks

2006-03-17T23:12:00.000-08:00

Anybody see this over at Josh Marshall's?

I just love that the guy Bush hired to spy on ~~terrorists~~ us (and provide "intelligence services" to the White House they don't want to talk about) is looking at 20 years for bribing Duke Cunningham.

Maybe Evan Bayh can change the law and have him back in the Quaker panty sniffing business in time for the War on Christmas. I'd hate to see O'Reilly have to face that alone.

Late Nite FDL: Everyone Wants to Take Us To the Prom

2006-03-17T20:22:00.000-08:00

This is rich. From a Boston Globe article on how the big Democrats are all courting the netroots for their 2008 bids:

The next round of prospective Democratic presidential candidates, even those with centrist credentials, is actively courting the Democratic Party's left wing -- which speaks loudly through its blogs, enjoys rising fund-raising clout built on Howard Dean's 2004 campaign, and is imbued with a confidence that it can build on Republican disarray.

(snip)

The 2008 prospects appear especially eager to stay in the good graces of bloggers, who enjoy growing influence though only a small percentage of voters read or write them. Even a solid centrist like Bayh felt compelled to take his message for a "tough and smart" foreign policy to the liberal Huffington Post, founded by commentator Arianna Huffington.

Jane Harmon posted a diary over at Kos recently asking people to email George Bush and tell him they didn't want permanent bases in Iraq. She was shocked when knowledgeable, articulate people showed up and told her in no uncertain terms that her Bayh-esque plans to change the law and make George Bush's illegal NSA wiretap activity legal were utterly ridiculous. To her credit she stayed around and addressed people's concerns but it certainly wasn't the response she anticipated.

On the heels of his backstabbing of Russ Feingold, can I for one say how much I'm looking forward to Evan "lemming" Bayh's next "tough and smart" diary on the Huffington Post?

More Rough 'n' Ready Russ

2006-03-17T18:10:00.000-08:00

Glenn Greenwald:

The Feingold Censure Resolution is unmasking the hideous underbelly of almost every Washington institution as vividly as anything that can be recalled. Each of the rotted Beltway branches is playing so true to form that the distinct forms of corruption and dishonesty which characterize each of them are standing nakedly revealed. As ugly of a sight as it is, it is highly instructive to watch it all unfold.

Digby:

Feingold stepped up and spoke for millions of Americans who see this administration's abuse of power as a very serious matter for which this president should be held to account. We are desperate for such leadership and we care nothing about the lack of political politesse with which it was raised. The president and his party are held in very low esteem by two thirds of the country. If not now, when?

Puppethead (from the comments):

The thing that pisses me off is how the Democrats are treating this as a political calculation. I want them to uphold our nation's Constitution and the rule of law. I don't care how many senate seats are lost over this, or whether or not anyone's re-election bid is jeopardized. I want accountability in my government.

I'll repeat -- Feingold's popularity among Democrats has soared from 22% before he introduced the resolution to 52% after the resolution. The nerve he tapped is way beyond political squabbling. This should not be some big mystery.

Lieberman Distorts His Record

2006-03-17T15:55:00.000-08:00

It's no surprise that Joe Lieberman is afraid of Ned Lamont. Ned's a handsome guy, a self-made man with superb business acumen, a great sense of humor and the willingness to speak out and oppose this disastrous war. Lieberman is a squirrelly little opportunist who backstabs his own party while his election coffers grow fat from the contributions of war profiteers his petty bellicosity has done so much to enrich.

Most Connecticut residents oppose the war according to the Stamford Advocate in an editorial which appeared yesterday welcoming Lamont into the race. They hope that it spurs a serious local discussion about Holy Joe's warmongering which appears to have nothing to do with actually representing the views of his constituents.

So I guess it's no surprise that Lieberman feels he's got to distort his record to boost his credibility with his constituents. I noticed this in the National Journal today (subscription):

For his part, Lieberman is taking his first-ever primary challenge seriously. His campaign Web site prominently features his lifetime voting records from such left-leaning groups as the AFL-CIO (82 percent), NARAL (95 percent), the Human Rights Campaign (90 percent) and the League of Conservation Voters (88 percent), which has already endorsed him.

Yeah and if you go back to 1977 Joe never voted to authorize the war in Iraq, either. The fact is that Joe's 2005 NARAL voting record is 75%, and that doesn't even include his cloture votes on judges that put both both Roberts and Alito on the Supreme Court. Nor does it take into account his recent comments telling rape victims to get up off the gurney and leave Catholic hospitals in order to get emergency contraception (which the hospitals will not even tell them they need). NARAL may not be willing to speak out against Holy Joe but to imply that they are 95% happy with his record is 100% bullshit.

If you're from Connecticut you might want to drop an LTE to the local papers and let them know that Joe needs to stop sliding around on statistics and old news, and that he needs to be held accountable for what he does now:

Hartford Courant LTE Webform
Connecticut Post LTE email
New Haven Register LTE email
Stamford Advocate LTE email

While you're at it let them know that you're interested in hearing more about Ned Lamont, who actually cares about representing the views of Connecticut voters.

And on this Sunday, the third anniversary of the horrendous war Joe Lieberman got us into, there will be a demonstration outside of Lieberman's office. Crooks & Liars has the details.

I'd Be Happy, Too

2006-03-17T12:59:00.000-08:00

I just don't understand this. Every time any Democrat opens their mouth they talk about how the netroots community is more an more influential every day on the course of party politics, and they are most certainly looking to turn us into a virtual ATM for the next election cycle.

Yet they are so disconnected from the palpable rage of the base -- and yes, we are the base, the people who show up every day, who write about this stuff, send letters, make phone calls, give money, give a shit -- that they have no concept of stepping into a leadership position on matters of great concern like the illegal NSA wiretaps and channeling that emotion into positive action.

They are then often startled to find that frustration turning back on them. Is it really such a mystery?

EJ Dionne understands:

Consider the disparity between the response to Feingold's initiative among Democratic senators and the reaction among Democratic activists.

Senators mostly scampered away from the cameras earlier this week, because they didn't want to say publicly what many of them said privately. Most were livid that Feingold sprang his censure idea on a Sunday talk show without giving them any notice. Many see Feingold as more concerned with rallying support from the Democratic base for his 2008 presidential candidacy than with helping his party regain control of Congress this fall.

Some Democrats want the party to forget the issue of warrantless wiretapping, because engaging it would let Bush claim that he's tougher on terrorists than his partisan enemies. Others share Feingold's frustration with the administration's stonewalling on the program, but they think they need to know more before they can effectively challenge Bush on the issue. Both groups were furious that Feingold grabbed headlines away from those delicious stories about Republican divisions and defections.

But at the grass roots and Web roots, Feingold has become a hero -- again. They already loved him for his courage in opposing the USA Patriot Act and his call for a timetable for troop withdrawals from Iraq. Feingold's latest move only reinforced his image of being "a Dem with a spine," as the left-liberal Web site BuzzFlash.com put it in a comment representative of the acclaim he won across the activist blogs.

In an interview, Feingold was unrepentant, arguing that before he made his proposal, "the whole issue of the president violating the laws of this country was being swept under the rug."

"We were going to sit back as Democrats and say, 'This is too hot to handle' -- well that's outrageous." He warned that "the mistakes of 2002 are being repeated," meaning, he said, that Democrats should never again "cower" before Bush on security issues, as so many at the grass roots saw them doing before the 2002 elections.

And it's a sign of Feingold's view of some of his Democratic colleagues that he defended his decision not to let them in on his plan. Had they known what he was up to, he said, "they would have planned a strategy to blunt this."

Here's the problem: Feingold and the activists are right that Democrats can't just take a pass on the wiretapping issue, because Bush's legal claims are so suspect -- even to many in his own party. The opposition's job is to raise alarms over potential abuses of presidential power.

But Democrats, unlike Republicans, have yet to develop a healthy relationship between activists willing to test and expand the conventional limits on political debate and the politicians who have to calculate what works in creating an electoral majority.

For two decades, Republicans have used their idealists, their ideologues and their loudmouths to push the boundaries of discussion to the right. In the best of all worlds, Feingold's strong stand would redefine what's "moderate" and make clear that those challenging the legality of the wiretapping are neither extreme nor soft on terrorism.

That would demand coordination, trust and, yes, calculation involving both the vote-counting politicians and the guardians of principle among the activists. Republicans have mastered this art. Democrats haven't.

Turning a minority into a majority requires both passion and discipline. Bringing the two together requires effective leadership. Does anybody out there know how to play this game?

I don't know how to make it any clearer. You can't tell people what to care about. They can continue to harp on the Dubai Ports mess all they want, but that moment has passed. It will make a fine talking point but the white-hot emotion fueling the discussion is gone. Russ Feingold saw where the conversation was going and he stepped in to provide leadership in a timely manner, not six weeks from now when they'd caucused the fucker to death and the world had moved on.

So let me speak in a language that even the dullest, the most remedial, most thick-witted Democratic consultant can understand.

According to a new Rassmussen poll:

"Initially, 22% of Democrats had a favorable opinion of him while 16% had an unfavorable opinion. However, knowing he advocates censure, Feingold's numbers within his own party jumped to 52% favorable and 14% unfavorable."

Every day that goes by and the party leaders do nothing but carp about an investigation that will never happen they are single-handedly delivering the loyalty, dollars and activism of the base over to Russ Feingold.

Are we communicating now?

C-Span's Washington Journal and Me

2006-03-17T11:12:00.000-08:00

I've had a lot of questions on this, and I can now give everyone a few answers.

I will be a guest on Sunday morning's Washington Journal on C-Span. The segment will begin at 7:45 am ET. (My apologies to all the bleary eyed West Coasters. All I can say is thank goodness for Tivo or your VCR.)

My conservative counterpart on the show will be Paul Mirengoff of Powerline. The host on Sunday morning will be Peter Slen.

Am trying to do a bit of prep -- we'll be discussing news of the day, per the usual Washington Journal format. I love the show, so this will be very fun for me.

I'll try to do you all proud.

You Tell Me They Aren't Motivated by Corruption and Cronyism

2006-03-17T10:08:00.000-08:00

This is beyond the pale:

Lawyers for two airlines being sued by 9/11 victims prompted a federal attorney to coach witnesses in the Zacarias Moussaoui death penalty trial so the government's case against the al-Qaida conspirator would not undercut their defense, victims' lawyers allege.

A United Airlines lawyer received a transcript of the first day of the Moussaoui trial from an American Airlines lawyer and forwarded it to Carla J. Martin, a Transportation Security Administration lawyer, the victims' lawyers, Robert Clifford and Gregory Joseph, claim.

Martin forwarded that day's transcript to seven federal aviation officials scheduled to testify later in the sentencing trial of the 37-year-old Frenchman, in violation of an order by Moussaoui trial judge Leonie Brinkema.

Martin's e-mailing of the transcript and her efforts to shape their testimony prompted Brinkema to toss out half the government's case against Moussaoui as contaminated beyond repair.

American Airlines attorneys denied on Friday that the government position in the Moussaoui case would have undercut their defense in the civil suit and said that none of their attorneys had any direct contact with Martin about the Moussaoui trial.

The contacts between Martin and airline lawyers were detailed in a legal brief filed on Moussaoui's behalf Thursday. That brief contained a March 15 letter from Clifford and Joseph complaining about Martin's actions to U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein, who is presiding over the civil damage case in New York.

You tell me they aren't motivated by corruption and cronyism.

I am so angry right now I am shaking. The perversion of our justice system to help out big party donors, the willful disregard of the law, the abject failure of this Administration to respect anything beyond its own greed is beyond my ability to describe in words right now.

This was the death penalty phase of a criminal proceeding. Not only were her actions in blatant disregard of the judge's direct order, but they were in direct violation of any sense of ethics that one would hope would prevail in our system of justice. All for the question of a buck for the Bush Administration's airline donor cronies and their civil suit fears. Absolutely shameful and wrong.

More than that, the families of all those people killed on 9/11 deserve a hell of a lot better than the Bush Administration coordinating with the airlines to prevent them from finding out the truth about airline safety and other issues involved in this case. I am just so, very angry.

You tell me they aren't motivated by corruption and cronyism.

(Thanks to a number of readers who sent me the link to this article.)

UPDATE: Jeralyn has much, much more on this at TalkLeft.

Give Me Liberty -- A Patriot's Case Against Appeasement

2006-03-17T06:55:00.000-08:00

From the NYTimes: The Newspaper of Appeasement:

We understand the frustration that led Senator Russell Feingold to introduce a measure that would censure President Bush for authorizing warrantless spying on Americans. It's galling to watch from the outside as the Republicans and most Democrats refuse time and again to hold Mr. Bush accountable for the lawlessness and incompetence of his administration. Actually sitting among that cowardly crew must be maddening.

Still, the censure proposal is a bad idea. Members of Congress don't need to take extraordinary measures like that now. They need to fulfill their sworn duty to investigate the executive branch's misdeeds and failings. Talk about censure will only distract the public from the failure of their elected representatives to earn their paychecks.

We'd be applauding Mr. Feingold if he'd proposed creating a bipartisan panel to determine whether the domestic spying operation that Mr. Bush has acknowledged violates the 1978 surveillance law, as it certainly seems to do. The Senate should also force the disclosure of any other spying Mr. Bush is conducting outside the law. (Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has strongly hinted that is happening.)

The Senate Intelligence and Judiciary Committees should do this, but we can't expect a real effort from Senator Pat Roberts, the Intelligence Committee chairman, or Senator Arlen Specter, chairman of the Judiciary Committee. They're too busy trying to give legal cover to the president's trampling on the law and the Constitution.

Wow, what a stellar idea. The NYTimes editorial board would like Harry Reid to shut down the Senate again and demand a blue ribbon bi-partisan commission to investigate what it already reported was going on -- using the NSA (and other agencies) for illegal domestic spying without a warrant in violation of the FISA laws and the 4th Amendment. (Remember James Risen? Remember your big news back in December? Hello?!?)

And the shut down of the Senate? Sure, it was a brilliant tactical maneuver at the time -- but one that surely works well as a surprise, and when used rarely. Not gonna be much of a surprise at the point, now is it?

And it got us...erm...another blue ribbon panel, this time of Senators, who haven't been able to move Phase II forward in the Intelligence Committee because the Republicans on the panel aren't interested in doing any real oversight and the Democrats aren't the sort who will go public with their concerns. So what did we get? Stalemate.

Just what the nation needs.

You know what I think this nation hungers for -- what we are all feeling in the back of our minds and in the deepest parts of our hearts?

That the misuse of government for political payback, rampant cronyism, corrupt influence peddling and bribery, and the overstepping of national security and legal boundaries to spy on Americans whose only crime is to disagree with the President is flat out wrong. And there are a whole lot of us -- liberals, ultra-liberals, moderates, libertarians, fiscal conservatives (everyone but the "maintaining party power is my whole world" crowd) -- who think that our nation and our Constitution ought to come first.

How about some accountability? Some oversight? Some real work on the part of Congress?

Don't make me laugh. Republicans control Congress right now. The people who have been placed in the party hierarchy in Congress and in the Committee Chairperson seats are either party loyalists or members who are willing to suppress their own personal ethics in order to hold their power chair.

Remember the last time Arlen Specter forgot his place and got all uppity about honoring the Constitution -- and he got a visit telling him he'd be removed from his seat at the head of the Judiciary table? How quickly can a grown man back down from his principles, I ask you? Apparently, pretty damn quick.

This Congress is not going to step up and provide any oversight so long as Republicans control both houses. The party leadership has decided that political power interests trump any allegiance to the Constitution or to our long-term national interests with regard to liberty or laws, and the hell with that pesky oath to the Constitution they all take when they enter their public office. It's a sad fact, but it is true nonetheless.

There are two options for dealing with the illegal NSA domestic spying on the table at the moment that hold some promise for accountability: censure or the appointment of an independent counsel. Everything else is simply window dressing and appeasement.

And for all those wingnuts who are now hopping up and down and saying I'm soft on terrorists and unpatriotic and I don't want to give the President the tools he needs to protect America and fight terrorists, I have this to say: BULLSHIT.

No one in their right mind is saying that surveillance under the law is not an appropriate means of combatting terrorism. No Democrats are saying this that I've heard, and I spend a whole lot of time listening about this issue. Hell, I've helped write up enough wiretapping warrants in my day for undercover investigations to know how useful they are as a tool -- they are essential. But they also must be tempered with the review of a third party with no personal interest in the investigation, to be certain that this awesome power is not being misused.

And that is the point: every police officer and federal agent in this country knows that they have to do the proper paperwork and present it to a judge for their third party, objective review, before proceeding with the substantial power that the government has of investigation.

There are emergency provisions already written into these laws which allow for surveillance to begin -- and for the government to be able to wait up to 72 hours before obtaining the warrant, after they have already been doing the surveillance. The FISA laws already cover this contingency.

There are very good reasons for third party oversight by the judiciary -- the power that the government has to do surveillance is enormous. And it has the potential for misuse, because that temptation is great.

The fundamental question that every citzen in this nation ought to be asking themselves is this: do I trust the government to make appropriate choices each and every time they decide to surveil someone, and to not misuse this power to spy on their political enemies or on people who criticize them or for some other wholly inappropriate purpose?

And then ask yourself this question: would I trust the government not to misuse its power if it were being run by the person on the opposite side of the political chasm that I distrust most? Just think about that for a second, and see if you don't get a huge flinch in your gut at all the possibilities.

Our Founding Fathers had a substantial mistrust of unfettered power, which is why our system was set up as one of checks and balances. It was that whole getting out from beneath the boot of the King for them -- and the fact that they had to fight for every inch of liberty that we now blithely toss aside in the name of partisanship.

I remember the days when the Republican Party gave lip service to the notion that individual rights were most important and that government ought not tread on our freedoms or our liberties. Those days are over under the current party leadership -- and all those civil libertarians and anti-government folks out there had better get used to it, or rise up and start taking their party back. Today it's domestic spying without a warrant and to hell with the 4th Amendment. You think if the crony money isn't in it for them they won't start chipping away at the 2nd Amendment, too?

The 1st Amendment has already taken a hit -- can't have people disagreeing with George Bush where he might actually see or hear him, so we already scuttle those horrible, nasty people who want to hold their government accountable by having the Secret Service drag them out of any public appearance the President might make. (The fact that these appearances are paid for with public funding be damned.) You think the whole of the Bill of Rights isn't up for sale right now? Jane was absolutely right that the Dubai deal was the prime example of national security and public interest taking a back seat to the crony with the largest, bulging wallet.

This is not a partisan issue. That it may have use for partisan implications is plain, but fundamentally for me, this is an issue that is wrong at its Constitutional core. Our government is failing all of us, because they are no longer interested in governing. It's about maintaining power -- and the status quo -- and every citizen in this nation ought to be sick at how things are currently being run in Washington.

I do not trust the Bush Administration to do anything that is not in their own personal or crony interests, and the nation be damned. And a whole hell of a lot of Americans out there are feeling the same way -- I get e-mails about this daily, and not just from our usual progressive readers, it's been libertarians and fiscal conservatives as well.

The system of checks and balances is currently skewed, because Republicans control both Congress and the White House -- and the Republicans in Congress have abdicated their oversight and balancing responsibilities in favor of being a rubber stamp for the Bush Administration.

The New York Times is high on something if they think that simply setting up a "bi-partisan commission" to study the potential problems with the current system is going to do any good. What part of the President admitting publicly on multiple occasions that he was breaking the FISA laws -- and that he would continue to do so -- are they not understanding?

What part of this country being a nation of laws that the President -- who is after all only a man elected to office for a short period of time -- has to follow just like every other citizen in this nation do they not understand?

It's the accountability, stupid. For me it comes down to this: are you an accountability patriot -- or are you just another appeasement rubber stamp?

Give me liberty. Give me accountability. Give me my Constitution back.

NOTE: Sorry this is so late in going up. Blogspot was having issues -- this is the same post that has been up at the new firedoglake.com website. Just FYI.

FDL Late Nite: Trust Us

2006-03-16T22:57:00.000-08:00

A surprisingly large number of Senate Democrats seem to be completely out of touch with the anger and frustration felt by people in America over their failure to hold the President accountable for his illegal NSA wiretap activities. While Feingold, Boxer and Harkin have shown tremendous bravery and leadership in co-sponsoring the censure bill, many others seem reluctant to commit themselves and hope for some sort of investigation that will give them political cover.

There is not going to be an investigation, we know it, they know it and George Bush knows it. The Senate Intelligence Committee voted on March 7 not to investigate. Do they somehow think Arlen Specter is suddenly going to change his stripes? The censure resolution has been referred to the Judiciary Committee, which if the GOP holds true to form will probably mean they'll wind up investigating Feingold for treason.

In the mean time we're supposed to trust the Bush Administration that all of this warrentless spying is being handled judiciously and in the interest of fighting the war on terror.

Right. Because they handle everything else so very competently, we are to simply trust that everyone involved in developing and implementing government surveillance technology will do so with Solomonic wisdom.

What kind of people are being hired to work on this shit? From the TPM Muckraker, via Josh Marshall:

Here's an interesting -- but overlooked -- detail of the Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-CA) saga: one of the crooked contractors who bribed the Duke Stir was apparently involved in a Total Information Awareness-like data-mining operation that looked at U.S. citizens' data.

Mitchell Wade, former CEO of MZM Inc., pleaded guilty to several conspiracy and bribery charges a few weeks ago in connection with the Cunningham scandal. But a little-noticed piece of his history goes into one of the most sensitive domestic spying operations we have heard of to date: the Pentagon's Virginia-based Counterintelligence Field Activity office (CIFA).

Wade got over $16 million in contracts with CIFA by bribing Duke Cunningham, who forced earmarks in to Defense appropriations bills on his behalf. Furthermore, Wade's second-in-command was a consultant to the Pentagon on standing up the operation.

In its brief life -- it was created in 2002 -- CIFA has had trouble keeping its nose clean. Despite the ink that's been spilled on the center, little is actually known about what it does, and how MZM serviced it.

Feeling better yet? I know I am.

The area that's gotten [CIFA] into hot water recently is TALON, a system of receiving "threat reports" from around the country and storing them in a database, known as Cornerstone. Last December, NBC news got their hands on a printout of a portion of the database which revealed they were keeping tabs on nonviolent protesters, mostly anti-war, around the United States.

(snip)

Where does Wade and MZM come in? We're learning more every day, but here's what we know now: CIFA culls "commercial data," including financial records, criminal records, credit histories and more. MZM won a contract -- through Cunningham -- to provide a data storage system to CIFA, presumably to hold a lot of that information. Unfortunately it was a piece of crap, and was never installed.

In addition, the Washington Post has reported MZM assisted CIFA in "exploiting" the data -- presumably by searching it, organizing it, and looking for patterns.

Keeping databases on citizens engaging in protected political activities? Datamining credit histories looking for terrorists? It looks like the place bad ideas go to stay alive, behind the curtain of secrecy. As Wade has proven, you can get away with a lot behind that curtain (for a while, anyway). I wonder what more is back there we haven't heard about.

So, in summation: the DOD hired a crook who ripped off the government to pick through the underwear drawers of Quakers. To look through your credit history, your financial records, and no doubt a whole lot else. And we are supposed to trust that this guy with all this extremely private information about our personal lives will keep it confidential and not exploit it because -- well, because the Bushies say so, I guess.

It is an enormous mistake for anyone to stick their finger in the wind right now to see which way it's blowing before committing themselves on this issue. This is not partisan politics. This is not political chess. These are our core beliefs as Americans, our rights as citizens that are being fucked with here, auctioned off to the crook with the fattest wallet -- just like the ports.

Do the wavering Democrats understand this? I do not believe that they do.

Russ Feingold looks pretty damn good for having been the only one to vote against the Patriot Act, and a year hence he'll look even better for having stepped out in the forefront of this because the corruption and mismanagement are only going to become more painfully obvious as the details are unearthed over time.

The question is -- who's going to look good for having stood with him?

The Tin Political Ear of Evan Bayh

2006-03-16T17:26:00.000-08:00

Meet our newest Lemming. BushCo. is on the ropes, but Evan Bayh offers them a helping hand:

But the first thing Democrats need to do, Bayh said, is take Republicans on in an area they've dominated: national security.

"It's a threshold issue for us, and it's a threshold issue for America," Bayh said. "People aren't going to trust us with anything else if we first can't convince them to trust us with their lives."

Before he spoke, Bayh told reporters that he does not support efforts by Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., another potential 2008 presidential candidate, to censure Bush for authorizing domestic eavesdropping. Bayh said it's not clear whether the law requiring court approval before surveillance was broken, and he instead favors revisiting and possibly updating the law.

How exaclty does Bayh plan to be the big national security badass? By changing the law so that the President's illegal actions are made legal? Wow you are one tough hombre, Evan.

I wouldn't trust you to guard my potted fern.

Evan Bayh
463 Russell Building
Washington, DC 20510
Washington, DC (202) 224-5623
Indianapolis (317) 554-0750
Evansville (812) 465-6500
Fort Wayne (260) 426-3151
Hammond (219) 852-2763
Jeffersonville (812) 218-2317
South Bend (574) 236-8302

I never want to hear "Evan Bayh" for anything, ever again. Not President, not Vice President, not dog catcher. Ever.

Way to Go, Lieberman

2006-03-16T14:59:00.000-08:00

I'm going to give you a marketing tip, Joe. Take it for what it's worth.

If your polling indicates that your opponent only has 7% name recognizability factor among Democrats in your state, you do not mention his name. Ever. You don't do his work for him. You certainly do not go running to the Associated Press three days after he announces his campaign and accuse him of "angry name calling" because he calls you "Bush's favorite Democrat." Sort of boxes you in, see, because while many Republicans are trying to distance themselves from George Bush that option really isn't open to you -- you hitched your wagon to his war and you can't back away from it now.

They must have some truly awful internal polling that tells Camp Lieberman the more people know about Lamont the more they like him, and some really first-rate consultants are no doubt telling Holy Joe to get out in front of this thing by painting Lamont as an angry liberal (and Lieberman's favorite trick, after all, is using Republican memes). Trouble is, Lamont doesn't come off as an angry liberal. So the more Joe raises his awareness, the more Ned gets thrown into the spotlight and what Ned needs more than anything right now is to become the focus of press attention.

Of course the possibility still exists Joe is just a thin-skinned moron driving his own campaign and unable to control his mouth. Whatever. As a supporter of Ned Lamont, I offer my sincere thanks.

Update: Thread Theorist points out -- and rightly so -- that the 93% "had not heard enough about Lamont to form an opinion." Which is a bit different from name recognition. They go on to say that "For Lamont I would interpret that as a good sign, and it would also explain why Lieberman would want to go to the AP just 3 days after Lamont's declaration. Lieberman wants to mold the public's as yet unformed opinion of Lamont." I would agree.

Prayin' for a Miracle

2006-03-16T13:19:00.000-08:00

In the face of a 33% Presidential approval rating, the New York Times quotes oodles of Republicans this morning who admit that their base is so disspirited that their only hope of holding them together is the Bush Cargo Cultist fear that the Chief Jeep will be impeached.

If that's all they've got, the Feingold resolution has clearly demonstrated that the wingnut tank is on empty. When the number one word that comes to people's minds about George Bush is "incompetent," impeachment is just not going to have the same primal, reptilian brain pull as gays, gods and guns (and we can now safely add "sluts" I think).

Quite the contrary, impeachment offers the hope of some 24/7 cable news scandal theater, always candy for the Fox News rabble.

As Jeffrey Feldman says this morning, the frame is now ours -- Feingold's resolution has the GOP is backed into a corner. In the public's eye they tried to sell our ports -- and our national security -- to the very people they've spent the past five years demonizing, all for the sake of a buck. Now their only answer to Feingold is to attack Democrats for being weak on terrorism when they themselves have just been revealed as craven opportunists on that front, willing to exploit it whenever they see fit.

How nice of them to take the bait.

Truly horrible timing -- it makes them look once again like there whole game is playing politics with national security, that they're trying to avoid a debate about the crimes of an unpopular president by engaging in partisan smear tactics.

Even though the press, and the wholly compliant David Kirkpatrick (no doubt the recipient of a truckload of cocktail weenies for that slavish bullshit) are repeating the GOP spin on the Feingold resolution, it is real now. It's concrete. It's on record, in has now entered the public discourse, and the GOP is on the run, playing defense, something they're neither comfortable with nor experienced at.

They can clap and stomp their feet all they want about how great this is, that's pure spin. The latest polls show that the public supports the censure resolution (as Attaturk says, "Holden pretty much can build himself a glue factory"). This is a perfectly timed disaster that shows no signs of dissipating no matter what kind of a face they want to put on it.

More on Samarra

2006-03-16T11:15:00.000-08:00

I wanted to highlight an article that Gyro Gear Loose brought to everyone's attention in the comments of the previous thread. Absolutely right that Tom Lassiter of Knight Ridder has been doing some phenomenal reporting on Iraq, and this article (warning: some graphic bits in this) on the situation in Samarra from a month ago gives a bit of a snapshot of the region that is now dealing with an air assault.

Distrust of the Iraqi police in Samarra runs deep among U.S. troops.

Last month, 33 police recruits from Samarra were killed when gunmen ambushed their bus and shot them in the head, execution-style.

Most Iraqis assumed that Sunni insurgents had killed the men as a warning to anyone else who might be considering joining the security forces.

But Brannon, the Bravo Company commander, suspects that the killings were an inside job by police officials vying for control of which tribes supply recruits.

"I would not put it past them that someone in the IP leaked where that bus was going to be," he said. "There's a lot of politics here."

Some very graphic stuff in the article, but a great snapshot in terms of what our troops are dealing with, day in and day out, in a lot of the hot spots in Iraq.

Let me just say that the air assault troops (who most often come in via blackhawks) are incredibly good at what they do. These are the troops ostensibly involved in the Samarra assault today, according to Ret. Gen. Barry McCaffrey, who I just heard interviewed on MSNBC. I agree with him that these air assault folks have excellent training, and are the type who really go in and get the job done in terms of rooting out insurgent nests in an urban population.

The political and religious questions of the assault, and the long-term implications of this happening during a holy pilgrimage week, well, I just don't know. According to Prof. Cole:

the season of Arba'in in Iraq, the 40th day commemoration of the anniversary of the martyrdom of Imam Husayn, the grandson of the Prophet Muhammad. Pilgrims are walking to the holy city of Karbala, seat of Husayn's tombs. They are in danger of being killed by Sunni Arab guerrillas seeking to provoke Sunni-Shiite violence.

I know this pilgrimage goes to Karbala, not Samarra, but with religious tensions so high already in Iraq after the Samarra mosque bombing, this seems like such a potential powderkeg -- especially if we are using predominately Shi'ite Iraqi troops in a Sunni region like Samarra.

I suppose we'll see as time goes forward, but this has to be done very, very carefully.

The one thing that Gen. McCaffrey said that gave me any sense of things being done properly, perhaps, is that the planning for this assault was apparently out of the Pentagon and, specifically, by the commanders in the region. That the White House was cut out of the planning altogether was confirmed today by Scott McClellan, under questioning about whether or not the President gave a go ahead from NBC's David Gregory.

And, btw, no idea if that is true or not that the WH had no role whatsoever in any of the planning -- but the fact that this was floated out to McCaffrey via his military sources and was then said publicly is a huge red flag in terms of military commander trust -- let alone the trust of the American public -- about the lack of competence and lack of confidence in the Bush Administration with regard to any actions they've taken in Iraq.

For all those involved in the assault and their families here at home, here's hoping for a lot of safety -- both for our troops and the innocent civilians caught in the crossfire in Samarra. I've just had a bad feeling for quite a while, and it is getting worse by the hour.

Also, I wanted to highlight today's Froomkin, since he has some great information about the "preemptive doctrine" of the Bush Administration that we had all hoped had been so severely discredited that it would die the death of all bad policies -- well, it's back.

This was a huge catch by Froomkin in the Pew Poll results: the single most used word to refer to President Bush and his Administration is now...incompetent.

It's going to be a bumpy ride...and Atrios is gonna have to get a whole new herd of ponies, because Pew has the President at 33%. The speculation that the assault in Samarra had something to do with the political climate had McClellan's back up at today's gaggle -- but with the history of this Administration, and all the staged war photo-ops (remember "Mission Accomplished?" or the plastic turkey?), they had to know it would be coming. It just gets uglier and uglier this week, doesn't it?

UPDATE: In case it hasn't been clear in every freaking article I've ever written on Iraq -- our policy there is a mess. It's not working well, and things are falling apart. And our men and women in uniform have been ill-served by piss poor planning -- which I believe I said flat out yesterday. The Iraqis are currently staring into a long abyss of civil war because this President chose a preemptive war of choice which we need never have fought. Is that clear enough for everyone as to where I stand on this?

UPDATE #2: btw, Digby reminds all of us of the Sy Hersh article about the increase in air wars. Worth a reminder read, or a new one if you missed it.

Screw the Poor...Literally

2006-03-16T10:00:00.000-08:00

According to the Missouri legislature, giving the poor the ability to do family planning is akin to "an endorsement of promiscuous lifestyles." Because married people would have no reason whatsoever to try to space their family appropriately for their current economic and personal circumstances.

It's not enough that the virginity police scream at our public schools for daring to even hint that something other than abstinance exists in the family planning arena. Now, virginity and abstinance are being promoted within the bonds of matrimony.

In Missouri, apparently God doesn't want you to have sex if you are poor. And if you do, then you deserve to get pregnant. Nice.

And, well, the hell with women who happen to be poor and have an illness that might cause pregnancy to be life-threatening. How dare they think they could have sex -- within the sanctity of marriage -- and use birth control that the state would pay for under medical coverage. No sex for you, poor women. How dare you want to enjoy yourself as a married person.

Let alone the fact that responsible birth control use could be a major preventative for the prevention of unwanted pregnancies and abortions both inside of and outside of marriage. Oh, except you can't get an abortion in Missouri either...so if you are poor, and you want to have sex, it's a forced birth option for you, and that's it.

FiredUpMissouri has much more. I don't know about everyone else, but I am sick of a small group of people trying to impose their personal religious beliefs and sexually repressive mores on the rest of the entire population -- and I suspect that a majority of Americans are with me on that.

Welcome to the 1800s, women of Missouri. Screw the poor...literally.

(Graphics love to All Hat, No Cattle. Hilarious. Thanks to Crooks and Liars for the heads up on this story. As if I weren't angry enough this morning...)

Oh yeah. Last Throes. Not.

2006-03-16T08:35:00.000-08:00

Oh yeah. Last throes.

The U.S. military said on Thursday it launched its biggest air offensive in Iraq since the 2003 invasion to root out insurgents near a town where recent violence raised fears of civil war.

A military statement said the operation involving more than 50 aircraft and 1,500 Iraqi and U.S. troops as well as 200 tactical vehicles targeted suspected insurgents operating near the town of Samarra, 100 km (60 miles) north of Baghdad.

The statement said "Operation Swarmer" was launched on Thursday morning and is "expected to continue for several days as a thorough search of the objective area is conducted"....

The U.S. military has launched several major offensives against Sunni Arab insurgents, including one that captured the former rebel stronghold of Falluja, and a series of assaults in the rebel heartland in western Iraq's Anbar province.

But the crackdowns have failed to ease a raging guerrilla campaign that has killed thousands of U.S. soldiers, Iraqi security forces and civilians.

NOT.

Juan Cole has some great information today. As does Swopa at Needlenose.

That feeling of dread I shared in yesterday's Ides of March post -- it's worse.

Classified Information Oughtn't Be Gamed by Team Libby

2006-03-16T06:35:00.000-08:00

Team Libby is now objecting to the presentation of classified information to the judge ex parte by the government. According to Pete Yost of the AP (via Guardian UK), the lawyers representing Scooter Libby have filed objections to the ex parte submission of the classified information to Judge Walton, saying that:

Libby "has diligently protected some of this country's most sensitive secrets throughout his many years of public service," the lawyers added.

In arguing for keeping classified information away from the defense, Fitzgerald has noted in court papers that the underlying criminal activity Libby is charged with is the failure to adequately safeguard sensitive classified information.

The operative phrase in the Team Libby quote is "has diligently protected some of this country's most sensitive secrets." (emphasis mine) That's just not good enough.

Having access to classified material is a privilege, not a right. According to the nondisclosure agreement that you sign -- the SF 312 (PDF) -- requires that you never, ever discuss classified information with another person who does not have the requisite clearance to know about the material in question. This includes not leaking classified information to reporters. (For a basic primer on classified information and the duties involved in having your privileged clearance, see this.)

And in the case of Valerie Plame Wilson, who was a CIA NOC according to the CIA (who ought to know), even knowing her status within the CIA was a "need to know" bit of information. This has even higher levels of protection.

Additionally, as a clearance holder, you not only have an affirmative duty to ascertain whether the person to whom you are disclosing the information has adequate clearance before even opening your mouth about the classified information, you also have an affirmative duty to report anyone who has violated their clearance agreement by improperly disclosing such information. And when you are dealing with "need to know" matters, you do not disclose that information at all whatsoever unless that person has requisite clearance and a "need to know."

It's pretty simple, really, and Scooter Libby, in confirming Valerie Plame Wilson's status with Matt Cooper (after Karl Rove had already done so) violated the terms and conditions of his SF 312. Period. Let alone all the other classified bits and pieces that were leaking out of the Vice President's office via Scooter as an ass-saving measure for the Administration once the fact that they had lied their way into the Iraq War started becoming public knowledge.

Scooter Libby violated his SF 312 by disclosing classified information. Further, so far as we know publicly, he did not follow his affirmative duty to turn in Karl Rove nor himself for doing this -- with Matt Cooper, with Robert Novak, with Judy Miller, and with who knows which other journalists about town as the pushback on Joe and Valerie Wilson was in full swing.

And while we're talking about it, Karl Rove, as far as we know publicly, failed to do the same. Why is it that Karl Rove still has his high level security clearance? THAT is a question that journalists ought to be repeatedly asking until this Administration gives an answer -- since Karl has admitted to revealing Valerie Wilson's job to Matt Cooper and Bob Novak, his clearance, had he been treated like any other governmental employee or any other person in this nation who holds such a clearance, would have been immediately suspended, pending investigation, and likely yanked altogether once his admissions were confirmed.

Yet there he sits, with who knows how much classified information moving across his desk, his access intact. The Bush Administration consistently brings up legal violations in others, but when the laws are to be applied to them, it's "we don't have to follow the rules -- those are for little people."

Classified information is not something to be gamed. It's not some child's play with a tin can telephone, where you aren't ever held accountable -- releasing classified information of this level of importance, regarding an agent working on WMD matters related to nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, is no laughing matter.

And once Scooter Libby violated the restrictions that everyone else has to follow regarding classified information, then he was subject to treatment just like everyone else under the law. That includes restricting his access to classified information unless and until it is determined that said information is material to his legal defense -- which is a determination that will be made by the Judge.

By breaking the law and releasing sensitive national security information, Scooter Libby forfeited his privilege of clearance -- any presumption that he had the integrity to protect the nation's secrets is gone. He is being treated like any other defendant in this situation -- and who he worked for and how high his friends go in the government ought not matter one whit.

The same goes for Karl Rove. Why does Karl Rove still have a clearance? Because George Bush has decided he is above the laws that apply to everyone else. Don't we as citizens deserve some answers about that?

NOTE: A few of housekeeping matters. First, we are clearly still trying to resolve some server issues with the new site. I apologize for the inconvenience for everyone -- we'll update as we get new information on this. But, for now, we're still here at blogspot.

Second, I've been asked to be on C-Span's Washington Journal on Sunday morning at 7:45 am ET. I'm not certain who will be my conservative counterpart on the show as yet, but I'll update when I get that information. We'll be discussing the news of the day for an hour, and I think they'll be doing some call-ins from the audience, so I wanted to give everyone a heads up on this. So, I suppose I'm going to be a Sunday talking head this week.

Third, the Libby filing on this is not yet on the Scooter Libby website. And I haven't had time this morning to pull the latest filings off Pacer. If anyone has already caught this and would be willing to send it to me at my AOL.com address, I'd be eternally grateful. (It's been a very busy girlie morning here, and it's tough to do analysis, pull documents, and play chase your daughter at the same time.) Thanks in advance if anyone can send this along -- I'd like to see the whole document rather than just relying on the AP wire report. The article brings in questions on Valerie Wilson's NOC status, but doesn't give specifics on the Libby arguments on this, so I'd like the ability to review their case law citations and fact assertions.

UPDATE: From Cieran in the comments -- thought this was important enough to pull it up so folks wouldn't miss it:

Two quick related facts:

(1) all classified discussions must be motivated by a specific "need to know", so that there's a lot more to it than simply "insuring the right clearance level for classified communications". Two people having the proper clearances is not sufficient legal basis for classified discussions -- there must first be a "need to know" to justify the communication, regardless of whether the clearances permit it. Proper need to know motivations are inherently technical (not political!), and specifically exclude non-technical motivations, e.g., mere curiosity.

(2) classification is a LOT more complicated topic than the corporate media leads us to believe. There's a lot more than "secret" and "top secret" involved here, including compartmentalization classifications (e.g., NNSA Sigmas) that may themselves be classified. Given this, the recent assertion by the WH that the prez can simply "choose to declassify" information by administrative fiat is not only ill-considered, but also hopelessly infeasible in the real world of interlocking and nested classifications.

As anotherpawn reminded me in the comments, "If in the course of conducting classified CIA business you met Plame - you'd either be cleared to know Plame was a NOC and ought to be informed about that, or you'd be introduced to her alter ego."

That's correct, and I ought to have been more clear above -- I was talking about revealing the NOC status to someone who didn't even have any clearance at all whatsoever. There are very stringent rules -- but they are fairly simple and clear -- you don't discuss classified information, period, unless you have a very good reason to do so, and unless you ascertain the level of clearance and the level of "need to know" of the information and the people with whom you will be sharing it.

Wanted to be certain that was crystal clear -- because the shoddy treatment of classified information by members of the WHIG, and especially the Vice President's office and the neocons allied therewith, who were using each other for confirmation, spin, and who knows what else with the media needs some substantial investigative reporting. And understanding the basics really highlights that need.

FDL Late Nite: Democratic Defeatism

2006-03-15T21:12:00.000-08:00

Digby:

I said this yesterday and I'll repeat it. This image of "powerlessness" at a time when the Republicans are on the ropes is the biggest problem we face for the fall elections. If Democratic pols don't understand that they are flirting with terrible grassroots defeatism, then they are going to lose. They must take action (and I don't mean boring press conferences and 10 point plans) or it won't matter a damn if the Republicans are on the ropes --- demoralized Democrats are not going to bother with them. Come on. Speak for us. If not now, when?

Armando:

Declaring defeat NOW let's them off the hook now. It's not a question of trusting them, as one friend of mine wrote to me today. It's a question of understanding and thinking about what will be most effective in bringing pressure to bear on them in the battle to come.

I submit that declaring them a lost cause TODAY is not only not effective in this fight, it is harmful. Before we decry the defeatism of our Democratic officials it is best that we avoid it ourselves.

Discuss.

The Democratic Rapid Response Team

2006-03-15T18:00:00.000-08:00

Digby gives a rundown of all the reasons the Democrats are pissed at Feingold for taking on the President when his approval ratings are at an all-time low. Predictably they are all lame. I would almost have sympathy for their anger over lack of consultation, but as Digby says:

It's apparently true that Feingold didn't consult with the party. But considering the response I can sort of see his point. They are so unimaginative and so sluggish that he didn't see the use in playing the party game. If party coodination means being forced to wait for them to hold plodding press conferences about x-raying cargo boxes, then it's hard to see why anyone who wants to take the fight to the Republicans would bother.

I can see why they are angry about it. They were caught short. But they need to move more quickly on this stuff. Planning is great, but you can't always control events. How you deal with things coming from left field is important --- they failed on this one, making it worse for themselves by ducking the press and dithering about their response. I think Democrats have lost touch with their political instincts. This is one of those things that a smart old fashioned pol would have been able to either finesse or respond to properly off the cuff. (They should have called Bill Clinton --- he was good at that sort of thing.)

Feingold's timing was superb and call me wacky but if the best "group think" the Democrats can muster produces a slogan like "Together We Can Do Better" I really don't hold out a lot of hope for a quick, coordinated plan of attack. Feingold probably had no choice but to ambush them. They are all waddling around now saying that they'll withhold judgment until the Intelligence Committee finishes its investigation. Do they not realize that the Republicans effectively killed that investigation on March 7? Hello, McFly!

We see people every day, all over the blogosphere crying out for some leadership on the illegal NSA wiretaps. They're dying for it. Nobody even seemed to realize there was a void to be filled, and not because we didn't mention it. Feingold had to do something drastic to shake them up.

Sorry if he disturbed anyone's peaceful slumber, but we have a serious problem here.

The Clooney Incident

2006-03-15T16:10:00.000-08:00

John Amato and I were there with Arianna on the night in question when she spoke to George Clooney about blogging, and the conversation went down as she describes it today. Clooney went on a very funny rant about Bill O'Reilly and seemed to be quite interested in blogging, and Arianna said she'd hook him up.

I don't know if Clooney got spooked because Fox News went after him or if he just doesn't know that his office bungled the communique but I've seen the email exchanges and Arianna's absolutely right on this one. It was obvious she was clearing a blog post for Clooney on both the HuffPo and Yahoo, and Clooney's PR person explicitly gave the okay.

When George Clooney stands up and says he's a liberal it's the liberal blogosphere who gets his back. These Hollywood PR games played on his behalf do not serve him well with a community that has wholeheartedly supported him.

(photo by me)

Dayton Wobbly on Feingold Opposition?

2006-03-15T14:07:00.000-08:00

It appears the phone calls are having an effect. Although Mark Dayton told Bloomberg that Feingold's censure resolution was "premature, and over- reaching, which often involves losing more than gaining," callers to his offices are now reporting that he has backed off of this and has decided to take no position.

Could it be that Democrats are finally emboldened against a President with a 33% approval rating?

We've put up a list of "lions" and "lemmings" in the sidebar (so named by Digby). Maybe we should find out where Dayton belongs:

Washington, DC Office
SR-123, Russell Office Bldg.
Washington, DC 20510
Phone: 202-224-3244
Fax: 202-228-2186

Metro Area Office
Federal Building, Suite 298
Fort Snelling, Minnesota 55111
Phone: 612-727-5220
Toll free: 888-224-9043
Fax: 612-727-5223

Northwest Regional Office
401 DeMers Avenue
East Grand Forks, Minnesota 56721
Phone: 218-773-1110
Fax: 218-773-1993

Northeast Regional Office
222 Main Street, Suite 200
Post Office Box 937
Biwabik, Minnesota 55708
Phone: 218-865-4480
Fax: 218-865-4667

Mobile Office
Post Office Box 608
Renville, Minnesota 56284
Phone: 320-905-3007

If there are any Minnesota residents out there we'd love it if you could give a call and report back in the comments.

It appears that Bloomberg writer Catherine Dodge, who was so quick to trumpet the GOP propaganda that Feingold's resolution would actually help the Republicans (did Unka Karl type that himself?), needs to check her sources. You can ask her to do so here.

Why Can't The AP Count?

2006-03-15T12:26:00.000-08:00

The GOP-obedient media is once again providing cover for George Bush rather than, you know, reporting the truth.

Laurie Kellman, Associated Press:

Feingold introduced censure legislation Monday in the Senate, but not a single Democrat has embraced it.

What a lazy, dishonest hack job. John Kerry has been saying right out of the gate he would support the resolution, Boxer's office has been confirming that she would and so has Menendez. And now Harkin (above) has signed on as a co-sponsor. Counting Feingold himself, that's five.

Only three Democrats have indicated they definitely don't support the measure -- Dodd, Dayton and (no surprise) Holy Joe.

Yesterday Donna Brazile indicated that Democrats were reluctant to sign on because their consultants hadn't given them the go-ahead. Glenn Greenwald shreds this particular bit of beltway wisdom that has done so much to keep Democrats in the minority:

People like Kevin [Drum] -- who believe that Democrats must "prove" to the country that they can be strong -- should most understand the value in having Democrats take a stand regardless of whether they ultimately prevail. Strong and resolute people fight. Weak and spineless people run away from fights -- or fight only when their victory is guaranteed in advance. The Democrats have been running away from fights for five years now based on the Kevin Drum theory that fights are only worth fighting if you know in advance that you will win. It is beyond irrational to think that the Democrats are going to look strong by simply crawling away meekly and allowing George Bush to break the law.

That this has to be pointed out is absurd. Once again the age old question rears its head -- when the revolution comes, who will be the first against the wall, the Democratic pundits or the Democratic consultants? Today the consultants win.

I shouldn't have to point this out either, but I will: any Democrat looking to score points in the blogosphere right now would do well to find their voice on this matter, sooner rather than later.

Update: It thought that name sounded familiar. Laurie Kellman was the AP writer who also gave us this gem, which she later had to retract:

Sheehan's T-shirt alluded to the number of soldiers killed in Iraq: "2245 Dead. How many more?" . . .

Young's shirt had just the opposite message: "Support the Troops Defending Our Freedom."

Hack.

Update II: Per Jacqrat, you can contact AP and raise your objections here.

Your Daily Hallelujah

2006-03-15T10:14:00.000-08:00

All I can say after watching this clip at Crooks and Liars is "Amen." Man, I needed that today.

Does anyone else still get sniffly at the scene in The American President where Michael Douglas gives the presser about "being so busy keeping my job, I forgot to do my job" or the scene in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington where Jimmy Stewart stands up and filibusters with his heart on his sleeve? This is one of those hallelujah clips.

Enjoy.

Just So You Know...

2006-03-15T08:33:00.000-08:00

We are continuing our work on the site transfer today, and are hoping to have most of the transfer complete within the next 24 hours. We'll be posting on both firedoglake.blogspot.com and firedoglake.com today -- so those folks having trouble getting in one site or the other won't miss out on today's articles.

Thanks so much to everyone for your patience while we smooth off the rough edges.

And a huge thank you to our current tech genius -- Jamie (who blogs at Intoxination, so please give him some click thru love -- he's a great progressive blogger) -- who is fixing our techie problems as I type here. We'll continue to keep everyone updated as we go. Thanks again for everyone's patience -- we're trying to bring you our usual snark and content while working through this, so it means a lot that so many of you keep on reading.

Beware the Ides of March

2006-03-15T07:59:00.000-08:00

Bad decisions have a way of reappearing at the worst possible moment to stab you in the back. Especially when there is documentary evidence that a better decision was right there for the choosing -- and you decided to go with your piss poor planning cronies instead.

And when you steadfastly refuse to admit mistakes...well, that just makes those piss poor decisions rising up to haunt you even more difficult to spin away, doesn't it?

Prior to the start of the Iraq War, the State Department, under the supervision of Tom Warrick, put together a comprehensive plan to move Iraq from its then-current state of dictatorship towards a more democratic, open and functioning free society. Via Juan Cole, this morning I found that a copy of those plans has now been posted online at The Memory Hole, and they are worth a peek -- if only to see what could have been had Don Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz and Dick Cheney not thrown those plans in the garbage.

Because, you know, the whole candy and flowers thing has gone smashingly thus far -- especially all that non-existent post-invasion security planning. Boo yah.

Our men and women in uniform deserved a hell of a lot better than piss poor planning without any consideration for the worst case scenarios in which we now find ourselves. Just as a single example, Iraq is now experiencing a 3-year low in electrical power, due to the overwhelming number of sabotage incidents across the grid. Was there any planning as to how to deal with this up front? No clue. But we'd better start working on some infrastructure protection planning post haste, if the President's new timetable for withdrawal is going to come close to being met.

Oh, and nice flip flop on the whole "no timetables under my watch" lie, Bushie. The corporate media may have ignored this little tidbit, but I heard it loud and clear. I'm sure Rep. Murtha will accept your apology for smearing him any day now, would that you had the strength of character to actually give him one. I'm just saying.

In my book, you do not plan for the worst only after it comes to pass -- and Rumsfeld and his cronies should be held to account. As should President Bush. Somehow, I think history will look askance at flying in Ahmed Chalabi and his "Gucci warriors" (and what idiot came up with that name?) as the "big plan" for stability in Iraq.

Reuters is reporting on yesterday's DoD presser, which caused a bit of a stir, with Gen. Peter Pace saying, out loud, that there really was no evidence at all whatsoever that Iran as a state was supplying insurgents in Iraq with weapons materiale.

The top U.S. military officer said on Tuesday the United States does not have proof that Iran's government is responsible for Iranians smuggling weapons and military personnel into Iraq.
President George W. Bush said on Monday components from Iran were being used in powerful roadside bombs used in Iraq, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said last week that Iranian Revolutionary Guard personnel had been inside Iraq.
Asked whether the United States has proof that Iran's government was behind these developments, Marine Corps Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the military's Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a Pentagon briefing, "I do not, sir."

That this came from the podium at the Pentagon is a huge deal, and no doubt one that resulted in a bit of an ass chewing after the presser -- but sometimes, honesty in service to your troops is a must, even when your Commander in Chief isn't so big on the whole "tell me all of the facts, especially the bad news" sort of philosophy.It's certainly one thing to say that component parts of the IEDs and other munitions come from Iranian manufacturers and suppliers who are out to make a quick buck or from militant factions headquartered in Iran who are supplying their Shi'ite compadres in Iraq in what they consider a holy war for the soul of Islam -- and quite another thing entirely to say that the government of Iran itself is supplying them.

I'm certain if we looked closely at a lot of the IEDs, we could also say that some of their components came from the US and our allies, given that we were supplying Saddam Hussein with munitions for a long time as our surrogate against Iran in the 1980s and beyond. (For a lovely pix of Saddam with Rummy, see here.)

US military airstrikes are significantly increasing in Iraq, according to Knight Ridder. (Last throes, my ass.)

Iraq's neighbors are increasingly worried that the chaos in that country could draw the entire region into a protracted civil war.

They are also considering its likely impact on an already shifting regional balance of power, in which Sunni Muslim Saudi Arabia fears the rising political clout of Shi'ite Muslim Iran.
"If war breaks out in Iraq, it will become a battleground involving everyone in the region," said Kuwaiti political analyst Jassem al-Saadoun. "Every one of Iraq's neighbours is guilty of meddling in its affairs for political gain."
Ever since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion that ousted Saddam Hussein, several Arab officials have warned of civil war in Iraq, where Shi'ites dominate the government and security forces and Sunni insurgents control swathes of the country.

This sort of warning was going on before we invaded Iraq -- and it is information the Bush Administration ignored to the region's peril, now precariously balanced on the edge of the sword of civil war hanging over Iraq, day by day.As for our troop drawdown -- well, it isn't going well at all, since Gen. Casey has had to request more troops because of the increasing violence and instability in Iraq. That's right: US troop levels are increasing, contrary to the image spin and tap dance from the White House.

George Bush can blame the media all he wants for this quagmire -- after all, you can't have people telling the truth about how Iraq is slipping quickly down that civil war slope under our watch, now can we, since it makes President Bush look bad and calls out his rosy scenario public statements for the lies they are. But he only has himself and his advisors to blame.

They disregarded intelligence and foreign policy analysis, warnings from our allies in the region that civil war was the likely result of invasion, and updates all along from field commanders that more troops, more materiale, more planning was necessary to quell the increasing tensions and to give our men and women in uniform the ability to do their jobs properly before even more chaos and civil war resulted. Those repeated warnings went unheeded. We have made a mess of things.

Iraqi authorities discovered at least 87 corpses, men shot to death execution-style, as Iraq edged closer to open civil warfare. Twenty-nine of the bodies, dressed only in underwear, were dug out of a single grave Tuesday in a Shiite neighborhood of Baghdad.
The recent bloodshed appeared to be retaliation for a bomb and mortar attack in the Sadr City slum that killed at least 58 people and wounded more than 200 two days earlier.
Iraqi authorities discovered at least 87 corpses, men shot to death execution-style, as Iraq edged closer to open civil warfare. Twenty-nine of the bodies, dressed only in underwear, were dug out of a single grave Tuesday in a Shiite neighborhood of Baghdad.
Also, Iraq's Interior Minister said that some 421 al-Qaeda fighters tried to infiltrate an Iraqi army battalion that is responsible for guarding all the check points and entrances to the green zone, where the U.S. embassy and key government posts are housed in the Baghdad, reports CBS News correspondent Lara Logan.

The fact of the matter is: George Bush lost Iraq before he even invaded the country, because he and his advisors failed to properly consider all of the contingencies. They are now reaping what they sowed -- but unfortunately they are doing it on the backs of our brave men and women in uniform. And on the backs of Iraqis and others in the region who now have to live, day in and day out, with these consequences.

I wish I had good answers for all of this, but I don't. But the Ides of March is feeling awfully grim today (and that's only a discussion of Iraq, things aren't looking so cheery in a lot of other sectors as well today). With this much sectarian violence and animosity bubbling over the borders, and the potential for its spread across the whole of the Middle East, I have never been more fearful than I am right now. Would that President Bush had the humility to understand what his mistakes have wrought for years and years to come.

(Graphics love to The Worried Shrimp. btw, yes, this is ReddHedd posting -- I've switched to my real name because hiding behind a pseudonym was getting on my last nerve. Just FYI.)

NOTE: This is a cross-post from Firedoglake.com. We're having a little hitch this morning with the transfer -- so sorry for inconvenience for everyone, but apparently there is a problem for some folks in loading the new website. We're working on it. In the meantime, here was my first post of the morning. More to come...we'll be posting in both places until we can figure out the glitch. Thanks everyone!

Of Principle and Diffidence

2006-03-15T07:34:00.000-08:00

Bill at Liberal Oasis reminds us that when Diane Feinstein proposed her censure resolution for Bill Clinton's extra-marital blow job she had a number of Democratic co-sponsors who are still in the Senate:

Daniel Akaka
Max Baucus
Byron Dorgan
Dick Durbin
Dianne Feinstein
Daniel Inouye
Jim Jeffords
Ted Kennedy
John Kerry
Herb Kohl
Mary Landrieu
Carl Levin
Joe Lieberman
Blanche Lincoln
Barbara Mikulski
Patty Murray
Jack Reed
Harry Reid
Jay Rockefeller
Chuck Schumer
Ron Wyden

Of course there were four Republican co-sponsors as well: Pete Domenici, Mitch McConnel, Gordon Smith and Olympia Snowe. But we'll just asume that these members of the GOP Ladies' Smelling Salt Society do, in fact, find a little bj action to be more objectionable than illegally spying on American citizens (so complex and hard to wrap their feeble little heads around). So we will just leave them to their lavender-scented hankies and not expect too much of them.

The rest of them -- WTF?

If you feel like calling and asking, the numbers are right here.

Note: Sorry about the site confusion, we're having yet another bumpy migration.

Shameful

2006-03-14T10:50:00.000-08:00

I cannot begin to explain how much this is NOT done. When you are a governmental attorney, you must hold yourself to a higher standard in terms of ethics and maneuvering, precisely because you have a quasi-judicial position in terms of charging decisions and in terms of having the power of the state's investigative capacity behind you.

The rules are that you do not, under any circumstances, woodshed your witnesses as to other testimony that has been given in the case. Period. And you absolutely do not do so, under any circumstances at all whatsoever, when there is a court order from the judge prohibiting such discussion.

Defense lawyer Edward MacMahon also elicited testimony Tuesday that prosecutor David Novak had conducted a joint telephone conversation with two coming witnesses, despite long-standing prohibitions against trial witnesses interacting before they testify.

Novak told U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema the phone call, which apparently happened after the judge issued rules on witnesses on Feb. 22, concerned only the logistics of trial exhibits and not the substance of testimony.

I am beyond appalled. And every person who has ever been a prosecutor (or criminal attorney on either side of the line) ought to be as well. You may use every resource at your disposal to be certain that a guilty person is convicted, sentenced and punished in accordance with their criminal conduct -- but you are never, EVER, supposed to cheat your way to a verdict.

Osmuss and Manno told the court they had read not only the e-mails but the trial transcript sent by Martin.

Manno said under cross-examination that he had read at least two newspaper stories about the trial and watched four or five TV reports about it until he was told not to, apparently by the prosecution. Prosecutors said they did not routinely advise future witnesses to avoid media coverage in this court district but would start doing so.

Martin also was summoned to the hearing, but had her questioning delayed when she told the judge she had not been able to arrange for her own lawyer. Brinkema had warned her that "you violated a court order and could be held in civil or criminal contempt," and directed her to return with a lawyer by Wednesday morning.

That a state's attorney would coach witnesses to the point of providing them transcripts of prior witness' testimony and talking points on how to address particular lines of questioning brought up by defense counsel in a death penalty phase is shameful, wrong, and disgusting. If I were the judge, they'd get the book thrown at them and then some.

The reporting thus far appears to indicate that the Transportation Administration attorney took issue with the trial strategy and opening statements of the DoJ attorneys, and decided to take matters into her own hands and coach witnesses from her own department within the FAA and Dept. of Transportation. This attorney may not have had any criminal experience, and may not have known the extent to which this sort of thing is prohibited...fine, I could buy that, but for one tiny, little thing: there was an order in place from the judge prohibiting just this sort of behind-the-scenes coaching and collaberation.

But today's testimony also reveals that at least one DoJ attorney was also involved in woodshedding government witnesses as to testimony, trial strategy, and the like -- over and above the normal witness preparation which would normally be perfectly acceptable. To get two witnesses on the phone -- together -- to discuss testimony is to give them a chance to compare notes and "get their stories straight" prior to testimony. To do this in direct violation of a court order is asking for dismissal at best, and potentially being criminally sanctioned for contempt as well as having the judge ask that your law license be suspended.

When you are a public servant, you owe the public nothing less than the your highest level of ethics and conduct, because you represent the interests of every citizen. When you are an attorney, you also owe a duty of respect in upholding our system of laws and the orders of the court. That an attorney would hold those laws and her public duty so cheaply that cheating would seem an appropriate option -- in some win at all costs mentality -- might be a symptom of a larger problem within the Bush Administration. But that does not excuse the behavior, nor does it mitigate the fact that it is flat out wrong.

Shameful.

NOTE: Sorry for the construction headaches this morning. We're trying to get our new site up and running and hit a little snag, so we are back on blogspot for the moment. We'll try to keep you posted as things move along. Thanks so much for your patience in this.

Advancing the Ball on Censure

2006-03-14T06:28:00.000-08:00

Having spent some time this morning reading through the corporate media coverage of the Feingold Censure Resolution, a couple of points jumped out at me. First, the conversation regarding President Bush's actions on illegal domestic spying without a warrant has switched from "national security matter" to "the President broke the law -- so how best do we hold him accountable."

That is an enormous change in terms of discussion, and one that will only continue as the Senate Judiciary Committee must now take up the Censure resolution -- since Bill Frist's over-played hand yesterday in his ploy to quash all dissent in the Senate got shot down...twice...by the Democratic leadership.

The second thing that I noticed was that the groundswell of grassroots support got a mention in a number of ways, including in this NYTimes article:

Mr. Feingold said he viewed his censure resolution as a reasonable way to hold the president accountable. He said it fell short of the push for impeachment that some critics contend is warranted by Mr. Bush's approval of the surveillance program and his strong defense of it.

"This is certainly more serious than anything President Clinton was accused of doing," said Mr. Feingold, who added that the grass-roots response to his proposal was strong after he announced his intention on Sunday. "It is reminiscent of what President Nixon was not only accused of doing, but was basically removed from office for doing."

Or this article from Donna Brazile in today's Roll Call (Subscription required to see the whole thing, so I'm going to pull a short excerpt here, but it is worth a read.):

The progressive blogosphere is on fire right now. Web loggers are pumped up about the effort by Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) to censure President Bush for breaking the law on domestic surveillance and taking matters into his own hands....

The message from the left-leaning blogosphere is clear: Democrats should understand the real issue. The point is not censure or impeachment; it is Congress’ lack of oversight and its failure to hold anyone accountable for major mistakes or missteps. And especially, it’s about clearly misleading the American public.

From faulty pre-war intelligence to the negligent response to Hurricane Katrina and the unjustified cost for Medicare prescription drug benefits, there has been no meaningful oversight by the GOP-controlled Congress. It is doubtful whether they would be willing to hear evidence against the president.

While the Feingold resolution is not going anywhere given the full Republican control of Washington, D.C., a change in leadership in the fall would make this a ripe item for conversation and action in 2007 and beyond....

Oversight is a fundamental responsibility of Congress, which until the Republicans took over was a coequal branch of government. It’s long past time for the Republican Congress — and in particular the House and Senate Intelligence committees — to stop protecting the administration and start doing more to protect the American people.

The 2006 political campaign season, which is under way across America, will truly come down to a test of wills. If my party’s leaders, whom I admire and respect, cannot figure out three things this electoral season that the GOP will use as wedge issues to distract and divide — Iraq, the war on terror and national security, and cultural issues like abortion and same-sex marriage — then my party finally will have earned its minority status.

It's about damn time a member of the party establishment stood up and said what we've been saying all along. Sounds to me like Donna Brazile picked up a copy of Crashing the Gate (which is fantastic, btw) and realized she'd better get on board or risk losing her consulting gigs when the progressive wave crashes down. Or perhaps its just that she thinks this is the right thing to do, given the President admitted publicly to breaking the law and it is the job of Congress to provide oversight and censure and all. Good on her -- change is tough, but the Democratic establishment needs to fully understand that change is coming, whether they like it or not, because all of us in the progressive roots refuse to go back to the status quo, which really isn't working for anyone anyway.

This is not a one-day battle. It is a series of skirmishes we are going to be waging for quite a while...and that we will keep on waging.

The grassroots are not going away -- Russ Feingold understands and appreciates that fact, and is willing to work with us to harness our energy and drive in a synergistic fashion, and the rest of the Democratic establishment is beginning to wake up to it as well, if only because we've needled them enough that they know we aren't going to be silenced.

It is because so many of you put in the work yesterday, making phone calls, sending faxes, and making your voice heard in the halls of the Senate that this Censure Resolution is now moving to the Judiciary Committee for further consideration. Thank you so much for this -- you've helped to make a difference. Truly, we can't know which phone call may have helped to stiffen Paul Sarbanes' spine or Harry Reid's, but Frist's overplayed hand and arrogant tone certainly didn't help matters -- and knowing that all of us were in their corner had to help stiffen that resolve. So great work everyone.

But there is more work to be done. I'll be outlining more action steps shortly -- and I look forward to your input on how to continue to advance the ball on censure -- and on framing this discussion writ large in terms of the corruption, the incompetence, the outright lying, the abysmal failure that is this Republican Congress and their cowardly rubber stamp actions on behalf of the Bush Administration.

Nothing like a conversation on how the President broke the law, how he isn't above the law, and how we can best hold him accountable as a starting point, is there?

THIS is the genie that Frist was trying to shove back in the bottle yesterday...because this is just the conversation that the Republican leadership and Rove and all of their power-crazy cronies don't want citizens in this nation to have. Once you start thinking about that single instance of law-breaking, you inevitably begin to question so many other aspects of the Bush presidency -- the lies about Iraq, our failure to capture Osama, Katrina, the budget deficit and the profligate spending habits of Republicans in power, what all of this means for our children's future, the failure of Medicare reform...it's endless -- and then the house of cards begins to tumble in around them.

Digby had a fantastic article about the long fight yesterday, that I would love everyone to read and think about -- we have to commit to this for the long haul. It's time we took our nation and our party back. The longest journey starts with a single step. Don't know about you guys, but I just started my training for a marathon.

Let's keep moving the ball forward...together.

Late Nite FDL: It's All About Joementum

2006-03-13T21:50:00.000-08:00

Joementum (jō-mĕn'təm) n., 1. neologism coined to indicate momentum where none was obvious to anyone but the candidate. 2. a portmanteau referring to the perceived lack of potential for success of a campaign or endeavor.

Lieberman's Campaign Manager:

"[Lieberman] ran for vice president. He ran for president. He hasn't really had a dialogue with Connecticut voters about Connecticut issues in a while."

Sirota:

Lieberman, living the lavish life of an insulated Senator, hanging out with lobbyists and neoconservative ideologues at cocktail parties - has absolutely no connection to actual people anymore.

That might explain why he has taken such out-of-the-mainstream positions in support of the Iraq War the UAE ports deal. It might explain why he sees no problem hanging out at parties with some of the most extremist right-wing forces in America.

It might explain why he has so ardently supported corporate-written trade deals that sell blue collar Connecticut workers out. Because those positions and that behavior is acceptable to someone who has caught such a bad case of Potomac Fever, they have become wholly disconnected from reality.

Washington Post:

Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., said he had not read it either and wasn't inclined simply to scold the president.

"I'd prefer to see us solve the problem," Lieberman told reporters.

Joe Lieberman, 1998:

... the transgressions the president has admitted to are too consequential for us to walk away and leave the impression for our children today and for our posterity tomorrow that what he acknowledges he did within the White House is acceptable behavior for our nation's leader. On the contrary, as I have said, it is wrong and unacceptable and should be followed by some measure of public rebuke and accountability.

Digby:

The day Al Gore picked that insufferable, sanctimonious gasbag as the Democratic nominee for Vice president was one of the lowest of my life. That speech was the single most disloyal public political act of my lifetime. The Republicans were shrill, shrieking hyenas, foaming at the mouth, circling in for the kill --- and that preening showboater stepped into the well of the senate and used his image as a moral exemplar to try to validate their bullshit partisan witch hunt. It was unforgivable. But he got lots of fawning press coverage from the Republicans and the beltway establishment and it evidently got into his blood. He can't stop doing it.

Stoller:

What Lieberman said today about a short drive to a hospital is immensely cruel....Having a medical procedure done, any medical procedure, is embarrassing, intrusive, and scary, especially in a system as fucked up as ours where doctors don't really care about you because they are paid to avoid mistakes with paperwork. When you combine with this making the decision to have children or not, and maybe in a bunch of cases dumbfuck boyfriends who either aren't around or aren't helpful, the agony for some women is just immense. To talk about hospitals denying legal medical care because commuting is easy in Connecticut is really monstrous. It's so out of touch, so banal in the evil sense, and so downright elitist and cowardly.

And you know you've really hit the skids when you're the villain in your own text adventure game.

I'd score today: Lamont 1, Lieberman 0.

FDL Photo Essay

2006-03-13T19:14:00.000-08:00

Hot:

Not:

Any questions?

Holy Joe Bags on Feingold

2006-03-13T16:39:00.000-08:00

It's being reported in the comments that Boxer says she will support the resolution although I wasn't able to confirm it when I called her office (San Francisco didn't know, DC was closed).

And Holy Joe doesn't let us down:

But Sen. Joe Lieberman, D- Conn., voiced some misgivings and hinted that he’d vote no on the Feingold resolution.

“Frankly I’d prefer to spend our time on figuring out ways to bring this very important program of surveillance of potential terrorists here in the United States under the law…. I disagree with the Bush administration’s legal judgment on this one…. But this is a critically important program to the prevention of terrorist acts here in the United States.”

While Lieberman worships in the Bush Cargo Cult, Ned Lamont officially announced his candidacy today at a kick-off party. Howie Klein reviews the music.

You can say thanks for the Joementum by giving to Ned Lamont.

Update: Lieberman also does the honors trashing Feingold with the Washington Post, saying he'd prefer to "'solve the problem' rather than scold the president."

Update II: Redd will be on Majority Report with Sam Seder tonight at 5:04 PST/8:04 EST.

Lieberman Supports Rapist Rights in Connecticut

2006-03-13T14:16:00.000-08:00

In Connecticut, rape counseling activists say a recent study concludes that about 20% of state hospitals routinely refuse to offer emergency contraceptives to rape victims who are determined to be ovulating at the time they're attacked. A proposed bill would require them to do so.

And what sayith Holy Joe about this? According to The New Haven Register:

This fight isn't exclusively being drawn along party lines.

U.S. Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, who often takes a conservative line on social issues, is facing a liberal Democratic primary challenge from wealthy Greenwich businessman Ned Lamont. But that hasn't stopped Lieberman from supporting the approach of the Catholic hospitals when it comes to contraceptives for rape victims.

Lieberman said he believes hospitals that refuse to give contraceptives to rape victims for "principled reasons" shouldn't be forced to do so. "In Connecticut, it shouldn't take more than a short ride to get to another hospital," he said.

I'm sure that waving a chicken over your head is a marvelous cure for something but as yet we still don't call it medicine in this country. That access to emergency contraception is essential to the health and well being of rape victims is undeniable, and if Catholics can't provide that then they should get out of the fucking emergency medical business. Having to deal with their superstitious voodoo nonsense applied as science is just one more indignity rape victims do not need. If Catholics want rape victims to be forced to carry the fetuses of their attackers that's great, let them move to South Dakota.

It is outrageous and yet quite predictable that Lieberman once again provides "bi-partisan" cover to this especially ugly brand of religious extremist bullshit. His cloture vote put Alito on the Supreme Court and paved the way for what is happening today in South Dakota, Mississippi and Missouri. That he continues to be considered a "friend of choice" by both NARAL and Planned Parenthood is an absolutely contempt worthy. They should both be denouncing him loud and long and calling bullshit on his claim to be "pro-choice" rather than rubber stamping his nonsense.

I called NARAL Connecticut and spoke with Executive Director Carolyn Treiss, who said that she has a call into Lieberman's office and that they have not yet returned her call. Susan Yoland, Executive Director of Planned Parenthood Connecticut, however, says that they have no plans to do any kind of press release or make any kind of statement denouncing Lieberman for his position.

You can contact their national offices and ask both what the hell it is going to take to get them to stop rubber stamping Lieberman and call him out for being the coathanger-wielding creep he really is:

NARAL Pro-Choice America
Nancy Keenan, Executive Director
1156 15th Street, NW Suite 700
Washington, DC 20005
Main Number: 202.973.3000
Main Fax: 202.973.3096
can@ProChoiceAmerica.org
feedback form

Planned Parenthood
Cecile Richards, Executive Director
Washington, DC office:
1780 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: 202.973.4800
Fax: 202.296.3481
actionfund@ppfa.org.

I have two words for both organizations: Ned Lamont.

CNN Says Frist Will Move on Censure Vote Tonight

2006-03-13T13:41:00.000-08:00

Ed Henry is reporting on CNN that Frist is trying to move the Feingold centure vote up to tonight because he thinks he has 85 votes against, including wobbly Democrats. If it's true this is absurd, there is a President with a 36% approval rating and it hurts none of them one bit to support Feingold.

If you've called your Democratic Senator once today, call 'em again. If you've been putting off calling, now is the time to do it. That only 15 Democrats would support Feingold in this is ridiculous.

Contact information for your senator can be found here.

Update: There was an objection to having it this evening. Frist asked about having it tomorrow and there was an objection to that too, so there won't be a vote yet. But call your Senator anyway.

(graphic via asptrader)

You Are All Patriots

2006-03-13T11:45:00.000-08:00

Some folks said they were having problems accessing the Senate phone directory listings, so I thought a list of every Senator and their office direct dial number would be useful.

Don't forget that you can also call via the switchboard toll free -- and they will connect your call to the Senator's office of your choice at 888-355-3588 or 888-818-6641. Thanks again to everyone for all the calls -- you really make me proud.

And don't let staffers give you the brush off or the run-around if you want to state your views. Your tax dollars pay their salaries -- and these Senators work for you, not the other way around.

This is a long-term fight -- not something we are going to see won in a day or two -- but a long-term fight to re-structure the discussion in and out of Washington. The fact that there is a discussion going on at all about what level of punishment President Bush deserves for breaking the law is a huge step forward, so big kudos to Sen. Feingold for pushing this into the corporate media hopper.

We have to keep pushing, though -- we may not see real, tangible results in the form of a floor vote on this for quite a while, but if we can keep this discussion going -- keep people thinking about how the President broke the law -- then that is certainly some work that is well worth doing.

We'll have much more on this in the days to come, but I just wanted to take a moment to thank each and every person who phoned their Senators today. You are all patriots.

Senators of the 109th Congress

Akaka, Daniel K.- (D - HI) (202) 224-6361

Alexander, Lamar- (R - TN) (202) 224-4944

Allard, Wayne- (R - CO) (202) 224-5941

Allen, George- (R - VA) (202) 224-4024

Baucus, Max- (D - MT) (202) 224-2651

Bayh, Evan- (D - IN) (202) 224-5623

Bennett, Robert F.- (R - UT) (202) 224-5444

Biden, Joseph R., Jr.- (D - DE) (202) 224-5042

Bingaman, Jeff- (D - NM) (202) 224-5521

Bond, Christopher S.- (R - MO) (202) 224-5721

Boxer, Barbara- (D - CA) (202) 224-3553

Brownback, Sam- (R - KS) (202) 224-6521

Bunning, Jim- (R - KY) (202) 224-4343

Burns, Conrad- (R - MT) (202) 224-2644

Burr, Richard- (R - NC) (202) 224-3154

Byrd, Robert C.- (D - WV) (202) 224-3954

Cantwell, Maria- (D - WA) (202) 224-3441

Carper, Thomas R.- (D - DE) (202) 224-2441

Chafee, Lincoln- (R - RI) (202) 224-2921

Chambliss, Saxby- (R - GA) (202) 224-3521

Clinton, Hillary Rodham- (D - NY) (202) 224-4451

Coburn, Tom- (R - OK) (202) 224-5754

Cochran, Thad- (R - MS) (202) 224-5054

Coleman, Norm- (R - MN) (202) 224-5641

Collins, Susan M.- (R - ME) (202) 224-2523

Conrad, Kent- (D - ND) (202) 224-2043

Cornyn, John- (R - TX) (202) 224-2934

Craig, Larry E.- (R - ID) (202) 224-2752

Crapo, Mike- (R - ID) (202) 224-6142

Dayton, Mark- (D - MN) (202) 224-3244

DeMint, Jim- (R - SC) (202) 224-6121

DeWine, Mike- (R - OH) (202) 224-2315

Dodd, Christopher J.- (D - CT) (202) 224-2823

Dole, Elizabeth- (R - NC) (202) 224-6342

Domenici, Pete V.- (R - NM) (202) 224-6621

Dorgan, Byron L.- (D - ND) (202) 224-2551

Durbin, Richard- (D - IL) (202) 224-2152

Ensign, John- (R - NV) (202) 224-6244

Enzi, Michael B.- (R - WY) (202) 224-3424

Feingold, Russell D.- (D - WI) (202) 224-5323

Feinstein, Dianne- (D - CA) (202) 224-3841

Frist, William H.- (R - TN) (202) 224-3344

Graham, Lindsey- (R - SC) (202) 224-5972

Grassley, Chuck- (R - IA) (202) 224-3744

Gregg, Judd- (R - NH) (202) 224-3324

Hagel, Chuck- (R - NE) (202) 224-4224

Harkin, Tom- (D - IA) (202) 224-3254

Hatch, Orrin G.- (R - UT) (202) 224-5251

Hutchison, Kay Bailey- (R - TX) (202) 224-5922

Inhofe, James M.- (R - OK) (202) 224-4721

Inouye, Daniel K.- (D - HI) (202) 224-3934

Isakson, Johnny- (R - GA) (202) 224-3643

Jeffords, James M.- (I - VT) (202) 224-5141

Johnson, Tim- (D - SD) (202) 224-5842

Kennedy, Edward M.- (D - MA) (202) 224-4543

Kerry, John F.- (D - MA) (202) 224-2742

Kohl, Herb- (D - WI) (202) 224-5653

Kyl, Jon- (R - AZ) (202) 224-4521

Landrieu, Mary L.- (D - LA) (202) 224-5824

Lautenberg, Frank R.- (D - NJ) (202) 224-3224

Leahy, Patrick J.- (D - VT) (202) 224-4242

Levin, Carl- (D - MI) (202) 224-6221

Lieberman, Joseph I.- (D - CT) (202) 224-4041

Lincoln, Blanche L.- (D - AR) (202) 224-4843

Lott, Trent- (R - MS) (202) 224-6253

Lugar, Richard G.- (R - IN) (202) 224-4814

Martinez, Mel- (R - FL) (202) 224-3041

McCain, John- (R - AZ) (202) 224-2235

McConnell, Mitch- (R - KY) (202) 224-2541

Menendez, Robert- (D - NJ) (202) 224-4744

Mikulski, Barbara A.- (D - MD) (202) 224-4654

Murkowski, Lisa- (R - AK) (202) 224-6665

Murray, Patty- (D - WA) (202) 224-2621

Nelson, Bill- (D - FL) (202) 224-5274

Nelson, E. Benjamin- (D - NE) (202) 224-6551

Obama, Barack- (D - IL) (202) 224-2854

Pryor, Mark L.- (D - AR) (202) 224-2353

Reed, Jack- (D - RI) (202) 224-4642

Reid, Harry- (D - NV) (202) 224-3542

Roberts, Pat- (R - KS) (202) 224-4774

Rockefeller, John D., IV- (D - WV) (202) 224-6472

Salazar, Ken- (D - CO) (202) 224-5852

Santorum, Rick- (R - PA) (202) 224-6324

Sarbanes, Paul S.- (D - MD) (202) 224-4524

Schumer, Charles E.- (D - NY) (202) 224-6542

Sessions, Jeff- (R - AL) (202) 224-4124

Shelby, Richard C.- (R - AL) (202) 224-5744

Smith, Gordon H.- (R - OR) (202) 224-3753

Snowe, Olympia J.- (R - ME) (202) 224-5344

Specter, Arlen- (R - PA) (202) 224-4254

Stabenow, Debbie- (D - MI) (202) 224-4822

Stevens, Ted- (R - AK) (202) 224-3004

Sununu, John E.- (R - NH) (202) 224-2841

Talent, James M.- (R - MO) (202) 224-6154

Thomas, Craig- (R - WY) (202) 224-6441

Thune, John- (R - SD) (202) 224-2321

Vitter, David- (R - LA) (202) 224-4623

Voinovich, George V.- (R - OH) (202) 224-3353

Warner, John- (R - VA) (202) 224-2023

Wyden, Ron- (D - OR) (202) 224-5244

Feingold to Introduce Censure Resolution at 4 pm ET

2006-03-13T10:30:00.000-08:00

C-Span2 is reporting that Sen. Feingold will introduce his Censure Resolution on the floor of the Senate at 4:00 pm ET.

You can read the press release from Sen. Feingold's office here. And the text of the Censure Resolution here (PDF).

Anonymous Liberal, posting at Glenn Greenwald's blog Unclaimed Territory, has a review of the text of the Censure Resolution -- and it's well worth the read -- both the article itself and the excellent comments. For just a taste of the article, read this:

Senator Feingold's call for Congressional censure is an eminently reasonable response to the NSA scandal by any objective measure. Just eight years ago, Congressional Republicans impeached a president for lying about a private consensual affair in the context of a frivolous civil suit which was financed and litigated by the president's enemies. We are now faced with a president who is engaged in ongoing violations of a criminal statute intended to protect the constitutional rights of the American people. There is agreement that extends well beyond party lines that the President does not have the constitutional or statutory authority to do what he is doing. This administration has repeatedly ignored, misled, and marginalized Congress. If such facts do not warrant censure, it's hard to know what does.

Glenn also caught a WH lie from Scott McClellan that Reuters passed on to the public without them even noting the fact that it was a false statement.

This is not advocacy. This is just lying. No Democrats are advocating that we not listen to Al Qaeda communications, and Scott McClellan knows that. And no journalist ought to pass along this falsehood without pointing out that it is factually false.

The debate is not and has never been over whether we should eavesdrop on Al Qaeda. Everyone wants eavesdropping on Al Qaeda. The issue is whether the Bush Administration should eavesdrop in accordance with the law (with judicial oversight and approval), or in violation of the law (in secret and with no oversight, something that has been a criminal offense in this country since 1978). That is NSA Scandal 101, something that has been clearly established and beyond dispute from for months.

I don't know about all of you, but it is getting exhausting pointing out how all we want is for the media to do their jobs -- and then having them, repeatedly, show that they aren't really interested in doing their jobs. All of the exceptional journalists out there who work hard, dig in, and do their jobs have to cringe every time they see a story like this with no follow-up and no explanations.

Steno journalism is not acceptable -- and we'll take the time to point this out -- REPEATEDLY -- until lazy steno-reporters get the message. Repeating Republican talking points makes you a political shill. Asking the real, honest, follow-up questions and digging into the story fully...well, that can get you a Pulitzer.

Sen. Feingold, himself, posted a diary a bit ago on dKos regarding his call for censure and the upcoming introduction of the resolution -- which you can read here. My favorite bit:

The facts and the case for censure are clear. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, makes it a crime to wiretap American citizens without a court warrant - which is what the President has admitted doing. Before the program was revealed, he also misled Congress and the American people about the wiretapping that was being done. For example, at a 2004 speech in Buffalo, he said, "Any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires, a wiretap requires a court order." And at a 2004 speech in my home state of Wisconsin, he said that "the government can't move on wiretaps or roving wiretaps without getting a court order."

When the domestic spying story first broke, the President went from saying he wouldn't be able to talk about it, to suggesting there was no other way to wiretap terrorists, to implying that the FISA law is out of date. He went on to claim that sweeping inherent powers of the presidency or the authorization of force back in 2001 gave him such authority -- neither of which is legally or factually correct. While the President has cherry-picked information before, he cannot do the same with the laws of our land.

Censuring the President is not something that should be taken lightly. But the President has BROKEN the law and there needs to be action and accountability.

Absolutely spot on. The rest of us don't get to break the law whenever we feel like it, and the President is simply a man elected to serve in higher office for a few scant years -- he doesn't get a pass on obeying the law either. George Bush is not my king. And I'd expect my elected officials to understand that and stand up for the laws of our nation.

It's about time our elected officials showed they have some passing understanding that we fought the Revolutionary War in the cause of freedom and liberty for all Americans -- not just the ones on the fundraising speed dial list, and certainly not to prop up another King George so that we'd all have to live by his daily whims.

Please take a few minutes to let your Senators know how you feel about Sen. Feingold's Censure Resolution -- and let Jane and I know where your Senators stand on the issue. (And send an e-mail to Sen. Feingold and say thanks for having some guts -- the fact that it is so rare in Washington these days that we are all so pleased is worth a thank you all by itself.) Thanks so much for everyone's hard work on this -- it is much appreciated.

Libby Opinion Update: Materiality

2006-03-13T09:15:00.000-08:00

In doing my Walton Order review yesterday, I neglected to include a note about the materiality issue that is still outstanding. Jeff kindly reminded me about this in the comments, and I want to be sure to hit that for a moment. (Had it in my copious notes, but missed it somehow in the write-up. Ooops.)

Jeralyn has graciously posted the Order and Memorandum on TalkLeft, so you can see the actual text for yourself, if you are interested.

Footnote 25 (on pages 22 and 23) goes to the heart of the materiality question. Essentially, the judge determined that, although he has granted a limited portion of the information in general summary form to be given to Team Libby for their review as a means to refresh Libby's recollection, he has made no determination whatsoever as to whether this information is even material -- at all -- to Libby's main case.

The determination on whether any of this is material to the charges has been put off until later, after Fitz and his team and other governmental agencies who are impacted (like the CIA) have had an opportunity to file their Section 4 motions under CIPA.

The judge goes on to say that he would be more likely to simply instruct the jury that Scooter Libby had a job which required him to work long hours on important matters of state and pretty much leave it at that, since Fitz isn't disputing that Libby had a busy job, and that nothing beyond really general topics would be allowed to be mentioned to the jury (you know, stuff like "Scooter Libby worked on national security matters."). Not at all what Team Libby was likely hoping for, I'm sure, but since there is nothing definite as to whether even the instruction will be given to a jury, Team Libby gets to continue to twist out there on their own.

Just wanted to be sure that this point didn't go unnoticed by the Traitorgate readers out there. In sum, Libby gets the information to jog his memory, but he may not get to present anything regarding the information to the jury if the judge decides that it's really not relevant to the question of why Scooter was a serial liar.

More to come, as this case moves forward -- and hopefully, if the grand jury continues its work, we'll have some more news to add in the days to come.

(Some love to The Sardonic Sideshow for the Pat Fitzgerald pix. And the giggle.)

Senate Call Talking Points

2006-03-13T07:37:00.000-08:00

Since several of you have indicated you can't get Daily Kos to load at all this morning (fwiw, it's loading fine for me on the East Coast, so I'm not certain where the glitch might be), I wanted to pass along the excellent talking points that Georgia10 put together for the Senate phone calls regarding Feingold's censure motion.

The President admitted to conducting a domestic spying program outside the scope of FISA, despite knowing that FISA is the exclusive means of such surveillance inside the United States. President Bush broke the law, and this is the only way this Republican Congess can hold him accountable.

President admitted he did not brief the full intelligence committees. This is against the law.

We don't have to wait for an investigation before censure. President Bush admitted to his crimes publicly. An investigation is needed, but that should not preclude censure at this time.

Andrew Jackson was censured in 1834 for refusing to hand over papers to Congress and assuming power not granted by the Constitution. With his stonewalling of the investigation and by ignoring FISA, this is exactly what President Bush has done, and he should also be censured accordingly.

Please let the staffer with whom you speak know that you will be discussing the censure motion with your friends and neighbors (and if you are calling Tom Coburn's office, your church friends...maybe they'll begin to listen then.).

Georgia10 also put together a very helpful phone and e-mail contact list -- so far it just has Democratic information, but Republican info. will be added today as well. You can find this listing here. Since we seem to have pushed the Senate information website over the edge, I thought this might be helpful for everyone.

And again, you can contact any Senator toll free in Washington, D.C., via the central switchboard at 888-355-3588 or 888-818-6641.

Thanks again to everyone for calling! You really are making a tremendous difference just by getting this conversation on censure of the President for breaking the law started in the Senate and, hopefully, around the nation.

More information can be found in my posts from this morning and last night.

Also, please consider calling local offices on this -- especially at a time when we're lighting up the DC switchboards, calling local offices reinforces the point that this is real, live constituents calling and that we are serious about getting them to listen to our thoughts on censure. Thanks so much for all of your efforts -- you guys are amazing people, and I'm proud to work beside you on this.

UPDATE: So far, we are getting a lot of "The Senator hasn't made a statement about this yet." -- which, frankly, is what we expected first thing on Monday from most of them. The calls are having an impact though.

And just so you don't miss it, Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) has staffers who have said that Sen. Kerry supports Feingold's censure motion "absolutely." Thanks so much to everyone for calling on this!

REMINDER: Action Steps in Support of Feingold

2006-03-13T06:00:00.000-08:00

Russ Feingold put himself on the line for progressives and the nation yesterday -- by announcing on This Week that he was going to introduce a Motion for Censure against President Bush for breaking the FISA laws.

Let's take a little time this morning, please, and phone your Senators. Let them know you were impressed by Russ Feingold -- and ask them to tell you what their position is on the censure proposal.

That's it -- just ask whether your Senators support the censure proposal, and then report back here when you get an answer. Use this thread to let us know. Jane and I will keep track of the responses, so we'll all have some idea of where everyone stands on this issue.

We need to be certain that Senators understand that there are some people out there, all over this country of ours, who still feel that the rule of law and separation of powers mean something. Who understand that balance of powers cannot include the Congress as a rubber stamp for the President, whether or not both branches are held by the same party.

They need to know that we expect them to do their jobs. And this little phone call, and some accountability about their position, just might get that thought process rolling. If enough of us take the time to call -- and we light up the switchboard -- then suddenly they have to sit up and take notice. If for no other reason, than because the mid-term elections are approaching, and everything becomes more important in that environment. When enough constituents call about a single issue, and we are asking you to do so the day after the issue was raised so it will still be fresh for all of them, then they sit up and start to think.

So please, hit the phones, call your own two Senators, and report back here what their position is. And thanks in advance -- this is profound message to all those Senators that we not only listen, but we expect action and that they do their jobs. And that we are not pleased with either them or the President -- and they'd better start paying attention to that as well.

You can contact the US Senate via the switchboard at (202) 224-3121, and they will connect you with any Senator's office. Or you can find your particular Senator's direct dial here.

NOTE: Also, if you have the time today, please take a moment to phone or e-mail or FAX Russ Feingold's office and just say thank you to him for putting himself on the line for all of us. At this point, no one has any idea if this censure proposal will gain any traction -- that's kind of up to all of us in the phoning and pushing it from the grassroots up, but it also depends on folks in power in Washington feeling the need to get off their behinds...and of that, I'm not as certain. Either way, though, Feingold put his own butt on the line, and we ought to show him some love and appreciation for doing so.

UPDATE: Georgia10 put up some helpful talking points for these calls, along with some additional contact info. here on dKos.

UPDATE #2: There is a toll free switchboard number that I neglected to post. (Thanks to Prof. Foland for the reminder.) You can call 1-888-355-3588 to reach any Senator -- they will connect you through to the individual offices.

UPDATE #3: Reader MrsT makes a great point in the comments: calling local offices often gets you more response than calling the national one on the Hill. Local office numbers can be found on the individual senator's website -- and also in your phone directory in the Government numbers section. So fwiw, that's also a very good option.

FDL Late Nite: What Would Karl Do?

2006-03-12T21:53:00.000-08:00

Krugman:

The bottom line is that Mr. McCain isn't a moderate; he's a man of the hard right. How far right? A statistical analysis of Mr. McCain's recent voting record, available at www.voteview.com, ranks him as the Senate's third most conservative member.

What about Mr. McCain's reputation as a maverick? This comes from the fact that every now and then he seems to declare his independence from the Bush administration, as he did in pushing through his anti-torture bill.

But a funny thing happened on the way to Guantanamo. President Bush, when signing the bill, appended a statement that in effect said that he was free to disregard the law whenever he chose. Mr. McCain protested, but there are apparently no hard feelings: at the recent Southern Republican Leadership Conference he effusively praised Mr. Bush.

And I'm sorry to say that this is typical of Mr. McCain. Every once in a while he makes headlines by apparently defying Mr. Bush, but he always returns to the fold, even if the abuses he railed against continue unabated.

Question for the evening, thrown out by a reader: "If McCain were a Democrat and Rove were going after him for a national campaign (ie, not just some race-baiting bullshit for the South Carolina yokels), what would he be doing?"

The Art of The Corner

2006-03-12T19:38:00.000-08:00

Before I start to write anything about those fine thinkers at The Corner I go and re-read this post by TBogg to put me in the right frame of mind.

Never has anyone so artfully captured the intellectual elegance, the artful expression and the profound depth of thought offered daily by the fine thinkers at The Corner.

This post, "Flowers for Goldberg," is also up for a Koufax this year. I would like to express my profound gratitude for all the inspiration it has given me since its publication on May 1, 2005 by recommending that you read it and consider voting for it (also up for best series, "Jonah Goldberg Series").

For all they do for us at The Corner, it's the least we can do for them.

Update: The Wampum link for Jonah Goldberg Series isn't right, here are the actual links:

. Part One - Jonah and the Ocean of Lotion ("This pudgy slightly damp man who smelled of Ding Dongs and Hai Karate and danger...")
. Part Two - Doughy Pantload Tonight ("Look, lady," Jonah said to her, "is there anything here besides yourself, the Stargate and the sarcophagus and those donuts on that table over there? Because we're tired, we're hungry and I left my asthma puffer in my other pants")
. Part Three - It Was A Dark and Jonah Night (He was about 5' 7", scruffy brown hair, little piggy eyes, garbed in Dockers and a black Billy Joel River of Dreams tour t-shirt that was bunched up around his man-boobs.)

Once again, I'm not worthy.

With Friends Like That...

2006-03-12T17:29:00.000-08:00

The GOP is evidently worried that the South Dakota freaks will be a problem for them. They're no fools, they realize that most of the country wants to keep abortion legal and they're worried that the Democrats could capitalize on something like this.

Which means, of course, that DCCC brain trusts like Rahm Emanuel will do no such thing:

"Republicans are going to be the ones who look like extremists," says former Senate majority leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota, who lost his seat in 2004 after being beaten up on the abortion issue for years. That does not mean, however, that Democrats are rushing to call attention to the Republicans' dilemma. In the upcoming midterm elections, the Democrats don't plan to spend a dime on ads highlighting the abortion issue, according to Rep. Rahm Emanuel, the savvy Chicago pol who heads the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. He wouldn't spell out the reasons, but a top party staffer (who declined to be quoted out of deference to his bosses) told NEWSWEEK: "These guys are gun-shy because they're used to getting clobbered on the issue."

You really have to wake up early in the morning to be that stupid. Nobody's saying you should run ads in Alabama, but Christ on the cross why aren't they using it to consolidate their blue state base? Lincoln Chafee should be wearing his Alito vote around his fucking neck, as should Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, and Emanuel should be making the South Dakota law de rigeur attire for Congressional Republicans in solidly pro-choice districts. The rapist rights bill should become emblematic for everything the GOP stands for, especially in progressive states where the Republicans are quite rightly afraid of being associated with the forced birth extremists.

Howie Klein has been doing great work over at Down With Tyranny covering Emanuel and his tactics to drive progressive candidates out of Democratic races by putting DCCC money behind centrist tools. It takes a special kind of craven cynicism to try and outdo the GOP in supporting the forced birth lobby, a position that even Ken Mehlman has the good sense to try and distance himself from.

For everything we do trying to back progressive candidates, Emanuel and the DCCC seem to be doing everything they can to undo it. It's bad enough to fight the GOP machine without having to fight the DINOs who eagerly do their work for them.

Team Libby Squeezed Between Footnotes

2006-03-12T15:50:00.000-08:00

You have to hand one thing to Team Libby: they do know how to dream big. Even if the real world doesn't quite live up to those dreams...and Judge Walton's most recent ruling is certainly not a technicolor marvel for them, now is it?

I happen to agree with Larry Johnson's interpretation of this: Team Libby was shooting for the Briar Patch for Brer Libby, but instead, they got stuck with a tar baby of their own making -- a poor memory defense and a judge that is willing to refresh that memory at the lowest possible cost to the government doesn't leave them a lot of maneuvering room -- and when you add in a prosecutor who was intelligent enough to understand and prepare for just this tactical maneuver because he's been there, done that, it tightens things up a bit further still. Man, this is fun stuff to read.

Let me start by saying an enormous thank you to Jeralyn at TalkLeft for hosting the pdf's of the latest Walton rulings. Much better for all of you to be able to read what I'm talking about, and much less of a need for lengthy quotes from me -- so thanks, Jeralyn! Both the Judge's memorandum and order are in PDF format, but well worth the click thru if you want to read the documents in their entirety.

One of the things that I learned early in my legal career is that the real work often gets done in the footnotes of any brief or court order. No idea why it is that the footnotes get all of the meatiest bits, but it seems to work out that way in a lot of documents, so I always scan them very closely as I read through, just in case. In Judge Walton's order and memorandum, this little trick paid off, as you'll see below -- but I wanted to pass on that tip, so that you can see what I mean as you read through them yourself.

Also, not that I think Judge Walton's clerks are hanging out here frequently at FDL, but it's a well written memorandum -- with the issues of Rule 16 discovery questions and CIPA application being particularly tightly written, so well done to either the clerks or the judge. (And that tiniest edge of snarky tone on occasion is also much appreciated. Just so ya know.)

Let's start with Footnote 3, on pages 1 and 2 of the memorandum. The Judge denies Libby's previous motion for information on journalists and others which Fitz has not yet produced, after the judge's review of the ex parte submission from the government. And the judge specifically says that this information is not material to Libby's current charges. Too bad for Babs that whole "mean journalists made me lie" meme is now shit out the window, eh?

I like holding smarmy journalists accountable as much as the next gal, but in this case, it's just so ludicrous to argue that journalists made Scooter Libby lie on multiple occasions, even on multiple occasions under oath in front of a grand jury. If it comes down to a question of Tim Russert versus Scooter Libby, well the jury is going to have to decide that -- but if it comes down to a question of Scooter Libby versus factual evidence in the form of receipts, phone call records, taped phone conversations from various wiretaps, e-mail exchanges, contemporaneous notes, and the like, versus Scooter Libby -- well, the heap of evidence and an FBI investigator most often seem a helluva lot more credible than the squirmy guy behind the defense counsel table. I'm just saying.

There was an odd bit in the memorandum about Team Libby's amended request for documents relating to the PDBs -- wherein they asked for all inquiries relating to those briefings after they were completed, as well as all inquiries specifically made by Libby and copies of all documents provided to Libby (and the Veep) as a result of these inquiries. (Page 2.)

After reading this bit, I kept coming back in my mind to the question of whether this included all the requests Libby and Cheney made to independent actors within the CIA and the State Department for a work-up of Joe Wilson (and, presumably, of Valerie Wilson once they learned she worked at CIA). There have been hints off and on about this, but one wonders now if Team Libby just opened that door wide for Fitz and his investigators. I mean, truly, that's one big, honking discovery door, if so. Team Libby needs to be very careful which Pandora's box they decide to open in this...or they might just stumble into a big bear trap for their client, while trying to keep the firewall going.

And a note to Fitz, if this is material you haven't yet gotten, I'd sure as hell be asking for it now.

Also on page 2, in footnote 5, the Judge notes that the last couple of outstanding questions regarding the Team Libby attempt to raise the issue of Valerie Wilson's NOC status and damage assessments about the outing of her identity and resulting asset and network damage will be reserved for later -- only after the Government has an opportunity to address the Section 4 concerns regarding this information under CIPA. Presumably, the judge also reserves the right to deny Libby access to this material should it not be material to his charges, pending his review of everything -- that's always a consideration in this sort of matter.

One of my favorite moments was where the Judge called the Brady claims by Team Libby "baseless" in footnote 6, on page 4. The Brady case essentially says that if a piece of evidence is material to questions of guilt or punishment, the prosecution cannot withhold said evidence. By calling the Brady claims baseless, the Judge is basically saying that Team Libby's attempt to paint Fitzgerald as somehow acting in bad faith is also baseless. (Strike two, Babs.)

After describing the legal foundation for the decision, the judge lays out the decision itself -- its a Solomon decision. The judge finds that material relating to why Libby allegedly had faulty memory would be potentially discoverable under Rule 16, but that Libby is only entitled to the amount of information it would take to refresh his recollection on the facts. (Pages 18 through 20)

The judge also says that Libby already has been given a large amount of what he needs to reconstruct his memories on these issues -- including his own notes -- and that only very limited bits of information need be provided by the government as summaries to supplement it. (btw, I think the judge is signalling here that he thinks the memory defense is flimsy at best. You all read this section and see if you don't agree that he's saying it seems awfully thin on page 20.)

On page 20, in footnote 21, we learn that Team Libby hasn't even bothered to request Libby's calendar. Hmmm...if you wanted your client to truly refresh his recollection, wouldn't you think his daily calendar and log of activities would be helpful?

On page 21, the funniest bit for me was put out by the judge -- that Libby's defense must be based on his OWN recollection, not that of whatever briefer the CIA sent along that day, and that the judge wasn't going to help Libby construct a defense out of CIA cloth. Seriously amusing legal snark.

Then, in footnote 23 (on page 21), the judge further says that Team Libby has already demonstrated a substantial knowledge of the issues involved in the PDBs in their own filings with the court. Gee, that kinda undercuts the whole "my bad memory made me lie" bit, doesn't it? (Erm....strike three, Babs?)

The judge pares back Libby's timeframe requests as well -- Libby had originally asked for documents pertaining to June 9, 2003 to July 12, 2004. The judge restricted the very general summaries to:

6/7/03 to 7/14/03
10/12/03 to 10/16/03
11/24/03 to 11/28/03
3/3/04 to 3/7/04
3/22/04 to 3/26/04

That's two days on either side of Libby's interviews with the FBI (on Oct. 14 and Nov. 26, 2003) and of his testimony to the Grand Jury (on March 5 and 24, 2004).

[NOTE: I neglected to mention that the June 7 to July 14, 2003, dates also encompass Libby's conversations with journalists and, presumably, members of the White House and Veep staffs, State Department and national security folks, about Valerie and Joe Wilson and other pertinent details. So this pretty much covers everything to which Libby would be entitled in the Judge's mind, and nothing outside those dates. This includes the timeframe of the multiple Judy Miller conversations, the Tim Russert conversation, the confirmation to Matt Cooper, the discussion with Ari Fleischer, and whatever was said on Air Force II. Tidy, eh?]

Oh, and by the way, the judge isn't likely to let Team Libby present any of this information -- even the seriously redacted, vague summaries, to the jury because of his grave national security concerns about the information being disseminated. (See footnote 25 on page 23.) That's going to really put a crimp in the "pity me, my job was hard and it made me lie" defense, now isn't it?

For Jeralyn's take on all of this, take a peek here. For Larry Johnson's assessment, see his blog here. And for the NYTimes reporting on this, read here.

The government has until March 24 to challenge this ruling. Team Libby's opposition motion would then be filed by April 7 and a reply from Fitz to that would be required to be filed by April 14. No hearing date on any motions was set -- that will established if and when they are filed.

So, to sum it up -- Libby gets very little of what he asked for to start. And what he gets may only be used by him to "refresh his recollection" such as he needs it, since the judge thinks he already knows most of what he needs to know to try his little tap dance across the potholes of my mind defense.

And then the jury and the public will likely never know it, which really makes it tough to make your client look all sympathetic and stuff because of his really important, really hard, really busy, really scary job -- since he won't really get to talk about what he did. And...um...that's about it.

Oh, except Team Libby forgot to mention that detailed, tabbed notebook that Libby kept on the Wilsons. Or his constant, obsessive need to bring them up -- repeatedly -- to folks who worked at the White House in and around the time he was also bringing them up to people in the press. Guess their busy jobs made them forget that, too.

The graymail tactic to get the charges booted out of court? Not so effective.

Oh yeah. Whoop-dee-doo. What a victory for Team Libby. Pass the cocktail weenies. Ahem. Partaaaay.

Action Steps for the Feingold "Censure Bush" Proposal

2006-03-12T13:58:00.000-08:00

I have a request: Russ Feingold really stuck his neck out today, and it would be great if he -- and every other Senator -- knew that we had his back. It's a gutsy move, not without risk in the polarized environment that is Washington these days and with the hatchet squad that Rove and his ilk generally deploy when their actions are questioned, so you have to hand it to Sen. Feingold for having the guts to raise the censure issue -- not just in the privacy of his office or at home, but right there on national television for all the world to hear.

So, what am I asking you to do? Something small by comparison, but if enough of us do this, it could start a little snowball rolling down the hill. By the time it reaches bottom, who knows how big it will have gotten -- but I sure like the sound of the word avalanche, so I say we get it going.

Your action steps: call both your Senators first thing in the morning and ask if they support Russ Feingold's censure proposal. If they don't, ask what their position is on the issue -- and why.

The more people we have calling, the more staffers in the offices start to realize that Feingold struck a political chord with a bunch of us in America. And then the more we continue to call, the more that message starts to sink in...and then some. Plus, it forces Senators to go on the record one way or the other, which is useful information for all of us to have.

We're going to keep track of it here on Firedoglake, so once you've called, please report back to us -- either through e-mail or in the comments -- and we'll put up a tracking list of yes, no and no comment. That's it. It's pretty much pain free and you can help us get an idea of which Senators are dodging and weaving. And, frankly, you can help us nudge them again to do their jobs. Thanks in advance for your assistance!

You can contact the US Senate via the switchboard at (202) 224-3121, and they will connect you with any Senator's office. Or you can find your particular Senator's direct dial here.

Democrats Must Like the View

2006-03-12T12:11:00.000-08:00

Glenn Greenwald has a post this morning at Crooks & Liars where he delves a little deeper into his interaction with key Democrats over the Senate non-investigations into the illegal NSA wiretaps, something I touched on last night:

I explained that there is a bursting and eager energy among the literally millions of people who write and read blogs to take meaningful action against the Bush Administration. The people in the blogosphere are highly motivated, informed, and politically engaged. Activating that energy and having national Democrats work cooperatively with the blogosphere (rather than ignore it or scorn it) could make an enormous difference in how these stories end up being covered and resolved. It is monumentally dumb not to embrace the one mechanism which has the ability to unleash genuinely impassioned, mass citizen action. And there are obvious and easy -- yet quite potent -- ways for national Democrats to work with bloggers and the blogosphere to maximize the force of these efforts.

This was the response I ultimately received:
I think there is an opportunity for us to figure out a better way to work together. But, you have to understand, my ultimate goal is to help [the] Senator [] achieve his objective of real oversight on national security matters by the Intelligence Committee.

Even with the best of intentions, I'm not convinced that bloggers can help us meet that goal. In fact, I worry about it hurting our efforts given the increasingly partisan environment.
This response is not uncommon. Many - if not most - national Democrats really are afraid of working with actual citizens, and are particularly afraid of having any involvement at all with the blogosphere. It's as though they think they need to remain above and separated from the poorly behaved, embarrassing masses. They actually have been scared away from working with the very people who they are supposedly representing and who are on their side.

Glenn demonstrates on a daily basis that he knows more about what's going on with this whole mess than any of those clueless dolts who are supposedly tasked with oversight. Their dismissive and condescending response to his overtures of help (after they contacted him to chew him out) would be pathetic based on that fact alone, but as Glenn goes on to explain, it's their commitment to staying in the minority that is really galling:

The fact that so many Democrats are so resistant, even hostile, to one of the only venues which exists where truly impassioned and energized activism can be found illustrates just how dysfunctional and frightened they have become. They care far more about securing the approval of pompous establishment media pundits and even the approval of Bush allies who continuously push them around, than they do about working with the people who are on their side and actually winning.

They don't want to go anywhere near the citizen activism in the blogosphere because Tim Russert and Chris Matthews will no longer think they're a moderate, serious, responsible Democrat, and Republicans might accuse them of being an extremist or a liberal. They'd prefer to avoid that disapproval even it means losing (as it usually does), than be criticized and win. The reason they run away from their own allies in the blogosphere is the same reason they so often run away from taking a real stand against the Bush Administration -- it's because they are petrified that the establishment media and even Republicans will criticize them as being too combative, too liberal, extremist, etc.

As Crashing the Gate makes clear, the national Democratic apparatus is broken in so many ways, and the blogosphere and Internet-based citizen activism can either be the antidote for those problems or the force which wages battle against that dysfunctional machinery. Many of these frightened national Democrats are shutting their eyes tightly hoping that the blogosphere and its dirty masses just go away, or at least remain quiet and at a safe distance.

That obviously isn't going to happen. So the sooner Democrats realize that the blogosphere and citizen activism is something to embrace rather than scorn, the sooner it will be that they can find ways to finally cause the Bush Administration and all of its appendages to come crashing down.

As Glenn points out, the GOP most certainly recognizes the looming potential of the blogosphere and that's why they've gone to great lengths to promote the right and demonize the left. Once again, the Democrats have allowed the Republicans to define their narrative for them about the liberal blogs and then done their best to perpetuate it.

I guess the gutter is an awfully comfortable place for some people.

Connecting Some Feingold Bush Censure Proposal Dots

2006-03-12T10:00:00.000-08:00

Couldn't have said this better myself. Our fine reader and commenter Scarecrow hits the nail on the head with this post:

From Larry Johnson:

"Scooter Libby, Karl Rove, and Dick Cheney, who learned that she [Plame] was a CIA officer, were obligated to protect that secret. Instead, they betrayed Valerie and helped destroy an intelligence network that was devoted to trying to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons."

Pretty much sums it up. Relevant to today's concerns? You bet. Kinda puts a "motion to censure" in perspective, doesn't it? And if the Republicans can't allow debate on this, or give it an "up or down vote," well, gosh, guess that's just another campaign issue, isn't it?

And let's not forget it was more than Cheney's group. On the Africa trip, Ms. Rice, who is fond of telling us about the horrors of Iran's nucular ambitions, pointed the press in the direction of Ms Plame and said, "go look there." Please, oh please, put that one in the list of particulars for the motion to censure.

The intertwined mess of this Administration, it's repeated disregard for it's obligations to others outside of the malignant band of tight-knit cronies at the inner core and their political money machine pals...well, their actions speak a helluva lot louder than their tidied-up words and image projection ever could, don't they?

And the fact that the Republican-controlled Congress is acting like nothing more than a rubber stamp -- that there is no accountability, no checks and balances, no real separation of powers but more of a "whatever you want, boss" attitude...never more apparant than on the utter lack of real oversight and accountability on the domestic spying by the NSA. Shameful.

Crooks and Liars and ThinkProgress both have video up of the Feingold appearance on This Week today. Will certainly be interesting to see where this goes -- but I agree with Pachacutec on tactics with this:

You know, I think Feingold is being very smart here. I'm impressed.

He's opening the door to discussion of impeachment but doing it in a way that even Republicans can potentially discuss: censure. Starting out with "censure" is a more effective wedge than "impeachment" is, and it still gets you into the same conversation, reframing the debate the way you want it.

Start with "impeachment," and you could still see some few points of bounce for the president. After all, while under impeachment threats, Clinton's numbers stayed stubbornly high. There was a rally to the president effect, because people saw the impeachment effort as overblown and partisan.

Bush would not be that popular, but you could still see some coming home to him if "impeachment" becomes the agenda, particularly if the public is not prepared for it.

Censure gets you the conversation you want, wedges the other side, keeps our momentum going for '06 and puts us in a better position to arrive at impeachment later if necessary, especially if we gain a majority in either side of the Hill.

I think this is very smart work on Feingold's part. I'm impressed with his ability to mix principle and aggression with canny politics.

Tactically, this is very impressive stuff. Some of the bigger Senate egos on the Republican side have been bruised and battered lately by the Rove "shut up and stay in line" machine. The President's tanking poll numbers and the drive to distance themselves from him prior to the mid-terms and as a set-up for their 2008 Presidential ambitions is awfully tempting.

If nothing else, it sure opens the door to a whole lot of discussion about law-breaking by this Administration in the press -- and at the water coolers and lunch tables and pub counters around the country. And that is some public discussion that is music to my ears.

The fact that this discussion will go hand in hand with one about how even a censure resolution won't be able to get traction, despite the President and his Administration repeatedly breaking the law and admitting it publicly...because Republicans control the White House and both houses of Congress...well, that's a good move right before the 2006 mid-terms.

Nothing like driving home the point that there will be no oversight of the Administration and that Congress is currently functioning like a rubber stamp with a very concrete, very real world example like trying to hold the President accountable for breaking the law and repeatedly admitting in public that he is doing so...guess the common man gets his ass arrested, but the President gets a pass, is that it? Not exactly the sentiment I remember coming out of GOP mouths when Clinton was in office -- perhaps they need a refresher on ethics and the fact that the laws apply to everyone? (Note: chalk that up as the understatement of the year.)

Maybe the DSCC could put together a montage of quotes from the same Republican Senators who wanted to impeach Bill Clinton -- and what they thought about accountability and responsibility of the Chief Executive all the way back then, as compared to today? Now that would be a commercial worth seeing.

And whether or not censure ever gets off the launching pad, the public and Congressional discussion has now been framed as "how do you best hold President Bush accountable for breaking the law?" Boo yah.

Have I mentioned lately how much I love the commenters on our site?

UPDATE: Reuters has a "last throes" summary of incidents just from today in Iraq. Scary stuff. (Found it via Atrios).

UPDATE #2: Via the good folks at Wampum -- they are having some problems with their servers today which is causing some sort of weird in-and-outage and really messing with their comments and their ability to update. I've been informed that they are extending the Koufax voting dealine at least until tomorrow (Monday) due to the server issues. Just wanted to let our readers know and, hopefully if the server gods smile upon Wampum, they can go back to having only moderately insane lives instead of seriously insane ones. Since they haven't even been able to get in to do an update post on the Wampum site, if everyone could pass the word along on other blogs where they read, it would be most appreciated, I'm sure.

ChiTrib Carries Team Libby's Water

2006-03-12T08:40:00.000-08:00

Steno Sue is gonna get jealous.

Shorter Chicago Tribune:

Babs Comstock rounded up some crony peeps to talk smack about Valerie Plame Wilson. We printed it. To hell with the other side or any real facts or history.

Here's a fact they neglect to mention: in the early 1990s, a large number of CIA agents were let go due to a feeling that the Cold War was over and field agents were a good place to save some money from the defense and intel budgets.

Lots went into the private sector after this. Could Valerie Wilson have been one of them, using it as a means to establish deep cover? No freaking clue -- since it's not like CIA NOCs run around talking with anyone they can find about what they used to do for a living, how they established and maintained their cover, and with whom they used to work. (Duh!) But hey, it would have been nice had ~~Steno John Crewdson~~ the "investigative reporter" dug into that little tidbit even the slightest bit, wouldn't it?

Note to Crewdson -- lots of info available for the google. Start with this overview of recent CIA history from a Shorenstein Fellow at Harvard. It's pretty basic and not complete, but it is a start for ya. Then try talking with folks who put the agency first and not their political money connections.

Or how about this one: Crewdson makes a big deal about looking through a directory and finding an attorney who had Brewster-Jennings listed on his online firm resume -- and how that means anyone could find out someone was an undercover agent.

Well...um...we didn't publicly know that Brewster-Jennings was a CIA front company until people in this Adminstration opened their yaps and announced it to the world. Helloooooo, why is this so difficult to comprehend? The outing of Valerie Plame Wilson outed her associates, too. Sure, this guy probably should have removed the Brewster reference from his resume -- unless, of course, he legitimately worked for the corporation as a private sector guy who had no ties to the CIA and, thus, would have had no idea he needed to worry about it...until this Administration opened their yaps and outed the group publicly. Call me crazy, but if I were establishing a cover company, I'd want just regular folks working for it as well to give it legitimacy.

Try reading here, here, here, here, and here instead of talking with Babs' pals, John -- it will be more helpful for your "journalism" career in the long run. (Unless, of course, your journalism career began after your stint in the College Republicans and you are hoping to move on to better punditry gigs in the future on Faux News. I'm just saying.)

Here's my big question, though: did the ChiTrib get their spin from Dennis Ross or James Woolsey or their next step away pals? Because it seems to me if you are going to be hand fed a story by Team Libby, you ought to at least look into the fact that your "anonymous sources" are on the Advisory Committee of the Scooter Libby Legal Fund beg-a-thon.

And a word to Babs Comstock and her hatchet hack cronies: if you are going to try and plant a story in the news as a means to discredit someone, try and do so using facts that aren't so easily disassembled. This must have been a hasty spin plant -- either that, or you guys are really slipping. Enjoy your Sunday.

Oh, and Larry Johnson has more on this. You just knew he would, didn't you?

(A big thank you to Eriposte at LeftCoaster for the heads up on this article, and to Steve Gilliard for the brain refresh tidbit on CIA downsizing in the early 90s.)

Sunday Morning Talking Head Thread

2006-03-12T06:18:00.000-08:00

Here are today's talking head show guests, via the WaPo:

FOX NEWS SUNDAY (WTTG), 9 a.m.: Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.); Reps. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) and Mike Pence (R-Ind.); and Placido Domingo , general director of the Washington National Opera.

THIS WEEK (ABC, WJLA), 9 a.m.: Sens. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) and Bill Frist (R-Tenn.).

FACE THE NATION (CBS, WUSA), 10:30 a.m.: Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and Gov. Mike Huckabee (R-Ark.).

MEET THE PRESS (NBC, WRC), 10:30 a.m.: Sens. George Allen (R-Va.) and Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.); Michael R. Gordon , author; retired Marine Lt. Gen. Bernard Trainor , author.

LATE EDITION (CNN), 11 a.m.: Sens. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.) and John W. Warner (R-Va.); Zalmay Khalilzad , U.S. ambassador to Iraq; Howard Dean , chairman of the Democratic National Committee; John Edwards , former Democratic vice presidential candidate; Jack Kemp , former Republican vice presidential candidate.

Some interesting combinations this morning -- my fave is the Feingold-Frist match-up on This Week, with the Biden/Allen match-up running a distant last. Use this thread for some discussion on the shows and news of the morning. I'll be putting up some Traitorgate news this morning as I finish some analysis and fact-finding.

It's so great to be back home and on the blog. Meeting Jane and so many other big bloggers was fantastic, but I missed you guys. Weren't our subs phenomenal? We couldn't have asked for a better crew to keep everyone informed -- and amused!

(This morning's lovely birding selection is an American goldfinch -- male -- in it's spring plumage. Isn't he gorgeous? I have a flock that feeds at my thistle feeder every Spring. That pointed little beak is perfect for digging out thistle and other seeds from my feeders and my flower beds -- especially the ones from my coneflowers. This great photo was taken by Laura Erickson for the sales site of Binoculars.com.)

UPDATE: Just a friendly heads up that the Koufax voting ends this evening at 11:59 pm (ET? Not sure, so if you haven't voted, do so early.) The folks at Wampum do a fantastic job coordinating this insanity, so show them some love and vote for your favorite progressive blogs -- show all of them a little love, too. Firedoglake is nominated in the Best Blog (non-professional), Best Series, Best Expert Blog, and Best Group Blog categories. And I've gotten a nod in the Best Writing category (although I voted for Digby, just FYI).

Please go and cast votes for all your faves. Thanks everyone -- the Koufaxes mean a lot to everyone in the progressive blogosphere, and there is a huge amount of talent in each and every category. And a big thank you to everyone who took the time to nominate Jane and me, truly it means a lot.

FDL Late Nite: Yes, We Scare the Shit Out of Them

2006-03-11T21:08:00.000-08:00

The NYT review of Crashing the Gates is dead on:

The netroots' power comes from the same network effect that made eBay a retailing phenomenon. Far-flung political activists now join together on sites like dailykos.com, and inject themselves into matters that used to be settled behind closed doors. The netroots helped make Mr. Dean head of the Democratic National Committee, over several establishment candidates. Now, they are backing Ned Lamont in a primary challenge to Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, who is about as popular among liberal bloggers as a computer virus.

Much of the authors' criticism of the party establishment is dead-on. They rail against political consultants who take 15 percent commissions on media buys while giving bad advice. They are especially incensed by what they see as the self-defeating role of special interests, notably Naral Pro-Choice America's decision to endorse Senator Lincoln Chafee, a Rhode Island Republican, over two pro-abortion-rights Democrats. If Mr. Chafee wins, he could ensure that the Republican Party, which has an aggressive anti-abortion agenda, keeps control of the Senate.

To solve the consultant problem, the authors urge more hires from outside the Washington Beltway and lower fees. To rein in special interests, they point to two successful models. In Colorado, a few wealthy donors called in the groups before the 2004 election and prodded them to cooperate. Ken Salazar was elected senator, one of only two Democratic pick-ups. In Montana, Brian Schweitzer threw out the interest groups' questionnaires and spoke directly to Montana voters. The same day that Montanans gave President Bush 59 percent of their votes, they elected Mr. Schweitzer governor.

For all the talk about having to crash gates, the netroots are well on their way to becoming insiders. Mr. Armstrong is an adviser to the political action committee of Mark Warner, a leading candidate for president in 2008. When dailykos holds an offline convention this June in Las Vegas, Harry Reid, the Senate minority leader, will be a speaker.

The Democratic establishment could not hold the netroots back even if it wanted to. Their ability to raise money, recruit volunteers and shape the debate will make them indispensable. (my emphasis)

The GOP understands the power of the blogs and works agressively with them. The Democrats are terrified of us and generally see us as an extremely threatening presence. Witness the completely patronizing way that Jay Rockefeller's office dealt with Glenn Greenwald. If you were really interested in getting some popular support for investigating the illegal NSA wiretaps, wouldn't you want that guy on your side? He doesn't cost you a dime, he knows his shit and everyone's listening to him.

Christ almighty if he wrote that persuasively in favor of banning abortion or staying in Iraq Patrick Ruffini would have his baby.

Explain This One To Me, John

2006-03-11T17:39:00.000-08:00

More Republicans with values:

The California Democratic Party is asking for an investigation of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Senator John McCain for alleged violations of campaign finance law.

The allegations center on a scheduled March 20th fund-raiser in Beverly Hills in which donors have been asked to contribute up to 100 thousand dollars for the governor and the state Republican Party. McCain is the featured speaker at the event.

At issue is whether McCain's appearance violates restrictions on federal officeholders taking part in events that solicit political funds.

Ironically, McCain is being accused of violating a law he helped write.

I never really understood how McCain could go home and explain his unapologetic Bush love to his Bangladeshi-born daughter. You know, the one Bush tried to smear in the South by saying she was McCain's own illegitimate African American child (at least according to McCain's campaign manager).

I guess once you get over a hurdle like that, anything's possible.

Judy, Judy, Judy

2006-03-11T15:08:00.000-08:00

I was told last year that Vanity Fair was eagerly courting Judy Miller to write an article for them about her Traitorgate odyssey. According to today's Editor and Publisher, it doesn't seem they were able to get her and instead had to settle for her friend and apologist Marie Brenner (who also helped organize Judy's farewell dinner before she was shipped off to eagerly embrace her martyrdom).

Brenner comes off as a lightweight who doesn't really understand what she's writing about and accepts a rather unsophisticated "journalists vs. bloggers" paradigm hook, line and sinker.

According to Greg Mitchell:

One interesting exchange occurred when Bill Keller, New York Times executive editor, allegedly told Miller back in 2003 that she would have to quit reporting from Iraq because she had become "radioactive". "You can see it on the blogs." Miller claims she replied, "Why do you give a shit about the blogs? They do not know anything." (Brenner relates that Keller disputes this, saying he's "pretty sure" he never said any such thing.)

Then she quotes Miller complaining about the lack of editing on the blogs and that sometimes "slanderous" attacks on her appear there. But, actually, she is more "appalled" by her colleagues "who believed what they read on the blogs."

But as time passed, Miller could not escape the blogs, principally Huffington, even though her attorney Floyd Abrams says, "No one takes this stuff seriously, do they?" At another point he refers to "the defamation that was running on the blogs."

The article recounts a scene where another lawyer visits Miller in jail and hands her a clip from Huffington, saying, "You are going to be upset with this." In view of that attorney, Arianna Huffington and other bloggers were "passing off speculation as fact" or engaging in "pure character assassination." This was a problem because, as Brenner writes, Huffington's blog was "steadily gaining heft" and had "become must reading for the media."

This became particularly troubling when "people at the Times appeared to be talking to Huffington."

Brenner then quotes famed investigator Lowell Bergman as claiming that Huffington's idea that Miller was a White House collaborator "was a fantasy fed by the deep animosity of people toward Judy."

"People at the Times appeared to be talking to Huffington?" Yeah and anyone else who would listen. Judy was loathed by the people she trampled on during her tenure at the Times, people who had to suck it up and take the heat for her crap reporting. She castigates the blogs for passing off speculation as fact? She led the fucking country into war with her quote-unquote "reporting" about non-existent WMDs and then breezily gave herself a pass because her sources misled her (so she says). She makes even the most lowly, conspiracy-theory laden blogger look Pulitzer worthy when compared to what she calls journalism. Blog traffic soars expressly because she is the poster girl for everything that's wrong with traditional media right now.

Judy may have been "appalled" by what people were saying on the blogs, but even our earliest and wildest speculations on the role she played in the outing of Valerie Plame couldn't begin to compare to the reality of the cozy, accomodating relationship she had with the Administration. If she doesn't like the allegations being made about her in the blogs she might want consider the fact that we were only repeating the words of Bill Keller and Maureen Dowd, who all but said she was fucking Scooter Libby. Or the fine people at New York Magazine, who did come out and say she did her reporting with her legs in the air. Nary a blogger in the bunch.

Brenner does get one thing right. The people at the Times were glued to the blogs -- specifically Arianna -- and rubbing their hands together with glee, cackling as they watched Judy finally being held to account for the mountain of bullshit she'd been shoveling for years. If Arianna hadn't taken her on, Judy probably would probably still be working at the Times as if nothing had happened.

Everybody who covered Plame made mistakes as we tried to feed new bits of information into the equation, but relatively little of that happened with regard to Miller. If you go back and read emptywheel's Judy Miller series, definitely the Miller bible in the blogosphere, it holds up remarkably well. Judy was, is and continues to be full of shit and if anyone can find an allegation that was worse than anything she actually did I'd sure love to see it.

The Many Faces of John McCain

2006-03-11T12:25:00.000-08:00

Jamison Foser has a very good piece up at Media Matters right now about how the press fawns over John McCain, always looking for the favorable angle even as they let him skate on stuff for which they'd throw a Democrat on the barbecue:

Take, for example, the article Reuters ran about a forthcoming Vanity Fair article in which former Republican lobbyist and admitted felon Jack Abramoff disclosed that he "worked closely with many top Republicans, despite their claims to the contrary." The Vanity Fair article includes this passage:
"Mr. Abramoff flatters himself," Mark Salter, McCain's administrative assistant, tells [Vanity Fair contributing editor David] Margolick. "Senator McCain was unaware of his existence until he read initial press accounts of Abramoff's abuses, and had never laid eyes on him until he appeared before the committee."

Abramoff says, "As best I can remember, when I met with him, he didn't have his eyes shut. I'm surprised that Senator McCain has joined the chorus of amnesiacs."
The Reuters article about the Vanity Fair piece began: "Disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff said in the latest issue of Vanity Fair magazine that he worked closely with many top Republicans, despite their claims to the contrary."

Yet Reuters didn't mention John McCain at all, focusing instead on comparatively insignificant Republicans like Sen. Conrad Burns (R-MT) and Republican National Committee chairman Ken Mehlman. The Vanity Fair passage about McCain perfectly fit the premise of the Reuters article -- it shows Abramoff contradicting McCain's claim, through a spokesman, that he had never met Abramoff. If Abramoff is telling the truth, we've learned two things: McCain has ties to one of the most corrupt lobbyists ever to walk the earth, and he's lying about it. McCain is among the most famous Republicans in America, and a leading contender for the party's 2008 presidential nomination.

Yet Reuters omitted any mention of him from its article. Does anyone believe, even for a moment, that any other political figure of McCain's stature -- say, Hillary Clinton or John Kerry -- would have been the recipient of this kind of favorable treatment?

McCain would've signed that South Dakota abortion bill too, despite his carefully parsed caveat about taking "appropriate steps under state law -- in whatever state -- to ensure that the exceptions of rape, incest or life of the mother were included." But that's not what people are hearing from the Tweety's of the world who shut their ears to anything that might tie McCain to an extremely unpopular piece of legislation.

If John McCain is going to be beaten in 2008, cracking open the McCain myth has to start now. One of the ways we built up this blog was to take an issue people were really interested in, Traitorgate, and really dig into it such that we became one of the go-to places for Plame info. If I were going to pick an issue today that could virtually guarantee someone all the links they could eat -- and I don't mean just from us, I mean from all over the blogosphere -- it would be following McCain, digging into his history and covering what he does in depth on a day-to-day basis. Every blog can't cover every issue every day so when something arises you just naturally look to the person who makes it their business to be informed on that particular topic. McCain is already running for 2008, and as of yet there is no significant blog presence mobilizing against him.

Anyone who was willing to put the time in and do it well would have themselves a very large audience in a relatively short period of time, IMHO.

Update: As Atrios notes, McCain's stunt at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference was extremely stupid. He regularly gets away with mistakes like this because nobody really holds him to account. There is plenty of fertile ground for McCain posts; he is hardly the boyscout he pretends to be.

More Joke Line

2006-03-11T10:27:00.000-08:00

Now that the Dubai Ports World deal is dead, I guess it's time to admit that Joe Klein was right to be concerned about the massive waves of violence that would be triggered upon its demise. The Islamic world has arisen as one to fulfill the prophesies of people like Klein who suddenly developed such sensitivity to the tender feeling of those they couldn't be bothered to defend when people like Ann Coulter call them "ragheads." We should've listened to them.

Oh wait, sorry, Kobe's been chewing the remote again and I was watching Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Klein was wrong about this and everything else he's ever opened his mouth to say about Iraq. Joe just didn't fathom that people who become enraged at desecrations to the Koran really couldn't be bothered to take to the streets and kill each other as the result of a slight to a few robber barron sheikhs.

No the violence occurring in the Middle East right now can, in large part, be placed at the feet of addled thinkers like Klein who continue to parade before the cameras pimping for war and pontificating on this shit despite having proven time and time again that they have no fucking clue what they are talking about.

Thanks, CNN.

Roots Pennsylvania, Day II

2006-03-11T07:40:00.000-08:00

We got a great turnout for our Roots action Pennsylvania yesterday. A lot of people are appropriately angry about the Intelligence Committee's illegal NSA wiretap face flop and looking to let someone hear about it, and that someone might as well be Arlen Specter -- who can actually do something about it.

Lots of good posts:

Pennsylvania bloggers Chris at Rowhouse Logic, Lambert at Corrente and palady at The Lady Speaks
eRiposte at The Left Coaster
Smitheus at Daily Kos
John at Crooks & Liars

As the eloquent Pastor Dan says:

What we're trying to do is leverage the social network of blogs to coordinate citizen response to elected officials on important issues.

Whew. That's a mouthful. We're trying to find new ways for you to write to your Senators and Representatives, or to write letters to the editor for their benefit. It works, it really does.

Shorter short version: we're trying to create a "virtuous mob."

The list of Pennsylvania papers can be found here, and as Dan reminds us, it helps to live in the area but sometimes papers will run letters from outside writers.

A list of phone numbers for Specter's offices can be found here.

Memorandum covered the Roots project as well, the Hotline Blogometer has written about it on several occasions and I did an interview about it yesterday for In These Times. I think people intuitively realize how effective this can be and that effectiveness only increases with each person who's willing to pick up a phone or work that keyboard.

Late Nite FDL: We're Baaack!!!

2006-03-10T20:01:00.000-08:00

Well at least I am anyway. Reddhedd is on a Red Eye tonight and will be back in West Virginia tomorrow. It was quite the whirlwind trip.

We spent yesterday with Kos, Matt Stoller of MyDD, John Aravosis of AmericaBlog, Ian Welsh of BOP, Maryscott O'Connor of My Left Wing, Adam Green of MoveOn and author Roberto Lovato as guests of Working Assets in a workshop on media training. Gawd if there is anything more painful than standing up in front of people and speaking it can only be having a camera trained on you at the same time but we had fun, ate really good food, swapped war stories and learned much. I also got to have an eventful dinner with Swopa but more on that later.

I had to fly back to Oregon this morning but Redd stuck around to give her credit cards a workout and have a reader/blogger coffee with John Aravosis and Maryscott. John blogged about it here and our good friend Steve Rhodes took photos and posted them on Flickr. Redd's the one in the blue shirt and (surprise) red hair. Isn't she a beauty?

I'm still catching up but in the meantime lots of people are getting their copies of Crashing the Gates so if you're inclined to share your thoughts on the topic go over to Amazon and write a review or simply vote for the ones that are already there (I put mine up but it probably won't be on the site until tomorrow). Kos is going to be on Stephen Colbert on March 22 (I think) so political blogging should be in the news quite shortly in a meaningful way, as opposed to a thoroughly useless Hugh Hewitt wanky way.

Thanks so very much to Watertiger, Steve, Taylor, Greg, Scott and Pach for the superlative guest posting they did, and to everyone who was on troll patrol. We really appreciate the fine care you took of our wonderful readers and commenters and never worried for a minute that the blog was in anything but the best of hands.

Happy to be back on the beach with the dogs. Oh and I flashed Aravosis (not that he cared).

Did I miss anything?

They never know you when you get in trouble

2006-03-10T17:52:00.000-08:00

Claude Allen

This is funny.

This was up at the Corner, as Atrios pointed out.

CLAUDE ALLEN [John Podhoretz]

I wrote a book about the Bush White House. I know the names of many people who worked in the Bush White House. I've read every story there is to read about the Bush White House. I've been a political journalist for almost a quarter century, worked in a Republican administration, and gone to many right-wing parties. So let me say this about accused thief and former White House policy bigshot Claude Allen:

WHO?

Our friend Atrios posted this up as an answer

Grand Old Police Blotter

Was a bit weird when Claude Allen resigned.

Now we know:

When Claude Allen, President Bush's longtime domestic-policy adviser, resigned suddenly on Feb. 9, it baffled administration critics and fans. The White House claimed that Allen was leaving to spend more time with his family, while the Washington Times speculated that the 45-year-old aide, a noted social conservative, might have quit to protest a new Pentagon policy about military chaplains. Allen himself never publicly explained the reason for his departure.

News today may shed light on the mystery of Allen's resignation. According to the Montgomery County Police Department, Allen was arrested yesterday and charged in a felony theft and a felony theft scheme. According to a department press release, Allen conducted approximately 25 fraudulent "refunds" in Target and Hecht's stores in Maryland. On Jan. 2, a Target employee apprehended Allen after observing him receive a refund for merchandise he had not purchased. Target then contacted the Montgomery County Police. According to a source familiar with the case, Target and the police had been observing Allen since October 2005.

Allen is charged with practicing a form of shoplifting called "refund fraud."

Working in the White House causes stress.

Being a Black Republican wingnut must cause even more stress.

The two together must cause some kind of psychotic break.

Now, everyone is innocent until proven guilty, but you can see the vapor trails as the GOP runs away from this guy. The right blogosphere is pretending that they don't know who President Bush's chief domestic advisor and former federal judgeship nominee is because, well he's lost his mind.

And like all black servants of the GOP, well, he's just become disposable. No think tank job for him.

According to Think Progress, he made $161,000 a year, just like Karl Rove. Anyone know him?

Republicans Trot Troops Out for Photo Op

2006-03-10T15:49:00.001-08:00

... "The best info the congresswoman received is there is no violation in honoring Iraqi veterans, and that's what happened," said Guy Short, Musgrave's chief of staff. "It's unfortunate people are trying to make political hay out of an attempt to honor veterans of the Iraq war." Political reporter Joshua Micah Marshall, who writes for the Washington Monthly and is a columnist for The Hill - a weekly newspaper covering Congress - pointed to the incident as an example of the White House trying to use "uniformed military personnel as props at Republican political rallies."
Uniformed soldiers at GOP event raise hackles

It's the case of the missing picture. Is it legal, or is it stretching the limit? I'll present the facts, you decide.

Via Josh Marshall, we have another case of the disappearing art, but this time it concerns our troops.

Marshall's first post on the issue has the picture you see above, which features soldiers appearing at the Republican Lincoln Day dinner. But when Josh questioned the presence of uniformed military at a political event, the picture suddenly disappeared.

I follow military issues closely, but earlier in the week when I saw Josh's post, it was the first time I'd heard about the picture being nuked. I picked the story up here, with more here.

The Coloradoan, did a later follow-up, but as Josh says, the whole story needs more attention.

Republicans say they're only honoring the veterans of the Iraq war. Josh questions their presence, especially after hearing from JAG lawyers and others. I say the Republicans are using the troops as props in direct violation of military regulations, but that's my heart and gut talking, because I'm not a lawyer. Check out the following section of the DoD military regs.

4. POLICY

It is DoD policy to encourage members of the Armed Forces (hereafter referred to as "members") to carry out the obligations of citizenship. While on active duty, however, members are prohibited from engaging in certain political activities. The following DoD policy shall apply:

4.1.1. A member on active duty may:

4.1.1.1. Register, vote, and express his or her personal opinion on political candidates and issues, but not as a representative of the Armed Forces.

4.1.1.2. Make monetary contributions to a political organization.

4.1.1.3. Attend partisan and nonpartisan political meetings, rallies, or conventions as a spectator when not in uniform.

4.1.2. A member on active duty shall not:

4.1.2.1. Use his or her official authority or influence for interfering with an election; affecting the course or outcome of an election; soliciting votes for a particular candidate or issue; or requiring or soliciting political contributions from others.

4.1.2.2. Be a candidate for, hold, or exercise the functions of civil office except as authorized in paragraphs 4.2. and 4.3., below.

4.1.2.3. Participate in partisan political management, campaigns, or conventions (unless attending a convention as a spectator when not in uniform).

In her first piece for The Coloradoan, Lindsay Renick Mayer, makes the following point as well.

... The directive also states that in ambiguous cases, active-duty soldiers are to avoid any activities that seemingly associate the Department of Defense or the Department of Homeland Security directly or indirectly with partisan political activity.

The Larimer County Republican organization said that because it merely honored the soldiers instead of requiring their participation, they did not violate the code. ...

There is nothing about the Republican Lincoln Day Dinner that is remotely "ambiguous."

Honoring U.S. troops is a wonderful tradition of both parties. Trotting them out like mascots is wrong for either party to do.

Let's also remember what has happened to our military through Bush and the Republicans who control Congress. Look at the history Republicans have of smearing soldiers who don't stand silently and subserviently. They smeared John McCain, Max Cleland, John Kerry and now Jack Murtha. It's what they do to veterans who dare talk back. Need I also mention the grunts being the scapegoat for Abu Ghraib, while the bosses who invented the torture got off clean? As for policies, it's hard to keep up with how bad Bush is to our veterans and those serving today in Afghanistan and Iraq and around the world.

Honoring the Iraqi war veterans, by trotting them out to stand on stage at the Republican Lincoln Day dinner?

Republicans must mistake today's Dems for the Democratic Party before blogs were born.

The Bushies are busted and we've got the missing art to prove it. Oh, and speaking of art, if there's nothing wrong with what went on, just why did Republicans scrub the shot that showed Musgrave with the soldiers? Hmmmm.

Over the past few days I've had the distinct privilege to guest blog for Jane and ReddHedd, which has given me access to a great readership. I thank the goddesses of FDL, as well as the readers. You've challenged me and taught me things, as well as being so gracious to welcome my visit. I also appreciate the company I've kept these last few days.

And since I do still have your ear --- you knew this was coming -- I would love to hear from FDL readers who know about DoD milregs to ascertain what side of the legal line the Republicans are on asking our troops to pose at a political function. Remember, if our soldiers break the rules there are harsh punishments.

Oh, but I guess the Republicans don't care about that, as long as they get their photo with a hero.

- Taylor Marsh

"You can't spell 'tyrant'

2006-03-10T13:18:00.000-08:00

without I-R-A-N."

AP/Charles Dharapak

U.S. President George W. Bush has called Iran an issue of "grave national security concern" but said he wanted a diplomatic solution to the Islamic republic's nuclear ambitions.

Yeah, where have we heard THAT before? At least he's not advocating the Felafel O'Reilly approach . . . yet.

I'd like to take this moment to thank you FDL readers for being so kind to the substitutes over the past three days. It's been a real pleasure sharing these pages with you.

And thanks again to Jane and ReddHedd!

After SD Part III: The Best Defense of Reproductive Freedom Is A Good Offense

2006-03-10T12:55:00.000-08:00

The New State Logo.

Molly Saves the Day has 20 questions for those who allege that abortion is "baby killing." Ask them to most "pro-lifers," of course, and I'm sure you'll re-discover what you should already know: the number of anti-choicers who believe (or, at least, are willing to act in ways logically consistent with) their alleged premises could fit in a walk-in closet. And, of course, even the few who take a coherent position face the problem that criminal bans on abortion are highly unpopular. And, moreover, to Republican elites the optimal policy is not so much "abortion should be illegal" as "abortion should be illegal, but no quite so illegal that my daughter wouldn't be able to get one." (Because of the way abortion bans are actually enforced in practice, though, even an outright ban in most states can produce this outcome.)

For supporters of reproductive freedom, however, the problem is that American anti-choicers are as clever as they are illogical and unprincipled. They've constructed a very careful strategy of piecemeal regulations that have little impact on affluent women (but, cumulatively, seriously restrict abortion access for women who are poor, in rural areas, and/or in unstable familial relationships) and are politically palatable. And, to go along with this, they're currently in the courts trying to make it much more difficult to challenge these regulations. If this strategy succeeds, it would allow states to construct baffling obstacle courses without paying the political price of banning abortion, and would also have the perverse result of making the grossly inequitable effects of these regulations an argument in favor of their constitutionality. But as important as this legal strategy is, it's very difficult to explain why it matters. While it's almost impossible to defend these policy outcomes normatively, as pure politics it's very hard to counter, and in many cases it's hard to make it clear to the public what's at stake.

Which is the one potential silver lining of the appalling South Dakota law. It has the potential to blow their "reasonable regulation" cover, and make clear what will happen in many states if Roe is overturned: bans on abortion (albeit bans that inexplicably exclude women from punishments, don't have sanctions for doctors logically consistent with the idea that abortion is "baby-killing", etc.) Publius explains:

I'd actually go a couple steps further. I would ask every single Republican candidate up for re-election in 2006: "Do you support imprisoning doctors for performing abortions following rapes, as South Dakota’s new law demands?" If they hid behind the rape exception, then you could follow up with Oliver’s question about whether doctors should be thrown in jail for performing abortions more generally.

The combination of the Alito and Roberts confirmations along with the South Dakota law is, I think, a watershed moment in the abortion wars. The South Dakota law in particular should serve as a wake-up call to the pro-choice movement that its tactics aren’t working and that it needs to make some changes in its long-term strategy. To develop Oliver’s point, if I were a consultant, I would recommend that the pro-choice movement make two major changes: (1) It should shift its emphasis from a defensive legal strategy to an offensive political strategy; (2) It should shift the debate away from abortion itself – and the abstract questions of when life begins – and focus on crime and punishment. In other words, the movement should aim to make an abstract debate more concrete by focusing on criminal sanctions and the imprisonment of doctors and women.

The importance of this insight would be hard to overstate. The South Dakota law is a political opportunity, presenting the chance to make it clear that they mean it: not about abortion being "baby-killing," of course, but about criminalizing abortion as a way of inscribing the reactionary sexual mores of the GOP base into law. But opportunities are not self-executing: pro-choicers have to make it work. And this, ultimately, is what's so frustrating about the Saletan approach. Even before this pro-choicers already had many opportunities, starting with the fact that the national Republican Platform endorses a constitutional amendment that would make abortion first-degree murder in all 50 states. When was the last time you heard a Democratic politician mention that, even though maximizing the public's knowledge of their opponent's most unpopular positions would seem to be Politics 101? Instead, taking the advice of people like Saletan they accept the debate as it has been arbitrarily carved up by disingenuous pro-lifers, getting in sucked into ludicrous ginned-up non-issues like the "partial-birth" nonsense. The Republicans have been masterful about playing both ends, and keeping the debate focused on tangential side issues. The way to counteract this is not to go along with the existing discourse, but to change the terms of the debate, to make clear what Republicans want to do and put the debate in terms of keeping abortion legal, where public opinion massively favors the Democrats. The draconian (and illegal) actions of the South Dakota legislature provide an excellent frame for making this clear, but the Democrats need to start playing some offense.

[Cross-posted to L, G & M.]

The Rubber Stamp of Arlen Specter

2006-03-10T11:12:00.000-08:00

"If as a country we get used to a regime in which the president can basically treat laws that give him power as a basis for expanding his own authority beyond what anyone dreamed and treat laws in which Congress tries to restrict his power in a way that only Lewis Carrol, Franz Kafka and Alice and Wonderland and the trial could take seriously. What that means is that essentially the president is saying I'm a monarch. I can do what I want. I can play with Congress. I don't need their authority. ..." Lawrence Tribe

A belated added note to this post... Is this a preview of coming attractions, or will Specter hold the line? This is what I fear...

He's in the bag.

He's on the team.

He's with the boss.

Senator Arlen Specter, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, has decided to look the other way. He's decided that fitting in is more important than standing out and speaking up. Arlen Specter now just simply wants to be one of Bush's boys.

So when it comes to the President Bush's illegal spying on Americans, going around FISA, ignoring the law so he can have his way, Arlen Specter is part of the president's posse. Rubber stamp Repubicans can't be bothered with the law, but that isn't going to stop us. Glenn Greenwald gave the lay out. Jane said what to do. PastorDan and Corrente give the run down too.

But Senator Specter is determined to keep the truth from seeing the light of day, as he goes the way of rubber stamp Republican Roberts and all the rest. If you're from Pennsylvania, it's time to let Specter hear how you feel, that the president, any president, is not above the law.

The rule of law evidently no longer means anything. Read all about the Republican hypocrisy, straight from the elephants' mouth.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC): “The FISA Act was–created a court set up by the chief justice of the United States to allow a rapid response to requests for surveillance activity in the war on terror. I don’t know of any legal basis to go around that.”

Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA): “”There is no doubt that this is inappropriate.”

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ): “WALLACE: But you do not believe that currently he has the legal authority to engage in these warrant-less wiretaps. MCCAIN: You know, I don’t think so…”

Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS): “I am troubled by what the basis for the grounds that the administration says that they did these on, the legal basis…”
ThinkProgress

What Specter doesn't understand is that this isn't a partisan issue, or at least it shouldn't be. It's an American issue. Our personal freedoms, individual rights and privacy are what makes this country a democratic republic, separating us from dictatorships and the rules of kings.

But the rubber stamp Republicans, led by Senator Arlen Specter, no longer want to keep the chief executive in check. It's all the power to the presidency, at a real cost to we the people. These are lasting changes Bush and his boys are making to this country, without our approval. Specter and the other rubber stamp Republicans don't get to do that to our democracy.

Senator Arlen Specter is putting party above country, president above nation. It's weak. It's spineless, but it is also just plain wrong.

Why is the rule of law only applicable to Democratic Party presidents?

Why is President Bush getting away with an illegal spying program that is vast, unaccountable and never ending, without being held accountable? Because Senator Specter has now bought in.

Today on NPR, Sandra Day O'Connor spoke out about what the rubber stamp Republicans are doing to our courts. Over at Kos, philinmaine blogged it.

Retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor showed Thursday that she's not absent from judicial issues. During a speech in Washington, she said Republican leaders' attacks on the courts threaten the constitutional freedoms of Americans.
O'Connor Decries Republican Attacks on Courts

Being the chairman of the Judiciary Committee is supposed to mean something. American laws aren't partisan, or at least they're not supposed to be. We all know the sentencing reality of minorities, but that's not what we're talking about today. We're talking about the Republican chairman of the Judiciary committee who has decided that President Bush is above the law because he's one of them.

President Clinton got called on to the Senate floor and impeached for lying about sex, with Republicans railing about the "rule of law."

President Bush is has not been held accountable for one thing on his watch. It has reached such a level of abject hypocrisy on their "rule of law" mantra that Senator Arlen Specter feels George W. Bush shouldn't be questioned about going around the FISA court to illegally tap American citizens. To Specter, Bush is above the law even when he illegally wiretaps American citizens in a domestic warrantless wiretapping program, funneled secretly through the NSA that stretches so far that we actually don't even know how far it stretches, because President Bush doesn't believe he's even accountable to Congress.

Senator Specter is on the team, in the bag, backing Bush all the way. It is a disgrace in terms of congressional independence of the executive. It is a disgrace in terms of Congress again refusing to do the job The Founders intended. In fact, it is down right un-American.

The president of the United States is not above the law. That is unless he's a Republican in the era of George W. Bush, with the likes of Senator Arlen Specter chairing the Judiciary Committee.

- Taylor Marsh

UPDATE: Specter is holding hearings, yes, but when I saw the picture it infuriated me and gave me the impression that he's going to go along. Glenn Greenwald has the shot and raised the question. (I've added this link above.) I took it all the way.

UPDATE II: Here's more on retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor warning of "dictatorship."

Not since Nixon

2006-03-10T11:01:00.000-08:00

Like Nixon, huh?

A revolt not seen since Nixon

ANALYSIS

BY THOMAS M. DeFRANK
DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU CHIEF

WASHINGTON - Not since Watergate, when GOP congressional leaders told Richard Nixon they would vote him from office if he didn't resign, have Capitol Hill Republicans challenged their President like this.

......................

# Self-preservation. Bush has run his last race, but the midterm elections are less than eight months away, and Republicans are jittery about their prospects. Distancing themselves from a polarizing President whose job approval rating hits 40% on a good day is shrewd electoral positioning.

# Payback time. Republicans have seethed for years over what they consider insulting and arrogant treatment at the hands of Bush's lieutenants.

"Their idea of consultation is to tell us as little as possible and demand our blind support," a GOP House source complained.

Or as Rep. Tom Davis of Virginia, a House GOP power, told The Washington Post: "This is probably the worst administration ever in getting Congress' opinion on anything."

# Grass-roots groundswell. Even Republicans opposed to the deal on the merits were stunned by the negative fury it generated in the heartland.

"This is the heaviest volume that isn't organized I can ever remember on an issue," a top congressional Republican told the Daily News. "People get it, and they don't like it." In an election year, pols are especially loath to ignore voter sentiment back home.

........................

But having stiffed their President and lived to tell the tale, the mutineers have likely been emboldened to stray again.

This is a baby step in terms of Congress taking its oversight role seriously.

But with Gale Norton resigning today and the ongoing scandal around Karl Rove, this could soon be a lot more like Nixon than anyone imagined just last year.

Has the Bush Administration gotten a break since the begining of the year? No?

But the problem is that no matter how bad things are in Washington, Iraq looms over Bush in a way that he cannot handle. We are facing civil war and disaster. And while the US thinks they can hide and let them fight it out, the first target of an enraged populace will be the foreign invader.

Those shiftless, lazy people

2006-03-10T09:42:00.000-08:00

It's their fault

Racially charged e-mail stirs outrage
Rep. Welker cites his 'poor judgment' in forwarding essay

By Lynn Bartels, Rocky Mountain News
March 10, 2006

A Loveland lawmaker has been blasted by his colleagues for e-mailing an essay written by someone else that accused "welfare-pampered blacks" of waiting for the government to save them from Hurricane Katrina.

Rep. Jim Welker, a Republican, said Thursday morning that he forwarded the article because of its message about society victimizing people by making them dependent on government programs.

He said he didn't agree with everything in the essay.

One passage says, "President Bush is not to blame for the rampant immorality of blacks."

House lawmakers - black and white, Republican and Democrat - expressed outrage that Welker would forward such an essay.

Rep. Debbie Stafford, R-Aurora, who worked with Katrina evacuees when they came to Colorado, said she was "appalled and sickened."

"These (were) poor people. Many of them were senior citizens and had no way to escape the hurricane," said Stafford, who is white.

Rep. Terrence Carroll, D-Denver, called it "one one of the most irresponsible e-mails someone in this chamber has sent out."

"It shows (Welker's) complete and utter disregard, at worst, and the misunderstanding, at best, of the lives of people of color," said Carroll, who is black.

After the uproar, Welker issued the following statement late in the afternoon:

"Forwarding this e-mail, particularly without comment, showed poor judgment on my part. I found the opinions expressed by this individual, especially if taken literally, to be offensive and inappropriate. I should not have assumed that this would be clear when received by others."

He earlier said he should have put a disclaimer on the e-mail, and will do so in future e-mails of other writers' material.

Welker said he forwarded the e-mail over the weekend on his own computer.

But Democratic lawmakers have asked the legislature's technical staff to determine why copies of the e-mails forwarded to them by people who were upset with the content bear a time stamp of Monday afternoon, when Welker was in a committee hearing with his laptop computer.

Welker, who is white, said he wasn't implying anything about blacks by forwarding the essay.

"Some of my best friends are of different skin color, like Ed Jones," said Welker, referring to Sen. Jones, a Colorado Springs Republican who is black.

The odious e-mail was written by professional negro Jesse Lee Peterson, who seems not to like being black all that much. He's so crazy, he made Larry Elder shrink back.

On the News Blog we like to write about black Republicans, hell, challenge black Republicans a lot. Because, for the most part, they're pathetic dupes who continually swallow the disrespect of the GOP for reasons which I cannot fathom.

Peterson thinks he's some kind of challenge to the NAACP, when he would have been chased from any large room of black people. The last time I saw this loon on TV, he was in a room full of white people at the Heritage Foundation. I mean, at every turn, you see these people, from the always pathetic LaShawn Barber to people like Peterson, grovelling for the support for people who hold them in utter and complete contempt.

The Republicans never listen to the black professionals in their ranks, not that most black people have any respect for them anyway. I once saw former USA Today columnist Deborah Mathis ask some GOP lackey "why was she a Republican" in the kind of tone people usually reserve for child molesters and cannibals.

What most people don't get is that black Republicans, are in a way, seen as betraying the community. The idea that someone like Lynn Swann can walk into a black church and get votes is well, silly. Because the black church is a repository for professionals, teachers, nurses, the people most likely to be unionized and least likely to be interested in the tired and insulting GOP pitch that black people are on the "democratic plantation".

The RNC went nuts, along with their blogger amen choir, when a study showing racists gravitate to the Republican party.

Gee, between Fancy Ford rollin' in an Escalade and wearin' Armani, and the rantings of Jesse Lee Peterson "self-hating negro", why would anyone think that the GOP appeals to racists?

Closing the barn door...

2006-03-10T08:43:00.000-08:00

um, not THAT one.

Pointing to the experiences of developing countries and formerly Communist countries, where interference with an independent judiciary has allowed dictatorship to flourish, O’Connor said we must be ever vigilant against those who would strong-arm the judiciary into adopting their preferred policies. It takes a lot of degeneration before a country falls into dictatorship she said, but we should avoid these ends by avoiding these beginnings.

Hey, Sandra, about that decision you and the majority made back in 2000 -- you know, the one that appointed Bush king? Let me guess. You're not feeling too good about it now, are you?

Atrios has more.

Roots Pennsylvania

2006-03-10T06:42:00.000-08:00

Now that the Senate Intelligence Committee has caved like a bad souffle and voted not to investigate the illegal NSA wiretaps it's time to put some serious pressure on Arlen Specter, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee. We need Pennsylvanians to write letters to the editors of every major Pennsylvania paper and call Specter in his DC offices to demand real oversight of the NSA wiretapping program by the Judiciary Committee.

Local blog PSoTD has a great post up about this effort this morning. Glenn Greenwald and Anonymous Liberal have been doing a superb job covering the major points of this matter so if you need a talking points refresher you can find it at Unclaimed Territory. And Pastor Dan and rkrider have put together a terrific newspaper contact list at pennsylvaniaroots.blogspot.com which they will be continually updating, so if you're from Pennsylvania or have a reasonable tie to the state and feel qualified to write a personal appeal please do so. Therisites2 at VichyDems also has Specter's office contact info.

Local blog PSoTD has a great post

I'll be home tonight, thanks to everyone for taking such good care of the blog while we've been gone. If anyone needs to do their good deed for the day they can certainly chalk one up by giving Arlen Specter something to think about.

The Chickenhawk in Winter

2006-03-10T04:36:00.000-08:00

Nearly four out of five Americans, including 70 percent of Republicans, believe civil war will break out in Iraq — the bloody hot spot upon which Bush has staked his presidency. Nearly 70 percent of people say the U.S. is on the wrong track, a 6-point jump since February.

"Brother, can you spare a few percentage points?"

REUTERS/Jim Young

OT - Atrios points out this spot-on quote about the Preznit from Graydon Carter:

He speaks to the audience as if they're idiots. I think the reason he does that is because that's the way these issues were explained to him.

Getcher Hot Links! Late Nite FDL Edition

2006-03-09T23:38:00.000-08:00

Since I have a new audience, and many of you may not read all of the stuff I do, a few things of interest from around the intarweb (plus a thread for any night owls out there):

More evidence for Barney Frank's dictum that for Republicans, life begins at conception and ends at birth. (Although, in fairness, they now seem to think that life begins again when your cerebral cortex is liquefied.)
Once you've compared Charles Johnson to Van Gogh, I think you're several trillion light years beyond self-parody.
Earlier today, I mentioned my skepticism about Robert Casey Jr. both on the merits and in terms of the politics. I don't know enough about Pennsylvania politics to comment on his challengers, but eRobin of Factesque has lots of great stuff in support of one of his challengers, Chuck Pennachio.
The Ezra awards! All 3 blogs he recommends are outstanding. (See Laura here, for example, noting some innumerate pro-war hackwork passed on uncritically by Glenn Reynolds, and here on blogs and elections.
After a similar case ended in an acquittal, it's good that there was a just outcome in the horrifying OC rape case. (Via Fantasy Life.) Background on the case (including remarkably misogynist conduct by the defense attorney--who relentlessly slandered a young woman repeatedly assaulted while unconscious) here.
And the wingnut drive to invade Iran gains steam, although exactly what we'll attack them with our troops in an endlessly wasteful quagmire in Iraq remains unspecified.
And, finally,World O' Crap on fraudulent war profiteering (and--of course--less-than-zealous enforcement at the DOJ.)

Enjoy!

The Eternal Search for a Message

2006-03-09T22:03:00.000-08:00

To call Slate's lazy hatchet-job of Republican conventional wisdom "bullshit" would be a compliment to the fecal matter of male bovines. Nevertheless, if you look beyond the Pelosi, Reid, and Dean bashing, there's a tiny bit that's worthwhile :

But more important than what the three stooges do wrong is what they can't seem to do at all, namely articulate a positive agenda for reform and change. Voters have grown disenchanted with Bush's mishandling of the war in Iraq and the country's finances, and with the evangelical tilt of many of his policies. But there remains a baseline mistrust of Democrats on security, the economy, and values issues. For a sweep big enough to recover both houses of Congress, the party will almost certainly need an affirmative message as well as a negative one.

Granted this is a summary of the same hackneyed "What's the Democratic message?" question that journalists have been writing in a tag-team fashion for a few years now, but it does hint at an important point.

If the Republicans lose in November, that doesn't necessarily mean the Democrats won.

I've been hard on the Democrats for being spineless cowards who aren't even willing to defend themselves, but this whole obsession with coming up with the "message" is way overblown. Yeah, you guys need to get your shit together, be on the same page, and offer a compelling alternative to the GOP culture of corruption, but there's no rush. The "Contract with America" came out only six weeks before the 1994 midterms. If you guys are still entertaining fantasies of having a similar victory, you should keep your cards extremely close to your chest until it's close enough to election day for the country to remember your ideas.

As far as what those ideas should be, I'd suggest taking a cue from FDR. Something like this from his final State of the Union address would make a good foundation for the future of the Democratic party :

This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights—among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty.

As our Nation has grown in size and stature, however—as our industrial economy expanded—these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.

We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. "Necessitous men are not free men." People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all regardless of station, race, or creed.

Among these are:

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the Nation;

The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

The right of every family to a decent home;

The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

America's own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for our citizens. For unless there is security here at home there cannot be lasting peace in the world.

Maybe you could borrow some of the wording from FDR's "Four Freedoms" speech as well. If the Democrats came out with their "Freedom Agenda" that focused on pursuing a freedom from want, freedom from fear, etc., it could go a long way towards ending the myth that the Republican party is the only one that has any ideas.

Late Nite FDL: What You Can Do. . . NOW

2006-03-09T20:52:00.000-08:00

Last night I wrote about social movements and how they develop. That's all well and good, but social movements don't develop on their own. The part left out of last night's discussion was how you can make our progressive movement successful over the long haul.

Social movements unfold through the power of social networks. My training is in psychology. I know all human change happens in the context of relationships. As a student of social change and personal influence, I know the most powerful, influential people are those who have diverse social networks.

What does that mean?

Let me put it to you this way: You regulary interact with a pretty stable number of the same people every week. That's your core social network. Some people have networks of people who mostly don't even know each other. Some people occupy worlds of closed networks, where most of the people in their core group all also know each other.

It turns out the people who have the most influence - the most ability to "infect" others with new ways of thinking - are those with diverse networks. And furthermore, the more "loose" contacts you have with people, the more influential you can be as well. I can see that in my life: I can more easily persuade people who know me as an acquaintance than I can my partner, who certainly has his own way of thinking, thank you very much!

The big job we in the netroots have from here on out is to move beyond our closed networks in real life to meet new people. We need to get involved in something that is different, where we can talk to, work with and get to know others we do not know today. The beliefs and biases of most voters form long before election season starts.

What are your interests? Join a baking club. Better yet, get involved in local politics or political parties. That's what the fundamentalists did. They literally stopped preaching to the choir and got involved in local councils and school boards. That's how they built their movement, bit by bit, until they became the voting engine of the Republican Crime Syndicate and got the two Supreme Court judges they wanted.

We are often accused of speaking to each other in an echo chamber, and sometimes it's true. But more and more, netroots activists are pushing to have an impact in the real world. The joint effort arising partly from this site to coordinate local letters to the editor targeting specific senators is a case in point. Those efforts, and others like them, are just the baby steps, just the beginnings of the work we have ahead of us. They are great, but we need more.

Writing letters, sending faxes, calling representatives, contributing money. . . these are all good and necessary things. But we become exponentially more powerful when we can build relationships with those who eventually might jump in with us when we ask them to. We can still congregate online to get fresh information and up-to-date news. But that's not enough: we need to make new friends offline.

Some of you may be scared to venture out that way. But we can coordinate here and share stories and tips with each other, encouraging each other, helping each other maximize our impact. Heck, I'll be glad to pitch in. I coach executives, and I'll be glad to coach activists. You won't be in this alone.

I get frustrated when I hear people make comments about how hopeless the Dems are or how hopeless political trends are, in their view. I take a back seat to no one in pressuring the Dems, as I think my writings demonstrate. But matters are not hopeless if we (you!) act.

I'm more loyal to a progressive movement and its ideals than I am to the Democratic Party, but I know there's no way to have an effective progressive movement without pushing and infiltrating the Democratic Party, bit by bit, year after year. That means making tough choices.

I don't expect newly announced Dem senatorial candidate Webb will be very strong on gay issues, and here in Virginia, my family lives under a particularly nasty apartheid-like system of family law. Gay issues are very personal and important to me, believe me. But those issues will fare better with a Majority Leader Reid and Dems chairing all the senate committees than they will with George Allen and the GOP Crime Syndicate in charge. What's more, a damaged Georga Allen from a tough campaign is a weakened presidential candidate.

As tempting as it will be to sit the Virginia senate race out, I'm going to pitch in. If he's elected, I'll hold Webb's feet to the fire later. Gay issues can't even come to a vote in a Republican held senate. And with Webb, we can probably do better on health care, Iraq and a host of other issues that may not affect me as directly, but which affect us all a lot. Being part of a progressive movement means banding together with your allies to be successful, rather than be picked off and steamrolled separately due to the purity of our devotion to our most personal causes.

I sympathise with those who have little stomach for these kinds of compromises. These compromises are peronal, and for many, they are painful. But I also think it's fair to say this: if you're not willing to take action, then don't complain. If you don't act, don't waste anyone else's time with your negativity.

The rest of us have work to do.

We hope you'll join us.

Graphic by Pachacutec

Wow, the race card so soon?

2006-03-09T19:10:00.000-08:00

When you see Harold Ford, the NRSC wants you to see him

NRSC website assails ‘Fancy Ford’

Wednesday, March 08, 2006

Rep. Harold Ford (D-Tenn. ) is taking flak for attending a Playboy Super Bowl party and spending thousands of campaign dollars on flowers and “lavish hotel stays. ”

A website being launched by the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) repeatedly refers to the fifth-term congressman, running for the seat being vacated by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn. ), as “Fancy Ford” and includes pictures of expensive restaurants, hotel facilities, cigars, tulips and Playboy bunnies.

“It makes you wonder … what would the folks back in Tennessee think? ” the site asks.

NRSC spokesman Brian Nick said: “The overall theme of the site points out how Fancy Ford has become a Washington insider who is very out of touch with Tennessee values. ”

Nick added that the site is linked to the NRSC website and will target activists across the country on the Internet. The NRSC will also buy Web ads to drive traffic to the site, he said.

The Ford campaign declined to comment.

So why use the word fancy?

Well, according to Encarta:

fancy man

noun
1. woman's lover: the lover or boyfriend of a woman, especially a married woman (dated informal)
2. Same as pimp
(archaic)

There's no reason to make an issue of his spending in this way. You can bet that the picture of the Playboy bunnies, all white, is about more than his high living.

It's about station, class and race. How can this high toned negro live so well and chase white women. The more you click the links, the worse it gets.

The fact is that Ford is doing the exact same things all the other Congressman do. What? Is he supposed to have a senatorial fundraiser at McDonalds?

There is a clear racial subtext here, because of the use of the word Fancy. There's more than alliteration here. Because there's a tone that Ford doesn't deserve this kind of lifestyle, that's getting above himself. And in the South, that has a racial connotation. Because no one gave a damn about Bill Frist and his hightoned living habits. Anyone sneer at him going to Harvard and being rich?

I doubt it.

Attention: Senate Democrats

2006-03-09T18:23:00.000-08:00

Don't Be So Fucking Polite!

The Senate is a funny place.

And I don't mean "funny" as in boogers flying, laugh-your-ass-off funny.

Collegiality and all that. People who hate each other - and I mean HATE each other - refer each other as "My good friend. . ." or as "The Gentlelady from (fill in the state)." On the inside, they're all roller derby eye scratchers, but on the outside, they satisfy Church Lady Brady's Rules for Pleasant Cocktail Chatter®.

Now, I understand and appreciate Senate tradition, and the importance of respectful dialogue in the halls where political opponents come together to govern a diverse nation.

But, dear Senate Dems, have you noticed that your "friends" across the aisle don't give a flying fuck about working with you? Have you noticed they don't give a flying fuck about governing? Or about the public good? Have you noticed they are fucking currupt as shit? Is my swearing fucking bothering you?

Excuse me while I douche my mouth.

Enough already with being polite when it means the president asserts the right to ignore the fucking law and the Constitution.

From Glenn Greenwald:

No matter how strong of an immunity one thinks one has constructed against being shocked and disgusted by the acts of national Democrats, it always turns out that it's never actually strong enough. On Tuesday, after the Intelligence Committee vote not to investigate the President's illegal eavesdropping on Americans, Sen. Rockefeller angrily said that the Committee was "under the control" of the White House.

What a difference a day makes. Here is the description from The New York Times of what Sen. Rockefeller did yesterday:

But on Wednesday, the Democratic vice chairman of the committee, Senator John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia, issued a conciliatory statement, saying that while he favored a full investigation, a committee decision on Tuesday to appoint a seven-member subcommittee to oversee the N.S.A. eavesdropping was "a step in the right direction."

This is not the only example of senatorial sqeamishness we've seen. Even former boxer Harry Reid has succumbed, after he wrote this (emphasis added):

I have been in public service for over 40 years and never been as disillusioned as I am today. In 1977, I was appointed chairman of the Nevada Gaming Commission. It was a difficult time for the gaming industry and Las Vegas, which were being overrun by organized crime.

During the next few years, there would be threats on my life, FBI stings and even a car bomb placed in my family's station wagon. What is happening today in Washington is every bit as corrupt as when Las Vegas was run by the mob, but the consequences for our country are worse.

These Republicans have created the most corrupt government in our history. Their "K Street Project" is a shakedown machine that would make the mafia blush. We cleaned up Las Vegas, and we will clean up Washington DC.

Enough with the Queensberry Rules, people. If you stand together, speak the truth and risk insult (gasp!) to your fucking criminal brethren, the voters will respect you.

And then we can fucking win.

Update: I'm not saying Senators should swear at each other. I'm swearing like a sailor here for rhetorical, dramatic effect. I just want them to speak the truth plainly, bluntly, even when it stings and "poisons" the air in the Senate.

This is one of those periods in history when being blunt will work for you politically. But you have to agree to do this together. When you leave one of your own stuck out there ahead of the crowd, you let the other side brand him or her as an angry lunatic.

Howard Dean's candor does not hurt you. But when you leave him out there to draw fire without backing him up and defending him, you hurt the party. When the establishment Dem consultants tell you not to look weak, well, in spite of their timid counsel, this is how you do it.

Graphic by Pachacutec

BushCo., Inc. - Where Every Day is Groundhog Day.

2006-03-09T17:21:00.000-08:00

Despite Hoelscher’s apparent total lack of professional management or security experience, the press release announcing his appointment praises his qualifications and claims he will now be providing “strategic counsel” to Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff...

"Well, he knows how to use email."

REUTERS/Linda Spiller

After South Dakota Pt. II: Stand Up For Roe

2006-03-09T15:36:00.000-08:00

Drink to his health.

As most of you know, pro-life rhetoric in the U.S. is, more than anything, focused on diversion, using the language of states' rights or "reasonable regulations" to advance their agenda of banning abortion entirely. Perhaps the most common strategy is to argue that "everyone knows" that Roe is wrong, and therefore everyone should agree that it's illegitimate (although, mysteriously, this rhetoric temporarily vanishes when a Supreme Court confirmation hearing is in progress.) It's important for pro-choicers to understand that most of these claims about Roe are false. In the course of his celebration of South Dakota's legislature using illegal means to compel young women to give birth to their own sisters, Captain Ed offers a typical example, arguing that "[n]o one these days defends the basic legal framework of Roe, with even Justice Ruth Ginsburg noting its legal flaws." First of all, is it true that "nobody" defends the "basic legal framework of Roe? Sadly, no! (TM) As Justice Stevens pointed out while explaining the egregious unconstitutionality of the cutting-edge anti-choice diversionary technique of passing irrational bans of what they call (using a scientifically meaningless term) "partial birth abortions":

Justice Ginsburg and Judge Posner have, I believe, correctly diagnosed the underlying reason for the enactment of this legislation–a reason that also explains much of the Court’s rhetoric directed at an objective that extends well beyond the narrow issue that this case presents. The rhetoric is almost, but not quite, loud enough to obscure the quiet fact that during the past 27 years, the central holding of Roe v. Wade has been endorsed by all but 4 of the 17 Justices who have addressed the issue. That holding--that the word "liberty" in the Fourteenth Amendment includes a woman’s right to make this difficult and extremely personal decision–-makes it impossible for me to understand how a State has any legitimate interest in requiring a doctor to follow any procedure other than the one that he or she reasonably believes will best protect the woman in her exercise of this constitutional liberty.

And who are the judges who joined or voted to affirm a holding that every reactionary call center manager in the country knows to be indisputably wrong? These radical Trotskyites include 3 of Nixon's 4 appointments, Ford's only appointment, 2 of St. Reagan's 3 appointments, and 1 out of the first Bush's 2 appointments. That's one far-reaching conspiracy to subvert the law! Morrissey also is highly misleading about Ginsburg's argument. Ginsburg never disputed the correctness of the holding in Roe; she just argued it would have been preferable to decade the case on equal protection grounds. It's true that most people have serious criticisms about the quality of Blackmun's opinion in the case--I certainly wish that the opinion had been more along the lines of Douglas' opinion in Doe or Stevens' devastating rebuttal of White in Thornburgh--but the fact that an opinion doesn't exhibit perfect craftsmanship (which is hardly unusual, even among landmark opinions) is not to say that the outcome of the case is wrong. So why does Morrissey think that the opinion is indefensible? In an earlier post, he says:

And in all honesty, Roe was bad jurisprudence, no matter what one thinks of the outcome. The reasoning behind Roe allows any Supreme Court at any time to declare anything unconstitutional, as long as five jurists can find an emanation from a penumbra of a out-of-context piece of text that may or may not have anything to do with the issue at hand. It certified a procedure that should have a fancy name in Latin, but it would nonetheless mean "making it up as we go along". Without a doubt, the South Dakota legislature would not have attempted to do this ten years ago with the composition of the Supreme Court at that time, but now they feel they have as receptive a panel as they are likely to ever have.

First of all, as many of you know the "penumbras and emanations" language appears nowhere in Roe v. Wade. While the decision cites Griswold (the case where the language actually appears), Blackmun's analysis (such as it is) relies not on Douglas' majority opinion but on the due process reasoning of the concurrence written by Warren Court house conservative John Marshall Harlan. This helps to clarify what Morrissey and so many armchair critics of Roe are up to. He is not making the perfectly reasonable "pull the thread" argument against Roe, which accepts that court's decades-long recognition of a fundamental right to privacy but simply argues that it does not apply in the particular case of abortion. Rather, he's saying that any structurally inferred right to privacy is nonsensical. In other words, to Captain Ed, forced abortions, forced sterilization, bans on the use of contraception--all perfectly legitimate exercises of state power because the Constitution does not prohibit them in exactly those words. He's welcome to this view, but to claim that virtually nobody disagrees with him is ridiculous.

And so, of course, as I explained in excessive detail last year (1, 2, 3) Morrissey's claim that "The reasoning behind Roe allows any Supreme Court at any time to declare anything unconstitutional" is just ahistorical nonsense. Reasonable people can disagree, but to argue that applying long-established rights involving educating children, forced sterilization and contraception to the directly related area of abortion provides unlimited judicial power is silly. The holding in Roe is a perfectly logical application of precedents that are well-established, and there's no reason for pro-choicers to be defensive about it.

And, of course, under the second Bush administration the accusations of "judicial activism" (i.e. "judgifying I don't like") ring especially hollow. It's not just that the conservatives on the Rehnquist strike down more acts of Congress than any Court since the New Deal, or have no problem playing in the penumbras and emanations of the 11th Amendment in order to assert that the state universities have legal immunities similar to those of 17th century British monarchs. There's the decision that put George Bush in the White House. The completely indefensible Bush v. Gore 1)was entirely unprecedented, 2)involved a majority putting narrow partisan interests ahead of long-held legal principles (including two justices who read the equal protection clause so narrowly that they don't believe it applies to gender discrimination but invented a new right to have ballots cast under different systems counted under uniform standards), and 3)was so unprincipled that not only did they decline to apply the newly-minted right to future cases but weren't even willing to provide a logical remedy in the case itself. None of these things are true of Roe v. Wade: it applied an extensive body of relevant precedent, was an expression of sincerely held (though contestable) legal principles, and the justices in the majority logically applied the principle in both that case and future cases. So if Roe v. Wade is illegitimate "judicial activism" that state governments are right to nullify, Bush's presidency itself is something well beyond illegitimate. Somehow I don't think we'll be hearing this from many of Roe's amateur critics.

Pro-choicers have no reason, in other words, not to fight for Roe. The decision was right, and many of its critics have no idea what they're talking about. Don't back down.

(Cross-posted to L, G & M.)

O'Reilly Referees Christian Right Fight

2006-03-09T14:04:00.000-08:00

... Meanwhile, the controversy surrounding Mr. Reed continues to create tension for other evangelical leaders. E-mails released by the Senate Indian Affairs Committee indicate Mr. Reed told Mr. Abramoff that he would solicit anti-gambling help from big-name evangelicals including James Dobson and Tom Minnery of Focus on the Family. Days later, each wrote letters to U.S. Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton, protesting the opening of a casino in Louisiana.

In a Feb. 6, 2001, e-mail, Mr. Abramoff asked whether Mr. Reed "can get Dobson on the radio" to criticize Republican Haley Barbour for supporting the new casino's opening. Mr. Reed replied: "yes. there's a history there." Mr. Abramoff replied: "Let me know when Dobson hits him. I want to savor it." On Feb. 19, Mr. Reed assured Mr. Abramoff: "we're negotiating that now. don't have a green light yet, but they are very interested." ...
Focus on Finances

Via Max Blumenthal on Huffington Post comes a walk through the Christian right, with Ralph Reed all tied together with Jack Abramoff, which has brought some fresh hell to Dr. Dobson of Focus on the Family. But it's really all about Ralph Reed right now. Get ready for a ride, especially since the "big giant head," to quote Keith Olbermann, has decided to play referee.

Last night on "The Factor," the first guest up was none other than Dr. Dobson. You might remember the good doctor from Samuel Alito's recent thank you note, or maybe it's his non-stop jihad on all things post 18th century. Well, last night Bill O'Reilly offered Dobson an opportunity to answer charges from a group called DefCon, whose cause is "Campaign to Defend the Constitution Because the Religious Right is Wrong." Amen.

Dobson was in a near tizzy over the implication that he had anything whatsoever to do with Ralph Reed's current troubles that extend across the south, compliments of his religious right hypocrisy. As a renegade member of the "frozen chosen" I'm all ears when hypocrisy hits the news.

Tonight, O'Reilly is supposed to have people on from DefCon, in an effort to be "fair and balanced," so we'll see what evolves. One thing is clear is that the quiet problems of Ralph Reed and his connection with Jack Abramoff, as well as Dobson's involvement, have put a spotlight on a growing rift in the Republican religious right. That's the story Blumenthal lays out for us all.

Enter Marvin Olasky, the guy who coined "compassionate conservatism" back when Bush was governor. Olasky's the one who also created Bush's Faith Based Initiative program, once he hit the White House. Well, now Olasky is miffed and coming after the people in the Christian right who are tangled up with Abramoff. Olasky's World Magazine, one of the largest evangelical mags around, recently took out straight for Ralph Reed, with some blowback hitting the estimable James Dobson and his Focus on the Family. From one evangelical to another, can you feel the love, baby?

So what does this all mean?

Olasky's World is saying that corrupt evangelicals have to stand up, admit their wrongs, then do penance. It doesn't matter if you're Republicans or not, because if you're involved in illegal actions you're simply not doing God's work, which is the bottom line. But now Olasky, The World and his reporter are getting heat from Dobson and the Christian right, with O'Reilly now aiding their cause on Fox.

As every regular reader of my blog knows, the thing that truly bothers me about the right is their stranglehold on terrestrial radio, which I've been involved in for a long time. It starts with Rush and Sean, but gets really serious as it spreads into Christian broadcasting, all of which have a line to Armed Forces Radio. Progressives just got on AFR in late 2005! That's why Jane and Glenn's Roots Project, along with Mike Stark's work, are so important. Though obviously they're working in a parallel frame to mine, it's all connected to getting the grass roots active.

Well, Dobson ran right to radio when The World and Olasky's reporter came after him. Nice to have that built in network, isn't it?

"They [World] have a reporter who wanted me to dump on ralph reed because of Jack Abramoff. I wouldn't do it. So in the story they wrote, the made it seem like I was covering up for Ralph. they terribly misused the interview I gave them, and in the letter I wrote them, I tried to set the record straight. They refused to print it. So maybe I'm overreacting. But it is tough when your friends criticize you for something that shouldn't be."
via Max Blumenthal

But now not only does Olasky have to fight Dobson and his radio roots, but O'Reilly has given him another boost through Fox. Talk about media mafia.

But Olasky and The World aren't backing down.

If Reed had been transparent, he would have faced disagreement but would not now be facing disgrace. He has shamed the evangelical community by providing evidence for the generally-untrue stereotype that evangelicals are easily-manipulated and that evangelical leaders are using moral issues to line their own pockets.

The Ralph Reed Scandal

The issue comes down to hypocrisy. You don't get to play Christian, preening about your piety publicly, while gaming the odds and stiffing the notion of integrity privately, or at least you shouldn't. You don't get to have a "golden boy" image like Ralph Reed's, when you're actually doing the work of the devil by double crossing the people who put their faith in you.

Reed needs to pay for his hypocrisy through exposure, then pay for his crimes if there are any. That another branch of the evangelical movement is holding him to account, while simultaneously driving a stake through his image is not only ironic, it's political justice of a holy order.

Just imagine the Republican Party with a Christian right out of favor and out of power, because their pulpit politicians have been made to do a moral, if not actual, perp walk. Now hold that picture as a visualization.

cross-posted at Taylor Marsh
I do podcasts Mon-Thur., including on
this story, found here.

C'mon General Washington.

2006-03-09T11:20:00.000-08:00

You know you want to.

Reuters/Jim Young

Why I Don't Care About What Paul Begala or James Carville Think About Anything

2006-03-09T10:34:00.000-08:00

Stunningly, It Could Have Been Worse

Michael Berube reminds us, in the wake of South Dakota's brand spanking new abortion ban, about how the reactionary vanity candidate who handed the 2000 election to George Bush was saying at the time about how little difference it made who occupied the White House, while repeating the myth that overturning Roe "would just send the issue back to the states" and wouldn't result in any major restrictions on choice. Oh-oh spaghetti-o's! (In fairness, though, I too wouldn't label Nader a "closet" cultural conservative; actually, he's quite open about it.)

Still, despite my unyielding contempt for Nader, even I was sympathetic to one argument advanced by some friends who voted for him: their revulsion at putting a check next to Joe Lieberman's name. I can't deny that this was hard to stomach. What's amazing, though, is Michael's archival find--the alternative suggestion advanced at the time by Paul Begala and James Carville, the Democratic Party's self-appointed saviors:

By choosing former Georgia governor Zell Miller as his running mate, Al Gore could add intellectual brainpower, rhetorical firepower, and lots of plain old populist piss-and-vinegar to this staid election.

[...]

Miller would bring to the ticket a compelling personal story. In an election in which the final four candidates were the sons of a bank president, an admiral, a senator, and a president, Zell Miller was the son of a teacher--a teacher who died when Miller was just two weeks old. Raised by his mother in Appalachia, in a rock house she built herself, Miller found his focus in the United States Marine Corps, and his unabashed patriotism, combined with his down-home populism, makes him an American classic.

Zell Miller is also a world-class campaigner and orator. His keynote address to the 1992 Democratic convention ranks with Barbara Jordan's and Mario Cuomo's as one of the finest examples of powerful rhetoric and partisan passion.

At a time when politics seems moribund, Zell would bring energy. When people are looking for heroes, Zell's the real thing. And when Democrats need someone who's not afraid to open up a can of whupass on the radical right, they need look no further than Zell Miller.

Oh yes, what a fantastic idea for the 2000 ticket--the right-wing-even-for-a-Republican-Senator-Zell Miller. (At least Holy Joe has a nominally decent voting record.) I suppose one person's "down-home populism" is another person's vile Dixiecrat demagoguery, but frankly I thought that this was kind of "powerful rhetoric" the Democrats abandoned after LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act. (I can't deny Miller's "partisan passion," but generally one prefers it not to be directed against one's own ticket.) Anyway, I'm not sure it's possible for me to give less credence to their support of take-our-word-for-it "populist" Bob Casey Jr., but I certainly am not going to modify my position on the issue. That Begala is telling anyone who will listen what a great catch Casey is counts as another strike against him in my book....

[Cross-posted to L, G & M.]