Hullabaloo

Wednesday, February 28, 2007

 
Sorry for the light posting. Blogger was bloggered.

Culture War Surrender

by digby

Lawrence Kudlow has apparently written some stupid rehash of every Clinton scandal that is, as they all were, completely full of shit. Media Matters has set the record straight here if you want the details.

But really. The country (with the exception of professional Clenis stalker, Chris Matthews) has left this stuff far behind. They know that the taxpayers spent more than $70 million and came up with exactly zilch on every single one of those charges. They know that the press went inexplicably mad for a period and they have moved on, even if the Republicans are hitching their pathetic wagons to limp hopes of a reprise of interest in Clinton's personal life. After the Starr Report, we found out far more than anyone ever wanted to know about that, and yet Bill Clinton had a 60% approval rating when he left office and remains incredibly popular today.

But here's a bit of a puzzle:

In the Republican race, former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, who recently made clear his intentions to seek the presidency, has expanded his lead over Sen. John McCain of Arizona. Giuliani holds a 2 to 1 advantage over McCain among Republicans, according to the poll, more than tripling his margin of a month ago.

The principal reason was a shift among white evangelical Protestants, who now clearly favor Giuliani over McCain.

Odd, don't you think, considering these people are the ones who were so horrified by Bill Clinton's affair. Evidently, this is just fine and dandy, however:

“It would be one thing if Giuliani could say, ‘I’m a strong social conservative in my private life’, but he can’t even say that,” said Ramesh Ponnuru, a conservative commentator and author of The Party of Death, an attack on social liberalism. “It’s not just the fact of his multiple marriages, it is the way the Hanover marriage melted down. It was operatic.”

When Giuliani met Hanover on a blind date in the early 1980s, his first marriage to Regina, his second cousin, was already over. Hanover, who went on to appear in the television series Ally McBeal, was a glamorous soulmate who seemed to enjoy the spotlight as much as he did.

They had two children, Andrew, 21, and Caroline, 17, but in 1996 Hanover stopped calling herself by his last name and a year later Vanity Fair magazine said that he was having an “intimate relationship” with a senior member of his staff.

In 2000, without telling Hanover first, Giuliani announced at a press conference that he was separating from her. She retaliated by accusing him of being unfaithful with the employee, but he was already with Nathan.

Maggie Gallagher, a family values campaigner, was outraged by Giuliani’s “scummy” performance, accusing him of making Bill Clinton “look good as a husband and father”.

New Yorkers learnt during the divorce case that their cancer- afflicted mayor was temporarily impotent and Hanover demanded a huge settlement, including £760 a month to care for Goalie, the family’s golden retriever.

Felder struck back, accusing Hanover of being an “uncaring mother” who was “howling like a stuck pig”.

In the end Giuliani, who was beginning to earn big consultancy fees after September 11, agreed to a settlement of $6.8m to avoid the full horror of a court case.

Hanover has married Ed Oster, her university sweetheart, and written a book, My Boyfriend’s Back, about rekindling an old romance. Even if she stays mum, there is enough in the public domain to rattle conservatives. Yet however vicious the personal attacks on Giuliani, they are unlikely to dent his reputation for competence. He did, after all, handle the September 11 attacks while bunking with gay friends in the midst of an affair and a divorce battle.

The Freepers are more concerned about the marriage to the second cousin than the adultery, divorce and cross-dressing, which I find surprising. They seem like the types to be quite tolerant of in-breeding.

I agree that he didn't fall apart on 9/11 the way George W. Bush did (although his overall competence on that day has been highly overrated.) And I can't help but happy that his newfound conservative evangelical fans aren't offended that their favorite politician isn't afraid to be himself.

But let's be honest here. Lawrence Kudlow and Chris Matthews can drool and grunt all they want about Bill Clinton's phantom mistress, but if Rudy Giuliani becomes the GOP nominee it means the culture wars are as fake as William Shatner's hair. Once people realize that, perhaps we can stop talking about how so many people are allegedly against choice, gay rights and other progressive values in this country. Clearly, they don't care much about any of that, nor do they care about Lieberman's nonsense about setting a good example for the children. The Christian Right supporting Rudy Giuliani proves that the culture war is nothing but a GOP scam and we can stop obsessively worrying about offending these people with our godless, fancy-pants, big-city ways.

Good for Rudy Giuliani for(inadvertantly) pulling back the curtain on this hoax.


.
digby 2/28/2007 03:56:00 PM |

Tuesday, February 27, 2007

 
Evergreen Slime

by digby

I wrote a couple of weeks ago about the media's narrative about the Democratic Party -- a narrative I would have thought would have gone out of fashion by now, but which appears to have reached classic, evergreen status:

I know this is all boring, arcane history now, but it's important to note that we are seeing similar stuff happening already with respect to various "deals" that are being reported in the press about Harry Reid and John Edwards. So far they are thin, nonsensical "exposes" written by one man, John Solomon, formerly of the AP and now of the Washington Post. Solomon is known to be a lazy reporter who happily takes "tips" from the wingnut noise machine and faithfully regurgitates them. He holds a very important position at the paper that was second only to the Times in its eagerness to swallow Ken Starr's spin whole.

We are also seeing some similar reporting begin to emerge on Obama, much of it generated by hometown political rivals, just as we saw in the Clinton years. Today the LA Times implies that Obama is exaggerating his activist past. A couple of weeks ago we saw a truly egregiously misleading report on a deal he made to buy some land from a supporter.

These are patented Whitewater-style "smell test" stories. They are based on complicated details that make the casual reader's eyes glaze over and about which the subject has to issue long confusing explanations in return. They feature colorful and unsavory political characters in some way. They often happened in the past and they tend to be written in such a way as to say that even if they aren't illegal they "look bad." The underlying theme is hypocrisy because the subjects are portrayed as making a dishonest buck while pretending to represent the average working man. Oh, and they always feature a Democrat. Republicans are not subject to such scrutiny because a craven, opportunistic Republican isn't "news." (Neat trick huh?)

No single story will bring down a candidate because they have no substance to them. It's the combined effect they are looking for to build a sense overall sleaziness: "Where there's smoke there's fire"

We have another one from Solomon today. It is a thrilling expose in which it's revealed that Hillary Clinton failed to report a charitable foundation on her Senate disclosure forms.

It discusses the foundation in some depth and discloses that many people have them. They are, apparently, a common tax break for wealthy people who give to charity. But we know there just must be more to it than that. There are lots of very spicy little tid-bits in the article, like this one:

Private family foundations vary in amounts they give away each year. The Clintons have given away a quarter of their money. The family foundation of record producer David Geffen, by comparison, has been giving away most of what it takes in -- roughly $1 million a year -- leaving it with a balance of $400,000 at the end of 2005.

Do you meant to tell me that those cheap assed Clintons are refusing to give all the money away while that nice billionaire David Geffen does? What are they doing with all that money? Is that why they tried to hide it by having its address in Chappaqua?

The smaller family foundation lists as its address a post office box in Chappaqua, N.Y., where the Clintons live. Hillary Clinton is listed as secretary and treasurer, Bill Clinton as president and the couple's daughter, Chelsea, as a director. None takes any compensation.

And to which cronies and crooks are they laundering or funneling their ill-gotten gains? Oh my, this looks very suspicious:

One Arkansas recipient was the Diane Blair Foundation. Diane Blair is the late wife of James Blair, the businessman who helped Hillary Clinton with controversial commodities trades in the late 1970s that netted her about $100,000. There are two foundations in Diane Blair's name. One is a private family charity; the other funds a center for the study of Southern politics at the University of Arkansas.

The Clintons' tax form indicates the money went to the private charity, but James Blair said in an interview yesterday that the Clintons "miscoded" the entry. The check actually went to the university fund, he said.

Oh boy. Clinton is giving money to charitable foundations run by the man who helped her net $100,000 almost 30 years ago in a nefarious commodities trade that the entire press corps and even an independent counsel investigation were never able to nail down. But we know she's a crook anyway, right? She "miscoded" something saying it went to the private charity when it actually went to the University. Or did it?

I think we need another independent counsel investigation to determine why they "miscoded" the entry. let no stone go unturned. It's true there's no reason on its face to suspect anything but that makes no difference. The questions is why is Hillary Clinton donating to these "charities" in the first place? It doesn't pass the smell test.

And this, of course, is more proof of the cover-up:

"She was Hillary's closest friend," Blair said of his wife, who died in June 2000.

And even worse than the clearly suspicious "miscoding", they are obviously supporting terrorists:

At least three beneficiaries were from the Middle East,[My God!] where the former president worked to forge an elusive peace agreement during the 1990s. They include $50,000 to the King Hussein Foundation, named in honor of the late Jordanian king, who was a key player in Clinton peace talks; $50,000 to American Friends of Yitzhak Rabin, honoring the assassinated Israeli prime minister; and the American Friends of Peres Center, honoring former Israeli prime minister Shimon Peres.

Where there's a smoking mushroom cloud there's a terrorist sympathizer in my book.

As the article concludes:

Such omissions deprive the public of the right to scrutinize their political leaders' financial dealings and identify possible conflicts of interest, the former chief of disclosure for the Federal Election Commission said.

I certainly concur.

But now that we've seen the full rundown of the Clinton Family Foundation, what exactly was the point of this article? The reporters outline donations to charities founded by Hillary's best friend, her alma mater, some Arkansas Children's programs, the tsunami fund, and some thoroughly respectable middle eastern charities. We found that wealthy people often have these charitable foundations and that some of them, including the Clintons, don't spend every penny of the money each year. We also know that this foundation is run by a Senator and presidential candidate, her husband the ex-president of the United States and that their highly accomplished daughter is a director, which would be a dream masthead on any charity in the United States.

There is no evidence that they cheated on their income taxes or that this foundation has contributed to anything that could even remotely be construed as a conflict of interest or even slightly hypocritical. Indeed, after all this investigation, there is not even the slightest hint of irregularity in the foundation and certainly no illegality, merely that she failed to report this on her disclosure form. had she reported it, it would have reveald exactly nothing of interest to anyone.

So,why all the breathless hinting around about some unnamed nefarious deed? It's the classic bogus Whitewater narrative that never actually turns up anything but makes the country think that there just must be "something" there or the media wouldn't report it. We saw a very similar report recently on John Edwards from the same reporter and even the WaPo's limp ombudsman thought it was questionable and said "accurate stories can be misleading." It appears the editors have no intention of reining Solomon in.

One final thought: if the press had applied the Clinton Rules to George W. Bush's strangely enriching-for-him-and-losing-for-others oil business schemes during what turned out to be the closest election in history, we might not be saddled with this godforsaken presidency today. But they didn't. Why do you suppose that is?

Update: And then there's this egregious piece of garbage. Jayzuz.



My apologies for spelling Solomon's name incorrectly. It has been corrected.

.
digby 2/27/2007 04:05:00 PM |

 
It Wouldn't Be Tuesday Without Another Bush Lie Exposed

by tristero

Now, cynical minds want to know, "What's no special about Tuesday?"

And the answer is: Nothing.

And so it goes. It turns out much to the surprise of maybe one or two Bush dead-enders that the "Iran is making those nasty explosively formed penetrators are killing our soldiers" story so breathlessly hyped a couple weeks ago is, how do I put this, either a baldfaced lie or the delusions of a major league hysteric. Or both, duh.

Let me let you in on a little secret. Y'know the Bush administration? They're bad news. Seriously bad news.

tristero 2/27/2007 03:02:00 PM |

 
Bush-League Social Psychology

by tristero

Here we learn that narcissism among the young is increasing. Goodness Gracious, Great Balls Afire! This is serious!!!

But wait a minute, what exactly is a narcissist, after all?

[Jean] Twenge, the author of "Generation Me: Why Today's Young Americans Are More Confident, Assertive, Entitled _ and More Miserable Than Ever Before," said narcissists tend to lack empathy, react aggressively to criticism and favor self-promotion over helping others.

That descriptiion remind you of anyone? Someone who has demonstrated a pathological inability to show other than the most crocodilian of tears for wounded and dead soldiers, or poor people flooded out of their homes? Someone so thin-skinned and insecure, he cannot tolerate even the slightest disagreement and has difficulty taking responsibility for a single mistake?

Why yes, I can think of someone. And it also fits his vice-president, many of his advisers, his former Defense Secretary, and many of his political bedfellows, people with names like Donohue, DeLay, Dobson, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, and Rove.

Sounds to me like the "cohort" of middle-aged Americans has quite a few world-class narcissists already.

But this isn't about politics. The kids, our precious children! They're at risk!

And I'll bet you can't guess what's causing all that increasingly toxic narcissism in this here America. Go ahead, take a wild stab in the dark:

The researchers traced the phenomenon back to what they called the "self-esteem movement" that emerged in the 1980s, asserting that the effort to build self-confidence had gone too far...

Campbell said the narcissism upsurge seemed so pronounced that he was unsure if there were obvious remedies.

"Permissiveness seems to be a component," he said. "A potential antidote would be more authoritative parenting. Less indulgence might be called for."

Indeed. Goddamm permissive liberals. And what are the consequences of too much fucking - oh, sorry, a slip of the pixel, I mean, too much narcissism?

"Unfortunately, narcissism can also have very negative consequences for society, including the breakdown of close relationships with others," he said.

The study asserts that narcissists "are more likely to have romantic relationships that are short-lived, at risk for infidelity, lack emotional warmth, and to exhibit game-playing, dishonesty, and over-controlling and violent behaviors."

Hmm... Now where did I come across a similar list before? Oh, yeah, that Borat clone, Dr. Eric Keroack and the problems that stem from the depletion of vital bodily fluids:

Last June, Keroack was a featured speaker at the 10th Annual International Abstinence Leadership Conference in Kansas City, where he provided his somewhat unorthodox insights into the role of hormones in relationship failure.

Oxytocin is a hormone whose actions are associated with pregnancy, breastfeeding, and maternal-infant bonding -- and, according to Keroack, it's the tie that binds in marriage, as well. People don't fall in love, but into hormonal bondage. Therefore, the most important rationale for sexual abstinence isn't faith-based at all, but purely physiological. Unfaithful men and promiscuous women are created by misuse of the "emotional glue" of attraction, an abuse leading to a "perpetual cycle of misery."

For the benefit of those of you whose permissive youth has led to problems with your short-term memory, let me remind you that you are paying Dr. Eric Keroack's salary. He's the guy Bush put in charge of family planning but of course, he doesn't believe in contraception. Just bodily fluid depletion.

Sounds to me like Dr. Keroack and the Narcissistic Personality Inventory doc should hook up. They could certainly waste plenty of taxpayer dollars - sorry, I meant conduct some very insightful federally-sponsored research.

Yessirree, liberal-generated narcissism is a very serious problem among the youth of America. And it's growing! Oh, wait:

Some analysts have commended today's young people for increased commitment to volunteer work...

Yet students, while acknowledging some legitimacy to such findings, don't necessarily accept negative generalizations about their generation.

Hanady Kader, a University of Washington senior, said she worked unpaid last summer helping resettle refugees and considers many of her peers to be civic-minded. But she is dismayed by the competitiveness of some students who seem prematurely focused on career status.

"We're encouraged a lot to be individuals and go out there and do what you want, and nobody should stand in your way," Kader said. "I can see goals and ambitions getting in the way of other things like relationships."

Kari Dalane, a University of Vermont sophomore, says most of her contemporaries are politically active and not overly self-centered.

"People are worried about themselves _ but in the sense of where are they're going to find a place in the world," she said. "People want to look their best, have a good time, but it doesn't mean they're not concerned about the rest of the world."

Besides, some of the responses on the narcissism test might not be worrisome, Dalane said. "It would be more depressing if people answered, 'No, I'm not special.'"

Huh? Well, no problemo. If the facts don't fit, just make up reasons why the facts don't matter:

But Twenge viewed even this phenomenon [community service among youth] skeptically, noting that many high schools require community service and many youths feel pressure to list such endeavors on college applications

I wonder, does Twenge have a Pressure To Do Community Service Inventory follow-up "instrument" for her NPI?

tristero 2/27/2007 10:16:00 AM |

 
"A Bunch Of Old Tires Is Worth More Than Billy Ray"

by digby

I'm always so interested when I hear that racism is dead in this country. When you look around, you certainly don't see the kind of institutional racism you saw when I was a kid. And young people today certainly do seem to be less racist than my generation --- popular culture is an amazing multicultural amalgam.

But, I also know that there is a certain kind of racist bully in American culture who is always present. And there are a lot of them out there. And when they do express their hate, a whole bunch of other people either turn away or come crawling out of the woodwork to defend them --- and that's when society's enduring bigotry comes right to the surface.

Here's a harrowing story in the Texas Monthly about one of those cases where some bullies decided to have some fun --- and a bucn of their friends and families either watched, turned away or defended them and in the process showed the great white underbelly of sickening American racism:

What the investigation unearthed was a story that no one in Linden wanted to believe: Billy Ray, who is mentally disabled, had been taken to a party, ridiculed, called racial slurs, knocked unconscious, and then dumped by the side of the road. Even the strangers who had come to his aid were not Good Samaritans but two of the perpetrators. Had the town’s white residents condemned what had happened to Billy Ray, the incident might have faded into memory; the crime pivoted on a single punch.

Instead, they closed ranks, and juries in both criminal trials that followed declined to give the defendants more than a slap on the wrist. Now Morris Dees, one of the nation’s preeminent civil rights lawyers, has taken up Billy Ray’s case, and Linden—a place most Texans have never heard of—will likely become the focus of national attention when the wrongful-injury lawsuit goes to trial this spring. Whether a new jury will see things differently depends on how Linden perceives its own role in this drama: as a community that must redeem itself or as a small town unfairly maligned by outsiders.

It was quite a party that night:

... When they looked to see who Wes had brought from town, they burst out laughing. One girl overheard twenty-year-old Colt Amox snicker, “Wes has a crazy nigger with him.”

Wes would later say that he had never intended for Billy Ray to become the night’s entertainment, but from the moment they arrived, the joke was on Billy Ray.Wes introduced him to his friends, making up nonsensical names for them as he went. Colt was “Bolt,” while others were “C’mon,” “We-pee,” and “Casey Macaroni.” Guileless, Billy Ray nodded and told each of them, “You can just call me Bill.” Wes turned on some music and handed Billy Ray a beer, and soon he had Billy Ray dancing to Lil’ Kim’s “Magic Stick.” Wes passed an imaginary stick back and forth to him while the group looked on and laughed. When the fire began to fade, Wes had him unload wood from the bed of his truck, and the errand became a game to see how much firewood he could pile on as he raced to and from the pickup. “Come on, Billy Ray, you can get more than that!” people shouted. Someone suggested that he reach into the fire and pull out one of the burning logs, and as Billy Ray bent down to comply, Wes stopped him. “Don’t be stupid,” he said.

The teasing had started to make some people uneasy, and before long, more than half the group decided to go home. Erica Hudson, a freshman at Tyler Junior College, told Wes as she was leaving, “It’s not right.”

Corey Hicks, who had recently gotten off work at the jail, drove up as the party was thinning out. He lived with Wes’ sister, with whom he had two children. When Corey arrived, he turned to a heavy-lidded eighteen-year-old named Dallas Stone. “Why did Wes bring this stupid nigger out here?” he asked.

Dallas shrugged. “For a joke,” he said.

Only six people remained at the party, including Billy Ray, and everyone was drinking heavily. As the night wore on, a pretty twenty-year-old student named Lacy Dorgan—the only woman left at the party—wandered off to throw up, and Wes followed her. The dome light inside her Mustang was on when she and Wes started having sex a few minutes later, and Corey watched them from a distance.

Bored and drunk, Corey, Colt, and Dallas nursed their beers while Billy Ray sat alone by the bonfire. Dallas would later claim that Corey said, “I wish someone would beat this nigger up.”

They were caught and some people were outraged. Othere were not:

Linden residents who braved the media did little to burnish the town’s image when they tried to downplay the crime, talking about the “good boys” involved who had been remiss only in letting things get “out of hand” and who deserved “a slap on the wrist.” Wilford Penny told the Chicago Tribune one month after stepping down as Linden’s mayor that the incident had been “an unfortunate and senseless thing” but that “the black boy was somewhere he shouldn’t have been.”

The "boy" was 42 years old.

And yet, after Corey, Wes, Colt, and Dallas were each arrested and charged that October with aggravated assault (Lacy, who cooperated with investigators, was not charged), they were seen, by some, to be victims as well. “These boys’ names are ruined for life,” Corey’s mother, Martha Howell, later told one reporter. “And [Billy Ray] is better off today than he’s ever been in his life. He roamed the streets, the family never knew where he was. Now in the nursing home he’s got someone to take care of him.”

Barbara Bush would agree, no doubt. She said similar things about all those "black boys" living in the Houston astrodome after the Hurricane:

"...so many of the people in the arena here, you
know, were underprivileged anyway, so this--this (she
chuckles slightly) is working very well for them."

The DA put on a lousy case and the jury gave the men suspended sentences. (The judge stepped in and gave them a couple of months jail time):

When I met with the jury foreman, a warehouse manager named John Reed, he explained that some jurors had thought Billy Ray—who had taken the stand to give a few halting answers—had faked his symptoms and had practiced seeming slow and walking poorly. “As far as I’m concerned, everyone’s to blame,” Reed said. “Wes Owens shouldn’t have carried him out to that party, and Billy Ray should have known better than to go drink beer with a bunch of white boys.”

Now I realize that most people don't think this way in their every day lives. But there remains a strong, undercurrent of such thinking among a larger number of people than most of us realize. It is hidden and covert most of the time these days. In fact, most people who think this way don't think of themselves as racist. But when the chips are down, this is where the racist American lizard brain rises up to the surface and shows its ugly face.

African Americans say that racism still exists and whites across the political spectrum argue that it doesn't. They say it's either gone entirely (in the view of self-serving conservatives) or it's really a matter of class not some deeply buried tribal hatred that will take many, many eons to completely work itself out. Even the fact that the prison system is obscenely overrepresented by African Americans isn't even seen for what it is and is often excused as a result of poverty or education or some social pathology. It isn't.

“The verdicts sent a message: ‘It’s okay to treat a black man that way,’” Lue said when I visited him last fall. He showed me a small item he had clipped from the Cass County Sun, which he had glued to a piece of loose-leaf paper for safekeeping, about a black man named Burks Mack, who had illegally dumped some tires near Old Dump Road. For his crime, Mack had received six months in the county jail. “The only way I can figure it, a bunch of old tires is worth more than Billy Ray,” he said.

H/T to reader M.O.
.
digby 2/27/2007 09:29:00 AM |

 
Giggles

by digby





Following up on my post below:


Think Progress reports:

Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) “looked awfully cozy nestled between Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) in the Senate press gallery this month, talking up their counterproposal to Democratic legislation critical of President Bush’s troop surge in Iraq,” The Politico reports. “‘Reid doesn’t want to create holy hell in the Democratic blogger world,’ Graham said, speculating why Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) was refusing to allow votes on certain Republican amendments. The dig at Lieberman’s Internet nemeses hit his funny bone. The trio giggled in unison.“

.
digby 2/27/2007 08:28:00 AM |

Monday, February 26, 2007

 
Dancing With The Leadership

by digby




Ok, so Joe Lieberman is threatening to bolt the party. Everybody's talking about how he's swinging his weight all over town:

... Lieberman has fought Democrats with the pluck of a third-grader in a dodge-ball tournament, advancing the view of him as a rogue ready to bolt the Democrats, where he caucuses, for the Republicans. And in a Politico interview last week, he once again refused to rule out the possibility.

He used that clout today. CongressDaily reports:

Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Chairman Lieberman is making it clear he does not want Iraq-related amendments attached to a bill scheduled for floor action this week that would implement unfulfilled recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. Democratic leaders seemed inclined today to hold off introducing Iraq-related amendments to the bill, possibly to avoid upsetting Lieberman and moving him closer to switching party affiliations, which would swing the Senate back to GOP control.

Think Progress adds:

One Democratic aide quoted by CongressDaily says it “depends on whether Republicans push to attach language supportive of President Bush’s so-called surge in U.S. troop strength in the most dangerous areas of Iraq. ‘The Democrats won’t [offer Iraq amendments] if Republicans don’t,‘ this aide said.” Aides to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin (D-MI) say they have not decided how to proceed with the Iraq proposals.

And this is ostensibly because Joe Lieberman has all this power because he could cost the Democrats their majority. Oh dear!

Lieberman says leaving the Democratic Party is a "very remote possibility." But even that slight ambiguity -- and all his cross-aisle flirtation -- has proved more than enough to position Lieberman as the Senate's one-man tipping point. If he were to jump ship, the ensuing shift of power to Republicans would scramble the politics of the war in Iraq, undercut the Democrats' national agenda and potentially weaken their hopes for the White House in 2008. Those stakes are high enough to give Lieberman leverage with both parties no matter how slim the chance of his crossing the aisle. Which means Senate leaders aren't worrying only about whether Joe Lieberman will switch parties. They're wondering what, if anything, he plans to do with the power that comes from keeping that possibility alive

.

That Joe Lieberman is leading everyone around by the nose, isn't he?

Except there one little detail that nobody seems to know about, even though it appeared in the Washington Post.

Republican leaders decided not to seek special language spelling out the terms of a transition in case of a power shift -- say, if Johnson vacates his post and his state's GOP governor appoints a Republican to replace him. Under that scenario, power would effectively shift to Republicans, because Cheney would provide the tiebreaking 51st vote. But for Republicans to take parliamentary control, the Senate would have to vote for new organizational rules, a move Democrats could filibuster.

A similar scenario unfolded in January 2001, when a 50-50 Senate convened. In 2001, Democrats demanded a "kick-out clause" in organizing negotiations that would automatically scrap agreements on committee ratios and funding levels and force new organizational rules. But Republicans decided this month against a confrontation that would come from demanding a similar clause.

"Nobody over here talked about that at all," said Don Stewart, spokesman for McConnell.

Media Matters has more on this.

You'll have to excuse me if I'm too cynical here, but I just can't wrap my mind around the fact that Harry Reid and Chuck Shumer aren't aware of all this. Which means that all this tip-toeing around Joe Lieberman is a very fancy kabuki dance. Which also means we really have to question whether they mean to pass any legislation at all.

I don't know how you can read this any other way. We pesky anti-Iraq war liberals are happy to blame him for everything and so we aren't looking at this closely enough. And Lieberman is likely very happy to play the independent maverick and doesn't mind being the Democratic Martyr of Iraq.

But I have to say that I'm just a teensy bit disappointed in the Democrats. This is a war we're talking about not some tax cut legislation. They don't have to do anything that unctuous creep tells them to do. He is holding nothing over their heads and yet everyone is pretending that they are worried about appeasing Old Joe and so they can't actually get anything done on Iraq.

You can't help but wonder if Lieberman and the Senate Dems aren't working the same side after all.


.
digby 2/26/2007 09:30:00 PM |

 
That Other War

by digby

Does everyone know about the big Taliban offensive slated for the spring? Did you know that we needed to escalate troop levels in Afghanistan in anticipation of it?

Here's an excerpt from The Situation Room today:

(BEGIN VIDEO TAPE) HENRY (voice-over): In a surprise visit to Pakistan, Vice President Cheney put private pressure on President Pervez Musharraf to crack down on al Qaeda and Taliban militants. But in public, White House Spokesman Tony Snow struck a much more cautious tone.

TONY SNOW, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: We have not been saying it's a tough message. What we're saying is we're having -- the vice president is meeting with President Musharraf because we do understand the importance of -- of making even greater progress against al Qaeda, against the Taliban.

HENRY: What's really going on here is a delicate diplomatic dance. While Musharraf has helped the U.S. capture hundreds of terrorists in urban areas of Pakistan, he has been much less helpful in remote areas, where Osama bin Laden is believed to be hiding.

JOHN MCLAUGHLIN, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: It is simultaneously one of our best partners against terrorism and at the same time, to a degree, a safe haven against -- a safe haven for terrorists.

HENRY: President Bush needs the cooperation of his Pakistani counterpart more than ever, after sending additional U.S. troops to Afghanistan in advance of an expected spring offensive by terrorists.

If this is true then the decision to surge in Iraq is even worse than we thought, particularly in light of this story today:

Just last week, the nation’s highest-ranking officer, Gen. Peter Pace, secretly upgraded to “significant” the risk the military faces this year in carrying out its full national security mission. He unwaveringly stated that the armed forces would succeed at any mission ordered by the president; the response would just be slower, less elegant, more dangerous.

[...]

“At the end of the day, strategy is the management of risk, whether personal or military strategy,” said Jeffrey D. McCausland, a retired Army colonel now a senior fellow at the Carnegie Council in New York. “The question is, how much risk are we willing to live with? We are taking a significant amount of strategic risk today because, if you look at our ground forces, we have pulled almost everything out of the box already. So if a major problem arises somewhere else, what do we turn to?”

As a consequence, he said, the United States has lost much of its historic military flexibility. “We know that,” he said. “So do our adversaries. To some degree, Iran and North Korea can play this round of poker more boldly.”

I suspect that we are seeing the results of a Strangelove Strategy on the part of Crazy Cheney and the rest of the kooks in his cadre. They figure they can always use nukes if they have to. No options are off the table, after all.

This is dangerous leadership. The Iraq surge is a waste of time and effort, especially when Afghanistan, which truly does harbor terrorists, (particularly those who have been plotting against Great Britain) is being lost. Meanwhile, the Bush administration is rattling its limp sabres against Iran and putting aircraft carriers like sitting ducks in the middle of the strait of Hormuz just hoping that the government (or some deluded individual) miscalculates.

Cheney is in Pakistan exerting pressure on Musharraf, after the US has spent the last five years working as hard as it can to radicalize as many Muslims as possible. (It takes some real chutzpah to go over there and play the good cop now and try to blame the Democrats for wanting to pull the rug out from under him, but what else is new?) The fact is that if we hadn't take our eye off the ball in Afghanistan we probably could have solved the problem without needing more than Pakistan's tepid help. As it is, we are well and truly screwed. If we push too hard, Musharref goes down and the radicals may very well take over. If we don't, al Qaeda runs around freely plotting their next attack.

I'm sure glad the grown-ups are in charge aren't you?

.
digby 2/26/2007 07:08:00 PM |

 
The stupid ... It buuurns™

by digby

So I happen to see Wolf Blitzer and Jeff Greenfield studying the Schwarzenegger phenomenon since he made the penetrating observation today that Republicans and Democrats really should try to get along. They both marvelled at the tremendous response Schwarzenegger gets when he's in public. Wolf commented that when he was in Las Vegas recently for a sporting event, Schwarzenegger turned up with Maria and "he was greeted like a rock star!"

Uhm no. He was greeted like a fucking movie star, which is what he is. The man was one of the highest grossing box office attractions in the world for a couple of decades and yet Blitzer and Greenfield seem to think the fact that the public gets excited in his presence has something to do with his politics. In fact, they think he's a "star" because of his great skill at reaching across the aisle.

Here's the exact exchange:

BLITZER: I saw him at the NBA All-Star Game in Las Vegas. He showed up with Maria Shriver. And I got to tell you, he was a rock star there. He was widely applauded. You have just come back. You have spent some time in California.

Is that the general reception he gets when he travels around the state?

GREENFIELD: Yes, it is, particularly after he was declared politically dead in 2005.

Right. Nobody wildly applauded him in public before 2005.



.
digby 2/26/2007 01:50:00 PM |

 
Dogging Gitmo

by digby

I have been remiss in failing to highlight this series of interviews with lawyers and others who are involved with Guantanamo and other issues pertaining to the military commissions over at The Talking Dog. He's talked to a variety of people who offer great insight into the miscarriage of justice and moral blight that is our system of military detentions in the Great GWOT. I recently read them all again as a piece and the big picture that emerges is just horrifying (scroll to the bottom of this post to see them all.)

Most recently he interviewed David Rose, the first journalist to pull the curtain back on Guantanamo in his early articles in Vanity Fair (from which I quoted liberally when they came out) and author of Guantanamo: The War on Human Rights.

The Talking Dog: Have you had a chance to return to Guantanamo since he publication of your book, Guantanamo: The War on Human Rights?

David Rose: I tried to go to Guantanamo last June (of 2006). I was all set to cover the first military commission trials, when the news broke of the suicides of three detainees. The Pentagon suddenly revoked my clearance. Then, as I was in Washington, I managed to get a new clearance, faxed to my hotel, and we arranged transport by a circuitous route on civilian aircraft via Miami and Kingston, Jamaica, but ultimately, the Defense Department refused to let me in at that time, and I have not been back.

The Talking Dog: Do you have a comment on why, to this day, American detention policy, whether at Guantanamo, Bagram, Kandahar, Iraq, or elsewhere, including the ghost prisons and rendition program, remain a much bigger issue in Europe and outside of the United States than they do inside of the United States?

David Rose: In all fairness, it has become a far bigger issue in the United States since I wrote the book. Of course, John Kerry did not mention this at all when he ran for President– not one mention of Guantanamo. Large numbers of Americans think it is just perfectly fine to hold people this way. They don’t see the broader issues– that Guantanamo and America’s treatment of detainees is virtually a recruiting sergeant for terrorists, and that the policy is misguided ethically and counterproductive in achieving the supposed goals of fighting terrorism.

It makes you proud to be an American, doesn't it?

Rose is the guy who first profiled the man who was brought in to toughen up Guantanamo, the psychopathic artillery officer named Geoffrey Miller who they subsequently sent over to "Gitmo-ize" Abu Ghraib. He was awarded the Distinguished Service Medal, and praised as an "innovator" when he retired.


.
digby 2/26/2007 12:36:00 PM |

 
Bloggeritis

by digby

Some of you have noticed that I'm having a problem with the links to individual posts. The blogger "BlogItemNumber" is repeating for some inexplicable reason and it makes all links go to the top of the page instead of the individual post. I checked it against my old template and nothing has changed.

I'm getting no response from the Googleboys or the blogger help group yet but I remain hopeful that someone out there will have a clue. In the meantime, I'd be grateful to those of you who are kind enough to link to our posts, if you'd lop off that repeated number when you do the link.

Oy...

thanks --- digby

Update: Fixed by the Mighty Atrios, Lord of all things blogger.


.
digby 2/26/2007 10:58:00 AM |

 
Lindsay On Edwards And Bloggers

by tristero

Lindsay Beyerstein of the great blog Majikthise has an article in Salon about why she turned down the gig of blogging for the Edwards campaign before Amanda and Shakes were hired and then "scalped" by the extreme right. Great streetsmarts on display and an excellent analysis of the role independent bloggers can/do/should have in political campaigns.

tristero 2/26/2007 04:55:00 AM |

Sunday, February 25, 2007

 
Thanking The Academy

by digby


I'm going to be gravely disappointed if Scorcese doesn't finally win. And I'm looking forward to seeing Etheridge sing her great song and (hopefully) seeing "An Inconvenient Truth" get even more exposure to the world. It's not hyperbole to say it may be the most important movie ever made.

Every Oscar night I think about the time years ago that I went to a party that was attended by Satcheen Littlefeather, the woman Brando designated to receive his oscar and give a speech about Native American rights. My ditsy sis-in-law was introduced to her and said, "Oh right, you're the woman who accepted the award for Marlo Thomas!"

The opening was great. Everyone present who was nominated got a moment to be applauded by their peers. Very nice.

Happy Oscars.

Update:

Congratulations to President Gore!
Congratulations Melissa Etheridge!!

C&L has the video of Al's speech here.
.
digby 2/25/2007 05:13:00 PM |

 
Crazy-Man

by digby

US Vice-President Dick Cheney has raised the possibility of military action to stop Iran acquiring nuclear weapons.

He has endorsed Republican senator John McCain's proposition that the only thing worse than a military confrontation with Iran would be a nuclear-armed Iran.

In an exclusive interview with The Weekend Australian, Mr Cheney said: "I would guess that John McCain and I are pretty close to agreement."

The visiting Vice-President said that he had no doubt Iran was striving to enrich uranium to the point where they could make nuclear weapons.

He accused Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of espousing an "apocalyptic philosophy" and making "threatening noises about Israel and the US and others".

He also said Iran was a sponsor of terrorism, especially through Hezbollah. However, the US did not believe Iran possessed any nuclear weapons as yet.

"You get various estimates of where the point of no return is," Mr Cheney said, identifying nuclear terrorism as the greatest threat to the world.

"Is it when they possess weapons or does it come sooner, when they have mastered the technology but perhaps not yet produced fissile material for weapons?"

Mr Cheney also condemned Kevin Rudd's plan to withdraw all Australian combat troops from Iraq. Although he did not mention the Opposition Leader by name, Mr Cheney said the withdrawal of Australian troops "would clearly be a disappointment from our standpoint".

He encouraged further Australian involvement: "The more allies we have and the more committed they are to the effort, the quicker we can anticipate success."

[...]

Earlier, in an address in Sydney to the Australian-American Leadership Dialogue, Mr Cheney had emphasised the importance of the challenge of defeating Islamist terror, underlining the long-term nature of the struggle for the US and its allies.

"We have never had a fight like this, and it's not a fight we can win using the strategies from other wars," he said.

[...]

"The world's better off now that (Saddam Hussein) is dead and there's a democratically elected Government in his place in Baghdad," he said.

"The Iraqi people are well on the road to establishing a viable democracy.

"In the long term when we look back on this period of time that will be a remarkable achievement. We're not there yet. We've still got a lot to do."

In Dick Cheney's upside-down world, the fearsome GWOT is akin to the "War of the Worlds" and we have to be prepared to blow up the planet rather than submit to the aliens. And Iraq is a huge success.

Arthur Silber puts this in perspective, here and here.

Meanwhile, Cheney is running all over the world prattling on like Bette Davis in "Whatever Happened To Baby Jane", Bush is robotically grunting some nonsense about "pertecktin' the troops" and pundits are trying to make us believe that this is some sort of extremely clever ruse that will end with Iran metaphorically falling to the ground and crying uncle. As if "extremely clever" and Dick 'n George can ever be mentioned seriously in the same breath.


.
digby 2/25/2007 05:10:00 PM |

 
Zero Tolerance

by digby

Not that I advocate operqating like this because it smacks of fascism and makes me sick, but if you want to see how an extremely effective right wing advocacy group works, this is how its done:

'Terrorist' Remark Puts Outdoorsman's Career in Jeopardy

Zumbo's Criticism of Hunters Who Use Assault Rifles Brings Unforgiving Response From U.S. Gun Culture

SEATTLE -- Modern hunters rarely become more famous than Jim Zumbo. A mustachioed, barrel-chested outdoors entrepreneur who lives in a log cabin near Yellowstone National Park, he has spent much of his life writing for prominent outdoors magazines, delivering lectures across the country and starring in cable TV shows about big-game hunting in the West.

Zumbo's fame, however, has turned to black-bordered infamy within America's gun culture -- and his multimedia success has come undone. It all happened in the past week, after he publicly criticized the use of military-style assault rifles by hunters, especially those gunning for prairie dogs.

"Excuse me, maybe I'm a traditionalist, but I see no place for these weapons among our hunting fraternity," Zumbo wrote in his blog on the Outdoor Life Web site. The Feb. 16 posting has since been taken down. "As hunters, we don't need to be lumped into the group of people who terrorize the world with them. . . . I'll go so far as to call them 'terrorist' rifles."

The reaction -- from tens of thousands of owners of assault rifles across the country, from media and manufacturers rooted in the gun business, and from the National Rifle Association -- has been swift, severe and unforgiving. Despite a profuse public apology and a vow to go hunting soon with an assault weapon, Zumbo's career appears to be over.

His top-rated weekly TV program on the Outdoor Channel, his longtime career with Outdoor Life magazine and his corporate ties to the biggest names in gunmaking, including Remington Arms Co., have been terminated or are on the ropes.

The NRA on Thursday pointed to the collapse of Zumbo's career as an example of what can happen to anyone, including a "fellow gun owner," who challenges the right of Americans to own or hunt with assault-style firearms.

In announcing that it was suspending its professional ties with Zumbo, the NRA -- a well-financed gun lobby that for decades has fought attempts to regulate assault weapons -- noted that the new Congress should pay careful attention to the outdoors writer's fate.

"Our folks fully understand that their rights are at stake," the NRA statement said. It warned that the "grassroots" passion that brought down Zumbo shows that millions of people would "resist with an immense singular political will any attempts to create a new ban on semi-automatic firearms."

Kevin says the message is that there's no point in apologizing in America today. But I have never seen any liberal advocacy group completely destroy one of their own's livlihood over one remark with which they disagree, apology or not. I'm not saying some wouldn't want to, or haven't tried even, but they just don't have the clout with their followers or that kind of killer instinct. The NRA is the most effective lobbying group in American history because of its savvy political lobbying and its take no prisoners attitude. They are totalitarian gun nuts who have completely cowed the political system of this country. If that doesn't keep you awake night, nothing will.


.
digby 2/25/2007 02:53:00 PM |

 
Thus, The Gates Of Hell

by tristero


[UPDATE: Digby discusses the same article below that I do here. I apologize for the inadvertent duplication (I was finishing up my post and didn't realize Digby had already discussed it), but I hope our combined interest will serve to pique your curiousity about the comlete article, one of Hersh's greatest, and a deeply important read.]

Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker has a concise article explaining only a fraction of the fiendishly complex twists and turns of the political situation in the Middle East right now. As you read it - and you'll have to read it several times even to begin to understand the vertigo-inducing complexities - perhaps, like me, you will shudder to remember that the US is led by a "gentleman's C+" and a demented flake who shot his friend in the face, neither of which have had a lick of genuine experience in the Middle East, not to mention a glimmer of understanding as to how the world works. These are the people who deliberately are sending your children, your friends, and your neighbors to mutilation and death in a faraway desert for no sensible purpose whatsoever.

I've excerpted some quotes from the article. But really, it bears reading in full. The situation makes the study of string theory seem like beginner's Sudoku :

“The Administration is trying to make a case that Iran is more dangerous and more provocative than the Sunni insurgents to American interests in Iraq, when—if you look at the actual casualty numbers—the punishment inflicted on America by the Sunnis is greater by an order of magnitude,” Leverett said. “This is all part of the campaign of provocative steps to increase the pressure on Iran. The idea is that at some point the Iranians will respond and then the Administration will have an open door to strike at them...

...the Pentagon is continuing intensive planning for a possible bombing attack on Iran, a process that began last year, at the direction of the President. In recent months, the former intelligence official told me, a special planning group has been established in the offices of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, charged with creating a contingency bombing plan for Iran that can be implemented, upon orders from the President, within twenty-four hours...

..the former senior intelligence official said that the current contingency plans allow for an attack order this spring. He added, however, that senior officers on the Joint Chiefs were counting on the White House’s not being “foolish enough to do this in the face of Iraq, and the problems it would give the Republicans in 2008...

...In the past year, the Saudis, the Israelis, and the Bush Administration have developed a series of informal understandings about their new strategic direction. At least four main elements were involved, the U.S government consultant told me. First, Israel would be assured that its security was paramount and that Washington and Saudi Arabia and other Sunni states shared its concern about Iran

Second, the Saudis would urge Hamas, the Islamist Palestinian party that has received support from Iran, to curtail its anti-Israeli aggression and to begin serious talks about sharing leadership with Fatah, the more secular Palestinian group. (In February, the Saudis brokered a deal at Mecca between the two factions. However, Israel and the U.S. have expressed dissatisfaction with the terms.)

The third component was that the Bush Administration would work directly with Sunni nations to counteract Shiite ascendance in the region.

Fourth, the Saudi government, with Washington’s approval, would provide funds and logistical aid to weaken the government of President Bashir Assad, of Syria...

During a conversation with me, the former Saudi diplomat accused Nasrallah of attempting “to hijack the state,” but he also objected to the Lebanese and Saudi sponsorship of Sunni jihadists in Lebanon. “Salafis are sick and hateful, and I’m very much against the idea of flirting with them,” he said. “They hate the Shiites, but they hate Americans more. If you try to outsmart them, they will outsmart us. It will be ugly...”

In an interview in Beirut, a senior official in the Siniora government acknowledged that there were Sunni jihadists operating inside Lebanon. “We have a liberal attitude that allows Al Qaeda types to have a presence here,” he said. He related this to concerns that Iran or Syria might decide to turn Lebanon into a “theatre of conflict...”

The Bush Administration has portrayed its support of the Siniora government as an example of the President’s belief in democracy, and his desire to prevent other powers from interfering in Lebanon...

The Bush Administration’s reliance on clandestine operations that have not been reported to Congress and its dealings with intermediaries with questionable agendas have recalled, for some in Washington, a earlier chapter in history. Two decades ago, the Reagan Administration attempted to fund the Nicaraguan contras illegally, with the help of secret arms sales to Iran. Saudi money was involved in what became know as the Iran-Contra scandal, and a few of the players back then—notably Prince Bandar and Elliott Abrams—are involved in today’s dealings.

Iran-Contra was the subject of an informal “lessons learned” discussion two years ago among veterans of the scandal. Abrams led the discussion. One conclusion was that even though the program was eventually exposed, it had been possible to execute it without telling Congress. As to what the experience taught them, in terms of future covert operations, the participants found: “One, you can’t trust our friends. Two, the C.I.A. has got to be totally out of it. Three, you can’t trust the uniformed military, and four, it’s got to be run out of the Vice-President’s office”—a reference to Cheney’s role, the former senior intelligence official said.

I was subsequently told by the two government consultants and the former senior intelligence official that the echoes of Iran-Contra were a factor in Negroponte’s decision to resign from the National Intelligence directorship and accept a sub-Cabinet position of Deputy Secretary of State. (Negroponte declined to comment.)

tristero 2/25/2007 12:57:00 PM |

 
Rube Goldberg Policy Contraption

by digby


After you watch a presidential admnistration for a while you begin to see shifts in policy or different phases of the old ones by the way the officials all speak. In the case of the Bush administration, it's remarkably easy because they robotically and fanatically follow talking points. They are, as we've seen many times, more concerned with marketing than subtance and place a very high premium on properly "rolling out their product."

So, when president Bush used the phrase "protect our troops" followed by everyone from Gates to Rice, my antennae were way up; it was obvious that it was a potential cassus belli for an attack on Iran. January 11, 2007:

SEC. RICE: Well, I think General Pace has spoken to what we think the necessity is and what it is we intend to do. We've made very clear to the Iranian government and the Syrian government, for that matter, that we don't expect them to continually engage in behavior that is destabilizing to the Iraqi government but also that endangers our troops, and that we will do what is necessary for force protection.

But we leave to those who deal with issues of force protection how these raids are going to be taken out (sic). I think you've got an indication of that in what has been happening, which is the networks are identified, they are identified through good intelligence, they are then acted upon. It is without regard to whoever is in them, whatever the nationality. And we're going to protect our troops.

Then in her appearance before the Senate Armed Services Committee last month:

“Obviously, the President isn’t going to rule anything out to protect our troops, but the plan is to take down these networks in Iraq.I do think that everyone will understand that—the American people and I assume the Congress expect the President to do what is necessary to protect our forces.”

Today we have a new article from Seymour Hersh that is so mindblowing that you must do yourself a favor and go and read the whole thing right now. It's called "The Redirection" and it starts like this:

In the past few months, as the situation in Iraq has deteriorated, the Bush Administration, in both its public diplomacy and its covert operations, has significantly shifted its Middle East strategy. The “redirection,” as some inside the White House have called the new strategy, has brought the United States closer to an open confrontation with Iran and, in parts of the region, propelled it into a widening sectarian conflict between Shiite and Sunni Muslims.

To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has coöperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.

One contradictory aspect of the new strategy is that, in Iraq, most of the insurgent violence directed at the American military has come from Sunni forces, and not from Shiites. But, from the Administration’s perspective, the most profound—and unintended—strategic consequence of the Iraq war is the empowerment of Iran. Its President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has made defiant pronouncements about the destruction of Israel and his country’s right to pursue its nuclear program, and last week its supreme religious leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said on state television that “realities in the region show that the arrogant front, headed by the U.S. and its allies, will be the principal loser in the region.”

After the revolution of 1979 brought a religious government to power, the United States broke with Iran and cultivated closer relations with the leaders of Sunni Arab states such as Jordan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia. That calculation became more complex after the September 11th attacks, especially with regard to the Saudis. Al Qaeda is Sunni, and many of its operatives came from extremist religious circles inside Saudi Arabia. Before the invasion of Iraq, in 2003, Administration officials, influenced by neoconservative ideologues, assumed that a Shiite government there could provide a pro-American balance to Sunni extremists, since Iraq’s Shiite majority had been oppressed under Saddam Hussein. They ignored warnings from the intelligence community about the ties between Iraqi Shiite leaders and Iran, where some had lived in exile for years. Now, to the distress of the White House, Iran has forged a close relationship with the Shiite-dominated government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki.

The new American policy, in its broad outlines, has been discussed publicly. In testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in January, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said that there is “a new strategic alignment in the Middle East,” separating “reformers” and “extremists”; she pointed to the Sunni states as centers of moderation, and said that Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah were “on the other side of that divide.” (Syria’s Sunni majority is dominated by the Alawi sect.) Iran and Syria, she said, “have made their choice and their choice is to destabilize.”

Think about this for a moment. The crackerjack Bush administration --- which failed to anticipate the rise of Iran once they removed its dangerous enemy from the scene --- is supposed to be able to recognize who's who among these various Muslim players and deftly play all the factions against one another in a very discrete and high stakes game in which they finesse a final outcome that brings about peace and security.

Oh. My God.

But apparently we needn't worry because Prince Bandar is on the scene helping Dick Cheney sort everything out:

“It seems there has been a debate inside the government over what’s the biggest danger—Iran or Sunni radicals,” Vali Nasr, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, who has written widely on Shiites, Iran, and Iraq, told me. “The Saudis and some in the Administration have been arguing that the biggest threat is Iran and the Sunni radicals are the lesser enemies. This is a victory for the Saudi line.”

In case anyone forgot, Al Qaeda are Sunni radicals. And most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis. But let's assume they weren't. Can anyone believe that this administration is capable of playing such a delicate geopolitical chess game? Dear God, these are people whose idea of playing checkers is to up-end the board and do a victory dance. Let's just say that subtlety isn't their stong suit.

This is what Bush and Cheney are talking about when they say that history will vindicate them. The believe that by tearing the middle east to pieces, when it finally settles down after years of carnage and bloodshed, they will get credit for the clever plan that set it in motion.

Read it all. There's much more and it's fascinating stuff. And frightening.

This is the part that gets me. When Bush brought that war criminal piece of garbage Elliott Abrams back in to the government we all should have known they were going down this road:

The Bush Administration’s reliance on clandestine operations that have not been reported to Congress and its dealings with intermediaries with questionable agendas have recalled, for some in Washington, an earlier chapter in history. Two decades ago, the Reagan Administration attempted to fund the Nicaraguan contras illegally, with the help of secret arms sales to Iran. Saudi money was involved in what became known as the Iran-Contra scandal, and a few of the players back then—notably Prince Bandar and Elliott Abrams—are involved in today’s dealings.

Iran-Contra was the subject of an informal “lessons learned” discussion two years ago among veterans of the scandal. Abrams led the discussion. One conclusion was that even though the program was eventually exposed, it had been possible to execute it without telling Congress. As to what the experience taught them, in terms of future covert operations, the participants found: “One, you can’t trust our friends. Two, the C.I.A. has got to be totally out of it. Three, you can’t trust the uniformed military, and four, it’s got to be run out of the Vice-President’s office”—a reference to Cheney’s role, the former senior intelligence official said.

I was subsequently told by the two government consultants and the former senior intelligence official that the echoes of Iran-Contra were a factor in Negroponte’s decision to resign from the National Intelligence directorship and accept a sub-Cabinet position of Deputy Secretary of State. (Negroponte declined to comment.)

[...]

The government consultant said that Negroponte shared the White House’s policy goals but “wanted to do it by the book.” The Pentagon consultant also told me that “there was a sense at the senior-ranks level that he wasn’t fully on board with the more adventurous clandestine initiatives.” It was also true, he said, that Negroponte “had problems with this Rube Goldberg policy contraption for fixing the Middle East.”

The Pentagon consultant added that one difficulty, in terms of oversight, was accounting for covert funds. “There are many, many pots of black money, scattered in many places and used all over the world on a variety of missions,” he said. The budgetary chaos in Iraq, where billions of dollars are unaccounted for, has made it a vehicle for such transactions, according to the former senior intelligence official and the retired four-star general.

“This goes back to Iran-Contra,” a former National Security Council aide told me. “And much of what they’re doing is to keep the agency out of it.” He said that Congress was not being briefed on the full extent of the U.S.-Saudi operations. And, he said, “The C.I.A. is asking, ‘What’s going on?’ They’re concerned, because they think it’s amateur hour.”

It is amateur hour and these zombies must be stopped. Until the Democrats, and the country, recognize this undemocratic and criminal element in our politics it is going to continue every time the Republicans take power. When they have a congressional majority with a Republican president they steal the country blind and when it's a Democrat they harrass him so badly that its a miracle he is able to function. When they have the presidency they become despotic criminals. This has been true for the last 30 years.

And now the Bush administration has spawned untold numbers of future war criminals who will claw their way back into power so they can "prove" they were right the first time. This pattern is repeating itself over and over again and we simply have to figure out a way to put an end to it.

Today we have the DOD equivalent of Brownie running around with boatload of cash making deals with Muslim extremists and Saudi princes, whom the administration has divided up into completely useless designations of "reformer" and extremist." Nobody knows who's talking to who or what agenda they really have. Liberals think up complex plots like this and make them into movies. Republicans steal billions from the taxpayers and actually try to implement their hare-brained schemes.


Meanwhile, in case you've been away from the media for a while, Anna Nicole Smith is still dead and Chris Matthews and Cokie Roberts are desperate to find out if Bill Clinton is "being a good boy." We're in trouble.


Update: John Amato has the footage of Seymour hersh this morning on Wolf Blitzer. It's a corker:

HERSH: ...And in looking into that story, and I saw him in December, I found this. That we have been pumping money, a great deal of money, without congressional authority, without any congressional oversight, Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia is putting up some of this money, for covert operations in many areas of the Middle East where we think that the — we want to stop the Shiite spread or the Shiite influence.

They call it the "Shiite Crescent." And a lot of this money, and I can't tell you with absolute certainty how — exactly when and how, but this money has gotten into the hands — among other places, in Lebanon, into the hands of three — at least three jihadist groups.

There are three Sunni jihadist groups whose main claim to fame inside Lebanon right now is that they are very tough. These are people connected to al Qaeda who want to take on Hezbollah. So this government, at the minimum, we may not directly be funneling money to them, but we certainly know that these groups exist.

[...]

We are simply in a situation where this president is really taking his notion of executive privilege to the absolute limit here, running covert operations, using money that was not authorized by Congress, supporting groups indirectly that are involved with the same people that did 9/11, and we should be arresting these people rather than looking the other way…

digby 2/25/2007 12:17:00 AM |

Saturday, February 24, 2007

 
Saturday Night At The Movies

They’re gonna crucify me: Mayflower in reverse

By Dennis Hartley

Back in 1972, the U.S. government handed a certain British émigré a rather abrupt eviction notice, informing him and the missus that they had 60 days to get out of the country or face deportation proceedings.

This event would likely have not caused much of a ripple in anyone else’s life, had the folks in question not been a married couple known to millions simply as “John & Yoko”. And so began a highly politicized, four-year legal battle for citizenship, chronicled in the documentary The US vs. John Lennon, now available on DVD.

You know the back story: After a very public and controversial courtship, John Lennon and Yoko Ono marry in 1969, the Beatles break up, and the couple begin making their own headlines with a series of mildly political “performance art” media stunts (starting with the relatively benign “Bed-In For Peace”) and then move to NYC in the early 70’s, where they begin to openly sympathize with the “radical” American political groups of the time, much to the chagrin of the Nixon administration. The apparent last straw for Tricky D.& Co. was John and Yoko’s 1972 appearance at a charity concert to help cover legal fees for White Panther Party founder John Sinclair, who had been jailed ostensibly on drug charges, but was considered by many at the time to be a political prisoner.

Declassified documents now prove that, from day one, there was direct inter-agency manipulation of John and Yoko’s deportation proceedings, from the FBI all the way up to the Oval Office, resulting in a nearly four-year long persecution that was probably best described by Lennon himself, who referred to the machinations as “Kafkaesque”.

The film features great archival footage, with recollections from the likes of Bobby Seale, John Sinclair, Geraldo Rivera, Noam Chomsky, Ron Kovic, Paul Krassner, George McGovern, and, er, G. Gordon Liddy (guess whose side he’s on). The most insightful comment comes from the ever-glib Gore Vidal, who, when asked what it was about Lennon that made him such a threat to the Nixon cabal, says: “He (Lennon) represented Life, and was admirable. Mr. Nixon, and (for that matter) Mr. Bush, represent Death, and that’s bad.” (Perhaps that is a bit of an over-simplification, but so true.)

The film is a tad dry in its execution (it was produced by VH-1, which likely accounts for the rote “Behind the Music” approach) but it’s still a compelling tale, and an important one. It has much to say about what is going on right now with the “dissent vs. disloyalty” issue (Dixie Chicks, anyone?) and the dangers of being governed by an administration that parcels up the Bill of Rights like customized selections from a dim sum cart.

Enemies of the State: Dixie Chicks - Shut Up & Sing, Don't Look Back, Panther, Steal This Movie!, Steal This Movie!, Berkeley in the Sixties, Sir! No Sir! - The Suppressed Story of the GI Movement to End the War in Vietnam,Nixon - Collector's Edition, Born on the Fourth of July (Special Edition), Strawberry Statement, Medium Cool, Sympathy for the Devil. And for that “Kafkaesque” context…start with Orson Welles’ The Trial.


.
digby 2/24/2007 06:30:00 PM |

 
Xenophobes R Us

by digby


There has been very little discussion of this issue, but I predict it's going to rise to the surface in the future and it's not going to be pretty. The other day the new Dem governor of Ohio made some waves by saying that Ohio wouldn't be a welcome place for Iraqi refugees. He changed his mind a couple of days later.

Right now, Iraq is experiencing one of the most serious refugee crises in modern history.Millions of people are fleeing the country, most of whom are in the professional and middle class. In Vietnam we were faced with a similar situation that resulted in a terrible exodus with many thousands of boat people winding up in refugee camps, some of whom were eventually allowed to come to th US. This is going to end up being a very different situation. We are more
culpable for this crisis even than that in Vietnam and yet there is almost no chance that we will allow more than a handful to come into the US, despite the fact that many of them were helpful to the US occupation and therefore, probably need the protection of the US government after what we've done.

The right hasn't settled yet on whether they are going to make their argument agianst settling Iraqis in the US on that basis of the GWOT or on immigration. I'm sure they'll have arguments prepared for both sides. You can bet they will not want these arabs over here. After all, aren't we fighting ("liberating") them over there so we don't have to fight them over here?

Tom Tancredo is getting out in front of course, firing the first salvo:

COOPER: Well, we've been talking about the growing humanitarian crisis that the war in Iraq has created, forcing millions of Iraqis from their homes.

Almost 2 million are in Iraq and homeless. Many others have fled to Arab countries. One million are in Syria; 750,000 are in Jordan; and somewhere between

80,000 and 130,000 are believed to be in Egypt; and 40,000 are in Lebanon.

Only a few hundred are actually here in the United States. Now before the break, we told you about the Bush administration's new plan to allow some 7,000 Iraqi refugees into the U.S. this year. People who have helped the U.S., worked as interpreters or who face real threats.

The plan is facing fierce opposition from both sides of the aisle and sparked an intense debate. I saw just how passionate people on either side of the issue are when I spoke with Republican Congressman Tom Tancredo of Colorado and Edina Lekovic of the Muslim Public Affairs Council earlier tonight.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

COOPER: Congressman Tancredo, some of the Iraqis are applying for refugee status. These are people who have risked their lives working for U.S. forces as translators, doing intelligence work, as drivers. There are those who say, look, why shouldn't we help those?

REP. TOM TANCREDO (R), COLORADO: I'll tell you one reason why we shouldn't. Not too long ago we found out about a number of Iraqis here in the United States that had committed some other crimes. That is to say, they committed -- they were aliens here. They committed a crime. They were tried, convicted. They were supposed to be deported under those kind of conditions.

Come to find out, Iraq is a country, one of about 20, that refuses to accept their aliens back to their country after they've committed other crimes in the United States.

I don't care what they've done in Iraq before. There is a law, actually on the books today, Anderson, that says that if a country refuses to take back its aliens that have committed crimes in the United States, we should not give them any visas.

Well, there's always Gitmo.

COOPER: All right, you know what about this? The congressman is saying, look, there's a law in the books, which we're not supposed to allow Iraqis in if they're not willing to accept Iraqis who have committed crimes back into Iraq.

EDINA LEKOVIC, MUSLIM PUBLIC AFFAIRS COUNCIL: Well, look, that seems like a bit of political maneuvering and selective application of the laws, given that the Iraqi people should not be standing there to pay the price for this type of selective application.

What we're talking about is a humanitarian crisis on the scale that certain humanitarian organizations are saying could soon rival the crisis in Darfur.

COOPER: Well, Congressman, if they did decide to change that law in Iraq, if Iraq did accept it, would you then be in favor of allowing some 7,000 Iraqi refugees into America?

TANCREDO: I would be in favor of accepting those that can be actually identified as coming here under humanitarian conditions and as refugees. That policy we've already established.

But I'll tell you that, you know, it isn't as if these people, first of all, are trapped in Iraq. That's another situation. Where they are today, for the most part, is not in Iraq. They have gone to other countries. And now we are thinking about being pressured to take them from the countries where they are presently occupying.

LEKOVIC: Hold on there, with all due respect, Congressman, there are over 100,000 Iraqis who are fleeing Iraq each month, according to the U.N. There are over 2 million refugees from Iraq, as well as 1.7 million internally displaced people. There is a huge crisis on our hands here.

And right now, that burden is unfairly being shouldered by nations in the region like Jordan and Syria, which haven't even signed onto the U.N. convention on refugees. And our own nation has.

COOPER: What Edina seems to be arguing is that there is a moral obligation, given that we went to war, that we take care of a certain number of refugees since this war has created.

TANCREDO: Yes.

COOPER: Do you believe that?

TANCREDO: We have done that in the past, certainly in Vietnam and other places. And I understand that. And I'm telling you that we have a refugee policy. It is the most liberal in the world. There are no caps on it. I understand that.

My complaint here and concern is with the Iraqi government today. The fact is, we should use this as pressure to get them to accept back their people who have committed crimes when they're here.

COOPER: What do you think should be done with -- with that huge tide of refugees?

TANCREDO: Well, what should be done with them is being done. And that -- in the case of what we can do. That is to try and construct -- help construct an Iraqi government in which those people can feel safe to return to the country of origin. That is the real task here.

COOPER: Edina, I'll give you the last word.

LEKOVIC: Well, that's just a part of the picture: 7,000 is a very paltry number. And we can't forget the fact here that there are people involved. There are people whose lives have been devastated. We have promised that we would save -- we would rescue them from malnutrition, from mayhem, from murder.

And that is precisely what they are facing every day and why they are leaving the country in large droves.

Congressman Tancredo is the same man who a few years ago said that we should consider taking out Mecca in order to send a message to the terrorists. So...

TANCREDO: Whoa -- that is absolutely...

LEKOVIC: ... this gentleman is not the man to be...

TANCREDO: You have no respect, ma'am, because you would say a thing like that.

LEKOVIC: ... discussing this type of problem to preserve all human life.

TANCREDO: Well, that is absolutely untrue that I said we should take out Mecca in order to send a message.

LEKOVIC: Sir, you said we should consider it.

TANCREDO: It was never to, quote, "send a message." And that is an entirely inaccurate way...

LEKOVIC: Sir, did you say that we should consider taking out Mecca?

TANCREDO: What I said was, well, do you want to fight that battle again? I'm happy to. But what I'm telling you is what you just said is not only inaccurate, but I think it's disingenuous.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

COOPER: Well, as always, we care about the facts on 360. We checked the transcript of Congressman Tancredo's interview with talk show host Pat Campbell.

When asked how he would respond if terrorists struck several U.S. cities with nuclear weapons, he said, quote, "If this happens in the United States and we determined that it is the result of extremist fundamentalist Muslims, you know, you could take out their holy sites."

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

And Tancredo responded, "Yes."

Tom Tancredo proves that he is just an all around xenophobe armed with an excuse for deomnizing foreigners no matter who they are. This is not a big surprise. He hasn't fully developed his argument yet, but he will.

Ms Lecovic is a very effective spokeswoman. She made steam come out of Tancredo's ears.

And good old Anderson did the work of a real journalist. Good for him.


.
digby 2/24/2007 02:31:00 PM |

 
If We Only Had A Pony
by digby

Last night's Shields and Brooks was a rather hallucinogenic experience as David Books told us how great things would be going in Iraq if only it wasn't Iraq.First off, Shields explained why the Brits have been so "successful" in Basra:

MARK SHIELDS, Syndicated Columnist: Well, it's symbolically, I think, important, Jim. I mean, the reality behind the move is that, as Tony

Cordesman from Strategic and International Studies said, Basra was lost a year ago,and Brits have had to withdraw to the airport.
It's now just a Shia stronghold. There is no tension. There's no civil war there, because there's no Sunnis. And it's a little bit like saying that there wasn't any racial tension in Fargo or Moorehead, North Dakota, during the civil rights struggle. There weren't any racial minorities.

For some unknown reason, this led Brooks to explain that Basra was an example of how well things would be going if Iraq were more like Fargo:

JIM LEHRER: David, the idea that withdrawing -- a lot of the attention on this has been drawn to the fact, hey, wait a minute, the Brits are withdrawing troops, and we're sending more in. How do you see this?

DAVID BROOKS, Columnist, New York Times: Well, I would point to the same distinction Mark made, that Basra is not Baghdad. Basra is a Shia community, mostly Shia. It doesn't have the sectarian violence.

And, to me, what Basra is, it's a window on -- suppose there wasn't the sectarian violence in Baghdad or in Iraq. Well, where would we be? We would have our expectations not met. We would not have sort of democracy that we hoped for when going in.

Nonetheless, we would not have the sort of civil war we see in Baghdad, and we would be withdrawing, too. But Baghdad has this sectarian violence; Basra doesn't.

What a fascinating little parlor game. Why such useless specualtion is considered worthy of discussion on a new program, however,is a mystery.

But here is where I'd really like to get some of that good stuff that Brooks is smoking:

DAVID BROOKS: ... I mean, I think the Brits once had 40,000 troops. Then they went down to 7,100. And this is a drawback to 5,400, so it's not as if Tony Blair is running away.

I mean, Tony Blair has been steadfast in believing in the mission and keeping troops there, despite incredible political pressure. So, you know, I don't think he's totally answering to the pressure. I think it's a response to the reality.

So, Blair has withdrawn troops from 40,000 to about 5,000 but that means he's been steadfast in keeping troops there. Hookay.

Then Brooks went into fine whine:

JIM LEHRER: Speaking of domestic realities in the United States of America, David, what do you make of the Senate plans? They've been talking about probably going to start next week to try to reauthorize or change the legislation that originally authorized the military action against Iraq.

DAVID BROOKS: This is like "Back to the Future." They're going to go in a DeLorean back to 2002 and un-vote the vote they made.

I love this. Apparently we have a new rule in politics which says that once you've passed a bill, you are not ever allowed to revisit it, no matter what happens, even if the circumstances change significantly. I knew these people believed in the constitutional theory of "original intent" but I didn't know they had decided to apply it to current legislation. Good to know.

Moreover, Bush is stubbornly refusing to listen to the American people and that makes him a hero. Indeed, the mark of a truly great American president is his willingness to do defy the citizens of his nation:

DAVID BROOKS: You know, the big difference to me is, you know, George Bush -- you can say what you like about his operation of the war, but he took a look at what should happen in Iraq, and it was the surge. He knew it was going to be unpopular, but he was going to be for it, even though it was unpopular.

Is there any Democrat willing to stand up and be for something unpopular or even take a position? I really don't know what the Democratic positions are.

There are individual positions, but when it comes to resolutions, there's this Murtha business, which is sort of funny, reallocate the relocation of the troops, the intervals which they go in and out. Then there's the Levin-Biden plan, which is to go back to 2002 and somehow reauthorize that bill.

Why don't they take a position and say, "I'm for this. This is what we think should happen in Iraq. We think the war is lost. We think we should get out"?

Or, "We don't think the war is lost. We should do this"?

But it's all poll-driven, and that's my problem with the Democratic plans that are all evolving. They're all poll-driven. It's the party right now with the soul of a campaign manager.

But didn't we just see the results of one very special kind of poll recently?

MARK SHIELDS: I don't agree. We do have elections in this country, other than polls. We had an election last fall in which the Republicans, largely on the issue of Iraq, and largely on the issue of the stewardship of the president and vice president of that war, and the conditions and circumstances under which we got into that war, and the way it had been maintained, lost control of the Congress.

That was the reason. The Republicans say that; Democrats say that. So that's not a poll. That's not a focus group. That's the American people having expressed it, their feelings for it.

The president is apparently indifferent, immune. He has a four-year term, so he's indifferent to the plight of members of his own party, as their position becomes increasingly unpopular.

The Bush administration has always been indifferent to the will of the people. He won the presidency in 2000 on a hummer with the help of his brother's political machine and his father's supreme court judges. But he governed from the get as if he'd won all 50 states in a landslide. They see elections as a way to gain political power,(excuse me -- "political capital") and that's it. They have no interest in what the people voted for or what issues they cared about and they got away with it for six years until the people finally saw through their Rovian flim flam and judged them for their actual performance.At this point they are madly scrambling to preserve his legacy and set up his successor for the fall. The party is on its own.

Shields then took a gratuitous swipe at Move-on but I guess that's necessary to preserve his status in the punditocrisy since he was otherwise quite aggressive toward the befuddled Brooks:

DAVID BROOKS: The difference is, Bush takes a look at Baghdad. He says, "We've got to pacify Baghdad to give the Maliki government the space to do what it needs to do," so he says we're going to send in 20,000 more troops. That is a clearly understandable policy, whether you think it will work or not.

The Democrats do not have a clearly understandable policy. They've got this subterfuge about changing the schedules, which as Murtha said is just an excuse to starve the surge. Then they've got this, "Go back to 2002."

If they want to get out, and if they think it's lost, do what Governor Vilsack said, "We think we should get out. Here's our timetable. We think we should get out.'

Instead, you've got Hillary Clinton at first saying, "We're going to cap," and then changing her position a week later, and saying a 90-day withdrawal.

You've got slow withdrawal with Obama. You've got subterfuge. You've got nothing. You've just a series of dodges.

MARK SHIELDS: You don't have a party speak with a single voice, David, when you're out of power.

DAVID BROOKS: They've had resolutions coming up in the House. Put forward a resolution.

MARK SHIELDS: They put forward a resolution. It carried in the House last week. They'd like to put up a resolution in the Senate, as well.

But, I mean, the only policy the Republicans have is the president's policy. And it's increasingly winning less and less support, both in the country and in his own Republican caucus.

This is exactly correct. All this nonsense about how the Democrats have "too many plans" should be an indictment of the GOP who continue to blindly follow their ineffectual leader in spite of the fact that they know he is on the wrong track and has been repudiated by the citizenry. These people should think twice about looking down their noses at politicians who follow the will of the people and be a little bit more concerned about what their constituents will
think of their misguided loyalty to a failed president.

Brooks is very depressed these days and struggling to find some purchase on a partisan argument. But he's saddled with Junior and Cheney's magnificent failure and is beginning to sounds as incoherent as they do.

I recall that Democrats sounded very similar during the Johnson years, although there was a lot more boldness within the Democratic party that in the GOP today. But many Democrats id scramble to justify their president's policy and ended up suffering for it. Richard Nixon was certainly captive of Vietnam also but there has never been any question that it was Lyndon Johnson's war from the moment he escalated it.

Iraq is going to be even worse for the Republicans. This is Bush's war from the "moment of conception" and the longer the Republicans support him the more ownership they all take of it as well. As has been true so often during this administration, if Bush had taken yes for an answer and adopted the Iraq Study group recommendations, he could have probably succeeded in forcing some of the Democrats to take some of that ownership. (You can't underestimate the siren call of the "centrist" solution to the DC establishment). Bush and Cheney's inflated pride got in the way and now the Party can't or won't shake off his rotting albatross of a war. And they're choking on it.


.
digby 2/24/2007 02:09:00 PM |

 
Who Ya Gonna Call?

by digby

An update on the case of the Reverend Lonnie Latham: apparently, the ACLU has filed a brief on his behalf. Don't get me wrong, I think the ACLU should defend the constitution without regard to the case, but nonetheless it always sticks in my craw just a bit to hear these rightwingers rail against the ACLU until they find themselves on the receiving end of an overzealous prosecutor.

And in case anyone's of a mind to argue that the ACLU is anti-religion, here's proof that it isn't, although all the "Stop The ACLU" wingnuts certainly are howling:

But let’s tell the truth as we know it – the ACLU despises the fact that this nation is one that operates under Judeo-Christian principles. This is not a Muslim nation or a Hindu or Buddhist nation. This is a Christian nation, even if our morality is going down the sewer. This nation was founded by men who believed in the Christian God. There is no problem for Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists or others who want to practice their own “faith” here in America. We afford them that privilege under the 1st Amendment. But our foundation is that of the Judeo-Christian faith. If the ACLU doesn’t like it, I suggest they go to Communist Cuba or China where they can practice their godlessness. I’m getting sick of being told that all religions are equal. They are not!

Sigh.

Join the ACLU.


.
digby 2/24/2007 06:33:00 AM |

 
We Need To Wake Up

by digby

If you haven't seen it, go out and rent or buy the DVD of "An Inconvenient Truth" today. Hopefully, after tomorrow, the stores will be out them.

Here's Melissa Etheridge singing the oscar nominated song.





.
digby 2/24/2007 06:27:00 AM |

Friday, February 23, 2007

 
No Fags Or Fat Chicks Please

by digby

Here's macho Michael Medved discussing that icky Tim Hardaway and giving all the he-men over at Townhall an argument that doesn't make them feel all funny down there:

Tim Hardaway (and most of his former NBA teammates) wouldn’t welcome openly gay players into the locker room any more than they’d welcome profoundly unattractive, morbidly obese women. I specify unattractive females because if a young lady is attractive (or, even better, downright “hot”) most guys, very much including the notorious love machines of the National Basketball Association, would probably welcome her joining their showers. The ill-favored, grossly overweight female is the right counterpart to a gay male because, like the homosexual, she causes discomfort due to the fact that attraction can only operate in one direction. She might well feel drawn to the straight guys with whom she’s grouped, while they feel downright repulsed at the very idea of sex with her.

I think he missed the boat here. A much better analogy would be to imagine what would happen if a shrunken little creep like Michael Medved entered a woman's gym naked, blowing kisses through his pathetic 70's porn star mustache. I would bet a million dollars that all the women, including the fat ones, would sooner fuck a corpse than that deplorable racist, sexist, homophobic jerk. (Townhall writers of both sexes, on the other hand, would undoubtedly be intrigued.)

Medved's worked himself into a lather thinking about showering with all those big, black "love machines" but it's not an issue for professional athletes, gay or straight, who spend their entire lives hanging around naked men. And most know very well that there are gays in the NBA like everywhere else:

"You don't think we all played with gay guys. Of course we have," Barkley said. "It has never been an issue.

And considering that there have always been gays in the locker room without incident it's obvious that what gets Medved and his homophobic buddies all worked up is the fear that they might do something inappropriate once they find out a fellow player is gay. They aren't afraid that the gay man might desire them like some loser fat girl who should take herself to cliff and jump off of it she's so revolting. It's that they are afraid of their own desire rising up to the surface once they find out one of those hot love machines likes dick.



.
digby 2/23/2007 06:11:00 PM |

 
Romper Room

by digby

In a room of 2-gallon carboys holding liquid the color of amber beer, Bush picked up a jar of straw to show off to the journalists tagging along.

"Straw!" he proclaimed. Cameras clicked and whirred.

"Someday, you're going to be using this in your car," he said.

He picked up another jar. "Spruce chips!"

Then he said, "I made a doodie!" and started crying for his mama.



H/T to Sue
digby 2/23/2007 04:37:00 PM |

 
Defense Tactics

by digby

Here's a right wing hypocrite I can defend with a whole heart:

The lawyer for a former Baptist church leader who had spoken out against homosexuality said Thursday the minister has a constitutional right to solicit sex from an undercover policeman.

The Rev. Lonnie W. Latham had supported a resolution calling on gays and lesbians to reject their "sinful, destructive lifestyle" before his Jan. 3, 2006, arrest outside the Habana Inn in Oklahoma City.

Authorities say he asked the undercover policeman to come up to his hotel for oral sex.

His attorney, Mack Martin, filed a motion to have the misdemeanor lewdness charge thrown out, saying the Supreme Court ruled in the 2003 decision Lawrence v. Texas that it was not illegal for consenting adults to engage in private homosexual acts.

"Now, my client's being prosecuted basically for having offered to engage in such an act, which basically makes it a crime to ask someone to do something that's legal," Martin said.

Both sides agree there was no offer of money, but prosecutor Scott Rowland said there is a "legitimate governmental interest" in regulating offers of acts of lewdness.

The issue here is whether the man should be tried for soliciting an undercover cop for a blow job. Money was never discussed, so the "crime" is simply that he asked. That is the sex police at their worst.

Now, I'm sure that prior to his arrest the Reverend Latham would have absolutely agreed that the government had an interest in regulating offers of acts of lewdness, but that's beside the point. This is not a matter for the legal system if prostitution was not involved. The hypocrisy of the victim is not at issue.

As for the Reverend Latham's joining the burgeoning ranks of religious right closet cases, that's something else entirely. When you see this kind of cruel hypocricy on the part of Elmer Gantry after Elmer Gantry, it's not hard to see why some of the non religious might just think all this righteousness is a con that is not worthy of the kind of special respect and deference for religion that our society seems to require.

I try to be respectful and I do not believe that religion is a con. I enjoy discussing this issue with religious people of good will and I count many among them as my friends. But I also think you have to cut people a little slack when they fail to make all the proper distinctions among believers in light of the massive number of revelations these past few years about the Catholic Church and the Protestant fundamentalist leaders who fail spectacularly to practice what they preach. These are people who are at the forefront of the religious right movement and are in direct and often aggressive opposition to progressivism and liberalism. Most importantly, they are constantly represented in the media and politics as being the true religious face of America.

So, I'm not inclined to go completely ballistic on the hard core anti-religios. When you look at the big picture you see that the religious are as politically varied as the population as a whole and that Democrats are as religious as are the Republicans. But the culture war is being waged by churches, if not all churches, and day after day these sexual scolds and allegedly traditionalist leaders are being exposed as frauds after years of self-righteous finger-pointing at anyone who doesn't toe their line. It results in real damage to real people. It should not be surprising that some respond with anger and hostility to such hypocrisy and attack religion as a whole rather than make distinctions among them. It's as predictable as a rightwing Republican preacher soliciting sex from a male prostitute.



.
digby 2/23/2007 04:26:00 PM |

 
Compassionate Conservatism

by digby

The percentage of poor Americans who are living in severe poverty has reached a 32-year high, millions of working Americans are falling closer to the poverty line and the gulf between the nation's "haves" and "have-nots" continues to widen.

A McClatchy Newspapers analysis of 2005 census figures, the latest available, found that nearly 16 million Americans are living in deep or severe poverty. A family of four with two children and an annual income of less than $9,903 - half the federal poverty line - was considered severely poor in 2005. So were individuals who made less than $5,080 a year.

The McClatchy analysis found that the number of severely poor Americans grew by 26 percent from 2000 to 2005. That's 56 percent faster than the overall poverty population grew in the same period. McClatchy's review also found statistically significant increases in the percentage of the population in severe poverty in 65 of 215 large U.S. counties, and similar increases in 28 states. The review also suggested that the rise in severely poor residents isn't confined to large urban counties but extends to suburban and rural areas.

The plight of the severely poor is a distressing sidebar to an unusual economic expansion. Worker productivity has increased dramatically since the brief recession of 2001, but wages and job growth have lagged behind. At the same time, the share of national income going to corporate profits has dwarfed the amount going to wages and salaries. That helps explain why the median household income of working-age families, adjusted for inflation, has fallen for five straight years.

These and other factors have helped push 43 percent of the nation's 37 million poor people into deep poverty - the highest rate since at least 1975.

The share of poor Americans in deep poverty has climbed slowly but steadily over the last three decades. But since 2000, the number of severely poor has grown "more than any other segment of the population," according to a recent study in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine.

"That was the exact opposite of what we anticipated when we began," said Dr. Steven Woolf of Virginia Commonwealth University, who co-authored the study. "We're not seeing as much moderate poverty as a proportion of the population. What we're seeing is a dramatic growth of severe poverty."

Dear God. Is anyone advocating for these people?

Read on. It gets worse.


.
digby 2/23/2007 03:24:00 PM |

 
Counting Coup

by digby


There has been a lot written in recent days about the religious right and the Democratic party's attempts to gain their votes. I think I'll let all that simmer for a while and examine the real problem with these quixotic crusades to get the most conservative people in the country to vote for the Democrats.

It's not about politics and it's not about religion. It's about tribalism. The Republicanism is an "identity" movement in which member's affiliation with the party is more akin to affiliation with clan or family.

All three Republican frontrunners --- Giuliani, McCain and Romney --- are suspected of not being true members of the tribe. And as with most tribes, the Republicans have a way for members to show their loyalty and courage even if they have been forced to spend years among the enemy and have adopted some of their ways.

Rick Perlstein illustrates how this works with an examination of Mitt Romney's recent presidential announcement:

Mitt Romney is in trouble. In a deeply conservative party, the former governor of Massachusetts is a ghost of Republicanism past: a moderate. His presidential announcement speech read like a tribute to his father, the late George Wilcken Romney, who became a GOP shining star in the early '60s largely because he was liberal enough to get elected and reelected governor in a Democratic state, Michigan. Mitt Romney held the event in his father's state, in front of a backdrop--a hybrid car--that honored his father's most famous accomplishment as an automotive executive in the 1950s: championing the Rambler, Detroit's first fuel-efficient "compact car." He said, "We have lost our faith in government--not in just one party, not in just one house, but in government," as if oblivious to the heresy: Rehabilitating government as a good in itself is not the usual way of introducing yourself to voters in today's post-Reagan Republican Party. Maybe Romney's tried to shake it, but he just can't: He carries progressive Republicanism around in his blood.

Which raises certain suspicions about that announcement speech. As the National Jewish Democratic Council (NJDC) immediately observed, its location, the Henry Ford Museum in Dearborn, is a "testament to the life of ... a notorious anti-Semite and xenophobe." Some observers wondered if perhaps this wasn't intentional: If you want to prove to conservatives you're no liberal, what better way than to announce on the former estate of a man who, as the NJDC also pointed out, was "bestowed with the Grand Service Cross of the Supreme Order of the German Eagle by Adolf Hitler"?

The campaign denies such calculations outright of course. "I think most people, no matter what your ideology," spokesman Kevin Madden says, "saw that as a somewhat absurd criticism, given that it's a museum, a place of learning, a Michigan landmark. Thousands of schoolchildren go through this place." And he's right: Thus framed, the charge is an absurdity. Praise the Lord, there is no electoral payoff in appealing to heartland memories of the Henry Ford whose Dearborn Independent reached a circulation of 900,000 featuring articles like "Jewish Jazz--Moron Music--Becomes Our National Music."

Those memories no longer exist--except to the hair-trigger sensitivities of the likes of the NJDC, which put out their press release and garnered an AP article on the flap. But here's something to consider: The Romney campaign has harvested benefits from that flap, whether it was intentional or not. Consider the sarcastic reflection of this denizen of the right-wing website Free Republic:

Allright, an AP hit piece! The MSM has more acute RINOdar than we. Real RINO's don't get rinky-dink MSM hit pieces such as this. This proves that the MSM believes Romney is a conservative, and therefore must be roughed up.

Translation: I used to suspect that Romney was only a "Republican in Name Only." But now I realize: He bugs the liberal media. By the tribal logic of right-wing identity politics, that is enough--Mitt Romney now can be called a conservative

Now liberals have some tribal signals too, no doubt about it. But it consists of things like a stirring call for single payer healthcare or a denunciation of the war in Iraq. Reaching back to the past to notorious leftists to give a wink and nod to the base would be useless. If Bill Richardson, for instance, went to a Che Guevara museum to make his announcement the only meaning that would be conferred is that he's a kook and it would actually lose him votes in the primary.

But a Henry Ford political revival is apparently all the rage on the right:

Half of the facility (the half not populated by futuristic kitsch and automotive souvenirs) is "Greenfield Village," a Colonial Williamsburg-style living museum of glassblowers, blacksmiths, and one-room schoolhouses. And it is simply not credible that a son of the Motor State like Romney is unaware that, for millions of Midwestern tourists, a trip to Dearborn is as much about celebrating "innovation and transformation" as it is conjuring up the wistful nostalgia for the pre-automotive--and, by plain implication, pre-immigrant--America that Ford worshiped. And it is simply not credible that an alert and ambitious Republican pol like Romney is unaware that this Ford--the xenophobe--has been making a comeback in Republican circles. Former congressman J.D. Hayworth quotes him as a hero in his recent book Whatever It Takes: "These men of many nations must be taught American ways, the English language, and the right way to live."

Every Midwesterner also knows that Dearborn is a city of many nations--Arab nations, specifically, more so than any American town. Is it entirely a coincidence that, folded into Romney's otherwise forward-looking announcement speech, there was the now-de rigeur right-wing Republican line, "I believe homeland security begins with securing our borders"? Writes Hayworth of Ford's doctrine of "Americanization": "Talk like that today, and our liberal elites will brand you a culture imperialist, or worse."

The Republican tribe has worked for decades on two separate tracks. They know that their real philosophy and agenda is repellent to the majority of Americans so they all agree to keep it more or less under wraps at election time. But they do have to prove to each other that they are for real and the way to do it is through coded language and angering the left into making them look like heroes to the tribe.

Perlstein writes about the masterful use of these coded messages from the master himself:

For the suspicious, Romney's announcement in Dearborn recalled Ronald Reagan's notorious 1980 campaign kickoff in Philadelphia, Mississippi, mere miles from the site where, in 1964, Klansmen murdered three civil rights workers. Then, the symbolism was absolutely deliberate: Reagan pledged fealty to "states' rights," a concerted attempt to nudge the tribal identities of Southerners into the Republican column once and for all. But it didn't mean Reagan, or anyone in his audience, was for bringing back Klan terrorism any more than Romney has Michigan anti-Semites dusting off their copies of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Reagan's benefit from speaking at Philadelphia, Mississippi derived primarily from all that outrage that he spoke at Philadelphia, Mississippi. He stood up to the Yankees. He proved to Mississippi, Alabama, South Carolina, and the rest that he felt their pain: tribally, he was one of them--just as Romney has just demonstrated oneness with conservatives sick of being called "fascists" by liberals.

Reagan provides another lesson for Republican aspirants who might be in trouble with the conservative base: past positions on issues don't necessarily matter. As Romney himself notes, "On abortion, I wasn't always a Ronald Reagan conservative. Neither was Ronald Reagan, by the way." He's referring to the time, in 1967, when Reagan signed the most liberal abortion law in the nation.

Of course, Reagan wasn't always a Reagan conservative on most things, at one time or another. In 1967, in fact, in his first year as governor of California, he passed the biggest tax increase in state history. Except for a few scolds, conservatives proved entirely forgiving. Indeed, that was when they started plumping him for president. More important was that he got the tribal stuff right, the us-versus-them stuff--as when he confronted young people harassing him with make love, not war signs. He said it looked like they were incapable of doing either.

So you see the GOP base is not really concerned with issues or even God, Family, Country. They are about hating liberals. (Many of them are about hating dark or foreign liberals in particular.) We can present a thousand ten point plans and say they should vote for us because their economic interests lie with liberal policies, but it won't make a bit of difference. We can point out their hypocrisy and flip-flops and it means nothing. Republican identity politics transcend such prosaic concerns as policy and political philosophy. It's all about whether you are one of them. If you can prove that then they could not care less what you once stood for. The only thing that will trip you up is being insufficiently hostile to liberals once they have validated your membership. That will get you kicked to the curb in a Midland Minute.



.
digby 2/23/2007 02:01:00 PM |

Thursday, February 22, 2007

 
Cold Reason

by tristero

Recently, I wrote that "[t]he essential principle of American politics is that it insists upon the exercise of cold reason in governance; revelation can play no part, nor can any religion have any kind of privileged status. Period. The End."

I truly thought that this glancing reference to one of the more famous statements on the nature of the US government by one of our most famous statesmen was patently obvious, especially since I dropped other hints in my post as to my reference, even going so far as actually to name the author.

But apparently, no one caught it. Which would be no big deal, except that, amusingly, one of our far-right commenters, Fidel Cigar, found the invocation of "cold reason" to be nothing less than the political philosophy of "lefty totalitarian greaseballs".

So...for those of you who agree with Mr (or Ms.) Cigar, that a government that relies solely upon "cold reason" is little more than a police state run by slippery, Brylcreem-challenged leftists, here is the original quote I was obviously referring to:

Reason, cold, calculating, unimpassioned reason, must furnish all the materials for our future support and defence. Let those [materials] be moulded into general intelligence, [sound] morality and, in particular, a reverence for the constitution and laws.

By the way, I didn't make the quote up.

One other point. Notice how, for this fellow, sound morality proceeds directly from materials fashioned through the exercise of cold, calculating, unimpassioned reason. On the other hand, for Fidel Cigar, morality has nothing to do with reason. As well as nothing to do with any knowledge of history, science, and a slew of other reality-based paths to knowledge, as his ignorant and bizarre comments demonstrated.

PS For the pedantic, it is true that the statesmen's topic is not religion versus reason in government. Rather it is the importance of obeying laws from the danger of the lynch mentality that would, say, hang congressmen who disagree with the president on foreign policy. Because the separation of church and state is such an essential principle of our government, it is quite appropriate to use this quote as I did.

tristero 2/22/2007 04:16:00 PM |

 
A President Named George

by digby

...has something important to tell us:

The nation which indulges toward another an habitual hatred or an habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest.

Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur.

Hence, frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The nation prompted by ill will and resentment sometimes impels to war the government contrary to the best calculations of policy. The government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion, what reason would reject; at other times it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of nations has been the victim.

So, likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others, which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions, by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill will, and disposition to retaliate in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld.

And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation) facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity, gilding with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation. As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils! Such an attachment of a small or weak toward a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter.

Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence, I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens, the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy, to be useful, must be impartial, else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots, who may resist the intrigues of the favorite, are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people to surrender their interests.

Just Saying...


Happy Birthday George.

.
digby 2/22/2007 03:15:00 PM |

 
Political Religion

by digby

Pastordan sent this Jon Meacham piece along and it's worth sharing today on George Washington's birthday. I've been hard on Meacham in the past, but I think this is good.

...For the wonderful thing about American public religion—or what Lincoln called our "political religion"—is that its creed is liberty and the rule of law, not coercion or forced belief or a link between one's civil and religious lives. George Washington promised that the government would "give to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance," a promise that I think is as fundamental to America as the promises of the Declaration of Independence.

[...]

We are right to be reverent about our nation—and we obligated to be respectful of the rights of others to do as they please, within the spirit of the democracy whose leaders we celebrate today.

I don't think we have proved ourselves as exceptional as Adams and the other founders hoped we would, but there is no doubt that we are a better and more successful nation on the occasions when we follow enlightened, democratic principles in actions as well as words. Our shared respect for the Bill of Rights and the Constitution as the governing documents of our civic life is what binds us together as a people.

So, as the current administration openly undermines this civic faith, hiding behind religious faith to do it, it undermines the "political religion" that's held this country together over two centuries. That's something to ponder isn't it?




.
digby 2/22/2007 02:14:00 PM |

 
Pull The Other One

by digby

Time has a lovely paean to Holy Joe today in which his blackmail and petulance are celebrated as acts of courage. But I think they may have gone a bit far when they bought this piece of bullspin:

...last month, after Lieberman told Reid he had stopped attending the weekly Democratic lunch because he didn't feel comfortable discussing Iraq there, Reid offered to hold those discussions at another time. Lieberman has started attending again.

Right. Joe wasn't "comfortable" being there:

Before Bush's State of the Union speech in January, National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley brought in Lieberman for a private consultation with the President. Lieberman says he talks with or e-mails Hadley, Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff and White House legislative-affairs head Candida Wolff every week or two.

You don't suppose the real story is that the Democrats thought it wasn't a great idea to talk about Iraq strategy with a turncoat in their midst, do you?


.
digby 2/22/2007 12:31:00 PM |

 
Great Game

by digby


I will once again second Duncan's prediction that Bush will not be leaving Iraq before his term ends no matter how many ponies Bob Novak sees galloping around the halls of congress.

Here's Cheney again:

"I think if we were to do what Speaker Pelosi and Congressman Murtha are suggesting, all we will do is validate the al-Qaida strategy. The al-Qaida strategy is to break the will of the American people ... try to persuade us to throw in the towel and come home, and then they win because we quit."

It doesn't get much clearer than that. Furthermore, Iraq and even iran aren't the only things they are thinking about. There's this nugget from Tony Blankley:

MR. BLANKLEY: American military involvement started in Iraq 16 years ago, in 1991. We've had troops or airplanes and their crews there since then. They're going to be there for another 20 years. We can't get a powder out of that part of the world.

MS. CLIFT: Not in combat for 20 years.

MR. BLANKLEY: And there will be combat going on for many years to come.

[...]

MR. BLANKLEY: But the fact is that when the oil is challenged in the Saudi oil fields and the Straits of Hormuz are closed, we'll be fighting, even by your definition ...

This is only tangentially about terrorism, which is no surprise. 9/11 was an opportunity for the PNAC crowd to play their Great Game over resources and domination. They are not going to stop playing it and I suspect that a Democratic administration will be stuck carrying it on to some degree now whether we like it or not. The Republicans have done a fine job of messing things up so completely that it's going to be very, very difficult to extricate ourselves from it. The most we can hope for is that we find someone sane, competent and at least slightly visionary to manage this historic miscalculation and convince the rest of the world that we have not gone completely off the rails.

To that end, I recommend this site today, sponsored by Wes Clark and VoteVets called StopIranWar. If you have a few minutes, please sign the petition. I don't know if we can stop crazy Cheney from doing it anyway, but we have to try.



.
digby 2/22/2007 11:03:00 AM |

 
Smoking Them Out

by digby

In a thoroughly egregious Hardball yesterday, even by its usual egregious standards, Chris Matthews spun some CW that I think may be growing, even though it makes little sense:

MATTHEWS: Is David Geffen smart politically? He strikes me as someone who is very smart.

I mean, here‘s a quote. It‘s an indirect quote from today‘s Maureen Dowd piece in “The New York Times,” which caused all this stir over in the the Clinton world—quote—it‘s just about Bill and Hillary, obviously, and their relationship.

Geffen says, adding that, “If Republicans are digging up dirt, they will wait until Hillary is the nominee to use it.”

That‘s what I have always thought, that, if they‘re going to really turn the guns on the Clintons and the cameras and everything else, and try to, you know, smoke them out, in terms of any problems there, that they will wait until Hillary gets the nomination, then blast her when it‘s too late for the Democrats to change horses.

I think the US government spent eight years and 70 million dollars or so digging up Clinton dirt and rich wingnuts put up several more million on top of that. Every single allegation was aired in the press either through leaks or salacious official "reports." An entire batalion of rightwing operatives also spent eight years making up dirt, including allegations of murder and drug running. They went all the way back to the Clintons' college days, looked into financial transactions from the 70's and interviewed virtually every person the Clintons had ever met. Libraries could be filled with the books and magazine articles written about their personal history along with vast numbers of psychological profiles and speculation about everything from Bill being a manchurian candidate to their sex lives. There were no limits and no stone was left unturned.

What in God's name does Chris think they could possibly find after all that?

Will the press go after Clinton for being a "calculating" bitch? (I think that word's been used more in the past month than ever before in history.) Of course. Will they attack her mercilessly and dredge up every old trope that was used against her back in the day? Undoubtedly. But it is almost impossible to believe they could come up with any real dirt on her because there has never been a more thoroughly vetted candidate in history. Not that the swift-boaters won't just make stuff up like they always do, but it should not be believable to anyone in the mainstream media and it should be greeted with so much skepticism as to be laughable on its face.

I have no dog in this fight and I could not care less if you vote for Hillary Clinton or if you don't. Neither do I care if you think she's a calculating bitch and hate her stance on the war and loathe everything she and her husband did during their administration. Those are fair game. But I will be damned if I'll passively accept this ongoing enabling of character assassination against Democrats, I don't care who they are. If an eight year multi-million dollar federal investigation into every aspect of his or her life isn't enough for the mainstream media to accept that there is no unethical or criminal charges that can credibly be brought against Hillary Clinton then no candidate is safe. If they can believe that "dirt" still exists against her, imagine what they will do with the inevitable swift boat attacks on a candidate who is fairly new on the scene?

This idea that there's "dirt" yet to be unearthed about Clinton is a pernicious rightwing meme designed to stoke the fear that we will be back in tabloid trivia land if Clinton is elected. But that's a meaningless distinction among the candidates since we are already seeing all of them being trivialized with silly "spats" and "obambi" and "breck girl" commentary. It's just the beginning and it will continue as surely as you can say the words "earth tones."



.
digby 2/22/2007 09:31:00 AM |

Wednesday, February 21, 2007

 
"Why Won't He Just Attack?"

by digby

Here's crazy Dick Cheney articulating his sophisticated foreign policy philosophy again:

"I think if we were to do what Speaker Pelosi and Congressman Murtha are suggesting, all we will do is validate the al-Qaida strategy," the vice president told ABC News. "The al-Qaida strategy is to break the will of the American people ... try to persuade us to throw in the towel and come home, and then they win because we quit."

I've written a ridiculous amount about this and yet it always shocks me when I hear him put it so plainly. He believes bin Laden's trash talk and has fashioned this country's national security policy around it. This was the king of the "grown ups."

But why should I be surprised? Perhaps it's time to drag this one up again:

Following one White House meeting at which he'd asked for more time and more troops, Stormin' Norman reports; Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Colin Powell called to warn the Desert Storm commander that he was being loudly compared, by a top administration official, to George McClellan. "My God," the official supposedly complained. "He's got all the force he needs. Why won't he just attack?" Schwarzkopf notes that the unnamed official who'd made the comment "was a civilian who knew next to nothing about military affairs, but he'd been watching the Civil War documentary on public television and was now an expert."

And then, twenty pages later, Schwarzkopf casually drops the information that he got an inspirational gift from Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney right before the air war finally got under way. Cheney was presenting a gift to a military man, and he chose something with an appropriate theme: "(A) complete set of videotapes of Ken Burns's PBS series, The Civil War."

But that wasn't the only gift that Dick Cheney had for Norman Schwarzkopf. Having figured out that the general was being too cautious with his fourth combat command in three decades of soldiering, Cheney got his staff busy and began presenting Schwarzkopf with his own ideas about how to fight the Iraqis: What if we parachute the 82nd Airborne into the far western part of Iraq, hundreds of miles from Kuwait and totally cut off from any kind of support, and seize a couple of missile sites, then line up along the highway and drive for Baghdad? Schwarzkopf charitably describes the plan as being "as bad as it could possibly be... But despite our criticism, the western excursion wouldn't die: three times in that week alone Powell called with new variations from Cheney's staff. The most bizarre involved capturing a town in western Iraq and offering it to Saddam in exchange for Kuwait." (Throw in a Pete Rose rookie card?) None of this Walter Mitty posturing especially surprised Schwarzkopf, who points out that he'd already known Cheney as "one of the fiercest cold warriors in Congress.

This information was available before the 2000 election but we were too busy monitoring Al Gore's wardrobe palette so it didn't come up.


.
digby 2/21/2007 07:48:00 PM |

 
Cultural Revolution

by digby

Like Atrios I like this post on LGM about the Ole Perfesser's homicidal rant proposing that we covertly kill all the Iranian nuclear scientists so that they will not be able to produce a bomb. Excellent idea.

But you know what? You can't just stop with the scientists. You'd have to also kill all the science professors and students because otherwise, they could learn how to make nuclear bombs and then we'd have to go in and kill them too. And when you think about it, as long as any educated people are around the potential to learn and teach is a problem. We sure would hate to see that smoking gun turn out to be a mushroom cloud.

Maybe the thing to do is empty out all the cities and send the educated people to the countryside to work in the fields. I've heard that works. Or we could just apply the Bush Doctrine and take out the whole country to prevent them from ever even thinking about getting a bomb. It's all good.


.
digby 2/21/2007 04:15:00 PM |

 
Faith And Reason

by tristero

I'm sitting here killing time in an aiport and thought I'd jot down a few thoughts on the revival of the big religion in politics discussion.

Religious practice in the United States is a complex, fascinating subject that, oddly, had never received the kind of attention it deserved until very recently. But religion isn't the real topic here. Only the role of religion in American politics is of concern, not how Americans practice their faith, or don't. And unlike the subject of religion itself, the place of religion in political discourse is so straightforward, I'm surprised at the length and prolixity of the discussion:

By conscious decision, the Founders of the United States intended that there be NO place for religious privilege or argumentation in the decision-making process of government. None. As in zero, zip, nada.

No exceptions. Ever.

That's it. Rhetoric like Lincoln's? No big deal. Office of Faith-Based Initiatives? That's an assault on America's most basic values.

I am an absolutist about this. Your identity as a Baptist, a Jew, or atheist is, according the documents penned by the (very) intelligent designers who wrote the Constitution, utterly meaningless in the American political community in its decision-making. Put another way:

The essential principle of American politics is that it insists upon the exercise of cold reason in governance; revelation can play no part, nor can any religion have any kind of privileged status. Period. The End.

It is an indication of how bizarre public discourse on politics has become that my all-American, apple-pie position is dismissed as "radical," "secularist," "anti-religious" and even "fundamentalist." Those who make such idiotic accusations, among them self-styled spokesmen for the "religious Left,*" apparently are unaware that many Americans like me have a long public record demonstrating the deepest respect for, and interest in, serious religious practice. Digby is right: this is pure counter-Enlightenment trash. But Digby is more polite than I am. It is also deeply anti-American.

*Funny, I always thought the religious Left meant people like genuine heroes like the Berrigans or perhaps Archbishop Romero, not wannabe powerbrokers within an establishment political party. Wallis as the next Berrigan? I really don't think so.

tristero 2/21/2007 02:09:00 PM |

 
The Big One

by digby


For those intrigued by my little Paineish scribblings yesterday, do yourself a favor and read this excellent post by Bruce Wilson at Talk2Action about the long march of the counter-enlightenment. He takes particular aim at Jim Wallis because he claims to be the primary leader of the religious left. But it's also a matter of received wisdom on the right, most recently espoused by Dinesh DiSouza, who would rather throw in with Islamic terrorists than American liberals.

Frederick Clarkson has more on Wallis here. Clarkson and Wilson are both strong, passionate and intelligent writers of the religious left. They are not part of this insider cabal that's advising the Democratic Party today, but they should be.


.
digby 2/21/2007 12:04:00 PM |

 
I'm Tired Already

by digby


I just love it when billionaires say things like this, don't you?

I think that America was better served when the candidates were chosen in smoke-filled rooms.

That's the back-biting David Geffen in the Queen of Mean's op-ed column today talking about the calculating Clinton while defending his chosen candidate, the man the QueenBee calls Obambi. What a Freudian field day we have at work on this one.

Clinton slaps back:

If Senator Obama is indeed sincere about his repeated claims to change the tone of our politics, he should immediately denounce these remarks, remove Mr. Geffen from his campaign and return his money.

Oh Jesus, are we denouncing and disavowing already???

Not to be outdone, Obama fires back with one of the best old wingnut chestnuts around:

It is ironic that the Clintons had no problem with David Geffen when was raising them $18 million and sleeping at their invitation in the Lincoln bedroom.

Bam! Right in the kisser.

I don't blame Clinton for defending herself but demanding that Obama "denounce" his supporter is stupid. Furthermore, since she's been running around doing a perfect George W. Bush impression this week, saying repeatedly that "some people don't think terrorism is a threat" she's not in a position to be too self-righteous.

And Obama should know better than to use that old Lincoln bedroom trope. Does he think the right wing won't use the exact same made-up nonsense against him?

Perhaps someone should tell him about how the Washington Post helped gin up that controversy on behalf of the GOP congressional scumbags, even going so far as to count Chelsea Clinton's slumber party guests in the Lincoln Bedroom controversy.

Jesus. Sometimes I don't think we deserve to win. We can't seem to stop helping the other side, even when they are down and out.

Meanwhile, the gentlemen in the press room are simply appalled at the rank incivility among their lessers. Here they are with the Duke of Snow, pledging fealty to the House of Bush:

David Gregory: ...I think that politics and political coverage has become so polarized in this country and in part because everybody- McCurry worried about cable news, with the cameras- that was- that seems like a hundred years ago. Because it- it's the Internet, and the blogs, that have really used this White House press conference to somehow support positions out in America- political views- and they- and they- uh- they will clip, and digitize portions of these briefings to fit into their particular argument and I think people try to divine motives of the questioners and- and certainly draw conclusions about, uh, the answers, or- or non-answers, uh, based on their, their, their own political views.

Tony Snow: You know you raise uh, I'm glad you raised the blog issue, because, uh, I think they'll be kind of a generational divide, uh, do either of you guys look at blogs much?

Panel Member: I write a few, but I don't look at them much.

(laughter)

Tony Snow: And my guess is this side of the room is- looks more at blogs. Um, you look at blogs, right?

Panel Member: I look at blogs. I'm all for blogs, I'm all for the First Amendment, I think people oughta be empowered to write what they want.

Tony Snow: Yeah. Well, I think what's happened is we, we've got this new Democratic age of the media but you're right, it actually- I'll- I'll occasionally punch it up and it's amazing, you get this wonderful imaginative hateful stuff that comes flying out, and, I think one of the, the, the, maybe one of the, the most important takeaways is, it's the classic old line "not only should you not believe your own press you probably shouldn't believe your opposition blogs either". What do you think, Richard?

Richard Wolffe: Yeah, uh, well, uh yeah, I totally agree. I, I, uh- David hit on a good point here that a lot of the blogs are trying to divine motive and bias. There seems to be this sort of- the witch hunt that's out there. A lot of the blogs are, are, are unduly devoted to media criticism which is itself kind of interesting given all the things you could comment on...And, it, uh, in my humble view, I think the press here does a fantastic job of adhering to journalistic standards in covering politics in general. And the, um, the interesting thing in, in looking at the political coverage as people try to guess what we do is, is that they want us to play a role that really isn't our role.

Our- our role is to ask questions and get information. But it- the press briefing isn't Prime Minister's question time. It's not a chance for the opposition to take on the government and grill them to a point where they hand- throw their hands up and surrender. Now, obviously there's a contentious spirit there- we're trying to get information, but, it's not a political exercise, it's a journalistic exercise, and I think often the blogs are looking for us to be political advocates, more than journalistic ones.

Perhaps someone should get these young knights of realm an AM radio so they can see what their Kings followers have been saying for the past 15 years. Dear me.


Gird yourselves, people. It's going to be a looong campaign.


Update: Here's a freebie link to the Modo column so that you can all assess whether I'm being "truthy" about Geffen. I chose that quote because it stuck out to me as being quintessential, big donor, privileged elitism, which is basically what the whole stupid column reeked of. I frankly do not give a damn what Geffen thinks of either Hillary or Obama.

I thought my post was quite clear that the whole shrieking lot of them were acting like a bunch of asshats, but if it wasn't: the whole shrieking lot of them, including the press, are acting like a bunch of asshats.


.
digby 2/21/2007 11:20:00 AM |

 
Debating Point

by digby

Blogpac has an action going today that I think is worthwhile. If you have a spare minute or two, click this link and sign up to send an email to various democratic officials to protest their agreement with Roger Ailes to have Fox News host a presidential primary debate.

The last time they did it, they cut away early to let Bill "boxcars" Bennett spin the debate before it was even finished and displayed banners calling it the "Democrat" party debate. Everyone knows that Fox News is the propaganda arm of the Republican party and there is no reason that Democrats should lend them any credibility by pretending they aren't actively hostile to everything they stand for. I'm not crazy about the fact that so many Dems appear on the network but there is at least some rationale for that --- if they don't then nobody will even try to rebut their partisan spin.

These debates are something else. They are expressly for Democratic primary voters and we should not have to give that network our business in order to watch our presidential candidates debate one another.

Take a couple of minutes to register your complaint, here.



.
digby 2/21/2007 10:23:00 AM |

Tuesday, February 20, 2007

 
Reason and Faith

by digby

In addition to the many insightful and interesting posts Atrios has written with respect to religion this past week or so, he links today to a tour de force on the subject by Mithras that I highly recommend. He hits on one of the most infuriating aspects of this debate which is the apparent childlike naivete with which so many people of these new strategists of the religious left view the anti-abortion movement. Mithras brings up the case of Eric Rudolph and reminds us that the longest ongoing terrorist actions in the United States are the killing and maiming of doctors who perform abortions. These are not the actions of people who "just want a seat at the table." Read this post if you have further questions about whether it is politically smart to capitulate to these people. (And make no mistake, as long as this "outreach" remains fixated on abortion, which it is, it is heading toward capitulation on the issue.)

But this topic touches on something that is even bigger than a person's right to own her own body and decide her own future, as unbelievable as that may sound. And it's not really about the vaguely insulting language that says people like me don't have a basis for morality. It's just a fact that most people think that religion is their moral foundation and they can't imagine how someone else could arrive at similar positions without it. Fine. We can agree to disagree on that as long as the constitution continues to protect me from theocracy. The real problem is that by focusing on religion as being the source of positive values, these new religious left professional strategists are making the Democratic Party as dismissive of reason as the Republicans. That's as bad a long term political strategy as outright hostility to religion would be.

In order to be effective, our politics cannot be faith-based or our enlightenment inspired constitution and its fundamental rationality becomes dangerously superfluous. After all, it is not based upon faith, it is based upon some very simple observations about human nature, power and fundamental human rights which formed a system of government that is designed to allow its citizens a maximum amount of freedom and a maximum amount of equality, two "values" which are constantly in tension and are constantly evolving. Those two basic values have always formed the heart of the political debate in this country and they cannot be reconciled solely by faith. Conscience and morality certainly play the most vital role in our society and for every individual. They inform our beliefs about liberty and equality, but the state itself,made up as it is of flawed human beings, is simply not capable of organizing or acting on that basis, which is why power is divided and deliberation and debate are so highly valued in our constitution. Religious belief is not subject to compromise and faith is not subject to reason, nor should it be. It is something else entirely.

These last few years have shown just how authoritarian the right wing has become and we can see the outlines of much worse down the line. The only thing holding them back is that ancient piece of paper and the common belief we all still hold that it is the guiding document of our government. That belief is being eroded daily with these challenges to the idea of deliberation and debate based on knowledge, reason and persuasion. It's not much of a leap to see where its going.

I have no problem with politicians using religious rhetoric to inform voters of their own personal views, but when appeals to positive virtues become exclusively associated with religious values we end up aiding and abetting a whole host of conservative appeals to authority in the process. We must value reason itself, and employ it liberally and respectfully or we are going to find that the epistemic relativism that the right's been so successful with in recent years will have some very unpleasant consequences.

This nation is not going to be prosperous and successful in the future if we fail to properly emphasize the idea that reason is intrinsic to democracy. And we certainly are not going to be able to deal with the complicated challenges we face, like the rise of militant fundamentalism, nuclear proliferation or global warming unless we agree that people who do not subscribe to religion can be trustworthy and that science, analysis and knowledge form as much of a legitimate basis for human progress as religion. The right demagogues these things for the express purpose of advancing their authoritarian agenda and I don't think it's wise for Democrats to allow a new class of "religious strategists" to further empower them in some ill-conceived crusade to gain votes from the least likely people in the nation to vote for them.

If the Democratic party doesn't stand for freedom and equality and the basic rational premise of the constitution then nobody does. The Republicans sold that out when they made their bed with Jerry Falwell, even though they pretended for years that they were the keepers of the flame. I'd hate to see the Democrats capitulate to the same socially regressive forces and empower the opposition in the process.

The religious and secular left have the chance together to make both reasoned and moral arguments for social justice, civil liberties and civil rights based upon our shared liberal values. Our rational and idealistic worldviews are not in tension. There is no purpose to all this pandering to the right except perhap to give a few new strategists an opportunity create a divide where none exists so they might exploit their positions as professional mediators.

Beware the insider religio-political industrial complex. It dishonestly foments this fight with bogus statistics and bad advice. Democrats are making a big mistake if they listen to them. Their political ambition is tragically weakening the one thing that keeps the nation together and keeps the right from hurtling completely out of control --- the US Constitution and a respect for the clear-eyed reason that inspired it. Democracy is not faith based and religion isn't democratic. People need to be reminded of the difference not encouraged to see them as the same thing.


.
digby 2/20/2007 02:55:00 PM |

 
Low Hanging Fruit

by digby

I've gotcher populism for yah right here. Don't tell me it isn't salient to working Americans:

If the Estate Tax were to be repealed completely, the estimated savings to just one family -- the Walton family, the heirs to the Wal-Mart fortune -- would be about $32.7 billion dollars over the next ten years.

The proposed reductions to Medicaid over the same time frame? $28 billion.

Or how about this: if the Estate Tax goes, the heirs to the Mars candy corporation -- some of the world's evilest scumbags, incidentally, routinely ripped by human rights organizations for trafficking in child labor to work cocoa farms in places like Cote D'Ivoire -- if the estate tax goes, those assholes will receive about $11.7 billion in tax breaks. That's more than three times the amount Bush wants to cut from the VA budget ($3.4 billion) over the same time period.

Some other notable estimate estate tax breaks, versus corresponding cuts:

* Cox family (Cox cable TV) receives $9.7 billion tax break while education would get $1.5 billion in cuts

* Nordstrom family (Nordstrom dept. stores) receives $826.5 million tax break while Community Service Block Grants would be eliminated, a $630 million cut

* Ernest Gallo family (shitty wines) receives a $468.4 million cut while LIHEAP (heating oil to poor) would get a $420 million cut

And so on and so on. Sanders additionally pointed out that the family of former Exxon/Mobil CEO Lee Raymond, who received a $400 million retirement package, would receive about $164 million in tax breaks.

Compare that to the Commodity Supplemental Food Program, which Bush proposes be completely eliminated, at a savings of $108 million over ten years. The program sent one bag of groceries per month to 480,000 seniors, mothers and newborn children.

And the argument isn't complete until you point out:

The 10-year effort to repeal the estate tax (aka the Paris Hilton Tax) on heirs of the super wealthy has been financed and coordinated by just 18 families, according to a new report by Public Citizen and United for a Fair Economy.

This is such an easy one ...


.
digby 2/20/2007 02:51:00 PM |

 

The Haves And The Have Nots

by poputonian

From the new blog TechPresident:

It appears that Barack Obama's strategic web initiatives, including the launch of the private-label social network My.BarackObama.com are paying off. As reported in the Chicago Tribune, more than 4,000 individuals have set up blogs, and an additional 3,000 individuals have set up private fundraising pages on Obama's social network. The article, written last week, also points to the 2,400 groups formed on the site. This morning, however, I counted 3,229 groups on Obama's SNS, a 35% increase in just a few days.

And then this from another Tribune article:

Obama winning -- in MySpace friends

Illinois junior Senator Barack Obama has a huge lead in the presidential campaign -- in MySpace friends. Obama supporters could get excited about his more than 43,000 close buddies, and how that puts him well ahead of Hillary Clinton's 23,000 friends. (No Republican candidate tops 2,600.)

And from the front page of TechPresident -- (my daughter can beat the bottom two Republicans.)

Democrats - # of friends
Obama - 43003
Clinton - 23428
Edwards - 11593
Vilsack - 1347
Kucinich - 1078
Richardson - 661
Biden - 510
Dodd - 172

Republicans - # of friends
Paul - 2501
Romney - 1373
McCain - 1356
Tancredo - 1051
Giuliani - 637
Huckabee - 385
Brownback - 166
Shooter242 - 0

poputonian 2/20/2007 03:31:00 AM |

Monday, February 19, 2007

 
Talk Turkey

by digby

I agree with Kevin Drum on this:

... my greatest wish for this campaign season is for Democrats to back off from the trifles now and again and instead spend some time getting back to basics and outlining a broad perspective on both American and global security that competes with the puerile bluster that currently passes for intelligent discussion among Republicans.

It's actually quite important that they do so and soon. Here's a rundown from the German papers on the Iraq escalation votes:

The Financial Times Deutschland writes:

"For four years any criticism of the war was seen as a betrayal of the troops. This taboo has now been broken ... the vote marks a decisive change in American politics.

"The Bush Administration has not only forfeited its credibility internationally -- now it is also fighting a losing battle on the home front.

"One could be tempted to feel Schadenfreude about the spectacular failure of this president. But a US government that has suffered such a loss of authority is a weakness for the whole West. Iraq, Afghanistan, the Middle East, Iran and North Korea are the big conflicts in international politics. Bush -- morally disavowed and increasingly abandoned by his own party colleagues -- will not be able to do much to solve them. So who will?"

It is a huge problem and one that will not be solved by Joe Lieberman admonishing Democrats to start goose stepping behind the president. Nobody believes anything either he or Bush say. In fact, our greatest hope for getting through this unstable historical juncture is for Democratic presidential candidates to start letting the world know what they will do to change course. We are in a very dangerous time in which people both in our own government and in the outside world are likely to make terrible misjudgments. The world needs to know not only that the US Congress is engaged in oversight, but that the most likely subsequent presidential leadership understands the stakes.


.
digby 2/19/2007 07:00:00 PM |

 
Squeeze Play

by digby

Murray Waas is reporting:

If Libby is found guilty, investigators are likely to probe further to determine if Libby devised what they consider a cover story in an effort to shield Cheney.

Here's the skinny:

In the fall of 2003, when it was disclosed that the Justice Department had begun a criminal probe as to who leaked Plame's identity to reporters, Libby sought out Cheney to complain that while then-White House spokesperson McClellan was making public statements that Rove had not been a source of the leak, McClellan refused to do the same on Libby's behalf.

Asked by Fitzgerald whether during that conversation Libby might have in fact told Cheney that he had spoken to reporters about Plame, Libby answered: "I think I did. Let me bring you back to that period. I think I did in that there was a conversation I had with the vice president when all this started coming out and it was this issue as to, you now, who spoke to Novak.

"I told the vice- you know, there was- the president said anybody who knows anything should come forward or something like that... I went to the vice president and said, you know, I was not the person who talked to Novak.

"And he [said] something like, 'I know that.' And I said, you know, 'I learned this from Tim Russert.' And he sort of tilted his head to the side a little bit and then I may have in that conversation said, I talked to other -- I talked to people about it on the weekend," Libby said in apparent reference to his conversations with Cooper and Miller.

Fitzgerald then pressed Libby: "What did you understand from his gesture or reaction in tilting his head?"

Libby responded: "That the Tim Russert part caught his attention. You know, that he- he reacted as if he didn't know about the Tim Russert thing or he was rehearing it, or reconsidering it or something like that... New, new sort of information. Not something he had been thinking about."

Fitzgerald asked: "And did he at any time tell you, 'Well, you didn't learn it from Tim Russert, you learned it from me? Back in June you and I talked about the wife working at the CIA?'"

"No," Libby responded.

"Did he indicate any concern that you had done anything wrong by telling reporters what you had learned?" Fitzgerald asked.

"No," Libby responded.

Later, Fitzgerald asked Libby: "Did you tell the vice president that you had actually spoken to Time magazine and Mr. Cooper and had discussed Wilson's wife's work with Mr. Cooper?

Libby answered: "I think this conversation was about whether -- the leak to Novak. I don't know that I discussed that with the vice president. I did tell him, of course, that we had spoken to the people who he had told us to speak to on the weekend. I think at some point I told him that."

Libby had been frustrated that in recent days that McClellan had made statements saying that Rove had nothing to do with the leak of Plame's identity, but refused to do so for Libby as well. Libby then pressed his case to then-White House chief of staff Andy Card, but to no avail himself until Cheney intervened.

An agitated Cheney wrote in a note to himself: "Not going to protect one staffer + sacrifice the guy who was asked to stick his neck in the meat grinder because of the incompetence of others." Cheney also scribbled: "Must happen today."

Some time later -- Libby wasn't able to provide the grand jury with the exact date -- he went back to Cheney to tell him that he discovered a note indicating that he had first learned from Cheney, not Russert, that Plame was a CIA officer.

Libby told the grand jury: "In the course of the document production, the FBI sent us a request for documents, or Justice Department, I'm not sure technically. In the course of that document production I came across the note that is dated on or about June 12, and the note... shows that I hadn't first learned it from Russert, although that was my memory, I had first learned it when he said it to me.

"And so I went back to see him and said, you know, I told you something wrong before. It turns out that I have a note that I had heard, heard about this earlier from you and I just -- you know, I didn't want to leave you with the wrong... the wrong statement that I heard about it from Tim Russert. In fact, I had heard about it earlier, but I had forgotten it."

Asked by Fitzgerald what Cheney's reaction was, Libby responded by saying that Cheney hardly had anything at all:

"He didn't say much. You know, he said something about, 'From me?' something like that, and tilted his head, something he does commonly, and that was that."

Read the whole article for a very nice, succinct rundown of the evidence Fitzgerald presented against Libby as well as this very interesting speculation.

I have no idea if Libby will turn on Cheney or if Fitzgerald will follow through with an obstruction investigation. I do not believe he will bring charges against Cheney unless he has a solid case.

I've heard some wags say recently that some former special prosecutors believe Cheney was lucky to have a "conservative" running this case because they would have named Cheney as an unindicted co-conspirator. I don't know if that's true, but it brings up something important about Patrick Fitzgerald that's sometimes missed. He's conservative but not in a discernably political sense. It's because he uses his office with prudence and circumspection. That's not to say he isn't tough or that he doesn't play hardball -- his cases in Chicago are almost frightening in their methodical thoroughness. But he isn't a partisan either left or right (or if he is, it doesn't seem to show itself in his work.)

I would love nothing more than to see Dick Cheney indicted on an obstruction charge, but I'm glad to know that Fitzgerald is not the type of prosecutor who would bring flimsy charges, even against that dark eminence. The typical right wing partisan prosecutor has been a blight on our system for a long time, railroading innocent people and using racist "tough on crime" platforms to launch political careers. (Can you hear me Rudy?) Fitzgerald is a true conservative in the literal sense and that's a very good thing when it comes to police powers. I wish there were more real conservatives in law enforcement and judicial system. We'd have a safer and more just society if we did.



.
digby 2/19/2007 01:58:00 PM |

 
Unreliable Narrators

by digby

The NY Times has apparently had some kind of revelation about the fact that the Whitewater and subsequent scandals were ginned up by rich rightwing character assassins.

Mr. Scaife, reclusive heir to the Mellon banking fortune, spent more than $2 million investigating and publicizing accusations about the supposed involvement of Mrs. Clinton and former President Bill Clinton in corrupt land deals, sexual affairs, drug running and murder.

But now, as Mrs. Clinton is running for the Democratic presidential nomination, Mr. Scaife’s checkbook is staying in his pocket.

Christopher Ruddy, who once worked full-time for Mr. Scaife investigating the Clintons and now runs a conservative online publication he co-owns with Mr. Scaife, said, “Both of us have had a rethinking.”

How nice. Let's all sing kumbaaya, shall we? And let's not examine the new Swiftboat hitmen who have emerged to take their places. That would be uncivil, I'm sure --- and all that rich, delicious, GOP nastiness would be denied them.

And let's not forget how all the kewl kidz made fun of Clinton as if she were some sort of paranoid freak for saying there was a vast right wing conspiracy. The press, for reasons that remain obscure, decided it was good fun to pretend that wasn't happening and to report all this drivel in the first place. And that is the problem.

How odd it is that that fail to mention their own complicity in that ongoing effort. It's been well over a decade now; you'd think they could have found a paragraph or two to explain why they reported these hoaxes and smear jobs with all the incredulity of a three year old sitting on a mall Santa's lap.

The New York Times still has failed to answer for its deplorable coverage over the course of eight long years. Here's a case in point from a few years back --- Joe Conasan on NY Times editor Joseph Lelyvend's embarrassing defense of his paper's rpeposterous coverage in his review of Sidney Blumenthal's book "The Clinton Wars:

Thanks to Joseph Lelyveld's long, sloppy, rather mean-spirited review of Sidney Blumenthal's "The Clinton Wars" in the current New York Review of Books, the Whitewater mystery is finally resolved, at least in part. That mystery was never much about Whitewater itself -- a mundane, money-losing land deal. What always defied understanding was why the editors of the New York Times tolerated their paper's persistent hyping of the phony "scandal."

The answer, as Lelyveld reveals inadvertently, was a remarkable degree of carelessness at the very top. Although he has defended the paper's coverage publicly for several years -- and continues to do so as if he knows what he's talking about -- the former Times executive editor clearly never mastered the basic facts.

They never wanted to. They were breathlessly creating a "narrative", not doing journalism and they evidently don't understand that even today. Because of that of that they missed the real story, which they belatedly and perfunctorily report today as if its old news. Here's Blumenthal responding to Lelyveld's error ridden review:

Lelyveld writes now that Gerth's article "had multiple sources." But a single source had given Gerth the tip on the story and arranged for him to meet Jim McDougal, who was at the time suffering from manic depression, drug addiction, alcoholism, and bankruptcy. That source was Sheffield Nelson, an embittered partisan Republican rival of Bill Clinton, who had run against him for governor in 1990. Nelson's pertinence to Madison Guaranty was that he'd contributed to breaking it. As I write in my book: "McDougal and Nelson had been business partners in a deal to buy Campobello Island, FDR's famous summer place, and turn it into resort lots. More than any other scheme, that failed one had helped pull the Madison bank under. But the Campobello deal went unmentioned in Gerth's account."

At first, Gerth's Times article had little impact. As I write, "McDougal retracted his charges, saying Clinton had done nothing illegal or unethical. A forensic accountant scratched through the confused records and issued a report showing no wrongdoing by the Clintons, while they lost about $65,000." However, a Republican activist, L. Jean Lewis, who worked as an investigator at the Resolution Trust Corporation, the federal agency dealing with failed savings and loans associations, read the article and became the prime mover in turning its allegations into a criminal referral.

Then, many months later, during the presidential campaign in October 1992, Bush White House legal counsel C. Boyden Gray asked the chief executive of the RTC to look into this referral. The US Attorney in Arkansas, Charles Banks (a Republican appointee), looked into it, and on October 7, 1992, the following telex, which I cite in The Clinton Wars, was sent to Washington: "It is the opinion of Little Rock FBI and the United States Attorney...that there is indeed insufficient evidence to suggest the Clintons had knowledge of the check-kiting activity conducted by McDougal.... It was also the opinion of [Banks that] the alleged involvement of the Clintons in wrong-doing was implausible...." When Attorney General William Barr nonetheless tried to revive Lewis's referral, Banks rebuked his boss: "I must opine that after such a lapse of time the insistence of urgency in this case appears to suggest an intentional or unintentional attempt to intervene into the political process of the upcoming presidential election."

Then, prophetically, he added: "You and I know in investigations of this type, the first steps, such as issuance of grand jury subpoenas for records, will lead to media and public inquiries [about] matters that are subject to absolute privacy. Even media questions about such an investigation in today's modern political climate all too often publicly purport to 'legitimize what can't be proven.'" He suggested that participating in such an investigation "amounts to prosecutorial misconduct and violates the most basic fundamental rule of Department of Justice policy."

In another telex the Little Rock FBI office added that there was "absolutely no factual basis to suggest criminal activity on the part of any of the individuals listed as witnesses in the referral"—that is, the Clintons.

Although the Los Angeles Times reported these memos and telexes on August 9, 1995, the Nexis database reveals no mention in The New York Times. Was Lelyveld ever made aware of these documents at the time?

The NY Times treated this story like it was The Pentagon Papers. They legitimized its obfuscatory style of reporting and the confusion that resulted led to the naming of an independent counsel and finally to the partisan impeachment of a popular and successful president. Yet, it was obvious to observers that they were being led around by a cabal of rightwing hit men from very early on. They simply refused to see the story for what it was and instead validated their erroneous reporting with a continuous narrative stream of unproven implications that fed the toxic political environment --- and that fed them in return.

I know this is all boring, arcane history now, but it's important to note that we are seeing similar stuff happening already with respect to various "deals" that are being reported in the press about Harry Reid and John Edwards. So far they are thin, nonsensical "exposes" written by one man, John Soloman, formerly of the AP and now of the Washington Post. Soloman is known to be a lazy reporter who happily takes "tips" from the wingnut noise machine and faithfully regurgitates them. He holds a very important position at the paper that was second only to the Times in its eagerness to swallow Ken Starr's spin whole.

We are also seeing some similar reporting begin to emerge on Obama, much of it generated by hometown political rivals, just as we saw in the Clinton years. Today the LA Times implies that Obama is exaggerating his activist past. A couple of weeks ago we saw a truly egregiously misleading report on a deal he made to buy some land from a supporter.

These are patented Whitewater-style "smell test" stories. They are based on complicated details that make the casual reader's eyes glaze over and about which the subject has to issue long confusing explanations in return. They feature colorful and unsavory political characters in some way. They often happened in the past and they tend to be written in such a way as to say that even if they aren't illegal they "look bad." The underlying theme is hypocrisy because the subjects are portrayed as making a dishonest buck while pretending to represent the average working man. Oh, and they always feature a Democrat. Republicans are not subject to such scrutiny because a craven, opportunistic Republican isn't "news." (Neat trick huh?)

No single story will bring down a candidate because they have no substance to them. It's the combined effect they are looking for to build a sense overall sleaziness. "Where there's smoke there's fire" right?

The major media has never copped to their role in the tabloid sideshow that politics in the 90's became. They have never copped to their part in elevating Bush to the status of demigod and running beside him like a bunch of eunuchs waving palm fronds during the lead-up to the war. Even today we see them pooh-poohing the significance of a federal trial that exposes them for whores to Republican power.

But it happened and it will happen again. They have learned nothing and feel they have nothing to answer for. Clinton's spokesman is right when he says “I think that history demonstrates that whoever the nominee is is going to engender opposition from the right, and we will certainly be prepared" but it is only part of the story. All Democrats will also engender reporting from a press corps that persists in seeing politics through the lens of the rightwing narrative that was set forth by Scaife and his various hitmen back in the 1990's.


Update: Pach at FDL has more.


Update II: And then there's this.
digby 2/19/2007 01:00:00 PM |

 
"He's Actually Very Intelligent"

by digby




And he restored honor, dignity and civility to the white house.


.
digby 2/19/2007 09:43:00 AM |

Sunday, February 18, 2007

 
Historic Turning Point

by digby


Pat Buchanan said something quite bracing on the McLaughlin Report this week-end:

What this tells you John is that we are coming out of Iraq. This is the first resolution and it's non-binding, others are coming down the road. There will be no more surges into Iraq, the president has said we are not winning the war with the troops we have, we are coming out. So we had better prepare ourselves for the consequences, not of a defeat for American arms, but a defeat for American policy in Iraq, the potential loss of Iraq. And frankly John, the situation's not looking all that good in Afghanistan either, where the NATO allies are not doing their bit. So we are at a historic turning point, I think, for the United States in the middle east.

We aren't going to be leaving Iraq while George W. Bush is in the white house. But, I think he's got the rest of it right. We certainly have a policy failure in Iraq. Big time.

Tony Blankley let the cat out of the bag, however, when he said that the US will be in Iraq for 20 years. When challenged about the difference between American combat troops on the ground an an American "presence" he (angrily)said this:

The fact is that when the oil is challenged in the Saudi oil fields and the Straights of Hormuz are closed, we'll be fighting even by your definition.

Right. They aren't even pretending anymore.

I think the great public intellectual and conservative philosopher Ann Coulter said it best:

"Liberals are always talking about why we shouldn't go to war for oil. But why not go to war for oil? We need oil.

There you go.


.
digby 2/18/2007 06:20:00 PM |

 
Do As I Say, Not As I Said

by digby

We keep hearing a lot about how wrong it is for the Democrats in congress to have the temerity to stop giving the president a blank check. Over and over again the Republicans wail about how the Dems want to hurt the troops by refusing to fund this escalation.

Here's GOP Representative Sam Johnson last week:

“I really want to know: If Democrats insist that they are supporting our troops, then why wouldn’t they let me introduce my measure that mandates that Congress would support and fully fund the men and women in uniform?

“I’m positive that Democrats will attempt to cut funding as soon as the spending bills come up this spring…and fear what that means for our troops on the ground.

[...]

“What is the democrats’ plan to move forward and win? They don’t have one! Just 36 hours of political grandstanding, non-binding resolutions, and petty posturing. They are not proposing solutions. They are not even encouraging new ideas – in fact – they stopped them, like when they squashed my amendment.

“Many hope that the troop surge is the beginning of the end. We all should want that if it gets the job done. Yet, Democrats are just saying no.

“You know, the time will come when they can put the money behind these non-binding resolutions….. and you better believe that we’ll be watching them …and calling them on those funding cuts loud and clear.

“America needs to know: cutting funds for our troops in harm’s way is not a remedy – it’s a ruse.”

He had more to say in his gripping closing statement:

“We POWs were still in Vietnam when Washington cut the funding for Vietnam. I know what it does to morale and mission success. Words can not fully describe the horrendous damage of the anti-American efforts against the war back home to the guys on the ground."

“Our captors would blare nasty recordings over the loud speaker of Americans protesting back home…tales of Americans spitting on Vietnam veterans when they came home... and worse.

“We must never, ever let that happen again.

“The pain inflicted by your country’s indifference is tenfold that inflicted by your ruthless captors.

“Our troops – and their families – want, need and deserve the full support of the country – and the Congress. Moms and dads watching the news need to know that the Congress will not leave their sons and daughters in harm’s way without support.

[...]

“Debating non-binding resolutions aimed at earning political points only destroys morale, stymies success, and emboldens the enemy.

“The grim reality is that this House measure is the first step to cutting funding of the troops…Just ask John Murtha about his ‘slow-bleed’ plan that hamstrings our troops in harm’s way.

“Now it’s time to stand up for my friends who did not make it home – and those who fought and died in Iraq - so I can keep my promise that when we got home we would quit griping about the war and do something positive about it…and we must not allow this Congress to leave these troops like the Congress left us.

“Today, let my body serve as a brutal reminder that we must not repeat the mistakes of the past… instead learn from them.

“We must not cut funding for our troops. We must stick by them. We must support them all the way…To our troops we must remain…always faithful.

How do you argue with a man like that?

Well, I suppose you could start with this:

UNITED STATES TROOP DEPLOYMENTS IN BOSNIA (House of Representatives - December 13, 1995)

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas:

Mr. Speaker, this is not about peace and war; it is about war. That is what is going on over there, and they are not going to stop fighting just because we go in there.

I wholeheartedly support withholding funds from President Clinton's Bosnia mission. Although it is a drastic step and ties the President's hands, I do not feel like we have any other choice. The President has tied our hands, gone against the wishes of the American people, and this is the last best way I know how to show my respect for our American servicemen and women. They are helpless, following orders. But we, we
are in a position to stop this terrible mistake before it happens.

I know how those soldiers are feeling. I was in the military for 29 years, and I recognize that we used to say `Let's go to war. Let's go fight that war, it is the only one we have got.' And that is what some of them are doing. However, I was told by Senator Hutchison that the guys down in Fort Hood did not say that. They said `Why are we going there? Can't you stop us?' She said she would try.

Thirty years ago when I was sent to Vietnam in a similar situation, Vietnam started out as a peace type mission, no defined goal, no exit strategy, no idea whose side we were on, and a created incident to gain support of the Congress. A peacekeeping mission? Come on. Does this not sound just like a carbon copy? I think it is.

What is going to happen when our guys get over there, and if the rules of engagement apply, and they get shot at, and we start shooting back, what are their people going to say when we start killing them, killing Bosnians, killing Croatians, killing Serbs? We will do it, and we will get chastised for it.

Let me just ask one more thing for the guys over here voting against it: What are you going to do when one of our women soldiers get captured?

These principled conservatives really get you coming and going don't they?

It seems that the Republicans have forgotten the debate over troop funding in 1995. Too bad they are on record:

As thousands of U.S. soldiers packed for a winter in Bosnia, the Senate Wednesday debated President Clinton's plan to send those troops to enforce peace between ancient enemies. House Republicans vented their opposition.

In a 108-64 vote Wednesday, House Republicans backed a measure that would cut off funding for the mission. Although House leaders gave the funding cutoff no chance of passing later Wednesday, the caucus action clearly reflected stiff opposition.

[...]

The measure drafted by Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole (R-Kan.) and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) was given the best chance of winning Senate approval Wednesday -shortly before the president departs for Paris and the signing of the Bosnian peace agreement Thursday.

House backing appeared less certain, particularly after Republicans endorsed the measure by Rep. Bob Dornan of California, which would cut off money for the operation.


"I'm going to be in Tuzla on Christmas with the troops," Dornan said, referring to the U.S. headquarters in Bosnia. "Please don't question Bob Dornan's support for the troops."

[...]

The Senate debated three options: Cut off funding, a proposal given little chance of passing; oppose Clinton's decision to send troops but support the soldiers themselves, expected to gain Republican support; or permit Clinton to send troops but impose restrictions on the mission, also considered likely to pass..."I think the American people are solidly behind our effort to stop the deployment, even though it's almost too late now," said Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.)

To be fair, the debate was all over the place, although the Dems were solidly behind Clinton. (The public was extremely skeptical that the mission could work or that the US would not take casualties. As it turned out, there were none, either there or in the Kosovo war that came later and which many Republicans also opposed.)

Never the less, it's quite astonishing to see how casually Republicans discussed cutting off funding and how they offered legislation to do it --- and all the other things they now purport are outrageous betrayals of the military. There were troops on the ground then too --- Dornan was headed out to Tuszla to visit them. (They knew, of course, that they wouldn't be baited by rightwing character assassins for doing so, so they do have freedom that Democrats don't have.)

But, still, it was only twelve years ago that our big POW hero Sam Johnson held an entirely different position on defunding the troops than he has now. You'd think that someone would have noticed the inconsistency.

I have to wonder just how many times Republicans get to be totally wrong on national security before the American people (certainly the press) catch on to the fact that they have never had the faintest clue?


H/T to JG.
digby 2/18/2007 05:48:00 PM |

 
No, We're The Greatest Generation

by digby

One of the things thats driven me nuts over the past few years is this reflexive portrayal of the GWOT as the most dangerous and challenging in world history. They have from the beginning behaved in a way that I think history will see as panicked and overwrought. As a nation we behaved with much more calm and deliberation when we were much more seriously threatened in the past. These last few years were not our finest.

Still they audaciously insist that the forty years of the cold war were a cakewalk compared to what we are dealing with now. Indeed, many of them also believe that WWII was nothing to the horrors we face today. (Chris Hayes wrote a great piece about this for In These Times some months back.) Bush still repeats his completely absurd line about how the oceans used to protect us and he's just dumb enough to actually believe it. Paul Kennedy, a professor of history and the director of international security studies at Yale discusses this in today's LA Times:

IT WAS FUNNY, in a grim sort of way. Last week, Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates responded to Russian President Vladimir V. Putin's polemical attack on the United States by remembering the 50-year Cold War as a "less complex time" and saying he was "almost nostalgic" for its return.

Gates should know. He himself is the quintessential Cold Warrior, having served nearly 27 years in the Central Intelligence Agency (facing off against the likes of Putin, who was for 17 years an agent in the foreign intelligence branch of the Soviet KGB). So we should take him seriously when he suggests that the problems of 20 or 30 years ago were in some ways more manageable than our current global predicament.

Nor is he alone. There is a palpable sense of nostalgia these days for the familiar contours of that bygone conflict, which has been replaced by a much more murky, elusive and confusing age.

The argument goes as follows: The Cold War, although unpleasant, was inherently stable. It was a bipolar world — centered on Washington and Moscow — and, as UC Berkeley political scientist Kenneth Waltz argued, it was much more predictable than, say, the shifting, multipolar world of the 1910s or 1930s, decades that were followed by calamitous wars. Yes, it's true that the two sides possessed masses of nuclear weapons aimed at each other's biggest cities, but the reality is that they were constrained by a mutual balance of terror.

I see this as being two different phenomena. The first is the unreconstructed cold warriors who are both rewriting history and adhering to their long standing hysterical position that the sky is always falling and the only thing to do is fight, invade, bomb or some other form of violence. They have never seen any use in diplomacy, international law, sophisticated containment strategies or anything else that requires finesse and subtlety. It's always been about might makes right with these people. They were frustrated to no end by anyone who tried something different and that includes St. Ronnie who was roundly denounced for taking yes for an answer when the Soviets saw the light.

One would have thought that the outcome of the cold war would make them embarrassed to ever offer an opinion again, but they simply airbrushed the facts to suggest that Ronald Reagan's welfare for middle aged white males (otherwise known as the 80's defense buildup) somehow meant they had defeated the Soviets on the battlefield. But it wasn't truly satisfying and they were looking for a proper boogeyman to hate from the moment Gorbachev and Ronnie made nice.

Then 9/11 happens when they are in charge and they have a chance to do it the way they always wanted to --- by roaring and flailing about like a wounded Giant under the ridiculous assumption that this will scare the enemy so much he will just give up. They are facing this complicated threat with all the sophistication of early man trying to scare off a big predator.

The doughy pantload generation of wingnuts, on the other hand, thinks it's some sort of game and they are the star players. They yearned to be "part" of something momentous --- but from a distance, like you are when you are watching movies about war and heroism and identify with the main characters. No need to give up your Milk Duds just to enjoy a good bloodbath. They are writing an exciting plotline that has Islamic terrorism somehow so uniquely dangerous that it has surpassed WWII and the cold war and is more like something out of science fiction: "Star Wars" or "War of the Worlds." To these people, naitonal security is cheap pulp fiction.

Of course it is all nonsense. After acknowledging that today's world is complicated and difficult, yadda, yadda yadda, Kennedy continues:

So is it true? Was the Cold War era, on the whole, a safer era? Ponder the following counterarguments:

First, however tricky our relationships with Putin's Russia and President Hu Jintao's China are nowadays, the prospect of our entering a massive and mutually cataclysmic conflict with either nation are vastly reduced.

We seem to have forgotten that our right-wing hawks argued passionately for "nuking" communist China during the Korean War and again during the Taiwan Straits crisis of 1954. We also have apparently forgotten — although newly released archival evidence overwhelmingly confirms this — how close we came to a nuclear Armageddon during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Likewise, we've forgotten the shock of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, which prompted then-German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt to ask, "Is this the new Sarajevo?" a reference to the outbreak of World War I. And who still remembers 1984-85, when we were riveted by Jonathan Schell's argument in the New Yorker that even a few nuclear explosions would trigger such dust storms as to produce a "nuclear winter"?

Those were really scary times, and much more dangerous than our present circumstance because the potential damage that could be inflicted during an East-West conflagration was far, far greater than anything that Al Qaeda can do to us now. No one has the exact totals, but we probably had 20,000 missiles pointed at each other, often on high alert. And the threat of an accidental discharge was high.

None of today's college-age students were born in 1945, 1979 or maybe even 1984. None lived with those triangular signs proclaiming their schools to be nuclear bomb shelters.

To recapture those frightening atmospherics these days, university professors must resort to showing Cold War movies: "The Manchurian Candidate," "Fail Safe," "Dr. Strangelove," "The Hunt for Red October," "Five Days in May," "The Spy Who Came in from the Cold." Students look rather dumbfounded when told that we came close, on several occasions, to World War III.

Yet what if, for example, Josef Stalin had prevented American and British supply aircraft from flying into Berlin in 1948-49? Phew! The years 1945 to, say, 1990 were horrible on other accounts. China's Mao Tse-tung's ghastly Great Leap Forward led to as many as 30 million deaths, the greatest loss of life since the Black Death. The Soviet Union was incarcerating tens of thousands of its citizens in the gulags, as were most of the other members of the Warsaw Pact. The Indo-Pakistan wars, and the repeated conflicts between Israel and its neighbors, produced enormous casualties, but nothing like the numbers that were being slaughtered in Angola, Nigeria, the Congo, Vietnam and Cambodia. Most of the nations of the world were "un-free."

It is hard to explain to a younger generation that such delightful countries as Greece, Spain, Portugal, Chile, Brazil, South Africa, Poland and Czechoslovakia (to name only a few) were run in those days by fascist generals, avowed racists or one-party totalitarian regimes. I am ancient enough to remember the long list of countries I would not visit for summer holidays; old enough to recall how creepy it was to enter Walter Ulbricht's East German prison house of a state via Checkpoint Charlie in the late 1960s. Ugh.

Let us not, then, wax too nostalgic about the good old days of the Cold War. Today's global challenges, from Iraq to Darfur to climate change, are indeed grave and cry out for solutions.

But humankind as a whole is a lot more prosperous, a great deal more free and democratic and a considerable way further from nuclear obliteration than we were in Dwight Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy's time. We should drink to that.

No thanks to the rabid right which has been lobbying for a nuclear meltdown (and global domination, let's face it) since the end of WWII. It is a worldview that has almost nothing to do with actual events or facts on the ground. It reached its zenith with Bush, but they will never go away. They are fearful, insecure people whose temperament and ideology create a need for them to believe that they are warrior heroes in spite of all evidence to the contrary. They are the last people on earth who should be leading a powerful nation in a time of great challenge. Talk about putting the inmates in charge of the asylum.



Update: Tangentially related is this column by David Brooks today in which he says, "Iraq has revealed what human beings do without a strong order-imposing state." My goodness, that sounds an awful lot like and endorsement of totalitarianism, don't you think? (Read this by Arthur Silber, to see Brooks revealed as the cramped, anti-enlightenment fraud he is.)

This, again, relates more to psychology than ideology. These are people who are apparently motivated by a rather simple desire to dominate. Gone now are the lovely paeans to democracy and freedom and liberty and even private enterprise. Within three short years we are back to a Hobbesian hellhole where the wogs need a strong hand. Man, you'd think they'd get whiplash.

On a political level, this all means that it's silly to believe that anything they say or do is sincere. We have seen the Bush administration cast aside virtually every tenet of modern conservatism and yet the base remains devoted believers in the Party. Indeed, they are getting ready to vote for one of three other world class conservative hypocrites, knowing full well that they are liars, cheats and panderers. So let's cut the crap about them ever having strong principles. It's all about kicking ass and taking names with these people. All other aspects of the conservative "philosophy" clearly mean nothing to them.


.
digby 2/18/2007 04:15:00 PM |

 

The Audacity of Remediation

by poputonian

The ideal candidate for president, as I see it, would come from a platform of remediation; it would be a person who realizes that America is deeply flawed, and who understands the need to usher in an era of remedial action, to study where America went off the tracks; it would be someone who sees how corporations and religion have violated the public sphere to the detriment of the founding ideals, and how those two public corruptions, money and religion, have fostered the imperialism that put America, once again, in an unnecessary war.

I'm not for one minute suggesting that a remediation platform will garner votes. If a candidate wants votes, they will be out peddling a different audacity, one called hope. Hope will attract the feeble-minded voter who wants to feel good today and can't imagine that America might not be "great." Hope is just the snake oil these folks need.

The audacity of remediation, on the other hand, begins with the understanding that America has some medicine to take before it can get better. The medicine is making changes to the core of how society operates, to remove money as the main driver of its politics, and to restore to society the ideals of justice and humanity.

The platform:

1. The ideal candidate should be able to differentiate between illusory concepts such as hope, and the important duties we have to justice and humanity. Blog-friend Nezua Limón Xolagrafik-Jonez differentiated it nicely in an inspiring post today:

If there is hope for the future of mankind, it does not lie in our media, it does not lie in our laws, it does not lie in our war-makers, and it does not lie in the endless verbal and mental diarrhea that we call "News." Perhaps it lies in remembering that our first duty is to mankind; to humanity. Perhaps it lies in remembering that an honest person who remains neutral is not an honest person at all, but an accomplice to every crime done in their name. Perhaps it lies in telling the truth.

2. The ideal candidate would acknowledge that 700,000 people have been killed and maimed in an illegal war, and that justice and humanity demands the impeachment of those responsible. From digby's post yesterday, Lincoln spoke of the gravity of violating the constitution, and spoke of our duty with regard to impeachment:

Our safety, our liberty, depends upon preserving the Constitution of the United States as our fathers made it inviolate. The people of the United States are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.

3. The ideal candidate would push to re-establish the public interest aspect of the corporation, and to restore the balance of power between labor and capital; the candidate would support Fair Trade standards. The candidate would push to remove all private money from election campaigns.

Joe Vecchio provides this quotation by Theodore Roosevelt:

At many stages in the advance of humanity, this conflict between the men who possess more than they have earned and the men who have earned more than they possess is the central condition of progress. In our day it appears as the struggle of free men to gain and hold the right of self-government as against the special interests, who twist the methods of free government into machinery for defeating the popular will. At every stage, and under all circumstances, the essence of the struggle is to equalize opportunity, destroy privilege, and give to the life and citizenship of every individual the highest possible value both to himself and to the commonwealth.

-Theodore Roosevelt, The New Nationalism, 1910

Another learned man, Eisenhower, had a similar recognition:

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

4. The ideal candidate will protect religion as private worship, but will support restrictions on it as a public spectacle. The candidate will understand the impact of public charlatans upon the people, particularly when using mass media to manipulate mass minds. The candidate will understand what Jefferson meant when he said:

I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.

Those are the words inscribed under the dome of the Jefferson memorial.

The ideal candidate will push for the resurrection of secularism (yes, pun intended) promoted by humanism scholar Susan Jacoby:

Those who cherish secular values have too often allowed conservatives to frame public policy debates as conflicts between "value-free" secularists and religious representatives of supposedly unchanging moral principles. But secularists are not value-free; their values are simply grounded in earthly concerns rather than in anticipation of heavenly rewards or fear of infernal punishments. No one in public life today upholds secularism and humanism in the uncompromising terms used by Ingersoll more than 125 years ago.

Secularism teaches us to be good here and now. I know nothing better than goodness. Secularism teaches us to be just here and now. It is impossible to be juster than just. Secularism has no 'castles in Spain.' It has no glorified fog. It depends upon realities, upon demonstrations; and its end is to make this world better every day -- to do away with poverty and crime, and to cover the world with happy and contented homes.

These values belong at the center, not in the margins, of the public square. It is past time to restore secularism, and its noble and essential contributions at every stage of the American experiment, to its proper place in our nation's historical memory and vision of the future.

Remediation.

UPDATED to replace bogus Lincoln quote with a fitting one by T. Roosevelt. (h/t Joe Vecchio)

poputonian 2/18/2007 09:01:00 AM |

Saturday, February 17, 2007

 
Saturday Night At The Movies

Arise, Commie Pinko Hollywood Lefties

By Dennis Hartley

Every time I see our illustrious VP’s mug on the tube or hear mention of Halliburton, I always flash on my favorite scene in Warren Beatty’s Reds. Early in the film, we are first introduced to the story’s protagonist, journalist/activist/Communist John Reed (Beatty), as he attends a meeting of the Liberal Club, where the discussion has turned to America’s involvement in the current war (WWI). Reed, who has just returned from reporting on the European Front, is asked what he thinks the conflict is “about”. Reed stands up, faces the group, mumbles one word, then sits back down. The word is: “Profits”. The crystalline brevity of that answer really blew my (then) twenty-something mind back in 1981.

Indeed, it is a testament to Beatty’s sense of conviction and legendary powers of persuasion (or, as Tom Hanks put it so succinctly at the recent Golden Globe Awards, “Balls”) that he was able to convince a major Hollywood studio to back a 3 ½ hour epic about a relatively obscure American Communist (who is buried in the Kremlin!).

As we know now, of course, the film turned out to be a critical success, and garnered a dozen Oscar noms (it won three, including Best Director). Almost unbelievably, it was not released on DVD until late 2006. If you haven’t seen it in a while or (gasp!) have never seen it-you owe yourself a screening (particularly if you are a history buff).

Diane Keaton turns in one of her best performances as Reed’s lover, writer and feminist Louise Bryant. Maureen Stapleton (who we sadly lost last year) certainly earned her Best Supporting Actress trophy with a memorable portrayal of activist Emma Goldman. Jack Nicholson’s take on the complex, mercurial playwright, Eugene O’Neill is a wonder to behold. And Beatty deserves special kudos for assembling an amazing group of surviving real-life participants, whose anecdotal recollections are seamlessly interwoven throughout, like a Greek Chorus of living history. No one makes ‘em like this anymore.

If you really want to make a night of it, a certain rousing anthem that figures prominently in the “Reds” soundtrack is the sole spotlight of another recent DVD release. Blending archival footage with thoughtful commentary, The Internationale takes a look at the origins and continuing historical impact of its namesake, from its 19th century roots in the French Commune movement to Tiananmen Square and beyond, packed into a breezy 30 minutes. Arguably one of the most idealized (and frequently misinterpreted) rallying songs ever composed (just the melody alone gives me goose bumps), the tune has been embraced by Socialists, Marxists, anarchists, anti-Fascists, workers and labor activists alike over the years, transcending nationalist and language barriers. The most interesting aspect the film examines concerns the bad rap the song received after it was “officially” adapted by the oppressive, post-revolutionary Soviet regime. Pete Seeger (a perfect choice, no?) emcees the proceedings, with support from historians, musicologists, and multi-national participants (veteran and current) in some of the aforementioned movements. British punk agitprop troubadour extraordinaire Billy Bragg also makes a brief appearance. C’mon everybody (You know the words!)



Marx brothers: October (Ten Days That Shook the World), Battleship Potemkin, Kino-Eye/ Three Songs Of Lenin, Anastasia (1956), Nicholas and Alexandra, Doctor Zhivago ,Bound for Glory,Land and Freedom, The Motorcycle Diaries, I Am Cuba. And on the lighter side: Good Bye, Lenin!, Children of the Revolution, Bananas.


.
digby 2/17/2007 06:15:00 PM |

 
Crisis Schmisis

by digby

Like the wingnut he's become, the ever more unctuous Joe Lieberman threatens a "constitutional crisis" if his colleagues don't do what he wants:

Even as our troops have begun to take Baghdad back step-by-step, there are many in this Congress who have nevertheless already reached a conclusion about the futility of America’s cause there, and declared their intention to put an end to this mission not with one direct attempt to cutoff funds, but step by political step. No matter what the rhetoric of this resolution, that is the reality of the moment. This non-binding measure before us is a first step toward a constitutional crisis that we can and must avoid.

Lieberman believes that said crisis is being precipitated because the congress has the temerity to try to rein in a rogue president who has no respect for the wishes of the American people or the constitution.

One would think a person so concerned with the constitution would have stepped up at some time in the last few years to denounce this:

When President Bush signed the new law, sponsored by Senator McCain, restricting the use of torture when interrogating detainees, he also issued a Presidential signing statement. That statement asserted that his power as Commander-in-Chief gives him the authority to bypass the very law he had just signed.

This news came fast on the heels of Bush's shocking admission that, since 2002, he has repeatedly authorized the National Security Agency to conduct electronic surveillance without a warrant, in flagrant violation of applicable federal law.

And before that, Bush declared he had the unilateral authority to ignore the Geneva Conventions and to indefinitely detain without due process both immigrants and citizens as enemy combatants.

All these declarations echo the refrain Bush has been asserting from the outset of his presidency. That refrain is simple: Presidential power must be unilateral, and unchecked.

But the most recent and blatant presidential intrusions on the law and Constitution supply the verse to that refrain. They not only claim unilateral executive power, but also supply the train of the President's thinking, the texture of his motivations, and the root of his intentions.

They make clear, for instance, that the phrase "unitary executive" is a code word for a doctrine that favors nearly unlimited executive power. Bush has used the doctrine in his signing statements to quietly expand presidential authority.

And Lieberman has been with him every step of the way. He is in no position to talk about constitutional crises ever. He supports the most aggressive executive power grab in American history even to the extent that he votes for torture, indefinite detention without due process, and anything else his "commander in chief" says he wants to do. He has no more credibility to warn this nation about a constitutional crisis than his BFF George W. Bush has to claim it's "preposterous" to suggest he would manufacture evidence that Iran is provoking a military confrontation. Please.


.
digby 2/17/2007 01:45:00 PM |

 
Power Slurp

by digby

"Yes, there was a separate [national security] staff set up by the vice president, and yes, they created a certain mystique," the source said. "But the real power of the vice president was that he could go in and talk to the president about whatever he wanted, and staff didn't always know what he was saying."

I think we can imagine it though:

DC: "You're a strong man, a manly man, a man who makes women quake and men tremble in your presence. You're a gut player, a man who knows instantly the right thing to do. So when I tell you that your brilliant idea to bomb Iran will go down in history as the boldest decision a world leader has ever made, I think you know I mean it. Thank you for making the tough decisions and sticking with them."

GWB: "Yeah, it's hard work bein' the most powerful man on earth. But Dick, I don't remember giving the order to bomb Iran. Did I?"

DC: "All of us were very impressed with your resolute boldness and bold resoluteness. Years from now, after you're dead, people will build monuments to commemorate your valiant leadership"

GWB: "Right, right. It had to be done. Uh, when did I order them to start the bombing again?"

DC: "Already on their way. Here's your speech."

GWB: "Great. Feels good."


.
digby 2/17/2007 10:59:00 AM |

 
"Bewildered, Confounded and Miserably Perplexed"

by digby


With wingnuts peddling phony Abraham Lincoln quotes left and right, it's probably a good idea to take a closer look at what Abraham Lincoln actually said. Queequeg found a speech he gave on the House floor in 1848 during a debate on the Mexican War. And guess what:

Lincoln brought up three issues, all of which are found in the debate over the occupation of Iraq: funding of the occupation, deception about the reason for war, and predictions about the ease and brevity of the fighting. On all three issues, today's Democrats echo Lincoln's arguments.

And they do. This passage, though, is far more scathing and insulting than anything a Democrat has said:

As to the mode of terminating the war, and securing peace, the President is equally wandering and indefinite. First, it is to be done by a more vigorous prosecution of the war in the vital parts of the enemy's country; and, after apparently talking himself tired on this point, the President drops down into a half despairing tone, and tells us that "with a people distracted and divided by contending factions, and a government subject to constant changes, by successive revolutions, the continued success of our arms may fail to secure a satisfactory peace." Then he suggests the propriety of wheedling the Mexican people to desert the counsels of their own leaders, and trusting in our protection to set up a government from which we can secure a satisfactory peace; telling us that "this may become the only mode of obtaining such a peace." But soon he falls into doubt of this too; and then drops back on to the already half abandoned ground of "more vigorous prosecution." All this shows that the President is, in no wise, satisfied with his own positions. … His mind, tasked beyond its power, is running hither and thither, like some tortured creature on a burning surface, finding no position on which it can settle down and be at ease.

Again, it is a singular omission in this message that it nowhere intimates when the President expects the the war to terminate. … As I have before said, he knows not where he is. He is a bewildered, confounded, and miserably perplexed man. God grant he may be able to show there is not something about his conscience more painful than all his mental perplexity!

Why that's downright uncivil. Call a blogger ethics panel immediately!

Lincoln said a few other things that the wingnuts might not like to hear:

Our safety, our liberty, depends upon preserving the Constitution of the United States as our fathers made it inviolate. The people of the United States are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.

Allow the president to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such a purpose - and you allow him to make war at pleasure.

This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or exercise their revolutionary right to overthrow it.

Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable - a most sacred right - a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world.

The shepherd drives the wolf from the sheep, for which the sheep thanks the shepherd as his liberator, while the wolf denounces him for the same act as the destroyer of liberty. Plainly, the sheep and the wolf are not agreed upon a definition of liberty.

My dream is of a place and a time where America will once again be seen as the last best hope of earth.

America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.

Today we have the new poster girl of the Republican Party saying this:

I have to tell you, in general, I’m skeptical of anything that has Bill of Rights tacked on to it.”

The old gray Republican party ain't what it used to be.



h/t to Jeff C
digby 2/17/2007 10:31:00 AM |

 

My Conversation With Barack's Fundraisers

by poputonian

This is pretty much how the telephone solicitation went down:

FUNDRAISER: [Opening script] ... can we count on you for $150?

ME: I will vote Democrat, but I won't give any money to Obama's campaign. I disagree with him when he says it does no harm to children when adult authorities force them to stand and recite the pledge ritual.

FUNDRAISER: [Long follow-up script] ... can we count on you for $50?

ME: No, Barack Obama doesn't respect the separation of Church and State the way I believe he should.

FUNDRAISER: But but ... we're a Christian nation ... that's what we are. Weren't the Founders Christians?

ME: Not necessarily; some were, but some were also atheists and some were deists. You can track the way Virginia law asserted in the positive that atheists were eligible for public office. If Obama gets the Democratic nomination, I will vote for him, and I will vote for him in the primary above Edwards or Hillary. But he won't get money from me as long as he panders to the religious nuts in this country. Please tell Obama that I said that.

FUNDRAISER: OK - thank you for your time.

I gotta admire him, though, that his is the first call I've gotten. His campaign appears organized and serious, and I like the way he's skewering Hillary "I don't make mistakes" Clinton for her war vote.

One other thing, too, about Mr. Happy, Terry McAuliffe. Last week this millionaire consultant and frequent golfer appeared on several talk shows stating how each and every day, he tells Hillary to just go out and have fun.

Yeah - why am I not surprised? What's there for her to get all serious and introspective about?

poputonian 2/17/2007 10:16:00 AM |

 

What's In A Pseudonym?

by poputonian

The other day I posted about the pseudonyms used by Samuel Adams in publishing anonymous political essays.

It took a long time for Samuel Adams to come to the surface of Boston politics, even though his father was a powerful figure in the caucuses and the General Court. One reason for the delayed "arrival" is that Adams is almost alone in history as a man who sincerely desired anonymity. His major writings were signed not "Adams" but "Determinatus," "Candidus," "Vindex," "Populus," "Alfred," "Valerius Poplicola," "T.Z.," "Shippen,", "a Bostonian," "a Tory," "E.A.," "a Layman," "an Impartialist," "a chatterer," -- even later, when he could have gained great credit by acknowledging his full opus, he would not take the trouble. The writings had done their work; that was what he wanted. He often ended his letters with the command "Burn this," and he took his own advice by consigning nearly all his correspondence files to the flames, leaving behind a relatively small amount in the hands of others or in public print.
...
In the eighteen months from December 1770 to June 1772 he turned out 36 political essays for the [Boston] Gazette, an output not matched by any other writer of the time.

But the use of pseudonyms wasn't restricted to the Boston radicals; right-wing blowhards had them too, and they were coming after Adams:

Hutchinson had split Hancock away from the faction; only Adams remained a danger to the provincial government, and the governor had plans for him. "I have taken much pains to procure writers," he said, "to answer the pieces in the newspapers which do so much mischief among the country people." He had two or three writers contributing to Draper's Massachusetts Gazette, he said, besides the help of a new press and a young printer "who says he will not be frightened and I hope for some good effect." The Crown writers sallied into print -- Chronus, Probus, Benevolus, and Philanthrop -- to "blow the coals," as Hutchinson put it.

Oh brother. Probus? Some things never change.

And I'll take Benevolus and Philanthrop to be more evidence of the upper-crust wingers holding themselves in high esteem, a fact also consistent with modern times.

I'm surprised Hutchinson didn't write under the pseudonym, TRUSTUS, a label befitting a man who held a plurality of key offices. In the pitch of James Otis's battle against the illegal Writs of Assistance, Boston born and bred Hutchinson held the following offices all at once: lieutenant governor, chief justice of the Superior Court, president of the council of the General Court, judge of the probate in two different counties, and commander of Castle William, the fort controlling Boston harbor. When Otis so gallantly fought in court against the Writs, it was Hutchinson, the staunch loyalist and Chief Justice of the court who stymied the effort. It was not until more than five years later, in the mid-1760s that Connecticut pushed through the opposition to the Writs and Parliament finally acknowledged their illegality.

As to the use of pseudonyms, my own is an accidental concatenation of two of Adams's - Populus and A Bostonian; I didn't mean for it to happen that way (I misread the list,) but I'm satisfied with it nonetheless.

poputonian 2/17/2007 06:12:00 AM |

Friday, February 16, 2007

 
An Inconvenient Truth

by digby

Howie Kurtz's new bff spills the beans:

Right-wing author and pundit Michelle Malkin filled in for Bill O’Reilly tonight on The O’Reilly Factor. During a segment on a newly-proposed Airline Passengers Bill of Rights, Malkin said, “So you’re behind this Passengers’ Bill of Rights move. I have to tell you, in general, I’m skeptical of anything that has Bill of Rights tacked on to it.”

How unsurprising. Now can we stop the pretense that the rightwing of American politics is anything but a braindead, authoritarian cult?


.
digby 2/16/2007 06:22:00 PM |

 
Resolve This

by digby


Reader BK has been sending me links to this resolution for a couple of weeks now and I failed to look at them closely enough. (I had a bunch of people in Nigeria who needed my attention and I won the Norwegian lottery!) Anyway, he reminded me of them today and I went back and looked at them:

Here's the resolution:

RESOLUTION

Disavowing the doctrine of preemption.

Whereas President Bush has declared in a variety of documents and fora that the United States has the right to unilaterally exercise military action, including preemptive nuclear strikes, against nations that have not attacked the United States, creating what has been termed the `doctrine of preemption';

Whereas the doctrine of preemption contemplates initiating warfare against a nation that might not pose an imminent threat of harm to the United States and far exceeds the commonly understood view, set out in the Charter of the United Nations and recognized in international and United States law, that nations enjoy the right of self-defense, and that such self-defense might include undertaking military action to prevent an imminent attack;

Whereas the doctrine of preemption represents a radical departure from the official position of the United States since the adoption of the Charter of the United Nations;

Whereas the doctrine of preemption threatens to set a dangerous precedent that might then be cited by other countries, including other nuclear powers, to justify preemptive military action against perceived threats;

Whereas United States policy has long recognized the value to our national security of advancing the respect for and adherence to the international rule of law;

Whereas actions that diminish the international consensus on normative legal behavior and leave open the prospect that nations will readily resort to military force outside of those normative boundaries increase international instability and undercut the national security interests of the United States;

Whereas the doctrine of preemption contradicts the Charter of the United Nations to which the United States is a signatory, which, as a result of its ratification by the United States, is incorporated into United States law, and which reads, in part, `All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations' (Article 2, section 4);

Whereas the Charter of the United Nations, while disallowing preventive war, does not preclude military actions of self-defense, reading in part, `Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to maintain international peace and security' (Article 51); and

Whereas under the United States Constitution, the President, as Commander in Chief, possesses the authority to use military force to protect the United States from attack or imminent attack: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That--

(1) it is the sense of the House of Representatives that the United States possesses the inherent right to defend itself against imminent or actual attack, as codified in the Charter of the United Nations and embodied in the traditions of international law, but that right does not extend to undertaking military action in the absence of such an imminent or actual attack; and

(2) the House of Representatives disavows the doctrine of preemption because it poses a threat to international law and to the national security interests of the United States.

This sounds eminently reasonable to me.

Representative Barbara Lee has been submitting this bill since 2003. That year she had 23 co-cponsors:

Rep. Corrine Brown [D-FL]
Rep. Julia Carson [D-IN]
Rep. John Conyers [D-MI]
Rep. Sam Farr [D-CA]
Rep. Bob Filner [D-CA]
Rep. Barney Frank [D-MA]
Rep. Raul Grijalva [D-AZ]
Rep. Alcee Hastings [D-FL]
Rep. Rush Holt [D-NJ]
Rep. Jesse Jackson [D-IL]
Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee [D-TX]
Rep. Stephanie Jones [D-OH]
Rep. Dennis Kucinich [D-OH]
Rep. John Lewis [D-GA]
Rep. James McDermott [D-WA]
Rep. James McGovern [D-MA]
Rep. George Miller [D-CA]
Rep. Eleanor Norton [D-DC]
Rep. Major Owens [D-NY]
Rep. Donald Payne [D-NJ]
Rep. José Serrano [D-NY]
Rep. Hilda Solis [D-CA]
Rep. Fortney Stark [D-CA]
Rep. Maxine Waters [D-CA]
Rep. Diane Watson [D-CA]
Rep. Lynn Woolsey [D-CA]

In 2005 it was down to 15:

Rep. John Conyers [D-MI]
Rep. Barney Frank [D-MA]
Rep. Maurice Hinchey [D-NY]
Rep. Rush Holt [D-NJ]
Rep. Stephanie Jones [D-OH]
Rep. Carolyn Kilpatrick [D-MI]
Rep. Dennis Kucinich [D-OH]
Rep. James McDermott [D-WA]
Rep. George Miller [D-CA]
Rep. Donald Payne [D-NJ]
Rep. José Serrano [D-NY]
Rep. Fortney Stark [D-CA]
Rep. Maxine Waters [D-CA]
Rep. Diane Watson [D-CA]
Rep. Lynn Woolsey [D-CA]


She reintroduced it this year and here's the current list of co-sponsors*:

Rep. Maxine Waters [D-CA]

It's possible that it just hasn't been on the radar screen yet, but it's also possible that now that the Democrats are in power they don't want to have to deal with this thing. I think that's a huge mistake. Anything that has Bush's name on it is poison right now with the American people. If the shoe were on the other foot and a Democratic president had a 30% approval rating and an even lower rating on foreign policy, you know the Republicans would.

Oh, and incidentally --- it might just keep both the US and Iran from making a big fat mistake. The nationa and the world needs to see that the US is not united behind this preventive war doctrine.


.

*The web site this is linked from says that co-sponsorship can be out of date.
digby 2/16/2007 12:21:00 PM |

 
Now You're Talking

by digby

Bill Richardson figured out a way to talk about Iran without sounding like he's talking underwater. He's asking people to sign a petition:

I am joining Bill Richardson to send a clear message to the Bush administration that we will not tolerate ill-conceived and unauthorized aggression against Iran. It would be a mistake for the US to take military action in Iran before exhausting all diplomatic avenues. Tough, direct diplomacy backed by strong international alliances can work. This is exactly the strategy that worked in North Korea and it can work in Iran.

I demand this administration start direct diplomacy with Iran immediately and stop the irresponsible aggression.

This administration has stubbornly refused to pursue real, honest diplomacy in Iran and engage our allies around the world to help negotiate a solution. Instead, they are pursuing a strategy of non-negotiation and threats of possible US military action. We are clear and united - we want negotiations now and no unauthorized and unwarranted attacks in Iran.

See how easy it is to not sound like like a Republican asshole? And to think he did it without making a fetish of saying "all options are on the table." Why, someone might even think the man has some experience doing this type of thing.

There are other ways too. Dover Bitch sent me this YouTube of Congressman Sandy Levin yesterday. I think you'll find this part particularly satisfying:

"The debate we are having today is about the future of our nation's policy in Iraq. So my main focus will not be to catalog the litany of the Administration's past grave mistakes and misstatements over the last four years.

"At the same time, as a lesson for the future, it is important to remember that the war in Iraq was the first application of what has become known as the Bush Doctrine. This policy was unveiled by the President in his commencement speech at West Point in June of 2002 and made policy a few months later in the Administration's 2002 National Security Strategy.

"The Administration's doctrine stressed preemptive attack, U.S. military superiority, and U.S. unilateral action. This flawed policy has proven to be disastrous. It has destabilized Iraq and threatens to undermine the stability of the entire region. The doctrine blinded the Administration to the Pandora's Box it was opening when it invaded Iraq in search of weapons of mass destruction that did not exist, and 9-11 terrorists that were not there.

"Far from strengthening U.S. security, this misguided doctrine has put our nation's vital interests at greater risk. The elevation of unilateralism has helped erode our nation's standing in the world

.


Easy as pie.

.
digby 2/16/2007 09:21:00 AM |

 
The Fallacy Of The Disembodied Mind

by tristero

This is woo-woo hoo-hah. Take this little anecdote:

Now let's say that a man loses his job, becomes depressed, and wants a prescription for Prozac. What made him depressed isn't the imbalance of serotonin in his brain but the loss of his job. Yet science continues to offer this kind of wrong explanation all the time. It mistakes agency for cause. The brain is serving as the agent of the mind, it isn't causing mind.

Where to start? Chopra confuses anger, sadness, and possibly guiilt with what is clearly a medical condition. Or he confuses the colloquial use of the word "depressed" with the medical term "depressed." Either way, he fails to recognize that there is a difference between the state of serious depression - which requires clinical treatment and shouldn't rule out medication - and the complex of emotions felt normally when one loses a job - which doesn't rise to the level of clinical seriousness. Those of us who either know someone who has clinical depression or who have personally suffered depression - perhaps most of us fall into one or other, if not both, categories - know that the depth of major depression and its very real dangers goes far beyond a mere reaction to the vicissitudes of life. In regulating emotion during depression, clearly the brain is badly misfiring, and that misfiring is indeed the cause of the disorder, among other causes.

To repeat, essentially, depression - in the technical sense - is a medical condition caused along the biochemical axis by certain dysfunctions in the apparatus that regulates the release of neurotransmitters, and not just serotonin (it is a gross oversimplification to limit the cause of depression merely to serotonin levels, dopamine plays an important role, as do other neurotransmitters). Depression manifests itself in behavioral symptoms detailed in the DSM-IV and it can be exacerbated (or brought on) by the brain's reaction to life problems. However, clinical depression in no way is caused exclusively, or even predominantly, by life situations (with exceptions duly noted for extreme suffering: eg, the onset of depression after being tortured at Abu Ghraib, after losing your home in New Orleans, being arrested and detained indefinitely in solitary confinement a la Padilla, and so on). It is a brain disorder.

And then Chopra falls into one the hoariest errors in dualism. If the brain does not cause mind, then what does? And if that "what" is some non-material cause, say God, how does the non-material interact/interface with the material?

Now, whether or not we assume that Chopra is invoking something like God here - for example, he might be saying that what "causes" mind is the individual embedded in a culture - we are left, to Chopra's misfortune, with the inescapable fact that there is no reliable evidence that an individual mind persists after the destruction/death of the brain, which really puts kind of a dent in his notion that the brain doesn't cause mind.

Now if Chopra argued that mind cannot exist either without both brain and human society, he would be saying something I could agree to, but also something trivial. No one disagrees. But he seems to be asserting some kind of notion of mind that exists over and beyond physically-instantiated causes. And that is absurd. All he ends up doing is illustrate the pointlessness of attempting to argue by logic for the existence of the supernatural.

Likewise, another of Chopra's point - the assertion that the wrong level of analysis often is brought to bear on the issue of depression - is very well-known. Again, speaking in generalizations, it is naive to talk about the "cause" of something like depression. It has many causes (including possible genetic ones), as do many other diseases for which Chopra doesn't and wouldn't claim supernatural cause - eg, diabetes. I would immediately agree that any psychiatrist who treated merely the neurotransmitter imbalances of depression without asking about life situations is doing his/her patient a grave disservice. But an efficacious treatment for depression does not, in any way require some kind of vague invoking of a supernatural, extra-material cause. In fact a resort to supernatural explanations would be worthless, if not counterproductive.

It is people like Chopra, who can't wait to call upon woo woo, who make it extremely difficult to articulate criticisms of present-day scientific paradigms of depression and other complex human conditions. It seems reasonable to claim that the combination of personal biological functions and predispositions in concert with certain kinds of life situations is a more plausible cause of depression than the once trendy focus on the isolated chemistry of one individual. But that is a far cry from Chopra's vague, and to my mind (ahem) at least, vaguely unpleasant, new age thinking.

There are responsible people who can talk about these very same issues. Depression, for instance, is a very important topic. What Chopra has to contribute to the discussion, other than his celebrity, seems roughly equal to zero. I fail to understand why HuffPo is giving him a platform and not some qualified physician.

tristero 2/16/2007 08:04:00 AM |

 

We The People - Part Two

The Money Divide

by poputonian

Several posts ago someone pointed out that the corporate media fell on the other side of the money divide, and thus could not be relied on to advocate the People's cause. Samuel Adams, the man who almost single handedly triggered the American revolution with the Committees of Correspondence, faced a similar issue back in the early 1770s. John Galvin, in his superb book Three Men of Boston, detailed how Adams was losing his way with the monied interests, and thus shifted his focus away from Boston merchants, the most prominent being John Hancock, and toward the Boston mechanics and rural farmers.

When the Boston merchants hired Otis to represent them in 1761, they were aggressive in their desire to fight the imposition of new rules on trade. The decade that followed, however, brought many bitter lessons. Nonimportation, which at first seemed a good answer that would bring quick results, had stifled all trade. Many of the best businessmen were bankrupted by the stagnation of trade in 1765, caused by the tightening customs stranglehold on the port of Boston. The merchants showed their dissatisfaction in a steadfast avoidance of any further affiliation with the radicals of the town: no more nonimportation, they said, no more support for Boston violence, no more attacks in the provincial administration. Hancock, who had inherited the leadership of the Boston merchants, led the way. He broke off his close friendship with Samuel Adams and made his peace with Hutchinson.

As long as Otis had been the dominant figure in Boston opposition to contemporary Parliamentary policy, the merchants were willing to commit themselves to his leadership. He was a radical, yes, but a constructive politician, in background and in philosophy a fellow merchant who might edge near the brink of defiance but whose uppermost concern was the betterment of the empire and consequently Massachusetts. He was, for the merchants, a force for good -- meaning a mutually profitable relationship with the mother country under a very liberal trade policy with increasing power for American colonies without repudiation of the old institutions. Aberrations in his thinking were forgiven him and charged to the pressures of the time. (Otis himself had recognized this toleration and used it to extricate himself when trapped by his own inconsistencies.)

Adams had no such inconsistencies, nor did he possess any constructive view of the British empire as the potential salvation of mankind. He did not seek stability above all -- in fact, he was willing to sacrifice a prosperous American trade, at least temporarily, in order to gain other ends. In the eyes of the merchants, Adams was much less predictable than Otis; they saw that the end at which he aimed was increasing independence -- and perhaps even total independence -- of Great Britain. What this would mean no one knew. Additionally, Adams' obstructionism in the House, forcing adherence to the refusal to do business until the governor moved the General Court back to Boston, was beginning to cost too much. Without taxes and legislation, the province could not function, and without good government, commerce suffered. Continued exasperation of the Crown was certain to bring added punishment to Boston. Even more liberal businessmen began to hope fervently for a return of a healthy Otis to the scene.

Recognizing the reluctance of the merchants to cast their lot with him, Adams had already begun to transfer the basis of political power of the Boston radicals away from the merchants and toward the people. The merchants, he said, had been too long the "unconcerned spectators" on the political scene, who could be depended on only when their close interests were seen by them to be threatened. It was "the body of the people" who must decide the acceptance or rejection of Parliamentary decisions. He would base the fight on them.

Adams thus lost the support of the powerful and influential Merchant's Society, a fact discernible in his poor showings in the elections of 1772.
...
His refusal to compromise, however, did not cost him his influence over the Sons of Liberty. He had seen to it that the small group, the Loyal Nine of 1766, was expanded into the Sons of Liberty (with 355 members) by 1769. These were the mechanics and small tradesmen of Boston, who now began to dominate the town meeting while the merchants grew ever more fearful of them.

Samuel Adams would eventually flood the small rural Massachusetts towns with letters, successfully drawing them into the revolutionary movement. In a similar way, the impeachment movement today isn't coming from the business class, the major media, or from New York, Chicago, LA, or Dallas. It's coming from the states, and towns such as Brattleboro, VT, Boca Raton, FL, Portland, ME, Hanover, NH, Iowa City, IA, Minneapolis, MN, San Diego, CA, Parma, OH, Santa Fe, NM, Nashua, NH, St. Cloud, MN, Newark, NJ, Dunellen, NJ, Oakland, CA, Albany, OR, Lompoc, CA, Winchester, MA, Bowling Green, OH, and Galveston, TX.

Perhaps this is a case of don't follow the money.

(Subscription link to The Remedy, an impeachment newsletter, is at the bottom of the afterdowningstreet link above.)

We The People - Part One

poputonian 2/16/2007 04:56:00 AM |

Thursday, February 15, 2007

 
Options On The Table

by digby

There is a back and forth going on about whether the US should take the military option "off the table" when discussing Iran's nuclear ambitions. Here's a nice rundown of various points of view from Ezra Klein at TAPPED.

In a vacuum, one can understand why people think that taking the military option "off the table" is a bad idea. You need leverage and the "big stick" is the ultimate leverage. But we are not in a vacuum, we are in a world in which a president of the United States has so damaged his nation's credibility that the single most important foreign policy imperative is to revive the certainty that the USA is not a rogue nation with imperialist desires, if not plans for world domination. Until that happens, any "leverage" of military action we have is taken as an absolute threat.

Right now, the term "all options on the table" very specifically means The Bush Doctrine of preventive war and until very recently this illegal concept was not even whispered in sane circles. That doctrine makes us a nation that lives by no known rules or laws. Furthermore, our credibility is so damaged by the series of lies that were told in 2002 and 2003 (and which most people around the world saw through at the time) it can no longer be assumed that we even have good intentions, even if our intelligence could be trusted, which we've recently proved cannot.

I don't understand why people fail to see how damaged we are by what has taken place these last few years. There may have been a time when America could say that we knew a nation was building nuclear weapons and that we would surgically "take them out" for the good of all the world. George W. Bush destroyed that "option" and the ramifications of blundering ahead anyway are unthinkable, as all the experts cited by Klein (who were right about Iraq, by the way) have argued.

But until we admit that the Bush Doctrine is an illegal and immoral doctrine and repudiate it, we are going to be stuck in this horrible situation where we are the biggest military power on the earth who are mistrusted, feared, hated and actively resisted. The Bush administration has been right about one thing --- it is human nature to resist domination. The problem is that while they market freedom like a product to other nations, they believe that United States leadership is nothing more than a simplistic, schoolyard philosophy of "might makes right." They've been successful in that regard. We are now a huge, powerful nation that is loathed and feared around the world. But unfortunately their leadership has also shown the world that we are profoundly inept. There cannot be a more dangerous combination. It's a recipe for miscalculation, not just on our part but on others. Think about this: we are dealing with two of the dumbest world leaders on earth, Bush and Ahmadinejad. Is it a good idea for these two to be playing a complicated game of chicken?

Democratic politicians have an obligation to ratchet down the rhetoric and restore confidence that the US can operate with calm, deliberate, competence. They should eschew any slogans or diplomatic speak that validates Bush's policies and they should make the argument over and over and over again that they are dedicated to following international law, working with allies and using our military as a very last resort and only as a matter of self defense and that of our allies. And they have to loudly and emphatically renounce the Bush Doctrine. Until that happens, we will continue to be seen as an unpredictable, threatening superpower and the nuclear proliferation we are so worried about will become inevitable.

Little Iranian pitchers have big ears. They hear what is being said and they are acting accordingly. And right now "leaving all options on the table" sounds like the US is hellbent on attacking them no matter what they do. They saw what happened with Saddam and this looks like an instant replay. Democrats need to clearly send a different message.



.
digby 2/15/2007 12:50:00 PM |

 
And Above The Fold, No Less

by tristero

Congratulations to Jane Hamsher and her merry team of bloggers at firedoglake both for the stellar work they've done on the Libby trial and also for making the front page of the New York Times. And the headline describes perfectly what blogging is about:

For Liberal Bloggers, Libby Trial Is Fun and Fodder

That's right. Except for the dangerous scourge of rightwing extremists, who are an onerous duty to confront, political and cultural blogging can be a lot of fun. And you can learn an enormous amount. Well, at least I have. And blogging something important like the Libby trial, where even the most competent press reportage will omit details that many of us would find very important, does indeed provide fodder for a more focused political agenda.

One final thing about that headline. Jane, and by extension, our larger patch of the blogosphere has been - will wonders never cease? - accurately described. We are liberal bloggers, and the Times knows this, resisting the use of a more prejudicial and inaccurate adjective with the same number of letters that would please the rightwingers (can u guess what it is?). While the Times, disgracefully, still permits its reporters to take dictation from Bush and print it as reporting, this is a refreshing, and hopeful sign. It wasn't too long ago that the Times, under Raines, would provide creationists free advertising on their front page. It's not much of a step forward to describe Jane as a liberal blogger and not, inaccurately, as a _____, but it is a step.

In any event, congrats to everyone at firedoglake. And also, thanks, Marcy, thanks Jane, and thanks to all the rest of you for your great, great work.

[Update: Inaccurate description of Jane in penultimate paragraph removed so you can have the fun of guessing what it is. it's not too hard...]

tristero 2/15/2007 10:04:00 AM |

 
Polarizer In Chief

by digby

ABC News' Teddy Davis Reports: In the forthcoming issue of Texas Monthly, former Bush strategist Matthew Dowd writes that President Bush's "gut-level bond" with the American people "may be lost" and that "wholesale change" is needed in Iraq.

"Sending in a small contingent of troops is likely going to be seen as not helpful," Dowd writes. "He'd be much better off with the public if he said, 'This is a mess, we made mistakes, and the only way to fix it is a wholesale change.' And that could mean either a serious increase in troop strength or withdrawal."

Dowd opines that Bush's problems stem from his success in the 2002 midterm elections. ". . . when all the levers of power in Washington became Republican, creating consensus seemed to become unnecessary at the White House."

Well now, that seems like quite a mistake doesn't it? I'll bet the president wishes he hadn't done that.

Who do you suppose told him he didn't need to gain consensus to govern effectively?

In late 2000, even as the result of the presidential election was still being contested in court, George W. Bush's chief pollster Matt Dowd was writing a memo for Rove that would reach a surprising conclusion. Based on a detailed examination of poll data from the previous two decades, Dowd's memo argued that the percentage of swing voters had shrunk to a tiny fraction of the electorate. Most self-described "independent" voters "are independent in name only," Dowd told me in an interview describing his memo. "Seventy-five percent of independents vote straight ticket" for one party or the other. Once such independents are reclassified as Democrats or Republicans, a key trend emerges: Between 1980 and 2000, the percentage of true swing voters fell from a very substantial 24 percent of the electorate to just 6 percent. In other words, the center was literally disappearing. Which meant that, instead of having every incentive to govern as "a uniter, not a divider," Bush now had every reason to govern via polarization.

Let the self-serving re-writing of history begin.




.
digby 2/15/2007 09:30:00 AM |

 

Washington State Introduces Impeachment Resolution

by poputonian

WHEREAS, this is awesome, please click the link to get the latest details, including the pdf of the resolution, email contacts to show support, and other explanations.

Washington State is one of several states racing to see which will be first to send the U.S. House of Representatives a petition to impeach Bush and Cheney.

State Senator Eric Oemig, on February 14, 2007, introduced a resolution (PDF) calling on the Washington State Legislature to petition the U.S. House.

The following Senators have cosponsored: Harriet Spanel, Darlene Fairley, Jeanne Kohl-Welles, Margarita Prentice, Karen Fraser, Debbie Regala, Claudia Kauffman and Adam Kline.

If you live in Washington state, please contact your legislators right away and ask them to support the resolution, or thank them if they already are.

How a state legislature, along with one Congress Member, can compel the U.S. House to begin impeachment proceedings: Explanation.

If you're from anywhere, you can sign up to stay informed, contact your U.S. representative and senators, and add your voice to a national call for impeachment by... signing this petition for impeachment

UPDATE: If you haven't watched the youtube of Oemig please do so at the link. The guy's delivery is extremely well done; not grating, not hysterical, not histrionic; just an extraordinary combination of words, body language, cadence, and emphasis. His heart and his mind are in the same place.

poputonian 2/15/2007 04:35:00 AM |

Wednesday, February 14, 2007

 
They Made A Funny

by digby


This is so exciting! The producer of that fab torture fest "24" has created a new comedy show and it's hilarious. Just listen to the wildly enthusiastic "laughter" if you don't believe me:



I think Joel Surnow has kind of missed the mark, though. While I, a cowardly, flip-flopping liberal loser might find this "fake news" concept amusing, surely the codpiece-grabbing, testosterone-overdosed REAL MEN of the right need something .. more.

How about some witty waterboarding of teenage Muslim boys or a hilarous look at a shark feeding frenzy? And they are really missing the boat if they don't include some of these. Should it be difficult to find them, they could always commission some Minutemen to shoot some Mexicans or put some firecrackers inside frogs and light 'em up like George W. Bush used to do when he was a kid. A good lynching is always cause for a chuckle.

They think they will succeed by apeing the left but they are being very short sighted. The right has a "differnt kinda humor." Just ask their president:

While driving back from the speech later that day, Bush mentions Karla Faye Tucker, a double murderer who was executed in Texas last year. In the weeks before the execution, Bush says, Bianca Jagger and a number of other protesters came to Austin to demand clemency for Tucker. "Did you meet with any of them?" I ask.

Bush whips around and stares at me. "No, I didn't meet with any of them," he snaps, as though I've just asked the dumbest, most offensive question ever posed. "I didn't meet with Larry King either when he came down for it. I watched his interview with [Tucker], though. He asked her real difficult questions, like, 'What would you say to Governor Bush?'"

"What was her answer?" I wonder.

"Please," Bush whimpers, his lips pursed in mock desperation, "don't kill me."

Now that's funny..

So's this:



That lameass schoolboy "BO" stuff won't cut it with the manly men and women of the right. They need RED MEAT!

C'mon, Surnow, you can do better than this.


Update: It has been argued in the comments that Surnow's little Obama fest is a racist grand slam, and that's true. All that's missing are some subliminal cuts of cannibals with bones in their noses to drive the point home. But I still maintain that it isn't real rightwing humor. There has to be violence and/or humiliation to really call forth a wingnut belly laugh.


H/T to Attytood
.
digby 2/14/2007 06:55:00 PM |

 
International Bush League

by digby

Quiddity catches a very interesting choice of words by both the Iranian Ambassador last night on Charlie Rose and President Bush in his press conference today.

First the Ambassador:

The evidence that has been produced, in fact fabricated, is preposterous. The dates. If you look at the evidence, the dates that are used in this mortars are written in American date format, putting month first and date second. Whereas nowhere in the world people use month first and date second. Everywhere in the world except for the U.S. And those who fabricated this evidence should listen and learn. Everybody else in the world uses date, month, year. That is the order.

CHARLIE ROSE: That says what to you?

That this evidence is fabricated, as was the evidence that was fabricated before the Iraq war in order to launch an aggression. This evidence is fabricated and it points to a very dangerous policy that is being pursued by this administration.

CHARLIE ROSE: What is that dangerous policy pursued by this administration?

That dangerous policy is to create a crisis, to escape forward. That is, to blame somebody else for the results of their adventurism, which everybody knew would lead to this disaster.

And then there was the following exchange in Bush's press conference this morning: (emp add)

Q: What assurances can you give the American people that the intelligence this time will be accurate?

BUSH: Ed, we know they're there, we know they're provided by the Quds force. We know the Quds force is a part of the Iranian government. I don't think we know who picked up the phone and said to the Quds force, go do this, but we know it's a vital part of the Iranian government. What matters is, is that we're responding. The idea that somehow we're manufacturing the idea that Iranians are providing IEDs is preposterous.

Quiddity asks:

Interesting. When questioned about the accuracy of the intelligence, Bush did not reply by saying that the collection of evidence was by reliable parties, or that the analysis was thorough. Instead, he spoke about manufacturing evidence, denying that it took place.

I suspect that's what came up at his morning briefing and he just blurted it out because he's an idiot.

Still, it's hard for me to believe that even these people can be this inept, but it appears they can. There can be no reasonable explanation for the "bad coordination" between Baghdad on Sunday and Pace and now Bush today. And the "proof" is so suspicious that you honestly cannot take it seriously.

When a great nation has proved to everyone in the world that its leaders are liars and bumblers and its intelligence services are, at best, toadies and at worst totally incompetent, you not only have to reach the normal threshold of proof, you have to be unassailable. This government has zero credibility.

It's almost as if they are trying to make fools of themselves. Maybe they think if they behave like inept amateurs over and over again it will entice the Iranians to make a mistake. It's the only thing that makes sense at this point. No adminstration can be this incapable.

Can it?

.
digby 2/14/2007 05:04:00 PM |

 
Welcome To Our World

by digby

The other night TRex at FDL paid me a very nice compliment and I'd like to return the favor by pointing out that this very funny, but important, post of his should be read by one and all. The DC punditocrisy has not just been craven and opportunistic, although they have been that. And they haven't just been servants of power, although they have been that too. Apparently, they have actually been frozen for the last two decades and the blogosphere has caused them to melt. Via TRex, here's Joe Klein:

As a newcomer to this blogging business, I've been interested in the Edwards dust-up. As readers know, I've been critical of the tone of the left-wing blogosphere in the past. But I think that Yglesias raises an important point here and anyone reading the comments section of any Swampland post knows that troglyditic right-wing cavedwellers fester there, in a vomitously vile manner, too. And I'd add this: Radio. I was driving into Springfield, Ill last night for the Obama festivities and caught the ever-vile Sean Hannity "interviewing" the even-more-vile Dick Morris about Hillary. Just disgraceful...and they were mild compared to the crap I've heard from Rush and others over the years.

It's obvious that the current level of vitriol on the left is a reaction to nearly twenty years of sewage emanating from Rush et al. ...The intemperance on the left has three other sources (1) justifiable fury over the Bush adminstration (2) justifiable fury over the way the media treated Clinton and, to a certain extent, Bush and (3) ideologues of any sort tend to be obnoxious.

Now I recognize that Klein goes on to make a number of predictable lukewarm water points about playing nice-nice. But, nonetheless, this is a breakthrough. Indeed, it is a sign of an important sea change in the punditocrisy's worldview. For years they have been living in a Republican establishment bubble headed by society mavens pretending to be journalists --- people like Cokie Roberts and David Broder. These are people who spent the decade of the 90's aiding and abetting a GOP character smear of epic proportions, either because they felt the need to pretend that they were living in Bedford Falls instead of the ruthless capitol of the most powerful nation on earth --- or because they are foolish and shallow people who enjoyed the sophomoric tenor of the rightwing machine. Either way, they were (and are) a symptom of a very sick political culture.

For years the allegedly liberal pundits willfully ignored the horrific eliminationist rhetoric of the right and instead focused their attention on tabloid scandalmongering and outdated liberal stereotypes. They pretended that people like Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter were, at worst, rodeo clowns whose angry violent swill was some sort of a joke. They shrugged their shoulders when Coulter wrote a bestselling book called "Treason" that opened with this passage:

Liberals have a preternatural gift for striking a position on the side of treason. You could be talking about Scrabble and they would instantly leap to the anti-American position. Everyone says liberals love America, too. No they don't. Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence. The Left’s obsession with the crimes of the West and their Rousseauian respect for Third World savages all flow from this subversive goal. If anyone has the gaucherie to point out the left's nearly unblemished record of rooting against America, liberals turn around and scream "McCarthyism!"

They looked away when Rush Limbaugh, feted by both the president and the vice president and everyone in between as a highly valuable member of the Republican coalition said things like this:

I mean, if there is a party that's soulless, it's the Democratic Party. If there are people by definition who are soulless, it is liberals -- by definition. You know, souls come from God. You know? No. No. You can't go there.

When Limbaugh made his famous inappropriate and bizarre sexual statements about Abu Ghraib, the flagship magazine of the American right came to his rescue with this essay by FDL fave Kate O'Beirne:

Rush's angry, frustrated critics discount how hard it is to make an outrageous charge against him stick. But, we listeners have spent years with him, we know him, and trust him. Rush is one of those rare acquaintances who can be defended against an assault challenging his character without ever knowing the "facts." We trust his good judgment, his unerring decency, and his fierce loyalty to the country he loves and to the courageous young Americans who defend her. For millions of us, David Brock is firing blanks against a bulletproof target.

The allegedly liberal press and the allegedly liberal pundits were silent. We could only assume they agreed. In fact, as time went on, they became angry with the newly minted liberal blogosphere because we were aghast, as we had been for years, that this was considered acceptable. From Limbaugh to the Gang of 500 to Drudge to Joe Klein to Richard Cohen, it seemed that everyone agreed that liberals and Democrats were fair game for the worst sort of fascistic language imaginable. Liberal bloggers who objected were served up as proof of the right wing's smears that the left was "unhinged."

As far back as 2000, Bob Somerby and the late Mediawhores Online pioneered this media critique, which was admittedly often harder on the so-called liberals than on the others. It had to be --- these people were allegedly speaking for us and they would go on television and parrot rightwing cant at every turn. They railed about the "angry left" and they cried to their friends in the rightwing media when we insulted them. We wrote and wrote and wrote about it, documenting the atrocities and making the case.

But nothing changed until these liberal pundits and journalists started blogging.

This piece by Rick Perlstein spells out what happened to Klein's colleague Jay Carney when he thoughtlessly repeated rightwing spin disguised as history on the TIME blog:

Chalk up 7:22 a.m. EST on Tuesday, January 23, 2007, as the moment a milestone was passed. On Time's new blog, Swampland, D.C. Bureau Chief Jay Carney posted a pre-assessment of the State of the Union address comparing President Bush's political position to Bill Clinton's in January of 1995. Like Bush, "President Clinton was in free fall. ... His approval ratings were mired in the 30's, and seemed unlikely to rise." Moments later, a writer identifying himself as "TomT" pointed out an error in Carney's "nut graf" that would have earned a failing grade for a first-year journalism major: "Clinton's approval rating in January [of 1995] was 47 percent. It was not mired in the 30s." At 9:12, the blogger Atrios, also known as Duncan Black, alerted his readers to the gaffe, and they descended on the Time blog like locusts--and, to mix the Biblical metaphor, served Jay Carney's head up on a charger. [...]

At which Carney snapped back so churlishly ("the left is as full of unthinking Ditto-heads as Limbaugh-land") that, for a moment, it was hard even to remember--why was it, again, that we were supposed to defer to the authority of newsweeklies (and the mainstream press) in the first place? Carney was rude and wrong. The barbaric yawpers of the netroots were rude and right.

Joe Klein has suffered many such incidents since he started blogging, as have other journalists who entered the fray and subjected themselves to the wild and wooly world of the blog comment section. And he didn't like it one bit. But as other journalists who are entering the online writing world are finding, the feedback from readers is a bracing splash of reality that makes them take a new look at the world they've been writing about for decades. Joe Klein is seeing the current state of politics through new eyes. And for the first time he's understanding that we are angry for a reason.

I don't expect him to give up his vaunted "centrism" which is his very special view of himself as being above it all. But if blogging means they can see even a tiny little speck of light about the right's decades long jihad against their fellow Americans, then I say let them all blog. (Hell, make them all blog.)

I think I speak for all of us out there who've been mixing it up with readers and trolls and critics for years, that while it may be somewhat harsh and disconcerting at first, it keeps you honest. And that is something the political punditocrisy has needed for a very long time.

Welcome to the blogosphere, Joe.

X-posted at FDL


.
digby 2/14/2007 04:37:00 PM |

 
Dear Kevin

by tristero

Dear Kevin,

You are making the exact same mistake you made in 2002/2003. I would have thought that by now you knew better than to engage seriously the "ideas" of fascist thugs. I guess not.

You are treating the lunatic Glenn Reynolds and his cheap-tv-series-style fantasies to murder Iranian civilians as if he is important and as if they are a serious proposal that needs to be parsed and understood rather than deplored, utterly condemned, and mocked. No matter how inadvertent your actions and well-intentioned you may be, you are providing him - and worse, his sick, insane, idiotic proposals - with crediblity. And believe me, Reynolds knows it.

Back in 2002/03, this is precisely how Bush et al built up support for the utterly ridiculous idea of invading Iraq without reason. Incredibly, people who should have known better felt, well yes, it's a "breathtaking" idea, even an "audacious" one, but let's look at it and not, you know, just reject it out of hand. Riiiight. We all know how that's turning out, and it's going to get a lot worse.

But there you were, in the runup to Bush/Iraq, when it was patently obvious that it was to be the worst foreign policy decision in US history, still opining that if Bush could get it right - hah! - then maybe it's worth the risk. It wasn't. It was a crazy idea and no one as intelligent and savvy as you should ever have been bamboozled.

And here you go again, reasonably entertaining notions that are sheer madness. You write there there is some kind of heavy-duty ethical conundrum at stake. There isn't, not to Reynolds and his ilk. You talk about "moral knots" and definitions of terrorism. But Kevin, don't you see, these terms have no meaning outside of the social philosophy of liberalism, which Reynolds and his fellow brown-shirts emphatically reject.

Talking about implied moral knots in Reynolds' ideas is not sober commentary on your part, even if it sounds like it. Given what you are trying to take seriously - running the world, the real world, as if it were a 1 dimensional cable-tv thriller - you are talking sheer nonsense. There is a failure on your part to recognize what is really going on. Reynolds gleefully interprets your willingness to take him seriously and talk about moral dilemmas as a victory. And he is right. It is his victory.

Sure, sure, sure, I know you're appalled at what Reynolds said. I know you don't agree with any of it. But that's not the point. You think there's a moral knot where there is nothing but Reynolds' stupid, ignorant, and utterly naive totalitarianism. Remember, Kevin, you are not dealing with liberals. You are dealing with people who do not accept the proposition that if they do the same thing al Qaeda does, it is terrorism by definition. You are dealing with people who do not believe in concepts like equal justice, liberty, or fair debate.

Please Kevin, for heaven's sake, think before you discuss the utterly deranged ideas of people like Reynolds in a sober fashion. The only thing to take seriously about Reynolds and the rest of Bushism is their will to power and you have failed once again to recognize one important way they do it. They fool people like you into permitting them a place at the table.

love,

tristero

tristero 2/14/2007 03:46:00 PM |

 
Payback

by digby

I hope that all of you Pacific Northwest readers keep this in mind as we look toward the next election:

McKay, who stepped down recently, said in an interview that his positive review in May 2006 didn't explain his ouster, nor did the phone call he received in December from a Justice Department official who ordered him to resign.

The 65-page evaluation described McKay's relationship with most of the federal judges in his area as "excellent" and praised the quality of his office's work.

McKay "is an effective, well-regarded and capable leader," the evaluation stated.

The review had some criticism, including descriptions of several administrative problems in McKay's office.

But the issues were apparently minor because the director of the executive office for U.S. attorneys later wrote McKay, praising him for his "very positive" evaluation.

"I understand that the recent evaluation of your office went well," director Michael Battle told McKay in a letter dated April 7, 2006.

Despite the praise, Battle called McKay and other U.S. attorneys in December to ask them to step down.

Supporters said they believed McKay may have been removed because he was seen as a maverick.

McKay came under fire when right-wing organizations in his state claimed that he wasn't aggressively pursuing voter fraud allegations against Democrats in the 2004 governor's race. Christine Gregoire, a Democrat, was eventually declared the winner by a margin of 129 votes.

I love how someone is seen as a "maverick" for refusing to "find" voter fraud where there wasn't any.

This is reason number 2,862 that Republicans must be removed from power. Giving cronies positions to the best political stepping stones is probably not unprecedented. But removing federal prosecutors from office because they didn't agree to overturn an election is something else entirely.



.
digby 2/14/2007 01:38:00 PM |

 
Remember That Helicopter Crash In Iraq? Seven Dead, Due To "Mechanical Failure?"

by tristero

Recently, I expressed skepticism that the cause of this helicopter crash in Iraq was due to mere "mechanical failure."* In comments, several folks disagreed, describing in detail that these machines are more complex than one might think, implying that my skepticism was misplaced.

It wasn't:

A Sea Knight helicopter that crashed last week northwest of Baghdad was shot down, the U.S. military said Wednesday.

The Marine CH-46 helicopter went down northwest of Baghdad, killing all seven people on board, and an al-Qaida-linked Sunni group claimed responsibility and aired a video.

But military officials initially said they did not believe it was downed by insurgents.

“Initial evidence indicated that the CH-46 Sea Knight helicopter went down as a result of mechanical failure. After further investigation using all available means, the cause of the incident has been confirmed to be hostile fire,” said Maj. Jeff Pool, a spokesman for the Multi National Force—West.

Yup, that's how it happened. They just didn't want to tell you when it was on the front pages.

More misinformation. More time wasted arguing the patently obvious. Of course it was shot down. And of course the US military knew it when the tragedy was first reported.

But hey! Y'never know! It's possible, after all, that a deadly helicopter crash in an area crawling with bastards just dying to bring that chopper down crashed by accident, mechanical, failure, or pilot error, isn't it?

No, my friends. It is not possible. You want to talk mathematics, then alright, yes, there's a small possibility it could happen. But in the real world, when a helicopter crashes and burns in a war zone, it's because it was attacked. Especially when the Bush military hastens to tell the media that it wasn't an attack. **

The Bush administration has played this game over and over and over. It's high time people stopped falling for it. They lie, prevaricate, distort, procrastinate, cover-up, and hide. Did I forget to mention that they also lie?

My God, to be the loved ones of the people that got killed and have to listen to your government's bullshit about their deaths...

* If the link is bloggered, do a search for "mechanical failure" and you should find it.

** Of course I know that accidents are common in war zones. But I also know that the Bush administration manipulates the press and public opinion with cynical ruthlessness. It really didn't take too many street smarts to perceive this was one of them.

[Updated after posting.]

tristero 2/14/2007 11:38:00 AM |

 
Destroying The Brand

by digby

Following up on my post from last night about how the Republicans have been exposed as total frauds, I see that my pal Tom Schaller has a new column in the Baltimore Sun making the same point:

According to the latest Gallup survey, Republican self-identification has declined nationally and in almost every American state. Why? The short answer is that President Bush's war of choice in Iraq has destroyed the partisan brand Republicans spent the past four decades building.

That brand was based upon four pillars: that Republicans are more trustworthy on defense and military issues; that they know when and where markets can replace or improve government; that they are more competent administrators of those functions government can't privatize; and, finally, that their public philosophy is imbued with moral authority. The war demolished all four claims.

They'll just lie and pretend it was all the fault of the hippies, but still, it's a moment to savor.



.
digby 2/14/2007 09:55:00 AM |

 
706 Days Left

by digby

Dear God, it's painful watching the empty codpiece blather on incoherently. I can hardly wait until we have a president, any president, who can appear before the public and speak extemporaneously on higher than a 9th grade level.

And it's even more painful to watch him repeatedly say things like "I think people who disagree with me can be patriotic" as if he's granting some sort of dispensation. But by far the most painful thing is watching the press corps laugh and laugh when he treats them like children and makes unfunny, puerile jokes at their expense. It's the most pathetic thing I've ever seen and that includes many decades in a business where brownnosing the boss has been raised to the level of religion.

Sickening.

Update:

On Iran:

What matters is, we're responding. My job is to protect our troops!

Lotsa people say "meet!" but I want results.

"This is one of the issues where people would say 'why didn't they see the impending danger?'"

He really believes that history will vindicate him.

And he believes he's regained his credibility because of North Korea and insists everyone is supposed to believe him when he says he wants diplomacy to work.

Oy.


.
digby 2/14/2007 08:44:00 AM |

 
By Comparison, The "Young Lincoln Portrait" Has Far More Cred

by tristero

Let's not waste your time trying to be polite about it. It's just a simple fact that neo-conservatives are ignorant fucks that make shit up. And they do it over and over again. They cannot be trusted to tell the truth. Ever.

Incredible. Anyone who has ever bothered to read Lincoln or learn about his life (and once you do, you realize it's the opposite of a bother) should have known he never would have advocated the hanging of members of Congress.

And this is no isolated incident of the rightwing making an accidental attribution. There are numerous "quotes" from the likes of Thomas Jefferson floating around advocating a "Christian nation," totally fabricated and disseminated by christianists.

These people have as much business gaining regular access to the mainstream public discourse as Charlie Manson, even in a filthy rag like the Moonie Times. And in terms of the number of people who have been killed and maimed in Iraq directly due to their lies and distortions, they have proven themselves far more dangerous. And this is before Iran.

tristero 2/14/2007 07:30:00 AM |

 
Maybe Dinesh D'Souza And His Pal Bin Laden Are Right

by tristero

Had Clinton and the liberals in this country set a better example, Scalia's daughter wouldn't be a drunk driver.

tristero 2/14/2007 06:57:00 AM |

 

We The People - Part II

Impeachment: A Moral Imperative

A stay-at-home mom convinced a newly-elected State Senator to tread where others feared. Listen (and watch) as Eric Oemig -- a Democrat with a conscience -- speaks for us, the people.

poputonian 2/14/2007 06:32:00 AM |

Tuesday, February 13, 2007

 
Nowhere To Hide

by digby

One of the more refreshing developments in the last year or so has been the total immolation of the phony concept of "principled conservatism." With the Bush meltdown, the corruption, the incompetence and the continuing support among the leadership and the base for all of it, we no longer have to endure the stupid fiction that Republicans stand for anything other than their shared hatred for liberals and their desire to steal the taxpayers blind. Our long national nightmare of listening to them drone on and on about how liberals will say and do anything to win, how they have no ethics, morals and principles, how they flip-flop in the wind is over.

Observe how Pat Buchanan, Mike Barnicle and Chris Matthews demonstrate that conservatism is a fraud on today's "Hardball":

CM: ...But let's take a look at two different clips, perhaps two different Romney's floating around YouTube right now. The first was posted by opponents of Mitt Romney, the second is Romney's YouTube response:

Video of Romney: I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I feel that all people should be allowed to participate in the boy scouts regardless of their sexual orientation.

Video of Romney: I was wrong on issues back then. I'm embarrassed to admit that. I think most of us learn with experience. I know I certainly have..

CM: The phrase that's a problem here Pat Buchanan and Mike Barnicle is "back then," back then in 2004.

MB: Yeah, not only was it in 2004, thre's all sorts of fodder for Romney and he's going to have to explain his ideological journey from 1994 not just 2004, but again, as you can see on those clips he is capable of doing it. It would be think for evangelicals and the Christian Conservatives and the Republican side to decide no matter whether it's Romney or Rudy Giuliani, do you what hardline doctrinaire ideology or do you want to win? Do you want the aforementioned Hillary Clinton? Can Romney do it?

CM: You're treating him like he's a trade from the Patriots to somebody out west, to the Utah Jazz or something, -- a cross reference there -- I mean do you think it's that easy to just change uniforms and the other side's glad to have you?

MB: No. no. It's not that easy.

CM: Alan Iverson is going to go play for Colorado and they'll be glad to have him, but can you do that in politics?

MB: Well we're gonna see if Romney can dribble behyind his back, huh?

PB: And Chris, if Iverson joined the priesthood, that would be a similar change. Look, I think this, look, clearly Romney's position is 180 degress from what it was. If I were him I wouldn't say "I evolved," I would say "I changed my mind." What he has going for him is that there's an enormous vacuum on the Reagan right. Reagan was a believer in these things and Giuliani and McCain and Romney are all suspect. But they're the three front runners and they're running into that vacuum -- and some lower conservatives are trying to get up into it --- so that's what gives Romney the possibility of winning some of those votes.

CM: But what does it mean Pat, you're an ideologue, what does it mean he's just denying ... he's got an anullment of his past beliefs, I mean, is it like Rudy dumping three wives fromk history? How can you dump from your past your entire ideological rap sheet and just say that doesn't matter, never mind. How do you do that

PB: Very simple. These are not conviction politicians. They are politicians trying for the nomination of a party which is conservative and traditionalist which is [against] a lot of what they believe ... argued and said, so they are accomodating themselves to the party. Is it sincere? I don't know but everybody knows what's going on.

CM: You're being generous. This is like th kind of conversion you have in
Spain in the old bad days where if you were Jewish you were Christian the next day or you were burned alive, I mean, what kind of conversion are we talking about here Mike?

PB: (laughing) We don't do that in the Republican Party anymore.

CM: ...what kind of conversion are we talking about whereby a person can simply say "I swear to God I never believed what I believe."

PB: Do I believe that these are sincere honest conversion of Rudy or, uuh,
Romney, in my judgment, probably not. They're changing their positions for political reasons and you've got to accept that or you've got to take the alternative which may be Hillary Rodham Clinton.

CM: Wow. Pretty rough stuff here.

MB: You cross your fingers if you're Mitt Romney and you fib or you lie, depending on your point of view. From 1994 he stood next to Ted Kennedy in a debate for the US Senate in Massachusetts and said at one point he felt he could do more for the gay community than Ted Kennedy could. So what do you do about that with the evangelicals? I don't know. You lie.

CM: I don't know what to make of this. It seems to me that you could change religions on this spot. You could go from Mormanism to Baptist. To use your favorite phrase from the past, if we're all engaged in cross dressing how do you believe what anybody's costume really is?

PB: I'll say this about Romney. He hasn't denied he took those positions. We've seen them all. He's taken a new position now. You know George Bush Sr was pro-choice in 79 or 80. He came and ran and said I will be pro-life and if you look at the positions he took from 89 to 93 he was totally faithful to the prolife position...

CM: .. yeah

PB: ...even though in his heart I don't think he really believed it. I think that's the situation you've got. Rudy says, I'll give you Scalia and judges like that and we know how they'll vote on abortion.

CM: So is Senator Allen now able to reclaim his senate seat by saying "I never said macaca?"

PB: No he's gone...

CM: That's all you have to do is deny, right?

PB: Well he can't deny it. YouTube's got it.

CM: We'll be right back. This sounds hilarious, but it's not. Pat, you
are a man of principle not necessarily good principles, but thanks you, Pat
Buchaqnan, Mike Barnicle...

Matthews seems to be truly surprised that Buchanan has completely thrown in he towel on any kind of ideological integrity. But c'mon. It's been like this since at least Nixon. And Buchanan, Nixon's creature, like modern conservatism as a whole, is a product of the Watergate white house. (Don't take my word for it. Read this, by Rick Perlstein.) It's just that they've made such a fetish of their allegedly religious and ideological purity the last few years that now their machinations look particularly hypocritical to anyone but their hardcore supporters. But that's who they are fighting for right now, after all; they know just how to (dog) whistle that tune.

For instance, Mitt pulled a Reagan today and gave his announcement speech at a venue that honors one of the most notorious anti-semites in American history. Jewish organizations protested, he went ahead anyway and the NY Times didn't even mention the flap. (Maybe if he'd blogged about it they would have found it worthy of a story.) But you can bet that the mouth-breathing racist neanderthals of the GOP base got the message. Ole Mitt knows what signals to send and that's all that matters.Ain't no libruls gonna push him around.

I have no doubt that the GOP faithful will eventually enthusiastically vote for Rudy, Mitt or St. John, even if all three appear at the debates in feather tutus and french kiss each other on the stage. All that matters is which one will beat the dirty hippies. Good old Pat let the cat out of the bag today and just as Felix Allen can't take back his macaca moment, neither can Buchanan. He said it: "everybody knows what's going on."

Well, everyone but Chris Matthews who was shocked today by what he heard. But he'll get over it:

CM: So Pat Buchanan, what do you make of Mitt Romney's personality? Because he's a real unknown in this race?

PB: Everything I know about Romney speaks very well of that. I've got a lot of friends who say he lights up a room when he comes in. He's got a fine personality, he's friendly, he's an extremely handsome man as his father was. And he's always got a big smile. I think in the personality contest, he's all over Hillary.

CM: He's got a great chin, I've noticed. Does that mean he might not have
a glass jaw?

Notice how throughout the discussion of the flip-flopping Republican candidates lying as easily as they breathe to the dipshit phonies who make up the Republican base, not one person used the word "calculating" to describe any of them.

It's still going to be a long campaign.


.
digby 2/13/2007 09:50:00 PM |

 
Where's Waldo?

by digby

Atrios mentioned this recently and I had noticed the same thing. For some reason the Republican primary doesn't seem to be getting the same kind of coverage the Democratic primary is. I think that's probably a good thing on balance, but it does make for some odd media errors and omissions. Here's a reporter from MSNBC earlier today talking about Mitt Romney:

What was interesting today is that he took some not so veiled swipes at his potential competitors. He talked about his experience in running a state. He said and there are some occasions when you simply can't afford to have someone who's never run so much as a corner store let alone the largest enterprise in the world. That seemed to be a jab at Barack Obama, someone who is obviously lacking in national experience. And perhaps even a veiled swipe at Hillary Clinton who though she has been a sitting Senator has obviously never been a chief executive.

Isn't it just a little bit strange that Romney's more immediate rivals aren't mentioned? John McCain's been a prima donna Senator whose biggest organizational task is figuring out his speaking schedule while Rudy Giuliani has exactly zero national experience.

The press seems to have taken Ronald Reagan's old advice to heart --- thou shalt not speak ill of a Republican.All of politics are now filtered through a prism made up of Clinton's cold, calculating bitchiness and Obama's callow, empty phoniness. Republicans? They're the alternative.


.
digby 2/13/2007 08:05:00 PM |

 
A Must Read

by tristero

[Update: Link Fixed]

In the post below, Digby mentions this exceedingly important article about the preparations, plans, and deployments for war against Iran perhaps as soon as next month. I can't urge you enough to read it and to pass it on to your friends. Let me be brief: it is one of the most alarming things I've read in the past six years.

I believe that up until the moment the missiles begin dropping in Iran, war can be prevented, provided this country's elected representatives do their job and the press refuses to let Bush get away with a surprise attack -which is clearly the plan, ie, no congressional resolutions, no UN, no inspectors, no pretense of a coalition, and no negotiations. And no warning, perhaps even no casus belli declared until after the attacks begin.

I realize the chances of this country's governing and media elite acting in time are small, but the stakes are enormous. Folks, it's very simple: Read the article, pass it on, call your Congress, call the press. What will you tell your kids, your grand-kids if Bush starts this insane war and you did nothing?


Now go read.

tristero 2/13/2007 07:02:00 PM |

 
Clean Break

by digby

Tristero's post from earlier today about General Peter Pace's divergence from the administration's talking points may illuminate some of the backchannel infighting going on in the Bush administration over Iran.  Here's the nut:

A top U.S. general said Tuesday there was no evidence the Iranian government was supplying Iraqi insurgents with highly lethal roadside bombs, apparently contradicting claims by other U.S. military and administration officials.

Now, we don't know what this really means.  It could be that they are playing some sort of elaborate good cop/bad cop routine. (God help us --- these people are not very good at complicated tasks.)  Or it could be a real revolt of the generals.  We can't know for sure. But we do know that as much as a year ago, the administration has been actively planning to attack Iran and the generals have been resisting.  Here's Seymour Hersh from April 2006:

There is a growing conviction among members of the United States military, and in the international community, that President Bush’s ultimate goal in the nuclear confrontation with Iran is regime change. Iran’s President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has challenged the reality of the Holocaust and said that Israel must be “wiped off the map.” Bush and others in the White House view him as a potential Adolf Hitler, a former senior intelligence official said. “That’s the name they’re using. They say, ‘Will Iran get a strategic weapon and threaten another world war?’ ”

A government consultant with close ties to the civilian leadership in the Pentagon said that Bush was “absolutely convinced that Iran is going to get the bomb” if it is not stopped. He said that the President believes that he must do “what no Democrat or Republican, if elected in the future, would have the courage to do,” and “that saving Iran is going to be his legacy.”

One former defense official, who still deals with sensitive issues for the Bush Administration, told me that the military planning was premised on a belief that “a sustained bombing campaign in Iran will humiliate the religious leadership and lead the public to rise up and overthrow the government.” He added, “I was shocked when I heard it, and asked myself, ‘What are they smoking?’ ”

I have believed for some time that the Bush administration is intent upon attacking Iran because they believe that their unpopularity will be redeemed by history for having taken great, bold steps to transform the middle east. The more Iraq looks like a cock-up of epic proportions that results in nothing more than chaos and death, the less likely it is that their "vision" will come to pass. And so they rely more and more on the "big" thinkers who set us on this path many years ago:  the neoconservatives who cooked up a document for Israeli politician Benjamin Netanyahu years ago.  A document called "A Clean Break", which many people, including Ambassador Joseph Wilson, have pointed to as the guiding document that took us first into Iraq --- and now maybe Iran.

For those of you who may be foggy on the details, I would highly recommend that you read this very interesting neocon primer by Craig Unger in this month's Vanity Fair.  It was, at one time, considered to be crazed moonbat conspiracy mongering to talk about "Clean Break."  Today those of us who were writing about it prior to the Iraq invasion have been vidicated by events.  We were not being hysterical then and we are not hysterical now:

The neoconservatives have had Iran in their sights for more than a decade. On July 8, 1996, Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel's newly elected prime minister and the leader of its right-wing Likud Party, paid a visit to the neoconservative luminary Richard Perle in Washington, D.C. The subject of their meeting was a policy paper that Perle and other analysts had written for an Israeli-American think tank, the Institute for Advanced Strategic Political Studies. Titled "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm," the paper contained the kernel of a breathtakingly radical vision for a new Middle East. By waging wars against Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon, the paper asserted, Israel and the U.S. could stabilize the region. Later, the neoconservatives argued that this policy could democratize the Middle East.

"It was the beginning of thought," says Meyrav Wurmser, an Israeli-American policy expert, who co-signed the paper with her husband, David Wurmser, now a top Middle East adviser to Dick Cheney. Other signers included Perle and Douglas Feith, the undersecretary of defense for policy during George W. Bush's first term. "It was the seeds of a new vision."

Netanyahu certainly seemed to think so. Two days after meeting with Perle, the prime minister addressed a joint session of Congress with a speech that borrowed from "A Clean Break." He called for the "democratization" of terrorist states in the Middle East and warned that peaceful means might not be sufficient. War might be unavoidable.

Netanyahu also made one significant addition to "A Clean Break." The paper's authors were concerned primarily with Syria and Saddam Hussein's Iraq, but Netanyahu saw a greater threat elsewhere. "The most dangerous of these regimes is Iran," he said.

Ten years later, "A Clean Break" looks like nothing less than a playbook for U.S.-Israeli foreign policy during the Bush-Cheney era. Many of the initiatives outlined in the paper have been implemented-removing Saddam from power, setting aside the "land for peace" formula to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, attacking Hezbollah in Lebanon-all with disastrous results.

Nevertheless, neoconservatives still advocate continuing on the path Netanyahu staked out in his speech and taking the fight to Iran. As they see it, the Iraqi debacle is not the product of their failed policies. Rather, it is the result of America's failure to think big. "It's a mess, isn't it?" says Meyrav Wurmser, who now serves as director of the Center for Middle East Policy at the Hudson Institute. "My argument has always been that this war is senseless if you don't give it a regional context."

That is the argument that's clearly driving Bush and Cheney today.  They have nothing else. Cheney is melting down on national television.  Bush in his bubble is as detached and oblivious as ever. I believe that we are  at a point where the only things standing between us and the order to attack Iran are the generals. (Forget congress --- they can't even pass a toothless resolution against the "surge" in less than a couple of months. The "surge" will have already failed by the time they even stage a uselss protest.)  And that is about the scariest thing, out of many scary things, I've contemplated since the beginning of the Bush administration. We are now in a Strangelovian bizarroworld where we must count on General Buck Turgidson to refuse to follow orders. Holy Moly.

X-posted at FDL.

.
digby 2/13/2007 04:45:00 PM |

 
General Throws Wrench at Bush's Iran Propaganda Machine

by tristero

Looks like someone won't get a Christmas card from Fearless Leader next year. Pity:

A top U.S. general said Tuesday there was no evidence the Iranian government was supplying Iraqi insurgents with highly lethal roadside bombs, apparently contradicting claims by other U.S. military and administration officials.

Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said U.S. forces hunting down militant networks that produced roadside bombs had arrested Iranians and that some of the material used in the devices were made in Iran.

“That does not translate that the Iranian government per se, for sure, is directly involved in doing this,” Pace told reporters in the Indonesian capital, Jakarta. “What it does say is that things made in Iran are being used in Iraq to kill coalition soldiers.”

Now, this didn't just happen. Something's afoot and it sounds like the generals are doing everything they possibly can to avoid Bush starting an utterly catastrophic war with Iran.

To say the least, the Bush presidency has provided an occasion for strange bedfellows. An American right wing lunatic, Dinesh D'Sousa, all but comes out and says that bin Laden had the right idea to attack the corrupt, materialistic, America. And the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs may be marching with the rest of us in the reality-based community at the next protest rally.

On second thought, these bedfellows aren't so strange after all. The kind of fanatical Islamism that bin Laden's all about is at its heart a totalitarian doctrine, so it stands to reason it would appeal to America's anti-liberal fascists. And it also stands to reason that a truly professional military commander knows better than to go marching off to war for no fucking reason at all.

tristero 2/13/2007 01:23:00 PM |

 
War Tax

by digby

This is blasphemy hereabouts, but I have to agree with BC over at Cliff Schecter's place: I support Joe Lieberman. Yes, I know this is a shock, and many of you must be thinking I've lost my mind. But when Holy Joe is right about something(a most unusual event), he's right. Even if he doesn't know it:

I want him to propose his "war tax" on the floor of the Senate.

I wrote a few days ago that Democrats need to make Republicans take tough votes, and none would be tougher than a vote on a war tax. Republicans would either have to vote to increase taxes (you might not have heard this, but Republicans generally don't like to raise taxes) or they would have to vote against funding for the troops. They would have to choose between their so-called ethos or their b.s., Hannityesque flag waving rhetoric. Basically, a damned if you do (unless you're Ted Haggard) or damned if you don't scenario for the Repubs.

I would take it even further than BC recommends. I'd say:

"The working people of America have done all that was asked of them to support the troops. While struggling to keep up financially they sent their sons and daughters overseas when the president called. The wealthy, however, have not stepped up. They have benefitted from massive Republican tax cuts during a time that our troops have made do with inferior body armor and their families have had to apply for food stamps. It's time to ask them to finally do their part to help pay for the war. It's the patriotic thing to do."

Make the Republicans defend their tax cuts for the wealthy as opposed to funding the troops. (Of course that requires that Democrats be willing to offend their rich contributors too...)

The truth is that we have no idea how much money has been thrown into the Iraq moneypit and there has been virtually no discussion of how this country is expected to pay for it. Politicians and pundits act as if this is some sort of taboo subject. We can have debates about torture but we can't talk about the fact that this war is creating a massive debt while Paris Hilton and her friends party like it's 1999. At dinner tables all over the country this topic is being discussed. It's only in the halls of government that mentioning the cost of this endeavor is considered politically incorrect.

Obviously, it's a fantasy that Joe Lieberman would actually take such as resolution to the floor. He's much too beholden to his neocon brethren to take such a stand now. But it would be delicious if someone did it and used his speech as the basis for his or her argument.


.
digby 2/13/2007 12:36:00 PM |

 
Rules For Scandal

by digby

Matt Yglesias writes:

But insofar as we're talking about ideology, we should be clear. Clinton, like her husband, is both hated by the right and treated unfairly by the press and a not very liberal politician, coming from the party's more centrist wing and flanked by advisors from the same. In a general election, she'd clearly be the progressive choice against Giuliani, McCain, Romney, etc. but is clearly the less progressive choice vis-a-vis Edwards and Obama. I don't think the fact that she's mistreated by the press should distract people from this basic point.

That's true and I can't argue with it. And his analysis about the liberal positioning of the candidates seems right to me too, a fact which we must keep in mind as we begin to engage the substance of the primary race.

But neither should we ever forget that Clinton Rules apply to all Democrats if they become a threat and, therefore, they should be fought wherever we find it. Nobody can say that the Clinton Rules weren't in effect against Gore and Kerry too. (Hint: it's the trivial tabloid smearing and breathless psycho-sexual armchair analysis that's the tip-off.)

The Rules are named for the Clintons because they were the first successful, high profile baby boomer Democratic leaders to hold high office and so were the first to be subject to it. But if it hadn't been them it would have been someone else because they developed less because of the politicians than because of changes in the media landscape. Although the Democratic narrative was cooked up a long time ago it was during the Clinton years the right wing noise machine learned how to feed a new generation of ratings hungry, 24/7 news media the nasty little tid-bits that allow them to cover politics like celebrity gossip.

Primary season is always a test for Democrats who are tempted to take advantage when the media uses it against a primary opponent. You can certainly understand that --- it's human nature and people are in it to win. But I think it's a big mistake. That is not to say that they shouldn't fight hard for the nomination. But there is a difference between using the media to regurgitate patented rightwing cant and employing legitimate tough politics.

Democrats should hang together on this one issue. They'll all benefit in the long run. As a blogger, I'm going to continue to call out the media when they do this regardless of my personal feelings about the candidate. Until this cycle is broken all Democrats are going to be subject to the trivialization, character smears and biased coverage that comes with a shallow, sophomoric political press in a Republican establishment town.



Update: I should make clear that I'm not chastising Yglesias here. He was making a separate point, which is eminently reasonable.

Update II: Here's Eric Boehlert with an anatomy of a patented Clinton Rules smear job.



.
digby 2/13/2007 11:12:00 AM |

 

Lincoln Update

The old daguerreotype didn't sell, so it would appear the smart money doesn't believe its subject can be adequately authenticated. For those interested, there were nice discussions at Amanda's place, and Melissa's too.

I still believe the photo is Lincoln. Many agreed, but many also believed the opposite, some of them declaring with certainty that it is not him. To them I would say that with the known information, it is just as impossible to definitively prove it isn't Lincoln as it is to prove that it is. Maybe someday more information will surface to tip the evidence one way or the other.

UPDATE: Check out roberto's latest effort with regard to the alignment of Lincoln's eyes and the overlay of one image on top of the other.

Says he:

"I wasn't sure how valuable that would be -- the two sets of eyes being very similar to one another. But it proved to be a fairly interesting exercise.

In order to exactly align the pupils, I had to scale the "fake" Lincoln head and rotate it 4.5% counter clockwise. When the image was overlaid on the body of the real Lincoln, the head appeared as being too small for the body. This disproportion was even more apparent when a Difference blending mode was applied.

So, using the eyes as a rather good comparative measure, I believe Lincoln's had a rather large head, and certainly a much larger one than that of the fake Lincoln."

Click on the image to enlarge it.

The results of the experiment can also be seen at roberto's studio.

Are there other artisan's out there who can comment on whether the technique roberto used is properly taking into account left-right camera angle, height of camera compared to subject, image distance from camera, head tilt left-right, forward-back, and so forth? What roberto has done seems reasonable to me, but you know how easily I can be snowed. Also, am I getting it wrong that once the head size is adjusted to be the same, and the eyes aligned, the ears line up almost exactly with the authenticated Lincoln?

poputonian 2/13/2007 04:55:00 AM |

 

Scum and Dumber

by poputonian

In January, digby linked to a question Charles Schumer asked: "What are the eight words that will save the Democratic Party?"

In the comments, I said, "Here's eight words and a number: "Burton was absent for all 19 votes this week," and linked to this article:

WASHINGTON -- Rep. Dan Burton missed all U.S. House action this week, and his office declined to say where the Indianapolis Republican is.

Burton did not participate in any of the 19 floor votes in the House, including votes on measures to cut the interest rate for some student loans and repeal a tax break for oil and gas companies.

The House Foreign Relations Committee, on which Burton is a top Republican, held hearings on Iraq and North Korea.

The question of Burton's whereabouts was answered last evening (scroll down), and for those who asked, Ray Romano was his partner.

Being a U.S. Congressmen isn't easy. You put your reputation on the line, day after day. You sometimes have to spend as many as three days a week doing your job. You have to live off a paltry salary of just $165,000 a year (not counting bribes).
...
According to IndyStar.com, Burton skipped 19 House votes, including measures to reduce college costs and cut oil industry tax breaks, so he could play in a golf tournament last month in Palm Springs, Calif. Burton also missed hearings on Iraq and North Korea so he could play in the Bob Hope Chrysler Classic with big-time celebrities like Ray Romano.

At the risk of sounding absolutely disgusting, I have to say that Burton is SCUM.

But, really, Burton's almost nothing compared to the dumber Representative who got left behind, Eric Cantor (R-Nutball-VA):

MATTHEWS: How many wars are we going to have to fight in our lifetime? You want to go to war with Iran now?

CANTOR: I'm not saying we should take anything off the table.

MATTHEWS: Do you think we should go to war with Iran?

CANTOR: I don't think that's responsible for to us take that option off the table right now.

MATTHEWS: I'm asking you, do you think we should go to war? Yes or no?

CANTOR: I think all options including the military option should be left on the table.

MATTHEWS: This isn't an option question. This isn't multiple choice.

Right now, February 8, 2007, do you believe we should go to war with Iran?

CANTOR: I'll leave that decision up to the commanders on the ground and those in our military ...

Matthews is visibly taken aback.

MATTHEWS [straining]: Commanders on the ground ... whether we go to war with another country?

CANTOR: I will leave the decisions in the military arena to -- this is exactly the point.

MATTHEWS: This is Barry Goldwater talking. He used to say that.

Regional commanders can decide whether we want it use nuclear weapons. You're obviously saying soldiers should decide which country to go to war with.

CANTOR: I'm here to say the military experts are those which might come up with the recommendation to the commander in chief that makes the decision. It is silly for us to expect.

MATTHEWS: I'm not talking - I just asked you a very simple question.

CANTOR: We're going 535 commanders in chief -

Matthews is incredulous ... Rep. Steve Israel (D-NY) tries to spoon-feed the answer to Cantor:

MATTHEWS: I've never heard of anything like this in my life. Never in my life.

ISRAEL: Congress has a constitutional responsibility to decide whether we're going to war or not. That's what we're elected to do. Those are the debates we should have.

CANTOR: Every president since -

MATTHEWS: The idea of declaring war as a soldier is unimaginable.

We'll be right back to talk HARDBALL with the two congressmen.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL. We're back with Republican Congressman Eric Cantor of Virginia and Democratic Congressman Steve Israel of New York.

Let me ask you Congressman Cantor, very clearly, to clear up our discussion, if the U.S. Congress were to discuss tomorrow morning whether to declare war on Iran, would you vote yay?

CANTOR: This congress is not going to do that because it's the commander in chief's role, Chris, and Steve knows that as well. It's not Congress that will ask for that. It is the commander in chief that will make that decision. Every president whether republican or Republican or Democrat since the War Powers Act was in place has interpreted it as being the commander in chief's role to do that.

MATTHEWS: Would you support the president if he declared war in Iran tomorrow morning? As things are right now.

CANTOR: I will support what is in the best interest of securing this homeland and providing our troops with what they need and if there is a threat on the ground in Iraq and in the region that our troops need us, I will support them and that's exactly the point on this Iraqi resolution because the Democrats want to have their cake and eat it, too. This is a nonbinding resolution. It's a sense of Congress. It doesn't mean anything. In fact it pollutes the message and sends the wrong message to our troops.

MATTHEWS: Congressman Israel, what's the role of Congress in war and peace?

ISRAEL: Congress under the Constitution of the United States authorizes war. The War Powers Act requires Congress to vote on whether we should insert troops into hostile situations. The law is clear.

CANTOR: Absolutely not.

ISRAEL: Come on, Eric.

CANTOR: As a commander in chief the constitution gives -

MATTHEWS: Congressman Cantor, why did the president ask for approval of Congress before he went to Iraq?

CANTOR: I certainly think his counsel gave him guidance why he need to do that but the Constitution gives the commander in chief the right to send our troops into battle.

MATTHEWS: Maybe when it comes to war we don't need a Congress according to that.

$165k each year, and for life after they retire. I can't wait to hear how pooter2x4 rationalizes on behalf of this pair of Republican nutballs.

UPDATE: C & L has the dumber episode on video.

poputonian 2/13/2007 04:08:00 AM |

Monday, February 12, 2007

 
Tort Reform Fever

by digby


K-Drum writes about a colleague's new book regarding the conservative tort reform crusade. Conservative hostility to liability laws has always been around, but "tort reform" as we know it was evidently one of those Grover Norquist specials where he rightly observed that trial lawyers tended to be Democratic contributors so going after them hard was a neat political two-fer.

But I've noticed for several election cycles now that Republican crowds go completely nuts whenever a candidate says the words "tort reform." It's always struck me as completely bizarre that they would have such an emotional reaction to such a dry issue. Does anyone know if it's got some dogwhistle quality that I'm missing? Or is it just a recognizable applause line that mindless Republican robots get hysterical over without having a clue as to what it really means?



edited for clarity
.
digby 2/12/2007 09:05:00 PM |

 
Segretti And Meatballs

by digby

You know what is really powerful about the right wing? They are just so good at ratfucking and they take a lot of pride in their work:

Sen. Hillary Clinton’s Secret Service detail has received a major boost, rising from three or four federal agents to as many as a dozen in recent weeks.

The increase, which followed Clinton’s formal entry into the 2008 presidential race on Jan. 20, was described as a "precaution,” given her position as a former first lady, according to sources cited by the New York Post.

But the Secret Service was notified when a blogger posted a rant on one of Sen. Barack Obama’s campaign Web sites calling for Clinton’s death.

The rant was addressed to Obama, a rival to Hillary for the 2008 Democratic nomination:

"You’re too black for whites and too white for blacks,” it read. "But please put up a good fight for us – and if you get a chance to shove a pillow over Hillary’s face and smother her to death before the primaries, 20 black-eyed virgins will wait on you in paradise.”

Let's deconstruct that, shall we?

First Hillary is costing the taxpayers more and more money with a huge entourage of secret service. Just as Pelosi requiring security for her plane travel was a high handed request by a spoiled liberal from San Francisco, Clinton the Diva's "precautions" are much too extravagant. Women.

Still, she is so unpopular that even Sodom Hussein Obama's Muslim terrorist supporters hate her and want to kill her.

Obama's evil followers aren't sure about him either though, since he's bi-racial, in case anyone had missed that. Both bigots and blacks should think twice about voting for him.

Oh, and both campaigns are bound to be suspicious that the other one is behind this shit, even if everyone denies it. Sweet.



digby 2/12/2007 08:39:00 PM |

 

It's Hard Work

by poputonian

... for Mr. Subpoena, Congress's finest:

U.S. Rep. Dan Burton (R-IN) this morning apologized for missing 19 votes to play in a golf tournament in January.

Burton, who has not responded to requests for comment, made his apology during an appearance on a conservative radio talk show in Indianapolis.

Burton told talk show host Greg Garrison that he made reservations to play in the Bob Hope Chrysler Classic when Republicans were still in control of the House.

When Democrats took control, he did not expect them to schedule votes so early in the month. "I probably made a mistake," he said.

He said, however, he hasn't yet met the perfect person who hasn't made any mistakes.

Burton missed votes to reduce college costs and cut oil industry tax breaks so he could play in the Palm Springs, Calif. golf tournament in January.

Burton also missed hearings on Iraq and North Korea to play in the event, which pairs top golfers with politicians and celebrities such as actor and director Clint Eastwood.

A review of House votes for the past decade shows the Indianapolis Republican has been absent every year votes coincided with the tournament: 2007, 2005, 2004, 2003 and 2001. This year in January, he missed a total of 20 out of 73 votes.

From digby in November, quoting an article:

Subpoenas would be used only as a last result, Waxman said, taking a jab at a previous committee chairman, GOP Rep. Dan Burton of Indiana, who led the committee during part of the Clinton administration.

"He issued a subpoena like most people write a letter," Waxman said.

Scumbag.

poputonian 2/12/2007 07:36:00 PM |

 
The Count Emerges From The Crypt

by digby

Be sure to check in at FDL. Emptywheel is liveblogging the Robert Novak testimony. Here's a little tid bit that jumped out at me:

[Libby defense attorney] Wells: How did you come to be working on Wilson column

RN: Previous Sunday, alleged attempt by Iraq to buy yellowcake from Niger, he had written op-ed, he was on MTP, I happened to be on roundtable and came in contact with him, had been interested in story, became more interested in it, and whether Pres had ignored report in opting for invasion of Iraq.

Later this:

Fitz: First meeting with Wilson

RN On MTP. The day of his op-ed.

F: You did not become fast friends.

RN: We did not exchange words. Most people in the green room quietly read. He was giving his opinion at some length about how things were done in the Clinton NSC, in a very loud voice, I thought that was an obnoxious performance.

F: Did you share that experience with Rove that week.

RN: I might have.

Far be for me to infer that Novak and Rove might have colluded. (And it doesn't appear to be a crime, if they did.) But it should be a political scandal that ruins Bob Novak's "reputation" as any sort of reliable journalist.

Remember this article in the LA Times?

In one White House conversation, investigators have learned, Rove was asked why he was focused so intently on discrediting the former diplomat.

"He's a Democrat," Rove said, citing Wilson's campaign contributions. By that time, Wilson had begun advising Sen. John F. Kerry's presidential campaign.

Let's not forget the Rove dimension in all this. He may not have committed a crime because he may not have known that Plame was undercover. And Fitzgerald ultimately decided that he couldn't prove lied under oath. But he most certainly was in on the smear job with Cheney and his motive wasn't even covering his own ass. His motive was simple character assasination of a Democrat. It's what he does.


.
digby 2/12/2007 12:48:00 PM |

 
It Never Gets Easier To Read These Stories

by tristero

It never will:

Thunderous explosions and dense black smoke swirled through the center of Baghdad Monday when at least two car bombs -- one parked in an underground garage -- tore through a crowded marketplace, setting off dozens of secondary explosions and killing at least 71 people, police said. Another bombing nearby killed at least nine.

tristero 2/12/2007 05:07:00 AM |

 

Guess who?

(No fair hovering on the links.)



Give up?

Read each tab here for the fascinating story, and then go buy it ... if you have five million sitting around.

poputonian 2/12/2007 04:13:00 AM |

 
Douglas Feith Tries The Swedish Penis Enlarger Defense

by tristero

Man, is that guy stooopid:

Former undersecretary of defense for policy Douglas Feith on Fox News Sunday:

my office never said there was an operational relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda.

Perhaps he has forgotten this leaked Feith memo, cited favorably by the Vice President, and published by the Weekly Standard:

"OSAMA BIN LADEN and Saddam Hussein had an operational relationship from the early 1990s to 2003 that involved training in explosives and weapons of mass destruction, logistical support for terrorist attacks, al Qaeda training camps and safe haven in Iraq, and Iraqi financial support for al Qaeda--perhaps even for Mohamed Atta--according to a top secret U.S. government memorandum obtained by THE WEEKLY STANDARD. The memo, dated October 27, 2003, was sent from Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith to Senators Pat Roberts and Jay Rockefeller, the chairman and vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. ...."

Never heard of the Swedish Penis Enlarger Defense?

[returning Austin's personal property after reanimating him]
Quartermaster Clerk: One Swedish-made penis enlarger.
Austin Powers: [to Vanessa] That's not mine.
Quartermaster Clerk: One credit card receipt for Swedish-made penis enlarger signed by Austin Powers.
Austin Powers: I'm telling ya baby, that's not mine.
Quartermaster Clerk: One warranty card for Swedish-made penis enlarger pump, filled out by Austin Powers.
Austin Powers: I don't even know what this is! This sort of thing ain't my bag, baby.
Quartermaster Clerk: One book, "Swedish-made Penis Enlargers And Me: This Sort of Thing Is My Bag Baby", by Austin Powers.

tristero 2/12/2007 12:34:00 AM |

 
Richard Cohen?

by digby


Deborah Howell takes WaPo blogger William Arkin to the woodshed:

Arkin apologized. He said he was "dead wrong" to use the word "mercenary," that it "is an insult and pejorative, and it does not accurately describe the condition of the American soldier today. I sincerely apologize to anyone in the military who took my words literally."

Readers usually take things literally. And an editor should have told him to take out the word. That's what editors are for: They keep opinion writers from making fools of themselves.

Haha! That's a good one.


.
digby 2/12/2007 12:01:00 AM |

Sunday, February 11, 2007

 
I Kinda Like It

by digby

From Duncan:




I can't help but be reminded of just how lame the vast majority of the so-called liberal entertainment establishment was in the run up to the Iraq war. It wasn't like there weren't millions of people in the streets. Even 23 US Senators voted against the war. But as far as show business was concerned it was pretty much left to three country singers from Texas to take the slings and arrows all by themselves. It was not the industry's finest hour.

I don't want to give anything away to those who are watching on the West Coast, but let's just say they are making amends tonight. About time.

C&L has the video here.



.
digby 2/11/2007 08:19:00 PM |

 
Revenge Of The Republican Geeks

by digby

If you read nothing else tonight read this article in this week's New Yorker profile of Rush Limbaugh's great pal Joel Surnow, creator of the TV show "24." It's sad and laughable and frightening all at once.

I think you'll especially like this part, since we've spent almost the entire day discussing Iran hereabouts:

Although he is a supporter of President Bush—he told me that “America is in its glory days”—Surnow is critical of the way the war in Iraq has been conducted. An “isolationist” with “no faith in nation-building,” he thinks that “we could have been out of this thing three years ago.” After deposing Saddam Hussein, he argued, America should have “just handed it to the Baathists and . . . put in some other monster who’s going to keep these people in line but who’s not going to be aggressive to us.” In his view, America “is sort of the parent of the world, so we have to be stern but fair to people who are rebellious to us. We don’t spoil them. That’s not to say you abuse them, either. But you have to know who the adult in the room is.”

Surnow’s rightward turn was encouraged by one of his best friends, Cyrus Nowrasteh, a hard-core conservative who, in 2006, wrote and produced “The Path to 9/11,” a controversial ABC miniseries that presented President Clinton as having largely ignored the threat posed by Al Qaeda. (The show was denounced as defamatory by Democrats and by members of the 9/11 Commission; their complaints led ABC to call the program a “dramatization,” not a “documentary.”) Surnow and Nowrasteh met in 1985, when they worked together on “The Equalizer.” Nowrasteh, the son of a deposed adviser to the Shah of Iran, grew up in Madison, Wisconsin, where, like Surnow, he was alienated by the radicalism around him. He told me that he and Surnow, in addition to sharing an admiration for Reagan, found “L.A. a stultifying, stifling place because everyone thinks alike.” Nowrasteh said that he and Surnow regard “24” as a kind of wish fulfillment for America. “Every American wishes we had someone out there quietly taking care of business,” he said. “It’s a deep, dark ugly world out there. Maybe this is what Ollie North was trying to do. It would be nice to have a secret government that can get the answers and take care of business—even kill people. Jack Bauer fulfills that fantasy.”

The Baby Party strikes again. "Please have Secret Government Daddy quietly 'take care of business' or I'll just die of fright!" And they admit to this embarrassing need for a big strong man to solve all their problems while Surnow refers to "foreigners" as children whom we musn't "spoil." Oh my god, what ridiculous people.

And, you can't help but choke a little bit on the idea that the son of an advisor of the Shah of Iran is influencing Americans about the need for torture. Cyrus "SAVAK" Nowrasteh is quite a guy.

But, still, it's just a TV show, right? Unfortunately, the article points out that this piece of shit is actually used by soldiers in Iraq for "ideas." And the military isn't all that happy about it:

This past November, U.S. Army Brigadier General Patrick Finnegan, the dean of the United States Military Academy at West Point, flew to Southern California to meet with the creative team behind “24.” Finnegan, who was accompanied by three of the most experienced military and F.B.I. interrogators in the country, arrived on the set as the crew was filming...In fact, Finnegan and the others had come to voice their concern that the show’s central political premise—that the letter of American law must be sacrificed for the country’s security—was having a toxic effect. In their view, the show promoted unethical and illegal behavior and had adversely affected the training and performance of real American soldiers. “I’d like them to stop,” Finnegan said of the show’s producers. “They should do a show where torture backfires.”

The meeting, which lasted a couple of hours, had been arranged by David Danzig, the Human Rights First official. Several top producers of “24” were present, but Surnow was conspicuously absent. Surnow explained to me, “I just can’t sit in a room that long. I’m too A.D.D.—I can’t sit still.” He told the group that the meeting conflicted with a planned conference call with Roger Ailes, the chairman of the Fox News Channel. (Another participant in the conference call attended the meeting.) Ailes wanted to discuss a project that Surnow has been planning for months: the début, on February 18th, of “The Half Hour News Hour,” a conservative satirical treatment of the week’s news; Surnow sees the show as offering a counterpoint to the liberal slant of “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart.”

[...]

At other moments, the discussion was more strained. Finnegan told the producers that “24,” by suggesting that the U.S. government perpetrates myriad forms of torture, hurts the country’s image internationally. Finnegan, who is a lawyer, has for a number of years taught a course on the laws of war to West Point seniors—cadets who would soon be commanders in the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan. He always tries, he said, to get his students to sort out not just what is legal but what is right. However, it had become increasingly hard to convince some cadets that America had to respect the rule of law and human rights, even when terrorists did not. One reason for the growing resistance, he suggested, was misperceptions spread by “24,” which was exceptionally popular with his students. As he told me, “The kids see it, and say, ‘If torture is wrong, what about “24”?’ ” He continued, “The disturbing thing is that although torture may cause Jack Bauer some angst, it is always the patriotic thing to do.”

[...]

The third expert at the meeting was Tony Lagouranis, a former Army interrogator in the war in Iraq. He told the show’s staff that DVDs of shows such as “24” circulate widely among soldiers stationed in Iraq. Lagouranis said to me, “People watch the shows, and then walk into the interrogation booths and do the same things they’ve just seen.” He recalled that some men he had worked with in Iraq watched a television program in which a suspect was forced to hear tortured screams from a neighboring cell; the men later tried to persuade their Iraqi translator to act the part of a torture “victim,” in a similar intimidation ploy. Lagouranis intervened: such scenarios constitute psychological torture.

I'm not all that big a believer in the idea that sending bad "messages" to the troops should dictate what people in a free society are allowed to say or what the policy of the government should be. I think that "24" has its audience and that's probably just the price we have to pay for living in a liberal democracy.

But I'm not sure I think that the highest reaches of government (who have made a fetish out of criticizing Americans for "sending the wrong message" to the troops,) should go this far, particularly when they are constantly telling the rest of us that we should STFU:

Last March, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and his wife, Virginia, joined Surnow and Howard Gordon for a private dinner at Rush Limbaugh’s Florida home. The gathering inspired Virginia Thomas—who works at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank—to organize a panel discussion on “24.” The symposium, sponsored by the foundation and held in June, was entitled “ ‘24’ and America’s Image in Fighting Terrorism: Fact, Fiction, or Does It Matter?” Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, who participated in the discussion, praised the show’s depiction of the war on terrorism as “trying to make the best choice with a series of bad options.” He went on, “Frankly, it reflects real life.” Chertoff, who is a devoted viewer of “24,” subsequently began an e-mail correspondence with Gordon, and the two have since socialized in Los Angeles. “It’s been very heady,” Gordon said of Washington’s enthusiasm for the show. Roger Director, Surnow’s friend, joked that the conservative writers at “24” have become “like a Hollywood television annex to the White House. It’s like an auxiliary wing.”

That's the sad part. Poor little Republican geeks, so desperate to be relevant in popular culture, so desperate to be tough guys. I think that simple observation pretty much explains everything.


.
digby 2/11/2007 07:31:00 PM |

 
"Preserving All Our Options"

by digby

The article about Iran that tristero quotes below is full of interesting little tid-bits. Like this:

In a pattern that would become familiar, however, a chill quickly followed the warming in relations. Barely a week after the Tokyo meeting, Iran was included with Iraq and North Korea in the "Axis of Evil." Michael Gerson, now a NEWSWEEK contributor, headed the White House speechwriting shop at the time. He says Iran and North Korea were inserted into Bush's controversial State of the Union address in order to avoid focusing solely on Iraq. At the time, Bush was already making plans to topple Saddam Hussein, but he wasn't ready to say so. Gerson says it was Condoleezza Rice, then national-security adviser, who told him which two countries to include along with Iraq. But the phrase also appealed to a president who felt himself thrust into a grand struggle. Senior aides say it reminded him of Ronald Reagan's ringing denunciations of the "evil empire."

Once again, Iran's reformists were knocked back on their heels. "Those who were in favor of a rapprochement with the United States were marginalized," says Adeli. "The speech somehow exonerated those who had always doubted America's intentions." The Khameini aide concurs: "The Axis of Evil speech did not surprise the Supreme Leader. He never trusted the Americans."

Ok. Let's just unpack that bit. Bush didn't want the world to know that he'd made up his mind to invade Iraq for no good reason, so his speech writers threw Iran and North Korea into the State of the Union address as the "Axis of Evil." And Lil' Junior thought it was like totally awesome because it sounded like Uncle Ronnie's speech about the evil empire.

Many of us knew this at the time. I certainly rolled my eyes when I heard the phrase, recognizing both the absurdity of lumping these disparate nations together under the banner of "evil" (which was something out of a cheap horror movie) but I also knew that they were consciously evoking Reagan as a cheap political ploy. In fact, the whole "evil" rhetoric was Gerson's patented fundamentalist dogwhistle nonsense designed to stoke the Christian Right base, a gargantuanly stupid thing to do when dealing with religious fanatics who are themselves using religion as a recruiting tool. But hey, they had an election to win.

So, it is not surprising that Iran was unnerved by Bush's Christianist flag waving. Nonetheless, they came back to the US again:

It would be another war that nudged the two countries together again. At the beginning of 2003, as the Pentagon readied for battle against Iraq, the Americans wanted Tehran's help in case a flood of refugees headed for the border, or if U.S. pilots were downed inside Iran. After U.S. tanks thundered into Baghdad, those worries eased. "We had the strong hand at that point," recalls Colin Powell, who was secretary of State at the time. If anything, though, America's lightning campaign made the Iranians even more eager to deal. Low-level meetings between the two sides had continued even after the Axis of Evil speech. At one of them that spring, Zarif raised the question of the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), a rabidly anti-Iranian militant group based in Iraq. Iran had detained a number of senior Qaeda operatives after 9/11. Zarif floated the possibility of "reciprocity"—your terrorists for ours.

The idea was brought up at a mid-May meeting between Bush and his chief advisers in the wood-paneled Situation Room in the White House basement. Riding high, Bush seemed to like the idea of a swap, says a participant who asked to remain anonymous because the meeting was classified. Some in the room argued that designating the militants as terrorists had been a mistake, others that they might prove useful against Iran someday. Powell opposed the handover for a different reason: he worried that the captives might be tortured. The vice president, silent through most of the meeting as was his wont, muttered something about "preserving all our options." (Cheney declined to comment.) The MEK's status remains unresolved.

Around this time what struck some in the U.S. government as an even more dramatic offer arrived in Washington—a faxed two-page proposal for comprehensive bilateral talks. To the NSC's Mann, among others, the Iranians seemed willing to discuss, at least, cracking down on Hizbullah and Hamas (or turning them into peaceful political organizations) and "full transparency" on Iran's nuclear program. In return, the Iranian "aims" in the document called for a "halt in U.S. hostile behavior and rectification of the status of Iran in the U.S. and abolishing sanctions," as well as pursuit of the MEK.

An Iranian diplomat admits to NEWSWEEK that he had a hand in preparing the proposal, but denies that he was its original author. Asking not to be named because the topic is politically sensitive, he says he got the rough draft from an intermediary with connections at the White House and the State Department. He suggested some relatively minor revisions in ballpoint pen and dispatched the working draft to Tehran, where it was shown to only the top ranks of the regime. "We didn't want to have an 'Irangate 2'," the diplomat says, referring to the secret negotiations to trade weapons for hostages that ended in scandal during Reagan's administration. After Iran's National Security Council approved the document (under orders from Khameini), a final copy was produced and sent to Washington, according to the diplomat.

The letter received a mixed reception. Powell and his deputy Richard Armitage were suspicious. Armitage says he thinks the letter represented creative diplomacy by the Swiss ambassador, Tim Guldimann, who was serving as a go-between. "We couldn't determine what [in the proposal] was the Iranians' and what was the Swiss ambassador's," he says. He added that his impression at the time was that the Iranians "were trying to put too much on the table." Quizzed about the letter in front of Congress last week, Rice denied ever seeing it. "I don't care if it originally came from Mars," Mann says now. "If the Iranians said it was fully vetted and cleared, then it could have been as important as the two-page document" that Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger received from Beijing in 1971, indicating Mao Zedong's interest in opening China.

A few days later bombs tore through three housing complexes in Saudi Arabia and killed 29 people, including seven Americans. Furious administration hard-liners blamed Tehran. Citing telephone intercepts, they claimed the bombings had been ordered by Saif al-Adel, a senior Qaeda leader supposedly imprisoned in Iran. "There's no question but that there have been and are today senior Al Qaeda leaders in Iran, and they are busy," Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld growled. Although there was no evidence the Iranian government knew of Adel's activities, his presence in the country was enough to undermine those who wanted to reach out.

Powell, for one, thinks Bush simply wasn't prepared to deal with a regime he thought should not be in power. As secretary of State he met fierce resistance to any diplomatic overtures to Iran and its ally Syria. "My position in the remaining year and a half was that we ought to find ways to restart talks with Iran," he says of the end of his term. "But there was a reluctance on the part of the president to do that." The former secretary of State angrily rejects the administration's characterization of efforts by him and his top aides to deal with Tehran and Damascus as failures. "I don't like the administration saying, 'Powell went, Armitage went ... and [they] got nothing.' We got plenty," he says. "You can't negotiate when you tell the other side, 'Give us what a negotiation would produce before the negotiations start'."

I think the key here is this:

The vice president, silent through most of the meeting as was his wont, muttered something about "preserving all our options."

It's pretty clear what those options were. It wasn't a secret even then, no matter how unbelievable it may seem that they would even attempt it:

November 20, 2001

The Wall Street Journal published an op-ed piece by Eliot Cohen advocating the overthrow of the mullahs in Iran. Cohen writes: “First, if one front in this war is the contest for free and moderate governance in the Muslim world, the US should throw its weight behind pro-Western and anticlerical forces there. The immediate choice lies before the US government in regard to Iran. We can either make tactical accommodations with the regime there in return for modest (or illusory) sharing of intelligence, reduced support for some terrorist groups and the like, or do everything in our power to support a civil society that loathes the mullahs and yearns to overturn their rule. It will be wise, moral and unpopular (among some of our allies) to choose the latter course. The overthrow of the first theocratic revolutionary Muslim state and its replacement by a moderate or secular government, however, would be no less important a victory in this war than the annihilation of bin Laden.” [Wall Street Journal, 11/20/2001]

Soon the groundwork was being laid:

February 8, 2002

Israeli Defense Minister Benjamin Ben-Eliezer meets with US Vice President Dick Cheney and tells him that Israel is concerned that Iran, which Israel believes will have nuclear weapons by 2005, represents a greater threat to Israel than Iraq. “The danger, as I see it, is from a Hezbollah-Iran-Palestinian triangle, with Iran leading this triangle and putting together a coalition of terror,” he tells Cheney. [Ha'aretz, 2/9/2002]

August 9, 2003

Newsday reports that according to a senior official and another source within the Bush administration, the “ultimate objective” of Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith and “a group of neo-conservative civilians inside the Pentagon is change of government in Iran.” The report says that the “immediate objective appeared to be to ‘antagonize Iran so that they get frustrated and then by their reactions harden US policy against them.’” It apparently is no secret within the administration, as Secretary of State Colin Powell has recently complained directly to the Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, about Feith’s activities. [Newsday, 8/9/2003]

January 2005

The US Air Force begins flying sorties over Iran from its bases in Afghanistan and Iraq in order to lure Tehran into turning on air defense radars so the US can develop “an electronic order of battle for Iran.” “We have to know which targets to attack and how to attack them,” an unnamed administration official tells United Press International. [United Press International, 1/26/2005 Sources: Unnamed Bush administration officials] Washington initially denies the overflight reports. [Guardian, 1/29/2005]


January 2005

A Farsi-speaking former CIA officer says he was approached by neoconservatives in the Pentagon who asked him to go to Iran and oversee “MEK [Mujahedeen-e Khalq] cross-border operations” into Iran, which he refused to do. Commenting on the neoconservatives’ ambitions in Iran, the former officer says, “They are bringing a lot of the old war-horses from the Reagan and Iran-contra days into a sort of kitchen cabinet outside the government to write up policy papers on Iran.” He says their plans for Iran are “delusional.” “They think in Iran you can just go in and hit the facilities and destabilize the government. They believe they can get rid of a few crazy mullahs and bring in the young guys who like Gap jeans, all the world’s problems are solved,” he says. [Guardian, 1/18/2005]

And the beat goes on. Today we are looking at a concerted PR campaign to implicate Iran in the Iraq war, a third carrier group is steaming to the Gulf and nobody believes a thing the US Government says.

And we watch as our democratic institutions seem to be incapable of hitting the brakes and I'm not sure I understand why. It was one thing after 9/11 for everyone to be caught up in the emotion of the moment. There is no such excuse now. The entire world knows now that the US is not only irrational but it is widely perceived as being incompetent. What could be more dangerous than having delusional megalomaniacs playing RISK at a time like this?

Here's an example of what the administration is listening to now:

The opponents of military strikes against the mullahs' weapons facilities say there are no guarantees that we can permanently destroy their weapons production. This is true. We can't guarantee the results. But what we can do is demonstrate, to the mullahs and to others elsewhere, that even with these uncertainties, in a post-9/11 world the United States has red lines that will compel it to act. And one nonnegotiable red line is that we will not sit idly and watch a virulently anti-American terrorist-supporting rogue state obtain nukes. We will not be intimidated by threats of terrorism, oil-price spikes, or hostile world opinion. If the ruling clerical elite wants a head-on collision with a determined superpower, then that's their choice.

Stirring words, I'm sure, to an embattled president whose codpiece is becoming more and more superfluous and to an unaccountable vice president with a messianic sense of mission. (That is exactly the schoolyard "strategic vision" he lives by.)

Apparently the clear history of the last six years isn't enough for our media, though. They are still prey to administration propaganda:

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates insisted again Friday that, despite persistent reports to the contrary circulating in Washington and around the world, the United States is not planning military action against Iran.

"I don't know how many times the president, Secretary Rice and I have had to repeat that we have no intention of attacking Iran," an exasperated Gates told reporters at a NATO meeting in Spain. In fact, he said, the administration has consciously tried to "tone down" its rhetoric on the subject.

Similar statements in recent weeks by President Bush, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and others follow a high-level policy assessment in January that U.S. and multilateral pressure on Tehran, to the surprise of many in the administration, might be showing signs of progress.

Officials highlighted growing internal public and political criticism of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, as well as the reemergence, after months of public silence, of Tehran's chief nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani. Larijani arrived in Munich yesterday for talks with European Union officials.

As a result, new talking points distributed to senior policymakers in the administration directed them to actively play down any suggestion of war planning.

Well now, I sure feel better don't you?

I can't help but wonder, however, why this wasn't the lede instead of being buried nine paragraphs in:

Some senior administration officials still relish the notion of a direct confrontation. One ambassador in Washington said he was taken aback when John Hannah, Vice President Cheney's national security adviser, said during a recent meeting that the administration considers 2007 "the year of Iran" and indicated that a U.S. attack was a real possibility. Hannah declined to be interviewed for this article.

As the Libby trial unfolds we see once again a picture of an extremely powerful Vice President who believes he can do anything.He does not even believe he answers to the president. Considering recent history, it is far more significant that John Hannah is telling people that an attack was a real possibility than it is that Condi's sadly irrelevant State Department is trying to tamp down the rhetoric in public. Everything we have seen for the last six years shows that in these administration battles Cheney always wins. Watch what they do not what they say. They lie as easily as they breathe.


.
digby 2/11/2007 03:57:00 PM |

 
This Time They Plan To Do It Right

by tristero

No, this time (meaning going to war with Iran, which very well could mean going to nuclear war with Iran, with your tax dollars being spent on a first strike), there'll be no ambiguous, mysterious meetings that didn't happen in Prague, but a clear-cut casus belli. This time, there'll be heaps of dead Americans killed unambiguously by The Evildoers which we'll splatter all over the news shows (tastefully cropped, of course, so that anyone who sees them won't start to wonder what on earth they were doing in harm's way in the first place).

And if those goddamm treacherous Iranians are too lazy to go out of their way to attack us for no good reason, well then, hell, we're just gonna help make it right easy for them:

“They intend to be as provocative as possible and make the Iranians do something [America] would be forced to retaliate for,” says Hillary Mann, the administration’s former National Security Council director for Iran and Persian Gulf Affairs. …

A second Navy carrier group is steaming toward the Persian Gulf, and NEWSWEEK has learned that a third carrier will likely follow. Iran shot off a few missiles in those same tense waters last week, in a highly publicized test. With Americans and Iranians jousting on the chaotic battleground of Iraq, the chances of a small incident’s spiraling into a crisis are higher than they’ve been in years.

The time to shut down Bush's mad scheme to go to war with Iran is now. Call your Congresscritters and demand they act immediately to stop this insanity.

tristero 2/11/2007 08:55:00 AM |

 
He Really Is The Stupidest Fucking Guy On The Planet

by tristero

Truly incredible. He actually thinks we'll fall for this crap:

In a telephone interview yesterday, Feith emphasized the inspector general's conclusion that his actions, described in the report as 'inappropriate,' were not unlawful. 'This was not 'alternative intelligence assessment,' ' he said. 'It was from the start a criticism of the consensus of the intelligence community, and in presenting it I was not endorsing its substance.

My God, talk about a lack of remorse and contempt for the American people. As Kevin says:

Got that? He didn't actually believe any of that stuff. He was just passing it along for giggles.

And while Feith and his gang continue pretend this was not a big deal, over 3100 American soldiers have died to date, and thousands upon thousands of Iraqis. Due in great part, directly to the lies Feith concocted and spread, lies which were used to take this country into an illegal, immoral, unnecessary, counterproductive, and thoroughly catastrophic war.

Outrageous.

tristero 2/11/2007 08:36:00 AM |

 

We The People - Part One

Absolutely Disgusting

by poputonian

It took a long time for Samuel Adams to come to the surface of Boston politics, even though his father was a powerful figure in the caucuses and the General Court. One reason for the delayed "arrival" is that Adams is almost alone in history as a man who sincerely desired anonymity. His major writings were signed not "Adams" but "Determinatus," "Candidus," "Vindex," "Populus," "Alfred," "Valerius Poplicola," "T.Z.," "Shippen,", "a Bostonian," "a Tory," "E.A.," "a Layman," "an Impartialist," "a chatterer," -- even later, when he could have gained great credit by acknowledging his full opus, he would not take the trouble. The writings had done their work; that was what he wanted. He often ended his letters with the command "Burn this," and he took his own advice by consigning nearly all his correspondence files to the flames, leaving behind a relatively small amount in the hands of others or in public print.
...
In the eighteen months from December 1770 to June 1772 he turned out 36 political essays for the [Boston] Gazette, an output not matched by any other writer of the time.
-----------
[Boston Gazette, October 7, 1771]

I Think it necessary the publick should be inform'd, that his Excellency Thomas Hutchinson, Esq; Governor of this Province, has lately receiv'd, a warrant from the Lords of the Treasury in England, for the Sum of Twenty-two Hundred and fifty Pounds Sterling for his Services for one year and a half, being at the rate of Fifteen Hundred Sterling or Two Thousand L. M. per Ann. - The payment is to be made out of the Commissioners Chest; wherein are reposited the Treasures that are daily collected, tho' perhaps insensibly, from the Earnings and Industry of the honest Yeomen, Merchants and Tradesmen, of this continent, against their Consent; and if his friends speak the truth, against his own private judgment. - This treasure is to be appropriated according to the act of parliament so justly and loudly complain'd of by Americans, for the support of civil government, the payment of the charges of the administration of justice, and the defence of the colonies: And it may hereafter be made use of, for the support of standing armies and ships of war; episcopates & their numerous ecclesiastical retinue; pensioners, placemen and other jobbers, for an abandon'd and shameless ministry; hirelings, pimps, parasites, panders, prostitutes and whores -
...
~ Candidus

Samuel Adams, hiding behind the pseudonym of Candidus, complained about paying taxes to support an army occupying his own town, and called the Governor of Massachusetts a whore.

That is absolutely disgusting. Adams should have been barred from the Revolution.

In the article, Candidus struck at the fact that one of the Boston born, now appointed and paid by the Crown, was on the path to tyranny:

But the people, and a great part, I hope, of the clergy of this enlightened country, have understanding enough to know, that a Governor independent of the people for his support, as well as his political Being, is in fact, a MASTER; and may be, and probably, such is the nature of uncontroulable power, soon will be a TYRANT. It will be recorded by the faithful historian, for the information of posterity, that the first American Pensioner - the first independent Governor of this province, was, not a stranger, but one "born and educated" in it - Not an ANDROSS or a RANDOLPH; but that cordial friend to our civil constitution -that main Pillar of the Religion and the Learning of this country; the Man, upon whom she has, (I will not say wantonly) heaped all the Honors she had to bestow - HUTCHINSON!! -

The almost singular skill of Samuel Adams was in undermining the hierarchy, and his singular focus was to shift power to the people.

On a Sunday morning in the fall of 1803 he died. He was eighty-two, and John Adams said he had been a "weeping, helpless object of compassion for years." He died at home, trying to whisper something to his wife, some few words that she could not make out. A friend, William Bentley, tried to sum him up that day in an entry in his diary. "He was feared by his enemies," Bentley wrote, "but too secret to be loved by his friends." He went on:

He could see far into men, but not into opinions. He could be sure of himself on all occasions, and he did more by what men thought of him, than what he discovered to them. His religion and manner were from our ancestors. His politics from two maxims, rulers should have little, the people much.

poputonian 2/11/2007 06:21:00 AM |

Saturday, February 10, 2007

 
Saturday Night At The Movies

Children of Morons: Mike Judge Does America

By Dennis Hartley

If the 2007 Super Bowl commercials and ever-escalating voter participation in shows like “American Idol” are any indication, the dumbed-down “future” of America depicted in Mike Judge’s lightweight allegory, Idiocracy, is perhaps only belaboring the obvious.

Army librarian Joe Bauers (Luke Wilson) loves his cush job. It’s the perfect gig, because, as he tells a fellow soldier- “No one ever comes here” (I think I just heard every librarian reading this review say “No kidding.”). Much to Joe’s chagrin, however, his gravy train is derailed when he is “volunteered” as a guinea pig for a top secret military experiment.

Joe is assigned to spend one year in a suspended animation “pod”, a process the military is testing for typically nefarious reasons. Joe is not alone, however. A hooker named Rita from “the private sector” (SNL’s Maya Rudolph) is also enlisted (don’t ask.)

When our intrepid pair finally awake, it’s a tad more than a year later. After a series of silly events, they in fact find themselves in the year 2505 (whoops!). Does hilarity ensue?

Well…the America of 2505 is not so much dystopian, as it is dys-stupido. As the droll narrator explains, evolution has favored those who reproduce the most (you know…morons!). The #1 TV show is called “Ow My Balls”, and the #1 film is “Ass” (kinda says it all). Anyone who conjugates a verb or speaks in complete sentences is accused of talking “like a fag”. In a nutshell, this is what would happen if the entire U.S. gene pool was whittled down exclusively to the descendants of Gallagher’s fan base.

If you’ve surrendered to the premise at this point in the film, you won’t flinch when the President, a former WWF champion (not such a stretch, considering former and current guvs Ventura and Schwarzenegger) ends up appointing Joe his Secretary of the Interior.

Judge isn’t really saying anything new here, beyond pointing out that we live in a dumbed-down culture (yawn). There are a few inspired moments; particularly the keen observation that the accelerated reduction of America’s average IQ seems to be directly proportionate to the ever-increasing square footage of the average WalMart.

There is a bit of irony I can’t get past; it was Mike Judge who created the “Beavis and Butthead” show, which one might argue played its own part in the “dumbing down” of a generation that came of age in the 90’s. (Despite the satirical intentions, I think B & B ended up as role models for some, not unlike those cowboys who completely missed the joke and merrily sang along with Borat’s “Throw the Jew Down The Well”…discuss!)

What a stupid country: Borat - Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan Team America - World Police (, Jackass - The Movie, Napoleon Dynamite, Clueless , Drop Dead Gorgeous, Smile(1975), Network , Broadcast News, To Die For, UHF, Being There, Dave, The Hudsucker Proxy, Zelig, Sleeper, Natural Born Killers, Dawn of the Dead (1978) Fahrenheit 451, Death Race 2000



.
digby 2/10/2007 07:25:00 PM |

 
Your Daily Donohue:

by digby

DONAHUE: That's right. As a Catholic, I believe that everyone has the capacity to come to Jesus, to come to know Jesus, and to be saved. It's not the function of some sort of genetic code. You know, this same guy came up with this idea of the "gay gene", all right? I remember when that conversation was going on, gays were all of the sudden worrying if people would start aborting kids if they found out the DNA suggested that the kid might be gay. God forbid we run out of little gay kids. So all of the sudden, they became pro-life. Now here we have a situation where some of the atheists, they may want to have…to abort the kids if they thought in fact there was some type of religious-inclined gene. God forbid they might have a kid who believes in God

.

Update: Media Matters caught Donohue yesterday on Kudlow and Company:

BEINART: It's absurd. It's absurd we're talking about this issue given the magnitude of the problems facing the country. What those women said was absolutely disgusting.

UNIDENTIFIED GUEST: Agree.

BEINART: I would never defend it in a million years. But I think the question -- there is --

KUDLOW: Then why didn't he fire them and keep them fired, Peter?

BEINART: It seems to me there is --

KUDLOW: Keep them fired.

BEINART: There is --

CONWAY: Absolutely.

KUDLOW: I mean, you know, this reflects on Mr. Edwards' judgment.

BEINART: Let me say. If you were to go through -- if I could just -- if I could finish --

KUDLOW: This reflects on his character, Peter.

BEINART: If you wouldn't mind --

KUDLOW: Why didn't he keep them fired? That's my question.

BEINART: If you wouldn't mind letting me finish, Mr. Donohue. You have made anti-Jewish, anti-gay comments --

DONOHUE: I didn't say a word. What are you talking about?

BEINART: Bill Donohue has made anti-Jewish, anti-gay comments --

DONOHUE: No, I haven't.

BEINART: -- which are as bad as what these women -- you said that the secular Jewish Jews in Hollywood hate Christianity. That's a horrible, bigoted --

DONAHUE: Wait a minute. Wait, wait.

BEINART: -- statement, so it seems to me the question becomes --

DONOHUE: Peter. Peter --

BEINART: -- what is our standard here?

DONOHUE: Peter, the Jewish Forward said in 2004 that Jews run Hollywood. Are they anti-Semitic?

BEINART: You said they hate Christianity, Mr. Donohue.

DONOHUE: Oh, we like the movies that are coming out of Hollywood. They're very nice to Catholics.

BEINART: No, no. Did you say that or not?

DONOHUE: They're very nice to Catholics.

BEINART: You said that secular Jews in Hollywood hate Christianity.

DONOHUE: What world do you live in? What world do you live in? Have you seen what they -- what movies they make about Catholics?

BEINART: Yeah. Do you defend that statement?

DONOHUE: I defend the fact -- there's two parts to the statement. One part is, right out of the Jewish Forward: Jews run Hollywood. If you think it's the Chinese, make your case. And do they make nice movies about Catholics, or do they make lousy movies?

BEINART: You said they hate Christians.

DONOHUE: What kind of a -- well, oh, I'm telling you --

BEINART: You say -- you made a blanket statement about secular Jews in Hollywood that hate Christians.

DONOHUE: No, I'm talking about -- no, I'm talking about the movies that come out of Hollywood, and the predominant ones -- you got [director Martin] Scorsese. He's not Jewish. It's the people in Hollywood. There's a mindset about this, and I think you should talk to The Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times, which have said that the Hollywood studios are dominated by Jews. I tried to even qualify it more than that.

BEINART: You're bobbing and weaving more than Edwards.

DONOHUE: I'm not going to put up with it. I'm not the issue here, Peter.

KUDLOW: I want to -- I want to get Frank --

DONOHUE: You want to take me on on this, I'll take you on any day of the week.

KUDLOW: Hang on a second, Bill. I want to get Frank --

PRESS: Hey Larry, this proves why this issue is not going to win.

KUDLOW: No, Bill Press, please. Let me bring in Frank Luntz, who's been very patient and extremely well-mannered.

Watch the video at the link to see Donohue almost blow his top.

Good for Peter Beinert. He was prepared with the proper information to challenge Donohue's standing to accuse other of religious bigotry. The NY Times and most of the rest of the media failed in their duty to put this man in the proper context as someone whose history of anti-semitic, anti-gay and other extremely controversial rhetoric renders his accusations against others for bias and bigotry suspect at the very least.

If David Duke shows up at their door complaining about affirmative action, do they rush into print?




.
digby 2/10/2007 03:43:00 PM |

 
Ready To Go

by digby

Barack Obama officially threw his hat into the ring today and a welcome addition he is. This is going to be a very interesting and exciting primary race. I agree with Simon Rosenberg at NDN who says that it is already historic:

Many words will be used to describe the Democrat’s field this year but the one I believe is most accurate is “modern.” Democrats just look like a 21st century Party, with leaders who look like and speak to the people of the America of today and tomorrow. The Republicans on the other hand are struggling with reinventing their politics around these new realities. Yes, over the objections of many, they now have a Hispanic immigrant as the Chair of their party. But that same week Senator Martinez was chosen, the Senate Republicans made Trent Lott, a Senator with a history of institutional bigotry and racism, their number two. Their Presidential field is all white male, the only minorities in their Congressional Party are four Cuban-Americans from Florida and many leaders in their Party continue to fight comprehensive immigration reform in horrible and racist terms.

The Republicans should be worried about these developments. For getting on the wrong side of enormous cultural trends like this one can make a party a minority party for a long time. But perhaps in times of great change this what we should expect from one party long associated with the word “progress,” and another associated with the word “conserve.”

Yessiree. Maybe the country is ready for a little progress, vision and hope after all this ugliness. Most importantly, it's almost certainly ready for some solutions to our problems and after years of conservative corruption and cant, they may have wised up about the tired, facile, over focus-grouped GOP pitch. They had their chance and the results are in.

The entire Democratic field is superior to anything I've seen in years, with at least five excellent candidates who could be president tomorrow in my opinion. We are ready.


.
digby 2/10/2007 11:39:00 AM |

 
Well, That Explains It

by digby

New York Times Reveals "Reporter" Michael Gordon Actually Voice-Activated Tape Recorder

NEW YORK—New York Times Executive Editor Bill Keller today announced that the paper's longtime staff writer Michael Gordon is not an actual person, but rather a voice-activated tape recorder.

"I'm not sure why everyone didn't figure this out before now," said Keller, pointing to the fact that, in Gordon's 26-year career, all of "his" stories have consisted entirely of transcribed statements by anonymous government officials.

According to Jill Abramson, the paper's Managing Editor, Gordon was purchased for $27.95 at a Radio Shack on West 43rd Street. Describing the situation as "a prank" that had "gotten slightly out of hand," Abramson said the paper had decided to acknowledge Gordon's identity because—after the tape recorder's front page story today, "Deadliest Bomb in Iraq Is Made by Iran, U.S. Says"—there "was no place left to take the joke."

More here.



(And here.)


.
digby 2/10/2007 10:02:00 AM |

 
Talking About "Cooked Links" Won't Cut It

by tristero

On the day of the week when the fewest people read the Times, the brave, brave editors got around to opining on the unbelievably filthy activities of Douglas Feith:

It took far too long, but a report by the Pentagon inspector general has finally confirmed that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's do-it-yourself intelligence office cooked up a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda to help justify an unjustifiable war...

The inspector general did not recommend criminal charges against Mr. Feith because Mr. Rumsfeld or his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, approved their subordinate’s “inappropriate” operations.

Now let's shake off the lulling effect of their deliberately dispassionate language and think about all this for a few moments. Then it becomes quite clear that given what is actually at issue here, the editors' atrociously mixed metaphor - "cooked up a link" - is an inexcusably cowardly effort to avoid their solemn responsibility to talk truth to power.

Even in the face of an official report from the Pentagon inspector general which all but says so, the New York Times still cannot screw up the courage to state plainly the only possible conclusion: The Bush administration knowingly, criminally lied to the American people in order to start an illegal war and invade a country that, no matter how odious its leader, was no threat to the United States. Nor do the editors have the guts to dispense with cooked links and write clearly about the ghastly consequences: Feith's hands - and those of even higher officials - are dripping red with the blood of over 3100 American soldiers and countless thousands (literally) of innocent Iraqis, victims of the murderous evil of this administration's lies.

This is not the kind of behavior over which to mince words. These are the sorts of actions that treason trials and international war crimes tribunals are for.

There is something terribly corrupt about a country that will permit such unspeakable, murderous acts to remain unpunished. And it is high time the so-called political and cultural leaders of this country said so without equivocation. My God, people, we've had our country's government openly as well as secretly establish concentration camps all over the world; practice torture as an approved government policy; engaged in, and boasted about, international assasinations; destroyed through military action a foreign state merely because it could (and openly plan to do it again in the near future); undermined the integrity of the press by deliberately planting false stories and suborning journalists; been exposed as capable of using every tactic short of physical violence to prevent critics from publishing the truth; ignored the will of the American people, expert opinion, commonsense, and all common decency; advocated ever more bizarre theories of unlimited, unchecked power, and acted as if they were the law of the land ...

We are being ruled by psychopaths and fascists, not link cookers.

tristero 2/10/2007 02:03:00 AM |