Cafe Politico

blogging truth to power

2005-12-30T11:34:00.000-08:00

Bloggers, and now newspapers, are defying the UK's 'Official Secret's Act' and reprinting the contents of what has become known as the 'UK Torture Memo'- a memo that shows the UK and the US were instrumental in sanctioning torture against prisoners in the so-called War on Terror and were attempting to use the information gleaned from torture, in intelligence gathering and also legal cases. I guess it doesn't matter to us that the information procured during torture is notoriously inaccurate. It's is good to finally see people taking a stand and refusing to be bullied by the governments of the UK and US, particularly as it clearly involves both countries violating international (and US and UK) law.

Conservative Fiscal Discipline?

2005-12-30T10:04:00.000-08:00

Has it occured to mainstream American conservatives that the GOP of today (including this administration), is/are not conservatives? They spend like drunken sailors when it suits them (on war and the wealthy, of course), have no respect for individual rights or the Bill of Rights in general and have increased the power of the federal govt exponentially. They have waged a war on not only the poor, but also the middle class. They also are in love with activist judges who seem to use a religious litmus test as part of their judicial philosophy. On expanding the national debt limit: "In a letter to Senate leaders Thursday, Snow said the statutory debt limit imposed by Congress of 8.184 trillion dollars would be reached in mid-February and the government would then lose its borrowing power. "At that time, unless the debt limit is raised or the Treasury Department takes authorized extraordinary actions, we will be unable to continue to finance government operations," said the letter, seen by AFP. Snow warned that even if the Treasury took "all available prudent and legal actions" to avoid breaching the ceiling, "we anticipate that we can finance government operations no longer than mid-March".' Is this what mainstream Americans wanted? A federal deficit totally out of control, never ending corporate welfare, rabid partisanship, wars in perpetuity and dishonest, unethical government dealings? I think not.

More NSA Abuse

2005-12-30T06:45:00.000-08:00

More abuse of authority from the NSA. What a surprise. But of course, it's not the Bush administration's fault- it's the fault of the liberal media and America-hating left. "The National Security Agency's Internet site has been placing files on visitors' computers that can track their Web surfing activity despite strict federal rules banning most of them. These files, known as "cookies," disappeared after a privacy activist complained and The Associated Press made inquiries this week, and agency officials acknowledged Wednesday they had made a mistake. Nonetheless, the issue raises questions about privacy at a spy agency already on the defensive amid reports of a secretive eavesdropping program in the United States."

2005-12-28T17:18:00.000-08:00

Wow, and I didn't even know Bush could read. Who knew?

Crony Succession

2005-12-28T16:53:00.000-08:00

It's nice to know that when it comes to uber-important posts in the government, Bush continues to use his executive privilege and put his cronies in those positions instead of the career experts. I am referring to the announcement that Bush changed the 'Doomsday Plan' which provides for the line of succession behind Defense Secretary Rumsfeld: "A little-noticed holiday week executive order from President Bush moved the Pentagon's intelligence chief to the No. 3 spot in the succession hierarchy behind Rumsfeld. The second spot would be the deputy secretary of defense, but that position currently is vacant. The Army chief, which long held the No. 3 spot, was dropped to sixth." [snip] "But in its current incarnation, the doomsday plan moves to near the top three undersecretaries who are Rumsfeld loyalists and who previously worked for Vice President Dick Cheney when he was defense secretary." [snip] "Thomas Donnelly, a defense expert with the American Enterprise Institute, said the changes make it easier for the administration to assert political control and could lead to more narrow-minded decisions. "It continues to devalue the services as institutions," said Donnelly, saying it will centralize power, and shift it away from the services, where there is generally more military expertise and interest." *** I think what is telling is the quote from Donnelly of the American Enterprise Institute- that is no liberal organization. In fact, it's considered very conservative and hawkish. For them to point out that this is basically yet another attempt by the administration to replace experts wtih political cronies who are loyalists, is pretty significant.

update

2005-12-28T10:18:00.000-08:00

I know things have been slow here at CP the past few days- not a lot of blogging on my part and just wanted to let folks know there are two reasons- a) The holiday- I was traveling and not able to blog as much as I usually do and b) I am in the process of setting up/transferring this blog over to a new domain name and thus won't be using blogger anymore. I decided a while back to eventually upgrade to a website/server platform and decided now was as good a time as any. The negative is that its a lot of work (for someone like me who is not that good with html) and this blog will no longer be at this url starting probably early next week. I hope to have an automatic redirect to the new site up soon so that the folks who were nice enough to add me to their blogroll, dont end up with a dead link. But when the new site is up and running, I will let you know. Thanks for your patience in the meantime.

2005-12-26T13:20:00.000-08:00

So, did everybody survive the 'War on Christmas? How many body bags have issued from this war? Anybody have their phone tapped? Did the FBI come around to make sure everybody, including non-christians, left milk and cookies out for that strict constructionist symbol of Christianity, Santa Clause? I can tell you this, as I was doing my last minute shopping (of course) on the 24th, I saw plenty of public references to the christian holiday- Santa Clause in the town square, stores with signs saying "Merry Christmas" or "closed on Christmas"- you know what I did NOT see? I didn't see many references to Hannukah. And no references to Kwanzaa or Winter Solstice. So, I'd like to take this opportunity to declar the War on Christmas a total fraud.

Bush Attempts to Kill Damaging News Stories

2005-12-26T05:13:00.000-08:00

Bush personally requested major media outlets (NYT. WaPo) not write about damaging stories- the same excuse applied- it would jeopardize national security. I have another analysis- it would damage his credibility. The arrogance of this administration is unbelievable. Is there anything that can't be justified under the rubric of "national security"? When will Americans and the media wake up to the fact that they are being manipulated? Apparently not now because his approval rating is up. Protecting national security is a worthy goal but there is a point where we have to demand that it's not being used as a blanket justification for unethical and illegal actions on the part of the government. And no, we should not just have to take their word for it- that's why we have two other branches of government.

2005-12-25T06:14:00.000-08:00

Happy Holidays to those who are celebrating today. I have travelled to PA to be with the folks and won't be blogging much today or tomorrow. Be safe and have fun! And I saw this over at the Huffington Post- gotta love those Christian right wingers (in this case, Mel Gibson)- so...ummm...full of Jesus' love!

2005-12-24T13:05:00.000-08:00

Each day brings new revelations in the NSA spying crisis. It looks like we were right- vast data mining is taking place which explains why Bush ignored FISA and the Constitution re: the warrant requirement. It's a big deal legally when someone's rights are violated but think of this- possibly millions upon millions of people have had their rights violated whole-sale with a government stamp of approval. But what is shocking to me is how easily the telecommunications industry allowed the government to spy on us without legal cause- they allowed the NSA in through a "back door" and even encouraged the telecommunication companies to re-route purely domestic communications through international channels to allow more surveillance by NSA. Truly shameful.

2005-12-23T14:15:00.000-08:00

Clearly, Muslims are radioactive.

Congratulations to Chris Mathews!

2005-12-23T13:57:00.000-08:00

Chris Mathews has won Media Matters for America's illustrious title of "Misinformer of the Year" and I have to say, it is well-deserved. While the competition was tough (last year's winner was Bill O'Reilly), he managed to lead the pack with his kool-aid induced spinning of current events and political news. A sampling of Mathews' award-winning spin from Media Matters: *"Everybody sort of likes the president, except for the real whack-jobs ..." Insulting the majority of Americans who hold an unfavorable opinion of President Bush, Matthews exclaimed on Hardball: "Everybody sort of likes the president, except for the real whack-jobs, maybe on the left," adding, "I mean, like him personally." [Hardball, 11/28/05] *Bush "belongs on Mount Rushmore." Recounting his experience at a White House party, Matthews said that he "felt sensitive" during his interactions with the president, adding: "You get your picture taken with him. It's like Santa Claus, and he's always very generous and friendly." He continued: "I felt like I was too towel-snappy with him," explaining that Bush had noted his "red scarf" and remarked that he looked "preppy." During the same show, Matthews stated: "If [Bush's] gamble that he can create a democracy in the middle of the Arab world" is successful, "he belongs on Mount Rushmore." [Hardball, 12/16/05] *Matthews mischaracterized Democratic efforts to complete intel probe as "disingenuous," "using crocodile tears." Matthews baselessly assigned motives to both the Democrats' support for authorizing the president to take the country to war in October 2002 and their recent push to complete "phase two" of the Senate Intelligence Committee's probe into the prewar intelligence on Iraq. Matthews characterized Democrats' efforts to fully examine the Bush administration's handling of the intelligence as "disingenuous," "using crocodile tears," and "trying to climb down off the war." Matthews ignored Democrats' argument that the judgments provided to Congress on the Iraqi threat prior to the vote were later found to have been false or exaggerated. [Hardball, 11/1/05] Please join me in writing Mr. Mathews to congratulate him on this high honor: hardball@msnbc.com

Tilting Towards Monarchy?

2005-12-23T10:33:00.000-08:00

One of the issues in the NSA spying scandal/constitutional crisis (yes, when the President ignores the law and Constitution, it's officially a CRISIS) is the *method* used to obtain the names and personal information of American citizens. So far, this is the big unknown and President Bush and his administration refuse to reveal exactly what sort of technology is being used to spy on Americans. Why is this important? Well, because the President's refusal to comply with federal law (FISA) and the Constitution begs the question- why not? While some are content to answer, "because he's a power-hungry megalomaniac who thinks everything he does is justified by God Himself" that can't be the only reason. Not that I doubt that that is in fact part of the reason. But I think there is more to it and so do many others in the blogosphere and in the legal and intelligence community. According to the Boston Globe: ''They [the NSA] have a capacity to listen to every overseas phone call," said Tom Blanton, director of the National Security Archive at George Washington University, which has obtained documents about the NSA using Freedom of Information Act requests. The NSA's system of monitoring e-mails and phone calls to check for search terms has been used for decades overseas, where the Constitution's prohibition on unreasonable searches does not apply, declassified records have shown. But since Bush's order in 2001, Bamford and other specialists said, the same process has probably been used to sort through international messages to and from the United States, though humans have never seen the vast majority of the data." In other words, massive data mining by the NSA that makes having to request warrants for specific communications originating in the US (or wholly contained within the US both coming and going), problematic. If this is indeed the case it would effectively amount to one big technology-driven fishing expedition where our government casts so wide a spy net that they can not *possibly* have probable cause (required for a warrant) demonstrating the information they are gathering is related to a known terror link or threat, for each specific person. The irony? This is EXACTLY the sort of governmental intrusion FISA was designed to prevent. Now, administration supporters argue that the NSA does this sort of data mining all the time- and yes, they likely do. But here's the rub- the NSA's activities are limited to spying on international communications/wiretaps where the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure don't apply. The twist in this instance is the POTUS has authorized the NSA to spy on American citizens and in some cases, on purely domestic calls/communications. And that is a big constitutional and federal law no-no. And no, it's not a "quaint" legal requirement to be tossed aside as some of the torture-loving legal braintrusts in the administration (Gonzales, Addington and Yoo) would be quick to argue. All I can say is, thank god Jefferson, Madison and and the other Founding Fathers are dead. Because they'd be absolutely dumbstruck at this administration's tilt towards monarchy.

Nice Try

2005-12-23T08:34:00.000-08:00

The administration's argument that they had the authority to authorize NSA surveillance of American citizens absent a wiretap due to the inherent authority contained in the September 2001 Congressional resolution authorizing the use of force against the taliban/AQ is clearly bullshit. And to further substantiate that bit of obviousness, Tom Daschle writes in today's Washington Post: "As Senate majority leader at the time, I helped negotiate that law with the White House counsel's office over two harried days. I can state categorically that the subject of warrantless wiretaps of American citizens never came up. I did not and never would have supported giving authority to the president for such wiretaps. I am also confident that the 98 senators who voted in favor of authorization of force against al Qaeda did not believe that they were also voting for warrantless domestic surveillance..” [snip] “Literally minutes before the Senate cast its vote, the administration sought to add the words "in the United States and" after "appropriate force" in the agreed-upon text. This last-minute change would have given the president broad authority to exercise expansive powers not just overseas -- where we all understood he wanted authority to act -- but right here in the United States, potentially against American citizens. I could see no justification for Congress to accede to this extraordinary request for additional authority. I refused.” In other words, if the President REALLY thought he had the authority to do anything he damn well pleased by invoking the horrors of 9/11 and the authorization of force AS WRITTEN, the administration wouldn't have tried to get the wording changed at the last minute in 2001 in an attempt to increase Executive authority so significantly. The fact that Congress did not allow the inclusion of the sweeping language is further proof that the administration's current actions are not covered under executive privilege or authority- nor are they covered by the above-mentioned resolution. As usual, this is just more of the administration's attempts to find a post-hoc rationalization for it's inappropriate and illegal actions. And one thing is very clear- they had no intention of this becoming public and now that they have been "caught", they are spinning their wheels trying to find a legitimate grounds for their actions.

Frist Ineffective As Senate Leader

2005-12-23T08:21:00.000-08:00

The democrats in the Senate fought back this week, preventing drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge, preventing wholesale reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act and fighting the GOP's attempts to screw the American middle class with the GOP's budget-cutting request- the GOP ultimately won the battle to screw mainstream America (cutting financial aid to students, cutting popular social programs and further gutting No Child Left a Dime) with Dick Cheney having to fly back to DC to cast the tiebreaking vote- not exactly a sweeping victory for the GOP. I think this pretty much sums it up: ''It's embarrassing for the Senate majority leader not to be able to hold things together, given the fact that he has a 10-seat margin," said Darrell West, a political science professor at Brown University. ''It doesn't speak very highly to his leadership skills." No, it doesn't. And I think any Presidential ambitions he has are winding their way down the crapper as a result of his inept handling of his leadership position in the Senate and his ridiculous claim that he had no idea what was going on with respect to his family company's not-so-blind trusts. Well, as Bill O'Reilly would say, Merry Christmas Mr. Frist!

2005-12-22T16:56:00.000-08:00

It's official. Scott McClellan has rendered the White House press briefing completely useless: "Q Scott, would the President veto a three-month extension of the Patriot Act? Is that something you can accept? MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think we need to talk about what's going on here. What's going on here is pure obstructionist politics. A minority in the Senate, led by Senate Democrats, are putting politics above our nation's security. This bill has been thoroughly debated. It enjoys majority support. They need to give it an up or down vote and quit playing politics with our nation's security. Q So would the President veto a three-month extension? MR. McCLELLAN: Well, the President has already made his views known on that -- I expressed his views last week -- and nothing has changed in terms of our views. That's why it's important for them to go ahead and get this passed now. Q So you would veto a three-month extension? MR. McCLELLAN: I expressed our view last week; nothing has changed. Q Can you tell me what that was again? MR. McCLELLAN: You can see what I expressed last week. You know very well what it was. Q Sounds like you're backing down from that. MR. McCLELLAN: No, nothing has changed in terms of what I said last week. Q So just say it. Just say -- Q Will you use the word 'veto'? Why are you not using the word 'veto'? MR. McCLELLAN: I expressed our views on that last week -- Q But if you still stand by them, why won't you reiterate it? MR. McCLELLAN: Well, again, what I said last week still stands. Q Which is what?"

2005-12-22T10:49:00.000-08:00

Conservative legal scholar and former Reagan aide, Bruce Fein, on George Bush's actions regarding the NSA surveillance crisis: “If President Bush is totally unapologetic and says, ‘I continue to maintain that as a wartime President I can do anything I want—I don’t need to consult any other branches,’ that is an impeachable offense. It’s more dangerous than Clinton’s lying under oath, because it jeopardizes our democratic dispensation and civil liberties for the ages. It would set a precedent that … would lie around like a loaded gun, able to be used indefinitely for any future occupant..."

2005-12-22T03:26:00.000-08:00

George Bush referenced an urban legend about a phone call involving Osama Bin Laden in his speech about the dangers of the wiretap "leak", the other day. Where the f*** does this guy get his information?

Court Slaps Down Administration

2005-12-21T15:49:00.000-08:00

Not long ago I wrote about the administration's disingenuous legal wrangling in the Padilla case in an attempt to evade Supreme Court review of its prisoner detainment policy. Well, the most conservative appeals court in the nation, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, issued a sharp rebuke of the administration's legal tactics and even questioned their credibility "before the courts." Considering the high profile nature of this terrorism case, this is no small matter and I am betting that the administration is a bit taken aback that the Fourth Circuit used such strong wording to deny their legal arguments in the case. From msnbc.com: "The three-judge panel of the Richmond-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said bringing criminal charges against Padilla in Florida after he had been held by the U.S. military for more than three years as an enemy combatant created the appearance the government may be attempting to avoid high court review of the controversial case. The judges also refused the administration’s request to void a September ruling that gave President Bush wide authority to detain “enemy combatants” indefinitely without charges on U.S. soil. Wiping out that ruling would have made it virtually impossible for the Supreme Court to review the case." Have you noticed that when the administration is caught not playing by the rules, their first instinct is to change the rules altogether? It's refreshing to see that even a very conservative court like the Fourth Circuit is not going to go along with this administration's "anything goes" legal bullshit.

An even more divided Iraq

2005-12-21T14:45:00.000-08:00

President Bush has heralded the elections in Iraq this past week as a victory that offers proof of Iraq's status as a fledgling democracy and an event that will help ensure America's victory in the war on terror. The problem with that assessment is that most people who understand the longstanding ethnic conflicts in Iraq, are saying just the opposite. What we seem to have done is usher in an opportunity for anti-western Islamic fundamentalists to take control and perhaps even moved us one step closer to civil war. According to the UK Independent: "Islamic fundamentalist movements are ever more powerful in both the Sunni and Shia communities. Ghassan Attiyah, an Iraqi commentator, said: "In two and a half years Bush has succeeded in creating two new Talibans in Iraq." [snip] "...The US ambassador in Baghdad, Zilmay Khalilzad, sounded almost despairing yesterday as he reviewed the results of the election. "It looks as if people have preferred to vote for their ethnic or sectarian identities," he said. "But for Iraq to succeed there has to be cross-ethnic and cross-sectarian co-operation." So, we have replaced a secular dictator who posed no threat to the Unites States, with anti-western, radical islamic fundamentalists who seem absolutely opposed to a unified Iraq? Strong work, George. Maybe Bush shouldn't have scrapped the Future of Iraq Project at the State Department and put all post-war planning in the hand of the neocon imbeciles in the DOD? As Robert Scheer said over on the Huffington Post: "Iraq, for all of its massive deficiencies, was not a center of religious fanaticism before the U.S. invasion, and the Islamic fanatics that are the president's sworn enemy in the so-called "war on terror" did not have a foothold in the country. Now, primitive religious fundamentalism forms the dominant political culture in Iraq and the best outcome for U.S. policy is the hope that Shiite and Sunni fanatics can check each other long enough for the United States to beat a credible retreat and call it a victory, albeit a pyrrhic one." When will the American people finally realize that Bush's failed Iraq policy has likely made us less, not more, safe from terror attacks and instability? Bush is right about one thing- he claims Iraq is front and center in the war on terror- it sure is. Iraq is now a hot-bed of terrorist activity and recruiting, which it wasn't prior to our invasion and occupation. For Bush to then turn around and claim "victory" in Iraq and use the albatross of "making Americans safer" as a rationalization for all his illegal and unethical tactics in the war on terror, is a bitter pill indeed.

2005-12-21T10:15:00.000-08:00

Dear Wingnuttia, No, Clinton did not authorize warrantless searches of american citizens in circumvention of FISA. Love, The Facts

2005-12-21T07:12:00.000-08:00

Update- the NYT is now reporting that the NSA surveillance has not just been limited to international communications, but has also involved purely domestic surveillance- again, a violation of long established law. And this is just what we know about at this time- can you imagine what may really be happening? Where there is smoke, there is fire. If there is not a serious, bipartisan, independent investigation into this then our system has failed- all the checks and balances are being ignored/eradicated while the media and Congress sit back and watch- yes, there is some select outrage, but the dems are too afraid to take a real stand. But if they don't do so now, then when will they? After it's too late? Americans want a political party that stands for something. Even if people disagree in principle, they respect politicians who are willing to do more than walk the walk. I am not sure what the dems are waiting for- they have moments of courage (Harry Reid invoking a closed senate to force discussion of prewar intelligence) but then poof, nothing- no follow up, no taking advantage of the political momentum that exists.

Cheney's Straw Man

2005-12-21T04:56:00.000-08:00

Reading transcripts/accounts of Cheney's comments yesterday about the NSA surveillance, I am left with the impression that our media needs to seriously reassess their role in a democratic system- a system where the press holds leaders accountable (regardless of political affiliation) by doing more than printing spin and talking points in order to ensure their access to those in power. Cheney's comments basically amount to this argument in support of Bush's refusal to comply with federal law: 1. we may be attacked like we were on 9/11; 2. the critics of the warrantless surveillance are a bunch of spineless terror-supporters and Americans are on Bush's side. Both of these arguments are nothing but smokescreens that do nothing to address the issues raised by Bush's actions. First, whether or not we are still vulnerable to attack has nothing whatsoever to do with the METHOD by which Bush chose to conduct the wireless surveillance. The issue is Bush's refusal to comply with FISA- nobody is arguing (that I know of) that the government should not be able to conduct the surveillance, but rather that in doing so the government must simply comply with federal law. Second, the notion that Americans have absolutely no problem with Bush's circumventing the law, doesn't hold up to scrutiny- it's a great talking point to claim that anyone criticizing Bush is simply a "soft on terror" ninny, but the fact is that Congress enacted FISA and Congress represents the will of the people. What does NOT represent the will of the people is the executive branch secretly engaging in actions without any judicial or legislative oversight. If you look at the comments of the RNC spokespersons, GOP talking heads and Cheney and Bush themselves, you will notice that they NEVER address the issue head on and instead simply claim over and over that their actions are legal and justified-a conclusion that would need to be reached after an investigation or judicial determination. Implied in their comments is that anyone criticizing the government's actions are simply opposed to the war on terror in total, which is a complete fabrication of facts. Cheney and others even had the gall to claim that Bush's actions have likely resulted in the prevention of another 9/11- a totally unsupported assertion that has nothing to do with the issue- there is no reason "another 9/11" couldn't be prevented by surveillance that complies with the law as set out in FISA- and THAT is the issue. Again, no one is claiming that the surveillance shouldn't be conducted at all, but that the surveillance must comply with the law- a law that is very lenient and gives the administration the benefit of the doubt in almost all circumstances- very few warrants are turned down by the FISA Court. It's time for the media confront the administration's talking points head on instead of merely giving them a platform to mislead and misinform. Americans, regardless of political affiliation, deserve as much.

2005-12-21T03:17:00.000-08:00

Liar, liar pants on fire: "Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.Liar, liar pants on fire." George Bush, April 2004

Judge Resigns from "Spy Court"

2005-12-21T03:05:00.000-08:00

I guess he didn't like having his role rendered meaningless by Bush's executive branch power grab, and resigned: "U.S. District Judge James Robertson, one of 11 members of the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, sent a letter to Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. late Monday notifying him of his resignation without providing an explanation. Two associates familiar with his decision said yesterday that Robertson privately expressed deep concern that the warrantless surveillance program authorized by the president in 2001 was legally questionable and may have tainted the FISA court's work" So, is this the "backlash" against the President's critics[of the illegal wiretaps] that Cheney claimed would take place?

2005-12-20T16:41:00.000-08:00

Chris Mathews needs to spare us the pointless details about his "crush" and he and George Bush need to just get a room. It's getting embarrassing.

I'm dancing as fast as I can...

2005-12-20T14:36:00.000-08:00

If you didn't catch Bush's "press conference" yesterday, you didn't miss much. The event was so staged it was hard to believe that the people claiming to be the White House press corps were actually journalists and not stage props. You certainly wouldn't know that judging from their questions, their willingness to let Bush ramble on with his insubstantial talking points and their refusal to follow up their questions with the most basic facts regarding the warrantless surveillance controversy (saying it's a controversy doesn't give it enough credit, but I am at a lack for a better word right now- how about, "crisis"?). Once again, Media Matters is all over it, demonstrating that the myth of the "liberal media" is just that- a myth. But hey, the right likes myths as much as Linus likes his little blanket and both seem to serve about the same purpose. So, who are we to deny them? Well, lets go ahead and deny them anyway, shall we? I wish that I could find some verification (or not) of my suspicion that Bush's handlers had not only pre-selected the journalists who he would call on but that he also had access ahead of time to what questions would be asked of him. After all, that is his modus operendi. And I will try to find that out from David Grossman at Media Matters [to see if he knows] and get back to you. Despite the obvious gravity of the NSA spying "crisis" (just wanted to try out that description), the journalists failed follow up on very basic mis-statements, spin and attempts to duck the questions outright. Here is an example of a typical Bush/press question and answer from yesterday: KEIL: Getting back to the domestic spying issue for a moment, according to FISA's own records, it's received nearly 19,000 requests for wiretaps or search warrants since 1979, rejected just five of them. It also operates in secret, so security shouldn't be a concern. And it can be applied retroactively. Given such a powerful tool of law enforcement is at your disposal, sir, why did you see fit to sidetrack that process? BUSH: We used the process to monitor. But also, this is a different -- a different era, a different war, Stretch [Bush's nickname for Keil]. So what we're -- people are changing phone numbers and phone calls, and they're moving quick. And we've got to be able to detect and prevent. I keep saying that, but this is a -- it requires quick action. Ok, lets take a look at an opportunity missed- Keil points out that under FISA, the secret court rarely denies requests for warrants and the warrants can be obtained retroactively- two very important aspects of the law. How does Bush respond? Like a pre-programmed robot whose wires are crossed. Bush again reminds us that this is a "different era" and a different kind of war as though that in and of itself is a justification for anything he wants/needs to do. Then he starts babbling about changing phone numbers- ignore that, it means nothing. Then he remembers one of his talking points and states, "it requires quick attention." But that was the point of Keil's question and Bush did not address the question at all- in light of the fact that law enforcement can begin its surveillance *without* a wiretap if there is need for "quick action" and then obtain the warrant retrospectively within 72 hours, what justifies SIDESTEPPING the law? Well, as you can see above, we never find out. Was there any follow up as a result of the President's refusal [or inability] to answer the question directly? No. Yeah, liberal media. Right. Where's that linus blanket? Oh, there it is, under Carl Cameron's press chair. Now we get to one of my favorite exchanges from the press conference. I was at work at the time and when Bush acted taken aback and feigned concern about the very legitimate question about limits on executive power during wartime, my blood pressure was so high I thought I was going to need medical intervention. Media Matters highlights the exchange and I attempt to break down the relevant portsion of Bush's non-answer: BAKER: "I wonder if you can tell us today, sir, what, if any, limits you believe there are or should be on the powers of a president during a war -- at wartime? And if the global war on terror is going to last for decades, as has been forecast, does that mean that we're going to see, therefore, a more or less permanent expansion of the unchecked power of the executive in American society?" Bush: "Hold on for a second, please. There is the check of people being sworn to uphold the law, for starters. There is oversight..." That is not a "check." Simply swearing to uphold the law does not act as a check and balance in and of itself. We have investigations to determine whether or not those that have sworn to uphold the law, have in fact done so- THAT is the check and balance on power. And perhaps that is why the GOP Congress is so investigation-averse now that Bush is in office (as opposed to, say, when Clinton was)? Bush: "We're talking to Congress all the time, and on this program, to suggest there's unchecked power is not listening to what I'm telling you." Really? A key aspect of the NSA warrantless surveillance is that it specifically EVADES congressional AND court oversight. So yes George, we are listening to what you are telling us, the problem is that you're just not saying anything. Bush: "I'm telling you, we have briefed the United States Congress on this program a dozen times." Not true. The administration went to several key members of Congress privately but so far, it is not clear exactly how much detail the administration provided to those members. In fact, Senator Graham has stated he was not briefed on the administration's plan to completely sidestep the Foriegn Surveillance Court and Senator Rockafeller of the Senate Intelligence Committee contradicts the administration's claim of full disclosure to Congress. The way to ensure Congressional oversight on a national security issue like this, would have been to comply with the statutory requirements of FISA- the law was passed by Congress and as such, gives Congress notice of the methods the Executive Branch is using in the war on terror. THAT is oversight. 4. Bush: "And we'll continue to work with the Congress, as well as people within our own administration, to constantly monitor programs such as the one I described to you..." Empty words in light of the current situation. But the bit about working with "people within our own administration"- that is a big part of the problem. Bush relies TOO MUCHon his yes-men to find ways to achieve his goals, the law be damned. He relies on people like Alberto Gonzales, John Yoo and David Addington- people who usually are not experts in the area on which they are advising and/or whom think that international law is merely a nicety to be disregarded if inconvenient. It's no secret that Bush/Rove/Cheney have cleansed the White House, Justice Department and CIA of any who are ideologically impure and many beliee this has played a role in some key, very bad decisions that were made both during the run-up to war and in the initial stages of the war. Bush needs to expand his inner circle because his tunnel vision is making even me dizzy. 5. Bush: "...to constantly monitor programs such as the one I described to you, to make sure that we're protecting the civil liberties of the United States..." Very empty words. Bush seems to think that all that is required in any given situation, is his reassurance that he is doing the right thing. Sorry, our founding fathers rejected that when they created a Constitution that relied on separation of powers and certain essential checks and balances requisite for a true democracy. Because Bush ignored federal law and the dictates of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, it raises the very real spectre that the civil liberties of Americans are NOT being protected. 6. Bush: "...To say "unchecked power" basically is ascribing some kind of dictatorial position to the president, which I strongly reject." Reject it all you want- but you need to do more than that, you need to SHOW us how it is that you are NOT taking upon yourself a "kind of dictatorial position" as President. Even better, let congress and the judiciary determine that. UPDATE: Several conservative legal scholars have voiced their agreement that Bush's actions with respect to the warrantless surveillance of American citizens may rise to the level of an impeachable offense, particularly if Bush does not cease the action and renounce it. It's not just liberals who are calling for an investigation, either. Just think- can you imagine if Clinton had violated a law like FISA, sidestepped congress and judicial oversight and then arrogantly claimed he was going to continue on as a law unto himself? They'd have called for impeachment a LONG time ago. Of course though, they never found anything UNWORTHY of investigating when it came to Clinton. Hypocrites.

2005-12-20T13:16:00.000-08:00

Senator Barbara Boxer of California has requested information to help determine whether Bush's admission of "authorizing" the warrantless surveillance of American citizens, without any express statutory, Constitutional or executive authority for doing so, is an impeachable offense.

2005-12-20T03:32:00.000-08:00

Uh oh, George. Another lie bites the dust. It looks like your little claim that key members of Congress were right there on board with you when you decided to contravene the law and use the NSA to spy on Americans, isn't holding water. More here. How do you know when George Bush knows he f***** up and is desperate to cover it up? He actually makes a [brief] appearance before the American people. We got our first oval office speech in two years and a nicely staged press conference, all in two days! You know something just aint right, now don't you?

2005-12-20T03:28:00.000-08:00

The government has been keeping us safe from imminent threats of harm. Or so it says. You see, apparently the animal rights, environmental justice and peace activists are the new threat to national security. Yes, you got it- the administration is using law enforcement to keep an eye on people and groups it sees as its *political* enemies. So, when are we going to take our country back? I'm ready if you are.

2005-12-19T17:55:00.000-08:00

So much for Bush's Big Bad Deck of Cards Club. Looks like the cards are coming tumbling down.

Why the Right's Got it Wrong About Bush's Domestic Spying

2005-12-19T14:45:00.000-08:00

I always knew there were right wing partisans that would justify any Bush action, no matter how unethical or potentially illegal, for no other reason than that he is George Bush (as opposed to, say, Bill Clinton)- their guy. And after watching the CIA leak investigation unfold and watching the political right justify Bush's seeming indifference to the leaking of classified information when perpetrated by his own staff, I knew that any meaningful attempt at discerning the truth regarding potential Bush abuses of power, would be obstructed at every turn. And so far, I have been right. But this current situation involving Bush's "authorizing" (based on what?) the NSA to conduct warrantless spying on American citizens in violation of FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act), really takes the cake. After looking around the right wing blogosphere and listening to Fox News last night and this evening, I can only conclude that Bush could do anything- ANYTHING- and his most rabid supporters would defend him first and seek a rationalization later, irrespective of facts, motive or consequence. Lets just start, briefly, with Bush's admission that he "authorized" the NSA to take part in warrantless wiretapping (in the broad sense) without seeking approval from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (which operates under the statutory authority in FISA). The relevant sections of FISA can be found here and here. I can assure you, as an attorney, that as far as federal statutes go, this one is quite straightforward and to the point. In fact, it's so "on point" that it leaves little room for interpretation. This is why the administration, thus far, has not even bothered arguing that it's actions comply with the statutory requirements of FISA. And with good reason: "...the law is specific in banning any searches without warrants on Americans except in extraordinary circumstances, like within 15 days of a formal declaration of war, said David D. Cole, a Georgetown University law professor who specializes in national security law. The Bush administration has not cited any of those exemptions for the domestic eavesdropping program. The White House and other defenders of the program maintain that the president has the authority to allow such searches in the interests of national security. But the law is specific in banning any searches without warrants on Americans except in extraordinary circumstances, like within 15 days of a formal declaration of war, said David D. Cole, a Georgetown University law professor who specializes in national security law. If the president thinks the process under FISA was insufficient in the wake of 9/11, the appropriate response would have been to go to Congress and expand it, not to blatantly violate the law," Mr. Cole said in an interview." It also doesn't help the administration that NSA officials themselves were resistant to take part in the surveillance, believing that it was likely illegal. Thus, based on Bush's own admission that the government is partaking in this action which is not in compliance with the federal statute, we can conclude that Bush is violating this law, unless another source vests him with the authority to conduct the aforementioned warrantless surveillance of American citizens via the NSA. So, the next logical step is to look for the grant of authority that Bush claims he has with respect to his actions. The Constitution? Unlikely, given the prohibitions contained in the Fourth Amendment. And us liberals are not the only ones who are questioning the legal basis for Bush's actions. According to Republican Senator Lindsay Graham: “If he has the authority to go around the FISA court, which is a court to accommodate the law of the war of terror, the FISA Act was–created a court set up by the chief justice of the United States to allow a rapid response to requests for surveillance activity in the war on terror. I don’t know of any legal basis to go around that...” And this past Sunday on Meet the Press, Condi Rice didn't seem to be able to come up with a basis for such a sweeping grant of Executive power either, instead she took to proclaiming three times that she wasn't a lawyer: RUSSERT: What Democrats and Republicans in Congress are asking, what is the authority that you keep citing? What law? What statute? Where in the Constitution does it say that the President can eavesdrop, wiretap American citizens without a court order? RICE: Tim, the President has authorities under FISA which we are using and using actively. He also has authorities that derive from his role as Commander in Chief and his need to protect the country. He has acted within his constitutional authority and within statutory authority. Now, I am not a lawyer and I am quite certain that the Attorney General will address a lot of these questions. And this is where it gets very slippery and VERY disturbing. I am not sure what "authorities that derive from his role as Commander and Chief and his need to protect the country", that Ms. Rice is referring to. That sounds an awful lot like "we'll do what we damn well please and look for a basis for the authority later and even then, we resent you even asking the question." I think we can all appreciate that after 9/11 some things in federal law enforcement needed to change, but to try to claim that the President need not act in accordance with any law or even the Constitution and to go one step further and also remove oversight by the legislative and judicial branches of government, is tantamount to declaring Bush a law unto himself. Such a declaration is not only arrogant, it's decidedly unamerican in spirit- this is exactly the sort of executive branch power-grab our Founders tried to prevent, which is why they ensured that our system of government contained certain provisions for separation of powers and the necessary checks and balances to maintain that separation and balance. Glenn Greenwald over at Unclaimed Territory has an excellent discussion of how/why our Founders feared an unchecked executive branch here [and how it relates to the current situation] It should be obvious that the President can not simply claim that after 9/11, anything is justified to "save American lives"- while that is certainly a worthwhile goal, in a democracy, we simply don't accept that at face value, nor should we. In fact, one could argue that it is particularly during times of crisis and war that the checks and balances inherent in our laws and the Constitution are more important than at any other time, because if they do not work at those/these times then what does it matter how and if they work when everything is just fine and dandy? My point is that there is no inherent power vested in the Commander and Chief that gives rise to the authority he has taken upon himself. Ok, then, how about his argument that the September 2001 congressional authorization for military action in Afghanistan gave him the “authority” to allow the NSA to conduct the warrantless domestic surveillance? That is perhaps one of the most outrageous arguments I have heard and I get the distinct sense that the administration has come up with this rationale post-hoc. In other words, they decided they would come up with a rationale later if anyone questioned them and this is about the only argument they have, given the law and Constitution don't authorize Bush's directive to the NSA. The problem with that argument, or I should say ONE of the problems with that argument, is it stretches the bounds of credulity to claim that when Congress gave the 2001 authorization to take military action against Al Queda, that they were also giving the President the authority to do whatever he wanted, whenever he wanted, without judicial or congressional oversight so long as he could claim it was all part of the "war on terror." Senator Russ Feingold said it best: "He's trying to claim somehow that the authorization for the Afghanistan attack after 9/11 permitted this, and that's just absurd," Feingold said. "There's not a single senator or member of Congress who thought we were authorizing wiretaps... If he needs a wiretap, the authority is already there -- the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act," Feingold said. "They can ask for a warrant to do that, and even if there's an emergency situation, they can go for 72 hours as long as they give notice at the end of 72 hours." And notice that the last part of his statement effectively rebuts the administration's argument that sidestepping the FISA court was necessary because they may need to act quickly against terror suspects and thus shouldn't have to take the time to go before the court to request a warrant. Congress foresaw such a sitution/necessity and thus FISA specifically makes accommodation for any emergency situation or exigent circumstance. It's interesting to note as an aside, that during Alberto Gonzales' confirmation hearings, Congress specifically asked if he and the administration would try this very type of executive assertion of power. In fact, Senator Barbara Mikulski, during a hearing regarding the renewal of the PATRIOT Act, asked: "Can the National Security Agency, the great electronic snooper, spy on the American people?" The response of FBI Directior Robert Mueller? [A. Gonzales was also present]? "I would say generally, they are not allowed to spy or to gather information on American citizens." I guess the key word there is "generally." Today while at work, I caught some of Bush's ridiculously scripted "press conference" where he clearly handpicked who would ask him questions and exactly WHICH questions he would be willing to answer. Anyway, several times he stated that his actions were legal and that he and his administration had "looked into" the legality of the warrantless surveillance and had been assured it was legal. And who is he referring to, that assured him of this? Well, his good buddy Alberto Gonzales and John Yoo, who authored the infamous memo arguing that torture was in fact, legal. In other words, as usual, Bush looks only to those who will give him the answer he wants and ignores those who advise caution- for those people clearly don't understand and aren't really committed to fighting terrorism. Wimps. In other words, the ends always justify the means. But is it worth sacrificing what and who we are as a nation? And in the end, are we any safer for it? Given that Bush could have achieved the same result by acting in accordance with the law and not as a law unto himself, I don't think so.

Calling it what it is

2005-12-18T16:22:00.000-08:00

David Sirota has articulated the problem with the media's current coverage of the warrantless wiretap scandal that has plastered the front pages of today's newspapers. While the media is covering the issue, they are not covering it *accurately*: "In describing the President's clearly illegal behavior, the media are parroting the White House's terminology - terminology specifically crafted to make it sound as if Bush was operating on quasi-legal grounds. So for instance, the Times tells us Bush "secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans." The paper also refers to "the powers granted the N.S.A. by President Bush." "Authorized" and "granted." The word "authorize" is defined as "to grant power or authority to," and the word "grant" is the act of giving something one has. The media's use of these terms, then, is the media trying to make the public assume as fact that Bush actually had the power or authority to grant in the first place… ...in describing the President's clearly illegal behavior, the media are parroting the White House's terminology - terminology specifically crafted to make it sound as if Bush was operating on quasi-legal grounds... So for instance, the Times tells us Bush "secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans." The paper also refers to "the powers granted the N.S.A. by President Bush." "Authorized" and "granted." The word "authorize" is defined as "to grant power or authority to," and the word "grant" is the act of giving something one has. The media's use of these terms, then, is the media trying to make the public assume as fact that Bush actually had the power or authority to grant in the first place." And the obvious question, is why? Why is the media helping to cover up the President's crime by making it appear as though he had the power/authority to violate federal law without any congressional or judicial oversight?

2005-12-18T14:15:00.000-08:00

The democrats are going to have to do better than this if they expect the average American to understand the gravity of what has taken place with Bush's violation of FISA (Foreign Intelligence Services Act) and possible grounds for impeachment. It's time to find your spine, Democrats, or else you better get used to being rendered irrelevant by the new monarchy that is President George Bush.

2005-12-18T13:29:00.000-08:00

Well, Viveca Novak got a big "thank you" from George Bush this past week- he has appointed her husband to the FEC. I guess Novak's giving Karl Rove's attorney an added defense for his client in the CIA leak investigation is worth atleast that much. But since shame isn't something this administration feels, ever, he might as well have cut to the chase and appointed Viveca herself to the post. It's almost mind-boggling how this administration seems intent on taking every sensible notion of law and ethics and mangling it to the point where it's unrecognizable.

Weekend Blog Round-Up

2005-12-18T11:25:00.000-08:00

It's been a busy week in the blogosphere, thanks to more criminal activity on the part of Bush and Co. But there was other news and the progressive bloggers below deciphered it in a language we can all understand- truth: Glenn Greenwald over at Unclaimed Territory hits the nail on the head with respect to the legal implications of Bush’s executive power-grab via the warrantless wiretaps in violation of FISA and keeps an eye on those that would spread legal falsehoods in Bush's defense; Rich over at UNSPUN reminds us that the last few years (and particularly the last few months) have made it crystal clear that the Democrats need to take back Congress in 2006 and he offers up some advice about what it might take to get us/them there; Firedoglake snatched up its first well-deserved weblog award; Blue Collar Politics showed us who the REAL patriots were this past week; Blognonymous agrees with me that it’s time to impeach our monarch; The Educational Whisper calls out Bush on his hypocritical and politically expedient stance on when it’s inappropriate to reveal classified information; and Dr. Forbush notes the administration’s bait and switch about “victory in Iraq.”

2005-12-18T08:43:00.000-08:00

Beck is a scientologist? I'm sorry to hear that. Hopefully his music won't start including Odes to Xenu and talk about Thetans and Hubbard's eventual return after his death. But then, if Tom Cruise is any indication, it likely will.

weblog awards

2005-12-18T08:16:00.000-08:00

Congrats to Firedoglake for winning the Weblog Awards and great job to all the runners up.

Can you say "impeachable offense"?

2005-12-18T08:03:00.000-08:00

Now that Bush has admitted to authorizing criminal activity in violation of federal law, I think it's time to start talking about the "I"word. I know some have been talking about it for a long time, but now there is something substantive that would likely fall under the definition of "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" as articulated in the Constitution. But how is the mainstream media playing it? Well, despite the fact that the intelligence experts and legal scholars have told them Bush is breaking the law, they continue to beat around the bush in order to minimize the administration's criminal wrongdoing. Today, the Washington Post has an article that talks about "pushing the limits" of his wartime powers. Pushing the limits? How about "tearing through them and acting as a law unto himself"? That's a more apt descritpion. All of this is beginning to make that "second rate burglary" during the Nixon years, look like child's play.

Administration Trying to Prevent SCOTUS Review of Padilla Case

2005-12-18T07:14:00.000-08:00

When the administration isn't busy trying to circumvent the legislative branch and increasing the power of the Executive branch it is busy trying to interfere with the functioning of the Judicial branch. After all, what is the point of stacking the federal courts with ultra-right wing judges if you can't ensure that all decisions will be favorable to those that put the judges there in the first place? It's called 'quid pro quo'. The administration screwed up the Jose Padilla case big-time and they know it. That is the basis for all the current legal scrambling to prevent the SCOTUS from reviewing the case. Basically, the administration is trying to prevent the SCOTUS from hearing Padilla's challenge of the administration's holding him in military prison as an enemy combatant. But here's the twist- in order to do that, the administration has to request that the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which decided the case in the administration's favor previously, vacate that decision. That doesn't seem to make sense, does it? Why ask the Court of Appeals to vacate a decision in the administration's favor? Well, the reason has to do with the legal principle determining when the SCOTUS can grant review of a lower court decision- if the Fourth Circuit opinion is "vacated", then the SCOTUS effectively has no jurisdiction to review the case. It's a unique twist on forum shopping- trying to find a court that will be receptive to your arguments and position to prevent a legal defeat that will create a bad precedent for further cases winding their way through the nation's various appeals courts. The question is, will the Fourth Circuit allow it? Obviously, Padilla's legal team has filed a brief requesting that the Fourth Circuit maintain jurisdiction and has called out the admininstration on its political manuevers. This is a very important case, for a whole host of reasons and it's a dream come true for every Federal Courts and Constitutional Law professor because you could basically teach an entire first or even second year law course with this one case. The NYT's Linda Greenhouse is covering this case (sub. req.) and her analsysis is/are always right on point. For an excellent summary of the Padilla case and the important issues it raises, check out Glenn Greenwald's blog, Unclaimed Territory, where he decipher's all the administration's disingenuous legal wrangling in this case.

2005-12-17T16:49:00.000-08:00

If you have ever wondered why the Bush administration is constantly mired in controversy and is so ethically-challenged they make the Nixon administration look ethical, just and truthful, it's because the people advising them are corrupt, morally bankrupt opportunits.

2005-12-17T16:20:00.000-08:00

Update: President Bush will deliver a speech tomorrow night (Sunday) at 9pm eastern time. It will last approximately 20 minutes. I am guessing that the speech will include multiple references to 9/11, "keeping Americans safe" and achieving "total victory." There will be the obligatory and over-simplified claim that the Iraqi elections prove that we have democratized the nation and anyone not paying attention may be tempted to believe that indeed is true. I am guessing what it won't include is any specifics regarding what "total victory" would be, any substance or any timetable for troop withdrawl.

Quote of the Day

2005-12-17T16:10:00.000-08:00

I was watching the documentary about Al-Jazeera, 'Control Room' (a must-see by the way), and I was struck by this statement below from Donald Rumsfeld about AJ, particularly in light of the revelation that the U.S. government is spending huge amounts of taxpayer dollars to spread it's propaganda. The irony of his statement is like being hit over the head with an anvil: “Al-Jazeera lies to the world—it won’t take long for them to be discredited...We know that Al-Jazeera has a pattern of playing propaganda over and over and over again... We’re dealing with people who are perfectly willing to lie to the world to attempt to further their case.” Yes, he actually said that. Really.

The NYT Sucks

2005-12-17T14:02:00.000-08:00

Exactly how far up the ass of the administration IS the New York Times? Apparently pretty far. As if playing cheerleader for Bush's war wasn't enough, now we have the revelation that Bush has been spying on Americans for about, oh, three years now. And where was the esteemed Fourth Estate in all of this? Well, they were up the administration's ass because they held off reporting on this grossly undemocratic, unconstitutional Executive Branch power-grab for over a year and at the administration's urging! The Washington Post today, glad to have the spotlight off its own Court Stenographers for a change, reported on the how and why of the Times' unbelievable silence: "In an unusual note, the Times said in its story that it held off publishing the 3,600-word article for a year after the newspaper's representatives met with White House officials. It said the White House had asked the paper not to publish the story at all, "arguing that it could jeopardize continuing investigations and alert would-be terrorists that they might be under scrutiny." The Times said it agreed to remove information that administration officials said could be "useful" to terrorists and delayed publication for a year "to conduct additional reporting." The paper offered no explanation to its readers about what had changed in the past year to warrant publication. It also did not disclose that the information is included in a forthcoming book, "State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration," written by James Risen, the lead reporter on yesterday's story. The book will be published in mid-January, according to its publisher, Simon & Schuster." Well, I guess it's nice to know that 'We the People' aren't the only ones being spoonfed the administration's "anything is justified in the name of national security" claptrap. And the Washington Post must be relieved that they aren't the only ones with a hugely important scoop that was sacrificed for upcoming book sales ala Bob Woodward. Yes, it's certainly comforting to find that it's not just one or two of the most reputable media establishments that have been bought and sold by our government, but rather the whole lot of them. Nice work guys[in the Fourth Estate]. If it weren't for all the stories you witheld prior to the 2004 election, we might not even be at war now and Americans might actually be safer as a result. So next time the administration tells you not to print a story because it might "help the terrorist" why don't you f****** use your heads and realize that you've been sold a bill of goods and have actually helped cover up a major controversy, not to mention helped influence election results in a way that benefits the very people who stand to lose from you doing your job. Risk to national security? Yeah, right. Read this and weep. It makes the whole controversy about Froomkin's column much easier to understand.

Frist's Political HIV/AIDS Venture

2005-12-17T13:34:00.000-08:00

Senate Majority Leader, Bill Frist, wouldn't know an ethical dilemma if it hit him over the head and beat him with a stick. Have you noticed that these guys tend to not do anything unless it benefits them financially or politically (or both)? That includes Frist's "AIDS Charity". From Yahoo News: "The returns for World of Hope Inc., obtained by The Associated Press, also show the charity raised the lion's share of its $4.4 million from just 18 sources. They gave between $97,950 and $267,735 each to help fund Frist's efforts to fight AIDS. World of Hope gave $3 million it raised to charitable AIDS causes, such as Africare and evangelical Christian groups with ties to Republicans — Franklin Graham's Samaritan Purse and the Rev. Luis Cortes' Esperanza USA, for example. The rest of the money went to overhead. That included $456,125 in consulting fees to two firms run by Frist's longtime political fundraiser, Linus Catignani. One is jointly run by Linda Bond, the wife of Sen. Christopher "Kit" Bond, R-Mo." Time for the GAO to do some more investigating- although investigating major GOP players is a full-time job, which I guess is why there is such a reluctance on the part of the media, Congress, the OMB and the GAO to even bother. And notice the evangelical ties- I'd love to know how those Christian groups are spending the money Frist's organization gave to them. Oh, and I am sure there was no political quid pro quo involved. Nope, nothing to see here...

Bush rationalizes domestic spying by the NSA

2005-12-17T12:21:00.000-08:00

George Bush needs a new speechwriter. End of story. In comments today where he addressed the controversy surrounding his secret order to allow the NSA to spy on Americans within the US, he used his old stand-by talking point, that it was a "vital tool in our war against terrorists" and "critical to saving American lives." That's original. Apparetntly, there isn't ANYTHING that isn't justified by that hollow, factually-usupportable rationalization. But hey, nothing will stop the administration from floating it every chance they get. Not even the U.S. Constitution. But it gets better. He went on to state: "This is a highly classified program that is crucial to our national security. Its purpose is to detect and prevent terrorist attacks against the United States, our friends, and allies. . . .And the activities conducted under this authorization have helped detect and prevent possible terrorist attacks in the United States and abroad." Really? Would the President like to back up that sweeping assertion with some facts regarding WHICH terror attacks "in the United States and abroad" have been thwarted with this domestic program? Because pretty much every other grandiose, delusional statement from Bush about our successes in the War on Terror have been shown to be absolute, unadulterated, misleading if not outright dishonest, clap-trap. Oh, but it's "secret" so that probably means he can't tell us because it would compromise national security. Yeah, that's it! Bush also dropped some wisdom-bombs regarding the Senate's refusal to reauthorize parts of the PATRIOT Act, stating: "That decision is irresponsible, and it endangers the lives of our citizens. The senators who are filibustering must stop their delaying tactics, and the Senate must vote to reauthorize the Patriot Act.. In the war on terror, we cannot afford to be without this law for a single moment...The terrorist threat to our country will not expire in two weeks." In other words, Bush is saying that there is no power he and his government SHOULDN'T have so long as he can invoke the 'war on terror' and 'saving American lives.' He clearly resents the fact that the Senate is demanding more debate on certain provisions of PATRIOT because, well, questioning such things undermines Bush's totalitarian vision. Questioning is for sisies. And liberals. Clearly anyone who doesn't agree with the administration's "shoot first, ask questions later" approach to every single damn thing, is rooting for the terrorists to win. Update- if you want to see an excellent analysis of Bush's latest attempt to nullify Separation of Powers, check out Glenn Greenwald's post about it here.

'Syriana'

2005-12-17T10:00:00.000-08:00

I saw the movie, 'Syriana', last night and wasn't disappointed. To say it's a complicated film is an understatement and I feel like I need to see it one more time to truly understand the interwoven plot themes. It's the kind of film where everyone walks out of the theatre silently- no one speaking but everyone thinking. And these days, that is rather rare. Reviews of 'Syriana' that I have seen are mixed- some critics see the plot as too disjointed and confusing but I think that is one of the movie's greatest strengths- there is as much ambiguity in the movie as there is in the real-life drama of America's business relationship with the oil-rich nations of the Middle East and the viewer is left to fill in some of the blanks on his or her own. There is no clear resolution or neat, tidy explanations in the movie, in part, because there are none in the real-life situation it aims to portray, frustrating though that may be. My own view is that we are so used to Hollywood's fluffy, light-weight dramas that condescend to our intelligence that we don't really know how to handle it when a director gives us some credit and presents us with a movie that requires some actual "thinking." Just as with the director's previous acclaimed thriller, 'Traffic', Syriana has three seemingly disparate plot threads that interweve throughout the film, albeit sometimes disjointedly. Those of us who have seen (and appreciated) Traffic's style, were atleast aware that each of the three subplots were connected and that we would likely learn how in the very end of the movie. Without giving too much away, the three plotlines revolve around a CIA operative (George Clooney) working in the Middle East and who realizes too late that he may have been playing for the wrong team, an energy consultant (Matt Damon) based in Geneve Switzerland and a young Pakistani teenager who struggles to find work in the oil fields owned by Chinese and American oil interests. At the center of these three story threads is a dying, powerful Emir who is deciding which Prince should inherit his Kingdom- the progressive, intelligent, reform-driven older son or his compliant, superficial, morally bankrupt younger son who seems eager to increase his own power by pleasing American Big Oil executives (and thus, the government). This subplot is interesting because[in my view] it demonstrates how the American government talks about "freedom and democracy" in the Middle East while supporting the exact opposite. While there is some moral ambiguity in each of these plotlines, there is no ambiguity about who ultimately has no moral or ethical center- the American oil industry and the government hacks indebted (politically and financially) to them. Each major character is befallen by a tragedy of some sort and how they respond to that tragedy ultimately decides their fate, for better or worse. One of the achievements of this film is how it humanizes people that are difficult to humanize- again, I can't go into too much detail without spoiling the movie but if you go see 'Syriana', you will see what I mean. The Chicago Tribune did a nice write-up on Syriana without giving too much away, and you can find it HERE. Be warned- it does reveal some of the specifics of the plotlines, so if you are someone who wants to go into the movie without any bias or knowledge of what is going to happen, you may not want to read it until after you have seen the movie. I am one of those people and made a point of not reading any critiques or "spoilers" about the film until after I saw it because they do tend to give some things away.

2005-12-16T15:07:00.000-08:00

I am off to see the movie, Syrianna. Everyone I have talked to who has seen it has said it's amazing. Based on what I have read about the movie so far, it sounds like it's going to be a bit of 'life imitates art' or the other way around, given what is going on in the world today (particularly with our oil industry administration). I'll let you know how it is....

2005-12-16T14:44:00.000-08:00

If you are having trouble viewing this page or if the sidebar drops to the bottom of the page when viewing this blog in firefox or internet explorer, could you please let me know by leaving a comment below and tell me which browser you are using? I am having sidebar issues and dont know if its a hardware/software problem or a problem with my template. Thanks much!

'Prince of Darkness' Leaves CNN for Fox

2005-12-16T13:06:00.000-08:00

Conservative columnist/pundit and 25 year veteran of CNN, Robert Novak (aka 'Prince of Darkness'), is not renewing his contract with CNN and instead going to be heading over to Fox News, where his inaccurate statements, unethical journalism practices and general mean-spiritedness will not only be tolerated, but encouraged. Novak stated that his decision to leave CNN was a mutual one between he and CNN's management after a period of rocky relations resulting from his cursing and storming off the CNN set during a political roundtable discussion. In addition, Novak put CNN in an awkward position after he outed CIA operative Valerie Plame in one of his newspaper columns. Despite his role in Plamegate, Novak remained mum about his status as a witness [we assume, given he was not forced to don an orange jumpsuit] in the ongoing investigation and when the CIA leak case was raised as an issue on CNN programming [involving Novak] he did not disclose his own participation in the scandal, raising some ethical concerns for CNN. Media Matters for America did their usual brilliant job in holding Novak, and thus CNN, accountable for the above-described concerns. David Brock, Media Matters' President, stated: "While Mr. Novak remains suspended by CNN for uttering an obscenity on live TV and storming off the set, I hope they take the next appropriate step of not renewing his contract.. In addition to Novak's long history of spreading conservative misinformation on CNN, his credibility as one of the network's contributors has been severely compromised by his contradictory statements and accounts, as well as by his complete lack of candor, on the issue of his involvement in the outing of Valerie Plame." As Novak's contract deadline loomed large, Media Matters upped the ante by delivering to CNN upwards of 5,000 signed letters requesting that they not renew Novak's contract.

Bush Administration Spying on Americans

2005-12-16T10:09:00.000-08:00

This is one of the most secretive, reprehensible administrations in recent memory- certainly in my lifetime. The lack of respect that this administration shows the American people as a result of its flagrant disregard for the most basic constitutional checks and balances, is truly incredible. Almost as disturbing as the revelation that Bush signed an executive order allowing the NSA to take part in domestic spying without warrants, is the fact that the NYT knew about this for approximately one year but chose not to report on it. That raises many questions that need to be answered by the NYT leadership and if other media outlets knew about this as well, they should also be held to account. According to an article in today's NYT: "The previously undisclosed decision to permit some eavesdropping inside the country without court approval represents a major shift in American intelligence-gathering practices, particularly for the National Security Agency, whose mission is to spy on communications abroad. As a result, some officials familiar with the continuing operation have questioned whether the surveillance has stretched, if not crossed, constitutional limits on legal searches. "This is really a sea change," said a former senior official who specializes in national security law. "It's almost a mainstay of this country that the N.S.A. only does foreign searches." We need to demand a bipartisan Congressional investigation into this charge of domestic spying- such a radical and potentially unconstitutional shift in executive power should not be ignored by our legislators for partisan political reasons. This is simply too important.

Welcome to my friends from Tribe.net

2005-12-16T07:42:00.000-08:00

I will miss discussing politics with you guys on Tribe.net but can no longer abide by Tribe's ill-conceived new corporate censorship policy. The idea that Tribe is trying to create a community where no one is ever offended (ie. no gay content, sexual images, writing, etc.) is a goal a) they will never achieve and b) will have a chilling effect on the discussions that take place there. I was willing to give it a chance but when I read one of the Tribe administrators statements that Tribe hopes to create an atmosphere where not only people from liberal San Francisco and the East Coast are happy, but also the folks in places like red-state Texas (ie. conservatives), I knew where they were headed. I also am not a big fan of "community flagging" as it tends to be used inappropriately as a weapon against people with whom they politically disagree (I am aware that blogger utilizes this feature, unfortunately). There is no reason that people from Texas and San Francisco (just for examples) can't co-exist on an online community without feeling the need to censor each other or have a corporate entity (Tribe) police what it believes are community standards of decency. Anyway, I hope my Tribe friends will stop by here when they have time and take part in some of the discussions and comments- keep in touch and thanks for understanding why I needed to leave the political tribe I started in someone else's hands and why I ultimately (if a bit suddenly) decided to leave Tribe altogether.

White House Forced to Accept McCain Amendment Banning Torture

2005-12-15T15:32:00.000-08:00

Another bad day for the White House...it was *SO* close to being able to cover its ass legally by creating an exception to the rules/laws (both national and international) banning torture. But alas, it failed. It looks like Cheney and his cabal will now have to focus their efforts on covering up the CIA secret prison scandal (by obstructing any investigation that ensues) and finding all-new secret prisons where they can happily torture suspects without all that pesky interference from terror-loving groups like Amnesty International, the ACLU, the International Red Cross and, well, a majority of Congress and the American people. But not to worry, the administration spin-masters were up late last night and actually managed to make this defeat for the White House look like a moral victory! At his meeting with McCain today, President Bush actually said this outloud: "[the agreement] will "make it clear to the world that this government does not torture and that we adhere to the international convention of torture, whether it be here at home or abroad." The international convention of torture? You mean the protocol you opposed strengthening in 2002 despite the outcry from our allies? The administration has a lot of nerve, don't they? They spend the last month trying to ensure that yes, we as a nation can in fact violate the "international convention of torture" and stoop to the level of the very terrorists we oppose, and then turn around and claim that they worked side by side with McCain to try to ensure that Congress passes a ban on torture. Never mind that Bush had previously promised to veto any bill that had this ban on torture included in it. Incredible.

Wingnuttia Watch

2005-12-15T14:29:00.000-08:00

Just when you think you've heard it all, along comes the ultra conservative Eagle Forum to give you another earful of absolute nonsense. The Carpetbagger Report has found a new argument against teaching evolution in our nation's public schools. All I can say is that I hope this new argument gets a LOT of attention because it can only help those of us in the "teach science in science class" camp: "Some evolutionists who claim to be Christians — but also evolutionists who label themselves "theistic evolutionists" — argue that God could have used the evolutionary process hypothesized by Darwin to create the universe. But evolutionism reduces man to an animal. Theism, conversely presents man as made in the image of God. If man is an animal, but man is also made in the image of God, what does that make God?" Answer [Stacy's hand waving wildly in the air]: "a hairy, bannana-eating ape?" You know, you've got to give the braintrusts at the Eagle Forum some credit- if nothing else, their logic is impeccable. I can just see Phyllis Schlafly posing that erudite question on Fox News with an absolute straight face. And looking into my heathen crystal ball I foresee an appearance on the O'Reilly Factor in her future, to discuss this very issue. I suppose we could offer up the possibility that the phrase "image of god" could be, ummm, less *concrete* in it's meaning? Or should we point out that man IS considered part of the "animal" species (as opposed to, say, a plant or a fish) and that has little or no effect on the real or percieved divinity of "God"? We probably shouldn't.

WaPo Politics Editor Shouldn't Throw Stones...

2005-12-15T10:30:00.000-08:00

...particularly as he lives in a glass house himself. In an online chat today, John Harris (WaPo Politics Editor), referred to the reaction of the blogosphere to the flap over Dan Froomkin's White House Press Briefing column, this way: "For all its interesting and useful features, some things I don't like about the on-line crankosphere are its frequent humorlessness and tendency to blow issues way out of proportion," Harris said. "After I popped off on some of these issues, some colleagues gently suggested I might be flirting with these traits myself." Well, Mr. Harris, if you guys over at the Washington Post would spend less time acting as offical White House Stenographers and more time investigating the myriad of pressing issues facing this country, perhaps we in the "crankosphere" wouldn't be so....cranky. I know, novel idea.

Bubble boy declares Rummy doing "heckuva job"

2005-12-15T06:45:00.000-08:00

And you thought lightening didn't strike twice in the same place? Well, Bush gave a Fox News interview where he demonstrated that not only does he NOT learn from his mistakes (Hello? Michael Brown?) but that he remains as clueless as ever. In addition to declaring that Rumsfeld is doing a "heckuva job" in Iraq, he reaffirms that he and Karl Rove are "closer than ever" and his relationship with Cheney is only "getting better" contrary to recent published reports. In other words, Bush doesn't give a rat's ass that he is surrounded by unethical, incompetent lackeys. And naturally, Fox News didn't challenge Bush on anything but simply gave him a platform to spread his unadulterated nonsense. It would have been nice to reconcile Bush's previous statements about firing anyone involved in the CIA leak, to now seeming totally indifferent to the fact that Rove is staring down the barrel of a possible federal indictment for his role in the mess. In fact, based on Bush's statements it almost appears like Rove, Libby and Cheney's role in the leak of a covert operative has INCREASED their standing in his eyes. Nice.

Speaking truth to power? Not so much.

2005-12-14T19:33:00.000-08:00

NBC's Brian Williams interviewed President Bush for a segment that aired December 12th- a rare opportunity given Bush's handlers don't let him go out and play with the press that often. So, what does Williams do with this rare opportunity? Ask hard-hitting questions of our nation's Commander in Chief during wartime? Nope. Speak truth to power? Nope. He lobs some softball questions up in the air and allows Bush to ramble incoherently and spew some of the talking points Karl Rove had fed him just prior to the interview. Did Williams ask any follow up questions or pin Bush down on any of his inconsistencies or factually incorrect statements? Nope. Great job, Brian. Really. With journalists/anchors like you, who needs government propaganda? Check out Media Matters' coverage of the interview and please consider emailing NBC and Brian Williams (via Media Matters link above) regarding the rare opportunity that they shamefully squandered. As an aside, I would LOVE to know what sort of concessions, if any, NBC had to make in order to interview Bush. I find it very hard to believe that there weren't very strict guidelines about what could and couldn't be asked and they likely insisted on an opportunity to have the interview edited prior to being televised. If there were such concessions, then all NBC has done is give the President an opportunity to plant a GOP infomercial right smack in the middle of primetime viewing, which seems pointless to me unless one is trying to curry favor with, and gain access to, the administration. Hmmm.....

Ford Did the Right Thing

2005-12-14T14:58:00.000-08:00

John A. over at Americablog has some fantastic news- the blogswarm over the controversy surrounding Ford Motor Company pulling it's support from the gay and lesbian community, has paid off, big time. It seems that contrary to the claims of the American Family Association, which threatened to boycott Ford if they continued to target some of their advertising towards the gay community and if they continued to support gay events and causes, Ford has reaffirmed its committment to the gay community and has responded directly to the concerns raised by activists over the last few weeks. The letter from Ford can be found HERE. There is sure to be a hateful backlash from the Evangelical Right so please drop Ford a quick line to let them know that their standing up against hatred and bigotry will pay off for them in the end. You can email Ford via this link.

Robert Novak: still an ass after all these years

2005-12-14T12:42:00.000-08:00

Robert Novak, the perpetually disgrunted conservative columnist who wouldn't know what journalistic ethics was if it hit him over the head, gave a talk where he reported that he believes President Bush knows who is responsible for the leaking of CIA operative Valerie Wilson's identity. Well, duh. Of course, this anvil of obviousness hasn't seemed to hit the braintrusts in the mainstream media yet, all of whom seem content to keep their thumbs up their asses and report all of Robert Luskin's (Karl Rove's attorney) biased spin. Don't forget that in addition to being Vice President's main man, Scooter Libby also held the very important (and coveted) title of 'Advisor to the President'- a little known factoid the media seemed intent on minimizing and as a result, Bush has been let off the hook- his advisors content to have him play the role of useless idiot when it suits them- someone who does not know what is going on with his staff, his policies or the court intrigue surrounding the outing of a covert CIA operative right under his very nose. And then, in the very next second, we are supposed to believe that the President is a man who has a handle on Iraq- the strong, determined Commander in Chief who has a strategy for victory. Sorry, he either knows what is going on, or he doesn't and why the media lets the administration conveniently have it both ways, is beyond me. What are the implications if President Bush knew who leaked Valerie Plame's name and when? Has he lied to the American people? To prosecutor Fitzgerald? He promised way back in the beginning to get to the "bottom of" all of this, but of course he didn't. Why is it that the "liberal" media, who never found a rumor or juicy bit of gossip about Bill Clinton unworthy of publishing, suddenly thinks the possible role of the President in all of this isn't even worth considering, let alone reporting on? According to Robert Novak: "I'm confident the president knows who the source is... I'd be amazed if he doesn't...So I say, 'Don't bug me. Don't bug Bob Woodward. Bug the president as to whether he should reveal who the source is.' " Robert Novak has stayed mum about whether or not he testified in front of Fitzgerald's grand jury and if so, what exactly he told him. We can assume that because Novak was never wearing an orange jumpsuit ala Judith Miller, that he cooperated with Fitzgerald, possibly from the very beginning. And who exactly does Robert Novak blame for the current situation surrounding the ruined career of a patriot like Valerie Plame and possibly compromising national security information in the process? Well, the usual supsects of course: "[My role in the Plame leak] snowballed out of proportion" as a result of a "campaign by the left." Uh...yeah, Robert. Right. Those damn left wing loonies at the CIA made a big stink about one of their covert operatives being compromised. Talk about making a mountain out of a mole-hill!

2005-12-14T07:09:00.000-08:00

Raw Story is reporting today that Fitzgerald's wagons are circling around Karl Rove- apparently, all the last-minute testimony and "remembering" by Rove, Luskin and Novak has not done one bit of good and may have even dug him in a bit deeper. Imagine that!

2005-12-14T07:01:00.000-08:00

In the elite, connected, neocon circles of Washington DC, it's not what you know but who you know.

2005-12-13T16:13:00.001-08:00

More bad news for Condi Rice (and thus the administration)- looks like her trip to Europe didn't quell the debate over the secret CIA prisons allegedly in Europe. It appears now that there is evidence that the prisons also exist in North Africa, according to a report today. And there are clearly some among our allies who are not going to be bullied by Rice and the neocons. Does anyone else get the feeling this is only the tip of the iceberg? Also, has anyone else noticed how insulated the President is? He gives his little speeches and then goes back into hiding, leaving his Press Secretary and Rice to take the heat. I am thinking that Bush's own people don't even trust his ability to speak publicly about an issue like this without making things 100 times worse- he's nothing but a puppet for the neocons and the more uninformed, blind and ignorant he is, the easier it is for the neocons to pull his puppet-strings to do their bidding. Hey, maybe he is Haliburton and Bechtel's very own Manchurian Candidate?

Diebold Update

2005-12-13T16:13:00.000-08:00

The Bradblog is doing some excellent coverage of the class action lawsuit that has been filed against Diebold. The question is, how long will it take for the mainstream corporate media to give this issue the attention it deserves? Or will they continue to paint us all as a bunch of whacked-out, commie conspiracy theorists for questioning the integrity of the Diebold voting system (and thus, the integrity of our very democracy)? Probably the latter.

Court Stenographer

2005-12-13T09:56:00.000-08:00

Finally! Someone in the mainstream media establishment has noticed that Bob Woodward is no longer the daring investigative journalist that he was prior to Watergate. In fact, Howard Fineman of Newsweek goes so far as to call him (appropriately) "an official court stenographer of the Bush administration." Ouch. And Bob apparently has competition. No, not just Judith Miller and Viveca Novak, but Jim Vanderhei of the Washington Post, who seems to use only one anonymous source for all his reporting on the CIA leak investigation- Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin.

2005-12-13T09:42:00.000-08:00

At 12:35 a.m. California prisoner, C29300, was pronounced dead after lethal injection. The Governor of California stated he "did not believe" that Stanley "Tookie" Williams had truly reformed and repented and therefore denied clemency and with that, the state of California took part in the very same gangland vengeance it was punishing Williams for- a life for a life. Until the end.

down the slippery slope

2005-12-13T08:23:00.000-08:00

Last week I posted about the religious roadblocks erected to try to prevent rape survivors getting access to emergency contraception immediately following sexual assault. In the comments section, people disagreed about the moral burden imposed and I used what I believed was a similar example- gay people being denied healthcare for no other reason than that they are gay- the reason for the denial of care being it violated the healthcare provider's religious/moral beliefs. Well, today I found this article about just that situation- a lesbian couple being denied healthcare services (but not emergency treatment) because the situation violated the doctor's religious beliefs. The "situation" was a lesbian couple seeking to be artificually inseminated. The couple sued and the California Appeals Court sided with the doctor's claiming "religious liberty." From the article: "Benitez[the patient] claims that on her first visit, [Dr.] Brody informed her that while her religious principles precluded her from performing the procedure on a gay woman, another doctor in the clinic would. Benitez says, however, that after 11 months of costly, painful tests and surgeries, when the time came for the insemination procedure, she was turned down and told that she "would not be treated fairly" or "get timely care" at the clinic because of Dr. Brody's and other staff members' religious beliefs... [Brody] believes that participating in the [fertilization procedure], she is acting as the male," Coppo said. "It is an elective, invasive procedure, and to be there for the moment of conception, she religiously can't participate." That bit in the end about "acting as the male" is an interesting twist, isn't it? Because I would think in that situation, she is acting not "as the male" but "as the doctor"- which is her real role, here, isn't it? What is not clear is whether or not Dr. Brody and her staff refused to take part in the artificial insemination procedure for married, heterosexual women because in the name of consistency of rationale, I would think that she would have the same difficulty- that she was interjected into the sacred act of conception and "acting as the man." The article does not clarify this, nor does it specify whether or not Dr. Brody made a reasonable accomodation to her patient by trying to find someone within her health practice that *would* perform the insemination or whether she made an effort to refer her client to another physician in a timely manner. The biomedical ethics of this case is/are interesting. Because once Dr. Brody had agreed to take Benitez as a client, knowing that she was a lesbian wanting to be artificially inseminated, why did she then turn around and refuse to finish the treatment? Once Benitez was under her care, she had certain ethical responsibilities to her patient according to generally accepted notions of medical ethics. And based on the minimal facts presented in the article, it does seem that Benitez reasonably relied on the assurances of Dr. Brody that while she [Brody] wouldn't perform the actual inseminiation, someone *else* in the office would. I will admit that as an attorney, I can see that because of some of the facts of this case it probably isn't the best "test case" for the overall issue of denial of medical treatment based on sexual orientation. But it's important none-the-less because you can be sure the Religious Right is watching this case closely and there will be many more cases like this in the future.

Corporate takeover of democracy?

2005-12-12T18:42:00.000-08:00

Raw Story has interviewed an insider from the corporate electronic voting giant, Diebold, who has turned into a whistleblower and it seems most of our fears about the integrity of electronic voting are well-founded. Diebold needs to be investigated for election fraud. The mainstream media's refusal to do good, pioneering, investigative journalism with respect to this issue just demonstrates how the bias in the media isn't liberal, it's corporate.

government, saddam-style

2005-12-12T16:02:00.000-08:00

We removed Saddam Hussein because he had links to AQ? Not. Because he had WMDs? Nope. Because he was a tyrannical dictator who tortured and killed his own people? Not really, because that never really bothered us before, especially when he was our ally of convenience in the 1980s and we gladly turned our heads away when he gassed the Kurds utilizing a chemical capability will helped him obtain. So, that argument doesn't seem too compelling, particularly as it appears we have replaced him with.....people who are just as bad as it looks like *another* Baghdad prison under the control of the Interior Ministry is using torture. But not to worry, the Bush administration is all over it because, well, we have a lot of credibility when it comes to admonishing countries who torture prisoners and have secret prisons: “...International law, including the U.N. Convention Against Torture, bans torture in all cases. U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad issued a sharp public rebuke of the Iraqi government after the secret prison was discovered last month, demanding in a statement that all detainees nationwide be treated in accord with human rights.” I can't believe an official representative of the U.S. government had the audacity to say that. Outloud.

No Chance for Redemption

2005-12-12T15:05:00.001-08:00

Our criminal justice system often falls short, not just because it is fallible, but because there are times when it is so clearly *not* geared towards "finding the truth" or "upholding justice." In fact, there are times when it is simply about one thing-revenge. You see, in the absence of truth, "justice" is not only subjective but eluisive. So it would seem today. At 12:01 a.m., Stanley "Tookie" Williams will die by lethal injection at the hands of the State of California, having been denied clemency by the Governor. Despite all the media attention given to this case, "Tookie" is actually like a lot of other people on death row- he has been there over 20 years, was convicted on circumstantial evidence, maintains his innocence, grew up poor and black and was ultimately convicted by an all-white jury (the prosecutor in Williams' case had two other death penalty cases overturned after a finding of racial bias in his jury selection). What makes him different is that he has apparently used his time on Death Row to educate children and teens (and adults) about the dangers of gang violence, has written a memoir and childrens books (dissuading them from joining gangs) and in 1993 he tried to broker a peace between the Crips (the gang he founded) and their long-time rival, the Bloods. In the video, he stated: "Working together, we can put an end to this cycle that creates deep pain in the hearts of our mothers, our fathers, and our people, who have lost loved ones to this senseless violence." He has even been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. Twice. I don't know whether Mr. Williams committed the gang crimes he has been found guilty of committing but I do know this- we are the only democracy in the West that continues to use the barbaric form of ultimate justice, the death penalty. And we are not in good company- the list of nations that utilize this barbaric punishment is a a 'Who's Who' of inhmane and corrupt, usually dictatorial, governments. They include, but are in no way limited to, China, Syria, Iran, North Korea, Vietnam, Saudi Arabia...you get the point. And what message will the State of California be sending when it executes Mr. Williams? That "crime never pays"? An eye for an eye? That assumes he's guilty. That redemption is never possible and will even be penalized and therefore not worth even attempting? Perhaps. The Right Wing fringe ala Rush Limbaugh etc. are rejoicing at the prospect of Tookie Williams' execution tonight. Yes, these are the same people that are "pro-life" but are willing to accept the death of possibly innocent people (but not cells in a petri dish) through judicial error or other means as a result of our fallible criminal justice system. But then again, there's always that revenge thing. Trey Ellis, over at the Huffington Post, explains why the pro-death penalty folks just don't get why allowing Williams to live just may prevent more from ending up in a jail cell like his or even dying: “What they don’t get is that those protesters in front of San Quentin, overwhelmingly black, come from the very neighborhoods poisoned by the evil that Mr. Williams is responsible for. They understand that he serves them better alive, preaching to all who will listen that gang life destroys. If you live in a gang-infested neighborhood you already know death well. About a murder a day occurs in South Central Los Angeles 365 days of the year. Nobody needs to see another dead black man to know that gang life leads to death, either by the police, the state, or, much more likely, by a rival gangmember. Mr. Williams’ conversion, as the general, not just a soldier, is a powerful tool in a desperate war. His own community realizes that and asked the Governor to let him keep working behind bars." But then again, if it's just about revenge, then it probably doesn't matter to the the pro-death (ie. "pro-life") penalty crowd that Williams has found redemption and in doing so, may actually be saving lives. What was it again that Jesus taught? Oh, never mind.

Viveca Novak's Tangled Web

2005-12-11T15:42:00.000-08:00

Viveca Novak's long-time-coming "tell all" today on Time's website about her appearance before Fitzgerald's grand jury last week in the continuing CIA leak investigation, should really be called a "tell-little" since just as the infamous Judith Miller before her, she seems to be a bit hazy on important key facts and details, like.....dates of conversations and...the specific content of those conversations. That would be a bit more forgivable were it not her JOB to remember such things. And again like Judith Miller, Novak seems to have difficulty keeping focused on her journalistic responsibilities when dealing with sources who also happen to be friends (Rove attorney, Robert Luskin). My suggestions to both Judith and Viveca moving forward? Next time you meet with a "source" here's a novel idea- bring a a) notebook, and b) actually *write* things down (dates, quotes, etc.) and finally, c) for god's sake go easy on the wine- no wonder you people can't remember anything. And for what it's worth, if I were Novak's colleague at Time Magazine, Matt Cooper, who at one point was very close to seeing the inside of an orange jumpsuit and a jail cell, I'd be rip-shit right about now. And that's nothing compared to how her Editors must be feeling. Whatever you do Viveca, please don't continue to relive Judith Miller's mistakes by heading over to Larry King Live to try to garner some support- it didn't work for Miller OR Woodward. The folks over at Firedoglake have been doing a fantastic job of covering this case from start to finish and their latest post on Novak's testimony is, HERE.

Featured Blog of the Day

2005-12-11T11:40:00.000-08:00

Americablog has a post about the newly released gay-themed movie, 'Brokeback Mountain', which looks fantastic and it took me to a great blog, The Petrelis Files, which describes itself, in part, as "reports and musings from the veteran gay and AIDS human rights advocate." Check it out, it's worth the trip.

Those Damn French!

2005-12-11T08:26:00.000-08:00

Oh, but please Mr. Bush, tell us how the Democrats had EXACTLY the same intelligence information you did before the war: "More than a year before President Bush declared in his 2003 State of the Union speech that Iraq had tried to buy nuclear weapons material in Africa, the French spy service began repeatedly warning the CIA in secret communications that there was no evidence to support the allegation. The previously undisclosed exchanges between the U.S. and the French, described in interviews last week by the retired chief of the French counterintelligence service and a former CIA official, came on separate occasions in 2001 and 2002. The French conclusions were reached after extensive on-the-ground investigations in Niger and other former French colonies, where the uranium mines are controlled by French companies, said Alain Chouet, the French former official. He said the French investigated at the CIA's request." And the intelligence wasn't manipulated, right Mr. Bush? No, it was all someone else's fault.

psy-ops

2005-12-11T08:11:00.000-08:00

It appears that the Bush administration's propaganda machine is much more extensive than originally thought according to an article today in the NYT. In politics, this is how a story gets "legs"- information dribbles out, picked up piece-meal by the mainstream media and then it is covered by the blogosphere, both from the right and the left. Then, more "leaks" issue forth and the government either denies knowledge, refuses to comment or becomes defensive. In this case, over the past week all three of the possible government responses apply which is tantamount to throwing gas on an open flame, and here we are. We know that during wartime the government tries to influence news coverage and combat what it sees as the propaganda of the enemy but sometimes the lines get blurred and it looks like this is one of those times. The truth becomes elusive and the government becomes more secretive. It is being said that so long as the military is printing "The Truth" then it's covert tactics are justied and the ends justify the means. But what is 'The Truth' and who defines it? The very government that seeks to distort it?

Tuesday, December 13th, 12:01 a.m

2005-12-10T16:31:00.000-08:00

What will happen? Will there be a stay of execution? And will there be riots, if not? I hope not, but I am worried. How much is a man's life worth and does Arnold the Governator understand the implications? What will Los Angeles look like on Tuesday morning as the sun comes up? Will justice have been served?

Hey, David Corn- you're a LIBERAL, remember?

2005-12-10T16:09:00.000-08:00

What *IS* going on with David Corn these days, anyway? I like David Corn. I have always liked David Corn. But the planets are no longer aligned and something strange is going on. First, the Pajama Media blog thing where he is the token liberal among an ocean of neoconservatives. Then there is his pairing up with Michael Isikoff to write a book, defending Isikoff against criticism by Media Matters for America and then we have his weird defense of Viveca Novak, the Time Magazine reporter who is the latest journalist to be caught up in Fitzgerald's web. What gives?

2005-12-10T16:00:00.000-08:00

Respecting the troops? Not so much: "Dead heroes are supposed to come home with their coffins draped with the American flag -- greeted by a color guard. But in reality, many are arriving as freight on commercial airliners -- stuffed in the belly of a plane with suitcases and other cargo. John Holley and his wife, Stacey, were stunned when they found out the body of their only child, Matthew, who died in Iraq last month, would be arriving at Lindbergh Field as freight. "When someone dies in combat, they need to give them due respect they deserve for (the) sacrifice they made," said John Holley. John and Stacey Holley, who were both in the Army, made some calls, and with the help of U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer, Matthew was greeted with honor and respect..." **** Notice who they called to get it straightened out? DEMOCRAT Barbara Boxer. Boy, those dems sure do hate the troops, don't they? Traitors.

Lieberman's Waffling

2005-12-10T15:34:00.000-08:00

It is pretty apparent at this point that Senator Joseph Lieberman's (D-CT) attention-grabbing praise of Bush and his handling of the War in Iraq, are little more than a job interview for the position of Secretary of Defense when the inevitable occurs and Donald Rumsfeld "retires" to spend more time with his family early next year. The fact that Rumsfeld hasn't been fired and run out of Washington by an angry mob with pitchforks continues to amaze me. I mean, what does one have to do to get fired in the Bush administration? Well, despite Lieberman's pontificating about how we should all put partisanship aside and support our President during wartime (ie. not criticize him no matter how incompetent he is in his role as Commander in Chief), Think Progress has done their usual excellent work and have dug up some meaty Lieberman quotes that, well, contradict that very sentiment. And, bless my soul, his statements could reasonably be construed as being politically motivated at the time (July, 2003) *gasp*: "In our democracy, a president does not rule, he governs. He remains always answerable to us, the people. And right now, the president’s conduct of our foreign policy is giving the country too many reasons to question his leadership. It’s not just about 16 words in a speech, it is about distorting intelligence and diminishing credibility." Really, Joe? Thanks for sharing. I guess making those comments less than four months before the 2004 election had nothing to do with your sudden insight that perhaps free speech and dissent weren't such bad things during times of crisis and armed conflict, after all? And check out today's NYT to hear Lieberman talk about being called a "traitor" by fellow Democrats. Sorry, I have little sympathy for little Joey at this point. It's one thing to support the Iraq war, it's quite another to become a cheerleader for the Republican President at a time when the Democrats are trying to investigate the pre-war intelligence and trying to put pressure on Bush to change course (since this one clearly isn't working) and provide some idea of when and how he plans to bring the troops home. And then there's the whole job interview thing, which is totally inappropriate in my view.

The MOJ (Mockery of Justice) Department

2005-12-10T08:19:00.000-08:00

One of the things Bush has become known for is taking an agency or department and making a mockery of it. Obvious examples include the Environmental Protection Agency, where anti-environmental industry shills hold court and the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission (EEOC) where enforcement of employment discrimination has dropped drastically since the Clinton years. Well, now we can add to that the Department of Justice, which I have renamed, appropriately it seems, the Mockery of Justice Department as Bush seems to have cynically placed people aggressively hostile to any reasonable notion of justice, in leadership positions (most notably, the Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales). The latest outrage revolves around this attempt to undo much of the slow but worth while progress that has been made in the area of voting rights, the hallmark of any true democracy: "The Justice Department has barred staff attorneys from offering recommendations in major Voting Rights Act cases, marking a significant change in the procedures meant to insulate such decisions from politics, congressional aides and current and former employees familiar with the issue said. Disclosure of the change comes amid growing public criticism of Justice Department decisions to approve Republican-engineered plans in Texas and Georgia that were found to hurt minority voters by career staff attorneys who analyzed the plans. Political appointees overruled staff findings in both cases. The policy was implemented in the Georgia case, said a Justice employee who, like others interviewed, spoke on condition of anonymity because of fears of retaliation. A staff memo urged rejecting the state's plan to require photo identification at the polls because it would harm black voters." It's just one more agency of incredible importance that Bush has turned into a partisan political machine which exists solely to push the Right Wing agenda. It's shameless and cynical. I just hope that by the time the mainstream media decides this is an issue worthy of more attention, it won't be too late. It took decades to achieve the current level of progress with respect to civil rights and we still have a long way to go, but if we aren't careful and take action now it may take only a few years for the GOP to dismantle those hard-won rights while a majority of the country is looking the other way.

2005-12-09T17:40:00.000-08:00

Welcome to the Baghdad Press Club, where the sun always shines and the news is always good. And better yet, it's funded by you and me.

Update

2005-12-09T15:00:00.000-08:00

My post below about further injustices for rape survivors has an update- and a positive one at that. The MA Governor, Republican Mitt Romney, stated that no hospitals are exempt from the law that requires hospitals to provide emergency contraception (Plan B) to rape survivors as part of standard medical treatment post-sexual assault. At this point, that would seem to include Catholic hospitals. This is an interesting and unexpected twist given that Romney is rabidly anti-choice and has been courting the religious right since taking office. Despite this announcement today, this isn't the end of this issue for better or worse. There will be much litigation by both sides in the coming months.

more proof torture doesn't work

2005-12-09T14:26:00.000-08:00

It seems that the origin of the Al Queda-Iraq link, al Libi, gave this incorrect information in order to prevent further torture, or as the article and media are calling it, "harsh treatment": "The officials said the captive, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, provided his most specific and elaborate accounts about ties between Iraq and al-Qaida only after he was secretly handed over to Egypt by the United States in January 2002, in a process known as rendition. The new disclosure provides the first public evidence that bad intelligence on Iraq may have resulted partly from the administration's heavy reliance on third countries to carry out interrogations of al-Qaida members and others detained as part of U.S. counterterrorism efforts. The Bush administration used Libi's accounts as the basis for its prewar claims, now discredited, that ties between Iraq and al-Qaida included training in explosives and chemical weapons." In other words, one of the key administration rationales for war was likely gained through torture? But lets keep claiming that torture is necessary to get "actionable intelligence", ok? Lets keep pushing for the defeat of McCain's initiative to ban torture. Because after all, torture works. There is no proof of that, but hey, when have facts mattered to the neocons?

Nothing to see here....move along, move along...

2005-12-09T10:22:00.000-08:00

The BBC (naturally) is reporting that the U.S. is *admitting* that it has been blocking the International Red Cross (IRC) from having access to alleged terror suspects who are imprisoned througout the world. *gasp* While this revelation comes as a surprise to absolutely no one and will no doubt be justified by the "war is a regrettable necessity crowd" it is seen by some as further evidence that the U.S. is in fact torturing prisoners that are held throughout Europe at the so-called 'Black Sites' despite Condi Rice's assertions earlier this week to the contrary. So, what is so significant about this? After all, we have all grown accustumed to the Bush administration's dismissive attitude towards international organizations who are charged with ensuring international law is upheld. Well, for one thing, the U.S. and the International Red Cross have actually worked well together in the past (ie.prior to Bush). For another, this will be the FIRST TIME that the IRC has been denied access to certain select detainees in U.S. custody ("U.S. custody" is a loaded phrase legally in this context, but for now, I'll let it stand without comment). I won't bother to point out the obvious- that the point in having the IRC is to ensure that exactly this *type* of prisoner in this *type* of setting, where torture is much more likely, is not taking place. If they can be denied access to prisoners who are most vulnerable to torture, then there is no point in having the IRC. And that's where the administration comes in. And here is more proof that when you listen to representatives of this administration speak, you had better do so with the understanding that what they are saying is not what they mean. There are two things going on- first, the administration's attempt to avoid admitting legal liability and second, an attempt to give the American people and the world the impression that they are in fact, not violating the law and that what appears to obviously be happening is not, in fact, happening: "When [John Bellinger was] asked by journalists if the organisation [IRC]had access to everybody held in similar circumstances elsewhere, he said: "No". He declined to explain further. Until now the US administration has been careful in its language, says the BBC's state department correspondent Jonathan Beale. It has always said that the ICRC has access to all prisoners held at US defence department facilities - leaving open the question of whether there are CIA prisons elsewhere." Should I even bother to point out at this point that we had a 70+ million dollar investigation at the urging of the GOP into "what the meaning of "is" is, but this administration's attorney-prepeared talking points issued for no other reason than to mislead, are just fine? No, I probably shouldn't. Everyone reading this knows and understands the outrage. ....these aren't the droids you're looking for...move along...

2005-12-08T16:05:00.000-08:00

"ooooh, aaaaaaaah." Go check out Media Matters for America sleek new website. It is a big improvement. We need Media Matters to keep an eye on the mainstream media and the nutjobs like Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh.

Murtha Rising

2005-12-08T15:46:00.000-08:00

The reason Representative John Murtha (Democrat, PA) has become so popular across party lines and a rising star in the Democratic Party is because he is taking a stand that seems to be based on principle and what is best for the troops and America- ie. not based on what is politically convenient at the moment like so many other politicians from both parties. Yes, Hillary, I am talking about you. Whether you agree with Murtha or not, the guy has insider knowledge- he has a direct line to the Pentagon so you know when he is talking about what the military brass are saying about the situation on the ground in Iraq and the chances for "success" you can bet that that is exactly what they are saying. In addition, the fact that he is a decorated war veteran who achieved the rank of Colonel *does* matter. Right or wrong, it just does, particularly when you compare him to all the chickenhawks in the administration. For the life of me, I don't understand how so many in the Republican party (in Congress) can mock Democrats for being unpatriotic when Democrats in Congress far outnumber Republicans in terms of time served in the military.

2005-12-08T15:21:00.000-08:00

Senator Lieberman to replace Defense Secretary Rumsfeld early next year? Ummm....why Lieberman? Because he's "pro-war"? Jesus, does this administration have any job requirement other than loyalty and being a total shill? My neighbor is an unemployed techie and supports the war- maybe they could tap him for the post? Although I guess it could be worse- they could pick David Addington or some other neocon who would be a carbon copy of Rumsfeld and that would be a total disaster. Although it's hard to imagine anyone worse than Rumsfeld at this point. I guess this explains why Lieberman has been bending over backwards complimenting the administrations fine work in Iraq, every chance he gets. So basically his public statements about how the war is going swimmingly is just one big job interview? Nice.

Filibuster in the works for PATRIOT?

2005-12-08T14:45:00.000-08:00

Long overdue. It's time our members of Congress reintroduced themselves to the United States Constitution. Because sacrificing essential and hard-won freedoms in the name of an elusive and politicized notion of "security" is a terrible tradeoff- one we will regret for years to come. Raw Story is reporting that Democratic Senator Russ Fiengold is trying to stop some of the more controversial provisions from being extended after it was announced today that the House and Senate conference committees had reached an agreement to do just that. Senator Feingold's statement is reprinted below: “I will do everything I can, including a filibuster, to stop this Patriot Act conference report, which does not include adequate safeguards to protect our constitutional freedoms. The version of the Patriot Act that was signed today is a major disappointment. I appreciate that it includes four-year sunsets on three controversial provisions, but merely sunsetting bad law is not adequate. We need to make substantive changes to the law, and without those changes I am confident there will be strong, bipartisan opposition here in the Senate. This isn't about stopping Patriot Act reauthorization. The President could sign Patriot Act reauthorization legislation into law tomorrow if the House would just take up and pass the compromise Senate bill that was approved unanimously in the Senate earlier this year – a bill that includes important and reasonable privacy protections. The conference committee had the opportunity to fix many of the provisions of the Patriot Act to which Americans across the political spectrum have voiced their opposition over the last four years. Unfortunately, they decided not to listen. This battle is not over.” *** This doesn't go as far as I would like it to because I think PATRIOT is way too heavy-handed but in today's political environment, I guess this is better than nothing, although I hate looking at something this important that way.

George Bush, Coward

2005-12-07T20:16:00.000-08:00

Bush doesn't know anything other than the words they stick under his nose or that appear on the teleprompter. He knows nothing about his own policies. Nothing. I bet he couldn't point to Iraq on a map. From Froomkin's column in the WaPo: "President Bush will deliver the second in a series of four speeches on his Iraq strategy tomorrow in Washington to several hundred members of the Council on Foreign Relations -- an august group of scholars, policymakers and journalists whose Web site is an Internet hotspot for intellectual foment about foreign policy in general and Iraq in particular. But rather than probe the group's expertise or even respond to its concerns, Bush is just using it as a backdrop. In a sharp break with the council's own traditions, Bush is being allowed to speak -- for 50 minutes -- then leave without taking any questions. "Obviously, we strongly suggested -- certainly made the case -- that it would be in the interest of the president and in the interest of our membership that the president take questions," council vice president for communications Lisa Shields told me this morning. "But true to his format, they declined." ************ Yeah, that's true to format all right. His minders aren't total idiots- they know if he gets asked questions by the CFR, who know their stuff, Bush will look like an ass and fumble along, start getting angry like it's someone else's fault (like maybe Jack Murtha's) and we know what happens next- he starts making up new words. Which is fun for us liberals and the folks at the Daily Show and SNL but not so fun for Scott McClellan and the people that have to do damage control, which in turn makes it even MORE fun for us. Heh. Update December 8th: Well, Bush apparently couldn't even fill the room so they removed all the empty chairs prior to Bush entering the hall to give his speech.

More Injustice for Rape Survivors

2005-12-07T15:54:00.000-08:00

Allie over at Watergate Summer tipped me off to this article in the Boston Globe and it made me unbeliebably angry b/c it's taking place in my home state, a state that we boast as being one of the most liberal in the country and also because it's not the first case this week about rape survivors being given little to no consideration in the public arena. That's an understatement. It seems that the Massachusetts Department of Public Health (DPH) has issued a determination that private hospitals (ie. Catholic hospitals) are exempt from the recently-enacted law that states that all hospitals in MA must offer/make available emergency contraception (sometimes referred to as 'Plan B') to rape survivors. And naturally, Catholic hospitals and non-catholic right wing anti-abortion advocates are pleased as punch about this result. And where does the woman who was raped fit into this "determination"? Nowhere. In fact, I read the article twice and nowhere could I find DPH and/or the anti-emergency contraception advocates talk about the effect this determination might have on women denied access to the medication. In fact, as usual, the concerns of the women are basically shrugged off. This is one of my favorite excerpts from the Globe article: ''Rape victims shouldn't have to worry about the affiliation of a hospital when they go to an emergency room or are brought there by an ambulance to receive necessary care," said Angus McQuilken, public affairs director for the Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts. Administration officials dismissed those concerns, saying it is unlikely that a rape victim would face a hardship because some hospitals choose not to provide emergency contraception." Oh, really? I'm not even going to get into how angry that condescending, dismissive, ignorant, biased statement makes me. Never mind you have to take Plan B within a certain time period or it doesn't work. Never mind women don't always run right to the ER right after being raped thus making it all the more important they get immediate access to Plan B. But I guess the "administration official" would respond by saying something that demonstrates his or her empathy and knowledge of rape and its psychological effects, like "well, if she didn't go right to the ER, she probably wasn't raped, right? And if she was, then it's not really our fault she didn't come to the ER sooner." Yeah, whatever "nameless administration official". If I said stupid shit like you do, I would want my name witheld in this article too. Ok, rant over. I understand that the Catholic Church opposes abortion and artificial methods of birth control as part of official Church doctrine, but you would think that in the case of rape and when we are talking about a hospital- a scientific and research institution- the Church *might* make an exception. After all, while most of the people who *choose* to go to Catholic Church services on Sunday are Catholic and most (not all) kids whose parents *choose* to have them go to parochial schools are Catholic (and therefore accept that Catholic Doctrine is part of the deal), such is not always the case with the rape survivor brought into the ER of a Catholic hospital- she may be Catholic or she may not be and she may not have *chosen* to go there- an ambulance may have brought her there because it was the closest hospital or because her insurance would not allow her to go somewhere else, or she simply may not have thought she would be denied all available treatments simply because it was a Catholic hospital. In other words, I think there is a big difference between upholding Catholic doctrine in Catholic school or church vs. a Catholic hospital. Now, what would we do without the anti-abortion folks coming in and confusing the issue to try to confuse people into thinking Plan B is really "chemical abortion" dressed up as "emergency contraception?" I have to say, as a nurse, this tactic drives me nuts. I am not sure if some of these people really don't understand the difference between the two or are they being purposefully misleading in order to garner public support for their position? I personally think it's a combination of the two. Here is a brief, unscientific but accurate description of how Plan B works (from the same article): "The emergency contraception pill, also called Plan B, is a high dose of hormones that women can take up to five days after sex to prevent pregnancy. Supporters say that the pill prevents pregnancies by halting ovulation, fertilization, or implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterine wall, but that it has no effect on a firmly implanted egg. The only connection to abortion, they say, is that it will reduce them by preventing unwanted pregnancies." Ok, pretty straightforward, huh? It's obvious that there is absolutely NO medical/scientific connection to abortion whatsoever. But look how the opponents of Plan B describe it: "But opponents who believe that life begins at conception contend that the pill can cause a ''chemical abortion" by hampering implantation in the uterine wall." NO. NO. NO. NO. NO. NO. NO. NO. NO. It can NOT cause a chemical abortion. IMPOSSIBLE. You can not have an abortion if you are not pregnant. Plan B PREVENTS pregnancy by preventing ovulation- ITS BIRTH CONTROL. There is such a thing as a chemical abortion but you have to be pregnant first, which is not the case with Plan B. Plan B doesn't work if you are pregnant- at that point, it's too late. That is pretty basic junior high biology. Oh, never mind. And these are the people who don't want sex education taught in schools? Jesus, they could use a refresher course!

ACLU on Rendition

2005-12-06T19:34:00.000-08:00

Very interesting piece on rendition by the ACLU. What is interesting about it to me is that some of the statements in Condi Rice's speech the other day(scroll down my for coverage of her speech) conflict with the information in this fact sheet. Not that there is really anything *surprising* about that. First, in her speech prior to leaving for Europe the other day, Rice (and the administration) claimed the prisoners being held at the "black sites" are/were not being tortured but Amnesty International claims otherwise as do some ex-CIA officers and others in a position to know (ie. otherwise what is the point of sending them to these "black sites"). Second, she stated that the US was following US and international law with respect to the treatment of prisoners, including the prisoners being held in the secret prisons in Europe. However, according to the Amnesty International fact sheet: "Administration officials, backed by Department of Justice legal memoranda, have consistently advanced the position that foreign nationals held at such facilities, outside U.S. sovereign territory, are unprotected by federal or international laws. Thus, the rendition program has allowed agents of the United States to detain foreign nationals without any legal process and, primarily through counterparts in foreign intelligence agencies, to employ brutal interrogation methods that would be impermissible under federal or international law, as a means of obtaining information from suspects. " And the obvious just occurred to me- they are being sneaky and pulling a fast one here (the administration, not Amnesty)- Rice was sanctimoniously declaring the other day that we comply with US and international law but behind the scenes they are supporting their actions via the Justice Department and arguing that these prisoners fall outside the scope of US and international law so that they can use these black sites to torture the alleged terror suspects. In the words of former CIA agent Robert Baer: "If you want a serious interrogation, you send a prisoner to Jordan. If you want them to be tortured, you send them to Syria. If you want someone to disappear -- never to see them again -- you send them to Egypt."

Stop the Press

2005-12-06T19:24:00.000-08:00

The January edition of Vanity Fair will have a story on Judith Miller that is supposedly none-too-flattering but then again, when was the last time you saw a story about her that WAS flattering? But the big news is the revelation that over the years, Judy has been known to...get this...sleep with her sources. Ummmm....OLD NEWS! But apparently this story also really takes Arthur Sulzberger to task and even hints that he and Judy *may* have had a fling. It seems that Judith's co-workers finally get to have their say and boy did they go to town. I'll admit it. I am looking forward to reading the article.

Lieberman Calls for Creation of 'War Cabinet'

2005-12-06T15:14:00.000-08:00

Because apparently there aren't enough Agencies and Departments (including information gathering) within the Federal Government that are concerned with war in one way or another (Dept. of Homeland Security, CIA, the Defense Dept., the Pentagon, the National Security Agency etc.) so we need one more. But what I like best about Lieberman's proposal, in addition to the fact that he takes a page from the Republican handbook of trying to stifle all dissent, by stating that "It's time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge he'll be commander-in-chief for three more years...We undermine the president's credibility at our nation's peril..." is that he really has no plan for this new department other than a catchy title: "The Bipartisan Victory in Iraq Administrative Group." According to article: "Lieberman said he had not yet figured out details of how his cabinet would work. It would probably meet weekly and discuss conditions in Iraq, and perhaps recommend policy. Decisions on spending and how to implement and execute policy would remain with the executive and legislative branches." In other words, Lieberman knows nothing more than the catchy-sounding name of the Cabinet postion and because of that last bit above- decisions on spending and policy remain within the purvue of Congress and the President, the position is totally pointless. It's a PR move that probably has more to do with Lieberman's upcoming Senate race- which may be the first race in a long time for him that he actually has a hard time winning- if he does win. In fact, this cabinet position sounds a lot like a propaganda group to me. Why did he announce it if he has no details or specifics at ALL- I wouldn't expect him to have everything ironed out but it sounds he has nothing but the name of the department/position. Sounds a bit like Lieberman wanted some face time. And with respect to this being a cabinet-level position. You know, for a GOP President he sure loves to increase the size of the federal government, doesn't he (assuming he goes along with this)? Just like other misguided individuals who support this war, Lieberman invoked the ghosts of Christmas past to try to gain some legitimacy for his efforts. The problem of course is that World War II was arguably a just and necessary war and it was not based on lies and deception. Iraq is not a just and necessary was and it WAS based on lies and deception and the American people know this: "Lieberman cited historic figures like former British Prime Minister Winston Churchill and former U.S. Sen. Arthur Vandenberg, whose call for bipartisanship after World War II helped the Allied effort to rebuild Western Europe, and tried to summon their spirit." It goes without saying that Bush is no Winston Churchill and Saddam was no Hitler and Iraq is not Europe Post WWII and to even try to make the comparison is idiotic.

test

2005-12-05T19:20:00.000-08:00

The Empire Strikes Back

2005-12-05T08:45:00.000-08:00

Condi Rice leaves for Europe today and before leaving, she sent a clear message to Europe- don't expect me to answer any more questions about the secret CIA prisons because after all, there's a war on and after 9/11, everything changed. Condi Rice is about as diplomatic as Dick Cheney. To say the administration has been sending Europe mixed messages about this is an understatement. The European press of course is doing a much better job of covering this issue because, well, they care. Rice gave a speech at Andrews Air Force Base prior to leaving for Europe, the full text of which can be found here. Basically, we are supposed to take the administration's word for it when she asserts "rendition makes us safter" and when she boldly claims that the CIA is not violating US or international law by utilizing secret prisons because we are not torturing prisoners despite the fact that the administration is actively pursuing legislation that would allow them to torture the very individuals that are currently being held captive by the CIA in the secret prisons. And given the administration's track record for truthfulness and their obvious bloodlust, I really don't think they have given the American people ANY reason to take them at their word. Consider this gem from Rice's speech: "The United States, and those countries that share the commitment to defend their citizens, will use every lawful weapon to defeat these terrorists. Protecting citizens is the first and oldest duty of any government. Sometimes these efforts are misunderstood. I want to help all of you understand the hard choices involved, and some of the responsibilities that go with them. One of the difficult issues in this new kind of conflict is what to do with captured individuals who we know or believe to be terrorists. The individuals come from many countries and are often captured far from their original homes. Among them are those who are effectively stateless, owing allegiance only to the extremist cause of transnational terrorism. Many are extremely dangerous. And some have information that may save lives, perhaps even thousands of lives. The captured terrorists of the 21st century do not fit easily into traditional systems of criminal or military justice, which were designed for different needs. We have to adapt. Other governments are now also facing this challenge. We consider the captured members of al-Qaeda and its affiliates to be unlawful combatants who may be held, in accordance with the law of war, to keep them from killing innocents. We must treat them in accordance with our laws, which reflect the values of the American people. We must question them to gather potentially significant, life-saving, intelligence. We must bring terrorists to justice wherever possible." Now, in addition to be infuriatingly condescending, Condi uses a lot of words to tell us very little- she repeats the usual neocon-speak that essentially after 9/11, everything changed and therefore basically the ends justify the means. She also conflates terrorists and suspected terrorists- something the administration does regularly in order to justify its heavy handed policies. And of course, that's always been the problem. Whether it be Camp X-Ray, Abu Gharib or the Secret Prisons-the administration sees every muslim man in the middle east as a potential terrorist who might have actionable intelligence and therefore, torturing them is justified if it "saves American lives." Oh, but we don't torture suspects. We just want to. Ok. Now, here is something interesting and I think Condi went out on a dangerous limb here and I think she did so out of arrogance because this administration believes that it will always be protected by the GOP Congress, and perhaps she's correct (but I hope not): "- The United States has respected - and will continue to respect the sovereignty of other countries. - The United States does not transport, and has not transported, detainees from one country to another for the purpose of interrogation using torture. - The United States does not use the airspace or the airports of any country for the purpose of transporting a detainee to a country where he or she will be tortured. - The United States has not transported anyone, and will not transport anyone, to a country when we believe he will be tortured. Where appropriate, the United States seeks assurances that transferred persons will not be tortured." Ummmm....we "respect the sovereignty of other countries? Hello? Iraq? If by "respect" you mean invading and occupying them in violation of international law then yes, I guess we "respect" them. Now, what she says about not torturing the prisoners begs the question- why fly them to the ass end of Europe to simply ask them questions? It's no big secret that we use rendition to escape the laws of the US regarding treatment of prisoners. Waterboarding anyone? Human rights groups like Amnesty International have opposed rendition for years. And it's a bit bold to make those statements while your Vice President is trapsing around Congress basically threatening the GOP to allow the administration/Executive Branch an exception to allow torture in certain circumstances of their choosing, which is basically what started this whole controversy over secret prisons to begin with. I love irony. There is so much of it in the Bush White House. Of course it's lost on them. And if rendition is no big deal and used all the time between allies in the war on terror, why is all of Europe acting totally surprised by the revelation that the U.S. has been using their countries to hold these suspected terrorists? And why has the administration been so reluctant to address their concerns in a forthright manner, other than to invoke the memory of 9/11 every 15 minutes? And why is Rice still remaining mum over the CIA flights to various European nations [hat tip to Blognonymous]: Germany 437 CIA flights landed or crossed airspace, according to Der Spiegel France 2 jets carrying suspects to Guantanamo Bay apparently used airports Britain 210 flights alleged to have used British airports Portugal 34 CIA flights reported landed; has asked for clarification from US Italy 17 secret CIA flights landed between July 2002 and May 2005, according to Corriere della Sera Spain 10 CIA flights alleged to have landed in Tenerife and Majorca Iceland 67 CIA flights alleged to have landed since 2001; has demanded an explanation from US

2005-12-04T21:31:00.000-08:00

The Washington Note has a copy of the letter Al-Jazeera sent to Tony Blair about the memo that allegedly reveals that Bush wanted to bomb the AJ headquarters in Qutar. I have copied the letter in it's entirety below: TO THE ATTENTION OF: The Right Honourable Tony Blair The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Date: 26 November, 2005 Dear Prime Minister, It is with a great deal of concern that I write to you regarding the alleged statements made in the memo reported in the Daily Mirror this past week. The statements were to have occurred between President Bush and yourself regarding our organization, Al-Jazeera Channel. As alleged in the report the memo states that President Bush disclosed his plan to target Al-Jazeera at a White House face-to-face meeting with you on April 16, 2004. The report goes on to state that you subsequently dissuaded President Bush from doing so. On hearing about the memo we were astonished but we reserved our judgement on the statements until we could verify the claims being made by the report. Consequently, we were hoping that the memo would be made public to clarify the situation. However, we recently learned that the Attorney General has placed an order not to disclose the contents of the memo. We are troubled and deeply concerned that this latest development is only increasing the outrage and shock felt by both our organization and news organizations across the world as well as by the public. Our profession is built on the value of the freedom of speech, and institutions such as ours struggle hard to maintain and champion these values. We are calling upon you and your government to put an end to this widespread speculation and to set the record straight. We hope that you would agree with us that disclosing the contents of the memo would be in the best interest of the truth. The idea of either seriously or humorously suggesting the targeting of civilian news organisations is to us abhorrent in an age where the world is struggling for the ideals of democracy and freedom of speech. This is especially critical as the alleged discussion is supposed to have taken place between Mr. Bush and yourself, two world leaders who have stated their public commitment to these values. Dear Prime Minister, we therefore call upon you to bring transparency to this situation in the best interest of the public good. I request a meeting with you to discuss this urgent matter directly. Sincerely, Wadah Khanfar Managing Director Al-Jazeera Channel [hat tip to Decker}

Welfare Even Congress Could Love

2005-12-04T18:47:00.000-08:00

No, not for poor people, because if it was then they wouldn't embrace it. It's just that simple. U.S. automakers are asking Congress for billions (yes, billions) in federal aid, to be paid for by you and me because, well, times are hard for the auto industry. As opposed to say, poor people, who are having a wonderful year. But whatever you do, don't call it a "bailout" because that's a bad word in Washington and apparently, if you use that word, that makes the American taxpayers angry. It's basically another word for "handout." And if you get a "handout" you are undeserving. And Democratic Senator Carl Levin, whom I usually really like, is only too happy to indulge the auto industry, saying: "I don't view it as a bailout." And William Ford Jr. of Ford Motor Co. had this to say on the subject: "We're not looking for a bailout." Well, that settles it, it's not a bailout. Of course one of the reasons both Democrats and Republicans are so willing to provide billions in aid to the auto industry at a time when we have record deficits and incredible wartime spending, is we are coming upon a congressional election year and rehabilitating the troubled auto industry may make or break a candidate. Never mind that just throwing money at Ford or GM won't solve some of the underlying problems. According to today's Washington Post: "One reason the car companies are not pressing for a single infusion of money is that their problems would not be solved by such a benefit. "Their problem is not so much cash flow to get them through a crisis," said Rep. Dale E. Kildee (D-Mich.), who has been a leader in devising relief efforts. "It's more of a structural change in the global automotive market that the auto companies and the auto-parts makers need to cope with. The assistance that is being sought would address only some of the companies' problems, which range from inefficient factories to consumer preferences for foreign-built cars. Auto executives acknowledge that recovery will depend on their ability to resolve such issues." Ok, so inefficiency and consumer preference. I am no auto expert but how exactly are billions of federal dollars going to fix that? And here's an idea- how about making quality automobiles at reasonable cost so that Americans don't buy foreign cars? I know, totally radical idea. Capititalism, aint it a bitch? Oh, but there's more: "We can compete with Toyota, but we can't compete with Japan," William Ford said. In addition, the companies advocate tougher trade policies that would restrict the import of foreign cars into the United States where possible and would ease entry of U.S. -made cars into other countries. "We could sell plenty [of cars] in Japan if we were allowed to," Sen. Levin said. "We need a president to go after the Japanese to tell them if they don't reduce their barriers that they will find similar barriers to theirs" in the United States." So, wait. Isn't that rather anti-capitalist? We want to make it easier for US cars to enter the markets in other countries but harder for foreign cars to enter *our* market? Actually, now that I think about it, that is quite capitalist. American capitalist. And if you are wondering what the bee in Senator Levin's bonnet is, he's from the home of the auto industry, Michigan.

Weekend Blog Round-Up

2005-12-04T14:00:00.000-08:00

It's that time again. Time to round-up all the incredible coverage of the weeks events by highlighting the liberal bloggers, who as usual, put the mainstream media (stenographers) to shame. First, and in no particular order, we have Grumpy Old Man reminding us that Bush learned nothing from the fallout from the Michael Brown fiasco (of FEMA fame) and of course the mainstream media continues to ignore the crony appointments. This time though, Grumpy Old Man notes that there is an evangelical twist in the latest incompetent Bush appointment and if you think the Middle East hated us before.... The Heretik did/does an excellent job with a disturbing ongoing story of justice not served and reminds us that when it comes to women and rape, we most certainly have not come a long way. Firedoglake did their usual fantastic job of making sense out of the madness that is the CIA leak case this past week, which was no small feat, particularly as it got weirder and weirder as Viveca Novak of Time Magazine stuck her mug into the whole mess, because apparently there weren’t already enough unethical journalists involved who hadn’t disclosed to their editors and their readers their role in the ongoing legal matter. And in an added twist, Rove’s attorney, Robert Luskin, has to testify in front of Fitzgerald. Someone send him the Model Rules of Professional Conduct. Before next week preferably. Something tells me he hasn't read them. sidenote: I can't WAIT to see how Michael Isikoff spins all of this in Rove's favor this week. Stay tunes but keep checking back to Newsweek's website. To make sure we didn't all become too depressed with all the stories of secret prisons and torture, lies, death and more lies, there was Princess Sparkle Pony, who is keeping a close eye on National Security Advisor Condi Rice....her hairdoo, that is. It was a needed change of pace. I hope Condi reads it- she could use the hair style advice- anyone who buys a $5,000 pair of shoes while New Orleans is drowning in one of the worst national disasters in his history could plunk down $300 for a good hair cut. Or she could just read Sparkle Pony- it's free. John over at Americablog informed us that Ford Motor Company, which has a long, distinguished history of discrimination (Ford founder, Henry Ford, wrote a book demonizing jews), is now setting its sights on gays. Soon, we aren't going to be able to buy anything, anywhere. (Hello, Microsoft, are you listening?) Harold’s Blog noted that Bush Co. had another (not so) brilliant idea-to send the always warm and fuzzy Condi over to Europe next week to not answer any of their questions about the secret prisons (despite promising to do so *last week) we have over in their territory because you know…that’s how you treat your allies. Like shit. And as always, Crooks and Liars, catches the Crooks and Liars on tape.

Injustice in Oregon

2005-12-04T09:35:00.000-08:00

In an affront to justice, a judge in Oregon has found an alleged rape victim guilty of filing a false police report after alleging she had been raped by her boyfriend and his two friends. But here's the incredible part; the District Attorney's office didn't even prosecute the three men for the alleged rape. In other words, a jury never was allowed to hear the evidence against them. In addition, she was 17 at the time, her boyfriend and his friends were 18, which if course is legally significant. According to an article in the Oregonian: "The Washington County District Attorney's Office declined to prosecute the case against the men. Robert Hermann, the county's district attorney, said prosecutors reviewed all the information and statements but didn't think they could prove a rape allegation. "Ted Naemura, the assistant city attorney who prosecuted the case, said the woman's false accusations were serious enough to lead to charges. The young men faced prison sentences of at least 7 years and a lifetime labeled as sex offenders. In addition, police spent considerable resources investigating the accusations." So, let me get this straight. These men were not cross examined by the YOUNG woman's attorney and the fact that she was a legal minor claiming to have non-consensual sex with three adults didn't bother the District Attorney enough to toss the case to a grand jury? Is this more of the societal bias that whenever a boyfriend or intimate partner is involved, it can't POSSIBLY be rape? This just in, a majority of rapes involve intimate partners. The braintrust of a Judge, Peter A. Ackerman, explained his decision finding the young woman guilty of filling a false police report, despite the fact that she had not recanted her claim of being raped, this way: "Ackerman explained his decision, saying there were many inconsistencies in the stories of the four, but that he found the young men to be more credible. He also said he relied on the testimony of a Beaverton police detective and the woman's friends who said she did not act traumatized in the days following the incident." Ok, let me tranlate that nonsense for you: "someone is lying, and since we didn't have a trial on the earlier charges to determine whether she was raped, I am going to cast my lot with the boys, because I am a boy. And also, they have their whole lives ahead of them and why let a little thing like rape, I mean, group sex, get in the way of that. Also, if she had been raped, she would have acted differently after the rape...she would have...ummm...sat in her room and stared out the window or something...I think...or gone and set him on fire like Farrah did in the 'Burning Bed'...." Apparently, the young woman's life moving forward is insignificant to Judge Ackermann and the fact that women (and men) have a wide array of responses (from denial to obsessive cleaning to nightmares to going about their daily lives as though nothing has happened) to rape/sexual assualt seems lost on him. In ohter words, one of the things that is painfully obvious is that Judge Ackerman doesn't know the first thing about rape or the response to it which is disturbing since rape is a state law offense and I assume he presides over these cases on a regular bases. If there is a judicial oversight board in Oregon, its time for legal advocates to put Judge Ackerman's on the appropriate list because this shows horrendous ignorance and bias. He has demonstrated he is unfit to sit in judgment on these types of cases. Hopefully, the Appeals Court will show greater wisdom and will overrule his decision. For excellent coverage of this case, please go over to The Heretik, here and here. He has been covering this in much more painstaking detail than I have and the comments secion is worth looking over and click on the links which take you to others in the blogosphere who are also duly outraged.

Bush Offers 1 Billion to Stabilize Iraq

2005-12-03T16:56:00.000-08:00

When I saw this, I did a double-take. This had to be a mistake. After all, hadn't I just been spoon-fed a testosterone-laden pile of propaganda the other day entitled A 'National Stategy for Victory in Iraq'" by Bush himself? No, it wasn't a mistake- a friend had tipped me off and there was the application for the billion dollar governent grant right before my very eyes. So once I determined it wasn't a practical joke I promptly emailed Joe of 'The Heretik' fame to share the weird news and then bopped over to Firedoglake to see if folks over there had heard about it and they appeared not to have heard the news so I dropped them a link and moved on over here. From the government's website: "The United States Agency for International Development is seeking applications for an Assistance Agreement from qualified sources to design and implement a social and economic stabilization program impacting ten Strategic Cities, identified by the United States Government as critical to the defeat of the Insurgency in Iraq. The number of Strategic Cities may expand or contract over time. USAID plans to provide approximately $1,020,000,000 over two years to meet the objectives of the Program. An additional option year may be considered amounting to $300 million at the discretion of USAID. Funds are not yet available for this program." *** If Bush said just the other day that he had a strategy for victory in Iraq, why is he offering one billion dollars to the private sector to defeat the insurgency and stabilize Iraq? Why is this job basically being contracted out, like every other goddamned thing that isn't nailed down? I am sure the military will be pleased to know that private citizens (corporate, no doubt) will be getting a king's ransom to do the exact same job they are doing but probably with adequate equipment and reinforcement, no doubt. Unbelievable.

Saturday's Best Stenography....

2005-12-03T13:03:00.000-08:00

Lest you think it is just the NYT that lost credibility thanks to Judith Miller's pre-war stenography and attention-grabbing stint in jail, not so fast! You can now add the Washington Post (Bob Woodward) and now, Time Magazine to the list. You see, Time's Viveca Novak was not going to be outdone by the attention-whores over at the NYT and WaPo, so she pulled a little stunt of her own and ended up stealing the show by being called in front of Fitzgerald to testify in front of his new grand jury. It would seem that in the summer or early fall of 2004 Novak went to Robert Luskin, Karl Rove's attorney, to tell him that Rove "might face legal problems because of potential testimony from Mr. Cooper, her colleague." Gee, thanks for the heads up Viveca. And did she let her editors at Time Magazine know what she was up to? Or her readers? Nope. Sounds like she was drinking the same drought that Dame Judith and Sir Bob were drinking. And as a journalist, is it really her job to give the Presiden't chief advisor the legal heads up, when she's simultaneously writing stories on the leak investigation? I don't think so. The main problem is that, according to some, after Novak went and whispered in Luskin's ear, Rove changed his testimony in front of Fitzgerald. Whoops. According to the NYT: "Time reported this week that the prosecutor in the case, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, has summoned Ms. Novak to testify about a conversation she had with Mr. Luskin, but provided no explanation of what Mr. Fitzgerald might be looking for. The account provided Thursday by people with knowledge of the discussions between Ms. Novak and Mr. Luskin suggests that Mr. Fitzgerald is still trying to determine whether Mr. Rove was fully forthcoming with investigators and whether he altered his grand jury testimony about his dealings with reporters only after learning that one, Mr. Cooper, might identify him as a source." The Washington Post basically repeats Robert Luskins latest and greatest spin on the latest events. It's stenography that would put Judith Miller to shame: "Over drinks, Novak told Luskin that Time employees were buzzing that Rove had talked to her colleague Matthew Cooper about CIA operative Valerie Plame in July 2003, sources familiar with the conversation said." And Firedoglake tears the spin apart. You know, it never fails to amaze me how these guys underestimate people like Fitzgerald. Do they really not see how transparent their lies are? Do they really think Fitz is dumb as rocks? Because he clearly isn't and at this point, he's probably enjoying watching them hang themselves. And this point, there isn't a jail cell big enough for the lot of 'em.

Administration Blacklisting

2005-12-03T06:33:00.000-08:00

This administration continues to shoot itself in the foot. But when will they finally bleed to death instead of just limp and sputter blood all around in their death throes? One of the reason Bush continues to fail in Iraq is because he has gotten rid of most of the people in the CIA and State Department who are experts on the Middle East and who understand the longstanding ethnic conflicts, culture and issues in the region that are fueling the insurgency. Those experts, who have been lifelong employees of the CIA and State Department and whose only allegience has been to seeing peace in the Middle East, diplomacy and intelligence-gathering, have been replaced with neoconservative ideologues whose only allegience is to George Bush, the neocons and their corporate interests in the energy and military industrial complex. You'll notice that their interests do not include what is best for a) the Iraqi people or b) the American troops. I bring this up because I was doing my usual morning news search when I ran across an article that caught my eye when I ran across the name of a man whom I have a great deal of respect for- David L. Phillips, an expert on all things Iraq and who worked with the State Department on the Future of Iraq Project before it was taken over by the neocons. He was deeply respected by the Iraqis themselves and he truly had their best interests at heart. Also, he was diametrically opposed to the war, so long as it resulted in a democracy that the Iraqis could live with. When the neocons took over the State Department and the CIA, he was booted off the Future of Iraq Project, to the detriment of the Project itself. He utlimately wrote a book called 'Losing Iraq', which is a brilliant blow by blow account of how the administration bungled Iraq's reconstruction and ultimately failed the Iraqis miserably. I am currently reading the book now and I recomment it to anyone who is interested in a first person account of what went on behind the scenes. His knowledge of the geographical identity and culteral differences between Iraqis and how that plays into the current conflict, is astounding. He tells how months into the war Bush had an Iraqi expatriot over to the White House to watch the Super Bowl and asked him to explain the difference between Kurds, Sunnis and Shi'a. To say the Iraqi expatriot was a bit, ummm...taken aback was an understatement. The article I was reading today described how David Phillips and others have been black listed by the State Department- anyone known to have criticized the administration's Iraq policy can not speak overseas on behalf of the United States in any role. According to the article: "I was told by a senior U.S. official that the State Department was conducting a screening process on intellectuals, and those who were against the Bush administration's Iraq policy were not welcomed to participate in U.S. government-sponsored programs," Phillips said. "The ability of the United States to promote democracy effectively abroad is curtailed when we curtail free speech at home, which is essential to a free society," he said. In another instance of apparent politicization, a request by the U.S. Embassy in Jakarta, Indonesia, to arrange a visit by Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., who lived in Indonesia when he was young, was delayed for seven months. The visit never occurred. A prominent translator of Islamic poetry who toured Afghanistan to rave reviews last March fell out of favor when he later criticized the Iraq war in front of a department official, two U.S. officials said. The practices appear to be the latest examples of the Bush administration's efforts to tightly control information, maintain "message discipline" and promote news about the United States and its policies. Bush opponents have been excluded routinely from the president's domestic events and campaign rallies. This week, Knight Ridder and other news organizations reported that the Pentagon has paid Iraqi journalists and newspapers to publish positive stories about the U.S. reconstruction effort there. Current and former officials involved with the State Department's overseas speakers program said potential candidates were vetted - via Internet searches, for example - for any comments or writings that criticized White House policy." *** Many of these trips overseas don't really involve people "speaking on behalf of the US" but intellectuals giving talks on issues such as past or present US policy, US history or even teaching classes overseas. When will the mainstream media start connecting the dots and start calling this administration on its very undemocratic policies? The irony of touting democracy in the middle east while pursuing a policy of bombing Al Jazeera, paying private US firms hundreds of millions in taxpayer money to propagandize here at home, paying conservative pundits like Armstrong Williams to push administration policy like 'No Child Left Behind' in violation of US law, blacklisting US citizens like David Phillips who don't toe the party line, outing a covert CIA operative as political payback for uncovering the lies about the war and the list goes on and on- these are the tactics of Joseph McCarthy, not a patriotic President.