Friday morning--updated

And feeling down a little this morning.

Once again, reading the news doesn't exactly help. As many of you know, the President held a press conference on his way out the door for vacation. Nevermind that he is the most vacationed President in history, and that given what his war is creating for some 160,000 troops, perhaps he could skip his vacation this year. Nevermind.

Some of his comments were actually reasonable. Suggesting (even though I thought he was an ass about it) that congressional earmarks are a problem to be solved before raising taxes for infrastructure projects is not a bad idea. After all, one of his own party is famous for things like the famous "bridge to nowhere."

But much of the rest was more proof that Bush is delusional. Or worse. When asked about accountability--and reminded that he made that a part of his campaign--and asked how that squared with commuting Scooter's sentence and still employing Al Gonzales, he responded in the way that only Bush could respond:

THE PRESIDENT: Lewis Libby was held accountable. He was declared guilty by a jury and he's paid a high price for it.

Al Gonzales -- implicit in your questions is that Al Gonzales did something wrong. I haven't seen Congress say he's done anything wrong. As a matter of fact, I believe, David, we're watching a political exercise. I mean, this is a man who has testified, he's sent thousands of papers up there. There's no proof of wrong. Why would I hold somebody accountable who has done nothing wrong? I mean, frankly, I think that's a typical Washington, D.C. assumption -- not to be accusatory, I know you're a kind, open-minded fellow, but you suggested holding the Attorney General accountable for something he did wrong.

And as a matter of fact, I would hope Congress would become more prone to deliver pieces of legislation that matter, as opposed to being the investigative body. I mean, there have been over 600 different hearings and, yet, they're struggling with getting appropriations bills to my desk.

Q If I could follow -- sorry. Given the decision to commute the sentence of Libby and given the performance of Iraqi leaders, is it fair for people to ask questions about your commitment to accountability?

THE PRESIDENT: I would hope people would say that I am deliberate in my decision-making; I think about all aspects of the decisions I make; and I'm a fair person.

Bush is the only person who thinks that Gonzales has done nothing wrong and one of the minority who actually thinks that Scooter actually paid much of a cost at all. Who can forget the check he wrote to pay his fine--casually. But I am sure the probation is just eating at him.

As for Gonzales, seriously. Who could watch that man testify, lie, repeat, and think he did a good job outside his mother? Gonzales is an idiot and a liar and willing to do whatever Bush asks him to do. Sigh.

Of course, as Eugene Robinson suggests:

"At least now maybe people will understand what I've been saying for months, which is that Bush doesn't care what anybody else thinks.

You really have to wonder how his mind works. If it does.

But my favorite part was this followup question on interrogation techniques:

"Q Red Cross report? THE PRESIDENT: I haven't seen it. We don't torture."

Did you get that? We don't torture. Except we do. And have and do. The VP himself said that waterboarding was a "no brainer." And the Red Cross report? Yeah, it isn't good:

"Congressional and other Washington sources familiar with the report said that it harshly criticized the C.I.A.’s practices. One of the sources said that the Red Cross described the agency’s detention and interrogation methods as tantamount to torture, and declared that American officials responsible for the abusive treatment could have committed serious crimes. The source said the report warned that these officials may have committed “grave breaches” of the Geneva Conventions, and may have violated the U.S. Torture Act, which Congress passed in 1994. The conclusions of the Red Cross, which is known for its credibility and caution, could have potentially devastating legal ramifications."

But as long as the President says we don't, I am convinced. Nevermind.

Update NPR newsblog caught this little gem in the New Yorker article on the Red Cross report describing some of the interrogation techniques and their origin:

"It starts with isolation. Then they eliminate the prisoners' ability to forecast the future -- when their next meal is, when they can go to the bathroom. It creates dread and dependency. It was the K.G.B. model. But the K.G.B. used it to get people who had turned against the state to confess falsely. The K.G.B. wasn't after intelligence."

I guess why the hell not. Bush and Cheney have turned America into a country that uses former Soviet Gulags to hide prisoners. Why not use the interrogation techniques of the KGB. That won't undermine our moral standing in the world, will it?

Nevermind!

News review

Here are some news items that I found very interesting. Some of them didn't seem to attract the kind of attention I think they deserved. For example, when a sitting US Attorney writes a Denver Post oped entitled, Bush justice is a national disgrace, that strikes me as interesting. John S. Koppel begins strong:

As a longtime attorney at the U.S. Department of Justice, I can honestly say that I have never been as ashamed of the department and government that I serve as I am at this time.
The public record now plainly demonstrates that both the DOJ and the government as a whole have been thoroughly politicized in a manner that is inappropriate, unethical and indeed unlawful. The unconscionable commutation of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby's sentence, the misuse of warrantless investigative powers under the Patriot Act and the deplorable treatment of U.S. attorneys all point to an unmistakable pattern of abuse.

And ends with a dare:

I realize that this constitutionally protected statement subjects me to a substantial risk of unlawful reprisal from extremely ruthless people who have repeatedly taken such action in the past. But I am confident that I am speaking on behalf of countless thousands of honorable public servants, at Justice and elsewhere, who take their responsibilities seriously and share these views. And some things must be said, whatever the risk.

Add to that the recent allegations about Gonzales:

In March, and again last month, the Justice Department's inspector general and internal FBI reviews found that the bureau repeatedly misused its Patriot-Act power to subpoena e-mail or financial records without court orders. But years before the reviews were completed -- and word of them became public -- Attorney General Gonzales knew that the abuses surrounding so-called National Security Letters existed. And yet this is what he told Congress on April 27, 2005: "There has not been one verified case of civil liberties abuse."

John Koppel couldn't be more right. And I still don't understand why congress doesn't go after impeaching Gonzales rather than trying to muster the political capital to drag out a lengthy affair against Bush or Cheney (even as Cheney's favorability falls to 13%). Impeach Gonzo and you then force Bush to appoint a real AG. Then watch Cheney run to his bunker with his man-safe.

So Bush and his people have been accused of the same thing that Clinton's detractors claimed--politicization of policy. Yet, it is clear that while Clinton might have edged that way, he didn't come close to the Bush/Cheney record. Who can forget his FDA nominees and the efforts to squelch climate change scientists. Yesterday, I read (and saw again this morning on Melissa Rogers) the story that former Surgeon General Richard Carmona--a Bush appointee, no less--is accusing the administration of politicizing medicine.

Former Bush surgeon general says he was muzzled:WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The first U.S. surgeon general appointed by President George W. Bush accused the administration on Tuesday of political interference and muzzling him on key issues like embryonic stem cell research.

"Anything that doesn't fit into the political appointees' ideological, theological or political agenda is ignored, marginalized or simply buried," Dr. Richard Carmona, who served as the nation's top doctor from 2002 until 2006, told a House of Representatives committee.

"The problem with this approach is that in public health, as in a democracy, there is nothing worse than ignoring science, or marginalizing the voice of science for reasons driven by changing political winds. The job of surgeon general is to be the doctor of the nation, not the doctor of a political party," Carmona added.

None of this surprises me, and much like Colin Powell, I wonder where these people were in 2004 when we had a chance to nip this disaster. Where was Powell when the Swift Boaters went after Kerry? Where was Carmona when Bush was pandering to the religious right?

Happy Birthday, America--updated

In the cold light of the morning after, I must say that my outrage has not diminished. As AL noted yesterday, this is "one-off" justice, where the rules are different if you have friends in powerful places. And Chris Matthews (yeah, I braved it last night) was shockingly on point when he noted that if the President were proud of this decision, he would have announced it in the Rose Garden, not released through a statement at the end of business. Well, he better be ashamed. He also did this without even consulting the Justice Department and some of his drones say that he is confident there will be no political damage. Joe Biden is calling on all of us to flood the White House with calls expressing our outrage. I am going to do just that. But I understand the man is at 29 percent on a good day.

But my outrage continues when I am reminded how this President has responded to other people--other people who might be facing an even worse sentence than poor Scooter. Think Progress notes that Bush has granted fewer pardons than any other President in the past 100 years. But the worst is how this man, draped in the Bible and "compassion" dealt with Capital Punishment. The man oversaw the execution of 152 people in Texas--more than any other Governor in modern history. Sister Helen Prejean writes about the President as he oversaw this death machine and I found a couple of passages really revealing of just how unjust this Scooter commutation is. Bush refused to even push for the commutation of mentally retarded defendants on Death Row, and of course, he did that by having a morally challenged legal counsel summarize the death penalty cases in thirty minutes. Yeah, that legal counsel was Al Gonzales, and oh, by the way, do you think that the Scooter case got a little more than thirty minutes?

When Bushy was running for office, he had his ghost writer address the issue of the death penalty because, as you will recall, he ran as a compassionate conservative and "Jesus was his favorite political philosopher."

Bush wrote in his autobiography that it was not his job to "replace the verdict of a jury unless there are new facts or evidence of which a jury was unaware, or evidence that the trial was somehow unfair"

But then again, he also criticized the idea of nation-building and interfering with state courts. Prejean also includes the story that I remember well. Talk magazine interviewed the Governor in 99 in which Tucker Carlson asked the man about the Karla Faye Tucker case (first woman to be executed in Texas in more than a hundred years. Bush was evidently a little curt about the famous people who petitioned him for clemency for Tucker after she converted to Christianity.

Bush went on to tell him that he had also refused to meet Larry King when he came to Texas to interview Tucker but had watched the interview on television. King, Bush said, asked Tucker difficult questions, such as "What would you say to Governor Bush?"

What did Tucker answer? Carlson asked.

"Please," Bush whimpered, his lips pursed in mock desperation, "please, don't kill me."

Even Tucker Carlson was shocked at Bush's cruelty. Now, looking back, are we? (That story was overshadowed by another article in the same issue where Hilary Clinton talked about Bill's womanizing. Once again, sex trumps even President Jesus mocking a condemned woman.) And how unbelievable is it that Bush could not care less about the numbers of people sentenced to death but can commute Scooter's sentence before the little traitor serves even one day?

Happy Birthday, America. I feel a little sick.

****

More on just how morally challenged our President is.

The Washington Monthly: "Taking a step back, however, I keep thinking about a 2001 quote from the president: "[W]e must always maintain the highest ethical standards. We must always ask ourselves not only what is legal, but what is right. There is no goal of government worth accomplishing if it cannot be accomplished with integrity." Six years later, the remarks sound more like a punch-line than an approach to government. It's a reminder of just how big an embarrassment the president is to himself and those around him.

The White House seems to be making a point of emphasizing that the president rejected the rule of law without input from the Department of Justice or outside allies. I'm not sure why this is supposed to make us feel better. The president and his ventriloquist VP got together and decided to fiddle with the sentence of a felonious friend? This is how the chief executive of a democracy is supposed to operate? With two cowards conspiring alone to undermine justice?

Hilzoy's perspective summarized the broader dynamic nicely.

Bush, typically, didn't bother even trying to come up with a decent explanation for what he did. He didn't address questions like: Mightn't this give people the idea that there are two different standards of justice, one for people with powerful connections and another for the rest of us? Is it OK to exempt your friends from the rule of law? Isn't it especially problematic to commute someone's sentence when you yourself might have had a hand in that person's criminal actions? And double especially when no one other than the now-free criminal has been held to account, despite your earlier promises? [...]

His words mean nothing. He wouldn't recognize honor or dignity if they sat down next to him on the bus. He's a narcissistic child with the intellectual curiosity of a limpet, a heart the size of a pea, and a hollow empty void where his character ought to be."

Bush Commutes Libby Sentence--updated--again--again

You are all going to have to just forgive me this afternoon. I am a little pissed off about this even as I suspected it was coming. Bush was getting a lot of pressure from that remaining 25% of the American people who don't think he is a complete disaster. No real political capital to spend here.

But that doesn't mean it doesn't piss me off. So if you don't like strong language, go back to surfing for something else. I am going to collect my favorites from the web of people as outraged as I am.

******

Bush Commutes Libby Sentence | TPMCafe

I don't ever want to hear the phrase "rule of law" from any Bush supporter.

These people suck. Criminals helping each other out.

*****

Or, as Sullivan put it:

"Perjury in defense of wartime deception is now okay, as far as the president is concerned. I'm surprised by Bush's chutzpah. I retained some minimal respect. No longer. We now know full well what his beliefs are: the law is for other people, not himself, his friends or his apparatchiks. "

Exactly. Laws are for chumps. Rules are for chumps. The constitution is for chumps. Bush, according to the WaPo this morning, thinks he is doing God's work.

God needs better employment screening processes.

********

Bush: Rule of Law My Ass at Shakesville: Bush: Rule of Law My Ass
Published by Mustang Bobby July 2nd, 2007

From the New York Times: "President Bush spared former White House aide I. Lewis ”Scooter” Libby from a 2 1/2-year prison term on Monday, issuing an order that commutes his sentence.

The next time I hear some Republican carry on about The Rule of Law, I’m going to find something rather large with a lot of splinters on it — an industrial-strength fencepost comes to mind — and plant it in them where the sun does not shine.

Jesus H. Christ in a birchbark canoe.

But then again, what the fuck did you expect.

*****

For a pretty reasoned approach, I like The Anonymous Liberal and he once again nails this with his post: " One-Off Justice, Republican Style"

So apparently President Bush has commuted Scooter Libby's prison sentence, ensuring that he will spend no time in prison for the multiple felonies of which he has been convicted. Because this is not a full pardon, I presume the President believes that Libby did in fact commit these crimes. And because he is not pushing Congress to change the sentencing guidelines that apply to crimes like perjury and obstruction of justice, I presume he thinks that they are fair and reasonable (at least when applied to people not named Scooter).

So what we have here is a case of one-off justice, Republican style. Libby, apparently, doesn't deserve to be treated the way the law demands that others be treated. He's special. And what makes him special? Clearly nothing other than the fact that he is a well-connected Republican.

It's hard for me to put into words how totally indefensible I find this move. While I can't say I'm surprised, the reality of it is still a little shocking to me. It's just so brazenly unprincipled. If I were Patrick Fitzgerald (or really any of the prosecutors who devoted time and energy to this case), I would quit in protest. To go through a two year investigation and a lengthy trial (all the while dealing with countless motions filed by a team of lawyers doing everything they can to stall the process), to finally win a resounding conviction, and then to have the sentence commuted for no apparent reason other than the fact that the convicted felon is a close friend of the Vice President (and likely lied to protect him), well, that must be pretty difficult to take for people like Fitzgerald who have devoted their entire careers to the criminal justice system. That's how justice works in banana republics. It's not supposed to be the way our system works.

******

Question of the Day at Shakesville: Is there a bigger asshole in America right now than George Bush? If your answer is yes, make your case.

(Let’s grant that Cheney’s at least a tie…)

******

Different Bush: "And you know at the end of his term Bush 43 will issue Scooter a full pardon so all those crowing that Scooter is still suffering will be get the happy ending…mcjoan has the reactions from the Democrats posted…

Bush 41: “I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious of traitors.”

On September 30, 2003, just after this investigation began, the President said:

“If there’s a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is . . . If the person has violated law, that person will be taken care of.”

We now know exactly what he meant."

"Guiding the Ship of State" reading from the Exxon Valdez manual

I remember talking to one of my Texas friends about the Bush administration and being stunned that he (at that time) didn't know the name Karl Rove. In retrospect, ignorance is easier, and I suspect that a lot of Americans are glad to not know anything about Dick Cheney. I kind of wish I didn't know as much.

The WaPo series part three and four are online and I made the mistake of reading them this morning. As if learning in the first two how this VP made torture and cruelty American policy wasn't bad enough, now we get to see how he managed domestic policy. Couple of quotes:

He managed to overcome the president's "compassionate conservative" resistance to multiple breaks for the wealthy.

First line to actually make the President look better, since he actually balked at more tax cuts for the wealthy. We knew that from Paul O'Neill, but see it here again. Of course, Bush is ultimately too weak or disconnected to stop Cheney from doing what he wants.

"My impression is that the president thinks that the Reagan style of leadership is best -- guiding the ship of state from high up on the mast," said former White House lawyer Bradford A. Berenson. "It seems to me that the vice president is more willing to get down in the wheelhouse below the decks."

Too bad that the President can't guide. Or steer. Or anything.

We see that with the discussions of how each approaches complext information. According to insiders, Cheney is a bit of a wonk and nerd, poring over charts and data, reading a lot. He evidently enjoys economics (as long as it is supply side) and briefings with him are detailed and complex. Not so with the Prez.

"With the president it was much shorter. It's 'Marty, what do you think of where we stand today?'" said Martin Feldstein, a Harvard economics professor and the president and chief executive of the National Bureau of Economic Research. "It's also a less technical presentation."

That is how a Harvard economics professor calls the President dumb. Take notes.

Part 4 includes even more chilling (for me) discussions of how he intervened in the Interior Department to override attempts to save Klamath salmon. All his buddies say that Cheney is driven by principle, but his principle appears to be "pro-business" all the way. Which is why he drove Christine Whitman out of her EPA position:

She wanted to work a political trade with industry -- eliminating the New Source Review in return for support of Bush's 2002 "Clear Skies" initiative, which outlined a market-based approach to reducing emissions over time. But Clear Skies went nowhere. "There was never any follow-up," Whitman said, and moreover, there was no reason for industry to embrace even a modest pollution control initiative when the vice president was pushing to change the rules for nothing.

I have said this before too, but I was always impressed with Clinton in that discussions like this usually left both sides a little unhappy and not quite getting what they wanted. With Bush business never complains. They always get what they want, even and especially if it is expensive. Never mind that it is often chemical companies successfully lobbying to avoid expensive security provisions, or power plants polluting almost at will, they know they have a patsy in the White House.

Republicans--what the hell happened?

I have only watched clips of the last Repub debate (same with the Dems, btw), but the Republicans appear to have learned exactly the wrong lessons from the Bush administration. They are all more pro-torture, more pro-war, and more pro-fear. Scare the crap out of America and they will vote for you. The GOP has become the party of fear, bigotry, mindless belief, and open greed.

Oh sure, they liked to criticize Bush to attempt to get a little street cred.

KSTP.com - Bush heavily criticized in latest Republican debate: "Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado recalled that White House aide Karl Rove had once told him 'never darken the door of the White House.' The congressman said he'd tell George Bush the same thing."

That is just a little window into the mob tactics that have characterized this White House, but Tancredo appears to have only learned to respond in kind.

The rest of these idiots spent the rest of the time pushing for a pardon for Scooter Libby (see the "rule of law" only matters when it is Clinton lying about sex--lying about national security or outing a CIA agent isn't really a crime in the GOP debate or base), or warning people that we are going to get hit again by terrorists.

On that note, my favorite part of the insanity that has become the GOP. Wolf Blitzer raised the issue of the Arab linguists dismissed from the Military because they are gay and asked which GOPers would advocate repealing "don't ask, don't tell.

"not a single Republican candidate's hand went up in the air. "

Jon Stewart had the best line. "Apparently the only thing that scares them more than a terrorist attack is a gay hero thwarting one."

Man, either Fox is evil or simply incompetent

From yesterday, Talking Points Memo has the clip of Fox running with the William Jefferson indictment. Not only do they call it the most extensive public corruption case in recent memory (forgetting Abramoff, for sure) but they talk about Jefferson while showing footage of John Conyers. You know, they all look alike, right? Holy cow.

Couple of other notes

Kevin Powell has the YouTube clip of Brian McLaren discussing the "worship industry" which I think is worth watching.

******

The Anonymous Liberal has become one of my favorite blogs of late. The other day he had a great post on the dubious nature of the supposed JFK bombers (BREAKING NEWS: Another Group of Halfwits Arrested in Connection with Plot that Makes No Sense), and today he presents one of the reasons that the Internet might actually be a good thing. In "Welcome to the Internets, Mr. Armey" he writes about Dick Armey's attempt to blog for Time Magazine and how different that is than the typical politician "interaction." You know, some reporter asks a question, never follows up, writes down what the Politician says in dutiful fashion and thinks they are a reporter. Here, Armey says things that need to be challenged and is actually challenged by people--not in a name calling fashion (though I have not read the comments, so there might be some) but by smart people who have thought about the issues.

If only the media would do likewise, we might actually have a different kind of democracy.

*****

Libby sentenced to 30 months. Damn shame, but when you subvert the law and out a CIA agent working for us, you shouldn't get to go back to work at the VP's office--even if you did it to protect him.

"Walton did not set a date for Libby to report to prison. Though he saw no reason to let Libby remain free pending appeal, Walton said he would accept written arguments on the issue and rule later."

I don't like her, but she can write

And on this point, Peggy Noonan really nails the problem with this President. Too bad it took her 5 years to figure it out:

"What I came in time to believe is that the great shortcoming of this White House, the great thing it is missing, is simple wisdom. Just wisdom--a sense that they did not invent history, that this moment is not all there is, that man has lived a long time and there are things that are true of him, that maturity is not the same thing as cowardice, that personal loyalty is not a good enough reason to put anyone in charge of anything, that the way it works in politics is a friend becomes a loyalist becomes a hack, and actually at this point in history we don't need hacks."

Friday Morning

After a conversation with my friend Mary yesterday, I called Nancy Pelosi's office this morning and asked why impeachment was off the table. The staffer's explanation was exactly as I suspected--that the Speaker does not want the party consumed by the impeachment process--and I completely understand that. I am not sure she is wrong. I really think the Vice President has broken numerous laws and committed numerous impeachable offenses and by all rights should be impeached. But running through the scenario, I can see it as a huge political risk, and the Speaker is looking at possibly expanding the Democratic lead in 08 in both houses.

It also strikes me as an oddity that the Clinton impeachment has helped the Republicans. The very idea that we can't impeach Bush or Cheney seems due to the clear memory of the ridiculous recent impeachment. So, even though Bush and Cheney have most likely committed far worse offenses than Clinton, they will not be impeached because we impeached Clinton for a blow job. Sigh.

******

Mary also alerted me to this Salon piece on the Creation Museum. Interesting stuff, including the assertion that the great flood (of Noah) is the key to the entire creationist explanation. That explains the dispersal of fossils; the existence of the Grand Canyon (ignoring tremendous geological evidence to the contrary, of course); and the existence of other cultures, which occurred after the flood. (I guess that is where China and North American cultures arise? Talk about hard to buy--that all of these cultures developed such extensive dwellings and foodways and cultural systems in only a few hundred years--or anthropology and archeology are all wrong on that too. I guess archeology is only right when they discover something mentioned in the Bible.) Not surprising, I guess, is that Ken Ham essentially explains all evil in the world to a belief that the earth is millions of years old:

A montage slide show of fetuses, starving kids, swastikas, tourniquet-bound arms ready for the needle bombard the wall in a room with a soundtrack of blaring sirens, boots marching in unison, and crying kids. In the middle of this urban mess is a big wrecking ball with the words "Millions of Years" carved into it. Ham blames the notion that the Earth is quite a bit older than the Bible suggests for just about all the world's problems. Evolution, which requires large amounts of time for small changes to accumulate into larger ones, makes it far too easy for people not to believe the Bible, he says. And that loss of belief "is at the root of modern evil."

Ancient evil, I guess, doesn't exist since there is no real antiquity.

Inside the Confusion exhibit, I strike up a conversation with Tim Shaw, a high school student visiting from Florida. "I don't care how long it took to make the Grand Canyon," he tells me. "It's not how old it is that matters to me. What matters is being right with God. Darwin's theory has no God. It can't be right. I don't know if this story is truer than Darwin's theory, but I do know it's better."

Wow. Truth is really not the point. Facts are not relevant. What is important is what you believe.

Isn't that exactly how Bush operates?

All we need to know about Fred Thompson

Besides, of course, his response to terrorism, is that we are hearing that his campaign is in talks to hire Timothy Griffin. Who is Griffin? Not only one of the most controversial hires in the US Attorney scandal, but someone most famous for his work for Karl Rove as an opposition researcher on Democrats.

Garrison Keillor on our President and Memorial Day

Telling lies over good soldiers' graves | Salon.com : "Dishonesty makes for poor rhetoric and that's what has gutted this beautiful holiday."

(H/T Upper Left

Bush creates own reality

For those keeping score, this is exactly why I fear the thinking that goes into the Creation museum. When you ignore evidence that contradicts what you want to be true, you get people like this in office:

"Also in that session, Bush said: "I recognize there are a handful there, or some, who just say, 'Get out, you know, it's just not worth it. Let's just leave.' I strongly disagree with that attitude. Most Americans do as well.''

However, in a poll released Friday by CBS and The New York Times, 63 percent supported a troop withdrawal timetable of sometime next year. Another poll earlier this month from USA Today and Gallup found 59 percent backing a withdrawal deadline that the U.S. should stick to no matter what's happening in Iraq."

In Bush's world, everyone agrees with him because he is so damn right.

A memorial day op-ed worth reading

I saw this cited everywhere but only read a small portion until this morning. Read Andrew Bacevich's I Lost My Son to a War I Oppose. We Were Both Doing Our Duty. in its entirety. But I like his comments about how the war machine continues and how the politicians seem disconnected from the American people. How do people like Bush hold up the soldier as a prop, but then ignore the democratic process AND undermine the soldiers themselves?

"The people have spoken, and nothing of substance has changed. The November 2006 midterm elections signified an unambiguous repudiation of the policies that landed us in our present predicament. But half a year later, the war continues, with no end in sight. Indeed, by sending more troops to Iraq (and by extending the tours of those, like my son, who were already there), Bush has signaled his complete disregard for what was once quaintly referred to as 'the will of the people.'"

The people, the soldiers, our democracy, etc. The list continues of items that Bush and Cheney reference as meaningful institutions or individuals, yet act in ways to undermine. Shaun grabs this from the NYT:

"But now on his third deployment in Iraq, he is no longer a believer in the mission. The pivotal moment came, he says, this past February when soldiers killed a man setting a roadside bomb. When they searched the bomber’s body, they found identification showing him to be a sergeant in the Iraqi Army.

“I thought, ‘What are we doing here? Why are we still here?’ ” said Sergeant Safstrom, a member of Delta Company of the First Battalion, 325th Airborne Infantry, 82nd Airborne Division. “We’re helping guys that are trying to kill us. We help them in the day. They turn around at night and try to kill us.”"

Yet, we are supposed to be fighting for democracy--a democracy that our Vice President doesn't even support. Cheney presented both the Geneva Conventions and our Constitution as weaknesses in our fight against terrorism. He did this, I would add, in an address to West Point where instructors are finding it harder and harder to convinced cadets that torture is wrong. But that he preaches to our military the essential message that the Geneva Conventions and Constitutional protections are niceties and not imperitives just shows how disconnected this man is. As I recall, he took an oath to protect the Constitution. Sigh.

Sully sums up the President--one that he voted for initially and supported into this war:

"What can one say? Well: we can say this at least. The president is right that al Qaeda remains a terrible threat to Americans. He is right to insist on this. But one core reason he is right is because he has been in the White House for the last six years. Al Qaeda surely never had a more helpful man in such a powerful place. After over six years of this presidency, Bin Laden is still at large. Five and a half years after Bin Laden's religious tools murdered 3,000 innocents, this president still cannot find or capture or kill him. Five and a half years after that dreadful day, al Qaeda's reach in the Middle East is more extensive than ever, centered in Iraq, where it was barely existent before the war. Over four years after invading Iraq, the security situation there is as grave as it has ever been. Tens of thousands of innocents have been added to the three thousand murdered on 9/11 - many of them unspeakably tortured and murdered by death squads or Islamist cells empowered by Bush's jaw-dropping negligence. Over three thousand young Americans have died in order to give al Qaeda this victory and this new platform."

This Gonzales/Card visit to Ashcroft is beyond unbelievable

Yet, I wonder if Americans are once again yawning and wondering what else is on the tube. The President of the United States was pushing a wiretapping program that the Justice department under Ashcroft thought was illegal. They send Al Gonzales and Andy Card to Ashcroft's hospital bed the day after surgery to get him to over-ride the acting AG.

Just look at how scummy this is. Card and Gonzales show up with papers and try to get Ashcroft to sign. Ashcroft, to his credit, told them not only that the program was illegal but that he wasn't AG right now. He told them to go stuff it. Card and Gonzales don't even recognize Comey (acting AG) and leave the room. Card calls and demands a meeting late at the White House with the acting AG--a meeting that Comey agreed to only if he could bring a witness--after "the conduct" he had just witnessed. But this is the part that gets me. Andy Card says "What conduct? We were just there to wish him well."

See that? Card claims that he and Gonzales were just there to wish Ashcroft well, even though they were clearly trying to a) take advantage of a heavily medicated man and b) circumvent the acting, and therefore legal, AG. And after, he is so angry that he demands a late night meeting. But he was just there to wish Ashcroft well.

These people are as bad as we thought. And the fact that Gonzales was rewarded for amazingly bad behavior reflects incredibly badly on this President.

Updated: More from The Anonymous Liberal: Takeaways from the Ashcroft Hospital Bed Story

Updated again: More from Glenn Greenwald:

"Knowing about these events in Aschcroft's hospital room (because he was a key participant in them), Gonzales, with a straight face, insisted in February, 2006 that he would not allow Ashcroft or Comey to testify because 'you have to wonder what could Messrs. Comey and Ashcroft add to the discussion.' It is impossible to express how free they are of even the most minimal constraints to tell the truth."

US Attorney scandal--a horrifying possibility

The US Attorney scandal is bad enough on its own. The first inkling we had of the scandal was that Rove was firing people so he could put his skank assistants in those jobs--people like Tim Griffin, who made his bones doing opposition research on Democrats--you know, the perfect person for a US Attorney position. Then the rest started coming out. Republicans calling David Iglesias before the election wanting an indictment against Democrats to use in their campaigns. Or when they sent out Bradley Schlozman to the Kansas City office where he filed indictments on the eve of the election.

But as James Fallows suggests, we haven't hit bottom yet. He recounts the case of a guy named Tom Wales, a federal prosecutor in Seattle, who, among other things, was working on gun violence cases. He was shot as he sat at his computer one evening just a month after 9-11. One of the suspects was a pilot who was known to be violently pro-gun. I understand that he is just a suspect and there is much about this case that remains unknown. But, from what Fallows suggests, local officials often complained that Washington was not devoting many resources to the case--a case of one of their own possibly killed "in the line of duty."

Until now, the heartbreak of the Tom Wales case, and the Washington-vs-Washington disagreement over how intensively the search for his killer was being pursued, had seemed entirely separate from Seattle’s involvement in the eight-fired-attorneys matter. John McKay, the U.S. attorney in Seattle who was among the eight dismissed, appeared to have earned the Bush Administration’s hostility in the old-fashioned way: by not filing charges of voter fraud after an extremely close election that went the Democrats’ way. But this weekend’s story in the Washington Post, based on testimony by Alberto Gonzales’s former deputy Kyle Sampson, suggests that McKay’s problems may have begun with his determination to keep on pushing to find Tom Wales’s killer.

If this is so, it is obscene. Tom Wales represented everything the American public can hope for from its public servants. He made less money than he might have, in order to enforce the rules that made Americans’ lives in general safer, more predictable, and more honorable. He showed that people with many options in life could choose a career in public service. He was a wonderful man. For his commitment, he was murdered, which was in a deep sense a crime against the entire public. The public in general has no way to punish or avenge that crime, but the law enforcement system does. If an administration has chosen to neglect that effort because – as has now been suggested – it didn’t want to ruffle feathers in the pro-gun camp, that is as low an act as any we have heard of in modern politics. It would take us back to, say, the murders in Philadelphia, Mississippi more than 40 years ago — but with the local officials trying their best to find the truth and the federal government covering up a crime.

I hope this is not the case. I don't want to believe that these people in George Bush's Justice Department would be so callous about power and loyalty. I don't want to believe that at all. But look again at the case of Brad Schlozman:

Schlozman previously spent three years as a political appointee in the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, where he supervised the voting rights section.
There, he came into conflict with veteran staff over his decisions to approve a Texas redistricting plan and a Georgia photo-ID voting law, both of which benefited Republicans. He also hired many new career lawyers with strong conservative credentials, in what critics say was an attempt to reduce enforcement of laws designed to eliminate obstacles to voting by minorities.
"Schlozman was reshaping the Civil Rights Division," said Joe Rich , who was chief of the voting rights section until taking a buyout in 2005, in an interview. "Schlozman didn't know anything about voting law. . . . All he knew is he wanted to be sure that the Republicans were going to win."

This is not "business as usual." It will take us years to repair the damage Bush has done to our system.

Sunday editorial comics

Justin Bilicki | CARTOONS FOR THE PATRIOT INSIDE OF YOU | justin@bilicki.us


Nick Anderson: Target practice


Tony Auth

Vonnegut quote--updated

Today's Quote: The Opinion Mill: "For some reason, the most vocal Christians among us never mention the Beatitudes. But, often with tears in their eyes, they demand that the Ten Commandments be posted in public buildings. And of course that’s Moses, not Jesus. I haven’t heard one of them demand that the Sermon on the Mount, the Beatitudes, be posted anywhere.

“Blessed are the merciful” in a courtroom? “Blessed are the peacemakers” in the Pentagon? Give me a break!"

Updated--slacktivistadds:

"I've also been thinking a bit about the Beatitudes (Matthew 5:1-12) lately. Familiarity has inured us to the upside-down idealism of this passage, but try to hear it with fresh ears and you realize how backwards it is from, well, everything else we've been taught. Just look at the list of people it says are 'blessed': the poor, those who mourn, the meek, those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, the merciful, the pure in heart, the peacemakers, those who are persecuted. That's quite the lucky bunch.

But the bit that's had me thinking lately is the final blessed: 'Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me.'

Somehow, the meaning of this passage has been twisted into the idea that fat, complacent and otherwise-indistinct-from-everyone-else blowhards should invent trumped up, bogus claims of persecution so that they can reap the blessings of direct-mail fundraising. (Yes, Bill Donohue, I'm talking to you.)

What was that term St. John used for people who teach the opposite (or 'anti-') of what Jesus (or 'Christ') taught?"

taxes are not all bad

Neither are government programs. And we might be witnessing the first signs of the cost of Republican rule and the rhetoric of slashing government spending at all cost. Look at this disturbing rise in infant mortality in areas most hurt by cuts in Medicare and welfare.

(H/t to Shaun and recognition, as he puts it, that Bill Clinton signed some of this into law. I would submit that he did so at the behest of pressure from the right, and maybe we do need welfare reform, but I am not sure this is the way to do it.)

Conservatives unhinged--again

Tony, in an aptly named post ("Can I scream now?") points to the Conservative Voice where some tool named Brooks Mick suggests that the students should have rushed the shooter. And he isn't the only one. John Derbyshire at the NRO said the same thing:

Setting aside the ludicrous campus ban on licensed conceals, why didn't anyone rush the guy? It's not like this was Rambo, hosing the place down with automatic weapons. He had two handguns for goodness' sake—one of them reportedly a .22.

Idiocy, evidently, rules among the hard core right where the students are to blame for not reenacting some movie they saw somewhere.

Ah, but it isn't just conservative columnists, but also the former President of the Southern Baptist Convention, Paige Patterson. I remember him fondly from his role in the conservative takeover of that convention, but according to sources, he echoes the same nonesense in a freaking chapel message! (H/t Big Daddy Weave):

"“Now if you’re a male student, will you just lift your hand for a moment so I can see you? Thank you for that commitment. God forbid that anything happen like this here, but each of you that just raised your hand said, ‘Never be more than two or three shots before I’m on him. Doesn’t matter how many of us he takes out. ‘ See, all you had to do was have six or eight rush him right at that time, and thirty-two people wouldn’t have died. Now folks, let’s make up our minds. I know we live in America where nobody gets involved in anybody else’s situation. That shall not be the rule here. Does everybody understand? You say, well I may be shot. Well, yeah, you may. Are you saved? You’re going to heaven. You know, it’s better than earth . . . Now one more time, how many male students are there? I’m counting on you.”"

Tony wants to scream. I feel rather numb. Ten dollars says that all of these people are big war supporters--probably big fans of John Wayne movies, and still believe that the Duke, Reagan, and W are all "cowboy heroes."

I have been in a lengthy discussion about the 1950s and nostalgia. I argue that most of what people imagine about that decade has been learned from film and television and then shrouded in nostalgia. It has become the dominant goal for traditional values, etc. For many, this has become their reality.

Reading Paige Patterson, I am reminded that these cultural myths have real consequences. Just as many young men went off to Vietnam thinking war was a John Wayne movie, we still have many viewing the war in Iraq and Afghanistan through the same lens. Their "reality" means that students should have rushed an armed shooter wearing a vest. Their "reality" leads to a President saying "bring it on." And the fact that religious conservatives romanticize war just makes me want to cry.