Procrastinet

Hillary: "You know, he could always get shot..."

UPDATE:

In deference to (a) those who would rather not see an anti-Hillary screed while they wait patiently for an update; (b) the fact that I've cooled off about Hillary's RFK gaffe (not that I think it was a reasonable comment, just that I've relaxed about it); and (c) the need for future unity in the Democratic party, I've moved said anti-Hillary screed below the fold.

Anyway, she's been totally outdone by Liz Trotta at Fox:

No, of course that's not what she really said.

But that's what she meant.

I've resisted the anger against Hillary that has engulfed the progressive left, but I'm done.

Sheesh.

UPDATE:

Two further points:

Point the First. What I think this comment reveals about Hillary is: she is staying in this because it's a long time until the convention and, you know, anything can happen. Obama could have a love child come forward. Michelle could have a lesbian lover come forward. A bank somewhere could find a cancelled check from Tony Rezko to Barack Obama for one meeellion dollars with a Memo line that reads "in exchange for doing everything I ask you for." Obama could end a speech with "Allahu Akbar" instead of "God Bless America." It's a couple months - anything could happen.

Including, Obama could get shot.

I really do believe that is something she believes, and is part of why she's in this race. Not that she *wants* him to get shot, but she *does* want the other stuff to happen, and hey, you never know.

Point the Second. Thank you, Hillary.

Why?

As of this afternoon, I was pondering the question of a running mate for Obama. It's clear that choosing Hillary was, by most metrics, a bad choice. She counteracts his message of change. She undercuts his pure and consistent opposition to the war, and to escalation with Iran. She's a hugely divisive figure who, despite her popularity in Appalachia, probably brings as many negatives as she does positives.

BUT: he had to take her anyway. Period. The end. As of 3pm today, there was no way for Obama to pick any other running mate without bucking the narrative that everyone is, consciously or not, rooting for. It was simply what had to happen.

Guess what: it's not anymore.

The Wednesday Night Ambush - An Insta-Primer

UPDATE: "I decided I couldn't stay, if the Administration was going to engage in conduct that the Department of Justice had decided had no legal basis." - James Comey, 5/15/07, talking about his decision to resign his position as Deputy Attorney General after the Administration renewed approval for domestic wiretaps despite the Department of Justice's refusal to sign off on the program's legality.

Let's make this very clear: the program was illegal. The Department of Justice told the Administration the program was illegal. The Administration CONTINUED the program. The actions involved were felonies.

Cut. Print. That's a f*cking wrap.

More, though, SO much more than the details laid out below, you have to see this man's testimony to get the feeling of what happened. Please, please set aside 20 minutes, and go to the YouTube site here. It is absolutely chilling.

Comey, John Ashcroft, FBI Director Mueller, and Solicitor General Ted Olson clearly believed that their actions that night were in urgent defense of the United States. Against the administration that still holds the Executive branch of our government, including our current Attorney General.

Also: perj has, as requested, added details about the "Ambush" itself, in the comments.

Okay. Read on.

This is a quick and dirty guide, so some details may later need to be corrected - but here is a handy bar-talk cheat sheet for the current storm brewing for the Administration. It hasn't yet fully broken open in the mainstream, but I think it will, so I wanted to do my little bit to help.

- After 9/11, the administration began warrantless domestic wiretaps, including on US citizens, which is illegal

- John Ashcroft, relying on a legal justification memo by the DoJ's John Yoo, approved the program in secret

- He renewed that approval every 45 days for 2 years

- After 2 years, Yoo left and was replaced with (also conservative) James Comey and Jack Goldsmith, who took a closer look at what Ashcroft had been signing off on

- Comey and Goldsmith FREAKED, concluding that, contrary to Yoo's assurances, the wiretap program was manifestly illegal

- Let's repeat that - the program was feloniously, unconstituionally ILLEGAL

- Comey and Goldsmith sat Ashcroft down and walked him through the issue. Ashcroft freaked

- All three told the administration they would no longer sign off on the program. The administration insisted. The men - INCLUDING JOHN ASHCROFT - threatened to RESIGN if forced to approve the program

- The program, still under the last 45-day approval, CONTINUED - despite the stated opinion of the entire upper ranks of the DoJ, including the AG, that it was manifestly illegal

- Ashcroft entered the hospital for dangerous pancreas surgery. Comey was covering his duties as Attorney General. Comey refused to sign the approval, which was due (the 45 days was up)

- Andy Card and Alberto Gonzales were dispatched to Ashcroft's HOSPITAL ROOM to get his signature on the approval (the "Wednesday Night Ambush")

- Card and Gonzales were intercepted as the DoJ rushed themselves AND THE FBI to Ashcroft's hospital room to bar their entry (I'm hazy on these details - perj, if you're reading, can you fill in?)

- The approval unsigned, the program lapsed briefly, before being re-authorized on slightly more restrictive grounds

- The new restrictions included a clause that tapping was allowable PROVIDED one of the participants in the conversation was speculated to be a member of or affiliated with Al Qaeda. Clearly, this limitation was NOT in the original, 2 year long program of domestic spying

- Comey has now testified that the DoJ had grave reservations not only about the legality of the program, but about whether the Executive Branch was even telling them the truth about the scope

In the aftermath of the Comey testimony, the Washington Post has begun consciously using Watergate-esque language in their editorial page, asking pointedly "What Did Bush Know, And When"?

Stay tuned. And spread the word.

NO SHAME

So in Maryland, where incumbent (R) governor Ehrlich is running steadily behind in the polls and (R) senate candidate Steele is close but still consistently down, the GOP has gone to homeless shelters in PA and DE, bussed people down and paid them to hand out "voter guides" that claim Ehrlich and Steele are DEMOCRATS.

Stop.

Go back. Read that again.

And then repeat after me: WHAT THE FUCK?

Republicans are bussing the homeless into a state - and paying them, so, hey, it's not a total loss, though it does represent a certain lack of GRASS ROOTS INTEREST - to hand out fraudulent, deceptive materials to fool people into thinking the Republican candidates are actually Democrats. It's a sign of how little hope the GOP has for a real win today, because they clearly believe this will help them get ahead, which implies everyone is voting for the Democrats anyway.

Best? They were met at the bus by the incumbent Governor's WIFE.

LOLBBQWTF!

Amazing.

As kos says, they have no ideas and they have no shame. All they have left is the desperate, shrieking need to hang onto power at all costs.

UPDATE:

More detail from the local paper. NO SHAME!

Draining The Swamp: The First 100 Hours of a Democratic House

FINALLY.

I've been lamenting the absence of a centralized Democratic message, a concise "if you throw out the GOP and give us control of congress, this is exactly what we will do."

Nancy Pelosi has finally laid it out, in a soundbite-worthy plan for the "First 100 Hours of a Democratic House of Representatives."

Here's the AP story on it.

Key grafs:

Franklin Roosevelt had his first hundred days.

House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi is thinking 100 hours, time enough, she says, to begin to "drain the swamp" after more than a decade of Republican rule.

[snip]

Day One: Put new rules in place to "break the link between lobbyists and legislation."

Day Two: Enact all the recommendations made by the commission that investigated the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Time remaining until 100 hours: Raise the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour, maybe in one step. Cut the interest rate on student loans in half. Allow the government to negotiate directly with the pharmaceutical companies for lower drug prices for Medicare patients.

Broaden the types of stem cell research allowed with federal funds — "I hope with a veto-proof majority," she added in an Associated Press interview Thursday.

All the days after that: "Pay as you go," meaning no increasing the deficit, whether the issue is middle class tax relief, health care or some other priority.

To do that, she said, Bush-era tax cuts would have to be rolled back for those above "a certain level." She mentioned annual incomes of $250,000 or $300,000 a year and higher, and said tax rates for those individuals might revert to those of the Clinton era.

Here's how I would love to see people repeating this rhetoric:

1) Drain the Swamp after 10 years of Republican control, with votes for sale to the highest bidder and unquestioning protection of big money interests over the American people.

2) Break the Link between lobbyists and legislation - the bought-and-paid-for GOP House system of Duke Cunningham, Tom DeLay, Bob Ney, and Jack Abramoff.

3) Enact the recommendations of the 9/11 commission - it's been five years since 9/11, isn't it time?

4) Raise the minimum wage, start rewarding work instead of wealth.

5) Allow stem cell research. 'Nuff said.

6) Stop building the deficit. Record surplus to record deficit in only 6 years of unbroken Republican control.

CLEAN HOUSE. DRAIN THE SWAMP. These are the phrases that need to be associated with a Democratic takeover. If you give a shit about any of this, start using them.

The GOP is desperately worried right now, and they're using boogeymen like "cut-and-run" to scare people about a Democratic Congress. They want people to be afraid of a Democratic takeover. The agenda above is not scary - it's stuff a vast majority of America believes in. Help get the word out.

If You're Not Pissed Off... (April '06 Edition)

This could actually just as easily be categorized under "Stuff to Worry About" - because it's very, very, very scary.

You'd think that once their messianic, capito-utopian dreams of instant democrification of the Middle East through Operation Iraqi Adventureland wrecked upon the shoals of oh, I don't know, REAL LIFE, to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars gone and 2,500 dead US soldiers, the neo-con freaky deakies squirming within the current administration would have chilled out. Reconsidered, maybe just a bit, their utter conviction that all those very tan people over there could be manipulated on the macro like barely-AI enemy forces in a massive Sim game. That they might at least tap the brakes before going into full-blown hype-the-threat-to-scare-people-into-supporting-military-action-in-the-Middle-East mode.

No. No they wouldn't. Here they go again.

Over at Talking Points Memo, Josh Marshall follows the stench back to its source. A recent Bloomberg article is headlined, he reports, with the bone-chilling "Iran Could Produce Nuclear Bombs in 16 Days, US Says."

Holy shit, right?

Except, to start that 16 day doomsday clock going, Iran would have to install all 50,000 centrifuges that they have room for. To make any kind of nuclear bomb, at any speed, they'd have to have 16,000 centrifuges - PLUS, the makings and design of the nuke itself.

How many do they have right now? How many centrifuges did they use to pound their chests this week about what a mighty nuclear nation they are?

180.

This is why Juan Cole's recent headline, in a rare burst of levity from the Cassandra-like professor, reads "Iran Can Now Make Glowing Mickey Mouse Watches."

So we have the UN's anti-proliferation branch saying that Iran is at least 10 years away from being able to build a nuke. Remember them? The guys who were - oh, I don't know - RIGHT about Iraq's non-WMDs?

So fine, right? We don't have to be as worried about the bad guys as we thought we did.

Yeah - that's THEIR bad guys. OUR bad guys we still have to be very, very worried about.

Because who (back to Marshall's post) was peddling the "ZOMFG IRAN has n00ks we're F*XX0rD!" storyline?

His name is Stephen Rademaker, and he's the "Acting Assistant Secretary, Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation." He works for Robert Joseph, the "Under Secretary, Arms Control and International Security."

And Robert Joseph, sez TPM, is the same dude who made sure the "sixteen words" about Nigerian uranium made it into the President's state of the union speech. He's one of the administration's "scare 'em with nukes" goons.

They're doing it again.

So the President of Iran, faced with reformist discontent in his country, grabs some glory by fronting all belligerent at the US and Israel. And the President of the US, faced with rising discontent at home and a long-standing "everyone HAS to support a war preznit" fetish, starts talking tough about another A-rab bogeyman with his finger on the big red button.

Says Juan Cole: "Bush and Ahmadinejad could be working together toward the Perfect Storm."

Says JarJar Binks: "Miso people gonna DIE?!"

Says me: I got sucka'd once. They got me scared, pre-Iraq war. I didn't *support* the war, but I didn't actively oppose it. I gave them, God forgive me, the benefit of the doubt.

In the words of our esteemed leader: "fool me once... shame on... you don't get fooled again."

Lithwick on Alito

For those who were, as I was, looking for some clarity on the Alito nomination, what it means, and how upset we should be about it on the spectrum of "I distrust everything the President does on principal but this dude seems borderline okay" to "oh my god man the barricades this dude is gonna wreck our country," here's Dahlia Lithwick making a disturbingly good case for the latter.

Turns out, according to Lithwick (whose writings on the Supreme Court for Slate are some of the best non-fiction prose I've ever seen anywhere), the Alito nomination has a good chance of being all about the power of the Executive branch, and making sure the Supreme Court will not do anything to limit it.

Scarier than Roe.

Here's the money:

This president—for reasons that hardly warrant repeating here—doesn't really want to be remembered as the guy responsible for the court that overturned Roe. (Although he certainly wants us to think he wants to be remembered as that guy.) No, Roe is not what keeps George W. Bush awake nights. What he wants to be remembered for is winning the war on terror. He wants to be seen as the president who carried the great torch of democracy into the world's darkest corners. And he believes—of this I am certain—that the courts are standing in his way.

Please, please read the whole thing. And then be one of those annoyingly earnest people who talk about shit like this at parties. If Lithwick is right - and boy, does this *feel* right - then it's that kind of important.

The most damning indictment of this administration - which is impossible to state without sounding like a dweeb whose underwear is too tight - is that they have absolutely no respect and no regard for the delicately tuned instrument which is American Democracy, as conceived by the Founders and developed in sporadic good faith by political leaders - liberal and conservative - ever since.

ADDENDUM: [What can I say, it's been a while since I've indulged in high political dudgeon, I seem to have a backlog built up.] Why is this such a fundamental American issue? Because one of the founding narratives of the Revolution itself was about illegal detention and incarceration without due process of those who were only trying to live out their God-given rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

No, I'm not 100% clear on what the frick habeas corpus means either, except that the government is not allowed to grab people and stick them in prison and never let them see a judge, or a lawyer, or an honest hearing, or the light of day, or their families, again. That's what the bad guys do. That's what we founded a whole god damned country to oppose.

And YES: terrorists suck and deserve the worst we can do to them and those who intend to harm our country and our people should be sent forever to the bad part of Shitville (to steal a phrase from Kevin Snipes). Anyone who tries to suggest that liberals don't believe that should stop talking. And if we could ride on magic unicorns and scoop up all the baddies and only the baddies, then we could do what we're doing and still be the good guys.

But that ain't what's happening. We're grabbing some "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" people right along with the baddies. And the Administration dearly, dearly wishes that there was no way anyone, anywhere, could ever tell us that's a problem.

If Alito is part of that effort, he needs to be kept out of the Supreme Court.

I Hate You, Chase Bank

So tell me: what is the purpose of having a credit card with a decently high credit limit and an impeccable payment history, if your credit card company FORBIDS you to actually use the damn thing?

Twice now in the last six months, I've attempted to put an outside-of-the-usual-budget purchase on my credit card, only to have it turned down. Not flagged, not a follow-up phone call - DECLINED. And THEN I get the follow-up phone call, requiring me to call THEM to get the damn thing turned back on again, after which I have to do the entire transaction over again.

I just spoke to a very polite and uselessly unhelpful young lady in India, who transferred me to "Steve," a security department dude at Chase, who was hilarious.

"Oh yeah," says Steve, "I hate that. Don't you?"

Yes, Steve. I do. That's why I'm calling.

"Yeah, that computer gets tight sometimes. That damn thing is tighter than my wife!" guffaws Steve.

...

"Anyway," Steve blusters on heartily, "it's all for yer protection but let me see if I can tweak a couple of settings here and get it to leave you alone."

Thank you, Steve.

This is all in the immediate aftermath of a kerfuffle with Chase Mortgage, which, for the record, BLOWS HAIRY CHUNKS OF GOAT. We had set up a recurring monthly payment, so as to not have to worry about our mortgage payment being late. Despite the fact that our bank accounts are with Chase, and our mortgage is with Chase, we could NOT simply click some button to say "hey, why don't you pay yourself out of our checking account and everybody will be happy." Instead, Lisa had to set up a manual "Bill Pay" thingamabob, which MAILS an electronically generated CHECK from Chase Bank to Chase Mortgage.

Fine.

So then our escrow goes up, to cover real estate taxes, by like $27/month. We don't notice this announcement on our mortgage bill (since it's paid automatically and we don't peruse it closely anymore), and the auto bill pay sends the old amount.

So there we are, having underpaid our mortgage - just the escrow, mind you, NOT the principal/interest - by 1.6% Surely, Chase will note this on our next bill and all will be well, yes?

No. Our ENTIRE PAYMENT for the month was listed as DELINQUENT. For the purposes of their records, and reporting to the credit agencies, they made believe we sent them NO PAYMENT AT ALL.

And the amount we did send? The amount which represented our full principal and interest payment plus all but $27 of our escrow? Oh, THAT? That was applied as an EXTRA PRINCIPAL PAYMENT. Every penny of it, gone, into an extra principal payment which, while a financially sound idea in general, we really couldn't afford to make. And our mortgage account was listed as 30 days delinquent when we received our next bill.

Can't. Breathe. Too. Angry.

So far, the fact that we get our checking/savings accounts free with direct deposit at work, plus the fact that there's no charge for using non-Chase atm's, plus our investment in the airline-miles-on-the-debit-card program, plus sheer sloth and lethargy have kept us at StinkyChase. But the threshhold is nearing, and nearing quickly. It would be a joy and a pleasure to take our accounts to Citi (which now has a free account through work as well) and, if properly provoked, refi our mortgage through the delightful Washington Mutual.

So, you know, just watch yourself, Chase.

Grand Old Traditions

It's a classy bunch.

Oh Dear God

We have no idea how wide spread this will turn out to be. This kind of thing could, sure, could be an actual isolated glitch.

But this chills my heart for everything it could possibly mean:

Presidential Elections - AP

Machine Error Gives Bush Extra Ohio Votes

COLUMBUS, Ohio - An error with an electronic voting system gave President Bush (news - web sites) 3,893 extra votes in suburban Columbus, elections officials said.

Details here. And, soon, probably everywhere else.

This from one precinct in Gahanna, a Columbus suburb, where only 638 people voted.

[UPDATE: This is why I'm chilled: those almost-4,000 votes were from ONE malfunctioned machine in ONE precinct in ONE of Ohio's 88 counties.

How many times would this error need to have been repeated, in all of those machines in all of those precincts in those 88 counties, to change the outcome of the election? I mean, it would have to be pretty widespread, right?

Nope. 36.

The precinct in question, where only 638 people voted, had 3 machines. So if fewer than half of Ohio's counties had one machine in one precint go bad...

That said: it could still be just the one in Gahanna.]

[UPDATE UPDATE: There are 11,360 precincts in Ohio. Which means this error would have to have been replicated in 0.326% of the precincts. That's right - less than one third of one percent of all precincts would have had to have one bum machine to change the election.

That said: it could STILL be just the one in Gahanna.]

[UPDATE UPDATE UPDATE: Of course, I just realized that this glitch was easily discovered, just by comparing the number of votes cast to the number reported, so if it were going to be intentional vote fraud, it would be a pretty damn lame version thereof.

SO: probably just the one in Gahanna.]

ps: Hat tip to Sanpete for sending this one in.

Fox: I Report, You Decide

So foxnews.com takes the AP story on the Bin Laden tape, and appends this to the end:

Retired Lt. Col. Bill Cowen, a FOX News military analyst, said bin Laden timed the tape deliberately.

"I think he's just trying to slap the president around a little bit and in my opinion is trying to influence the election," Cowen said.

Cowen said that while the tape showed that the most wanted terrorist was still at large, it also should be seen in another light.

"This tape is also a reminder of how we've decimated the top Al Qaeda leadership," Cowen said. "It took us 20 years to find Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber, right here in the United States."

What the F*** is that even supposed to MEAN? Bin Laden appearing, 3 years after 9/11, hale and hearty and sending messages to the world, is a reminder of "how we've decimated the top Al Qaeda leadership"?! They're not even making sense any more.

Side note: it's sad as hell that the first person to adequately refute Bush's "they hate our freedoms" nonsense is... Bin Laden. I can't believe this man actually cracked a joke: "If Bush says we hate freedom, let him tell us why we didn't attack Sweden..." Fucking comedian, this guy.

Would someone please, please, please tell me why this motherfucker is still alive?

No, wait, don't. I think I know.

I guess we had somewhere else we had to be.

Bush/Cheney '04 in Bed With State Sponsor of Terrorism

A last-minute endorsement of President George W. Bush by a hastily formed coalition of Arab-Americans was coordinated in part by a registered lobbyist for the Libyan regime of Col. Muammar Kaddafi—a government formally branded by the State Department as a state sponsor of terrorism.

So sayeth Michael Isikoff at Newsweek in a new article.

Family of Lockerbie victims don't like it one bit:

“I think it’s appalling,” said Victoria Pimentel, whose husband, John B. Cummock, was killed in the Lockerbie bombing, and who has objected to the president’s rapprochement with the Libyan government. “Clearly, you can buy policies and you can buy votes with this administration. Obviously, if you have a lobbyist for the Libyans who is out there trying to get Muslim votes for the president, it’s a good indication of what this administration is all about.”

“It’s so blatantly obvious that there is coordination between the Bush campaign, the Kaddafi regime and the oil companies,” said Dan Cohen, whose daughter was killed in the Lockerbie bombing. “If it weren’t so serious, it would be laughable.”

Emails between lobbyist Randa Fahmy Hudome and the organizer of the "Middle Eastern American National Conference" (a newly-created pro-Bush lobbying effort with no office or website) were meant to be copied to Jafar Karim, a Bush/Cheney 04 official. They were sent instead to georgewbush.org, a satirical site by the creators of whitehouse.org (see link on the right).

Other mis-directed emails documented GOP efforts at "caging" minority voters in Florida by challenging them at the ballot. All the emails have been posted in georgewbush.org's "Dead Letter Office."

I contacted John DeVore, a writer at whitehouse.org, for a reaction. Mr. DeVore, aware of the highly charged political climate, replied "Don't audit me."

Perspective

So the President says that when the CIA sees growing instability in Iraq, they are "just guessing." And that "the Iraqi people are defying the pessimistic predictions." And those of us looking to be comforted, take comfort. And remind ourselves that lots of people say we're exagerrating the troubles "over there." And ignoring the good stuff. Like the painted schools.

And then you go and read this from Juan Cole. And then you've got a little perspective. And you think maybe, just maybe, it's time to get the guy who is trying desperately to get us to ignore this shit out of office.

Key paragraphs were hard to pick - they're all a knock-out, and it's short and easy to read. Even if you never click through to links - please please please click through and read this one. Here's a sample:

What would America look like if it were in Iraq's current situation? The population of the US is over 11 times that of Iraq, so a lot of statistics would have to be multiplied by that number.

Thus, violence killed 300 Iraqis last week, the equivalent proportionately of 3,300 Americans. What if 3,300 Americans had died in car bombings, grenade and rocket attacks, machine gun spray, and aerial bombardment in the last week? That is a number greater than the deaths on September 11, and if America were Iraq, it would be an ongoing, weekly or monthly toll.

[snip]

What if the grounds of the White House and the government buildings near the Mall were constantly taking mortar fire? What if almost nobody in the State Department at Foggy Bottom, the White House, or the Pentagon dared venture out of their buildings, and considered it dangerous to go over to Crystal City or Alexandria?

What if all the reporters for all the major television and print media were trapped in five-star hotels in Washington, DC and New York, unable to move more than a few blocks safely, and dependent on stringers to know what was happening in Oklahoma City and St. Louis? What if the only time they ventured into the Midwest was if they could be embedded in Army or National Guard units?

Read the whole thing. Then email it to your friends - especially those who may not have made up their minds about November. If you know any.

Saletan Takes Off the Gloves

William Saletan's column today on Slate is an absolute must-read.

Key paragraphs:

In a democracy, the commander in chief works for you. You hire him when you elect him. You watch him do the job. If he makes good decisions and serves your interests, you rehire him. If he doesn't, you fire him by voting for his opponent in the next election.

Not every country works this way. In some countries, the commander in chief builds a propaganda apparatus that equates him with the military and the nation. If you object that he's making bad decisions and disserving the national interest, you're accused of weakening the nation, undermining its security, sabotaging the commander in chief, and serving a foreign power—the very charges Miller leveled tonight against Bush's critics.

Are you prepared to become one of those countries?

Substantive Political Debate

So now that their credibility is taking a beating from every side, apparently the ironically-named "Swift Boat Vets for Truth" have started to cling to the only anti-Kerry argument that remains, at least technically, un-debunked.

For those not keeping score at home (in this case a good idea), in 1986 Kerry told of having been inside Cambodia on Christmas. Apparently, all evidence says that he was actually there in January or February, and the "Christmas Morning" detail was an embellishment.

Well, clearly this is an important and substantive revelation. It casts serious doubt on Kerry's ability to lead our country. After all, how can we trust a leader who would change the details of a story to make himself look better?

Sadly, honest voters, we don't seem to have a choice. Those dirty politicians ALL seem to do it. The whole story is over at Atrios' place (with details from Campaign Desk).

Here's the precis: as reported on CNN, Bush revived the old meme of "Kerry's so French he ordered Swiss cheese on a Philly Cheesesteak!" by telling a crowd outside of Philly that he takes his with Cheez Whiz.

Problem is, he's lying. A caterer who provided cheesesteaks to Bush and his crew had to specifically alter their usual recipe to provide - GASP - American.

That's it. I'm voting Nader. Clearly he's the only honest man.

Nine Innings from GETTIN YOUR ASS KICKED

Holy crap am I mad about this.

First just the facts:

HBO has started running promos for a new sports special called "Nine Innings from Ground Zero."

You can see the trailer here on the HBO website. If you can, go watch it and then come back to read the rest of this. I'll wait.

It's a documentary about the Yankees in the World Series, less than two months after 9/11. It's all about the power of America's game to uplift the national spirit. There are quotes from Guiliani, Bush, etc. talking about how the hand of God reached down to lift New Yorkers from the ashes and give us new hope (I'm paraphrasing).

I remember that World Series. It was, after all, only three years ago - maybe a LITTLE fresh to get the gauzy romantic treatment. It really did feel like some Higher Power reached down and redeemed us - two nights in a row, with two out in the ninth inning, with TWO STRIKES, the Yankees came back to tie it or win it. Lisa and I knelt and wept. After the horror of 9/11, there really was something redemptive in it.

And then something happened:

C'mon. Say it with me. You know what it is.

WE LOST.

It turned out God was just toying with us. Because the untouchable Mariano Rivera gave up the losing run. WE LOST.

So all us Yankee fans, all us New Yorkers, all us children of 9/11 had to abandon that little, shallow bit of comfort that we'd gotten from a game. We had to process that and get over it, and remind ourselves it was, after all, just a game. We had to convince ourselves that, as beautiful as it had felt to feel protected from above, the Yankees losing did NOT mean that God had abandoned us.

HBO and the producers of this show seem to have forgotten that part.

They'll deal with it in the show, I'm sure. But that's not how they're selling it. They're selling it as a miracle of redemption, of the healing power of sport.

To them I say:

FUCK YOU.

Because you know what? They're selling it. They should be ashamed.

And they have the AUDACITY to use a visual motif of DUST for this shameful promo. THEY ARE SELLING A FICTION WITH THE DUST OF 9/11. Shame on them.

I ask HBO, the producers, those who did the promo: "Can you tell me what that dust FELT LIKE in your hair? In your mouth? In your lungs? Oh, you CAN'T? Then FUCK YOURSELF."

Shame. Shame on them.

Blumenthal Brings the Hurt

From roving reporter StefT (hi mom) comes yesterday's column in the Guardian from Sidney Blumenthal, laying a righteous smackdown on the Administration.

Key quotes:

The party that Nixon built is crumbling. Bush is the candidate of canned talking points and a party whose instincts have become rote and often counterproductive. The "war president" wraps himself in the flag, but the latest code-orange terrorist alert aroused no rally-round-the-flag syndrome; instead, it raised questions about Bush's timing and handling. Rather than campaign on his record, he has challenged Kerry to justify his vote for the Iraq war resolution, and when Kerry explained his reasoning accused him of "nuance". How can Bush change the subject?

With independent voters bleeding away from him, he has taken to stumping with the maverick Republican senator John McCain, his mortal enemy. Can Bush dump Cheney without being seen as desperate and repudiating his entire term? Bush's father owed his political career to Nixon's patronage; now the son is in danger of inheriting the wind.

The article as a whole is more an electoral analysis that watches the sands shift out from under the feet of the GOP (which is heartening in itself).

I'm still not sure I'm ready to jump on the "he'll dump Cheney" bandwagon, for a variety of reasons. Mostly, I'm not sure it would play the way he intends it to - I think now that people are openly questioning the weekly Ridge-a-palooza terror scares, the ground is ripe for a Cheney dump, "medical reasons" or no, to be seen as the desperate, cynical posturing it would be.

And if you think a Bush/McCain ticket would be untouchable, I refer you to this lovely picture from a couple days ago.

Smear and Present Danger

It happened again, g*d d*mnit. I was trying to chase down the disparate threads of a story on the smear campaign against Kerry, to weave them into a larger point of "see how easy it is to smear people, if you have no conscience."

And then the enormity of the venom and bile and hate and idiocy of these people just got the best of me. Trying to turn it all into something coherent sent me for the Cheetos (thank you Josh for proving at least one person in the universe understands that reference - my first bit of Procrastinese).

So read this here from Digby, and follow the link there to see how the same nutjobs smearing Kerry tried to smear Bush I way back when only it didn't get any traction in the media because, you know, the media is owned by liberals.

No, wait...

Watch This Spin Part II

So Paul Krugman at the Times also saw last week's terrible job numbers as a chance to watch the Bush spin machine in action, and he drops the hammer in his column today.

It's heavily excerpted here by Brad DeLong.

The summary: despite the massive disappointment of expectations AND all pending administration predictions, which would have required over 300,000 new jobs (see the chart in my last post on the subject), the admin figures not many people are AWIRPA, and just says "hey, we made 32,000 new jobs! For a total of 1.5 million new jobs!" Absent any context, that sounds pretty good.

They're also drawing attention to the household report versus the payroll report. I'm hazy on the precise difference between and respective characteristics of these two - but I do know that a few months ago, when the household numbers were dismal but the payroll numbers looked good, the admin was trying to discredit the household numbers. Yes, the same numbers they're now trumpeting. Sigh.

In any event, it makes it sound like "enh, it all depends who you listen to..." and most people check out of the whole discussion. Classic spin: make it sound like a dense, nuanced issue and most people will realize they don't care enough to sort it out. Problem neutralized.

*Sigh*

I haven't posted anything since a quick, jubilant reaction to Kerry's acceptance speech Thursday night. That's because, basically, I burned out.

For a couple nights last week, during masterful speeches by Clinton, Obama and Kerry, I was able to believe that I was watching decent men trying to use the filthy, dirty business of politics to do some good for their country.

Not that Clinton or Kerry are angels - they're not. They're professional politicians, with all the attendant hustle and dirt that implies (so far I'd like to believe that Obama might truly be that rarest of beasts, a Truly Good Guy). But I believe they're using the hustle and dirt to do some things that I believe are the right things to do.

But starting Thursday night, as CNN went into conniptions because the convention director cursed on air (why the heck his mic was on a live CNN feed for SEVERAL MINUTES is of course anyone's guess) when the balloons didn't drop, and commentators started to say "see, this is how the whole thing will be painted as another democratic party f*** up", and continuing the next morning when the Republican Noise Machine geared up and tried to make hay of the fact that Kerry never mentioned his time in the Senate... I think I sprained something.

So today I read at Talking Points Memo that the new Rove-ian approach to Kerry will be: make fun of him.

Here's the source article, at the New York Times (registration required), which admittedly makes less of a thesis of the "make fun of him" tactic than Josh Marhsall does, but does have this key paragraph:

Mr. Bush's advisers plan to cap the month at the Republican convention in New York, which they said would feature Mr. Kerry as an object of humor and calculated derision.

Here's where I should say "so these [insert bilious epithets about the administration] are going to [insert outraged description of tactic] instead of [insert positive spin of what Kerry/Edwards is trying to do] and it just might work unless we [insert suggestion of action that I'm not really going to get done]."

And I don't have the energy. Whatever I sprained, I can't walk on it yet.

So if posts are sparse in the next couple days, make good use of the links on the right. I'll be lying down.

Here's a picture of our President. Make of it what you will.

The White House Raises Your Taxes so Kerry Can't Lower Them

Unbelievable.

Jesse at Pandagon scoops this out of the NY Times and heaps upon it the derision it deserves.

Here's the summary: some of the massively popular middle class tax cuts are set to expire. The child tax credit would shrink, the marriage penalty would creep back in, and the expansion of the 10% bracket to include more middle-income families would shrink again. Unless congress does something to extend them.

Almost everyone wants to extend these cuts. Kerry has said repeatedly that he would keep most of the Bush tax cuts on middle income families. House Repubs were looking forward to locking the extensions before going home for the meat of campaign season. The only points of disagreement were: "how long?" and "do we have to guarantee we can pay for it," but even those conflicts were on the way to being resolved.

But now the extensions have been blocked. By who? Some screaming lefty communist liberal?

Nope.

By the White House.

Because, you see, if Democratic lawmakers were to vote FOR the massively popular extension, then those pesky Democrats could say to their constituents, "I voted to keep your taxes low."

And "Democrats will RAISE your TAXES" is one of the cardinal scare tactics that the Repubs rely on come votin' time.

So rather than allow Dems to share credit for a popular and needed extension of a pseudo-sensible tax cut, the White House took an irreconcilably hard line, and scuttled the whole effort.

They'll cut off OUR NOSE to spite Kerry's face. Great.

Perspective on the 9/11 Report

Professor Juan Cole has had his hair on fire for a few days now. I'm working on a longer piece about one of his articles yesterday, about our martial intentions towards Iran, but for now: check out today's precis on the pending 9/11 report.

If you're interested in actually knowing things, and reading background from someone who knows a truly staggering amount about the Middle East, Cole's site Informed Comment is invaluable. His work is a constant, necessary reminder that even those of us trying to pay close attention are only getting a fraction of the picture.

It's a reminder, too, that in the Middle East we're dealing with a culture which operates by fundamentally different social/political rules than ours. Leaving aside the relative merits of those different social codes, our own self interest requires that we at least understand them. If we don't understand the rules by which those across the table are playing the game, then we are left with only blunt force. And applying exclusively blunt force to a clash of cultures, while sometimes necessary, seems in the long run guaranteed to cost us more than it gains.

Oh the FOX Went Out On the Town One Night...

Actually, this constitutes "stuff to be *mildly* pissed off about." OutFoxed, the movie exposing Fox News' conservative bias, opens today, and Wonkette has the memos that are used as the main evidence.

Well, I read them all. And yeah, there's a clear rightward tilt. But I was looking for something that would really ring my bells, and I didn't find it. Here's the juiciest stuff that I found on a quick first read:

For our purposes, as a story, it's very important to know whether ETA or Al Qaeda was responsible for the Madrid bombings. For the victims the distinction is minimal. Terrorism is international, and the United States is the leader of the coalition to stamp it out. That's the tone we want to impart throughout the day.

Kerry, starting to feel the heat for his flip-flop voting record, is in West Virginia.

The so-called 9/11 commission has already been meeting. In fact, this is the eighth session. The fact that former Clinton and both former and current Bush administration officials are testifying gives it a certain tension, but this is not "what did he know and when did he know it" stuff. Do not turn this into Watergate. Remember the fleeting sense of national unity that emerged from this tragedy. Let's not desecrate that.

The Int’l Court of Justice ruling against the US is something that many americans might find offensive. We'll take a look at just what this court is, and what gives it the right to tell US courts what to do with death row prisoners.

The events in Iraq Tuesday are going to be the top story, unless and until something else (or worse) happens. Err on the side of doing too much Iraq rather than not enough. Do not fall into the easy trap of mourning the loss of US lives and asking out loud why are we there? The US is in Iraq to help a country brutalized for 30 years protect the gains made by Operation Iraqi Freedom and set it on the path to democracy. Some people in Iraq don't want that to happen. That is why American GIs are dying. And what we should remind our viewers. [emph. added]

If, as promised, the coalition decides to take Fallujah back by force, it will not be for lack of opportunities for terrorists holed up there to negotiate. Let's not get lost in breast-beating about the sadness of the loss of life.

Bill Clinton's book "My Life" may come out in time to let John Kerry have the spotlight by convention time. Then again, maybe it won't.

Also, let's refer to the US marines we see in the foreground as "sharpshooters" not snipers, which carries a negative connotation.

There was even one line that made me laugh out loud:

The President and the PM of Canada meet today and will make remarks at midday. Take the remarks, even if Jacko is singing on top of a truck with no pants on at the time.

You can read the rest of the memos here.

Much, much more damning as evidence of Fox's ideological cant: this post on Eschaton, linking to an article in The Nation, about a visit to The O'Reilly Factor. In it, O'Reilly dumps a planned clip from a 9/11 commission member which says:

"There is no evidence that we can find whatsoever that Iraq or Saddam Hussein participated in any way in attacks on the United States, in other words, on 9/11. What we do say, however, is there were contacts between Iraq and Saddam Hussein. Iraq, Saddam--excuse me. Al Qaeda."

Instead, O'Reilly paraphrased the Senator as having said "definitely there was a connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda." There was no mention of the absence of a link between Iraq and 9/11.

Follow the link on Eschaton to the original David Cole piece in the Nation. It's priceless, and will give you a good idea of just what the "No Spin Zone" means.

The Anti-Bush/Cheney '04 Platform

My admiration for Brad DeLong has clearly reached a point where my brain sends out unconscious signals which make him write about stuff I intended to write about but do it in way that's Jedi to my kid-with-plastic-lightsabre.

The second part of the issue I took up yesterday pertains to the valid, urgent reasons to be anti-Bush/Cheney as well as pro-Kerry/Edwards. Pondering that issue, I recalled my earliest objections to George W. Bush, which I garnered from a profile in Vanity Fair, published as the 2000 primaries were heating up.

The thesis of the article was that Bush made a point of delving only shallowly into any issue. He didn't want detail, or nuance, or depth. He wanted his advisors to give him a summary, maximum five pages, based on which he would make a gut decision. This was a point of pride to him; he and his supporters believed it made him an excellent, "strong" leader.

Problem is, of course, decisions about insanely complex issues that are made based on a limited understanding of them are likely to be wrong.

Or if not wrong qua wrong, even if they're based on a sound principal, it's likely that without further examinations they will be ineffective or counterproductive.

When you're the head of a well-cronied oil company and the decisions you make are counterproductive, the result is the business goes bust. When you're the Head of State of the most powerful country in the world and the decisions you make are counterproductive, the result is people die and you add to the world's proportion of misery.

Revisiting this issue last night, it occurred to me with new clarity that there was another downside to this executive philosophy: it allowed you to be easily manipulated without believing yourself to be manipulated. Those who want you to jump a certain way just have to control the summary of information you receive based on their knowledge of your prejudices and presuppositions.

Well, the DeLong article is a comprehensive survey of this issue, and lays out three theories of how the Bush/Cheney White House may actually run. It's a fascinating read.

As usual, the comments at the bottom are also of a pretty high class - comments on DeLong's site tend not to devolve as badly as those on the biggest of big blogs, and tend to consist of those more interested in rational examination than partisan kneejerks. Look, particularly, for Lee A.'s comment (the twenty-fourth or so) about the administration policymakers' dawning realization that they have gambled and lost - I could not agree more, and I appreciate that he resists the easy demonization that characterizes a lot of leftish commentary.

What Matters

In a stunningly deft flourish of bloggy incest, here is a post from Tim Dunlop's The Road to Surfdom which I highly recommend reading, which I found out about by reading this article on The Poor Man which I read about in this entry by Atrios.

I followed the Atrios link because I wanted to write something about the Nicholas Kristof column in today's NY Times (registration required but free), which I read part of over someone's shoulder on the subway this morning, because the bit that I read over the guy's shoulder kinda pissed me off. See, Kristof is upset that liberals are calling Bush a "Liar," which he compares to wingnuts having implied that Clinton murdered Vince Foster.

Which, if you think about it for a moment, is ABSURD. Because in the same column, Kristof admits "In fact, of course, Mr. Bush did stretch the truth." So calling him an outright "liar" is really a matter of degree - it's removing nuance, but not changing the whole subject. Whereas, when they accused the Clintons of having Vince Foster killed, the wingnuts were simply MAKING SHIT UP.

When I read all the blogging that's already been done today on the Kristof column, I assumed that my partially informed impression had been correct, and that Kristof was in fact "human scum" as Atrios would have it. But then I actually went and read the whole column, and found that I agreed with more of it than not. For instance:

Mr. Bush got us into a mess by overdosing on moral clarity and self-righteousness, and embracing conspiracy theories of like-minded zealots. How sad that many liberals now seem intent on making the same mistakes.

Now - agreeing with much of the Kristof column does NOT mean I think Bush is not a liar. Just that Kristof makes other, more tolerable, points and rightly warns against the left sinking to the lowly standards of the right. Right?

Anyway, the point is (and yes, there is one, despite appearances to the contrary) that the Road to Surfdom post up top (here it is again) is worth your time. Mostly because the list of things that "Don't Matter" includes only actual honest to goodness facts.

UPDATE: Meteor Blades has weighed in over at Daily Kos with a pretty comprehensive take on the Kristof article. He agrees that civil discourse is an important goal in an enlightened democracy, and civilly discourses Kristof's ass pretty thoroughly. Good reading.

A Sovereign Iraq? Today?

Over at Pandagon, Ezra Klein's take on the early hand-off of "sovereignty."

Who would have believed that after all the build-up, all the hype, all the potential political and symbolic gain of a big triumphant June 30th, we'd end up slinking furtively out the back and leaving at least two nations, Iraq and America, with a resounding feeling of "Huh?!" just when they most needed some - any - reassurance. When this administration can't even manage a trumped-up, hollow, evocative-but-fundamentally-meaningless pageant, you know things have come far off the rails.

There's a lot more that I was going to try to say about it, but Klein already got there and said it better.

UPDATE:

There's also an interesting discussion, which you can find through the "Trackback" on the Pandagon post, between Klein and Jon Henke at QandO. On one side is the domestic political calculus of the Admin giving up what has clearly been a cherished opportunity to make things look better than they really are. On the other side is a tacit acknowledgement of how things really are - i.e., given the security situation as it exists, there was more chance for insurgents to "grandstand" than potential benefit of a big pageant.

It is indeed ironic that those commenting from the left (myself included) are for once upset with the administration for sacrificing evocative-but-hollow in favor of the acknowledgement of a hard reality.

I guess it comes down to: once you've created a situation out of thin air for which there was no actual need, at least DO IT RIGHT fer chrissakes. This feels like a lose-lose - create the expectation of a triumphant handover, then disappoint that expectation. If you're going to turn geopolitics into theatre, at least make it good theatre so it can have whatever limited upside it was supposed to have.

VeepMadness

I totally freaked myself out with the entry on the Kennedy Commission. Decided it was time to lower the tone again. So I'm going to weigh in on the current discussion in the news about Kerry's choices for VP.

Let me start by saying I have no dog in this fight. I backed Edwards through the primaries, but was disappointed at his debate performance, which should theoretically have been his strong suit. Now there are news reports out claiming Kerry has it narrowed down to two men. The different reports list different men.

On Wolf Blitzer, Senator Bill Nelson said it was down to Edwards and Gephardt (discussed here on Daily Kos). In Newsweek, they say it's Gephardt and Vilsack (discussed here on Talking Points Memo).

To which I say:

Gephardt?!!

VILSACK?!!!

A question: have you ever even HEARD of anyone who can stand Dick Gephardt? He got demolished in the Iowa primaries, not even bringing in the big labor vote he was supposed to bring in. DEMOLISHED. He has zero charisma, brings zero excitement to the ticket.

Which brings me to... hang on, lemme try to contain myself... I'll take it slow:

Iowa... Governor... Tom...

VILSACK!

Look. I know nothing about Tom Vilsack. No-thing. He's probably one hell of a guy. His wife endorsed Kerry in the Iowa primaries. I have never, in all the time he's been bandied-about as a running mate contender, heard any discussion of his political abilities or charisma.

All this is beside the point. And I'll tell you why.

THE GUY'S NAME IS VILSACK.

Kerry/Vilsack. Say it a couple times out loud.

If democrats haven't learned yet that national politics is at least 9/10 marketing... well, I just shake my head.

The ticket needs some sex appeal. Conceptual sex appeal, not literal sex appeal, something to make the public who are still in the middle go "oooh, shiny..." I don't care who that is. John Edwards, Wes Clark, Hilary Clinton (yeah, I said it), Alec Baldwin, I DON'T CARE.

Hell, I'd pull the lever in November for Kerry/Elmo.

But please, no Gephardt. And please, nobody with the word "sack" anywhere in their name.

Judis on Bremer

The guest bloggers over at Talking Points Memo continue to hit longballs. Here's John Judis on Paul Bremer's ideological blindspots - if you like to think about stuff and know stuff, this is a must-read.

Introducing AWIRPA

People who pay close attention to politics and policy, both those who have a solid foundation of understanding for it (see the "Commentariat" links on the right) and those who don't but read a lot about it (me) can often be baffled and enraged by the Bush Administration's behavior, for one simple reason: they are not doing what they do with us in mind, as they have no use for us, and they are not spending a moment's time thinking about us.

Who are they thinking about? AWIRPA. Anyone Who Isn't Really Paying Attention.

AWIRPA is, I fear, something of a majority. AWIRPA reads the headlines, in papers and online, and watches the news, because AWIRPA knows these things are important (they are not, after all, ATDTC - Anyone Too Dumb To Care). But every time AWIRPA has tried to go beyond the most mainstream news sources, the vast body of information out there and the differences between what the various voices are shouting has given AWIRPA a wicked headache.

AWIRPA hates he-said/she-said back and forth. Someone says something, someone else says "you're wrong," and AWIRPA realizes that the only way to determine who's telling the truth is to dig deeper. Back comes the headache, AWIRPA goes to grab some Cheetos.

It's AWIRPA that wants a "smoking gun" on every issue, because a smoking gun eliminates debate. Once it turned out the stain on Monica's dress had Presidential DNA in it, AWIRPA got to stop wondering who to believe about BlowJobGate.

The Bush Admin realizes this better than any political machine ever. So every time something damaging hits the headlines (only the headlines get AWIRPA's attention) they find a way to make new headlines that *seem* to cast doubt on the first. The counter-claim doesn't have to hold up, it doesn't have to be actually true - as long as AWIRPA thinks there are two sides to the story, it's time for Cheetos.

Spencer Ackerman is guest-blogging at Talking Points Memo for a vacationing Josh Marshall. He's got so much detail on the latest AWIRPA-targeted smokescreen that *I* almost went out for Cheetos - see here and here.

You see, last week the 9/11 commission said, right there in the headlines, "IRAQ HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11!"

Well, that got AWIRPA's attention. So now John Lehman, Republican head of the 9/11 Commish, tells Tim Russert on Sunday that "new intelligence" says that one of Saddam's secret police was "a prominent member of Al-Qaeda."

Now, the fact that he immediately went on to say "that still has to be confirmed" won't matter AT ALL. The fact that this is not "new intelligence" but was dismissed a long time ago by the intelligence community based on the fact that the TWO GUYS IN QUESTION DON'T EVEN HAVE THE SAME NAME won't matter.

What will matter is that AWIRPA will see headlines that say "9/11 COMMISH HEAD CLAIMS IRAQ/AL-QAEDA LINK!" and will think "what the...? But I thought they just said there was no... Mmmm, Cheetos."

The script goes like this, and you'll see it repeated over and over and over again between now and November (and beyond):

Dissenting Voice: "We've learned that STATEMENT X."

Administration Mouthpiece: "Not at all, it's actually STATEMENT Y, Dissenting Voice is just partisan."

AWIRPA: "They're crunchy AND cheesy!"

UPDATE: Here is Kevin Drum at Washington Monthly, trying valiantly to combat the AWIRPA Factor. Unfortunately, AWIRPA probably doesn't read Washington Monthly.

Preserve, Protect and Defend

So in my last post I repeated, with a marked absence of first-hand knowledge, something I had read often from other commentators that I respect: that the President swore an oath to uphold the laws of the land, which included treaties like the Geneva convention. I then suffered a fit of apprehension, because I don't like parrotting things I've read somewhere that I don't have first hand knowledge of (and the holes in my education regarding civil law and politics are legion). I especially don't like parrotting such things while on a rant, because it's always annoying when something you say in high moral dudgeon gets picked apart on you.

So I went looking for the Oath of Office of the President, and then I did something I've never done: I read the Constitution. Turns out, it's not very long, it's a good read, and it's very interesting, especially in light of having just read much of David McCullough's John Adams (and being a big fan of the musical 1776, there I admitted it).

Here, in Article IV, Clause Two, is the bit that makes treaties the "supreme Law of the Land":

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land.

And here, in Article II, Section 1, Clause Eight, is the Oath of Office:

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

So the President is sworn to preserve, protect and defend the document which includes properly ratified treaties as "the supreme Law of the Land."

Anyone want to make the case that this President has "faithfully executed" that oath?

Through the God Damned Looking Glass

This is from the New York Post. The pigf***ing NEW YORK POST, one of the most absurdly partisan rags ever to disgrace a major city. They are squarely in Bush's corner on everything, all the time, and THEY publish this paragraph:

Asked whether he was disappointed that Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld had improperly held an Iraqi prisoner in secret for more than seven months in violation of the Geneva Conventions, Bush replied: "The secretary and I discussed that for the first time this morning. ... I'm never disappointed in my secretary of defense. He's doing a fabulous job and America's lucky to have him in the position he's in." [Emphasis added]

So let me get this straight. The Pentagon has admitted that Rumsfeld - HIMSELF - ordered a direct violation of the Geneva Conventions, after the administration ITSELF has publicly and repeatedly stated that the Geneva Conventions applied to all of our operations in Iraq. No one is saying this didn't happen. These are the facts, as even the New York Post admits.

But we're LUCKY to have him.

The President and all who serve in the government swear an oath to uphold the Constitution and the laws of the land. Treaties like the Geneva Convention, when properly ratified, are the law of the land.

Draw your own god damned conclusions.

Brad DeLong has more.

Juan Cole on Tenet

If you ever find yourself looking for commentary on situations in the Middle East from someone who knows more about it than the next 387,000 people combined, check out Professor Juan Cole.

His comments yesterday on the resignation of George Tenet are a must-read, because they thumbnail a bunch of the most important issues to watch for the next few months.

Bush/Cheney '04 Jobs Went to India?!

You could NOT MAKE THIS STUFF UP. Read the article at MaxSpeak, then click the "link" there to read the original, from the Hindustan Times.

Just to repeat, because I still can't quite get myself to believe it: The Republican National Committee and Bush/Cheney '04 paid workers in Indian call centers $9.25 an hour (WAY more than US minimum wage) to make fundraising calls. They only stopped because someone, somewhere rubbed two neurons together and realized "Whups, that might LOOK BAD. We don't want people to say we care more about India than about Indiana..."

Professor Harold Chalabi

So for those not paying attention, not only has Ahmed Chalabi (this is him, behind the First Lady, in a position of honor at the State of the Union) turned out to be a liar and a fraud, but he's been passing sensitive intelligence information to Iran. Remember Iran? We don't like them much. I don't know about you, but I spent much of 1982 with "Bomb Iran" stuck in my head:

to the tune of "Barbara Ann" by the Beach Boys:

Bomb Iran (bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran)
Bomb I-ra-a-an (bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran)
Comin' to the block
Gonna throw some rocks
Tell the Ayatollah gonna put you in a box
Bomb Iran (etc.)

But more important than Chalabi turning out to be a terrible scumbag, are these questions raised at Josh Marshall's Talking Points Memo...

DeLong on Friedman on Bush

I guess, actually, you don't have to be pissed off about this - because it means even long-time right-leaning supporters of the administration are starting to leave the reservation. But the subject of the discussion - the current administration's response to 9/11 and the War in Iraq - is pretty much THE thing to be pissed off about.

Once you read DeLong's entry, check out the Friedman column (requires NYTimes registration). The opening paragraph is a killer:

"It is time to ask this question: Do we have any chance of succeeding at regime change in Iraq without regime change here at home?"

Stuff to be pissed off about, Part I

If you're not pissed off, then you're not paying attention.

God damnit.

More here.