Oooh, nuance!

In 2008, the long-serving, much-respected Republic Senator, John Warner, will not seek a sixth term.

Warner is leaving what would have been a safe seat for the Republicans if he had chosen to run again. His departure gives Democrats a better chance to protect or even expand their one-seat majority in the Senate.

[snip]

Warner, former chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, has long been an important voice in the Iraq debate because of his military expertise and his willingness to question White House war policy.

After a recent trip to Iraq, Warner said President Bush should start bringing some troops home by Christmas. If Bush refused, Warner said, he would consider backing anti-war legislation. The statement was the senator's strongest to oppose the White House and is expected to influence the Iraq debate this fall.

Perhaps Senator Warner's knowledge of his impending retirement gave him the courage to finally speak his mind on Iraq - like the recently leaked GAO report, the Senator's defection was yet another blow to George Bush's all-out propaganda efforts to persuade the American people that the "surge" is working.

In any case, his leaving is excellent news for Democrats. Virginia went blue in the last election, and there are rumors that Virginia's popular Democratic ex-Governor, Mark Warner, may throw his hat in the ring.

As the 2008 election approaches and scandals and resignations continue to plague the Republics, one thing is very clear: The Party of Bush is exhausted, divided and demoralized. And America is tired of Republic hypocrisy, bigotry and blind support of the disastrous neo-conservative policies of the most hated President in history.

It's about time.

Perhaps I'm an unfeeling person, but I have absolutely no sympathy for Senator Larry Craig. I've noticed a lot of talk about how he really didn't do anything wrong, and how having sex in bathrooms should not be against the law, and how he's just an innocent victim of a sting operation.

Um, no.

Senator Craig was not a victim. This was not the first time he sought sex in a public restroom. He was even a suspect in the page scandal of 1982, 25 years ago.

This guy broke the law. An elected representative of the people should be held to the highest possible standards. Lawbreaking should be cause for immediate resignation, indictment and whatever punishment is appropriate.

Larry Craig said similar things about Bill Clinton, didn't he?

And yes, I know it must be very difficult to be an older, closeted gay man. But no one forced him to run for office. No one forced him to seek money and power by running on a platform of hatred and bigotry, supporting the so-called "Defense of Marriage" Act and fighting against labelling anti-gay violence as a hate crime. And no one forced him to break the law. He could have gone to a gay bar, used Craig's List, or met men in any of the other myriad legal ways available.

This man has climbed to the exalted position of United States Senator on the backs of his brothers and sisters in the LGBT community, causing needless suffering and anguish on the way.

He deserves whatever he gets.

What about the following is so difficult for the traditional media to understand?

1) Hiring prostitutes (a la Senator David Vitter) is against the law, and having a consensual affair with an adult is not (a la Bill Clinton).

2) Sexually harrassing underage boys (a la Congressman Mark Foley) is against the law, and having a consensual affair with an adult is not (a la Bill Clinton).

3) Trolling for sex in airport bathrooms (a la Senator Larry Craig) is against the law, and having a consensual affair with an adult is not (a la Bill Clinton).

Additionally, Bill Clinton was the subject of a multi-year partisan witch hunt, which eventually only uncovered said consensual affair. The Republics in the latest sex scandals were conducting their lawbreaking in the open, and were protected for many years by their party until unrelated investigations uncovered their wrongdoing.

Finally, Bill Clinton does not belong to a party which wins elections on the strength of their so-called "family values".

So, New York Times, Larry Craig and Bill Clinton are NOT THE LEAST FUCKING BIT ALIKE. Publishing Mitt Romney's latest spin without the least bit of context is incredibly intellectually dishonest, and is one MORE reason to disdain and eschew the Times as I do.

It's the second anniversary of Hurricane Katrina's landfall today. How are those conservative economic policies working out for the residents of New Orleans, I wonder?

New Orleans then:



New Orleans now:



I remember watching CNN after the levees broke. It was the first time that the traditional media had dared to criticize the naked emperor. Too late, of course, for so many dead in terrorist attacks, needless wars and man-made disasters like the flooding that destroyed the Ninth Ward.



And too late for the tens of thousands who are still living in these:



On September 19, 2005, in a speech given at Brown University, Senator John Kerry said this :

Rarely has there been a moment more urgent for Americans to step up and define ourselves again. On the line is a fundamental choice. A choice between a view that says “you’re on your own,” “go it alone,” or “every man for himself.” Or a different view - a different philosophy - a different conviction of governance - a belief that says our great American challenge is one of shared endeavor and shared sacrifice.

Over the next weeks I will address these choices in detail - choices about national security, the war in Iraq, making our nation more competitive and committing to energy independence. But it boils down to this. I still believe America’s destiny is to become a living testament to what free human beings can accomplish by acting in unity. That’s easy to dismiss by those who seem to have forgotten we can do more together than just waging war.

But for those who still believe in the great tradition of Americans doing great things together, it’s time we started acting like it. We can never compete with the go-it-alone crowd in appeals to selfishness. We can’t afford to be pale imitations of the other side in playing the ‘what’s in it for me’ game. One thing we know: the last thing America needs is a second Republican Party.

Instead, it’s time we put our appeals where our hearts are - asking the American people to make our country as strong, prosperous, and big-hearted as we know we can be - every day. It’s time we framed every question - every issue -- not in terms of what’s in it for ‘me,’ but what’s in it for all of us?

And when you ask that simple question - what’s in it for all of us? - the direction not taken in America could not be more clear or compelling.

Let this tragic anniversary be a reminder that conservatism is not just a philosophy that favors the rich over the poor; it is an evil virus that kills all those whom it infects. And our country is on its last gasp. The rule of law - broken, as top government officials commit treason and war crimes with no accountability. The separation of church and state? Almost gone. Economic justice? Please. Education? No, George, our children is NOT learning. Energy? We have solar and wind technology, but we're still invading and occupying countries for their oil.

Do we need a new direction? No. We need to go back to the old one. The Founders based our Constitution on the concept that government exists to improve the lives of its constituents. The only way to do that is to invest in people, not corporations - what I call trickle-up economics.

To do otherwise is to create Katrinas. And Iraqs. And poverty. And housing crises. And...

Via Eschaton, Glenn Greenwald at Salon details the psychotically hypocritical rightwing reactions to the news that the "family values" stalwart, Republic Senator Larry Craig, is in fact teh gay. And not only teh gay - the kind of teh gay that solicits anonymous sex from undercover police officers in airport bathrooms. Helllllooooooo! (Why Senator Craig doesn't just go to a gay bar like a normal person, I will never understand.)

When Larry Craig was first outed by blogger Mike Rogers in October of 2006, the rightwing was nothing but supportive. One of the most unbelievable conservabot claims was that they are "indifferent" to whether someone is homosexual or not. (Tell me again - how many Republics voted for the "Defense of Marriage" Act?)

A virtually unanimous chorus on the Right furiously insisted that nothing could be more irrelevant than whether the married family values Senator had sex with men in bathrooms (acts that are simultaneously criminal and adulterous). The same political movement that impeached Bill Clinton and which has made a living exploiting issues of private morality for political gain insisted that Rogers had reached a new and despicable low in politics even by reporting this.

Ah, how the worms have turned!

Various right-wing commentators are competing with one another to see who can express the most visceral disgust for Larry Craig's behavior (behavior which was so irrelevant just a few months ago that it was despicable even to report it). Mark Steyn echoes Hewitt's demand that Craig resign and then proceeds to spew adolescent mockery comparing Craig to George Michael. The Corner's David Freddoso registers his "obvious disgust" for Larry Craig and muses on "how rotten a job that plainclothes officer has."

And Jonah Golberg -- who last October penned one of the most pious condemnations of Rogers, calling the Craig story "wicked" and insisting that such tactics will "haunt [liberals] in unexpected ways in years to come" (notwithstanding the glaringly contradictory fact that Goldberg's entire public existence was foisted on our country by his and his mom's sleazy joint feeding off of the Clinton sex scandal) today pops up to make sure that everyone knows that he is repulsed by Craig's behavior: "I don't know what Larry Craig's been doing in men's rooms. And it sure sounds like I don't wanna know either."

Meanwhile, Diaper-Wearing, Leopard-Dress-Marrying Republic Senator David Vitter of DC and New Orleans brothel fame, remains largely unindicted by the ratwing mouthbreathers.

It couldn't be because Vitter's dangerous liaisons were with women, could it?

Rumors have been a-flyin' around the Tubes today. Who will the Deciderer try to use as a human shield - er, nominate as soon-to-be-indicted Attorney General Gonzales' replacement?

Several names have been floated as possibilities. Michael Chertoff (already discarded), Ted Olson, Orrin Hatch, George Terwilliger and Larry Thompson have all been suggested in the past 24 hours. But by far the most Machiavellian, the most horrifying candidate to me is this one:

A more intriguing pick, Sherrill said, would be Sen. Joe Lieberman, the hawkish Connecticut Democrat whose nomination would allow his state's Republican governor to appoint his replacement - wresting control of the Senate from Democrats to a tie between the two parties.

NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!! That's strike one against the appointment of the Liebermonster as AG.

But let's not stop there. We all know that Lieberman is a full-blown neo-con. As their tender kiss demonstrated, he and the Chimperor are BFF's. To assume that Joementum would restore the Constitution and clear out the corruption from the Department of Justice would be a huge mistake. So the fact that he would be another loyal Bushie is strike two.

Finally, Lieberman has run for both President and Vice President in the past two elections. Obviously, he's a very ambitious man. If Dick Cheney resigns due to "health reasons" - which I continue to believe will happen - it would be such a bipartisan gesture for Bush to appoint the CFL Senator as his Vice President, would it not? And as the Huffington Post (and many others) reported, if there's anyone MORE anxious to bomb Iran than Dick Cheney, it's Holy Joe. Can you imagine him running on a pseudo-Unity '08 ticket with whomever is the Republic nominee, bringing his new status as VP to bear?

STRIKE THREE!

I can only pray that Bush will not nominate Senator Lieberman due to his lack of a Texas background. Otherwise, I think we would have a very uphill battle getting the Democrats to refuse to confirm Joe as AG.

The horror!

Schadenfreude, thy name is Senator Larry Craig (Fake Family Values Closeted Republic-Idaho). (Memo to self: If I am ever elected to office, I will NOT seek anonymous sex in an airport restroom. It's just possible that something might go wrong.)

The arresting officer, Sgt. Dave Karsnia, reported the incident thus:

“At 1216 hours, Craig tapped his right foot. I recognized this as a signal used by persons wishing to engage in lewd conduct. Craig tapped his toes several times and moves his foot closer to my foot. I moved my foot up and down slowly. While this was occurring, the male in the stall to my right was still present. I could hear several unknown persons in the restroom that appeared to use the restroom for its intended use. The presence of others did not seem to deter Craig as he moved his right foot so that it touched the side of my left foot which was within my stall area,” the report states.

Craig then proceeded to swipe his hand under the stall divider several times, and Karsnia noted in his report that “I could ... see Craig had a gold ring on his ring finger as his hand was on my side of the stall divider.”

Karsnia then held his police identification down by the floor so that Craig could see it.

“With my left hand near the floor, I pointed towards the exit. Craig responded, ‘No!’ I again pointed towards the exit. Craig exited the stall with his roller bags without flushing the toilet. ... Craig said he would not go. I told Craig that he was under arrest, he had to go, and that I didn’t want to make a scene. Craig then left the restroom.”

In a recorded interview after his arrest, Craig “either disagreed with me or ‘didn’t recall’ the events as they happened,” the report states.

Craig stated “that he has a wide stance when going to the bathroom and that his foot may have touched mine,” the report states. Craig also told the arresting officer that he reached down with his right hand to pick up a piece of paper that was on the floor.

“It should be noted that there was not a piece of paper on the bathroom floor, nor did Craig pick up a piece of paper,” the arresting officer said in the report.

Seriously. Are there any elected male Republics that are NOT closeted gay men - or child molesters? I am quite serious about this question, because I've been to this website. And this one. Check it out...and ponder.

By the way...Senator Craig is up for re-election in 2008. How do you think that campaign will go?

Another brick in the firewall protecting George W. Bush has been removed. Praise the Giant Green Lizard!

I don't usually make predictions, because it's a dicey game, and I'm not really that good at it. But I must give myself props for this one (on August 17):

Considering the wave of resignations that has been coming through the Bush Administration lately, though, including those of KKKarl and Tony Snow, the corruption may be swept away more easily than we think. Apparently at least two more are in the works. I'm guessing an anonymous Rove staffer and Alberto Gonzales, myself. But wouldn't it be wonderful if it were Dick Cheney? (Oh please oh please oh please....)

Enough patting myself on the back. It's time to get out the champagne - the FREEDOM champagne!

Bush administration officials are saying that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales will announce his resignation Monday, according to The Associated Press.

The New York Times Web site reported that Gonzales submitted his resignation by phone to President George W. Bush on Friday.

The attorney general had been at the center of a political firestorm with Congress, and senators in both parties tried to make a perjury charge stick against him.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) considered asking the Justice Department inspector general to examine whether Gonzales' answers to questions from lawmakers amount to misconduct.

"I am deeply concerned about the seriousness of his misleading testimony," Leahy said yesterday.

Ranking committee Republican Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania appears to agree. "I think we need to ... find a way to end the tenure of Attorney General Gonzales," he said at a hearing.

I hope that people who are constantly complaining about the Democrats not doing anything will reconsider their attitudes just a little bit. There is no way that Gonzales would be gone without the oversight hearings the Democrats have been conducting. The vote-rigging would have continued. All the staffers who have resigned would still be there. And there would have been a much, much greater chance that the Republics would have stolen another election in 2008.

So thank your Democratic Senator today, especially if he or she is on the Judiciary Committee. They've earned it.

Security. It's a word that has permeated the consciousness of Americans to oversaturation since (say it with me now) Nine Eleven Changed Everything. But what does the word "security" really mean, especially when you combine it with the word "national"?

Security used to mean many things, all of them positive. You got a college degree, you got a good job, you bought a house and had 2.5 kids, and you retired with a nice pension. While all this was happening, you were able to afford gas and food for your family, and could even save money for vacations without re-mortgaging your house. You were never without electricity, and when you drove over a bridge, you didn't worry that it might collapse underneath you.

When you died, you felt secure that your kids would have the same, or an even better, standard of living, because you had faith that your government was doing its job - the job of improving security for its constituents.

Such was the American Dream, until Ronald Reagan and his conservative followers came to destroy the New Deal policies that had strengthened the middle class and allowed the dream to exist.

Poof! Before you could say "The government IS the problem," the economy tanked, we got mired in Afghanistan and created Al Qaeda, the multinationals began conglomerating and our media started to consolidate. News began degenerating into infotainment and propaganda. Think tanks blossomed that told us that the government was bad and corporations were good, and that loving the so-called free market was a substitute for political awareness. Pundits from these thinktanks began appearing on every channel to wage their particular form of class warfare and to demonize liberal ideology. Our manufacturing and service jobs began vanishing overseas, and our pensions suddenly became unsecured, easily lost when unscrupulous, greedy mega-corporations like Enron, WorldCom and many others used the funds to cover their illegal accounting practices.

Given the obvious effect conservative policies have had on national security, it would seem obvious that if you want to feel secure about your life in America, you would make sure to elect liberals like FDR, not conservative Presidents like Reagan and the Bushes, and Congresscritters like Newt Gingrich's class of 1994. But until quite recently, Americans seemed to feel that Republics were "stronger on national security" than Democrats - and even now, the margin of favorability between the two parties is very slim. How in the world did this happen?

One of the worst things the conservatives (especially gifted framers like KKKarl Rove) have done to this country has been their Orwellian destruction of the English language. The word "security" is no exception. When an elected official, pundit or journalist says the words "national security" now, they usually refer to "fighting terrorism by means of endless war". As if the only way our nation can be secure is to go to war against non-state actors who, in reality, are responsible for far fewer deaths than the automobile industry!

The real tragedy for America was not 9/11, but the reaction to it by our benighted Deciderer-in-Chief. Had Al Gore been inaugurated president in 2001, I firmly believe 9/11 would not have happened (the 9/11 Commission agreed that the attack was preventable.) However, had we been attacked by Al Qaeda during a Gore presidency, there is no way that Mr. Gore would have used such an attack as an excuse to terrify the country into accepting more and more egregious erosions of our national security. Among the outrages we have suffered are:

• tax cuts for the wealthy and the corporations, which steal money out of the pockets of the working class;


• destabilization of our infrastructure by refusing to invest in it or regulate its upkeep;


• ignoring real threats to our country and focusing on billion-dollar boondoggles like missile defense (which Condi Rice was set to speak about on 9/11) and the illegal invasion of Iraq;


• deliberate invasions of our privacy and a huge increase in identity theft which oddly seem to go hand in hand;


• allowing the rule of law, which protects Americans against their government, to become almost completely non-existent; and


• allowing predatory lending practices and prohibitive health care costs to bankrupt Americans.

For the sake of national security, it's time to stop accepting the meaningless slogans of Fear and Loathing, Inc., and remember that national security can only be provided by liberals. Conservatives do nothing but lead us down the path to endless war, and there is nothing less secure than that.

Who in the reality-based community - otherwise known as the vast majority of Americans - thinks bringing the troops home is a bad idea, at this point in the Worst Groundhog Day Ever?

It appears that Bush might be counting his "continue the surge forever" supporters on the fingers of one hand. Even the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Peter Pace - who will not be re-appointed in September - wants the Deciderer to hear HIS voice and make the right decision.

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is expected to tell President Bush to cut the US footprint in Iraq next year by almost half, according to an article in Friday's (registration-restricted) LA Times.

Officials say Marine Gen. Peter Pace will convey concerns by the chiefs that keeping in excess of 100,000 troops in Iraq into 2008 will "severely strain" the US armed forces.

This assessment, the paper says, may sow discord with top Bush officials and Bush's top commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, who continue to push for more troops.

Interestingly, Pace, who was appointed by President Bush, will not be reappointed when his term comes up in September.

Petraeus will likely back the White House view that a continued surge is required to produce "political progress" in Iraq.

"Pace's recommendations reflect the views of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who initially expressed private skepticism about the strategy ordered by Bush and directed by Petraeus, before publicly backing it," according to the Times.

So, the military doesn't want us there any more. Even loyal Bushie General Petraeus recently showed uncertainty about our mission Over There. Meanwhile, respected Republic Senator John Warner pled with President Bush yesterday to start bringing the troops home by Christmas - essentially, the same timetable Mr. Pace is recommending.

There's only so long any President has been able to stay in office without popular support. One reason Bill Clinton was able to survive his impeachment trial was his high favorability numbers during that time. Our approval sustained him through the Republic Congress' heinous misuse of power.

But this time, Bush is finally starting to lose the military and Congressional firewall that has been protecting him and his cronies from the justified wrath of the American people.

How long, Lord, how long, before justice is done and our neocon dreams of empire can finally be extinguished? How long before we turn from killing and towards diplomacy and integrity? I suspect that if the Democrats continue to tear down the wall - not much longer.

Most of America - and the world - is shaking its collective head in pure disbelief.

What was George W. Bush thinking when he spoke to the VFW and compared Iraq to Vietnam, despite years of pretending the parallels did not exist, and despite the fact that he was AWOL in Alabama during that time?

To this bloggista, it seems the Preznit is still following the Rovian playbook by both playing to his base, and re-writing history to ensure his legacy. This time, he is trying to appease the neocons, who are still mainly behind his Iraq strategy, but some of whom are getting a bit frustrated with what they perceive as Bush's incompetence in prosecuting the war. With this Vietnam analogy, Bush hopes to bring them back into the fold in order to perpetuate and legitimize the Bush/neocon doctrines of pre-emptive war and American exceptionalism.

As difficult as it is for sane people to believe, the neoconservatives feel that Vietnam could have been won, if only the American people and the media had been willing to give it another 400 Friedman Units or so. Take this article from David Gelernter of the American Enterprise Institute:

The United States must finish the job in Iraq and demonstrate that it will never again abandon its soldiers and its friends.

Not long ago, Richard Cohen of the Washington Post wrote a column about Iraq headlined “As in Vietnam, Dereliction of Duty All over Again.” The Vietnam analogy has been part of the Iraq war story since the fighting started (in fact, since before it started). The Bush administration often deals with its critics by ignoring them. This time it can’t. Too much rides on the president looking these critics in the eye and telling them: Damned right this is Vietnam all over again. Only this time we will not get scared and walk out in the middle. This time we will stand fast and repair a piece of the American psyche that has been damaged and hurting ever since we ran from Vietnam in disgrace way back in April 1975.

It is well worth noting that as a rule, none of these delusional fuckwads ever served in Vietnam. And they also have a history of stating that those who were truly psychically wounded - the Vietnam veterans suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder - were exaggerating or not actually sick at all.

But I digress. Let's go back to the poor widdu conservative in the corner, sucking his thumb and whining because liberals and war protesters dared to suggest that Daddy U.S.A. wasn't perfect:

American character is on the line. For the sake of this nation--of its good name, its big heart, the sacrifices of its many brave defenders, the genius of its creators, of its greatness, in short--conservatives had better not lose this fight.

The administration was wrong to let Americans get the idea that Iraq would be easy. But it was right to fight. And because Iraq is exactly Vietnam all over again, our eventual victory will not only be good for Iraq, the Middle East, and peace on earth. It will repair American self-respect. And it will turn the Friends of Cowardice, the U.S. Mothers for Despair, and all their allied groups back into the peripheral players they always used to be in this country--until Vietnam.

This is where it's all coming from. This is what it's all about. The warmongering, the hysteria and hatred and calls of treason towards the majority of Americans who want peace, prosperity and a better life for themselves and their families; it's all because of Vietnam. The neocons just can't deal with the fact that we FUCKING LOST VIETNAM, so they simply have to recreate it over and over again until we win.

Worst. Groundhog Day. EVER.

Well, I happen to disagree most violently with Mr. Gelernter and his fellow neoconservatives. I am heartily sick of this pathetic, mindless, puerile form of patriotism being used as an excuse to steal our treasury, rape our Constitution and kill hundreds of thousands of people. It is the likes of the American Enterprise Institute, the Project for the New American Century, and the Bush Administration who will soon be relegated to their proper place on the periphery of this country.

The neocons are on their last dying breath. Unfortunately, this makes them more dangerous. And if they see victory as possible in Iraq, it's small wonder they're pushing so hard for bombing Iran. After all, we can't possibly lose Vietnam THREE times, right?

Okay, I knew that already. But I was astonished to read what my conservative BFF, Bruce Fein, had to say about Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi on Tuesday.

Yet motivated by partisan concerns over the 2008 elections, the new speaker is following President Bush around like a sheep while he solidifies an imperial presidency and diminishes the Congress into irrelevancy. Just look at the latest ACLU advertisement targeting Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. The only thing Pelosi has retained for the Congress is small-minded earmarks to attract political contributions.

Um, WHAT?

What about the 100 hours legislation that the House passed, much of which the Senate signed off on too? (If Bush vetoed it, that certainly redounds to Bush, not the Speaker.) I may be naive, but legislation to help end lobbyist influence in Congress, enact the 9/11 recommendations, legalize and fund stem cell research, cut interest rates for college loans in half, roll back subsidies to Big Oil, and raise the minimum wage seems neither small-minded, nor directed towards gaining earmarks.

As for the FISA legislation, which the majority of Democrats voted against, Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid did not support the Administration's position on FISA, and voted against the passage of the bill. In fact, even though it sunsets in 6 months, Speaker Pelosi wrote John Conyers and Silvestre Reyes right after the law was passed, and stated her intention to revisit the legislation immediately upon Congress' return in September.

I haven't seen much press coverage on that letter, have you?

As for weakening Congress, bear in mind that the Republics have been rolling over for Bush since Day 1 of his Preznitcy. The Democrats inherited very slight control of a house rotting from within for the past 6 years. Is it their fault that the timbers are still weak after only a few months of shoring up?

But I'm not really being fair to Fein. Despite his claims that Pelosi is more interested in earmarks and the 2008 elections than her duty as Speaker, his real issue is impeachment. Excellent! It's time for me to shout Amen! again! For I, too, believe that impeachment should be back on the table, for the good of this nation - even if it eventually fails in the Senate. Agreement at last!

Well.....not exactly.

If Pelosi persists in her imperious, mean-spirited, and myopic thinking in disregard of her oath to support and defend the Constitution, members of the House should replace her with Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md.

Let me just pick myself up off the floor for a second. Did he say Steny Hoyer? The guy who runs his own Democratic version of the K-Street Project is less interested in earmarks than Nancy Pelosi? And he believes somehow that Steny Hoyer is going to start impeachment proceedings immediately? Perhaps he's referring to this article, which, I hasten to add, begins "Another source says this is fiction, but...."

Wow. I guess that's what I get for agreeing with a conservative....

Yes, it's true. There are a few conservatives I actually listen to and shout "Amen!" when they speak. One of these is Bruce Fein, the architect of the Clinton impeachment.

I know, I know. But he also wants to impeach Dick Cheney and George W. Bush! And, this morning on the Sammy and Army Show (I know, I know) he offered the best dissection I've ever heard of why executive privilege doesn't protect the Preznit and his criminal cohorts from Congressional subpoenas. Mr. Fein summed up these arguments in a July, 2007 article in Slate:

The president's claim of privilege pivots on a false assumption wrongly endorsed by the Supreme Court in United States v. Nixon: namely, that the president will not receive candid and unfettered advice from subordinates absent a guarantee that their communications will remain confidential. What nonsense. I have worked in and out of government for 38 years. I have never heard any high or low executive-branch official so much as insinuate that presidential advice had been or might be skewed or withheld if confidentiality were not guaranteed. The gravity of advising the president universally overcomes anxieties over possible embarrassment through subsequent publicity. Moreover, every presidential adviser knows that confidentiality is never ironclad. Presidents routinely waive executive privilege in jockeying with Congress; confidentiality is always subservient to a criminal investigation or prosecution under the Nixon precedent; and leaks to the media of confidential presidential memos or conversations overflow like the Nile. Indeed, President Bush has himself waived the privilege repeatedly in the ongoing U.S. attorneys investigations by the two committees.

Executive privilege is a concoction, then, to protect secrecy for the sake of secret government, while transparency is the rule of enlightened democracies to insure political accountability and to deter folly or wrongdoing.

Good on you, Bruce. It's nice when former sinners see the light.

And by the way, if Dick Cheney is not a member of the Executive Branch, as he continues to argue, then it follows that he is not covered by Executive Privilege, no?

Something tells me that Darth Cheney should have gotten a better lawyer, because if I can figure that out, I'm sure the lawyers in Congress can too...

In our society, we seem to have a serious problem with blame.

Modern conservatives have a worldview that posits a cruel, Social Darwinist society, in which all people, no matter their circumstances, should somehow "know better" than to let bad things happen to them. Sick people shouldn't get sick if they have no health insurance. Poor children shouldn't get hungry if they have no food. Uneducated people shouldn't fall for credit scams. Black people shouldn't let themselves be purged from the voter rolls by Jeb Bush. Michael J. Fox shouldn't allow himself to shake from Parkinson's while promoting stem cell research.

Conservatives tend to smugly blame the victims in the cases above. But conservatives are in the minority, right? We all know that in most cases, sick people cannot prevent themselves from being sick; poor children can do nothing about their poverty; uneducated people are uneducated because of system failures; and the disenfranchised cannot prevent political leaders from disenfranchising them. Those people who really can help themselves, but become victims anyway, are the exception, rather than the rule. As enlightened liberals, we get that.

Or do we?

I fear that blaming the victim has infiltrated our political discourse, left, right and in between, to an alarming degree. For six years, prior to my current incarnation as zzzzzzzzzzzlist bloggista, I yelled at my friends and family for blaming the Democrats for the Bushian takeover of our government. "Why don't you blame the Republicans? They're the ones who are doing everything! They have control of the committees! They change signed bills in the middle of the night! They don't even let the Democrats into the room when they create legislation! Hastert doesn't even bring a bill forward unless it has 'majority of the majority' approval, which means it has no chance of being filibustered!" (Yes, I'm a pain in the butt. Are you surprised?)

No, no, it was the Democrats who were at fault here. Never mind that demonizing the victims is a conservative meme that liberals should be ashamed to promote - bloggers such as Bartcop hammered the Democrats daily for being out of power and unable to prevent the strong-arm tactics of the Republic majority.

Well, now the Democrats are in power, but BARELY. The Senate majority is razor-thin. It counts, of course, because actual humans are now in charge of the committees. (Substituting Patrick Leahy for Arlen Specter as Chair of the Judiciary Committee has had some excellent consequences, for example.) But in terms of getting 67 votes - enough to stop the Deciderer's newly-discovered veto pen - well, let's just say it's a wee bit challenging to get 16 Republics to vote with Democrats on the color of the sky, much less something controversial, such as cutting funding for the Iraq war, or impeaching Bush, Cheney and/or Gonzales. And of course, Bush has had six oversight-free years to completely infiltrate every area of government with his political hacks and flunkies, not to mention the almost-fatal damage his regime has done to our country's laws and institutions.

Yet after barely six months of power, liberals are screaming even louder about how worthless the Democrats are. Why haven't they fixed everything Bush has done by now? Why haven't they ended the war, impeached Bush/Cheney/Gonzales, restored the Constitution, etc. etc. etc.? NEVER do we blame the Republics for blocking Democratic efforts at every turn. No, we take the actions of the minority of Democrats (such as the ones who voted for the FISA bill) and sweepingly apply blame for their actions to the leadership. Well, isn't it possible that the leadership was misled by those Democrats? If so, why can't we blame those Democrats?

Even worse, to me, is how many liberals refuse to give the Democrats credit for anything they are actually accomplishing. So often in the blogosphere (comments on Huffington Post and Eschaton, for example), I hear that the Pat Tillman hearings, the Justice Department hearings, and the NSA wiretapping hearings are so much political theatre. Oh really? Then why have these hearings led to so many resignations? The mighty are falling. The DOJ is in a total shambles, with Gonzales barely holding on. (Another Gonzales protégé resigned today, by the way.) DeLay, Libby, Abramoff, Hastert, Rove, Rumsfeld - all gone or going, long before the President stumbles out of office.

I'm tired of hearing conservative memes falling from liberal lips. It really sickens me that people cannot tell the difference between the criminals and the victims of their crimes. Am I saying that all Democrats are perfect and all Republics are evil? No - although at this point, Republics who hold any political office at all should not be trusted in any way, shape or form. But can we at least blame the right people when something goes wrong? Can we stop repeating Rove's lies as gospel? And can we finally, FINALLY get some nuance back into our political discourse?

I wish I could stop being astonished at the sheer audacity and venality of the Vice President. In my opinion, he is the most purely evil figure in all of politics. While George Bush appears to be all vanity, stupidity, stubbornness and insecurity, Dick Cheney seems to love to, in the words of Monty Burns, "wallow in his own crapulence."

Yesterday, Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont), chairman of the Judiciary Committee, stated in a press briefing that the White House has run out of time to respond to his subpoenas to turn over documents regarding the illegal NSA warrantless spying program. As a result, when Congress comes back in session, if the White House still hasn't complied, the Judiciary Committee will vote on contempt of Congress charges.

...And interestingly enough, I pointed out that every single one of these subpoenas, they have been issued by a bipartisan vote. There have been no close votes on them.

So I would hope they’d do it. And, if not, the full Judiciary Committee will have to sit down and determine whether to seek contempt from the full Senate.

As fascinating and wonderful as that prospect is to contemplate, I felt the other revelations in Senator Leahy's statement were even more amazing.

Apparently the 109th Congress - the REPUBLICAN-LED Congress - was also very concerned about the warrantless wiretapping program. Arlen Specter and other members of the Judiciary Committee attempted to get the information, but something very strange happened.

QUESTION: Is your impression they’re dragging their feet?

LEAHY: Well, you know, a lot of these questions were asked by the former chairman a couple years ago, and we haven’t gotten an answer.

In fact, we were about to issue subpoenas then and one of the senators came to our meeting and said that the vice president had met with the Republican senators and told them they were not allowed to issue subpoenas.

Not quite sure that’s my understanding of the separation of powers, but it seemed to work at that time...

Not only that, but yesterday, Cheney apparently repeated his claim that he was not a part of the executive branch.

Incidentally, in the administration’s response today, they claimed the Office of the Vice President is not part of the Executive Office of the President. So it’s some kind of fourth branch of government.

Well, that’s wrong. Both the United States Code says it is part of the president — oh, incidentally, at least this morning, as I left Vermont, I checked the White House Web site. And even their own Web site, this morning, at least, says that the Executive Office — that the vice president is part of the Executive Office of the President.

WOW.

Now let's put this into a smaller perspective for a second. You suspect that your 13-year-old child is doing drugs. You knock on your child's door, and yell that you're going to search his/her room for such drugs. The child responds,

"First of all, Mom, I forbid you to search my room. Second of all, I've decided I'm not your child any more, and third of all, NYAH NYAH NYAH, YOU CAN'T MAKE ME!"

As the child's parent, you are legally within your right to search the child's room. Furthermore, it is your duty to provide oversight of the child's activities, and of course, the child certainly cannot decide not to be your progeny! Finally, the child's last so-called point is nothing but a last-ditch effort to prevent you from doing your job as a parent. (It won't, but it will most likely result in an even harsher punishment than you would have prescribed at first! The nerve of that brat!)

Like the fictional child in my example, Dick Cheney's argument rests on nothing, and it's astonishing that a grown person - a person who holds the second highest political office in our country - would resort to such childish and ridiculous tactics. We can be absolutely certain that the documents the Judiciary Committee has requested are damning beyond all redemption.

As Senator Leahy said, the Republican Senators bought the act at the time. But thankfully for our country, oversight is back. I hope Dick Cheney likes the color orange, because he's going to be wearing it for a long time.

Dirk Gently at Albatross! has a wonderful dissection of the Blogger vs. Traditional Media Foreign Policy Seriosity Controversy. Chicken soup for your bloggy soul!

Just read it, mmmkay? You'll be glad you did.

It's long overdue, but four years after the invasion of Iraq, the real experts are finally - slowly - being allowed to weigh in.

The New York Times, while continuing to shamelessly promote the war at almost every turn, somehow permitted an amazingly truthful op-ed to make the Sunday edition. It was written by seven soldiers in Iraq - actual soldiers, not generals seeking promotion or afraid of early retirement. It is entitled "The War As We Saw It", and it begins:

VIEWED from Iraq at the tail end of a 15-month deployment, the political debate in Washington is indeed surreal. Counterinsurgency is, by definition, a competition between insurgents and counterinsurgents for the control and support of a population. To believe that Americans, with an occupying force that long ago outlived its reluctant welcome, can win over a recalcitrant local population and win this counterinsurgency is far-fetched. As responsible infantrymen and noncommissioned officers with the 82nd Airborne Division soon heading back home, we are skeptical of recent press coverage portraying the conflict as increasingly manageable and feel it has neglected the mounting civil, political and social unrest we see every day. (Obviously, these are our personal views and should not be seen as official within our chain of command.)

The claim that we are increasingly in control of the battlefields in Iraq is an assessment arrived at through a flawed, American-centered framework. Yes, we are militarily superior, but our successes are offset by failures elsewhere. What soldiers call the “battle space” remains the same, with changes only at the margins. It is crowded with actors who do not fit neatly into boxes: Sunni extremists, Al Qaeda terrorists, Shiite militiamen, criminals and armed tribes. This situation is made more complex by the questionable loyalties and Janus-faced role of the Iraqi police and Iraqi Army, which have been trained and armed at United States taxpayers’ expense.

It's so obvious when you hear the truth, isn't it? You don't have to twist your brain into a Mobius strip to understand it. You don't feel sick to your stomach when you listen to it. The clarity and simplicity are stunning and refreshing, like a cool wind blowing on your face.

Even more remarkable, a group of 108 foreign policy experts, both Republican and Democratic, were recently polled regarding the Iraq war and how the so-called "war on terror" is affecting our national security. Here are some of their opinions:

• Foreign Policy said seven of 10 experts supported the redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq. Experts have increasingly cited the war as the root cause of what they believe to be U.S. failure to win in its war on terrorism.
  
• Ninety-one percent of those polled said the world has grown more dangerous for Americans and the United States, up 10 percent from February.
  
• More than 80 percent of the experts said they expected another September 11-scale attack on the United States over the next decade, despite what they described as significant improvements among U.S. security, law enforcement and intelligence agencies.
  
• A decade from now, the Middle East still will be reeling from the ill-effects of the Iraq war, particularly heightened Sunni-Shi'ite tensions in the region, 58 percent said.
  
• Thirty-five percent believed Arab dictators will have been discouraged from pursuing political reforms as a result.
  
• Only 3 percent believed the United States will achieve its goal of rebuilding Iraq into a beacon of democracy within the next 10 years.
  

I've mentioned before that I feel that we will be withdrawing a significant number troops from Iraq before the 2008 election. However, will the one-two punch of this article and this poll convince Bush and the Republicans to start the withdrawal? I really don't know. After all, the people who have been wrong about everything in Iraq - the neo-cons like Bill Kristol and the modern version of Dick Cheney, for example - still hold sway over Bush's foreign policy decisions. The Republicans in Congress, with a few exceptions, still seem to be following Bush over a cliff into electoral extinction.

But perhaps the testimony of the real experts will finally be heard in September when Congress comes back into session. Perhaps we can begin extricating ourselves from this tarpit we've gotten ourselves into in Iraq. And perhaps in the post-invasion world, neo-conservative pundits like Kristol will be given the credence and respect they deserve: None.

Many opinions exist about what the themes of the 2008 election will be. KKKarl thinks it will definitely NOT be about Iraq. Rudy Giuliani appears to be running on the "King of 9/11" platform, lately claiming, in an unbelievable display of hubris, that he was at Ground Zero as much as the rescue workers were (apparently, they were only there 29 hours!). But what if George Bush's disasters in foreign policy and national security are NOT what the American people are most concerned about in 2008? What if it's, once again, the economy?

Certainly there are signs that the plight of ordinary, non-billionaire people is finally trickling up to Wall Street. (I've always thought that economic indicators trickle up, not down, but then, I've got a degree in French and Music, so what do I know?)

Specifically, the practice of predatory lending reached epic proportions in the heady days when Alan Greenspan lowered the federal interest rate to .5% to protect his boy Bush from the consequences of cutting taxes in a time of war. Mortgage companies, seeing that people could not afford to live where they wanted and needed to, took advantage of human greed and lack of education about financing, and approved them for mortgages that could not be paid after the balloon payment, or after the Fed raised interest rates for the umpteenth time to stave off inflation, or many other variations on the same theme.

Unfortunately, even greedier banks bought these "sub-prime" mortgages, and expected that the loans were reality-based. They weren't, and the reverberations are being felt throughout the country.

From Raw Story:

Wal-Mart CEO H. Lee Scott Jr. says customers are "running out of money."

Earlier this week, consumer juggernauts Home Depot and Wal-Mart reported softer than expected earnings.

[snip]

In Los Angeles, economic concerns hit close to home.

Anxious customers of Countrywide Bank jammed its phone lines, branches and website after the nation's largest mortgage lender -- which owns the bank -- announced it was facing problems from a credit meltdown.

"Countrywide Financial Corp., the biggest home-loan company in the nation, sought Thursday to assure depositors and the financial industry that both it and its bank were fiscally stable," wrote the LA Times Friday. "And federal regulators said they weren't alarmed by the volume of withdrawals from the bank."

"The rush to withdraw money -- by depositors that included a former Los Angeles Kings star hockey player and an executive of a rival home-loan company -- came a day after fears arose that Countrywide Financial could file for bankruptcy protection because of a worsening credit crunch stemming from the sub-prime mortgage meltdown," the paper continued.

"At Countrywide Bank offices, in a scene rare since the U.S. savings-and-loan crisis ended in the early '90s, so many people showed up to take out some or all of their money that in some cases they had to leave their names," the Times added. "Bill Ashmore drove his Porsche Cayenne to Countrywide's Laguna Niguel office and waited half an hour to cash out $500,000, which he then wired to an account at Bank of America."

"It's because of the fear of the bankruptcy," Ashmore, president of Irvine's Impac Mortgage Holdings, which escaped bankruptcy itself recently by shutting down virtually all its lending and laying off hundreds of employees told the paper. "It's got my wife totally freaked out. I just don't want to deal with it. I don't care about losing 90 days' interest, I don't care if it's FDIC-insured -- I just want it out."

I believe that by the time the Presidential election rolls around, we will be drawing down our forces from Iraq already. Certainly the surge cannot continue at its present levels past April 2008 without serious risk of breaking the Army altogether. And we know that the House has already passed a bill that echoes that deadline, although it requires the troops to be almost completely gone from Iraq by then.

Even if Bush can hold the line until he leaves office, the American people know that every Democrat running has promised to get us out of that quagmire. So really, Iraq may not be the issue in 2008.

As for national security issues, Americans are already favoring Democrats over Republics. After all, 9/11 happened on Bush's watch, and it's quite obvious that his approach to keeping us safe - the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive war - is not working in any way, shape or form. Where's Osama bin Laden again?

Yes, it seems very likely that the Clintonian wisdom of the 90's will come into play once again in 2008, but this time with a twist. Maybe this time, Republics will vote their interests, instead of blindly following whomever shouts the loudest about God, Guns and Gays. Maybe America has woken up to the fact that Republics cannot be trusted with their money. And maybe we will finally realize that when we can't put food on the table, when we're working three jobs ("uniquely American!") and never see our families, when we are losing our homes and our health due to unregulated corporate malfeasance and greed...then we cannot be a free society.

Maybe it really is...The Economy, Stupid.

Well, color me SHOCKED! Alberto "I'm SMAAAAAAHT!" Gonzales was caught testi-lying AGAIN by Congressional Democrats. This time, it's FBI Director Mueller - who wanted Fredo banned from John Ashcroft's hospital room - who provided the gory details.

Attorney General John Ashcroft was "feeble, barely articulate (and) "clearly stressed" when then-White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales and White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card visited his hospital room to push for legal approval of a warrantless wiretap program approved by President Bush, according to newly released notes from FBI Director Robert Mueller.

The notes were released Thursday by Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), who chairs the House Judiciary Committee that is investigating the legality of the warrantless wiretapping program. Mueller's notes of the March 10, 2004 incident outline a dispute between the Justice Department and the White House over the legality of a National Security Agency surveillance program.

"[Then deputy Attorney General James Comey] tells me Card and J. [Judge] Gonzales are on the way to hospital to see the AG, but that AG is in no condition to see them, much less make decisions to authorize continuation of the program," Mueller writes.

[snip]

Mueller's notes show he attended meetings in Card's office the day before the hospital visit that included Gonzales and Vice President Dick Cheney, among other officials. The day after the visit, Card requested a meeting with Mueller that lasted 40 minutes, after which Mueller spoke to Gonzales and met with Comey. Notes on those meetings are redacted from the released documents, which were sent to the committee from the FBI.

"Unfortunately, this heavily redacted document raises far more questions than it answers. We intend to fully investigate this incident and the underlying subject matter that evoked such widespread distress within the Department and the FBI," Conyers said. "We will be seeking an unredacted copy of Director Mueller's notes covering meetings before and after the hospital visit and expect to receive information from several of the individuals mentioned in the document."

I think it's time to revisit how Gonzales described this incident during his squirm-inducing testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee last month.

In his testimony today before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales was asked by Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) to address inaccuracies in his 2006 testimony in relation to the Bush administration’s warrantless wiretapping program. “There has not been any serious disagreement about the program that the president has confirmed,” Gonzales said at the time.

Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) recalled that former Deputy Attorney General James Comey testified to a much different version of events. Comey said he had refused to sign on to an extension of the program “amid concerns about its legality and oversight.”

Today, Gonzales said Comey was referring to “other intelligence activities,” appearing to confirm that the Bush administration is operating more than one warrantless domestic spying program. In a heated back and forth with Specter, Gonzales stated:

The disagreement that occurred was about other intelligence activities and the reason for the visit to the hospital was about other intelligence activities. It was not about the terrorist surveillance program that the president announced to the American people.

Of course, later on in the testimony, Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) got Gonzales to admit that the authorization he held in his hand while in AG Ashcroft's hospital room...was for the so-called terrorist surveillance program.

SNAP!!!

Bush doesn't dare fire Alberto Gonzales, the frail dam that's holding back a Democratic tsunami of subpoenas and contempt of Congress proceedings. But I still think that Gonzales may be one of the impending resignations I mentioned this morning. That seat is getting very, very hot for Fredo, and as we know, cutting and running from accountability is what Republics do best...

I haven't posted about the mine cave-in in Utah, mainly because I didn't feel there was much to add to the endless coverage by the traditional media. But today, there's even worse news - the mine is in such bad shape, it's actually killing the rescuers.

HUNTINGTON, Utah - A disastrous cave-in Thursday night killed three rescue workers and injured at least six others who were trying to tunnel through rubble to reach six trapped miners, authorities said. Mining officials were considering whether to suspend the rescue effort.

It was a shocking setback on the 11th day of the effort to find miners who have been confined at least 1,500 feet below ground at the Crandall Canyon mine. It is unknown if the six are alive or dead.

“All rescue workers have been evacuated from the mine,” said Dirk Fillpot, a spokesman for the federal Mine Safety and Health Administration.

Officials said the cave-in was caused by a mountain bump, which commonly refers to pressure inside the mine that shoots coal from the walls with great force. Seismologists say such an event caused the Aug. 6 cave-in that trapped six men inside the central Utah mine. Thursday’s bump occurred about 6:30 p.m. ET.

Ah, yes. It was just an unforeseeable accident of Mother Nature. No one to blame here, right? Well, no, not so fast.

According to the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) website, mountain bumps are a known risk in mining and can be often be avoided, or at least remediated, by following proper safety procedures. On page 3 of this report on a mountain bump accident in Utah in 1987, the Department of Labor lists the cause as "failure to follow the approved mining cycle sequence causing excessive pressure on the pillar being mined."

In addition, The New York Times finally reported on Thursday that the way the mines were dug - a very deep method called "retreat mining" - actually increased the likelihood of mountain bumps.

It's horribly depressing. The man in charge of mine safety - and of "investigating" the incident - is another "heckuva job" guy named Richard Stickler. He is so corrupt and incompetent that the Republican Congress twice refused to approve his appointment. Now THAT is a telling statistic. (Bush ended up sneaking Stickler in during a Congressional recess, as he did with his neocon buddy, John Bolton.)

One thing I am so looking forward after the 2008 elections is a fresh group of competent people being put in to all areas of the government. You know, people who are actually interested in doing their jobs? Not profiting from the industries they're supposed to be regulating, or using the Justice Department to steal elections?

Considering the wave of resignations that has been coming through the Bush Administration lately, though, including those of KKKarl and Tony Snow, the corruption may be swept away more easily than we think. Apparently at least two more are in the works. I'm guessing an anonymous Rove staffer and Alberto Gonzales, myself. But wouldn't it be wonderful if it were Dick Cheney? (Oh please oh please oh please....)

Mainly...the possible impending bankruptcy of the premier election-stealing company of all time, Diebold Election Systems.

Read, oh supporters of clean elections, and rejoice:

Diebold Elections Systems, Inc. is no more. At least in name.

After a year and a half of conversely trying to dump their failed voting unit and/or lying to customers about the reliability and security of their voting systems, corporate parent Diebold is giving up the ghost of their election business which, according to an analyst in a Reuters report, was "responsible for less than 10 percent of Diebold's revenue, and 100 percent of its bad publicity."

According to a company statement [PDF] just released, Diebold Elections Systems, Inc. will become Premier Election Solutions as of today. The company president, David Byrd, who has overseen the disastrous election unit for some time, will stay on as President to go down with the ship, apparently.

[snip]

After a string of disastrous reports on the quality and security of their voting systems, along with plummeting stock prices since last week, it seems clear that Diebold, the once-great, more-than-100-year old company, is doing whatever they can at this point to save the corporate parent. While their stock price (DBD) plummeted at today's opening bell, and is currently down some 5.6% from yesterday, the price has begun to rise again in the last hour or so on news of the sale.

More than anything, however, the move may well be a harbinger of a coming declaration of bankruptcy for Diebold/Premier as we see it. With the unit now spun off from the blue chip Diebold parent, declaring bankruptcy or dissolving the company all together might be less trouble for investors and the main company as a whole, as their extraordinary legal and financial liabilities continue to mount...

Justice is cruel, eh, Diebold/Premier? Or is it...delicious?

We all knew that the September 15th report on the "surge", pronounced by the White House as the definitive, on-the-ground report from General David "Baby Jeebus" Petraeus, was going to be a bunch of hooey. But I don't think we realized exactly how much fakery was going to be involved.

The fricking report won't even be written by Petraeus, but will have his "input", the American people discovered yesterday! The rest of the input will come...from political staffers at the White House. Holy bait-and-switch, Batman!

As the Bushies always do when they are discovered in a giant lie, they simply say, "We have always been at war with Eastasia." (To see all the times they claimed the report WOULD be written by Petraeus and Crocker, see this excellent summary by Greg Sargent at TalkingPointsMemo.

Peroxide Princess of Pissiness Dana Perino elaborated yesterday.

Q Dana, there's a report out today that the September Iraq report will be written by the White House, and not by Ambassador Crocker and General Petraeus. Is that accurate?

MS. PERINO: Well, let me remind you of a couple of things. The Congress asked for these reports from the President; they asked for the President to report to the Congress. And so the July 15th report will be no different to the September 15th report, in terms of how that works. And the President has said that he's going to take the recommendations from General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker, and then he will consult further before deciding on any possible next course of action.

I know that the Democrats will be voting on Iraq again in September. Let's hope they use this latest example of Bush's mendacity as a club to beat the Republics into supporting a withdrawal...and to get enough votes to put impeachment back on the table. ***

UPDATE: Via Huffington Post, the Washington Post describes the Democrats' reaction to the latest White House chicanery. (Hint: They're not happy.) It also points out that the purported Petraeus report is not the only one the Bushies are required to give to Congress in September. Worth a read.

***Want to help the Democrats do the right thing? Show up in D.C. on September 15 if you can.

Yes, Newt Gingrich is even more of a slime-sucking ratling than you remember.

Via The Huffington Post:

WASHINGTON — Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said Tuesday he is "sickened" that President Bush and Congress went on vacation "while young Americans in our cities are massacred" by illegal immigrants.

Gingrich, who is considering a run for the White House, was referring to the recent execution-style murders of three college students on a school playground in Newark, N.J.

One man whom police believe was involved in the murders — Jose Lachira Carranza — is an illegal immigrant from Peru who had been released on bail on charges of raping a child when the murders occurred.

Gingrich said that the "war here at home" against illegal immigrants is "even more deadly than the war in Iraq and Afghanistan."

And there it is. Fear and Loathing, Inc., is chugging along just fine without its CEO, KKKarl Rove. "OMG!!! Bush is right they did follow us home!!!!!1111!!!!!" think the brainwashed 18%.

It's clear to anyone who doesn't have a pencil stuck in his brain that Gingrich has just made an outrageous statement. Hundreds of thousands of people have died in Iraq and Afghanistan - clearly, there aren't massacring hordes of illegal immigrants swarming over the border killing The Master Race - ooooooops, I mean White People.

But you know what? The frames are still there. The frames are:

• "brown people are all scary and all want to kill Murkins" (see: we attacked Iraq instead of capturing Osama Bin Laden but the wingnuts don't care cause Saddam was baaaad);
• "they're stealing our jobs and raping our women" (see: brown is the new black); and finally
• "the proper and manly response to any problem is to declare war" (see "the war on terror").

All the Republics are great at framing, because they all get their talking points from Master KKKarl. On the Democratic side, the only candidate for President that seems to understand it is Hillary Clinton, although Obama shows flashes of brilliance in that regard. John Edwards, although he should be getting as much or more attention as the other two, does not get framing at all, and that's why his campaign is sputtering.

But the other Democrats, including the ones in Congress, had better learn, and very very soon. It's not just that the traditional media is run by the military-industrial complex and overwhelmingly favors Republics and warmongers because of that. It's also that it doesn't matter what the Republics say, as long as it falls within the frame they want to present.

If we don't start challenging the frames, we will never get our country back.

Many thanks to Hecate for her excellent post on this subject. Here's what she says:

Local news radio is reporting that ANSWER, the group doing much of the organizing for the upcoming September 15th anti-war march: says it's received citations for more than $10,000 from the city. This notice of violation from the Department of Public Works orders the group to remove all signs reading "March To Stop The War."

The protesters say they've been putting these posters on the rectangular metal boxes near street corners for years and have never had any problem. The group says local and federal government are acting politically and unconstitutionally.

Of course, the Department of Public Works doesn't even have a good lie prepared: DPW spokeswoman Linda Grant says this is not about the message, but is an ongoing attempt to make sure people post signs according to city regulations.

If you have a chance, why not throw up a post about the march on your blog? As the ANSWER webpage explains, the September 15 Mass March [] is timed to coincide with the report of General Petraeus and the debate in Congress on the Iraq war. Iraq war veterans and their families will lead this dramatic march from the White House to the Congress on September 15. The last thing the government wants is to see the streets of Washington DC fill up with throngs of anti-war protesters right in the middle of the debate. The September 15th March will be followed on Monday, September 17th, with a Peoples March Inside Congress, led by Code Pink (Meet at 12 noon in the cafeteria of the Rayburn House Office Building ).

Done, Goddess, and thanks very much for spreading the word!

I really, really, don't want to think about this or say it. But playing 'see no evil' with what the Bushies and their neocon enablers like Joe Lieberman are doing with Iran is just not an option.

I went ballistic when I read that the Senate had voted 97-0 to approve Joe Lieberman's non-binding resolution that Iran is really, really naughty and deserves to be spanked. I'm kidding because I'm terrified! Here's what it really said (via firedoglake).

The amendment states that “the murder of members of the United States Armed Forces by a foreign government or its agents is an intolerable act of hostility
against the United States,” and demands the government of Iran “take immediate action” to end all forms of support it is providing to Iraqi militias and insurgents. The amendment also mandates a regular report on Iran’s anti-coalition activity in Iraq.

Of course, there's no such amendment regarding Saudi Arabia, which is responsible for most of the foreign support for the insurgency. Why would there be? They already let us have access to their oil.

Technically, the resolution says nothing about military action. Realistically, it is non-binding. But in terms of the KKKarl Rove frame that engendered it? It's the authorization for making war on Iran, if the Democrats don't wise up - and soon.

Let's face it. The phrase "the war on terror" was never challenged by the Democrats until it had become a part of the mass media echo chamber. I understand that the media would have crucified any Democrat that stood up and said "Hey! You can't make war on a feeling or a tactic! Terrorism cannot be beaten by military action!" In fact, they did so, when John Kerry said as much during his Presidential campaign.

But now, it looks like the Bush Administration is ready to build another case for another war on another country that did not attack us. How will they do it? By declaring a portion of that government's country....terrorists.

WASHINGTON — The Bush administration is moving toward blacklisting Iran's
Revolutionary Guard Corps as a "terrorist" organization, subjecting at least part of the entity to financial sanctions in a new move against the Islamic republic, a U.S. official said Tuesday.

A decision has been made in principle to name elements of the corps a "specially designated global terrorist" group, but internal discussions continue over whether it should cover the entire unit or only its main military wing, the Al-Quds force, the official said.

The official spoke on condition of anonymity because a decision, which must be approved by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, has not yet been made. It was not immediately clear when the designation, first disclosed by The Washington Post, would be made public.

Uh-huh. Like the decision was "not yet made" to invade Iraq until Saddam just wouldn't let the inspectors in, right? (Oh yeah. He DID let the inspectors in and they found no WMD, so Bush pulled them out and invaded because he wanted to. I forgot.)

The decision is made, at least in some circles. Cheney, the neocons and the Zionists are allied in an Axis of Evil, as it were, and they are trying desperately to get Bush to bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran (as John McCain so memorably sang on the campaign trail). And because the Senate Democrats as a group have bought into the frame that the only acceptable response to terrorism is war, they are seemingly bound by their own words to support this invasion.

I say "seemingly", because there is a way out. The Democrats may not want to take the best way, which is of course to challenge the Bush-Rovian doctrine of pre-emptive war (called part of Bush's lasting legacy by Rove in his farewell speech). I really, REALLY want them to do this, because we need to move towards a modern foreign policy that deals with the true challenges of globalization, not keep on with the old Cold War formulation of proxy wars with hostile nations.

BUT - if the Democrats really can't find their spines, they can say this:

"What's the plan, George? We won't give you any money for this war unless you show us the plan."

Instantly the frame breaks. War is chaos without a plan. All the Democrats have to do is point to Iraq and the Invisible War, Afghanistan, to show how terribly the heedless prosecution of war will turn out. And needless to say, invading Iran simply cannot be done successfully. So there is no plan, and thus, there will be no war with Iran.

I will be calling my Senators and telling them that the American people will not accept war with Iran under any circumstances whatsoever. I hope you - and millions of Americans - will do the same. Let's hope it stiffens their spines...or at least, wises them up.

If you haven't seen this yet, please take thirty seconds to take a look.

My husband and I actually started crying when we saw it. This was the first Democratic campaign ad in many years that succeeded in moving me, because DAMMIT, I did not sign on for this horrorshow of a government, overseen by demonic creatures like KKKarl and Dick and Condi and soulless, emotionless George. I want a government that reflects traditional American priorities like justice, peace and prosperity for all. I don't want my government to keep trying to scare me into hiding in a corner, pissing my didies in fear of scary brown people. In short, I do feel invisible and Hillary's ad made me feel she understands me. (She "feels mah pain", one might say.)

And I'll tell you what else she understands. Senator Clinton has very, very high negatives for someone running for president. She has a reputation, fair or not, of being too cold, too wonky, and too calculating. If she's going to overcome those negatives and make it all the way to becoming the nominee, she's got to do something to counter those impressions. What does she do? Creates an ad that makes you feel all warm and fuzzy. Hillary Clinton is a GENIUS!!! (Hey, they can say it about Nazi KKKarl, why not her?)

Here's my favorite part about this ad - the White House response, and Senator Clinton's parry.

Dana Perino, Peroxide Princess of Pissiness, had this to say:

"As to the merits of it, I think it's outrageous. This is a president who, first and foremost, has helped millions of seniors across the country have access to prescription drugs at a much lower cost," Perino said. "As to whether or not our troops are invisible to this president, I think that is absurd and that it is unconscionable that a member of Congress would say such a thing."

And Hillary:

"Apparently I've struck a nerve."

Oh, yes you have, Senator. And you do. Keep on striking that nerve - it could take you all the way to the White House.

CQ (Congressional Quarterly) reports today:

After less than a year as a rank-and-file House member, former Speaker J. Dennis Hastert is expected to call an end to a political career that made him the longest serving Republican Speaker in the history of the House of Representatives.

Several Illinois newspapers, including the Aurora Beacon News and the Chicago Tribune, reported Tuesday that the Illinois Republican has scheduled a Friday announcement on the steps of the Kendall County Courthouse in Yorkville, Ill. While Hastert aides are refusing to discuss what he plans to say, he is expected to announce that he will not run for a 12th term in 2008, according to Republican sources.

Remember when the name of Dennis Hastert was constantly in the news? As the Republic Speaker of the House in the pre-2006 Republic Congress, it must have been because of all the accomplishments of his tenure, right? After all, unlike Nancy Pelosi, the current Speaker, he had the benefit of a like-minded majority in the House and Senate, as well as a Republic president to rubberstamp every bill. Not only that, but he was the longest-serving Republic Speaker in the history of the House. He must be so proud of his service to his country!

Well....maybe not. CQ's summary of his career is quoted below. Notice the incredible disasters he's been a part of, as well as the personal scandals that blossomed, like turds, around his giant body (oh please, they say Al Gore is fat, so Hastert's fair game). Heckuva job, Denny!

Hastert, 65, was first elected to Congress in 1986 after GOP Rep. John E. Grotberg retired. He quietly worked his way up the ranks in the House, propelled into the Republican leadership in 1994 by then-Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Texas.

Hastert ran DeLay’s successful upstart campaign for majority whip after Republicans captured control of Congress, and DeLay in turn named Hastert as his chief deputy. Four years later, in 1998, DeLay helped to elevate Hastert to Speaker after Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., stepped down following the loss of GOP seats in that year’s elections and Robert L. Livingston, R-La., withdrew abruptly from contention after acknowledging an extramarital affair.

As Speaker, Hastert led the House Republican majority for eight years during which the GOP solidified its power and aggressively pursued conservative policies.

He presided over the House through the Sept. 11 attacks and the start of the Iraq war, and shepherded through the massive 2001 and 2003 tax cuts (PL 107-16, PL 108-27) that pleased the conservative majority. He managed to float above various scandals and public discontent with Republican policies while many of his colleagues fell by the wayside ­— including, ultimately, DeLay.

Throughout his time as Speaker, Hastert was personally popular with rank-and-file Republicans, who never saw him as part of the ethics problems that plagued DeLay and former Rep. Mark Foley, R-Fla. (1995-2006), or the criminal misdeeds of former Reps. Randy “Duke” Cunningham, R-Calif. (1991-2005) and Bob Ney, R-Ohio (1995-2006).

The impact of the scandals added up, however, and became campaign fodder for Democrats, who made the “culture of corruption” in Congress a 2006 campaign mantra. When Democrats took over at the start of the 110th Congress, Hastert made no attempt to remain in the leadership. He has spent this year as a mostly silent back-bencher.

Ah, how the mightily corrupt are falling. The Schadenfreude is thick and deep this week, my friends. Enjoy!

Surprise, surprise! General David Petraeus, the incompetent "loyal Bushie" who lost 190,000 weapons in Iraq in 2004 and 2005, wonders if perhaps he's bitten off more than he can chew.

BAGHDAD — Gen. David H. Petraeus looked out from a Black Hawk helicopter at the vistas of Baghdad rushing by 150 feet below on a recent summer evening, pointing at bustling markets, amusement parks and soccer fields scattered through neighborhoods where miles of concrete barriers stood like sentinels against the threat of suicide bombers.

Pressing the talk button on his headset, the slightly built, 54-year-old general, the top American commander in Iraq, said glimpses of the normal life that have survived the war’s horrors have helped to boost his own flagging spirits, especially on days when signs of battlefront progress are offset by new bombings with mass casualties, the starkest measure of continuing insurgent power across Iraq.

Then, he said ruefully, he wondered whether he “should have taken that civilian job” before accepting what many see as the most unpromising command since that of Gen. Creighton W. Abrams Jr. in Vietnam — who took charge, in 1968, when that war was going badly and American opinion was running strongly in favor of a pullout.

I'll answer that question, General. Yes, you should have. You shouldn't have taken this job just to get a promotion. You shouldn't have lent your credibility (such as it was) to a man like George W. Bush, who, as we can see from his cold, emotionless farewell to KKKarl Rove yesterday, treats people like a gourmet meal that he eliminates as soon as it's been completely consumed. And most of all, you should have realized that when we withdraw from Iraq - which as soon as George Bush is gone, we will do - your name will be associated with the failure of the "surge".

Heckuva job, Davey.

Personal moment: My mother passed away 11 years ago from breast cancer. Believe me, I can sympathize with what Elizabeth Edwards and her family are going through. I have nothing but hope for Mrs. Edwards that she can vanquish her illness, and nothing but admiration for her courage in the face of a terrifying disease.

But really - does she think she's helping her husband in his battle for the White House by sniping at Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama?

"The problem for me with the other candidates is I don't know what it is that drives them," she explained, "I should think the president has to be somebody who has that kind of vision outside themselves."

I'm sorry, but what? You don't know what drives them, but you're assuming they're heartless, selfish and power-hungry, with no vision for the country?

Okay, fine. What if I said this to Mrs. Edwards? "I don't know what drives you, Mrs. Edwards, but I'm assuming that you don't care what you say, as long as your husband becomes President." That seems just as fair a conclusion to draw.

Unfortunately, there's more.

Mrs. Edwards praised her husband for apologizing for his vote in favor of the Iraq War, and questioned Senator Hillary Clinton's, D-N.Y., for not doing the same.

"She even, in the New Hampshire debate said, 'I made a mistake.' People are looking for a mea culpa from her. And when she buried a line like that –- I give her credit for saying that –- but when she buries that line... we're electing a leader of the free world, and just like the votes on this last funding bill, we're looking for a leader," Edwards contended.

And while Senator Barack Obama, D-Ill., was in the Illinois state legislature and not the Senate in 2003, Mrs. Edwards equally questioned his motives.

"Obama gives a speech that's likely to be extraordinarily popular in his home district," Edwards said, "and then comes to the Senate and votes for funding... so you are going to get people behaving in a holier-than-thou way."

Oh. You mean that apologizing for voting for the AUMF makes it okay? I'm sorry, but to me, an apology for a policy vote doesn't work the way an apology for a personal decision does. The policy is still in place, and it's still one of the worst foreign policy disasters in American history. And as far as Obama, isn't she being a little holier-than-thou herself by holding up Mr. Edwards as some kind of pure leader with only the good of the country at heart?

I agree with what Hillary Clinton said at the AFL-CIO debate. The Democrats should be united against the Republicans and the right wing, not attacking each other. You can point out differences between yourself and your opponent with more respect than this. And whether it's fair or not, it seems like John Edwards is sending out his wife, who is viewed as an unassailable target due to her illness, to do his dirty work. That's not the action of an incorruptible leader, is it?

There is absolutely nothing Mitt Romney won't say to try to become Preznit. Sadly, despite his smell of magic underwear and holy water, it doesn't look like it's in the cards for the Mittster. Even Chris Wallace of (gasp!) Fox Nothing Channel doesn't seem to be on board the Mittebago.

In perhaps the show's most memorable moment, Wallace revisited a flap that (dare we say it?) dogged Romney in late June: the revelation that during a family vacation years ago, a pet Irish Setter went along ... on top of the car.

Romney quickly defended himself, saying the dog (named Seamus) traveled in a "completely airtight kennel" mounted on the car's roof.

But Wallace would have none of it. "Well, I've got to tell you, Massachusetts law and dog lovers — and I'm one of them — take this seriously" he sniffed. "Massachusetts law prohibits carrying an animal on top of a car, even in a kennel, as cruel and inhuman. Do you really think you did nothing wrong?

Replied Romney: "I wasn't familiar with that in terms of Massachusetts law. Love my dog. ..."

You can check out the complete transcript here.

Seriously, Mitt. You were the GOVERNOR OF MASSACHUSETTS. Are you telling me you didn't know your actions were against the law? Either you're a bald-faced liar, or you're totally incompetent.

Actually, I'm voting for "both of the above." But I won't be voting for Mitt. And neither will Republics in November 2008.

Holy Giant Green Lizard, Batman!

WASHINGTON — Karl Rove, President Bush's close friend and chief political strategist, plans to leave the White House at the end of August, joining a lengthening line of senior officials heading for the exits in the final 1 1/2 years of the administration.

On board with Bush since the beginning of his political career in Texas, Rove was nicknamed "the architect" and "boy genius" by the president for designing the strategy that twice won him the White House. Critics call Rove "Bush's brain."

A criminal investigation put Rove under scrutiny for months during the investigation into the leak of a CIA operative's name but he was never charged with any crime. In a more recent controversy, Rove, citing executive privilege, has refused to testify before Congress about the firing of U.S. attorneys.

What could the reason possibly be for Bush's beloved right-hand man to leave now, right before the poop hits the fan in September when Congress reconvenes? Yet another Iraq war vote looms, with more Republic defections almost inevitable; inherent contempt charges may be in the works for Josh Bolten and Harriet Miers; there are movements to impeach Alberto Gonzales and Dick Cheney, and censure motions for Bush, Cheney and Gonzales as well; and of course, the Pat Tillman investigation will continue. Why, oh why would KKKarl desert his best buddy Bush in his time of greatest need?

Rove is expected to write a book after he leaves. He disclosed his departure in an interview with The Wall Street Journal.

He said he decided to leave after White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten told senior aides that if they stayed past Labor Day they would be obliged to remain through the end of the president's term in January 2009.

"I just think it's time," Rove said in an interview at this home on Saturday. He first floated the idea of leaving to Bush a year ago, the newspaper said, and friends confirmed he'd been talking about it even earlier. However, he said he didn't want to depart right after the Democrats regained control of Congress and then got drawn into policy battles over the Iraq war and immigration.

"There's always something that can keep you here, and as much as I'd like to be here, I've got to do this for the sake of my family," said Rove, who has been in the White House since Bush took office in 2001.

Ah, KKKarl. You don't get it, do you? You're not creating reality any more, and no one is going to buy your book (or have you done "The Math" on that too?). Those who know who you are, simply despise you. And as for the "spend more time with your family" canard? That's Washingtonese for "They're on to me."

The Congressional investigations into the Justice Department attorney firing/election fraud scandal have unearthed KKKarl's name again and again as the source of the corruption. He was also involved in the leaking of undercover CIA operative Valerie Plame's name to the media, which is a treasonous offense. He's currently ducking a subpoena by claiming "executive privilege", which, unless he's actually claiming he's the President, is ludicrous on its face. What a glorious record as a public servant!

And as for his brilliance? Well, let me sum up his career:

• Decades of lying, cheating and stealing to get to the top of the food chain and achieve a "permanent Republican majority"


• 6 whole years of Republic dominance


• A huge Republic defeat in 2006 and an even huger one predicted in 2008; a Republic Party so crippled by scandal and unpopular right-wing positions that KKKarl pushed on them that they are poised for permanent minority status

KARL ROVE IS A GENIUS!

Buh-bye, KKKarl. If your family wants to spend more time with you, they must be the only ones. America can't wait to see the back of your slimy white head.