Junior's Summer Vacation

At his Texas Versailles, Dubbyuh does little more than spout platitudes to the families of thoise who have lost loved ones in Iraq.

"We will stay the course; we will complete the job in Iraq."

Cold comfort to those whose loved ones died in the service of their country in pursuit of dubious goals. Too little, too late for those whose courage, honor and belief in their country has been made a mockery of by this president.

Cindy Sheehan is one such person. The founder of Gold Star Families for Peace, she stands vigil outside Dubbyuh's Texas hide-away waiting for answers from the president who sent her son to die for a cause now known to be false. WMD's were the casus beli, since shown to be nothing more than the product of cherry-picked, over spun and fabricated intel.

Apparently, Junior has better things to do than to provide an honest answer to Mrs. Sheehan, and the rest of the country. There's alot of brush to be cleared down there on the ranch, they must be flying in C-130's loaded with it, and Junior is simply too busy dealing with that critical issue. Instead, he sends a couple of underlings to speak with Mrs. Sheehan.

The other reason, and a far more likely one in my humble opinion, is that Junior is little more than a spineless worm who is all too willing to sacrifice others (especially if they can't afford the price tag that accompanies his pay to play administration) to achieve his goals. So, neither Mrs. Sheehan nor America can expect any answers from Junior or his playmates any time soon.

'Turd-Blossom' in Deeper Shit

IN the ongoing saga of Karl Rove and the outing of Valerie Plame as a CIA agent more turds keep rising to the surface of this punch-bowl than you can shake a stick at.

Something many defenders of 'Turd-Blossom' seem to forget in their fervor is that on July 30, 2003, the CIA filed a "crime report" regarding this matter. This, essentially, referrs the matter to the DOJ for criminal prosecution.

They also seem to remain willfully ignorant of the fact that Brewster Jennings & Associates, the CIA front company that Ms. Plame listed as her official employer, was severely comromised and other CIA officers who used the company as a front were also compromised. Whether this has led to the loss of life as these operations were rolled up remains to be seen.

According to Larry Johnson, a former CIA official, Ms. Plame was also operating under NOC or, non-official cover. This meant that Ms. Plame when traveling abroad under a non-diplomatic passport, could have been arrested as a foreign agent and been executed by a regime hostile to US interests.

Contrary to the assertions of some that Ms. Plame was nothing but a "file-clerk, Vincent Cannistraro, former CIA counter-terrorism operations chief, has stated differently. He has stated that Ms. Plame ran NBC non-proliferation operations, recruiting agents to seek out information on NBC proliferation. Information which would be particularly useful to the US here...now.

Many of 'Turd-Blossom's' supporters also cite the narrowly worded "Intelligence Identities Protection Act" which makes it a federal crime to intentionally reveal any information identifying an undercover operative. They claim that he didn't reveal her name, and only referred to her as "Joe Wilson's wife". This is simply the poorest sort of sophisty and hair-splitting. And even if 'Turd-Blossom' did not commit a crime under the letter of this law, he certainly violated its spirit. But there are other laws which may have been broken, not the least of which is " The Espionage Act of 1917". And there is also the little matter of Turd-Blossom's violation of the "Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement" he signed as a condition of employment and which he violated by disclosing Ms. Plame's identity.

But this case goes deeper than just the revelation of a CIA operative's name in pursuit of political payback. It goes to the heart of the Administration's justicfications for the war with Iraq and threatens to send that already teetering house of cards crashing to the ground.

'Turd-blossom'in Deep Shit

In the White House Regular Press Briefing of July 11th, 2005, White House Press Secretary Puffy McMoonface, aka Scott McClellan, aka Chummy McSharkbait, was savaged by a gang of real reporters who were secretly substituted for the White House press corps. The subject of the reporters questioning was Karl Rove and the statements made by Puffy and Dubbyuh regarding an ongoing criminal investigation. This was, of course, before they figured out they'd been caught in a lie and decided not to comment on an ongoing criminal investigation.

It was October 10th, 2003. I another press briefing, Puffy stated that neither Rove nor 'Scooter' Libby were involved. Nor, he added was Elliot Abrams. Sounds like a comment about an ongoing criminal investigation to me.

And wasn't it Dubbyuh who said:

If there's leaks out of my administration, I want to know who it is, and if the person has violated the law, the person will be taken care of.

However, the pattern of Dubbyuh's Administration is to reward failure. After all, Condi ignored the PDB which stated "Osama bin Laden seeks to attack the US", and lookit where she is now...Secretary of State an' all. And then there was George Tenet who got us into a war based on cooked intel. He got a Presidential Medal of Freedom. And so did J. Paul Bremmer, who managed to lose $9 billion in taxpayer money in Iraq.

For a cock-up of this magnitude, Turd-blossom's reward will have to be pretty spectacular. Could a seat on the SCOTUS be in the offing?

For more on this little [packet of distracting weirdness, I offer the following links:

Puffy gets beaten like a gong The full transcript.

The main-stream media - Developing a backbone...At last

Just how serious is Dubbyuh about the 'War on Terror'?

All indictions to date are that he's not at all serious. After 9/11, Dubbyuh went all cowboy sheriff and made alot of noise about wanting Osama bin Laden "...Dead or Alive...". Just a few months later, in March of 2002, Dubbyuh flip-flopped and said. "I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him. - White House Press Conference, 5/13/02

During that March press conference, Dubbyuh was already making noises about the "threat " posed by Saddam Hussein. Also, in July of 2002, Dubbyuh, without notifying Congress as the post-9/11 appropriations bill required him to do , diverted some $700 million dollars from the operational fund for Afghanistan to fund operations against Iraq. This was concurrent with the stepped up bombing of targets in Iraq, again without notifying Congress.

On the homefront, Dubbyuh and his merry band contiue seeking to make the tax-cuts beneffiting the wealthiest 1% of Americans permanent...This in a time of war. Shouldn't we be raising taxes to fund ongoiing military oprerations? But no, he'd rather borrow from foreign lenders to support his foreign military adventurism. Cuts in funding to first -responders, fire, police and EMS personnel, continue unabated. Funding for sea-port security remains far below what is needed. Nuclear power plants and petro-chem facilites remain large, soft targets, particularly since the Chemical Facilities Security Act of 2003 died in committee.

So, just how serious is Dubbyuh about the war on terror...? Not very. It just gets trotted out with "Remember 9/11!" when his poll numbers sag.

"...defeat them abroad before they attack us at home..."

Yesterdays bombings in London gave the lie to that premise. Rather than acting as "flypaper", Iraq has become a training ground for terrorists which is second to none. It exceeds the wildest wet dreams that Osama bin Laden had for training operations in Taliban controlled Afghanistan.

In a report from January 2005, the National Intelligence Council stated, "...a training ground, a recruitment ground, the opportunity for enhancing technical skills...". While no firm numbers on Iraqi insurgents killed are available, it seems likly that the casualties are doing little more than culling the less capable members and giving rise to more highly trained, experienced, motivated and capable terrorist operatives than have been seen in recent memory. These operatives, particularly the foreign nationals fighting alongside Iraqi nationals, are then able to exfiltrate from Iraq and carry the skills they have acquired there around the world.

To think that we will "...defeat them abroad before they attack us at home..." is at best, pollyanish wishful thinking. At worst it is a gross understatement of the threat to both this nation and the world at large. Let us hope our leaders outgrow such foolishness before we pay the price on our shores...again.

Dubbyuh's Special Day

On July 4th, Dubbyuh gave a speech in Morgantown, WV. Of course, this speech was given before a hand-picked audience of approved ticket holders...No subversives or hecklers allowed.

In his speech Dubbyuh reached back in history, a subject he knows little about, and brought forth the memory of the struggles of the Founding Fathers and their strugle for independence. He compared and contrasted this with the current struggle of the Iraqi people. And, I must confess the analogy is interesting.

In 1776, a band of American insurgents rose up, and with the support of some foreign governments and a few foreign troops...Fought, bled and died, in order to finally expell and occupying army from American soil. Indeed, circumstances in Iraq are strikingly similar.

In Iraq, an insurgency has arisen in order to expell occupying foreign troops from Iraqi soil. They also have the support of some foreign nations with about 5% of the manpower for the insugency being compromised of foreign troops. But the occupying military is compromised, primarily of US troops.

On the surface, Dubbyuh's analogy seems appropriate, but when looking at the context it is wholly inappropriate. In launching a war of aggression against Iraq based on questionable pretenses and intel fabricated from whole cloth, the Bush administration has betrayed the struggle of Americans in the Revolutionary war. They have betrayed the ideals of the Founding Fathers. They have betrayed the Constitution they swore to uphold and defend.

Illegal...And They Knew it.

We have the Downing Street Minutes and their associated documents.

We have revelations of a bombing campaign called 'Southern Focus' began in June of 2002, which involved over 21,000 sorties against targets in Iraq. Please note this began while the administration was denying the inevitability of war, and some five months before the Administration asked Congress for the authority to begin military operations in Iraq.

And we have this forgotten story...War critics astonished as US hawk admits invasion was illegal

In November of 2003, Richard Perle, one of the architects of Bush Administration policy towards Iraq, stated of the invasion of Iraq:

I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing.

Richard Perle admitted the invasion of Iraq was illegal. At the urging of George W. Bush and members of his cabinet, America embarked on a war of aggression in violation of US and international law. They are thus liable for proscecution under that law. It is time we did so.

A word on Karl Rove...

Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 in the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers... - Karl Rove, 6/22/2005

Liberal that I am, I simply cannot understand Mr. Rove's remarks. After 9/11, I knew someone was going to get the sharp end of the stick...I wanted that to happen, and I don't know of anyone who didn't. I challenge Mr. Rove, or anyone else for that matter, to produce JUST ONE person, liberal or conservative, who voiced the point of view he described. In making such remarks, Mr. Rove slandered the memory of those who perished on that day...He slandered everyone who watched in horror as the planes slammed into the Towers and stood overwhelmed by the tragedy as the Towers collapsed...He slandered the families who lost loved ones to this monstrous tragedy

More important though is that the question as to why Mr. Rove chose to raise the spectre of 9/11 has gone begging. The answer is quite simple...The President's poll numbers continue to slide towards the tipping point...Iraq is sliding towards disintigration...The Downing Street Minutes continue to hound the president, and references to 9/11 are attempt to revive the fears 9/11 raised. Well guess what Mr. Rove...We're not afraid anymore! We've accepted the fact that the world is a dangerous place, and that danger can reach our shores.

The Laming of the President...

Here it is, June nearly over...Dubbyuh's poll numbers sinking like a rock...His social security "reform" legislation DOA...Republicans jockeying for position in '08...Bolton's nomination ground to a halt. It sounds as if Dubbyuh has become a the lamest of ducks. Not the legacy he had planned.

Things could have been different if he'd actually used the put the faith America placed in him after 9/11 to good use. Instead he focused on the politics of polarization and divisiveness. He worked to concentrate power in the hands of the Republican majority in Congress rather than working to form a bipartisan coalition that could actually accomplish something.Instead, he and his advisors chose to brand any who opposed them as "unpatriotic" and "traitors".

He squandered the goodwill extened to the US by the rest of the world after 9/11 in a foolish, wrongheaded and illegal invasion of Iraq. A war which few Americans now support and one which is gutting our all voluteer military and enfeebling it to the point that it may not be able to adequately deal with any other threat to national security. In the course of that war, the attrocities committed at Abu Ghraib in Iraq, Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan, GITMO and elswhere shredded the remaining fabric of US credibility abroad. They also served as potent for the recruiting ot the terrorists the Administration claims to be fighting.

This Administration may yet go down as one of the greatest failures of a presidency in American history. We can only hope that the next president, regardless of party or ideology, will be able to pick up the pieces and restore the standing of the office as well as America's standing with the world.

Dubbyuh is fast heading towards irrelevancy as congressional Republicans look beyond 2008 and to their own political fortunes and the risks that will come from riding Dubbyuh's tattered coat-tails. It can't come soon enough.

A "Generational committment..." ?

That's what Condi Rice said of the US commitment in Iraq. This stands in stark contrast to Dick Cheney's assessment in March of 2003 that:

...we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. . . . I think it will go relatively quickly, . . . (in) weeks rather than months.

Or Rummy's statement in February of 2003 that:

It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.

And, let's not forget OMB Director Mitch Daniels' rosy outlook, also in March of 2003:

The United States is committed to helping Iraq recover from the conflict, but Iraq will not require sustained aid.

We all now know that these optimistic or, more appropriately - unrealistic, estimates were nothing more than whistling past the graveyard. Yet the administration, refusing to accept the estimates of its commanders on the ground continues to cheerily assert that the insurgency in Iraq is in its "last throes". According to General William Webster, the US commander for Baghdad,

Certainly saying anything about 'breaking the back' or 'about to reach the end of the line' or those kinds of things do not apply to the insurgency at this point.

This administration has been so wrong on so many things about Iraq, not the least of which includes the lack of post-war planning cited in the Downing Street Minutes and other documents. Can we really trust their myopic, rose-colored assessment of conditions there now?

A New Look at an Old Letter

March 18, 2003

Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)

Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Sincerely,

GEORGE W. BUSH

This is the text of the letter sent by Dubbyuh to Congress on the eve of the invasion of Iraq. It is important to review this in light of the new informatuion which has surfaced in the form of the Downing Street Minutes and other documents.

With regards to paragraph 1, the Downing Street Minutes clearly state that:

Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran.

Saddam was, in essence, no threat to his neighbors, let alone the US or the UK. Furthermore, Peter Rricketts stated that the pace of Saddam's weapons programs was not changed nor, according to the 2002 IAEA Fact Sheet on Iraq's nuclear weapons program.

There were no indications that there remains in Iraq any physical capability for the production of amounts of weapons-usable nuclear material of any practical significance.

In other words, there would have been no smoking gun in the form of a "mushroom cloud" as Condi Rice was so fond of stating. And, as we now know, there were no weapons of mass destruction to be found in Iraq.

As for Paragraph 2, using Public Law 107-243 to justify military action against Iraq is probelmatic in and of itself. Especialy since several of the premises it is based on are unfounded. First and foremost being that Saddam's regime was a supporter of Al Qaeda, and thus partly responsible for the attacks on 9/11. No credible evidence of any such connection has been produced. Other terrorist organizations, which may have had dealings with Saddam, seems to be greatly exaggerated. Saddam did support Abu Nidal in the early eighties. The last act of anti-American terroism that can be linked to Saddam was in 1993. After that there was no act of international terrorism that could be directly linked to Iraq. While there are those who contend that Iraq provided substantial support to Hamas and other Palestinian terrorists, far greater support came from Saudi Arabia and other Arab nations supported by the US government.

There is little to directly support the contentions in this letter that support military action against Iraq. The Bush administration was intent on the removal of Saddam Hussein from the beginings of the first Bush administration. 9/11 was merely the lever the Administration used to move Congress to give the president the authority to invade Iraq, and the ceding of that Congressional authority to the President is problematic in and of itself.

And as for the UN resolutions regarding Iraq, it is clear from the Downing Street Minutes that the Bush administration had already decided the UN was to be circumvented. The goal was to try to use the UN a tool to justify war with Iraq rather than an instrument of peace.

The NSC had no patience with the UN route...

LIES...! DAMNED LIES!

George W. Bush and his gang of neocon warmongers have destroyed America’s reputation. It is likely to stay destroyed, because at this point the only way to restore America’s reputation would be to impeach and convict President Bush for intentionally deceiving Congress and the American people in order to start a war of aggression against a country that posed no threat to the United States.

While I'd like to take credit for writing this, I can't. Props to Paul Craig Roberts A Reagan Republican with a long and distinguished career. Mr. Roberts has taken a stand in opposition to the war in Iraq from its inception and finds the blindness towards the egregious lies and abuses perpetrated by the Bush administration to be intolerable.

How much longer will we tolerate these lies and abuses? How long before the young men and women who have died for the lies of the Bush administration are vindicated by the impeachment ot this presindent and those who aided him in the formation and implementation of thes ruinous policies? Who much longer wil the blindly devoted supporters of the Bush administration remain blinded? How many more must die for a lie?

Dubbyuh's BIG Lie...

Congress has now authorized the use of force. I have not ordered the use of force. I hope the use of force will not become necessary. - George W. Bush, 9/16/02

These were Dubbyuh's words. Yet with the release of the "Downing Street" memo, it has become apparent that the Bush administration had already committed America to the pursuit of war.

On July 8, 2002, a meeting took place in London. Present were Tony Blair, Geoffrey Hoon, British secretary of defense; Jack Straw, British secretary of state; Lord Goldsmith, the attorney general; John Scarlett, head of the Joint Intelligence Committee, which advises Blair; Sir Richard Dearlove, also known as "C," the head of MI6 ; David Manning, Britain's national security adviser; Admiral Sir Michael Boyce, the chief of the Defense Staff ; Jonathan Powell, Blair's chief of staff; Alastair Campbell, director of strategy; and Sally Morgan, director of government relations.

At that meeting was discussed Dearlove's recent trip to Washington and the discussions which were held there. Nearly thre month's before Dubbyuh's October 16th satement, Dearlove had this to say:

C(Dearlove) reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

Contrary to his later statements, Dubbyuh had decided to go to war to remove Hussein from power. This action was to be justified by linking the concepts of WMD's with terrorism. But this would be a simple task in the US as a majority of Americans mistakenly believed that Hussein was responsible for the attacks on the World Trade Center. The intell was being spun and wrung until it fitted the policy the administration chose to pursue. There was no patience amongst the neo-con chicken-hawks in the administration for allowing the UN to finish inspections and make its final report. And as for what happend after the invasion...well they apparently didn't find that to be an issue worthy of their deliberation.

Looking at events as they are now unfolding in Iraq, we now know that there were no WMD's...Hussein had no part of 9/11...There was no credible evidence of any ties between Saddam's regime and Al Qaeda...And we are reaping the bitter harvest of the Administration's lack of planning for a post-war Iraq. We see an intractable insurgency, which General Richard Meyer's says is undiminished from a year ago.

Since The Big Lie, more than 1600 US military men and women have gone to their deaths, not to mention the civilian contractors that have died. Nearly 15,000 soldiers and marines have been wounded...maimed...crippled for life. And then there are the Iraqi civilian casualties. Conservative estimates place the total at around 10,000 while others place them at over 20,000.

How many more must die for a lie?

Nuclear option defused...for now.

Last night, common sense prevailed, and Senate moderates including Senators Byrd, DeWine, Nelson, Lincoln, Landrieu, Lieberman, Salazar, Inouye, Warner, McCain, Snowe, Collins, Graham and Chafee, reached a compromise ont the issue of judiciak filibusters. Like all compromises, it is not perfect, and fails to satisfy the extreme elements on both sides of the argument. But the power to filibuster judicial nominees remains.

Unfortunately, as part of this compromise, Priscilla Owen, Janice Rogers Brown and William Pryor some of the most extreme right-wing of Dubbyuh's picks will be voted on.

James Dobson, of Focus On the Family, immediately put in his two-cents worth, claiming that,

This Senate agreement represents a complete bailout and betrayal by a cabal of Republicans and a great victory for united Democrats. Only three of President Bush’s nominees will be given the courtesy of an up-or-down vote, and it's business as usual for all the rest. The rules that blocked conservative nominees remain in effect, and nothing of significance has changed.

A "...complete bailout and betrayal..." by moderate Republicans. He further goes on to decry the judicial filibuster as "unconstitutional". How can anyone take seriously the man who 'outed' Sponge Bob Squarepants?

While not mentioned specifically in the Constitution, the filibuster has been used since 1841, with the only significant change to Senate rules on the matter coming in 1917, when the cloture rule was put into place. Since then, it has remained a powerful tool by minorities, on both sides of the Senate aisle, to further debate on a given issue or nomination, protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

More significantly though, is that moderate Republicans were willing to sidestep the Republican leadership in Congress that was pushing for the "nuclear option", especially Bill Frist. It was Frist, after all, who went contrary to the Administrations's desire to have John Bolton's nominaation brought to the floor before the judicial nominations. In doing so, he hoped to cement the support of religious far right-wing for a run for the White House in 2008. Now, however, he's been rolled and how much politcal capital he he has left with that raucus and fickle minority remains to be seen.

This can be seen as the first step in a return to common-sense and sanity in the Senate. Or, as I fear it will be, it can be seen as the first volley in a battle leading to further extremeism and polarization in the halls of Congress.

Don't like the rules...? Just Change 'em

With the battle over the filibuster heating up in the Senate, understanding a few of the Senate rules that Senator Frist's, and the Republican leadership, will be breaking in the "nuclear option" in its implementation.

Senate Rules and Precedents That Would be Broken Through Exercise of the Nuclear Option

Violation # 1. Rule V: The Senate must follow its Rules to amend its Rules
Paragraph 2 of Rule V states expressly that “Rules of the Senate shall continue from one Congress to the next Congress unless they are changed as provided in these Rules.” (emphasis added). The proposed nuclear option is a deliberate end-run around the Senate’s regular process (discussed below) for amending its own Rules because Senator Frist does not have the strong bipartisan support he needs in the current Senate to follow the regular order.

Violation # 2. Rule V: Suspending the Rules without amending them.
The Senate Rules provide expressly for the sole mechanism to suspend the Rules without amending them. Under Rule V, paragraph 1, the Senate may only suspend its Rules either by unanimous consent or by adopting a motion to suspend the Rules. Adoption of such a motion requires a 2/3 vote of Senators present.3 The nuclear option, by relying on a simple majority vote to change the Rules without changing the text (arguably a kind of suspension), clearly violates the 2/3 vote requirement.

Violation # 3. Rule XXII: Violating the process for changing the Senate’s Rules.
Paragraph 2 of Rule XXII establishes the requirements for ending debate on a proposed change to the Senate’s Rules. Under Rule XXII, a cloture petition signed by sixteen Senators must first be submitted to the Senate. The vote to invoke cloture (end debate) on amendment to the Rules cannot be held until 2 days after the cloture petition is filed, and the rule provides that 2/3 of Senators present and voting must consent to end debate.

Violation #4. Failing to submit a constitutional Point of order to the Senate.
Proponents of the nuclear option purport to justify their unprecedented approach by invoking the U.S. Constitution – to the point of trying to rename the nuclear option the “constitutional option.”4 Some have even argued that the filibuster of judicial nominations is unconstitutional, and that the Senate can therefore ignore its process for amending the Rules to eliminate it.5 Under long-established precedents of the Senate, when a point of order with an asserted constitutional basis is raised, the Chair does not rule on the point of order but instead submits it directly to the full Senate.6 However, such a point of order is debatable and it would take 60 votes to end debate on the constitutional point of order and bring it to a vote. Because it is not clear that Senator Frist has 51 votes for the nuclear option – much less 60 – it is likely that Vice President Cheney will rule directly on Frist’s “constitutional” point of order, violating Senate precedent.

Violation # 5. Rule XXII: Ending debate on a nomination.
The text of Paragraph 2 of Rule XXII expressly requires 60 Senators (3/5s of Senators duly chosen and sworn) to vote to end debate on “any measure, motion, other matter pending before the Senate,” including a judicial nomination. If the nuclear option is successful, and for the first time in our history Senators’ right to debate is ended by simple majority vote, this will constitute an express violation of Rule XXII’s 60 vote requirement. In essence, Rule XXII would be changed, but not in a manner provided by the Rules of the Senate.

Violation # 6. Overriding the Senate’s Parliamentarian
The Senate Parliamentarian is the officer charged with keeping the precedents of the Senate and advising the presiding officer of the Rules and precedents of the Senate if a point of order is raised from the floor. The current Parliamentarian, Alan Frumin, has worked for that office as either Parliamentarian or assistant Parliamentarian since 1977 under both Democratic and Republican majorities. It has been widely reported that the Senate Parliamentarian will advise the chair that any point of order to force a simple majority vote to end debate on a nominee would violate the Rules and precedents of the Senate. Therefore, for the nuclear option to succeed, the presiding officer, most likely Vice President Cheney in his role as President of the Senate, would have to ignore the advice of the Parliamentarian in ruling on a point of order. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, such an action would “constitute an extraordinary proceeding involving peremptory departure from the established system of Senate procedure.”7

Vice President Cheney will need to ignore the Parliamentarian to invoke the nuclear option because Republicans must engineer a scenario where, as stated above, nuclear option opponents appeal a ruling of the chair endorsing the nuclear option. Frist must ensure that opponents appeal because the appeal itself is debatable, while a motion to table (kill) the appeal is not debatable. If Republican leaders try to overturn an adverse ruling by the chair through their own appeal (which would occur if the chair follows the parliamentarian), opponents could simple filibuster the appeal and a motion to table the appeal would set the opposite precedent than Frist wishes to achieve.

It should be apparent to all by now, that the Republican leadership in Congress and the White House consider themselves to be above and beyond any rule or law. Those that they find inconvenient or obstructive to their agenda, they try to change. In the House, the Republican leadership tried to change the ethics rules to benefit Tom DeLay, given the possibility of his indictment in Texas. The Republican leadership in the Senate is attempting to change rules which allow a principled minority to stand up to the tyranny of the majority. The Administration has changed rules on air and water quality, workplace safety, Medicare, bankruptcy, etc. because they were inconvenient to campaign contributors, thus to the money flowing into Republican pockets.

The Republican leadership in this nation preach about the virtues of ehtics and values. The reality, however, is that they lack any ethics and value only that which tightens their grip on power. They are the greatest threat the Republic now faces...not from terrorists...not from "activist judges"...not from permitting the marriage of same-gender couples. They, not some outside enemy, will be the death of the Republic.

We have met the enemy...And he is us! - Pogo

Newsweek and the Desecration of the Koran

While the desecration of anything which is sacred to another is inherently wrong, I tend to believe the initial version of the Newsweek story on the desecration of the Koran at GITMO.

Why...? Quite simple. In US prisons, it is common practice for guards to go into an inmates cell while they are seeing a visitor or otherwise out of their cell and toss the cell. They will then throw whatever the inmate holds most dear, be it a family photo, prayer beads, a Bible, A Koran...in the toilet. So it would not surprise me that a common tactic used to break prisoners here in the US would be used in attempting to break detainees being interrogated at GITMO, Abu-Ghraib, or any of the other unknown and unnamed US detention facilities around the world.

It would not require any great stretch of the imagination to think that the administration put pressure on the editorial board at Newsweek to quash the story and discredit their source. Given the Bush administration's penchant for secrecy and aversion to the truth, it is very likely the case.

Here are sources backing up the Newsweek story:

72.They were never given prayer mats and initially they didn’t get a Koran. When the Korans were provided, they were kicked and thrown about by the guards and on occasion thrown in the buckets used for the toilets. This kept happening. When it happened it was always said to be an accident but it was a recurrent theme.

74.Asif says that ‘it was impossible to pray because initially we did not know the direction to pray, but also given that we couldn’t move and the harassment rom the guards, it was simply not feasible. The behaviour of the guards towards our religious practices as well as the Koran was also, in my view, designed to cause us as much distress as possible. They would kick the Koran, throw it into the toilet and generally disrespect it. It is clear to me that he conditions in our cells and our general treatment were designed by the officers in charge of the interrogation process to “soften us up”’.

Detainees also complained about the interference with their ability to pray and the lack of respect given to their religion. For example, the British detainees state that they were never given prayer mats and initially were not provided Korans. They also complained that when the Korans were provided, the guards “would kick the Koran, throw it into the toilet and generally disrespect it.” - Human Rights Watch, October 2004

These revelations are nothing new, they are simply being used to pressure media outlets, which question Administration policy, to toe the ideological line. Chairman of the JCS, General Richard Meyers, stated that the riots in Afghanistan have more to do with the general dissatisfaction with the political process than anything else. So, this coincidental violence provides yet another opportunity for the Administration to force US media outlets to come to heel.

The Morning After...

In December 2003, Plan B, an emergency contraception medication, was approved by a vote of 23 to 4 by the FDA Advisory Committee on Reproductive Health Medications for over the counter sale. Despite this recommendation, the FDA, headed by Scott McClellan. If the last name isn't familiar he's the brother of Puffy McMoonface, a.k.a. Mark McClellan, White House Press Secretary. Instrumental to the denial of Plan B's OTC sale was Dr. W. David Hager, OB/GYN, conservtive Christian and darling of the Bush administration...But more about him later.

Plan B is designed for emergency contraception and IS NOT an abortifacient, despite claims to the contrary by the drugs anti-abortion foes. The drug inhibits ovulation, and if ovulation has already occurred, it prevents the implantation of the fertilized egg in the uterine wall. Since around 50% of fertilized eggs fail to implant anyways, there is really no interuption in the life-cycle as is claimed by anti-abortionists. Their claim that life begins at conception has no scientific or rational merit and may be dismissed.

Also, easy access to emergency contraception would help reduce the number of abortions over all in that it would not be necessary to seek one as an unplanned pregnacy could be avoided. But a new application for OCT sale certification by Plan B's manufacturer has languished since the FDA missed a deadline for responding to the application in January.

Back to Dr. Hager...After the advisory committee voted to recommend OTC sale of Plan B, Dr. Hager stated that he produced a "minority report" at the request from "outside the agency" but later stated that he produced the report at the request of an FDA staffer. An FDA spokeswoman stated that there had been no internal request, and he had sent a "private citizen letter" on the matter to Scott McClellan, Puffy McMoonface's brother.

Dr. Hager made his decision based on his belief that the medication is an abortifacient even though it has no effect on an established pregnancy. His decision is a matter of faith rather fact, and when making decisions affecting human life, fact must trump faith.

But what of Dr. Hager himself? His books show his view of women to be less than equitable, and men should act as "benevolent authority figures" towards women. In 2002, he spearheaded a campign to block the manufacure and distribution of RU-486 in the US. And, more recently, his former wife of 32 years has come forward with accounts of their marriage. This includes an extramarital affair by Dr. Davis with a friend of his former wife...Videotaping and photographing their sexual activity...Forcible sodomy, yes, in all 50 states, marital rape is a crime.

With Dr. Hager's political star rising, he stands to be re-nominated for his position on the FDA advisory committee, or even advancement to a position with even more authority over women's health issues. Imagine...a misogynistic, abusive man making policy regarding women's health issues. But his is par for the course for this administration, Condi Rice, despite her failures as NSA was promoted to Secretatry of State...John Negroponte, having no Middle East experience was promoted to Proconsul of Iraq. And after fleeing Iraq like a whipped dog, he is now the National Intelligence Director...John Bolton, with his rabid, reflexive loathing of any challenge to himself or US power, is nominated to be UN Ambassador.

How much longer will it be before the religious right wing-nuts in this country demand that women be stripped of the franchise and relegated, once more, to the status of chatttel...? Unable to own property...Unable to work outside the home...To be used for no other purpose than to satisfy the desires and silently suffer the abuse of her lord and master? This is the hidden agenda of of the religious far right-wing fringe in this country. But this lunatic fringe is polluting the mainstream ever more...To the point that it is becoming the mainstream.

John Bolton And Dubbyuh's Foreign Policy...or Lack Thereof

The real fight over John Bolton's nomination rally doesn't have so much to do with Bolton himself, although you really wouldn't know it given the storm of controversy his nomination has generated. According to Max Boot, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, the real fight is over the Administration's unilateralist foreign policy. And Bolton would simply be the cat's-paw for the Administration in pursuit of those policies.

Dubbyuh could, as he did recently, travel abroad and preach of the wonders and glories of democracy, and then return home and pursue economic and political policies detrimental to nascent democracies. John Bolton, staunch supporter of US dominance in the world, is the man for the job. And he reflects many of the attributes of this Administration.

Like the Administration, Bolton has a history of discouraging criticism. Like the Administration, Bolton's disdain for the UN is absolute. Also, like the Administration, he has tried to spin intel and facts to fit policy. In 2002 he made accusations about Cuba and bio-weapons development that went far beyond anything presented by CIA analysts and he attempted to have the analyst who questioned him on the matter fired. Also in 2002, as well as 2003, he made statements regarding Syria's development of "unconventional weapons" that were rejected as "exaggerated" by the CIA.

Meanwhile, Colin Powell is working quietly behind the scenes of this three-ring circus. While not actively opposing Bolton's nomination, he is talking to Republican maderates, doubtless recounting the rear-guard action he had to fight against Bolton during his time at the State Department. And it was known at the time that Dick Cheney had Bolton installed at State to "...derail the multilateralists...".

Despite Bolton's history, the fight in the Senate over his nomination really has little to do with that history. It is a referendum on the foreign policy of the Bush administration...a unilateralist, isolationist policy which has led us to the straights our country is in today. And given the Administration's scorched earth tactics in these political battles, it will get uglier before all is said and done.

Our moral guardians...?

On May 5th, Neil Horsley, far right-wing misogynist and anti-abortion activist, had a little conversation with Alan Colmes where he admitted a mule was his "first girlfriend". In his own words...

"You experiment with anything that moves when you are growing up sexually. You're naive. You know better than that... If it's warm and it's damp and it vibrates you might in fact have sex with it."

Conservative Spokane, Washington mayor, James West, is enmeshed in charges of offering jobs and sports memorabilia in return for sex with young men. Also on the plate are charges of his molesting 2 boys during his time as a deputy sheriff and boy scout leader.

Oh, and let's not forget Jeff/Jim Guckert/Gannon, former ace reporter for Talon News who attended over 200 White House press conferences, entered the Whiote House on numerous occaisions some of which were incompletely documented, and...wait for it...was a gay prostitute.

Yes boys and girls, these are just some of the self-proclaimed guardians of American morality and precious bodily fluids. By day, they're solidly conservative, moralizing, gay bashing Republicans. By night, they're doing poppers at the Manhole and cruising for gay, or for some - interspecies, sex.

It just never ends, does it...?

Here we are, 4 years into the 21st century, and the Scopes Monkey Trial and Darwinian evolution are still being hashed out.

Kansas, whose school-board decided in 1999 to have all mention of evolution stricken from school science curricula until a sane school board was later elected, has once more decided to turn its back on science and embrace pseudo-science in an attempt to present a "balanced" view regardeing the teaching of evolution in the form of "intelligent design". This after the intellectually challenged once again gained a majority on the state school board. This 'theory' states that given the complexity of life, life could only have developed with the assistance of some unseen intelligence. While not overtly based in religious doctrine, and drawing from the terminology of molecular biology, DNA and relying on gaps in fossil records, it is hoped that it will be presented in classrooms on equal footing with Darwinian evolution.

There is no basis for this, and "intelligent design" is not science. There exists no serious debate of the scientific validity of Darwinian evolution. Studies in the Galapagos Islands, and other isolated ecosystems have validated the fact of evolution and Darwin's theory of natural selection which supports it. Even Pope John Paul IV in 1996 accepted the validity of evolution, and given the value many place on other of his opinions, except where they contradict their own, it should stand to reason that they give this opinion the same credence they give to the late Pope's "culture of life".

So here we are, 80 years after the Scope's Monkey Trial, and folks just can't accept the fact of the matter...Evolution is not just a 'theory', it is a fact. One can only wonder when these devolutionists are going to insist that women and minorities be denied the vote