Tony Snow...He coulda starred in "Flipper"

The latest volley from the White House over the US attorney sackings involves executive privilege. Firstly, as a CNN reporter pointed out, if the President hadn't been briefed on the matter of the attorney sackings, their was no communication on the matter. There was no 'privileged' communication to shield.

Secondly, Tony Snow, as well as a number of Republicans, have done such an abrupt 180 on the issue of executive privilege that I'm amazed they didn't break their necks. Let me offer you a little gem from Tony's column in 1998:

Evidently, Mr. Clinton wants to shield virtually any communications that take place within the White House compound on the theory that all such talk contributes in some way, shape or form to the continuing success and harmony of an administration. Taken to its logical extreme, that position would make it impossible for citizens to hold a chief executive accountable for anything. He would have a constitutional right to cover up.

Chances are that the courts will hurl such a claim out, but it will take time.

One gets the impression that Team Clinton values its survival more than most people want justice and thus will delay without qualm. But as the clock ticks, the public’s faith in Mr. Clinton will ebb away for a simple reason: Most of us want no part of a president who is cynical enough to use the majesty of his office to evade the one thing he is sworn to uphold — the rule of law. - Tony Snow, Executive Privilege is a Dodge, 03/29/1998

This sentiment was echoed by many Republicans in their, what I thought entirely justified, criticism of Goatboy and his administration. That Republicans now whole-heartedly embrace the concept of executive privilege, for the reasons thus far enumerated by the Bush administration, is simply hypocritical.

As for going through the courts, this SCOTUS has already established legal precedent regarding this issue. In the case of United States v. Nixon, the Supreme Court found that there are very definite limitations on claims of executive privilege.

The President’s need for complete candor and objectivity from advisers calls for great deference from the courts. However, when the privilege depends solely on the broad, undifferentiated claim of public interest in the confidentiality of such conversations, a confrontation with other values arises. Absent a claim of need to protect military, diplomatic, or sensitive national security secrets, we find it difficult to accept the argument that even the very important interest in confidentiality of Presidential communications is significantly diminished by production of such material for in camera inspection with all the protection that a district court will be obliged to provide. United States v. Nixon,Section IVb, para 3

There are clearly no "military, diplomatic, or sensitive national security secrets" at stake here. In fact if, as the White House claims, the President was not briefed on this matter at all, no claim of executive privilege exists. The White House hasn't a legal leg to stand on in this matter.

Common Threads

The last week revealed some events with a common thread. While there was some coverage of these events, they were overshadowed by the Scooter Libby verdict.

There was the revelation that the FBI violated the law in its use of "National Security Letters", provided for under the USA PATRIOT Act. Hundreds of thousands of Americans phone records, bank records, e-mail transactions and medical records were the subject of fishing expeditions. The FBI attributed this to sloppy record keeping, and poorly trained personnel. Given that many of these NSL's were issued after the fact, to cover illegal records demands...Illegal even under the loose requirements for probable cause under the PATRIOT Act. The FBI's pleas of incompetence and faulty equipment are simply not credible.

It also came to light that a number of US attorneys, eight to be exact, were sacked and replaced by the DoJ under an obscure provision of the revised PATRIOT Act. This provision allows federal attorneys to be appointed to fill vacancies for an unlimited period, and without going through the Congressional confirmation process. The Arkansas attorney was replaced by a former aid of Karl Rove. Another attorney received phone calls from a House member and a Senator about sealed indictments related to democrats in New Mexico. The Senator has since lawyered up and refusing to comment on the matter.

The common thread, of course, is abuse of power. The abuse of power under the PATRIOT Act, the abuse of power that critics of the Act warned about from the day the Act was signed into law. The abuse of power by an administration intent on concentrating power in the hands of the executive branch and acting as if it, and its members, are above the law.

Seig heil, y'all.

La Plus Ca Change...

For those non-French speakers out there, that roughly translates as "The more things change...". And, as we all know, the more things change, the more they remain the same.

F'rinstance, and I'll be providing the source of these quotes at the end:

"...Many...proclaimed the need for strong leadership, ruthless, uncompromising, hard, willing to strike down the enemies of the nation without compunction..."(1)

This could come from most any position paper of most any of the neo-cons infesting our government at the highest levels.

"...cheap, sensationalist tabloids that were sold on the streets...rather than depending on regular subscribers. Heavily illustrated, with massive coverage of sport, cinema, local news, scandal and sensation, these papers placed the emphasis on entertainment rather than information."(2)

This statement pretty thoroughly covers media in America today. With news departments in both print and broadcast media facing draconian cuts in funding, the emphasis on news has shifted from information to entertainment. In the absence of reliable news sources, the public will turn to whatever is available, regardless of its reliability.

"...We no longer found an honest...people, but a mob stirred up by its lowest instincts. Whatever virtues were once found...seemed to have sunk once and for all into the muddy flood...Women seemed to have forgotten their...ways...Men seemed to have forgotten their honour and honesty...Writers and press could 'go to town' with impunity, dragging everything into the dirt." (3)

This could come from just about any right wing rant or screed today. Threatened, confused and off balanced by a changing world, they fall back into moralizing. The true mark of our humanity is our ability to retain our balance in a changing world. I'll have more to say on this quote later.

"There was a discernible crisis of masculinity...as nationalists...began to clamor for women's return to home and family..."(4)

America's religious right seems intent on putting the genie of independent women back into the bottle, no pun intended for "I Dream of Jeannie" fans. A significant number of men in this country seem to feel threatened by strong, independent women, just as a significant number of women seem to feel threatened by freedom and independence. Is it just coincidental that they all seem to be congregating in the tent of America's religious right?

"Even more shocking to conservatives was the public campaigning for gay rights...Numerous publications propagated the controversial idea that homosexuals were a 'third sex' whose orientation was the product of congenital rather than environmental factors.(5)

Sound familiar? It should. It's the same debate the religious right in America seems intent on engaging in, even to the point of having their religious views on the matter of same gender couples codified into law.

The topicality of these quotes is all the more remarkable given their source, "The Coming of the Third Reich, by Richard J. Evans".

In his history of the rise of the Third Reich, from the 19th century to Hitler's rise to power, the author examines the underlying factors which gave birth to the Third Reich. Many of those factors are extant in America today, and only through continuing vigilance can we prevent America heading down the same disastrous path.

Quotes from "The Coming of the Third Reich":

1. Pg 122, "In place of the feeble compromises of parliamentary democracy, authors such as these, and many others, proclaimed the need for strong leadership, ruthless, uncompromising, hard, willing to strike down the enemies of the nation without compunction." The authors referred to were writers of popular nationalist fiction which portrayed bloody retribution against all who opposed the state.

2. Pg 120

3. Pg 126, "Returning home, we no longer found an honest German people, but a mob stirred up by its lowest instincts. Whatever virtues were once found among the Germans seemed to have sunk once and for all into the muddy flood. German women seemed to have forgotten their German ways.German men seemed to have forgotten their honour and honesty. Jewish writers and the Jewish press could 'go to town' with impunity, dragging everything into the dirt."

This was recalled by a German military officer, upon returning from W.W. I. Substitute 'American' for 'German' and 'mainstream' for 'Jewish', and you have much the same argument from the American conservative movement today.

4. Pg 127, "There was a discernible crisis of masculinity in Germany before the war (W.W.I)as nationalists and Pan-Germans began to clamor for women's return to home and family in order to fulfill their destiny of producing and educating more children for the nation."

Some in the right-wing noise machine in today's America have voiced concern over their perceived emasculation of the America male. This is characterized by the crazed ramblings of commentators such as Michael Savage-Weiner when he, and others of his ilk, and their complaints about the downtrodden "...heterosexual, Christian, white male...".

5) Pg 128

America is at a political and cultural crossroads. With an executive branch largely resistant to any outside influence and intent on gathering as much power to itself as it can...with the concentration of media ownership limiting the reliability and availability of information to the electorate...with an increasingly strident movement which hides its bigotry and intolerance behind the veil of religion...America stands at a crossroads. The repudiation of the Bush administration in the November elections gives me some measure of hope. That hope, though, is tempered by the stubborn intransigence of the Bush administration to listen to the voters, advisors, generals or anyone who has a differing view from their messianic, manichean vision for America. But that hope is still there, and the more things change, the more they remain the same.

Another Episode of "Thank You President Bush!"

IN a speech before the American Enterprise Institute on Thursday, Chimpy McPresident stated:

For NATO to succeed, allies must make sure that we fill the security gaps. In other words, when there is a need, when our commanders on the ground say to our respective countries, we need additional help, our NATO countries must provide it in order to be successful in this mission.

We've all known, for some time now, that Chimpy and his Administration is irony deficient, or they would have recognized the irony in chiding NATO over its role in Afghanistan. And more than a few NATO members fail to share the Bush administration's messianic view of the "war on terror".

Then too, here are a few starkly simple facts. The Bush administration failed to capture Osama bin Laden when he was bottled up in Torah Borah, they failed to excise the twin cancers of the Taliban and Al Qaeda when they were scattered and on the run in Afghanistan. Instead of finishing the job in Afghanistan, the Bush administration decided to go haring off into Iraq under the flimsiest of pretexts. Is it any wonder then that NATO members view his calls for a greater commitment of NATO forces to Afghanistan with a jaundiced eye? It was, after all, Chimpy and Co. who left the job unfinished in Afghanistan, where war-lords and drug-lords now rule the country side and the Taliban and Al Qaeda are now returning to enforce their particular ecumenism of the sword.

Having already strained the goodwill of many of our allies, Chimpy merely adds insult to injury with his admonishments to our NATO allies, and strains the very meaning of the treaty. If allowed to continue on his present course, America will soon find herself isolated and alone. And that is no longer an option...for any nation.

Thank you, President Bush.

They still don't get it...

When Congress Commits Treason

The Fifth Column Raymond S. Kraft
February 5, 2007


Al Qaeda wants an American retreat, defeat, and surrender in Iraq. So do America's Democrats. Hezbollah wants an American retreat, defeat, and surrender in Iraq. So do America's Democrats. Iran wants an American retreat, defeat, and surrender in Iraq. So do America's Democrats. Muqtada al Sadr wants an American retreat, defeat, and surrender in Iraq. So do America's Democrats. Osama bin Laden wants an American retreat, defeat, and surrender in Iraq. So do America's Democrats. When an American political party aligns itself with the goals, hopes, and ambitions of America's enemies in a time of war, in my view there is only one word for it - Treason.

Today, most of the "leading Democrats" in Congress are falling all over themselves to give aid, comfort, and hope, to the Jihad, the Islamic Resistance Movement, the Islamist movement for the decline and fall of Western Civilization and the ascendance of Jihadist Islam in Iraq and around the world. Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid, and many of the rest give their assurance that with Democrats in power, America will retreat, embrace defeat, and surrender, selling their souls and their country down the river for primary votes and and trucks of money from the Pacifist Left. Here, the ignominious spectacle of Democrats selling out the future freedom of the Iraqi people for votes and dollars. Osama bin Laden once called America "a paper tiger." America's Democrats seem determined to prove him right. Treason for votes. Treason for dollars. Treason as a political calculation. Treason, for revenge on George Bush.

What complete and utter BULLSHIT. Not a shred of evidence to support his assertions, but that's typical of these right wing-nut thought clones. It has been their tactic, from the months and weeks immediately prior to the invasion of Iraq, for the Administration and it fawning syncophants to smear anyone opposed to the invasion of Iraq as "unpatriotic", "un-American", "troop-hating", and any other epithet which would cast doubt on their loyalty to America. It's a classic agitprop technique for whipping up support for an unpopular, and in this case, unnecessary invasion and occupation of Iraq. It is best summed up by Herman Goering's statement at the Nuremberg Trials:

"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."

Fortunately, the majority of Americans have awoken to just how wrong the invasion of Iraq was, and just how incompetent this administration was (and is) in its prosecution of it. Now, if only Congress and Chimpy will only listen.

The right running scared...already.

You could see it starting...With Melanie Morgan on KSFO's Melanie Morgan. She fired the first salvo in the race-baiting that has become the right wing-nut assault on Barak Obama. On the December 4th, 2006 edition of Sussman, Morgan & Vic, Brian Sussman stated that, "Halfrican and, again, his father was -- his father was from Kenya, his mother's white.", egged on by co-host Melanie Morgan saying, "Senator Obama, who is, as you call, a 'Halfrican' --".

This sentiment was later echoed buy Rush Limbaugh on January 16th as he referred to Senator Obama by stating, "And for Barack Obama, a -- well, he's a half-minority...". Limbaugh later abandoned all pretense and stole the line from Melanie Morgan and Brian Sussman when he went on to say, "Barack Obama has picked up another endorsement: Halfrican American actress Halle Berry. "As a Halfrican American, I am honored to have Ms. Berry's support, as well as the support of other Halfrican Americans,".

It should be clear to anyone, by now, that the right wing-nut media...in the persons of Brian Sussman, Melanie Morgan, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage-Weiner, et al...,is showing its true colors. The here-to-fore sub rosa racism of America's hard right is surfacing in all of its ugliness with the appellations "hafrican", "half-minority" and other less obvious references to Obama's race. It appears to be their belief that only rich white, heterosexual (at least in public), Christian (again, at least in public), males should hold the keys to power in this nation. Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton both threaten that nasty little paradigm.

And now we have the now exploded myth that Barak Obama was educated in a madrassa while he was living in Indonesia. Insight posted an unsourced story asserting that Senator Obama was raised as a Muslim and educated at a madrassa while he was living in Indonesia as a child. CNN sent a reporter to verify this asssertion, only to find that the "madrassa" was a public school attended by Muslim, Buddhist, Christian and children of other faiths as well.

Even more interesting is that the Insight story asserted that Hillary Clinton's campaign office leaked this information to Insight after performing a background check on Senator Obama, but no evidence was presented by Insight to support this claim. There are also equally weak claims from other sources in the same right wing-nut quarter that the information was leaked by John Edward's campaign office. So, the right wing-nut media is attempting to smear three liberal/progressive candidates with the same foul brush.

This ugliness, surfacing as early as it does in the campaign cycle, seems to indicate a degree of fear and loathing for Obama and Clinton which has less to do with their qualifications for office than it does their race or gender. But that's been the dirty little secret of right wing politics in America since the civil-rights movement in the sixties. This view was perhaps best voiced by Michael Savage-Weiner on his January 15th broadcast:

It (civil rights)is a whole industry; it's a racket. It's a racket that is used to exploit primarily heterosexual, Christian, white males' birthright and steal from them what is their birthright and give it to people who didn't qualify for it.

The words of a fearful little man, seeking the approval of other fearful little men. Obama and Clinton...They must scare the living hell out of the lunatics.

Haven't we heard this somewhere before?

I haven't slept as well as I usually do since out Great and Fearless Leader gave an address this last Tuesday that wasn't so much about securing Iraq as it was about dragging Iran and Syria into this whole ugly mess. Now, I'm not normally an anxiety ridden person. You can't be in my profession, that of registered nurse, and lead a normal life.

But I just woke up with this leaden feeling in my belly (No, it wasn't the Taco Bell and egg-salad I had last night), and the words of Secretary of Defense, Bob Gates, echoing in my ears as he testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Friday.

"Oh gosh, you sillies. Of course President Bush doesn't have any plans to attack Iran. Except...you know...as a LAST RESORT.

Now whereinthehell have we heard that before.

"...the President continues to seek a peaceful resolution. War is a last resort." - Scott McClellan, 11/12 /02 White House Press Briefing

This coming long after Chimpy McPresident and his merry band had decided to Iraq was to be plucked like an over-ripe fruit.

Given this Presidents past history, I could only wonder why someone in Congress didn't fall all over themselves trying to introduce a Resolution of Inquiry in the House to get the ball rolling on impeaching these crazy bastards before they do something we all will regret more than we already regret invading Iraq. How could they not see the rocks this President, and his administration, are steering this ship of state towards.

This administration reminds of nothing so much as a bunch of monkeys playing with a box of matches in a fuel refinery. One spark, at any moment, and the whole thing will explode in a conflagration that will engulf, not just the region, but quite possibly the entire world as well. One that will make the last world war look like a Sunday school outing in comparison, and one from which the United states will not emerge unscathed or victorious.

When Seymour Hersch wrote his article about US forces moving into Iran back in April of 2006, he and anyone who agreed with his analysis, were dismissed as being alarmists and in need of some psychotherapy. But the reality is staring us in the face...Here...Now. This President is locked into some sick, messianic vision, and he is determined to see that vision through to the end regardless of the cost in blood and treasure...Regardless of the consequences to this nation or the world. That Congress is not dropping their partisan squabbling in order to check this President and his administration is a mystery. Better we have a constitutional crisis than an expanded war in the Middle East and likely beyond.

Consequences...The truth, apparently, doesn't seem to matter

In the aftermath of Chimpy McPresident's address little is being said about the deeper implications of his "strategy" or its consequences.

It is readily apparent that this president is recklessly and callously launching upon a course which will goad Iran into some action which, in turn, will justify the use of America military force against that nation. It is equally apparent that such a use of force will include air-strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities...Long a goal of the Administration, but thwarted by the international community in the form of refusal to sanction Iran for its nuclear program.

A government consultant with close ties to the civilian leadership in the Pentagon said that Bush was “absolutely convinced that Iran is going to get the bomb” if it is not stopped. He said that the President believes that he must do “what no Democrat or Republican, if elected in the future, would have the courage to do,” and “that saving Iran is going to be his legacy.” - The New Yorker, 04/08/06

Bush's actions seem to give truth to this assessment...That he will do what ever he feels he needs to do, regardless of the cost or the consequences. Regardless of the cost in human lives, let alone the cost of the lives of our own troops. Regardless of the consequences, which include a larger war in the region that could lead to a general world-wide conflict.

Given these reckless, feckless actions and the utter disregard for any consequences of those actions, it is clear that this administration is unfit for command and Congress should put aside partisan differences and immediately file articles of impeachment against this president and his administration before they strike a spark to a conflagration that could engulf, not only the Persian Gulf, but the world.

Attacking Iran...the consequences

With all this talk coming from the neocon camp about attacking Iran, little is being said about the actual consequences of such an endeavor. And they would be grave.

The first direct consequences to the US would be a loss of oil from the Persian Gulf as a whole. What few allies we have in that region would feel compelled to act in support of Iran, a fellow Muslim state. And any US shipping in the Gulf would be at risk, if not outright forfeit. Fuel prices in the US would immediately spike, killing whatever economic growth may projected prior to such an attack. And, just for shits and giggles, China might call in its loans. America would be dead as a world economic power.

Israel would be faced with attacks from Syria, on its Western border, as well as ballistic missiles from Iran. They would also face attack from Hammas and Hezbollah, both creatures of Iran, as well as concerted attacks from Palestinian forces. Egypt might be dragged into the fray as well, given their large population of radical mullahs and their followers. The lines between Sunni and Shi'a would be erased in a tide of bloody rage against the US and its allies in the region and around the world.

On the world stage we simply could not count on any support, from any of our allies including Britain, especially given the lie given to the Bush administration's claims of a threat of WMD's from Iraq. America would stand isolated and alone in the world. A potential world war could be triggered, with America as its target.

But such consequences seem to be of little import to the Bush Administration, especially in the office of Dick Cheney. The only glimmer of light here is that Rummy has been given the boot. But Bob Gates is no real improvement, as he was a vocal supporter of military action against Nicaragua in the 1980's. He is also said to have little appetite for diplomacy and is an advocate of no-holds barred diplomacy, including military action.

While an attack on Iran may not come to pass, it is hoped, we should bear in mind some of the possible consequences of such an attack. The Bush administration's unilateralism may yet bear bitter fruit for America and the world.

We can't win, but you're staying anyways.

"If you mean by 'military victory,' an Iraqi government that can be established and whose writ runs across the whole country, that gets the civil war under control and sectarian violence under control in a time period that the political processes of the democracies will support, I don't believe that is possible," - Henry Kissinger, 11/19/06

Hmmmm...Let me think now...Wasn't that the reason Poppy Bush didn't march into Baghdad in 1991?

I think for us to get American military personnel involved in a civil war inside Iraq would literally be a quagmire. Once we got to Baghdad, what would we do? Who would we put in power? What kind of government would we have? Would it be a Sunni government, a Shia government, a Kurdish government? Would it be secular along the lines of the Ba’ath Party? Would it be fundamentalist Islamic? I do not think the United States wants to have U.S. military forces accept casualties and accept the responsibility of trying to govern Iraq. I think it makes no sense at all. - Dick Cheney, 4/7/91

We knew in 1991 what would happen if US forces toppled Saddam Hussein. The wargaming of an invasion of Iraq in 1999 showed that what we see in Iraq now was the likely outcome even with far larger numbers of troops than what we went into Iraq with in 2003.

Hank went on to further state that, "...he would have preferred a post-invasion policy that installed a strong Iraqi leader from the military or some other institution and deferred the development of democracy until later. "If we had done that right away, that might have been the best way to proceed,". But isn't that what was in place prior to Chimpy and Co's invasion of Iraq? Why don't we just dust off Saddam and re-install him as the leader of Iraq? It wouldn't be the first time a US administration has propped him up.

But think, what a horrible thing to say to our soldiers in Iraq. "There's no way to win militarily, but we're going to leave you in harm's way anyways." What a horrible betrayal of the trust our troops have that their sacrifices won't be in vain.

And, while there are few similarites to Viet Nam militarily, it is in the political arena that the similarities are most striking. Just as Lyndon Johnson advocated a "stay the course" policy, I won't dignify it with the term "strategy", so too does this President advocate staying the course, with no real strategy apparent. Just as in Viet Nam, it is the politicians who are driving the policy, not the generals on the ground. Just as in Viet Nam, our troops will be left in harm's way until the politicians have decided that they have saved enough face. How can Bush, Cheney, or anyone else in this failed administration, ask any of our soldiers to be the last one to die for a mistake?

As more and more neo-con's jump ship on the policy in Iraq, which they pushed for...Despite the repudiation of the Administration policy in Iraq on November 7th, Chimpy and Co seem to have little interest in making any changes to policy in Iraq. Their grip on the reality of the situation in Iraq is tenuous at best, and their policy is still "Stay the course...". So the profligate spending of American blood and treasure will continue unabated until this Administration leaves office. Then, the real work will begin...Cleaning up the mess they have left behind.

I can just hear it now...

With Robert Gates coming on board as the new Secretary of Defense, James Baker and his Iraq Study Group, as well as Lawrence Eagleberger and Alan Simpson at Jr.'s side, it seems that Poppy and his friends are coming to bail Jr. out...again.

Like ion 1966 when he was arrested while at Yale on disorderly conduct charges. Or perhaps when he was arrested for a DUI in Maine on Labor Day weekend in 1976. And then there was the purchase of a failing Arbusto Energy by Reagan/Bush I supporters (Poppy was VEEP at the time), William DeWitt and Mercer Reynolds. Not only did they buy Arbusto, they made Jr. President of the new company, Spectrum 7. They also sold him a chunk of the Texas Rangers for a pittance, which he later sold at a profit. Needless to say, he didn't have much input into the Ranger's business decisions. But guess what? Two years after Arbusto was sold to Spectrum 7, that company was going belly up. And, you got it, Spectrum 7 was bought by Harken Energy in 1986. And, Harken had friends of the Bush family on its board.

It should also be noted that Khalid Bin Mahfouz was on Harkens board, as well as the board of BCCI, which was used by the CIA to launder money before BCCI collapsed. This is important because at a time when Harken was hemorrhaging cash, a $25 million dollar Harken stock offering was underwritten by Stephen's Inc headed by Jackson Stephens, a big-time contributor to Poppy Bush's campaign war chest. This offering was placed with the Union Bank of Switzerland, a joint venture partner with BCCI. Amazing what being the son of a VPOTUS can get done for you.

And, of course there were the sales of Jr.'s Harken stock that he conveniently forgot to notify the SEC about. And golly, the stock tanked just a few short weeks later. The SEC investigated with no further charges. But guess what? The SEC chariman at the time was Richard C. Breeden, a friend of the Bush family and one time employee of Bush family consiglieri, James Baker.

And now, after a mid-term election which was a repudiation og Jr.'s war in Iraq and his failure as a President, I can just hear it now. The plaintive call of a spoiled rich-kid in over his head..."Daaaaaaaady!"

Unconstitutional...? Let me count the ways...

Today, George W. Bush, a.k.a. Chimpy McPresident, signed the Military Commissions Act...20 DAYS after it was passed by Congress, and 18 DAYS after Congress was adjourned.

Why the emphasis on the timeline here? It's a matter of how the Constitution provides for the handling of bills once they are passed by Congress and sent to the President's desk.

Article 1, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution, states:

If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

Only two days passed between the passage of the Bill for signing and the adjournment of Congress. Eighteen days passed between the time Congress adjourned and Bush's signing of the Bill. Under the provisions outlined in Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution, this Bill was effectively vetoed, and cannot become law. Whether this was a deliberate calculation on the part of the Administration, or just another screw-up is moot. The law was null and void before Bush ever signed it.

Had this bill actually become law, it has the additional difficulty as outlined in Article 1, Section 9, Para 2:

The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

To my knowledge, no rebellion or invasion has been demonstrated as grounds for suspending habeas corpus, which is the foundation for many other rights outlined in the Bill of Rights. Congress passed a bill which was unconstitutional from its inception, and exceeded its authority in this matter.

No matter how you slice it or dice it, this Bill is dead, and Bush, again, exceeded his authority by signing it into law today. If it is allowed to stand, despite these grossly unconstitutional provisions and circumstances regarding its signing, we can safely put the republic to rest, for it will be well and truly dead.

The banality of evil...

I was reminded of the banality of evil this morning as I watched Senator Bill Frist on "This Week: with George Stephanopoulos". As he sat there, grinning and twitching his way through the interview, he repeatedly defended President Bush's policy regarding the torture of detainees thought to be members of extremist groups, I could only wonder at his utter disdain for the rule of law.

But the rule of law doesn't seem to be an issue for this president or those who support him. Given the recent "compromise" on torture and the Geneva Conventions between the White House and the so-called "rebels" in the GOP, led by John McCain, the rule of law in this nation is on its way to becoming little more than a vague memory.

This "compromise" would allow the president to establish his own interpretations of the Geneva Conventions with no more than an executive order. It will also render immune from prosecution members of the CIA and the military for past violation of the Conventions. Another provision of this "compromise" will eliminate any possibility of detainees to challenge their imprisonment through the use of habeas corpus. The net result of this would be that innocent detainees could be locked away and tortured...er...subjected to "alternative" interrogation practices, indefinitely and never have a chance for their case to be independently reviewed.

The "compromise" would also prevent the use of the Geneva Conventions in any suit brought against the US government. This would mean that those individuals tried by the military commissions established by this "compromise" would not be able to challenge the legality of those commissions by claiming they don't meet the "fair trial" standards of the Geneva Conventions Common Article III.

If this "compromise" becomes law, for the first time in US history, testimony obtained throught torture...er..."alternative" interrogation practices, will be allowed into evidence. Thus, a defendant could be convicted and executed on the basis of coerced testimony...A violation of one of the foundations of American jurisprudence since this nations inception.

And last, but not least, this "compromise" will allow the Administration to hide its “sources, methods or activities by which the United States acquired evidence”, should those practices be deemed "classified". But guess what boys and girls...All of the "alternative" interrogation practices sanctioned for use by the Administration are classified. In short, no defendant brought before a military commission will be able to challenge the torture or abuse they were subject to.

This is what Senator Frist was defending, seeming to almost relish the thought of torture. Grinning blandly while parroting the unsubstantiated Administration assertion that intelligence obtained through the use of "alternative" interrogation practices has prevented further terrorist attacks and saved countless American lives. I challenge Chimpy McPresident and his Administration to submit public evidence of this assertion. But I know they never will.

It should also be remembered that fourteen of the detainees at GITMO were transfered there from secret prisons the Administration, until recently, denied ever existed. This alone merits prosecution of members of the Bush administration, including the president himself, as war criminals.

U.S.: Senate Leaders Reject Explicit Redefinition of Geneva Conventions

COMPROMISE BILL ON MILITARY COMMISSIONS WOULD STILL AUTHORIZE INDEFINITE DETENTION WITH NO POSSIBILITY OF LEGAL CHALLENGE

Voting...A crap shoot?

Unless things have changed drastically since the June 13, 2004 NYT editorial "Gambling on Voting" was published, and all indications are that they haven't, I'll be voting by absentee ballot.

There needs to be a national regulatory standard for all electronic voting systems that is at least as robust as Nevada's regulatory standards for electronic gaming systems.

The Nevada State Gaming Commission has access to all gambling software, and this software is being contiuously spot-checked against copies of the software kept by the Commission. Incidentally, it is illegal for casinos to use any software not on file with the Commission. Gambling machines must be resistant to electrostatic shocks as high as 20,000 volts, and they must be physically tamper resistant. Any attempt to physically tamper with the machines locks the machine which must be manually reset after it has been shown to be operating properly. It has been demonstrated, repeatedly, that current electronic voting systems can be physically hacked, with no trace of the hack ever being made apparent.

The Nevada state facility which certifies gaming machines is taxpayer funded with fees charged by the facility going into the atates general fund. It also keeps manufacturers of electronic gaming equipmetn at arms length and is open to public inquiry. Contrast this with federal labs which certify voting machines. These facilities are profit making operations which get chosen by and paid for by the manufacturers of electronic voting systems. Can you say "Conflict of interest...", I knew you could. Neither we nor our elected officials have any way of knowing just what the proceedures for testing these voting machines are and the labs which do the testing are not open to inquiries into them.

In the event of a probelem with an electronic gambling machine, Nevada casinos must immediately contact the Gaming Control Board, which has investigators available 7/24. THe machine is than opened and inspected. A voter has a problem with their vote, they can call their local board of elections, which may, or may not, investigate the matter.

Despite their protestations that their equipment is the best available, the claims of the manufacturers of electronic voting systems fall far short of those claims. The sad fact is that someone placing a bet at the sleaziest ganbling hell in Vegas has far greater protections and regulatory mechanisms in place than any voter in America. Don't we deserve better?

Iraq and Al Qaeda...Conflation and Fabrication

We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them. - George W. Bush, 9/11/2001

Such were Chimpy's words on 9/11, 5 years ago. This doctrine led us to the invasion of Iraq which, given information contained in the Senate Intelligence Committee's Phase II Report, did not qualify for inclusion under this doctrine.

The report indicates that Chimpy and Co attacked Iraq, a nation haveing no operational ties to Al Qaeda, but was ulimately hostile towards Al Qaeda.

Detainee informationfrom high-ranking al-Qa'ida officials and associates suggests there was intense debate within the al Qa'ida leadership in Afghanistan over the risks and benefits of working with Baghdad, and that bin Laden was generally opposed to collaboration. - Phase II Report, pg 65 (emphasis mine)

According to Tariq Aziz, "Saddam only expressed negative sentiments about bin Laden." Aziz told the FBI that "when the Taliban was in power, the Iraq governemnt deliberately avoided opening an embassy in Kabul." Aziz underscored Saddam's distrust of Islamic extremists like bin Laden, stating that when the Iraqi regime started to see evidence that Wahabists had come to Iraq, "The Iraqi regime issued a decree aggressively outlawing Wahabism in Iraq and threatening offenders with execution." - Phase II Report, pg 67

Postwar findings indicate that Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qa’ida and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al Qa’ida to provide material or operational support. Debriefings of key leaders of the former Iraqi regime indicate that Saddam distrusted Islamic radicals in general, and al Qa’ida in particular… Debriefings also indicate that Saddam issued a general order that Iraq should not deal with al Qa’ida. No postwar information suggests that the Iraqi regime attempted to facilitate a relationship with bin Ladin. - Phase II Report, pg 105

As for the Administration claims, lately reinforced by Condi Rice and Dick Cheney, regarding ties between Saddam Hussein and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, they have been shown to be equally false.

Postwar information indicates that Saddam Hussein attempted, unsuccessfully, to locate and capture al-Zarqawi and that the regime did not have a relationship with, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi. - Phase II Report, pg 109

Prior to the US invasion of Iraq, al-Zarqawi was not member of Al Qaeda, but rather, he and his organization, Ansar al Islam, were part of a loose affiliation with Al Qaeda. And at the time of his death he was becoming a thorn in the side of al Qaeda because of his maverick actions which often interfered with the goals of Al Qaeda leadership.

Conflation and fabrication have been the hallmark of the Bush administration since before the invasion of Iraq. Now that the tide of public sentiment has turned against Bush administration policy in Iraq, they are employing these tools with greater ferocity than ever. They see their grip on power, and the fear they have used to maintain it, slipping and their desperation is obvious. Their speeches over the last week, including including Chimpy's last night, is merely the same old turd they've been trying to polish since the invasion of Iraq. Conflate...Fabricate...Belittle their critics as unAmerican or unpatriotic. Some things never chage, even when they need to.

A step back...

In the 1960's, riots rocked American cities as African-Americans sought the civil rights they had long been denied. As Watts, Detroit, Newark, and after Martin Luther King's assassination, more than 60 other US cities burned as a result of race riots, we stopped and asked a very important question. "Why are they so angry?"

Now this may be seen as justifying actions which were completely out of line and resulted in further suffering and anguish for all involved. The fact is that the participants in these riots did go beyond the pale, but we stopped and asked "Why?" so it wouldn't happen again. As a result, America began to come to grips with its past of slavery and oppression of the descendants of those slaves freed after the Civil War. Landmark civil rights legislation was passed, and much progress has been made. We have had the occaisional setback showing that more has yet to be made. All because we never stopped asking "Why are they so angry?"

Now, let us look to the aftermath of 9/11. In the days of shock following the horror of that tragic day, we asked "Why are they so angry? Why do they hate us so much?" But the voices asking that question fell silent in a few short weeks. We no longer ask these questions to find a way to prevent such a tragedy as 9/11 from occurring again, and it will happen unless we find meaningful answers to them and act upon those answers. Instead, these questions have become nothing more than the rhetorical devices of demagogues to instill fear into our hearts and serve the ends of those same demagogic figures who utter them. They fear to seek the real answers as it will reveal 60 or more years of US and Western policies designed to keep the oil flowing from Middle-Eastern oil fields, regardless of the means used to do so...Regardless of the human toll. From propping up corrupt and repressive regimes to overthrowing legitimately elected regimes and replacing them with corrupt and oppressive puppets. It is only coincidental that these nations are Islamic.

Unwilling to truthfully and honestly find and face the answers to "Why are they so angry?", and "Why do they hate us so?", the Bush administration has only fanned the flames of hatred towards America and the West with its policies. They have helped radicalize a whole new generation of Islamic extremists, still chafing from the yoke of 19th and 20th century colonialism. With its reckless, feckless behavior in the aftermath of 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq, the Bush Administration has squandered the goodwill of the rest of the world towards America on that grim day and given the radicals hiding behind the cloak of their religion all the more reason to hate us. All becaus they were unwilling to seek the answers to two supremely important questions..."Why are they so angry?"..."Why do they hate us so much?".

I shudder to think of the America we would be living in today if we had stopped asking those questions in the 1960's.

ABC's 9/11 "docu-drama"...More drama than documentary

With members of th 9/11 Commission faulting ABC's 9/11 "docu-drama" for its factual errors, ommissions and fabrications, it should be apparent that the production has some serious flaws that need to be corrected.

What is most amusing though, is the eagerness of right-wingers to jump on the "It's Clintons Fault" bandwagon. After all, its the right wingers that have had a total lock on power for the last four years. Not Bill "Goatboy" Clinton or liberals. We are living in a world made by the right-wingers under rules they chose. So why are they so bitter and angry?

Without enemies, real or imagined, the right-wing cannot successfully replace reason with fear. And fear can make people do irrational things, even act against their own best interests. And that is the goal of the right-wing in America. Without enemies, their movement would collapse upon itself and they would begin eating their own. And I think we are beginning to see just that, as more and more people are coming to understand how they have been manipulated by a callous and cynical administration since 9/11. A majority of Americans are no longer accepting at face value the blandishment of Chimpy and Co as they try to conflate Iraq with 9/11.

Yes, there are many who still support Chimpy and Co. But this seems more a result of their initial enthusiam for Bush giving way to the reality of a morally and intellectually bankrupt administration. Rather than face the cognitive dissonance such a reality would cause, they deflect the reality and attempt to ignore it with their continued blind support of Chimpy and Co and increasingly rabid attacks against those who oppose the administration. I almost feel sorry for them...Almost.

Reality Break

Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld...Stuff 'em all in a barrel and roll it down a hill, there'll always be a son-of-a-bitch on top. But I digress.

Earlier this week, the Admninstration rolled out its new fall line of bullshit to try and convince voters that Republicans are the only ones fit to govern. It was difficult to decide which speech was more delusional and divorced from reality though.

Rummy was first at bat, claiming that any who oppose the Administration's policy or, more appropriately...lack thereof...in Iraq were morally and intellectually confused. The implication being that the Bush administration can do no wrong in Iraq or in the effort to contain and cotrol terrorism. Such hubris is a sign of a profound isolation from the reality onm the ground in Iraq and utter denial of the misjudgements, missteps, prevarication and arrogance that led to the invasion of Iraq to begin with.

Darth Cheney was next in the hole, and he did little better. Those 50 million people we supposedly liberated are facing a resurgence of the Taliban and Sharia law in Afghanistan. And Iraqi citizens now have Shi'ite theocrats, with ties to Iran heading up their government. Cheney's claims that Iraq is "...The central front in this war (on terrorism)..." is specious at best. He conveniently left out the fact that the terrorists weren't operating in Iraq until we deposed Saddam, disbanded the Iraqi army and failed to send in enough troops to secure Iraq and its borders.

Last up was Chimpy McPresident, George W. Bush, himself. His "...Bold new agenda..." to undercut terrorism by "...Supporting the forces of freedom in the Middle East..." has hit a little snag called R-E-A-L-I-T-Y. The reality of the matter is that the invasion of Iraq has destabilised the Middle East. We did Iran a HUGE favor by removing the thorn of Saddam from their side. With our troops tied down in the internecine struggle between Shi'a and Sunni in Iraq, Iran has a free hand to exercise its foreign policy strategies. Hezbollah felt emboldened and drew Israel into a short, vicious war which resulted in large numbers of Lebanese civilian casualties. Far from being cowed or defeated, Hezbollah and its leadership are the rock-stars of the region, with America and Israel coming out with black-eyes and further eroded, if that's possible, credibility in the region. And Chimpy had the gall to say that, "Victory in Iraq...Will require more sacrifice.", begging the question of just who will make that sacrifice. Certainly not GOP contributors or those benefitting from his tax cuts.

All three went out of their way to equate the rise of Islamic fundamentalist inspired terrorism with the rise of Hitler and the Nazis in Weimar Germany. Unfortunately, however, it is Chimpy and Co., the Bush administration, which has adopted tactics striaght from Herman Goering's playbook. They are attempting to marginalize and and isolate those who oppose their policies...They brand any who oppose them as unpatriotic and cowardly...They attempt to instill fear of attack into the American populace in order to justify both the war in Iraq and the undermining of the Constitution at home.

None of these men has truly been confronted with the consequnces of their policies. None have seen the killing fields in Iraq first-hand. To my knowledge, none of them have been to a field hospital in the aftermath of an IED attack. Chimpy has paid but the briefest of visits to Walter Reed Army Hospital to see the men and women sacrificed on the altar of his dirty little war. They continue to spout their mindless optimistic slogans about how well the war in Iraq is going.

The sad truth is that the more isolated from the carnage they cause a country's leadership is, the more unfounded optimism replaces reality. And this reality is almost non-existent at the very highest levels of decision making. This break from reality can be seen in the speeches offered up this week by Chimpy and Co. Thus they, and their supporters/apologist/synchophants pose a greater threat to the Republic than any terrorists could ever dream of.

Who'd a thunk it...?

Apparently, Chimpy McPresident and the GOP were eager to make political hay from Joe Leiberman's defeat in the New Hampshire primaries. An MSNBC story reports disagreements over the timing of the arrests, both in Pakistan and in Britain. US officials apparently even went so far as to threaten to render the ringleader, Rashid Rauf and/or pressure Pakistan into arresting him. British authorities wanted him taken into custody "in circumstances where thaere was due process".

Even before the story broke, GOP hacks were spewing the same old, baseless bile about the democrats being soft on terror. After Leiberman's defeat and the arrests, the GOP noise machine went into high gear, making it seem as though Chimpy single-handedly rounded up all the bad guys. And, of course, regurgitating the same wet, steaming piles of BS about the democrats being weak on terrorism.

How many more times, and in how many different ways, does it have to be demonstrated that Chimpy and Co. will do whatever it takes to consolidate their power and undermine the Constitution, even if it compromises American security and puts American lives needlessly at risk? If there is any threat to the Republic it is these unprincipled, amoral bastards, and it is time for them to be shown the door and impeached.

Here is a link to the story:

U.S., U.K. at odds over timing of arrests

George W. Bush, the G-8 and the Middle East

President Bush's performance at the G-8 Summit in St. Petersburg was embarassing, to say the least, if not down right disturbing. From his verbal gaffs to his wholly inappropriate physical contact with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, he confirmed (to the rest of the world at any rate) just what a fool and poltroon he truly is. Why the Republican National Committee and the Republican controlled Congress, not to mention his grassroots supporters continue to tolerate the utter incompetence of both he and his administration is beyond me.

It also revealed a President and administration dangerously out of its depth with regards to the spiraling cycle of violence and chaos between Israel, Hezbollah and Lebanon. Whether this violence is, in part sponsored by Iran in an effort to distract American and world attention from its nuclear program...Hezbollah taking advantage of a US government weakened and distracted by its involvement in Iraq, or some combination thereof is a toss-up. It is certain, however, that it is the broader consequences of the failure of Bush administration foreign policy in general, and US entanglement in Iraq in particular, coming home to roost.

The emperor's new clothes are faded, careworn and motheaten. His bungling, arrogance and ineptitude have become a greater threat to the Republic than any outside influence. The real question is, "When is Congress going to take up its responsibility to hold the President accountable for his actions?"