Thursday, July 5, 2007

Clueless

Stu Rothenberg has joined David Broder in castigating the dirty f#@king hippies left wing grassroots. Didn't you know we're all just a small rabel of noisemakers?

Here's what Stu, usually a pretty good watcher of politics and pollster no less, had to say:

Congressional Democrats apparently were surprised by the base’s reaction to the bill’s passage. They shouldn’t have been. Have they been living under a rock?

We’ve seen grass-roots Democratic anger for the past few years directed at the White House, and the animosity and invective aimed at Sen. Joe Lieberman (ID-Conn.) during his bid for renomination and re-election should have warned House and Senate Democrats that even they are not immune to attacks from left-of-center bloggers who see any cooperation with the White House on Iraq as perfidy.

Increasingly, the Democratic left is acting much the way the Republican right has acted for decades, measuring Capitol Hill behavior against a standard of ideological purity that treats pragmatists as traitors and those who compromise as worse than the enemy.

These voices have always been around, mind you. It is just that they now have a megaphone with the Internet, much as angry conservatives did when talk radio burst on the scene more than a decade ago….

Maybe Democratic leaders could have done a better job preparing angry party activists for the passage of the spending bill, possibly sparing Hill Democrats the nasty e-mails and angry comments on liberal blogs, but I doubt it. Democrats have spent so many months cranking up the volume on Iraq — making it a major issue in the 2006 elections and since then increasing their attacks on the president and his policies — that it would have been very difficult to persuade grass-roots anti-war activists to accept a deal with the White House that funded the war for even another week.
I'm becoming pretty accustomed to those who consider themselves the wise men, the moderates, of Washington punditry to castigate the netroots. What I continue to find astounding is how their personal bias and perception shapes a view that is so completely out of touch with reality and not supported by the data. Particularly when done by a pollster.

The Iraq war is one example, but Joe Lieberman is another. Lieberman only won his seat based on catering to Republicans. Those who are Democrats .... of all stripes .... repudiated Joe and his policies in the Connecticut primary. But to Rothenberg and those of his ilk, it was the radical wild-eyed left that has been a thorn in Boltin' Joe's side.

I just wish these folks would read a poll once in awhile. There was a time, a dark time, when many of the views I held were a minority view. And I lamented that point at the time. That time has now passed .... at least according to the polls.

Read More...

Through The Roof

Don't look now, but wholesale gasoline is up at the previous highs of last winter.

Read More...

Interesting

More information is coming out regarding the perpetrators of the bombing attacks in London. It turns out that those who participated were highly educated, highly religious and really really angry over the Iraq war. The fact that this is news shows how the west continues to misunderstand the nature of the Islamic cause.

The fact that all the suspects were well-off and had tons of education shouldn't be surprising, says an interesting piece in the WSJ that reports on the research work of a Princeton economist who says that it's a "misconception" to think poverty leads to terrorism. Alan Krueger says there's simply no evidence to prove that the uneducated and the poor are more likely to carry out a terrorist act, and, in fact, the opposite is usually true.
It seems unfathomable to the lizard brain conservatives that these people might actually believe in their cause. They'd rather wallow around in the cliche's of middle easterners as poverty ridden, ignorant, backward tribal heathens who just need some edukation. In fact, middle easterners have a proud tradition and long history and, like everyone else on the planet, are quite proud of themselves. So is it really any surprise that well-educated individuals would decide to give their lives to fight an invasion in the best ways they know how?

Just askin' .....

Read More...

"They're Still Alive"?

I'm afraid that atrocities are commonplace in Iraq. This is all so reminiscent of Vietnam, another war where everyone is a combatant and soldiers are surrounded by enemy.

The LAT fronts word that investigators are looking into claims that Marines killed as many as eight unarmed Iraqi prisoners. During the early days of the intense fighting to take control of Fallujah in November 2004, Marines detained a group of insurgents. When the Marines asked what they should do with the prisoners their superiors asked, "They're still alive?" They apparently took that to mean that the prisoners should be killed. This would make it the third known investigation into possible war crimes by Marines stationed out of California's Camp Pendleton.Type rest of the post here
This is horrible, but yet it's also understandable. Sitting here in my comfortable room on my computer, it's easy to pass judgement. But when you put young people with guns in a god-forsaken place where anarchy rules, what would any of us do? I'd like to think I'd be perfectly moral. Experience tells me otherwise. And of course, the problem is with our leadership, not soldiers put into impossible situations .....


Read More...

New Embassy

The construction of the U.S. palace embassy in Iraq is apparently not going too well ....




The WP's lead focuses on the problems facing the guards' base, which was built to house the embassy's security personnel and was supposed to be finished in January. When it finally opened in May, it was plagued with problems that were detailed in a "toughly worded cable" sent from Iraq to Washington that pointed out several issues with the construction, some of which were seen as potential safety threats to the staff. For example, a contractor admitted to using a toxic chemical in the construction of housing trailers. There's lots of finger-pointing between State Department officials, as well as among the different contractors, which ultimately "reflect the broader problems that have thwarted reconstruction efforts throughout war-torn Iraq," says the Post.

Read More...

Wednesday, July 4, 2007

Flash!

Headline of the day:

Libby Vows To Track Down the Real Perjurers

It's a joke. But a damned good one.

Read More...

Too Funny

A major GOP talking point is to compare Libby's commutation with Clinton's pardon of Marc Rich.

Well, this is from the "you can't make this s*#t up file:

Libby was Rich's lawyer from 1985 through 2000, collecting more than $2 million in legal fees over the period. In early 2001, during the fallout over the pardon, Libby appeared before Congress (above) and testified that he thought Rich had "not violated tax laws" and that federal prosecutors had "misconstrued the facts and the law" during the course of their investigation. In a New York Times editorial, President Clinton said Libby—then chief of staff for Vice President Cheney—supported the decision to pardon Rich.

Read More...

More Independents

Did you know that there are more "independent contractors" in Iraq than American soldiers? I'm sure that sits quite well with the Iraq people.

Read More...

Law Enforcement

William Arkin has a nice piece up today about the Great War On Terra! He makes the argument that fighting the war with military has completely failed, and provides evidence that we need to go back to a law enforcement model. Here is his concluding graf which is right on:

What is needed is a declaration that the war is over. Terrorists are not warriors, they are just criminals. They will no longer be accorded the honors of war. Of course we will do all we can to stop them, even as we recognize that we cannot completely protect ourselves from their criminality. But we will no longer be hostage to their desire for terror and fear, nor will we be subject to the authority of the oppressive national security state.

Read More...

The Other War

Or I should probably say, one of the other wars behind Afghanistan, Iraq, Kurdistan/Turkey, Israel and everyone else, the Palestinian civil war and Iran:

Dawn reports on the fierce fighting in the streets of Islamabad between radical fundamentalists and the army loyal to secular general Pervez Musharraf, which left 21 dead (including one soldier) and 150 injured. The government's Interior Minister had recently warned of the spread of Taliban-type activists through the country.
A meltdown in Pakistan will have, shall we say, "international implications" to say the least. While most of Pakistan is relatively moderate, there is a very strong contingent of fundamentalists in the country with Musharraf, much like Karzai in Afghanistan, more of a major city mayor than a central government leader.

Read More...

July 4th



You've really got to wonder if it's not time to revisit the principles embodied in this document?

Read More...

Talking Point

I know it's not necessary to prove that Bush is a hypocritical pr#@K, but this will help you when you get into the inevitable argument with some nutbar friend:

The LAT takes a look at the numbers and says that the Justice Department "frequently has sought sentences that are long, or longer, in cases similar to Libby's." The average sentence for those found guilty of obstruction of justice was 70 months. Everyone mentions the case decided two weeks ago by the Supreme Court, who sided with the administration in maintaining a 33-month sentence in a case similar to Libby's, even though the defendant argued for leniency based on his 25 years of service in the armed forces.
You can also add this to the mixture:
The NYT talks to legal experts who say that Bush may have inadvertently sparked a debate about sentencing guidelines, which wouldn't have happened if he had simply chosen to pardon Libby. Many defense lawyers are likely to begin using Bush's rationale for commutation in arguing cases across the country. "I anticipate that we're going to get a new motion called 'the Libby motion'," a professor tells the NYT. In Slate, Harlan J. Protass makes a similar argument and says that although the tactic "probably won't work" defense attorneys won't be able to help themselves because "the administration's inconsistency is so glaring."
Kinda goes with the funny Supreme Court decision back in 2000.

Read More...

Voting By Pocketbook

Let's hope this is indeed meaningful:

The Post points out that Sen. Barack Obama received money from more people than the combined total for Romney, Giuliani, and Sen. John McCain. This trend is "a striking reversal of fortunes for Democratic presidential hopefuls, who have often labored with less money than their Republican counterparts," notes the WP.

Read More...

Tuesday, July 3, 2007

Kissing Your Cousin

Talk about a mixed message:

This morning, the WSJ reported that Defense Secretary Robert Gates is “seeking to build bipartisan political support for a long-term U.S. presence in Iraq by moving toward withdrawing significant numbers of troops from Iraq by the end of President Bush’s term.” As TPM’s Spencer Ackerman notes, “it’s basically a trade-off: cut the surge short in order to stay in Iraq indefinitely.
We are a long long way from solving the "Iraq problem". Removing troops? Definitely a good thing. Leaving a permanent presence? Crazy. But how many politicians, even politicians advocating a change in policy, are actually supporting a total withdrawal? The nonsense CW that we need a presence to prevent a meltdown is ridiculous. Iraq is in meltdown now. Iraq will stay in meltdown until Iraqis take on the task of solving their disputes. As long as their is a foreign presence, particularly a western presence, those disputes will not be solved.

To have any American soldiers in Iraq is to continue the war. Anyone thinking otherwise is just deluding themselves.

Read More...

Two Other's

Here are two cases that Bush's refuses to consider. One of them was written about here .... the case of the Iraq vet with some distant crapola conviction that he needs expunged so he can be a cop.

The hypocrisy is being revealed all over the place. But, in fact, it really only matters to the unaware, unconvinced or ignorant. We knew it was coming and it taste bitter going down.

Read More...

Who's Really To Blame

This is an old story. But I'm going to do this one for the pure catharsis of it. The media is terrible. And I'm going to use this Reuters story as exhibit A. Regarding the Libby-get-out-of-jail-free story:

Bush, who angered Democrats but reassured conservatives by saving Libby from serving a 2-1/2 year prison sentence, told reporters who asked about an eventual full pardon for Libby: "As to the future I rule nothing in and nothing out."
So, "Democrats" (emphasis on rat) were angered, but "conservatives", not Republicans, were reassured. And just how many actually people wanted Libby to walk? Polls have shown it to be around 20%. Do you see that context in this paragraph at all? No. It's pretty much implied that it's the usual partisan bickering, with 50% of Americans for Libby walking and 50% against it.
Bush's move to spare Libby -- while leaving intact a $250,000 fine and two-year probation -- was seen in Washington as an act of loyalty by an unpopular president attempting to repair ties with disaffected conservatives who had pressed him to keep Libby out of jail.
"Was seen in Washington". By who? And it was a issue of "loyalty"? How about that "O" word, like some context of how Bush was likely covering his and Cheney's butt? Oh, I'm sorry, that wouldn't be polite to talk about the elephant in the Washington weenie groups living room. Besides, don't you know it was highly courageous for a "unpopular President" to remain loyal to his felonies buddies?
The decision was also likened to then-President Bill Clinton's 11th-hour pardon in 2001 of financier Marc Rich from tax-evasion charges.
This paragraph is right out of the GOP talking points play book ..... again .... still. Once again, it's Ok if Clinton did it. And besides that, there is absolutely no comparison between outing a CIA covert operative and then lying about it and Rich's crime of (OH NO!) tax evasion.
"It closes one chapter of the sort of life-draining issue of George W. Bush and Iraq," presidential historian Stephen Hess said of Monday's action. "It's totally in keeping with everything he's done up to now, including his sense of loyalty to his people."
Again, no quote from anyone even suggesting a cover-up, obstruction of justice or any possible motivation for the commutation beyond Bush commendable trait of "loyalty". No. Bushie-boy did it because he's like your ordinary household pet, loyal to the end.
Many at the White House found criticism from New York Sen. Hillary Clinton particularly ironic. Aside from the Rich pardon, her husband's former national security adviser, Sandy Berger, reached a plea deal in 2005 and avoided a jail sentence for illegally removing classified documents from the National Archives and destroying some of them.
Another GOP talking point, and right out of the White House. Yep, Sandy Berger sticking a few archives in his pants is the same as a treasonous act of outing a covert op agent. Besides, what does Sandy Berger's action in 2005 have to do with either Clinton? I guess they're guilty because they know each other.
The White House said Bush acted without input from the Justice Department, sparing further criticism of his embattled attorney general, Alberto Gonzales.
They don't get to this until the second to last graf. And notice the context, "sparing further criticism" for Abu, not that Bush did an extraordinary thing of commuting a sentence without input from DOJ, which is unheard of. No. Bush was being a really nice guy and "sparing" his other buddy, Abu. Jesus H. Christ.

Is it any wonder that most people don't know what's going on? Is it any wonder that Bush has to virtually take a lighter to the Constitution on the steps of the Supreme Court building before anyone notices? This kind of lazy ass, biased reporting is pure bullshit.

Read More...

Disgust List

This one is pretty good.

I tell ya, the bile emanating from my computer this morning is so thick I'm going to have to hose it off.

Read More...

Libby's Angry

Catch this:

Robert Novak writes: “Bush is blamed by friends of Libby for losing control of the Plame investigation by putting it in the hands of a special prosecutor — the U.S. attorney in Chicago, Patrick Fitzgerald. In his decision sparing Libby jail time, Bush did not say a word of criticism about Fitzgerald.”
I swear. When stuff like this happens, or you get guys like Duncan Hunter on the teevee talking about what a great Amurikan Ann Coulter is, I feel like I live in a different dimension, an alternate universe if you will.

I've experienced being in highly dysfunctional relationships. I've also studied the subject extensively. And I tell you, our country feels like one of the sickest families I ever studied. The way some of these conservatives see the world is literally 180 degrees away from what I see. I keep waiting for the country to right itself. I guess I'm assuming I'm at least sorta in the direction of "right", but at times I begin to wonder (a normal part of the crazy-making of our national family). So, I guess we're just left with a wait and see in terms of the only way Americans can really express their political values ..... elections. Then I guess I can make further conclusions about my own insanity.

Update: Digby enters the alternate universe so you don't have to, and let's us know what's happening:
I just saw the Fox Allstars practically pole dancing over this, saying outright that Libby's pals are going to pay his fines for him and that he'll have no problem finding work. High fives all around. They got so excited that they forgot they were supposed to be all dour and somber over the horrible, awful punishment that poor little Scooter is going to have to endure even though he isn't spending a day in jail.

Joe DiGenova on CNN just spent what seemed like a half hour saying over and over again that Libby was a great American and the next step is an investigation into prosecutorial misconduct by Patrick Fitzgerald and hopes that more will come out during "the appeal." Patrick Fitzgerald is about to see his career permanently destroyed by these scumbags.

This is a very, very depressing day, even though we knew it would happen in one way or another. It's just a continuation of this administration's complete disregard for the law and their belief that they are entitled to special treatment because, well, they are just, so special.

Bush has just slapped a jury, four Republican judges, and the American people right in the face and blatantly instigated a cover-up of his illegal acts by giving his former aid amnesty. And the hits just keep on coming.
Update II: Steve Benen brings up a very good point:
Quite right. Yesterday's decision, as offensive as it is, brings the leak scandal into the Oval Office -- even more so. It necessarily gives the impression that Libby lied and obstructed justice in order to shield Bush and Cheney from their role in an even bigger crime. Even now, it's frustratingly unclear why, exactly, Libby decided to lie so brazenly, which suggests that he's covering up a more serious matter that might involve his only two WH bosses (the president and vice president). Amnesty only exacerbates these suspicions
There really wasn't any doubt that Bush committed a criminal act in the entire Plamegate thing. But this is enough circumstantial evidence to prove it. Why not let Libby serve a couple of weeks and then commute? No. Libby holds the cards and called the play. Bush is obstructing justice to cover his and Cheney's asses.

Read More...

Libby Hangover

I was in a foul mood all evening after Libby walks. As they've been saying, even Paris Hilton served some time.

My only hope is that the Wilson civil trial will now move forward. Like O.J. Simpson, there may be a bit of a backlash from the public, including the jury pool for a civil trial. Hitting Libby, Cheney et. al in the pocket book might be some consolation. Beyond that, it was a dark day in America yesterday. Harry Reid said it well:

"[The Libby conviction] was the one faint glimmer of accountability for White House efforts to manipulate intelligence."

Read More...

Who Needs a Weatherman?

Does this sound like the wind up for a false flag operation to you?

"This is reminiscent of the warnings and intelligence we were getting in the summer of 2001." anon. official to ABC News.

Warnings in summer 2007 and into the fall.
"Terrorist" event this winter or early next year.
Bush declares martial law by April. He has the authority.
Wayne Downing was Bush’s deputy national security adviser for counterterrorism under Condoleezza Rice early in the first term. On December 24, 2002, six months after he retired, he told The Washington Post: “The United States may have to declare martial law someday in the case of a devastating attack with weapons of mass destruction causing tens of thousands of casualties. This could mean that the military would be given the authority to impose curfews, protect businesses and communities, even make arrests.”

General Tommy Franks, who led the Iraq invasion, told Cigar Aficionado in December 2003 that if terrorists attack us again, this time with a weapon of mass destruction, it will cause the “population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass-casualty-producing event. Which, in fact, then begins to potentially unravel the fabric of our Constitution.”
Downing and Franks aren’t the only former officials talking about martial law.

Read More...