What we know so far ...

What did Hillary Clinton say, and when did she say it?

2012-01-03T00:30:00.000-06:00

Recently, the enemies of Obama, for their own reasons, havereacted with horror to something that Hillary Clinton said. Oh, dear! Whatcould it have been?

Some say that she compared Israelto Iran.Of course, people who say this can’t possibly believe it, since Mrs. Clintonhas re-affirmed the deep and abiding alliance between the United States and Israel,and at this very moment, the Department of Defense is drawing up war plansagainst

Iran

Perhaps we will never know what she said, since whatever itwas it was allegedly said at the Saban Center for Mid-East Policy of the BrookingsInstitute. The comments were off the record. Israeli media reported thatSecretary of State Hillary Clinton derided “anti-Democratic” measures in

Israel

that target liberal non-governmental organizations and women.

Let’s take a look at the accusation that the treatment ofwomen in Israel is,lehavdil, to be compared to

Iran

The gist of this complaint revolves around treatment ofwomen by certain Jews who consider themselves to be extremely religious.They’re not, of course. What they are is extremely crazy. Thus, for example,they thought it was okay to spit on a young girl because she was dressedimmodestly according to their standards. It should be noted that she wore theprim and proper attire of an 8 year old Orthodox Jewish girl, which is what shewas, but this did not stop the despicable conduct that included calling her aprostitute. You can find the reaction of a mainstream Orthodox organizationhere. Money quote: “Your actions are diametrically opposed to Judaism.” Chabad was unstinting in its denunciation: “Violent behaviors of individuals or groups who abuse, intimidate and insult others are a flagrant offense to Torah, and deserve to be unequivocally condemned.” Read the entire statement here.

The story first gained attention when it made the eveningnews in Israel.The story, which can be seen here, shows an Orthodox woman comparing thezealous lunatics to Iran.Indeed, the backlash which was both welcome and inevitable, has adopted as aslogan, “Don’t turn Israelinto Iran.”Is Hillary Clinton to be criticized for saying essentially the same thing?

By the way, the growing influence of the lunatic fringe hasmanifested in other unfortunate incidents. In one incident, a meshuganaphysically prevented a public bus from moving because a female passengerrefused to move to the back of the bus. Anybody who knows anything about

America

’sshameful history of segregation and the bravery of Rosa Parks can’t help buthave a visceral reaction to this event. That would include Mrs. Clinton. Many lovers of Zion hear of thisand feel that the image of Israelas an egalitarian democracy that is a homeland to all Jews, including secularJews, is being tarnished. That, too, would include Mrs. Clinton. All honor to those who think that it is disrespectful of women to sit behind them, but I can not support their right to set the standards for public transportation for all of Israel.

In another incident, a few soldiers, drafted from the ranksof the Haredi (religious), walked out of a military event because a femalesoldier sang, and listening to a female voice is against their view of proper conduct. It would not have been a big deal because the IDFrebuked the company commanders and instructed them to show sensitivity to the religious choices oftheir troops. Again, I respect the religious choices of the troops, though they are certainly not the ones I would make. And more power to these troops for defying the norms of their community to serve their country. If the matter had ended there we would not be talking about it here. However, in what is was surely an attempt to be provocative, one of the rabbis said that his followers should“face a firing squad” rather than obey an order which required them to hear awoman sing. This rabbi surely would not approve of his followers being in the army of a Zionist state. It is reasonable to think that this religious leader is trying to undermine the secular nature of Israel, and I can understand why any American Secretary of State would find it a matter of concern.

So, enough said about Hillary Clinton’s criticism of the religious extremists who are gaining influence in Israel. I join in those criticisms,and echo the sentiment of many Orthodox Jews, that these zealots arethreatening to turn Israelfrom a democracy into a theocracy. We have enough theocracies, of which Iran is a despicableexample.

The tougher issue concerns some anti-Democratic measuresthat are being legislated in Israel,most notorious of which is the so-called NGO bill. The Forward wrote about itin the December 23, 2011 issue under the headline Orwell Would Love Israel's Anti-NGO Bill with the sub-head “Move to Limit Funding Runs Counterto Global U.S.Policy”

The bill has three parts: First, it outlaws all foreigngovernment funding of certain types of non-governmental organizations (NGOs)that are deemed threatening to the state. It also taxes their domestic Israelidonations at 45%. Second, it slaps a 45% tax on foreign donations to“political” NGOs such as Peace Now and B’Tselem (which monitors human rights violations of Israeli law in the territories) and the Israeli equivalent of the ACLU. Third, it creates a Knesset (not judicial or administrative) panel tohear appeals by organizations seeking exemption. The Forward’s articleconcludes, “The more you look at it, the more it becomes clear that the effectof the bill — its main intent, in fact — is to restrict or outlaw the advocacyof observing the laws of the state. Orwell would have loved it.”

You can read the Forward article to see why many Americansof good will believe this bill is bad news, even, anti-Democratic. Does HillaryClinton have the right to such an opinion? Of course! But should she publiclycriticize America’sclosest ally? You be the judge, but remember, please, that Secretary Clinton’scomments were behind closed doors at the Saban Center.

A word or two about the kind of NGOs that Mrs. Clinton mayor may not have criticized Israel for attacking. NGOs were in the news when anothermid-Eastern country cracked down on them. You can read about it on the Huffington Post: Egypt Pro-Democracy, HumanRights Offices Stormed By Soldiers.

The Obama administration demanded Egyptian authorities immediately halt the raids on NGOs, saying they are “inconsistent” with long-standingU.S-Egypt cooperation.

The U.S. State Department called on the Egyptian government “toimmediately end the harassment of NGO staff, return all property and resolvethis issue.” Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said the U.S. ambassador to Egyptand the top U.S. diplomatfor the Middle East have spoken to Egyptianofficials about the situation and “made very clear that this issue needsimmediate attention.” Senator PatrickLeahy (D-Vt) threatened to cut off the $1.5 billion aid to the Egyptian SupremeCounsel of the Armed Forces (SCAF). As a result, Egyptian ministers are scurryingaround to announce that they were shocked, shocked, to learn of the raids.

Contrast this to the mild rebuke of Israel, offeredprivately as one friend to another.

You don’t have to be a high level CIA analyst to figure outthat these NGOs do more than just offer civics lessons to community organizers.Let’s take a look at the ones that were targeted by SCAF.

One of thepro-democracy/human rights offices was the International Republican Institute(IRI) an organization funded by the United States government thatconducts international political programs, sometimes labeled “democratizationprograms.” Sen. John McCain is the chairman.

Another was the NationalDemocratic Institute for International Affairs (NDIIA or NDI), an organizationcreated by the United States government by way of the National Endowment forDemocracy (NED) to channel grants for furthering democracy in developingnations. Taxpayer funding is provided by the Federal Government, both directlyfrom the United States Agency for International Development and theDepartment of State and indirectly through the National Endowment forDemocracy. Additional funds are raised through voluntary donations from foreigngovernments. It is headquartered in Washington D.C.

Freedom House was anothergroup targeted by the Egyptian military. Freedom House’s website states“American leadership in international affairs is essential to the cause ofhuman rights and freedom” and that this can primarily be achieved through thegroup's “analysis, advocacy, and action”

I am going to go out on alimb here and suggest that maybe having these types of NGOs operating next doorto Egyptmight help that country transition to a real democracy rather than one whichcomes to power through elections but then imposes an Islamist, Muslim Brotherhoodagenda.

If so, I can understand whyour Secretary of State might reprove the Israeli government for actions thatseem to target these NGOs. As supporters of Israel, we can only hope that shedoes it privately and quietly. You know, like at the Saban Center.

“… and tell ’em Big Mitchsent ya!”

Yesterday's big news

2011-11-29T14:12:00.001-06:00

When the history of the 2012 Presidential election is written,few will note that November 28, 2011 was the day when it became unassailablyobvious that Barak Obama would be re-elected.

What was the news break? Was it Manchester Union-Leader’sendorsement of Newt Gingrich? Or was it when Ginger White revealed her long andrecent affair with Herman Cain?

None of the above.

Newt Gingrich was the soup de jour on the Any-But-Romney buffet.But New Hampshire is near Massachusetts, and the editorial board ofthe Union-Leader was familiar with Romney. Familiarity had the predictable multipliereffect on contempt, and nobody was surprised when the paper gave Mitt the backif its hand. That Gingrich would be the beneficiary, may have been anunforeseen godsend to the President. After all, Alex Wagner, hostess of theMSNBC morning news show, Now,actually uttered this sentence: “‘Loathsome’ is a word often used in connectionwith Newt Gingrich.” And yet, there are those who believe that Gingrich canactually win the election.

Herman Cain had no chance of being President for reasons toonumerous to catalogue here. It could be argued that his demise as a candidatehelps the Republican party because it shakes up the field and may advance theday when a real competitor will be sifted out.

The real news that was an answer to my question and to thePresident’s prayers came on the Rachel Maddow show, when guest Buddy Roemerannounced that if he didn’t win the Republican nomination, he would run on theAmerica Votes ticket.

Buddy Who? Roemer was a member of Congress before he became thegovernor of Louisiana.He was the CEO of a private company and made his fortune there. Legislativeexperience, executive experience in government and private enterprise – call itthe tri-fecta. He has been an advocate for election reform for many years andhe has limited contributions to his campaign to under $100. As a result, he hasnot been invited to any of the Republican debates because those who sponsor thedebates only invite viable candidates and hold that any candidate who has notraised a certain amount of money is not viable. It has been said of Roemer,that he is “a dynamic orator who could light up an audience with his first twosentences. When he got wound up it was truly evangelical and, he made sense.His wiry, five foot seven, one-hundred thirty-five pound frame would seem touncoil and grow as he outlined his vision as a fighter against crime,corruption and waste in government, poor education, taxes and industrialpollution.”

As governor, Roemer called a special session ofthe legislature to push an ambitious tax and fiscal reform program for stateand local governments. He vowed to slash spending, abolish programs, and closestate-run institutions. Voters ultimately rejected his proposals, but timeshave changed, and what he served up is just what the Republicans are hungry for.Roemer vetoed an anti-abortion law, on grounds that it was unconstitutional.His veto was over-ridden, but in the end, he was vindicated because the lawwas, in fact, ruled unconstitutional. Though he is twice divorced, and thricemarried, his personal life does not have the baggage connected with thesalacious details and hypocrisy of Newt Gingrich.

In short, he is a perfect match for America Votes.

Americawho? America Votes is a grass roots organization that seeks to change the waythat we select Presidential candidates. It intends to have a national internetprimary. It promises the victor 50 state ballot access. Given Roehmer’s go-go (goodgovernment) credentials, he seems like a prohibitive odds-on favorite to winthe internet primary.

What does it mean? It means that in every state, Republicanswho are disenchanted with their candidate will have a choice other than votingfor the President or staying home. It is obvious that a lot of Republicans whodon’t like Romney will hold their nose and vote for him. But a good two orthree percent of Republicans are either too bigoted to vote for a Mormon, orjust simply feel, as I do, that Romney doesn’t care about people like me. A oneor two point decline in support for Romney in key states is all it takes todeliver them to Obama.

Gingrich’s road is an uphill, long shot battle as is, but ifone or two percent of his hoped-for voters defect to Roemer, he can wavegoodbye to any hope of being elected. Thanks, Buddy!

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

If you are a one issue voter, and your one issue is Israel

2011-11-20T03:20:00.000-06:00

A friend of mine, whom I respect greatly, recently said that any one of the Republican hopefuls is preferable to Barack Obama. Maybe this is because she thinks that Obama is not a staunch enough supporter of Israel.

I was thinking of this while watching the Sunday talk shows today. This week, the Defense Minister and former Prime Minister of Israel, Ehud Barak appeared on the Sunday morning talk show, Fareed Zakaria GPS. The host is editor-at-large and a columnist for TIME magazine, and a columnist for The Washington Post.

I found this exchange particularly interesting:

ZAKARIA: You know that there are people in the United States who've criticized President Obama for not supporting Israel strongly enough. Do you believe that President Obama is a very strong supporter of Israel?

BARAK: He is extremely strong supporter of Israel in regard to - to its security. Traditionally, the president will support in Israel in keeping its collective military edge and taking care of its security needs. But this administration is excelling in this. And it could not have happened without the immediate direct support of the president. So I don't think that anyone can raise any question mark about the devotion of this president to the security of Israel.

It doesn't mean that we cannot have difference of opinion at this or that point about this or that other aspect of what happens around us, Middle East or the peace process. I would love to see the American president agree to everything that comes from our government, but I think that's too - kind of idealistic.

What does Ehud Barack know, that my friend does not?

It should be recalled that President Obama has successfully fought off Palestinian membership in the General Assembly, and is the first President to explicitly recognize that Israel is a “Jewish State,” (i.e. no right of return for Palestinians.)

To help insure the safety and security of Israel, the Obama administration has realized unprecedented levels of military cooperation with the state of Israel. The administration’s request for $2.775 billion to aid in Israel in fiscal year 2010 was the largest request in history. In F.Y. 2011, the administration requested even more: $3 billion.

“We’re talking about the realization of the Iron Dome missile defense system that will be funded out of this money and it will be saving Israeli lives from rockets, wherever they come from. That is real-that is not just a number, folks, that is a real live tangible impact on Israelis’ lives," according to Jarrod Bernstein, the President's Jewish community laison.

The President is winning the diplomatic war over Iran’s nuclear program. “On Iran, the president has spent more time trying to block Iran’s nuclear ambitions than any other foreign policy issue,” Bernstein said. “And it’s something that he raises every single time he’s in a room with a foreign world leader, about what more we can be doing.”

“He’s also galvanized the international community to impose the toughest set of sanctions on Iran to date. In fact, he made the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad acknowledge in the Iranian parliament how hard of a time he’s having because of the American sanctions. And that is not something you hear very often in Iran, folks,” said Bernstein.

Finally, President Obama called for a “non-militarized” Palestinian state. No President has ever taken such a pro-Israel stance, and it is remarkable that this position has not drawn more attention. What has drawn attention is his call for a return to pre-1967 borders, with agreed upon swaps. This is essentially the same as President G.W. Bush's demand outlined in a press release dated January 10, 2008 in which he referred to the Israeli presence in all of Jerusalem as an “occupation.”

“The point of departure for a permanent status negotiations to realize this vision seems clear: There should be an end to the occupation that began in 1967. ... While territory is an issue for both parties to decide, I believe that any peace agreement between them will require mutually agreed adjustments to the armistice lines of 1949 to reflect current realities and to ensure that the Palestinian state is viable and contiguous.”

And of course, this is the position of the Israeli government, too.

Well, maybe my friend thinks that there is a Republican who is a better candidate than Obama on Israel or some other issue. So let’s take a look:For some time now the Republican presidential hopefuls have been campaigning and debating in hopes of being the last man or woman standing at the end of the nominating process. Mitt Romney has never been able to attract a following of more than 25% which is not surprising when one considers he is the spiritual godfather of individual mandates in healthcare reform.

Tim Pawlenty was seen as a reasonable alternative, except for the small problem that no body wanted to hear from him, much less give him money. So, after a flirtation with birther Donald Trump, the search for an alternative began in earnest.

First up was Michelle Bachman, who, as I pointed out in these precincts wants to raise taxes on the poor in spite of her signature on a Grover Norquist pledge. She’s hoping for a second look now, but during her first pass, she could not think of anything to say other than “Make Obama a one-term President,” and repeal health care reform.

The Republicans called out for another candidate and they got Rick Perry. The Texas governor who accused Romney of being a magnet for illegal aliens gives in-state tuition to illegal aliens attending college in his own state, and called anyone who disagreed with him “heartless.”

His pathetic debate performances highlighted the fact that he is not ready for prime time. A main ingredient in his stump speech, and, indeed, in his philosophy of government is that it should be streamlined by cutting out three government departments. On the test question, “Can you name them?” he got 67% right.

As if the comedian’s-full-employment-act had suddenly been signed into law, up popped Herman Cain, who clearly didn't know what is meant by “Palestinian right of return,” when asked about it. Long before Cain was running for president and getting attention for his “bold 9-9-9 plan,” the residents of SimCity 4 -- which was released in 2003 -- were living under a system where the default tax rate was 9 percent for commercial taxes, 9 percent for industrial taxes and 9 percent for residential taxes.

During a debate in Iowa, the former CEO of Godfather’s Pizza recited his favorite inspirational quote:“A poet once said, ‘life can be a challenge, life can seem impossible, but it’s never easy when there’s so much on the line.’”

The poet? It’s from the theme of Pokémon: The Movie 2000, sung by the great disco queen Donna Summers.

Then came the sexual scandals, which, bad enough though they were, were not the worst of it. That would be his disastrous handling of the accusations which included thinly veiled threats aimed at other women inclined to come forward, and statements to the effect that there were thousands of women who he did not sexually harass.

The shameless invocation of Justice Thomas’s memorable phrase “high tech lynching,” was especially offensive because (1) I believe Anita Hill, (2) Our attitudes and understanding about sexual harassment has evolved since then, thanks, in part to Dr. Hill's bravery, (3)Thomas should not have been confirmed, and should in fact be impeached, and, (4) Cain was pretty darn quick to play the race card when it suited him.

What seemed like it must be the final stake through his heart was his gaffe in which he responded to a question about Libya with no apparent idea if he was talking about a country in Africa, in which President Obama had masterfully overseen the ousting of a vicious dictator/terrorist, or the tattooed lady made famous by Groucho Marx:

You might think that was the end of Cain, but as it happens he managed to go downhill from there. Recall, if you will that Cain had once campaigned on a promise that all bills would be required to be no longer than three pages. Jon Stewart did an impersonation of Cain and then threw up a mock billboard that read: “HERMAN CAIN 2012 - I DON'T LIKE TO READ.”

Frankly, I thought it was hilarious. But in the immortal words of Ron Popiel, “Wait! There’s more!”

Cain tried to explain away his Libya gaffe by saying that the American people want “a leader, not a reader.” As goofy as the notion that Americans don’t want an informed President is, he trumped that, too! It turns out that the line was stolen from – wait for it – The Simpson’s Movie!

Next up is Newt Gingrich. The former lobbyist for Freddy Mac is hoping that he can get the nomination for President by vilifying his former client who paid him millions of dollars. This is the same Newt who said in September of 2008, “I think Senator McCain should have turned and said, ‘Senator Obama, are you prepared to give back all the money that Freddie Mac & Fannie Mae gave to you?’”

Things aren’t going well for Newt when Jack Abramoff accuses him of “engaging in the exact kind of corruption that America disdains.” Gingrich who has worked with Al Sharpton and Hillary Clinton also worked for the Heritage Foundation from whence Mitt Romney got the idea for individual mandates.

Gingrich has got more baggage than an airport carousel, but he has tried to excuse his serial philandering by saying that it was partly because of his “passion for this country.” I can understand that excuse: I’ve seen Calista and I understand the joke to which the punch-line is “Do it for Old Glory." But what was Calista’s reasoning?

Maybe she is drawn to men with power – he was the Speaker of the House at the time that they began their affair. Maybe she just likes a guy with a million dollar line of credit at Tiffany’s, but that’s not the point. The point is the brazen hypocrisy of carrying on an affair while impeaching the President for – well, we all know what for.

I could go on for hours about Newt Gingrich’s personal failings but why bother? The guy is a pathetic liar, but that’s not why the Republicans will reject him. His real problem is that he is trying to court the religious right, most of whom are devout Southern Baptists. That’s the faith that he rejected when he converted to Roman Catholicism, a church which many Southern Baptists believe is headed by the anti-Christ.

To me, they’re all gentiles, which I suppose is another thing I have in common with Jon Huntsman, besides the fact that neither one of us can get more than 3% support within the Republican party.

Luckily for Ron Paul, the media refuses to take him seriously, because if he ever gets the spotlight, his ugly association with his racist followers will pull the scab off an oozing wound on the Republican body politic.

Rick Santorum is the only guy I haven’t mentioned, and perhaps by the time you read this he will have run out of money. After all, he seems to be trying to be too conservative for the Tea Party, and his steadfast opposition to abortion and equality for gays is so extreme that even they realize that he is unelectable. The next President will probably have to win Pennsylvania, and Perry has already lost in state-wide election there.

So, what does it all add up to?

First, if you would be honest, you must admit that Obama is a staunch and able ally of Israel.

Second, he is going to be re-elected because there is no Republican who can win, and darn few that can be considered serious candidates.

Third, if you want to be a friend of Israel, give your support to Obama, so that he will continue to honor the opinions of “Lovers of Zion,” like myself and the friend I referenced above.

“… and tell ‘em Big Mitch sent ya!”

The State of Palestinian Governance

2011-09-28T15:34:00.002-06:00

In August 2005, Israel unilaterally withdrew from the Gaza Strip, and forcibly evicted Jewish settlers. Israel was criticized for this by Jews and Arabs alike.

In June 2007, elections were held in the Gaza, and Hamas won, although the legitimacy of the election is disputed. Be that as it may, the terrorist organization, Hamas promptly evicted the vanquished Palestinian Authority to the disputed territories of Judea and Sumaria, more commonly known as the West Bank. It is more accurate to say that Hamas won a civil war in Gaza than to credit with an electoral win. In no way, can the so-called election be considered a victory for democracy.

The Palestinian Authority, dominated by the terrorist organization formerly known as the PLO, are the same people who invented airplane hijacking and who ripped off their constituents to make Yassar Arafat fabulously wealthy.

Since the Hamas takeover of the Gaza, rockets have rained down on Israel from Gaza continuously. Hamas does not dispute that its goal is to destroy Israel, and any peace treaty that may be arrived at is seen by them as a first step towards that goal.

Meanwhile, the Palestinian Authority held elections and Mahmoud Abbas of the Fatah party became President. However, his term has expired and there is no legitimate leader of the Palestinian Authority, which has re-named itself the Palestinian National Authority. Abbas clings to power by the conceit of refusing to convene Palestinian Legislative Council on the transparent pretense that there are not enough people to constitute a legislative body.

In April 2011, Fatah and Hamas came to an agreement which allowed Hamas to join in the Palestinian Liberation Organization, and calling for elections within a year. If the coalition of Fatah and Hamas can hold together until the elections they will surely have a majority in the Palestinian Legislative Council. In other words, the proposed Palestinian state will be governed for a coalition that includes members who make no secret of their desire to destroy a member state of the U.N.

To review: Abbas is not the legitimate leader of the Palestinian National Authority, and the Palestinian National Authority is not the legitimate representatives of the Palestinians living in the disputed territories of the Gaza strip and the West Bank. The application to the United Nations for recognition as a state does not refer to recognized boarders but does include a government committed to the destruction of Israel. Of course, the application should be rejected.

Love or Obama or hate him, but give him credit for standing up for Israel at the United Nations and for opposing the idea of rewarding Palestinian intransigence with a state.

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

Bachmann wants to RAISE taxes!

2011-08-21T15:49:00.003-06:00

In South Carolina today, candidate Michelle Bachmann held a town hall meeting at Myrtle Beach. She took a question about taxes. Here's her response:

“The question ‘What will I do to bring in the 50% of people who don’t pay taxes?’ It is unbelievable that today, the latest statistics we have, is that 53% of American’s pay taxes, 47% do not. It may even be worse than that this year. This is incomprehensible. Because every person in this county – I don’t care who you are – you have a stake in the success of the United States of America. Every single person should pay something!”

There you have it, folks. Michele Bachmann is in favor of raising taxes as nearly half of all Americans.

Let us not forget that Ms. Bachmann also promised to get gas prices down to under $2.00 per gallon. Everyone knows that the only way to get that is to have a serious recession. So, at least we know where she stands: raising taxes on half of the population of the United States and causing economic havoc.

Sure, we know she was a little bat-shit crazy before this. But that has been mostly on social conservatism issues, like cure-the-gay, and submissive wives. There is a dash of anti-intellectualism that spices up her views on global warming and evolution. But she presents as a serious woman when it comes to her tax bona fides. That was then, and this is now, and now she is running to out crazy a guy who wants to be the President of the country he wants to secede from.

And yet, people are still betting on Obama to lose the election.

“... and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

“Give ’em hell, Barry!” Part 2

2011-08-12T00:17:00.003-06:00

The Republican controlled Congress has brought the country to the brink of disaster. In Part 1, of this post, I argued that the clear path to victory for Barak Obama is to ignore the Republican nominee and run against Congress the way Harry S Truman did in 1948, earning for himself a second term and a place in history as one of the greatest upset victors in history.

As usual, the President does not seem to be taking my advice. I would not find this surprising in and of itself, but for the fact that Obama is such a smart man that I would have figured him to come to this on his own.

Instead, the President is said to be preparing a campaign that capitalizes on Romney’s shortcomings. People think Romney is weird. His business experience consists of buying companies, firing employees and selling the companies in parts – hardly the resume you want if the country is clamoring for jobs creation. Romney-care was the template for Obama-care, et cetera, ad nauseum.

Will it work? People hate negative campaigning but the fact is that it works, especially if the candidate isn’t perceived as the first one to go negative. But in the case of Obama there are special circumstances. First, as an incumbent, negative campaigning may be perceived as infra dig. Second, it is so counter to the President’s persona, as we have come to know it, that it may appear to be desperation. Beyond that, given Obama’s personality, whether or not he could pull it off is a fair question. Finally, there will be plenty of surrogates available to remind the public of why we don’t like Romney, and the question is what should the President do. What I have proposed is not inimical to surrogates attacking Romney.

But what would it look like if the President followed the advice of Big Mitch, and patterned his campaign after the 1948 campaign of President Truman? Let's take a look.

Harry Truman called a special session of Congress known as the Turnip Day session during his 1948 presidential campaign. The Research Division of the Democratic National Committee came up with the idea as a way to dramatize the differences between the Republican platform and the performance of the Republican Congress. The special session of Congress, which began on the day known as “Turnip Day” in Missouri, proved to be an effective strategy in Truman's campaign.

Batt, William L., Jr., Origin of the 1948 Turnip Day Session of Congress (Presidential Studies Quarterly, Vol 29 No 1 March 1999)

Today, in Michigan the President addressed factory workers. Here’s some of what he said:

You know, in the aftermath of this whole debt ceiling debacle, and when the markets going up and down like they are, there’s been a lot of talk in Washington right now that I should call Congress back early. The last thing we need is Congress spending more time arguing in D.C. (Applause.) What I figure is, they need to spend more time out here listening to you and hearing how fed up you are. (Applause.) That’s why I’m here. That’s why I’ll be traveling to a lot of communities like this one over the next week. That’s what Congress should be doing -- go back home, listen to people’s frustrations with all the gridlock. Listen to how frustrated folks are with the constant bickering and the unwillingness to compromise and the desire to score points, even if it’s at the expense of our country. And if they’re listening hard enough, maybe they’ll come back to Washington ready to compromise and ready to create jobs and ready to reduce our deficit -- ready to do what you sent them there to do.

Maybe he is just ignoring my advice. Or maybe he is laying the ground work for a call to convene Congress next summer. You know what they say in Missouri,

On the twenty-fifth of July, Sow your turnips, wet or dry...

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

Romney is weird, but why mention it now?

2011-08-11T23:22:00.008-06:00

Soon, I will post an addition to my previous post, “Give ’em hell!” But I want to quickly respond to the leaked news that Obama is planning to run a negative campaign against Romney. Look, this news didn’t leak out because of a slip of the tongue. Someone in the Obama corner planted it in the press for a reason. And what would that be?

Off the top of my head, they wanted to boost Romney’s chances of getting the nomination.

Here’s how it would work. Negative campaigning is perceived as a desperate tactic. Letting the story get out creates the impression that Romney is the only one that Obama is afraid of. That has to be good for Mitt.

Why would the President’s political team want to boost Romney’s chances of being nominated? They know any easy mark when they see one. They have been concerned about Huntsman for years, which accounts for why they sent him to the other side of the world. Gingrich is a capable orator, and he could damage the President even if he can’t win the election. After a little more exposure to wild-eyed craziness, a la Bachmann, Paul, and Cain, boring might start to look good, to the benefit of Pawlenty.

I didn’t mention Perry, because his craziness is of the squinty-eyed variety, redolent of George W. Bush. Suffice it to say of Perry, that the Bush people say he is “more interested in sound bites, than drilling down into the issues.” If you are too shallow for George W. Bush acolytes, you might as well have “No diving” tattooed on your forehead.

Of the three real potential candidates– Romney, Gingrich, and Pawlenty – Romney is easiest to beat.

Want an example? On the stump today in Arizona, Romney got laughed at for saying “Corporations are people.” Really, Mitt? Doesn't that mean that any corporation with a net income of more than $379,150 should be taxed at a marginal rate of 35%?*

Here’s another example: Tonight Faux News aired a debate in Iowa, in advance of the straw poll coming up this Saturday. Here’s Romney talking about withdrawing from Afghanistan:

Sometime within the next two years, we are going to draw down our troop strength and reach a point where the Afghan military is able to preserve the sovereignty of their own nation from the tyranny of the Taliban. That has to happen. It's time for the troops of Afghanistan to take on that responsibility, according to -- as I said in the last debate -- according to the timetable established and communicated by the generals in the field.

Those generals recommended to President Obama we should not start drawing our troops down until after the fighting season in 2012. He took a political decision to draw them down faster than that. That is wrong. We should follow the recommendation of the generals, and we should now look for the people of Afghanistan to pick up their fight and preserve that liberty that has been so dearly won.

Spoken like a real Commander-in-chief, Mitsy. You should just come out and say, “I will do whatever the Generals tell me to do, because I don’t know shit.” I realize that you can’t help to criticizing whatever the President does, but really, do you want to court the “we need to stay in Afghanistan longer” vote?

Good luck with that …

“ … and tell ‘em Big Mitch sent ya!”

* Tip o' the hat to my pride and joy.

Give ’em hell!

2011-08-08T00:52:00.006-06:00

You could say that the midterm elections resulted in a shellacking. I’m talking about the 1946 midterm election which resulted in a Republican pick up of 55 seats in the House, giving them a majority. Democrats had controlled the house for 14 years. In the Senate, Republicans gained 12 seats and also took over the majority. The election was seen as a referendum on President Truman.

Two years later, Democrats regained control of congress and Truman, who had ascended to the presidency when FDR died, was returned to office. How did it happen, and what lessons does the 1948 election hold for us today?

In 1948, the Republican nominee was Thomas Dewey, popular governor of the largest state, New York. The easterner was chosen after a contentious convention rather than Senator Robert Taft of Ohio, who campaigned for the nomination as an isolationist. Harold Stassen, the wonder boy from Minnesota, who had knocked out any hopes of Douglas MacArthur’s supporters, could not extend his popularity beyond his Midwest base. When Stassen lost the Ohio primary to Taft, and then lost the first ever nationally broadcast debate to Dewey in advance of the Oregon primary, it was all over but the shouting.

Basically, Dewey’s success was as an eastern establishment Republican. He prevailed against challengers who wanted to abolish many of the New Deal social welfare programs that had been created in the 1930s, which they regarded as too expensive and harmful to business interests. Dewey had previous experience, having been the Republican nominee against Roosevelt in 1944, but he was unpopular with Republicans who considered him cold, stiff and calculating. He was compared to “the little man on the wedding cake,” by Teddy Roosevelt’s socialite daughter.

As you might expect, an incumbent President was the odds-on favorite to win the nomination of his party. However, Truman was not without detractors. Liberals were not enthusiastic supporters of Truman – the Progressive party had their own nominee, former Vice-president (under FDR) Henry Wallace. Nor was the Democratic Party popular in what had been called the solid south. Because of Truman’s support of civil rights, the southern Democrats peeled off and formed the States Rights Democratic Party, aka the Dixiecrats. They nominated Strom Thurmond.

Given the three way split in the Democratic party, and the fact that the Republicans had taken control of both houses of the United States Congress as well as a majority of state governorships during the 1946 midterm elections by running against Truman, it came as no surprise that public-opinion polls showed Truman trailing Republican nominee Dewey, sometimes by double digits, after the Democratic convention.

Interestingly, the conventional wisdom had it that the front-runner after the conventions would be the eventual winner. Accordingly, little attention was paid to polling in the run-up to the election, with the result that the 1948 election is remembered as one of the greatest upsets in the history of electoral politics.

Today, the talking heads are saying that Obama’s most likely opponent is Mitt Romney and that the President is a slight underdog. As of this writing, Intrade, the on-line betting site, calculates only a 54.8% chance of Obama winning.

The comparison between Romney and Dewey is obvious. Both are not beloved of the Republican Party. While Dewey was considered “calculating,” Mitt Romney’s flip-flopping is legendary. Basically, he will say whatever he expects his audience wants to hear. Although Romney never received his party’s nomination, he does have the experience considered necessary to get it this time. To do so, Romney will have to prevail over the most conservative elements in his party including crazies from Minnesota, who want to turn back the clock on the New Deal.

Moreover, in the general election, Dewey was so sure of victory that his strategy was basically “take no chances and don’t blow a good thing.” In its execution it amounted to speeches filled with mealy-mouthed assertions of the obvious, including the now infamous quote “You know that your future is still ahead of you.” Although Romney has made more aggressive statements about his putative opponent, he has a history of back-tracking and flip-flopping that leaves his words with no more gravitas than Dewey’s. Consider how long it has taken him to come up with a snappy retort to the fact that Obama-care was patterned after his program in Massachusetts. Has he yet?

And what of the comparison between Harry S-for-nothing Truman, and President Obama, who has been accused of standing for nothing? Truman was an unelected incumbent, while Obama – who won decisively in 2008 – has never been considered fully legitimate by certain elements in the country. It is foolish to discount the existence of racism in the Old South, but suffice to say, the old Dixiecrats are now Republicans.

It is widely reported that Obama faces a serious enthusiasm gap, but it is hard to imagine that it is any worse than the abandonment by the left that Truman experienced. Truman’s Democratic base in the solid south split off from the party. It is hard to think of Dems similarly walking away from Obama, especially since many in Obama’s camp are Black, and he remains overwhelmingly popular with them. Someone is sure to remind the African-American community that not too long ago—in Romney’s lifetime—the Mormon Church openly discriminated against those whom they regard as bearing “the mark of Cain.” Furthermore, many bigoted voters in the South have as much of a problem with Romney, whom they regard as un-Christian, as they do with Obama.

But Obama may have a problem that Truman didn’t. It’s the economy. Unemployment is at 9%, the credit worthiness of the United States has been downgraded. The deficit is large and recent kerfuffle regarding the debt ceiling has made lots of folk antsy for lots of reasons. As I write these words, investors are awaiting with dread the opening of the market on Monday morning.

Congress is so dysfunctional that Sen. Dick Durban (D-IL) commenting on the 14% approval rating said he was surprised that congressmen had so many relatives. And herein lies the reason the Obama should follow Truman’s example.

The key element of Truman’s re-election campaign was to run against that 80th Congress, whom he described as “do nothing, and good-for-nothing.” Truman’s attack was caustic and unrelenting. He toured the country and everywhere he went, enthusiastic crowds shouted, “Give ’em hell, Harry!” Although there were no debates in those days, nor even television, American movie theaters agreed to play two newsreel-like campaign films in support of the Republican and the Democratic nominee. Truman was strapped for campaign funds and so he relied upon public-domain and newsreel footage of him taking part in major world events and signing important legislation. For undecided voters, the Truman film reinforced the image or the President as being engaged and decisive.

Truman simply ignored the fact that Dewey's policies were considerably more liberal than most of his fellow Republicans, and instead he concentrated his fire against what he characterized as the conservative, obstructionist tendencies of the unpopular 80th Congress. If you think Romney will not move back to the center after his flirtation with the extremist elements in his party, you’re naïve. But if you are right, Obama is a shoe-in.

The problem with this advice is the same problem that condemns all good advice. To be useful, it must be heeded. Obama came to national prominence as an orator who extolled the fact that there is “not a blue America, or a red America, but only a United States of America.” He has tried to be the great compromiser, and this tendency may have been his undoing in the recent debt ceiling negotiations. He has tried to appease the right, appeal to the center and hold on to the left.

President Obama believes in the basic goodness of the American people, and he wants to govern from the middle of the road. But as Dan Rather in his inimitable way, pointed out today, “The only thing in the middle of the road is yellow stripes and dead armadillos.” So Mr. President, stand up and fight for what Americans believe in.

Give ’em hell, Barry! And remember what President Truman said: “I never did give anybody hell. I just told the truth and they thought it was hell.”

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

Knowing Republicans (in the Biblical sense)

2011-07-17T14:54:00.017-06:00

We read in Genesis 41 that Pharaoh had two dreams that his advisers could not interpret for him. In one, seven fat, healthy cows are devoured by seven meager and ugly cows. In the other, seven healthy ears of corn are consumed by seven sickly ears of corn. Joseph is called upon to explain the meaning of these dreams to Pharaoh:

25. And Joseph said to Pharaoh, Pharaoh's dream is one; what God is doing He has told Pharaoh.

26. The seven good cows are seven years, and the seven good ears of grain are seven years; it is one dream.

27. And the seven meager and ugly cows coming up after them are seven years, and the seven empty ears of grain, beaten by the east wind, will be seven years of famine.

28. It is this matter that I have spoken to Pharaoh; what God is about to do He has shown Pharaoh.

29. Behold, seven years are coming, great plenty throughout all the land of Egypt.

30. And seven years of famine will arise after them, and all the plenty will be forgotten in the land of Egypt, and the famine will destroy the land.

31. And the plenty will not be known because of that famine to follow, for it [will be] very severe.

32. And concerning the repetition of the dream to Pharaoh twice that is because the matter is ready [to emanate] from God, and God is hastening to execute it.

33. So now, let Pharaoh seek out an understanding and wise man and appoint him over the land of Egypt.

34. Let Pharaoh do [this] and appoint officials over the land and prepare the land of Egypt during the seven years of plenty.

35. And let them collect all the food of these coming seven good years, and let them gather the grain under Pharaoh's hand, food in the cities, and keep it.

36. Thus the food will remain as a reserve for the land for the seven years of famine which will be in the land of Egypt, so that the land will not be destroyed by the famine."

37. The matter pleased Pharaoh and all his servants.

You bet it pleased Pharaoh. If it weren’t for Joseph, his nation would have been plunged into famine that would have killed millions. Pharaoh had billed himself out as a god, and a famine that kills the majority of his nation is bad for the brand. Joseph’s plan offered a way out of this problem. The plan worked out so well that Joseph was elevated to the position of viceroy, and the nation of Egypt survives to this day.

But it didn’t have to be that way. Imagine if Joseph’s plan had to also account for political realities that included a Republican House of Representatives intent upon toppling the regime. What would that look like?

38. But lo! There were those among his advisers who were not loyal to the Pharaoh. They huddled together and said, Who has made Pharaoh to be a god above us? Are we not fit to rule the empire as is he?

39. They looked upon his alabaster palaces, his monuments, and even unto the jewels with which he was bedecked. And they thought of the many who would face famine, while Pharaoh lived amid such magnificence and splendor.

40. And they had another thought. Thus said they, We, too, want to live in splendor and magnificence, for surely we have merited it. Were not our fathers men of stature?

41. God’s word to Joseph was fulfilled. Verily, the land produced a great abundance and a surplus of all manner of grains, such that the Egyptians needed to build great storehouses as Joseph directed, so that they could store the grain for the seven years of famine.

42. Now, the advisors who were not loyal to Pharaoh huddled together again. They looked upon the vast storehouses of grain, and they thought of the many who would face famine. And they said, We, too, want vast storehouses of grain, for surely we merit it. Were not our fathers men of stature?

43. So, they went abroad in the land and they spoke to the multitudes. Thus, said they: Our fathers were men of stature, so surely we know whereof we speak. Look you upon the wealth of our kingdom. Do you see starvation?

44. And the multitudes answered as one, There is no starvation in this land.

45. And they said, Are there not great surpluses, and storehouses of wealth, and gold and jewels in the Pharaoh’s alabaster palaces? And the multitudes answered as one, Yea, verily, it is so.

46. The disloyal advisors continued further. Does the Pharoah need more gold? Why then does he demand that we bring him grain?

47. The multitudes were confounded. And they said, we have been taxed too much, for surely, the Pharaoh has grain and gold and jewels. And lo! They believed it for they saw with their own eyes that the storehouses were overflowing with grain. So, they stopped bringing grain to the storehouses, and thus they departed from the plan that had been revealed to them by Joseph.

48. Now the disloyal advisors were wealthy men, for their fathers had been men of stature. And they built great storehouses for their own grain, for the land continued to produce more than they could use. And the multitudes could not store their grain, for they had not the wherewithal to build great storehouses. And vermin seized the grain that the multitudes could not consume.

49. But the men of substance said to the multitudes, give us your grain, and we will store it in the great storehouses. And you will pay us to store the grain, that you may have it in your time of need.

50. And it was well with the multitudes. Verily, they had enough to eat, and lo, they had savings with which to protect themselves against famine if ever it should arise.

51. And they forgot that the seven years of plenty were the work of God. And they believed that they, in their wisdom, had made the grain to grow. And they thought they could do no wrong.

52. Now the men of substance said, For storing your grain in our storehouses, and because we are wise men of substance, whose fathers were men of stature, you must pay us to use our storehouses one half of one half of one half of your grain each year that you shall use our storehouses.

53. And the multitudes readily agreed, for verily there was no want in the land. And so it was that after 7 years, there was but little grain in the storehouses for the multitudes, for the men of substance had earned it all by storing it in the storehouses that they had seen fit to build.

54. And so it was that the mighty Pharaoh had to borrow wealth from his neighbors so that the masses could be fed. For he had learned, that during seven fat years, it is wise to do as God had foretold to him through Joseph, and save for lean years.

55. And so, he borrowed from his neighbors to the east.

56. And the famine became hard on the multitudes, for lo, the grain that they had stored in the storehouses of the men of substance was lost to them for now it belonged to the men of substance.

57. But Pharaoh’s heart was not yet hardened, and his saw the misery of the people. So he borrowed more from his neighbors to the east. And he promised to them, that upon his oath, they would be paid back when good times returned, and he pledged to them the good reputation of the men of substance and of his entire kingdom.

58. For, surely, he said, the men of substance will pay their fair share, as they have benefitted the most and indeed, it was their cunning that had caused his nation to foreswear saving in the kingdom’s storehouses.

59. When the cunning men of substance heard that they would be expected to help the nation pay the neighbors to the east, they recoiled in horror. Said they, We did not cause this famine. We have saved for ourselves in our own great storehouses. And so, they forbade the Pharaoh to borrow any further.

60. And there was great starvation in the land.

61. And the neighbors to the east said, You have made a pledge to us. Will thou not uphold the honor of your nation? And thus Pharoah came to understand the words of Joseph regarding “the seven empty ears of grain, beaten by the east wind.”

62. Thus, did Pharaoh implore the men of substance: If it pleases you, and if your heart has been moved by the suffering of the people whom you did lead astray, and if you value your honor, then I beseech you to let me borrow from the neighbors to the east.

63. But the men of substance said, What will you do for us, if we allow you to do this thing for youself?

64. And the Pharaoh responded, What is it you demand of me?

65. And the men of substance replied as one, You must promise to us that we will never again save for lean years, but rather that which you spend shall be neither more nor less than what you collect from the multitudes. And you enshrine into law this promise, so that it will be a covenant for all time.

66. And so it was that Pharaoh enacted a law that forbade him to save grain during fat years, and thus, he was unable to feed the multitudes in the lean years. And his nation became impoverished. And there was a great suffering in the land, for the people had been persuaded by the men of substance to disobey God’s plan which was to care for all the people He had created.

“ … and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

If not now, when?

2011-07-11T17:24:00.003-06:00

President Obama summed up the need for a comprehensive budget deal with these memorable words: “If not now, when?” Many may have presumed that the President was trying to appease right-wingers by quoting their patron saint, Ronald Reagan, who used the same quote without attribution in his second inaugural address.

Actually, the author is Rabbi Hillel, who lived from 30 BCE to 9 CE and is recognized as one of the very greatest Jewish scholars in history. The full quote is, “If I am not for myself, then who will be for me? And if I am only for myself, then what am I? And if not now, when?”

The President would do well to remember the entire quote. The President was elected because he is a man of the people. If he doesn’t stick up for his core constituencies, who will be for him? If he wants to serve the country he loves, he needs to get reelected. I hear talk that his reelection is not a sure thing. If he buckles on social security, on medicare, on tax breaks for millionaires, then I guess one has to wonder from whom his passionate support will come.

And what of these people whose greed is so out of control and so over the top that they have the nerve to say that they need more tax cuts? They are only for themselves, and the President doesn’t need to lower himself to their level. Indeed, he needs to oppose these kleptocrats.

By the way, if President Obama wants to pay homage to St. Ronny, he should remind the Republicans that during Reagan’s term the debt ceiling was raised 17 times, taxes were raised in 7 of 8 years, and tax rates were higher than they are now.

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch set ya!”

Calling out Justice Roberts

2011-06-29T10:56:00.016-06:00

Campaign Finance Law Strikes Out

“Every judge I appoint,” said President George W. Bush, “will be a person who clearly understands the role of a judge is to interpret the law, not to legislate from the bench.” He appointed John Roberts, the current Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court.

Sounds good, eh? Who wants activist judges passing legislation? Besides the fact that it is impossible, it is just not democratic. But one thing that courts can do is repeal legislation. It’s not any more democratic, but at least judges can be activists to further an agenda if that’s the kind of judges they are.

And that’s the kind of judge John Roberts is. You bet he has an agenda. What’s his game? It’s serving up softballs to the rich and mighty. Arizona Free Enterprise v. Bennett is a perfect example.

The State of Arizona through the democratic process of citizen referendum, enacted a law that was intended to “level the playing field” of electoral politics by eliminating the advantage that money bestows upon thems that got it. The system was a model of simplicity. You could get funding for your campaign if you promised not to spend any money of your own. If your opponent started to spend his own money on a campaign, the state would match it up to a limit. Note that your opponent could spend as much of his money as he likes: there’s no limit. The Supreme Court, in Citizens United, held that money is speech and so, ipso facto, the law in no way restricts free speech.

Let’s take a look at the curve-ball Roberts court threw the citizens of Arizona. As the income curve in the United States begins to resemble a bell curve less and the grin of a Cheshire Cat more, up go the barrier to entry in diverse fields like, say, politics. Of course, anyone can beg for money to run for political office. But that means that in order to become elected, you have to become, if not indebted, at least beholden to the moneyed class. By a strange coincidence, the opinion in AZ Free Enterprise v. Bennett came down on the same day that the jury handed up a verdict in United States vs. Blagojevich.

Before John Roberts was confirmed he made his pitch to the Senate Judiciary Committee. “I have no agenda, but I do have a commitment. … And I will remember that it’s my job to call balls and strikes and not to pitch or bat.” As it turns out, he threw a knock down pitch at the body politic when he authored a judicial repeal of the Arizona law enacted to prevent corruption and level the playing field.

As Justice Roberts wrote in the majority opinion of AZ Free Enterprise v. Bennett, “‘Leveling the playing field’ can sound like a good thing. But in a democracy, campaigning for office is not a game.”

The funny thing is that I don’t much care for a level playing field, either. I prefer a mound 10 inches high, 18 feet in diameter, with the front edge 50 feet, 6 inches from home plate. I guess that makes me more like an umpire than John Roberts is.

And speaking of baseball, here's what Justice Elana Kagan, the woman who saved the National Pastime, said in her dissenting opinion:

“Less corruption, more speech. Robust campaigns leading to the election of representatives not beholden to the few, but accountable to the many. The people of Arizona might have expected a decent respect for those objectives. Today, they do not get it.... Truly, democracy is not a game.”

Richard L. Hasen, an election law expert at the UC Irvine School of Law, put it this way: “Campaign finance laws have now gone 0 for 5 in the Roberts Court.”

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

Who wants a shutdown?

2011-04-06T21:55:00.003-06:00

Suppose for the moment that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell was serious when he said, “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.”

And assume that Michelle Bachmann meant it when she told the Conservative Political Action Conference, “The all-important must have for 2012 is making Barack Obama a one-term president.”

Back in September, when people were preparing for a Republican majority in the House of Representatives, Speaker-to-be John Boehner held a series of talks to plan their agenda. “The goal, obviously, would be to make it a one-term presidency,” said a GOP lobbyist familiar with the talks.

Let’s take them at their word. If you were to plan the defeat of President Obama, especially in advance of choosing who will be your standard-bearer, what are the things that you would do? It’s a simple question, really. You would fully embrace the Rush Limbaugh “hope” that President Obama fails. And then, you would work tirelessly to make it so.

Although after the last congressional elections, Republicans were quick to claim that the mandate they received was to reduce the deficit. As I have noted elsewhere, I don’t recall anyone actually campaigning on that. Rather, my recollection is that that the election was about jobs, jobs, and jobs, with a soupçon of tax cutting. Only the greenest naïf would be surprised that Republicans engaged in a little bait and switch. But the real question is this: Why have they suddenly pivoted to a philosophy that deficits matter, contrary to what Dick Cheney said? Now that Republicans control the house, you would imagine they would be eager to bring home the pork barrel spending.

After all, when you have a recession, deficit spending spurs the economy. A resurgent economy leads to the creation of jobs, which translates to lower unemployment numbers. The Republicans are demanding $61 billion in cuts. Moody’s Analytics chief economist, Mark Zandi, an architect of the 2009 stimulus package who has advised both political parties, predicts that the GOP package would reduce economic growth by 0.5 percentage points this year, and by 0.2 percentage points in 2012, resulting in 700,000 fewer jobs by the end of next year.

If you are the least bit concerned about the deficit, you know that the Health Care law passed by the last congress and signed into law is essential to curtail the government’s deficit which is largely fueled by expanding medical costs. And yet the Republican enthusiasm for deficit reduction does not diminish their hostility to Obama-care. Michelle Bachmann has stated that she will not vote for any budget that does not defund Obama-care.

The Democrats have met the Republicans more than half way by agreeing to a $31 billion dollar deficit reduction plan. Senator Chuck Schumer has let it be known that privately John Boehner has agreed to this compromise, but Leader Boehner can’t publicly acknowledge the truth because he is a hostage of the Tea-party freshmen.

Why? Because the Republicans speak the truth. To them, the most important thing is for Obama to fail. They want unemployment numbers to go up. They want the government to shut down because that will kill the recovery and lead to inflation. They don’t care about the human suffering caused by the resultant increase in the misery index. They know that the higher the misery index, the better the chances of defeating an incumbent President.

They mewl and puke about the deficits, while ignoring the fact that much of the deficit was caused by the need to dig us out of the financial crisis caused by the Bush administration and the Republican congress he enjoyed. They forget that the extraordinary expenditures saved the American auto industry and hundreds of thousands of jobs. They forget that tax cuts to the super-rich and corporate welfare decimated America’s revenue base.

Soon you are going to hear Republicans asking “are you better off now than you were three years ago?” They know that if you answer “no” then you are less likely to vote for an incumbent president. They are banking on the fact that many people will forget how bad things were when the Obama administration inherited a mess that could have turned into a reprise of the Great Depression. And they are depending on the making the lives of Americans worse, and hoping that they can blame that misery on an incumbent president.

Who will rip the scab off this wound on the body politic? Who will call a spade a stinking shovel?

“... and tell 'em Big Mitch sent ya!"

John McCain's reckless attacks

2011-02-28T02:14:00.008-06:00

Today, Senator John McCain was on Meet the Press for the 60th time. Thank God the man was not elected to the presidency. Listening to him, it is hard to escape the conclusion that he is a lunatic. He chose to attack President Obama's response to the Libya crisis. Here is some of what he said about how the U.S. should respond to the situation in Libya:

“We could impose, and could have imposed a no-fly zone. They would have stopped flying if that had been imposed. They’re using air power and helicopters to continue these massacres. We should recognize a provisional government somewhere in eastern Libya, perhaps Benghazi. We should make it clear that we will provide assistance to that provisional government. And finally, we should make it absolutely clear that anyone who continues or is engaged in these kinds of barbarous acts is going to find themselves on trial in a war crimes tribunal. We’ve got to really get tough.”

On Friday night’s edition of Washington Week in Review, Martha Raddatz, Senior Foreign Affairs Correspondent for ABC News, ridiculed the idea of a no-fly zone, thus:

“I love that they keep talking about this no fly zone. I can’t imagine that that could happen, because, first of all, you would really have to have the U.N. It would be tantamount to an act of war if you went in and had a no-fly zone. I mean the same reason you can’t really land in Libya –it’s still a sovereign country. And if you don’t have permission to land there, you can’t do that. So I think a no-fly zone is not a reality here.”

So, John McCain, in order to prove that he is going to “really get tough,” would start a war in Libya. But wait! There’s more! He recommends that we support a provisional government in Benghazi. Does anyone know who’s in charge in Benghazi?

Here’s how David Zucchino described it for the L.A. Times:

“In Benghazi, the center of the eastern rebellion that broke free from 41 years of despotic rule a week ago, everyone is in charge — and no one is in charge. But everyone seems to have claimed a piece of the revolution.

“Men toting shotguns and hunting rifles operate checkpoints. Teenagers in sneakers direct traffic. Young men dance in the back of pickup trucks towing antiaircraft guns, and the makeshift government center in the downtown courthouse has the strung-out, manic feel of a college all-nighter.”

Not exactly De Gaul in 1943 Algiers.

Here’s a late breaking news item from the British newspaper the Independent:

Former justice minister Mustafa Abdel-Jalil announced that he would head an interim government with the suggestion that it has the backing of the US. He also said an agreement could be reached with the sons of Col Gaddafi to end the spiraling violence.

But confusion and controversy surrounded the announcement after the official spokesman for the Council disputed that version of events, saying that Mr Abdel-Jalil had expressed purely personal views. Abdul Hafiz Gouga added that there could be no accommodation with remnants of the regime because of "the huge human rights abuses" that had been committed. He insisted Mr. Abdel-Jalil would only be a member of the Council rather than its head. In fact, said Mr. Gouga, the organisation will have no hierarchy with the members, their numbers as yet undisclosed, all having an equal say on policy.”

Does this sound to you like the type of provisional government we want to recognize? I don’t think so. But Senator McCain not only wants to recognize it, he wants to provide assistance to it. There’s one small problem: the government has no address. In fact, on February 27th, the Libyan Youth Movement tweeted at 16:36: “Tripoli is and will be the capital of Libya, any talk of a 'Libyan' government on hold until Tripoli liberated.”

Now let’s assume that we could overcome the no-address problem and send war materiel and maybe even advisors into Benghazi to help sustain the resistance to Qaddafi. It could all turn out for the best. Or not.

First, the Arab world will not immediately forget that the U.S. has been supportive of some of the worst tyrants in the Muslim world, from the Shah of Iran, to Saddam Hussein, to Hosni Mubarak, and, some would say, to Mo Qaddafi. There is a risk that a peck on the cheek from the U.S. government to a nascent democratic movement in Libya could be the kiss of death.

Most Libyans have never known any form of government other than the Jamahiriya (a state of the masses) which in theory is government by the populace through local councils and in practice, an authoritarian kleptocracy. Can anyone guarantee that the next government in Libya will not also be corrupt? Do we want to be the midwife of such a government?

In case you haven’t noticed, Libya is oil-rich, producing about 2% of the world’s production of oil. Do you suppose any neighbors of Libya could covetously look upon those oil reserves? Algeria and Niger have border disputes with Libya and Chadian rebels are living in South Libya. If the rebels in Libya succeed in dismantling the Libyan army, will the country be vulnerable to attack from any of its neighbors? If so, who will the Libyans blame?

And last but not least, what are we to make of John McCain’s threat that “anyone … who is engaged in these kinds of barbarous acts is going to find themselves on trial in a war crimes tribunal?” I mean, other than McCain’s weakness with English grammar.

This threat must really put shivers in the boots of Mo. Qaddafi, who admitted to complicity in the Lockerbie bombing, for which he was rewarded with diplomatic recognition from George W. Bush. More directly to the point, Qaddafi has no intention of leaving office alive whether it is to go to exile or the Hague.

I can hear you now saying, “Big Mitch, you’ve successfully proven that John McCain is a reckless know-nothing, but we knew that since the day he nominated Sarah Palin. What do you propose to do about Libya?

Well, I am glad you asked. How about nothing. It sounds to me that things are going pretty well there.

At this juncture, it appears nearly certain that Qaddafi will be hanging from a tree before the ides of March. Sadly, many Libyan patriots will be the victims of his violence before his reign of terror is over. The price of Libyan freedom will be paid in much blood, but there is no other way. It is cold comfort to know that the Libyan military has been kept weak by Libya because Qaddafi did not want to lose power the way he gained it, viz., by military coup.

An American hands-off policy seems to have worked in Tunisia and Egypt. Both countries have survived revolutions with little or none of the knee-jerk anti-America and anti-Israel rhetoric that should have been expected. Perhaps Arabs are seeing that President Obama was serious when he said he would respect their desire for self-determination. And our non-involvement seems to be working in Libya:

As we read in the Daily Caller

The Arab League has barred Libya from attending meetings of the bloc until it ends its violent crackdown on protesters, which it said involved violations of human rights and international laws.

Of course, we know that a policy of non-intervention will displease some cranky old men like Christopher Hitchens.

Hitchens sounds intelligent because he uses words like “obtrudes.” But here is what he said about Obama’s careful measured response to the situation in Libya:

"For weeks, the administration dithered over Egypt and calibrated its actions to the lowest and slowest common denominators, on the grounds that it was difficult to deal with a rancid old friend and ally who had outlived his usefulness. But then it became the turn of Muammar Qaddafi—an all-round stinking nuisance and moreover a long-term enemy—and the dithering began all over again. Until Wednesday Feb. 23, when the president made a few anodyne remarks that condemned "violence" in general but failed to cite Qaddafi in particular—every important statesman and stateswoman in the world had been heard from, with the exception of Obama.”

I’ve already written about Obama’s “dithering” over Egypt, praising him for laying the groundwork for a peaceful revolution in Egypt, and then letting it take its course. But on the subject of Libya, Hitchens seems to think that Obama’s reticence was a character flaw.

What he fails to understand is that a matter of the safety of hundreds of Americans had obtruded itself into the calculus. U.S. efforts to evacuate hundreds of Americans from Libya were being stymied by bad weather on the coast — and by the refusal of Qaddafi's government to allow American charter planes to land there. Ramping up the rhetoric could have had disasterous results for those whose safety is a primary concern of the POTUS.

A few hours after Hitchen’s idiocy hit the blogosphere, the U.S.-chartered ferry the Maria Dolores carrying 300 passengers, including at least 167 U.S. citizens Americans finally arrived at the Mediterranean island of Malta. We will wait in vain, for Hitchens message of congratulations to Obama.

With Americans out of Libya, we can expect to see coordinated efforts to oust Qaddafi. The most successful of these will be those of Libyans fighting for their basic human rights and for their freedom. God bless them for doing so, and for the bravery and self sacrifice that their task demands.

"... and tell ’Big Mitch sent ya!"

Government shutdown, or, Republicans get their wish.

2011-02-21T04:02:00.003-06:00

It has been a goal of the Republican Party at least since the time of Ronald Reagan, to destroy the government. I am not trying to read the minds of Republicans. Rather, I am listening to their words and taking them at face value.

Take Ronald Reagan, who famously said, “Government is not the solution to our problem; Government is the problem.” He explained his plan for reducing government’s role in our life: “Well, if you've got a kid that's extravagant, you can lecture him all you want to about his extravagance. Or you can cut his allowance and achieve the same end much quicker.”

When George W. Bush took office, he fully embraced the “starve the beast” mentality. In 2001 he said, “so we have the tax relief plan [...] that now provides a new kind -- a fiscal straightjacket for Congress. And that’s good for the taxpayers, and it’s incredibly positive news if you’re worried about a federal government that has been growing at a dramatic pace over the past eight years and it has been.”

Grover Norquist wins the prize for the most memorable quotation on the subject: “I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.”

Give the Republicans their due. Their plan seems to be working. Let’s take a look at how they have accomplished so much.

First, there is the tax code. As we all know, Bush turned a budget surplus into a huge deficit by reducing taxes on the very wealthy.

They also went after the inheritance tax which taxes income gained not by innovative thinking or hard labor, but by the good fortune of being the child of a dead rich guy. I don’t begrudge anybody money made in this way. Au contraire, I send my condolences to the orphans and widows. But for two centuries the estate tax served as a check on the tendency of the rich to get richer while the poor got poorer. It prevented the amassing of huge fortunes and the creation of an European-style aristocracy.

Then, there is the destruction of civil discourse, and comity. Without a spirit of compromise and bi-partisanship, government cannot function. Grover Norquist – who described bipartisanship as “date-rape” – explained, “We are trying to change the tones in the state capitals -- and turn them toward bitter nastiness and partisanship.” Is it any wonder that fellow conservative Tucker Carlson described Norquist as “repulsive:” He’s “a mean-spirited, humorless, dishonest little creep… the leering, drunken uncle everyone else wishes would stay home.”

We have seen the mean-spirited Republican obstructionism at work in Congress for the last two years. Consider the unprecedented increase in the number of filibusters by Republican senators in the last congress. The 111th Congress again broke the record for the number of filibusters in a session. In March 2010, freshman senator Al Franken attacked the majority of the filibusters—some on matters which later passed with little controversy—as a “perversion of the filibuster.”

Or consider the alarming – nay, shocking – refusal to confirm judges. Here’s how Doug Kendall, President of the Constitutional Accountability Center described the situation:

“Across the nation, Americans seeking justice in our federal court system depend on a functioning judiciary to hear their claims and adjudicate their complaints. While it is positive news that 19 of President Obama’s judicial nominees were confirmed by the Senate during this lame duck session of Congress, it is outrageous that Senate Republican leaders denied floor votes for 19 others.

“Throughout the 111th Congress, conservatives in the Senate have blocked floor votes for even the most uncontroversial nominees, creating a roadblock that needed to be cleared in the lame duck session. While votes have now been allowed on 19 previously blocked nominees, 19 other nominees will have to be re-nominated, and will be forced to go through a duplicative confirmation process – all while Americans wait for justice.

“Fifteen of the 19 blocked nominees were reported out of the Senate Judiciary Committee without recorded opposition or with overwhelmingly bi-partisan votes. Worse still, 13 were nominated to fill ‘judicial emergencies,’ a designation by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts denoting a vacant judicial seat with a crushing caseload. Such inaction by the Senate, while our judiciary is literally pleading for qualified judicial personnel, is unconscionable.”

Thanks to Proposition 13, California is broke. They can’t keep the courts or the DMV open five days a week and they are laying off teachers like nobody’s business. In Wisconsin, a state with a rich history of workers’ rights, citizens by the tens of thousands are marching on the Capitol to protest the Governor’s plan to strip state workers of collective bargaining rights under the pretext that their state is also broke.

In Michigan, state education officials have ordered the emergency financial manager for Detroit Public Schools to immediately implement a plan that balances the district's books by closing half its schools.

And in Congress, there is a real threat that the government will actually shut down for lack of funding, when the continuing budget resolution expires early next month. Make no mistake about it: this is the Republican plan.

How many times have you heard a Republican say, “we were elected to cut the deficit.” The funny thing is, I’ve never met a person concerned about the deficit. I think Dick Cheney struck a popular chord when he said, “deficits don’t matter.”

Now let’s assume ad arguendo that Republicans really do want to cut the deficit. You can cut the deficit by making the wealthiest 2% pay their fair share of taxes. Take the case of Warren Buffett who in 2007 was estimated to be worth $52 billion. He said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made in 2006, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent.

You have often heard it said that the U.S. tax-rate on corporations is higher than any Western nation’s. Well, consider General Electric. Last year the conglomerate generated $10.3 billion in pretax income, but ended up owing nothing in U.S. taxes. In fact, it recorded a tax benefit of $1.1 billion!

ExxonMobil had a pretty good year. It made $37.3 billion on sales of 311 billion. I’m betting that you, dear reader, paid more taxes to the U.S. government than ExxonMobil. Hint: I’ll win my bet if you paid anything at all in federal taxes.

Bank of America managed to eke out 4.4 billion in pre-tax income, so the government paid them 1.9 billion in tax credits. Forbes reports they won’t be paying taxes anytime soon because of a $49 billion “provision for credit losses.”

Ford Motor Company didn’t take any bailout money and still managed to earn 3 billion on sales of 118 billion. On that profit they were required to pay 2.3% to Uncle Sam. Verizon did okay, raking in pre-tax income of 11.6 billion, but they were able to keep their effective tax rate down to 10.5%, which is considerably lower than the rate at which Warren Buffett’s secretary paid.

I could go on and on, but by now you get the point: America’s wealthy and American corporations are not over-taxed. And yet, the so-called liberal press has completely bought into the idea that the deficit cannot be cut without slashing entitlements.

Entitlements are things people are entitled to. They are not government largess. In most cases, they are deferred compensation for a lifetime of work and service. In other cases, they provide the modicum of dignity that – forgive me for saying it – everyone is entitled to. Social Security, which is fundamentally sound for the foreseeable future, doesn't count in the deficit, because it is "off-budget." But that doesn't stop the chattering class from saying that we must attack Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

John Boehner has said over and over again, “We’re broke.” If the Republicans shut down the government again, the sound you will hear is the sound of your government gurgling bathwater.

Thanks, Republicans.

“and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

The dog that didn't bark

2011-02-13T04:05:00.026-06:00

“And there shall be a great cry throughout all the land of Egypt, such as there was none like it, nor shall be like it any more. But no dog shall bark …” Exodus 11:6, et seq.

From this, we are to learn that God’s hand was at work in the miraculous changes in Egypt. Once again, we are observing events in Egypt that defy logic and reason. Let’s review.

On June 4, 2009, at Cairo University, President Obama gave a speech entitled “A New Beginning.” Here’s some of what he said:

“I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles — principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.”

He expressed his “belief that the interests we share as human beings are far more powerful than the forces that drive us apart.”

The President acknowledged that “there has been controversy about the promotion of democracy in recent years, and much of this controversy is connected to the war in Iraq.” He also stated clearly to the Egyptians, “no system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by any other.”

Here’s what he said that is of special relevance to the situation in Egypt today:

That does not lessen my commitment, however, to governments that reflect the will of the people. Each nation gives life to this principle in its own way, grounded in the traditions of its own people. America does not presume to know what is best for everyone, just as we would not presume to pick the outcome of a peaceful election. But I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn't steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose. Those are not just American ideas, they are human rights, and that is why we will support them everywhere.

No matter where it takes hold, government of the people and by the people sets a single standard for all who hold power: you must maintain your power through consent, not coercion; you must respect the rights of minorities, and participate with a spirit of tolerance and compromise; you must place the interests of your people and the legitimate workings of the political process above your party. Without these ingredients, elections alone do not make true democracy.

Four months later, President received the Nobel Peace Prize. The Nobel Committee’s press release said:

“Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future. His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population.”

In January of this year, protesters took to the streets in Cairo to overthrow Hosni Mubarak. Mubarak was a staunch friend of the United States, but a tyrant nevertheless. For nearly three decades he ruled under an “Emergency Law” that allowed for the brutal suppression of all opposition. His nation suffered from extreme poverty, although he amassed a fortune which we have since learned is in the order of $70 billion. Successive American administrations had warned him that the situation was untenable, and had unsuccessfully urged him to liberalize his autocratic rule.

It is impossible to overstate the importance of the Egyptian-American alliance. The Camp David Peace Accords essentially made it impossible for there to be a unified Arab attack on Israel, as there had been in 1948, 1956, 1967, and 1973. There is a reason why Egypt is the second largest recipient of U.S. foreign aid.

By February 11th, Mubarak had resigned, and the government was in the hands of the military. The leadership of the military has strong ties with the Americans and they have expressed that they will honor all peace agreements, including Camp David. From the American point of view the outcome of the revolution could not have been better. This is true for the Israelis, as well.

Egyptian democracy will face many challenges before it fully takes hold. Perhaps, the Muslim Brotherhood will get a foothold in electoral politics, and then renege on the commitments they have made. Ambassador Martin Indyk opined on Meet the Press, “I don’t think the military is going to let the Muslim Brotherhood takeover. The Muslim Brotherhood knows that and they are keeping their head down and saying they don’t want to takeover.”

For the time being here’s what their website says:

We aim to achieve reform and rights for all: not just for the Muslim Brotherhood, not just for Muslims, but for all Egyptians. We do not intend to take a dominant role in the forthcoming political transition. We are not putting forward a candidate for the presidential elections scheduled for September.

...

We envision the establishment of a democratic, civil state that draws on universal measures of freedom and justice, which are central Islamic values. We embrace democracy not as a foreign concept that must be reconciled with tradition, but as a set of principles and objectives that are inherently compatible with and reinforce Islamic tenets.

What does all this have to do with dogs not barking in Egypt? In the Sherlock Holmes story, Silver Blaze, Doyle writes:

Gregory (Scotland Yard detective): "Is there any other point to which you would wish to draw my attention?"
Holmes: "To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time."
Gregory: "The dog did nothing in the night-time."
Holmes: "That was the curious incident."

By my lights the most curious thing about the Tahrir Square Revolution is the fact that the demonstrations were almost totally devoid of anti-American sloganeering. Nor was there any of the anti-Israel rhetoric that could have been expected. Who could have imagined that a popular revolution in the most populous Arab nation in the world, would not contain elements of reflex anti-Americanism and anti-Zionism?

If things do go badly in Egypt, Barack Obama will surely be blamed by those who hate him. But for now, it is hard to envision a better outcome. Give credit where credit is due.

"... and tell 'em Big Mitch sent ya!"

Post Script: I must the biggest dope of all time. I stupidly thought that the haters of Obama would wait until something went awry in Egypt before they criticized him. As you can see below, Newsweek's new columnist Niall Ferguson earns his wings by jumping on President Obama. The logic of his argument doesn't stand up any better than the headline-writer's spell-checker.

Newsweek:

Obama's Egypt and Foreign Policy Failires

NEWSWEEK’s new columnist on Obama’s Egypt debacle and the vacuum it exposes.

Building Peace in East Jerusalem

2010-03-11T11:58:00.004-06:00

Israel has decided to build 1,600 homes in East Jerusalem, and the announcement came while Vice President Joe Biden was in that country to promote peace talks. It was seen as a slap in the face to Mr. Biden who is a strong supporter of Israel, and the highest ranking American official to visit there. Predictably, the Palestinians have pulled out of planned shuttle diplomacy.

I make no secret of my strong support for Israel, which is based on my analysis of what is best for the United States and my belief in the necessity of a Jewish homeland. Nor am I ashamed to say that my support of Israel is informed by my religious beliefs.

Having said that, I am not clear on what Israel did that is so wrong. Undoubtedly, the Israelis have jurisdiction over East Jerusalem. It was ceded to them by Jordan, the previous sovereign, which has renounced any claim to the territory. (This, by the way, is the reason that the term “occupied” does not apply to the West Bank, although by constant repetition, it has become accepted -- a huge propaganda boon to the Palestinians.)

If the Israelis have jurisdiction over the land, they have the right to regulate land use there. Case closed. Those who argue otherwise would have you believe that because the land is disputed, Israel should take no steps that might prejudice the outcome of future negotiations. However, what these people fail to understand is that by forbearing to exercise jurisdiction, the Israelis would be conceding to the Palestinians the very point of the negotiations. Such a major concession on the part of the Israelis ought to be matched with some consideration from the other side. But it is assumed by these people that Israel should make concessions before negotiations.

The action taken was the beginning of a zoning process that would allow construction some number of years in the future. It should be noted that the land is in the middle of a Jewish neighborhood, and across the entire Israeli political spectrum there is universal agreement that the land will never be ceded to a future Palestinian state.

By taking this action, Israel gives an incentive to Palestinians to negotiate now. An important part of any negotiation is getting the other side to believe that it is in their interests to strike a deal, and that any future deal will be less favorable, or at least, harder to come by. Building within a Jewish neighborhood in the eternal capital of the Jewish state creates just that dynamic.

Let us suppose that the Jewish neighborhood in East Jerusalem will one day be part of a Palestinian state. Said state will be able to make whatever zoning decisions it likes. And if that does not come to pass until Israelis have built apartments there, we must ask this question: Did the buildings make the land less valuable to the future state? While it is true that Palestinians destroyed Israeli-built agricultural installations in Gaza when they were granted jurisdiction there, that was a choice they made for their own reasons. But they could just as easily have chosen to use the farms to feed their population.

As I have said, the Palestinians’ use of this excuse to pull out of negotiations was predictable. The chattering class would have you accept the notion that therefore, Israel was scuttling the peace talks. In every other area of discourse we encourage people to take responsibility for their actions. Is there a good reason why the Palestinians cannot be expected to take responsibility for pulling out of the peace talks? Can it truly be said that they had no other choice? If the Palestinians cannot accept responsibility for their intransigence, then perhaps they are not ready to govern an independent state, in which case, negotiations are worse than useless. By the way, the evidence that Palestinians are incapable of self governance also comes from the fact that the Gaza is ruled by Hamas (officially listed as a terrorist organization) and the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) are ruled by the successors to the PLO.

But what of the timing of Israel’s decision? Wasn’t that an insult to Vice President Biden? The answer is yes, it was, and for that reason it was a mistake. It was a mistake committed by a minister of housing, who belongs to the right wing religious party, Shas. Israeli democracy is composed of many diverse groups and undoubtedly, the decision will receive great condemnation for its timing from the many opponents of Shas. When Vice President Biden announced to an audience at Tel Aviv University that he had recommended to the President that the Israeli action be condemned, his remarks drew loud applause.

In fairness to Shas, we should examine the internal logic of their decision. The vice president was embarrassed on foreign soil, notwithstanding his long term, genuine support for Israel. It makes it much less likely that President Obama will be rushing to put himself in the same position. There are those who believe that President Obama will tilt American foreign policy toward the Palestinians, and keeping him away from the region weakens his ability to do so. Some of these people may think that in three years, there might be a different American president, who is more sympathetic to Israel. I don’t agree with any of this reasoning, but it is internally consistent, and explains more than the presumption that Israel was just trying to be mean to friends like America and Joe Biden.

Israel has a right to build on territory that it controls in its capital city. If Palestinians want Israel to give up that right, they must offer some quid pro quo. Perhaps a declaration that Israel has a right to exist in safe and secure borders would be a good start. Perhaps an agreement to share in Israel’s commitment to allow free access to and protection for all religious sites in the area could be negotiated in exchange for a halt on building permits. But it is not for me to decide the outcome of negotiations. That is for the parties. And they can’t do it, as long as Palestinians refuse to come to the table.

Cheney surrenders to terrorists

2010-02-15T18:04:00.003-06:00

Dick Cheney, Revisionist Historian and former Vice President, says we should treat the Underpants Bomber as an enemy combatant. It has been brought to everyone’s attention that he is a hypocrite given that did not criticize the previous President who did exactly the same thing with the Shoe Bomber.

The problem is that there must be a better defense for Attorney General Holder’s choice to try the Underpants Bomber in civilian courts than “Bush did it.” In other words, could it be that Bush got it right, and that the reasons for trying Umar Abdulmutallab as a civilian stand on their own? After all, even a blind pig gets an occasional truffle.

At present, the debate is about whether we should try the terrorist in a military tribunal or in a civilian court. The case for the civilian courts is easy to make. The symbolism of trying an al Qaida terrorist in downtown Manhattan is potent, indeed. Additionally, the civilian courts have judges and prosecutors with vast experience in the prosecution of terrorists. The U.S. Attorneys have an excellent record of putting terrorists behind bars with no possibility of escape or release.

Far be it from me, a self-described knee jerk liberal, to prejudge the case of the Underpants Bomber, but safe to say, there is no chance of him being acquitted and released. It is likely that the U.S. Attorney will hold some charges in reserve so that even if he were acquitted, the government would simply bring new charges against him. While it is theoretically possible that he could be acquitted on all charges, it is also possible – in theory, at least – to get hit by lightening twice on the day you win the lottery.

What about the case for military tribunals? They have secured the convictions of three so-called terrorists, two of whom have since been released from custody. The highest ranking al Qaida partisan to be convicted was Bin Laden’s driver.

Military tribunals have a long history in the law of war. They are provided to deal with a particular situation which occurs frequently in the fog of war, videlicet, a person is captured and it is not certain whether he is a combatant or a civilian. If he is a civilian, he must be released, but if he is an enemy combatant, he may be held until the end of hostilities. At that point he must be released, unless he is held over for trial in civilian courts on charges alleging war crimes.

The first question we must ask is whether or not Abdulmutallab is an enemy combatant. It is entirely possible, though not very likely, that he was a mentally disturbed individual who acted on his own, for his own purposes. It is also within the realm of possibility that a fair court could reach this conclusion, by mistake. Let’s assume that if any of these possibilities came to fruition, the would-be Christmas day bomber would be arrested and tried in a civilian court.

Of course, it is much more likely that he would be held to be an enemy combatant, and placed in custody to await the outcome of the war. Say what? What will happen if three years from now, the vigorous efforts of the Obama administration to disrupt, dismantle, and destroy al Qaida are successful? Suppose, for example, that the government of Afghanistan arrives at some modus vivendi with the Taliban, and together they agree to disarm al Qaida and execute the leadership. This sounds like good news, but especially so for Captain Underpants, since the legal rationale for holding him will no longer exist.

In other words, what Dick Cheney and his ditto heads are saying is that we will never win the war on terror. The question that needs to be asked is why are Republicans surrendering in the War against Al Qaida?

If we are going to follow the example of the previous administration shouldn’t we start with framing the issue to our best advantage? After all, the party that won World War II shouldn’t lose an argument to the party that cut and ran in Vietnam. The party that won the war in Kosovo, shouldn’t take a back seat to the party that got us mired in Iraq by lying to the American people. The party that sold arms to Iran to raise money for the Contras ought not to be lecturing Democrats on national security. The party that tried to destroy the American constitution isn’t the one teach us about criminal procedure.

... and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!

Update to "Who's responsible ..."

2010-01-01T03:42:00.003-06:00

TPM Muckraker alerted me to the news that some of the “facts” reported by ABC – and repeated by me – are not true. ABC has issued a retraction and/or correction. Only one of the planners of the attempted Christmas day bombing was released from Gitmo by the previous administration.

Interestingly, the tenor of the TPM article suggests that the original story has been a darling of right wing blogs. What am I? Chopped liver?

“… and tell ‘em Big Mitch sent ya!”

Who is responsible for the attack on NW Flight 253?

2009-12-28T21:37:00.010-06:00

A new attack on an airliner in the United States has brought forth the predictable attacks on President Obama from the Revisionist Right. The congressman from Holland, Michigan, Peter Hoekstra, who also happens to be the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, sent out a fund-raising letter that is typical:

In the midst of enjoying Christmas with my family, we were quickly reminded that there is still a war against the American way of life; on Christmas morning, it came right here to Detroit.

If you agree that we need a Governor who will stand up the Obama/Pelosi efforts to weaken our security please make a most generous contribution of $25, $50, $100 or even $250 to my campaign.

The Grand Rapids Press also reports that Hoekstra further criticized the administration for plans to close Guantanamo Bay and re-examine interrogation techniques.

Florida Republican Rep. John Mica said in a statement that the TSA had grown lost and bloated in bureaucracy and called for a review. It would be nice if TSA had an administrator, but Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C. has held up President Barack Obama's nominee because of his opposition to the prospect of TSA workers joining a labor union.

The President has nominated Erroll Southers, a former FBI special agent, who is the Los Angeles World Airports Police Department assistant chief for homeland security and intelligence. He also is the associate director of the University of Southern California's Center for Risk and Economic Analysis of Terrorism Events, and he served as a deputy director of homeland security for California Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.Two Senate committees have given Southers their bipartisan blessing.

DeMint made the totally incomprehensible assertion that the attempted attack “is a perfect example of why the Obama administration should not unionize the TSA.” He wants Southers to clarify his stand on unionizing the TSA. Perhaps DeMint should clarify his position that the failure of non-unionized TSA workers, argues against hiring union professionals for this important job. DeMint and his Republican co-conspirators cast votes against the key TSA funding measure, the 2010 appropriation bill for the Department of Homeland Security, which included funding for the TSA, including for explosives detection systems and other aviation security measures.

The Revisionistas can also be seen on CNN. Over on MSNBC, Ed Shultz identified what he called “psychotalk,” viz. the assertion by GOP strategist’s Mary Matalin that the September 11th attacks didn't happen on President Bush's watch.

Arguing that President Obama was complaining too much about the problems he inherited from his predecessor, Matalin (who worked for former Vice President Dick Cheney) said her White House was saddled with problems, too. "We inherited a recession from President Clinton and we inherited the most tragic attack on our own soil in our nation's history," she told host John King on "State of the Union."

In real life, the recession started two months after Bush took office, and from some time before Bush took office, until the very day of 9-11 Richard Clarke and others were trying to get W's attention to let him know that “Osama Bin Laden was determined to strike within the U.S.” Condeleeza Rice testified that nobody could have forseen the attack, but Richard Clarke did.

So far, Rudy Giuliani’s only public pronouncement has been to advise Tiger Woods to “Hang in there,” so we will just have to wait a little longer until he announces that Obama doesn’t appreciate the threat posed by radical Islamic terrorism.

Perhaps this is a good time to ask, “Who is responsible for the failures of security that led to the Christmas day attack?”

Al Qaeda claimed responsibility for the Northwest bombing in a Monday statement that vowed more attacks would be forthcoming. Two of the four leaders allegedly behind the al Qaeda plot were released by the U.S. from the Guantanamo prison in November, 2007, according to American officials and Department of Defense documents.

Given the fact that they were released from Guantanamo, one can assume that they were not the “worst of the worst” for which Guantanamo was supposedly reserved. Whether or not they were radicalized after they arrived at George Bush’s Gitmo, is a question that remains unanswered.

American officials agreed to send the two terrorists from Guantanamo to Saudi Arabia where they entered into an “art therapy rehabilitation program” and were set free, according to U.S. and Saudi officials. Space does not permit a complete dossier on the unholy alliance between the Bush Administration and the Kingdom of Saud, so here is a picture worth the proverbial thousand words. More can be found here.

However, for the sake of Mary Maitlin and Dana Perino, I will simply point out that the President of the United States in November, 2007 was none other than George W. Bush.

... and tell 'em Big Mitch sent ya!

I'm just saying ...

2009-12-14T23:51:00.002-06:00

A company that invested millions in the slogan, “Just do it!” hires a guy to be their spokesperson, and now they are thinking of firing him because he was just doing it with every ho who could afford a boob job.

Now, it seems that Tiger was associated with a doctor,who was busted at the border with Human Growth Hormone in his medical kit. Tiger admits that he received treatment from the doctor to speed recovery from a knee injury, but he denies that he received any performance enhancing drugs. Even Tiger's harshest critics agree that there is no reason to doubt him.

When golf tournaments are shown on TV, they interrupted it every 15 minutes to broadcast a commercial for Viagra or Cialis. Personally, I think Tiger could have a real future in being the spokesman for a performance enhancing drug.

I’m just saying…

… tell ‘em Big Mitch sent ya!

Gevalt! The most annoying thing about “Scoot out of jail free.”

2007-07-05T16:22:00.000-06:00

Today, Tony Snow responded to criticism from the Clintons about the Scooter commutation thus:

“I don’t know what is Arkansan for chutzpah [1] but this is a gigantic case of it."

We have reached a sad time when goyishe [2] Tony Snow is speaking Yiddish from the White House. Don’t we Jews have enough tsouris?[3]

Apparently, in this latest iteration of the “Bill Clinton did it, too” excuse, the White House is seeking to evoke the recollection of the Mark Rich pardon. Gay gezinteh heit. Chub a gutten yur. [4]

On Bill Clinton’s last day in office, he pardoned a refugee from the Nazis, Mark Rich, M.O.T., [5] a financier and philanthropist who had been falsely accused of tax evasion by Rudy Giuliani.

I say falsely accused because such is the opinion of U.S. tax professors Bernard Wolfman of Harvard Law School and Martin Ginsburg of Georgetown University Law Center. It was also the opinion of a panel of distinguished Republican lawyers including I. Lewis ‘Scooter’ Libby. Be that as it may, these kinds of disputes are not unusual, and they are normally resolved in civil suits.

In the Republican orgy of recriminations against the Clinton administration that was the hallmark of the early days of the Bush administration, it was alleged that President Clinton pardoned Rich in return for favors paid to him. Indeed, the Prime Minister of Israel, Ehud Barak, who had worked so hard with President Clinton to secure a lasting resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian problem, had made a clemency plea on behalf of Rich, as had numerous other Israeli officials.

Grasping at straws, Clinton-haters pointed out that Rich's former wife and the mother of his three children, socialite Denise Rich, had made large donations to the Democratic Party and the Clinton Library during Clinton's time in office. A Federal Prosecutor was appointed to investigate whether or not a crime was committed by Clinton’s exercise of the plenary pardon power. The conclusion arrived at by James Comey, who was to later become the Acting Attorney General under George W. Bush, was that there were no grounds to present to a Grand Jury.

Nobody, not even the most rabid Republicans ever suggested that the pardon of Mark Rich was a part of a conspiracy to protect members of the administration. Never was it suggested that Bill Clinton had a political motive for his decision to right a wrong committed by an over-zealous prosecutor, who now happens to be running for the Republican nomination for President.

Still want to talk about Mark Rich? Gai kakhen afenyam. [6]

“… and tell ’em Menachem Mendel [7] sent ya!”

Footnotes for the Yiddish challenged:
[1] lit. Nerve. Colloq: balls, as in “He had the chutzpah of a blind burglar.”
[2] Non-Jewish, and (when used in an otherwise English sentence) non-Jewish in a stereotypical way.
[3] troubles
[4] “Go and be healthy. Have a good year.” The equivalent to the dismissive “Knock yourself out,” you should pardon the expression.
[5] Member of the Tribe, (e.g. Rich, Libby)
[6] Go shit in the ocean.
[7] Big Mitch

Need a good argument for universal health care?

2007-07-04T12:57:00.000-06:00

Here’s one:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed …

(h/t to Thom. Jefferson)

Call me crazy but to me the right to life includes the right to health. Governments are instituted to secure this right. That means keeping the environment healthy. It means keeping our food supply safe. It means regulating the drug industry and the medical community. And yes, it means universal, single source, not-for-profit health insurance. And since you just called me crazy, let me just add that it means parity for mental health protection.

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

Do they have Fourth of July in England?

2007-07-04T00:57:00.001-06:00

No? So you think that they go straight from the third to the fifth? Sure, it’s an old joke, but try it out at the picnic tomorrow and you might find someone young enough to think it’s funny.

In fact, the mother country is the birthplace of the English common law, which provides the underpinnings of our own legal system. Today they celebrate the ascension of Mr. Gordon Brown to the office of British Prime Minister.

It has been a rough start for him. His first day in office revealed a plot that included car bombs and driving an exploding vehicle into an airport terminal. The plot was hatched and carried out by five physicians. They still have a better health care program than we do.

In Britain the Prime Minister is obliged to appear in Parliament periodically and to answer questions from M.P.s on all sides of the aisle. Here’s my own transcript of an excerpt from Mr. Brown’s opening statement at his first appearance as P.M. in Parliament:

All members of this house and all the people of this country have a shared interest in building trust in our democracy. And it is my hope that by working together for change in a spirit that takes us beyond parties and beyond partisanship, we can agree a new British constitutional settlement that entrusts more power to Parliament and to the British people.
Change with a new settlement is in my view essential to our country's future for we will only meet the new challenges of security, of economic change, of communities under pressure, and forge a stronger shared national purpose by building a new relationship between citizens and government that insures that government is a better servant of the people.
…
So I now propose that in twelve important areas of our national life the Prime Minister and the executive should surrender or limit their powers, the exclusive exercise of which by the government of the day should have no place in a modern democracy. These are:
The power to declare war;
…
The power to make key public appointments without effective scrutiny;
The power to restrict parliament oversight of our intelligence services; …
Power in the appointment of judges;
Power to direct prosecutors in individual criminal cases;
…
And the executive powers to determine the rules governing entitlement to passports and the granting of pardons.
I now propose to surrender or limit these powers to make for a more open 21st century British democracy which better serves the British people.

It’s quite a striking contrast to the current administration on this side of the pond, eh what?

Enjoy your Independence Day.

… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!

A guest editorial from my in-box

2007-06-29T18:02:00.000-06:00

My in-box contained this little note from one of the smartest guys I know. He said exactly what was on my mind.

Hey Mitch,

Let's see --

1. Dozens found beheaded in Baghdad -- daily -- with dozens more, including precious American lives, blown to pieces around Iraq in a civil war with no rational or reasonable political or combat end in sight -- but Bush tells us that "the surge" is making progress, really, it just needs more time;

2. Bush's recent Supreme Court appointees help roll back affirmative action, freedom of speech, women's reproductive rights, electoral/voting rights, church-state separation, a century-old rule against price-fixing (gouging) by manufacturers, and they are ready, willing and able to roll back any other social or economic advance made in the last 50 years;

3. Despite the new Democratic majority in Congress, the Republican minority successfully blocks immagration reform, all rational efforts to bring the troops home and end the Iraq madness, and any other "liberal-leaning" legislation -- effectively reducing Congress to a powerless Bush lap-dog. Of course, even when Congress musters the votes, Bush vetoes the bill and his vetoes are bullet-proof;

4. Our beloved Vice President announces that he is above the law -- whether those laws apply to the executive branch, the legislative branch, or the you-name-it branch. He is perched on his own special branch of his own and has no obligation to reveal anything to Congress about anything -- whether it's his secret negotiations with oil company representatives, or his vindictive efforts to reveal the identity of a CIA agent, or his decision to politicize the appointments of U.S. Attorneys around the country, dumping any with the temerity not to do as they're told and prosecute Democractic candidates regardless of the facts, or his involvement in (control over?) unauthorized wiretaps, secret policies on torture, "rendition," or the ongoing violation of the Geneva Convention at Gitmo and elsewhere, etc.

5. Alberto Gonzales -- say no more;

6. Our own Ted Stevens and Don Young -- we are truly blessed;

All in all, the news just can't get any better. And just think, Mitch, virtually all of these lovely developments can be boiled down to one key thing -- the fervent religious beliefs of the majority of Americans residing in all of those pretty "red" states (plus Florida, or Ohio, when needed) -- who would far rather vote Republican in order to ensure that homosexuals never marry or obtain equal rights, that women be forced to bear unwanted children, that African-American children remain in segregated schools, and that creation "science" be taught alongside (or instead of) evolution in our schools, than bring themselves to elect social or political progressives --let alone (dare I say it?) liberals. What a country.

For those who missed it.

2007-06-27T16:09:00.000-06:00

On August 25. 2006, I blogged about Ann Coulter in The very definition of crazy. Here’s an excerpt:

Think back, if you are old enough, to the time when they showed a cartoon before the movies. Sure, Betty Boop had some creative horsepower behind it, but it was not what brought people into the theaters week after week. What the cartoons did was this: they shifted the boundaries of reality. Theater, including cinema, requires that the folks in the audience willingly suspend disbelief. For something like a cartoon, it is an easy sell, because they are comedic. Then, when the main feature comes on, the shift is toward a more real representation, and so, the feature movie is more emotionally engaging.

Ms. Coulter is the Daffy Duck of political discourse. When she speaks, you shake your head and wonder if you really heard what you thought you heard. Then when someone on Faux News comes on and says, “we must fight the terrorists in Iraq, so we don’t fight them here,” it sounds like the voice of sweet reason. Compared to daffy Ann Coulter, it is so much easier to accept the talking head, who in this analogy might be compared to, say, Orson Wells’ War of the Worlds.

Why the War of the Worlds? Because some people believe it and do batshit crazy stuff.

Today, on Chris Matthews’ Hardball we see the proof of what I was saying.

Armstrong Williams was talking about Ann Coulter’s appearance yesterday on the show. For those who missed it, she was confronted by Elizabeth Edwards, who gently rebuked her for hateful speech. Ms. Coulter had alleged that John Edwards has a bumper sticker which says, “Ask me about my dead son.” As the mother of that deceased boy, Mrs. Edwards found it offensive.

Armstrong Williams, for those who missed it, used to be on the White House’s payroll as a propagandist, which is criminal. Chris Matthews asked Williams if thought it was “over the line” to attack the Edwards for having a bumper sticker that says, “Ask me about my dead son.” Armstrong said, “no.” Why? Because he believed the Edwards actually had such a bumper sticker.

That was my point when I said, “some people believe it and do batshit crazy stuff.” For those who missed it.

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

BONG HiTS 4 JESUS

2007-06-25T13:38:00.001-06:00

Today, we see why the next presidential election is so important. It will decide who gets to appoint the next Supreme Court Justice.

In Morse v. Fredrick, Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the court:

Morse [the principal who confiscated the banner and suspended the student] later explained that she told Frederick to take the banner down because she thought it encouraged illegal drug use, in violation of established school policy. Juneau School Board Policy No. 5520 states: “The Board specifically prohibits any assembly or public expression that … advocates the use of substances that are illegal to minors … .” Id., at 53a.

...

We agree with Morse. At least two interpretations of the words on the banner demonstrate that the sign advocated the use of illegal drugs. First, the phrase could be interpreted as an imperative: “[Take] bong hits …”—a message equivalent, as Morse explained in her declaration, to “smoke marijuana” or “use an illegal drug.” Alternatively, the phrase could be viewed as celebrating drug use—“bong hits [are a good thing],” or “[we take] bong hits”—and we discern no meaningful distinction between celebrating illegal drug use in the midst of fellow students and outright advocacy or promotion. See Guiles v. Marineau, 461 F. 3d 320, 328 (CA2 2006) (discussing the present case and describing the sign as “a clearly pro-drug banner”). Ibid.

I don’t get it. I see nowhere in the sign is there either an implicit or explicit message that the bong-hits must be illegal. How can the court distill the message that illegal drug use is being advocated? Those who follow Jesus, who believe he stood for relieving suffering and healing the sick, could just as easily understood the message to support medicinal marijuana use.

Justice Stevens, with whom Justice Souter and Justice Ginsburg join, dissenting touched upon this theme, but only in a foot-note.

The Court’s opinion ignores the fact that the legalization of marijuana is an issue of considerable public concern in Alaska. The State Supreme Court held in 1975 that Alaska’s constitution protects the right of adults to possess less than four ounces of marijuana for personal use. Ravin v. State, 537 P. 2d 494 (Alaska). In 1990, the voters of Alaska attempted to undo that decision by voting for a ballot initiative recriminalizing marijuana possession. Initiative Proposal No. 2, §§1–2 (effective Mar. 3, 1991), 11 Alaska Stat., p. 872 (Lexis 2006). At the time Frederick unfurled his banner, the constitutionality of that referendum had yet to be tested. It was subsequently struck down as unconstitutional. See Noy v. State, 83 P. 3d 538 (Alaska App. 2003). In the meantime, Alaska voters had approved a ballot measure decriminalizing the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes, 1998 Ballot Measure No. 8 (approved Nov. 3, 1998), 11 Alaska Stat., p. 882 (codified at Alaska Stat. §§11.71.090, 17.37.010–17.37.080), and had rejected a much broader measure that would have decriminalized marijuana possession and granted amnesty to anyone convicted of marijuana-related crimes, see 2000 Ballot Measure No. 5 (failed Nov. 7, 2000), 11 Alaska Stat., p. 886.

Justice Thomas said that schools should be allowed to do just about anything to students that parents can. Yep, no freedom of speech for students.

Today, students have less freedom than they did yesterday.

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

Rudy, Rudy, Rudy

2007-06-19T16:51:00.000-06:00

We read here that Thomas Ravenel was indicted today on federal cocaine charges. He is the South Carolina state chairman for former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani's presidential campaign.

Here is a video of him endorsing Rudy.

So, it was a bad day for Rudy. After all, Newsday carried an article under the headline:

Rudy missing in action for Iraq panel
Giuliani's campaign fundraising kept him from commitment to panel studying Iraq.

Rudolph Giuliani's membership on an elite Iraq study panel came to an abrupt end last spring after he failed to show up for a single official meeting of the group, causing the panel's top Republican to give him a stark choice: either attend the meetings or quit, several sources said.

Giuliani left the Iraq Study Group last May after just two months, walking away from a chance to make up for his lack of foreign policy credentials on the top issue in the 2008 race, the Iraq war.

He tried to explain that one away by saying that once he became a “potential presidential candidate” he didn’t want his presence on the panel to be a distraction. Of course, he was a potential presidential candidate when he accepted the appointment, as documented on Talking Points Memo, so his excuse is total B.S.

Meanwhile, on Tucker, David Shuster interviewed Giuliani spokesman, Rep. David Dreier, (R. Calif.) The questions were about Rudy’s association with Bernie Kerick and Rudy’s estranged children. With respect to the former, Dreier said that he found Giuliani’s willingness to admit to a mistake “refreshing” and with respect to the latter, he thinks that makes Rudy more like Saint Ronald Reagan.

Don’t forget: Rudy is the Republican front-runner.

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

The Puke State

2007-06-13T15:11:00.000-06:00

In March of 2006, U.S. Attorney for Arkansas’ Eastern District Bud Cummins was investigating Missouri Governor Matt Blunt’s scheme to award franchises for satellite state licensing fee offices. The scheme was carried out by Mark F. “Thor” Hearne’s law firm, Lathrop & Gage. You may wonder why a U.S. Attorney from Arkansas was handling a Missouri investigation. Good question.

From Hidden Mysteries.net we learn:

The U.S. Attorney for Missouri's Western District, who would have otherwise overseen the investigation, was Todd P. Graves, who would also end up being replaced. Graves’s wife, as it turns out, “had been given a no-bid contract to run the second most lucrative motor vehicle fee office in Missouri, [in Gladstone.]” The contract to the wife of the U.S. Attorney was said to be worth some $2.6 million. Further, Graves’s brother-in-law had received a similar no-bid contract from Blunt for $1 million, and two staffers of Graves’s brother, Congressman Sam Graves, had also been given two similar contracts.

“[T]his situation amounts to $3.6 million in corruption insurance for Blunt,” the Missouri Democrats would later write in a petition drive calling for an investigation.

The Talking Points Memo reported that Sen. Kit Bond (R-Missouri) personally went to the White House and requested that Graves, (brother of right wing wacko Congressman Sam Graves) be removed from his position due to “his direct role in the Fee Office Scandal in Missouri.”

And so it was that Bud Cummings of Arkansas came to be investigating Missouri Governor Matt Blunt and Republican operative Thor Hearne.

Who is this Thor Hearne? Again, according to Hidden Mysteries.net

Hearne had been both Blunt's right-hand legal man for some time; as well as a GOP point man in Florida in 2000 (but who wasn’t?); as well as the Bush/Cheney ’04 general counsel in Missouri (at the specific, personal request of Dubya’s uncle, Bucky Bush, according to Thor himself in Missouri Lawyer’s Weekly); before he then became the Bush/Cheney ’04 national general counsel; and after the election, he became the founder of the scam “non-partisan” GOP front group calling itself “American Center for Voting Rights” (ACVR); which was, in turn, behind virtually every report, initiative, claim, piece of legislation, Congressional testimony, legal case, “official commission,” or public statement concerning the cooked-up case for the mythical epidemic of Democratic “voter fraud” that has been at the heart of the GOP/White House/DoJ attempts at vote-shaving via politicization and suppression at the ballot box since at least 2004.

Nobody knows who put Bud Cummings on the DoJ hit list, but it is pretty clear that Thor Hearne had the juice to do it if he wanted to. But of course, he would have to take care to keep his fingerprints off of it.

Enter the powerful white-collar criminal defense attorney William B. Mateja of the D.C./Dallas law firm of Fish & Richardson. You can read about his extensive connections to the White House and the Department of Justice, (e.g. Senior Counsel to James Comey) on Hidden Mysteries.net. For now, the thing that is important is that Mateja, repeatedly called Cummins to inquire if his client, Blunt, was the target of an investigation. And then, in June of 2006, Cummings was informed that his resignation was being requested.

On October 4, 2006, Cummings issued a press release which stated: “The matter has been closed with no indictments sought, or returned. Second, at no time was Governor Blunt a target, subject, or witness in the investigation, nor was he implicated in any allegation being investigated.”

Sure, it looks like Cummings was fired to interfere with an on-going investigation of Governor Matt Blunt, son of House Minority Whip Roy Blunt. But don’t overlook the fact that his investigation was also very uncomfortable for Thor Hearne. And the Rovians had a special fondness for Hearne because, as we have seen, he was the pointman on the phony voter fraud issue.

Remember Todd Graves, the U.S. Attorney from Missouri, who was also dismissed? He was replaced by none other than Bradley Schlozman. In a letter to Schlozman dated May 7, 2007 from Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), and Ranking Member Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), we read:

Recent news accounts have suggested that Todd Graves, the former U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Missouri and the person you succeeded as an interim United States Attorney, may have been on a list for replacement because of his refusal to endorse a lawsuit against the State of Missouri alleging voter fraud before the 2006 election. This is a lawsuit you approved while Acting Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division and then filed soon after you were interim appointed as Mr. Graves’ successor by Attorney General Gonzales. Several weeks ago, a federal judge ruled in favor of Missouri in that case, finding “no evidence” of major voter fraud in the state.

In 2006, Claire McCaskill won the Senatorial election in Missouri with just 49.6% of the vote, compared to 47.3% for incumbent Jim Talent. (The Democratic candidate for State Auditor won by a margin of almost 10%) Just a little more voter suppression in St. Louis, fired up by claims of voter fraud, could have turned the election, and the Senate, towards the Republicans.

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

Home-spun charm

2007-06-13T02:38:00.000-06:00

Fred Thompson was on Jay Leno last night. He’s an actor, but a lot of folk, including him, think that he ought to be President of the United States. These are people who remember Ronald Reagan was an actor, but who forget that Reagan sold arms to our enemies to fund terrorists and cut deals with hostage takers.

Anyway, Reagan left acting to become a politician. Fred Thomson left politics to become an actor. Ole Fred does have a certain home-spun charm, as for example when he explained his career path, thus:

After eight years in Washington, I longed for the realism and sincerity of Hollywood.

By the way, “home-spun charm” is my term for high-gloss bullshit.

Before he was elected to the Senate, Thompson spent nearly two decades in Washington as a lawyer-lobbyist, representing such entities as Westinghouse, the deposed leader of Haiti, the Teamsters Union pension fund and the Tennessee Savings and Loan Association. And when he left office, he continued his lucrative career representing foreign corporations.

Think back to that 2005 State of the Union address when King George the Incompetent said, “Justice is distorted, and our economy is held back by irresponsible class-actions and frivolous asbestos claims -- and I urge Congress to pass legal reforms this year.”

It seemed out of place at the time, but no more so than Fred Thompson in a red pick-up truck. You see, back in 2005, Fred Thompson was using his connections to then-Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) to extract information about goings-on inside Congress and selling it to a British company that had a good reason to worry about liability for asbestos claims. For this he got paid $760,000. Not bad work if you can get it.

It is not surprising therefore that Fred Thompson’s first policy initiative should garner such approval from the National Association of Manufacturers, his natural constituency. They cite with approval this bit of home-spun charming wisdom from Fred's appearance on CNBC:

We have, you know--if you include state taxes--the highest corporate tax rate in the world. That makes us less competitive. All those things have to be looked at. And all those--especially as far as the corporate tax rate is concerned, need to be clearly reduced.

As David Sirota points out:

[T]he Government Accountability Office reported in 2004, 94 percent of corporations pay less than 5 percent of their income in taxes, and corporate tax payments are at their second lowest level in 60 years - lower than in every other industrialized country other than Iceland.

Stay tuned for more of Fred Thompson’s home-spun charm.

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

Republican Debate: The highlight reel

2007-06-07T00:44:00.000-06:00

Imagine “American Idol” recast as “America’s Biggest Dope.” and you can get an idea of what the Republican Presidential Candidate’s Debate on CNN last night looked like.

The first question was the predictable “Knowing everything you know right now, was it a mistake for us to invade Iraq?

After fumferring around about non sequitors Mitt Romney offered up this whopper:

[I]f you’re saying let’s turn back the clock and Saddam Hussein had opening up his country to IAEA inspectors and they’d come in and they’d found that there were no weapons of mass destruction, had Saddam Hussein therefore not violated United Nations resolutions, we wouldn’t be in the conflict we’re in.

But he didn’t do those things, and we knew what we knew at the point we made the decision to get in.

I supported the president’s decision based on what we knew at
that time.

To review: On March 16, 2003, the U.S. advised the UN to pull its inspectors out of Iraq. Three days later, President George W. Bush addressed the American people at 10:15 p.m. to announce the beginning of a “broad and concerted campaign” to disarm Iraq, called Operation Iraqi Freedom.

But it is hard to stand out as the biggest knucklehead on a dais full or Republicans. Consider Senator Sam Brownback from Kansas:

On Iraq, I think we need to talk with them. I think we have to confront them aggressively for what they are, which is the lead sponsor of terrorism in the world.

It’s like I always say, “Iran, Iraq. What’s the big difference?”

As usual, Biggest Shmuck honors go to Rudy. On the question of whether or not he would pardon Scooter Libby:

GIULIANI: I think the sentence was way out of line. I mean, the sentence was grossly excessive in a situation in which, at the beginning, the prosecutor knew who the leak was...

BLITZER: So, yes or no, would you pardon him?

GIULIANI: ... and he knew a crime wasn't committed. … I think the sentence was way out of line. I mean, the sentence was grossly excessive in a situation in which, at the beginning, the prosecutor knew who the leak was...

BLITZER: So, yes or no, would you pardon him?

GIULIANI: ... and he knew a crime wasn't committed.

Put aside the fact that an undercover CIA agent was outed, bringing to an end her career in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Division and endangering the lives of everyone who worked with her. Since when are Obstruction of Justice and Perjury not crimes?

Giuliani also wants to reduce everyone’s taxes by $15,000 so that people can buy their own health insurance. In 2004, the middle fifth of American’s paid 18.6% of their income in taxes. In other words, if your taxable income was $80,640, you paid about 15,000 in taxes, which is the amount Giuliani wants to reduce your taxes so that you can afford health insurance. Don’t worry: the government doesn’t really need to collect taxes from anyone who makes less than 80 grand.

From a member of the audience came this intelligent queston:

My question is whether you believe that a conservative platform can also include a conservationist agenda. And, if so, how?

This question produced this thoroughly moronic answer from Virginia Governor Jim Gilmore:

The question was whether or not a conservative agenda can also have a conservation agenda. And I think that it can.

Certainly, when I was governor of the state of Virginia, we worked very hard in order to make Virginia a beautiful place and a place where we could in fact be welcoming to people, and that it would be a nice community for people to visit.

But at the end of the day, this is going to come down to the question of whether or not conservatism can match up with energy independence, which is a national security issue and it is a fundamental part of conservatism.

Conservatism means empowering people. It means cutting taxes and controlling government spending. It also means national security. And national security means a lot of different elements right at this time. And we're discussing some of them tonight.

And I can assure the people who are families here tonight, their young people, young men and women who are on the battle lines, and people who are committing their lives, they are in fact serving the national interests of this country in a time of major crisis.

I presume he was talking about people serving in the Civilian Conservation Corps.

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

Dan Bartlett quits. Oh, that’s just great!

2007-06-01T15:36:00.000-06:00

Dan Bartlett quit the White House today. The news media are describing him as “the one person who could give George Bush bad news.” The example given is that it was he that broke through the bubble surrounding King George the Incompetent to let him know that things weren’t going well in New Orleans when Hurricane Katrina hit.

Michael Wolf of Vanity Fair says that he smells a rat. Specifically, a rat jumping a sinking ship.

If it is Bartlett’s job to break bad news to Dumb Dubya, I can imagine that his job is going to get a lot tougher The Democrats control congress, and there are 11 candidates running for the Republican nomination, all or almost all of whom are trying to distance themselves from Bush. The scandals just keep coming, and Big Mitch predicts that we are going to hear a lot more about “caging” in the weeks to come. His base is turning on Dubya, and immigration is merely the most conspicuous issue.

But the really scary part is that there will be nobody around the president who can say anything other than, “Oh, that’s just great, Mr. President.”

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

Enough is enough! I have had it with these mother-effing Mycobacteria tuberculosis on this mother-effing plane!

2007-05-31T23:54:00.000-06:00

The lead story on all the networks was about the guy who got on an airplane with a highly drug resistant type of tuberculosis. The CDC warned him not to travel.

The case has called into question the ability of the CDC to respond to emergencies and the Department of Homeland Security has been unable to explain how the TB-infected man was able to simply drive into the United States on his return trip from Canada when “all border crossings had been given his name and told to hold him if he appeared.”

Think Progress explains all you need to know about this disturbing story.

Bush has repeatedly proposed slashing the CDC’s budget:

– 2002: Proposed a $174 million cut.

– 2003: Proposed a $1 billion cut, with no new funding for preventive health divisions working on TB.

– 2004: Proposed an increase of “less than 1 per cent.”

– 2005: Proposed a $263 million cut, while simultaneously proposing a $270 million increase in abstinence education.

– 2006: Proposed a $500 million cut which would have slashed grants to state and local health departments like the Fulton County Health and Wellness Department involved in this week’s TB-scare.

– 2007: Proposed a $179 million cut, in addition to unspecified plans for more CDC “savings.”

– 2008: Proposed a $37 million cut, including “massive funding cuts in proven health protection programs.”

In a report submitted to the House Appropriations Committee earlier this year, CDC Director Julie Gerberding warned that a TB outbreak could result from the administration’s proposed cuts. She noted that “emerging plagues such as drug-resistant tuberculosis represent ‘urgent threats that have become more prominent in the dawn of the 21st century.’”

Additionally, Dr. Georges Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Association, points out that the full scale of the “erosion of [CDC’s] traditional disease control activities has been ‘masked’ by infusions of cash earmarked for spending on bioterrorism and pandemic activities.”

… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!

Big Mitch gets one right

2007-05-27T18:44:00.000-06:00

In Class of ’71 reads the news, I set forth my reasons for being skeptical about what the government tells us. In particular, I urged a skeptical attitude toward the headline, “U.S. military believes al Qaeda has missing soldiers.”

Here’s what I said,

What evidence is there that it was al Qaeda in Iraq that kidnapped our soldiers? If there were any at all, I would expect that the government and its stenographers would be less mealy-mouthed in its description of the perpetrators than “al Qaeda or others associated with the militant group.”

I want to know what is the relationship of al Qaeda in Iraq to the group of Saudis that attacked our country on September 11, 2001. Do they take their orders from Osama Bin Laden? Do they have ambitions beyond the establishment of a Sunni Islamic government in Iraq? How do we know?

Today, the Boston Globe carried an article entitled “GOP rivals embrace unproven Iraq-9/11 tie.” Quoting Michael Scheuer , the CIA's former chief of operations against bin Laden in the late 1990s, and others, the Globe reports:

Al Qaeda in Iraq is not overseen by bin Laden.
...
[T]he enemy the military calls "Al Qaeda Iraq" is a combination of Iraqi jihadists and an unknown number of fighters from countries throughout the Middle East. "AQI" came together after the US invasion. And while there is evidence that AQI members coordinate attacks among themselves, there is little evidence that they coordinate closely with bin Laden.

The take-away message from the article is that the G.O.P. candidates are intentionally conflating the war in Iraq with our response to the threat of Islamic terrorists, in the deceitfull tradition established by King George the Incompetent.

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

Threatening chaos

2007-05-27T18:03:00.000-06:00

We are told that if the U.S. withdraws from Iraq, there will be chaos there. Put aside for the moment the fact that the people who are telling us this have a nearly perfect record for being wrong about everything. Let’s assume that they are correct.

If it’s true, then we must also assume that there is intelligence to support this conclusion. We must also assume that the leadership of Iraq knows the truth, and even if it is not evident to them, the U.S. can show them the intelligence, which has been so persuasive to King George the Incompetent.

Now, chaos is a bad thing. I assume that the leadership in Iraq likes being in the leadership, and chaos is directly threatening to them. That’s a good thing, and I will explain why.

What it means is that the threat of us leaving and the chaos which is to follow is something with which the U.S can exert leverage against the leadership in Iraq.

What shall we exert pressure upon the Iraqis to do? Get up an army, get a working police force, get some oil production on line, get an agreement on oil revenue sharing, work out a federal system for Iraq. The list could go on, but it doesn’t take a lot of imagination to figure out where we want to be and what it is going to take to get there.

There’s another question: what can we do to leverage the leadership in Iraq. And this is not a tough question, either. The answer is to give the Iraqi leadership timetables and enforce them with the threat of leaving.

Really, the only thing it takes is a congressional democratic leadership whose knees don’t go all wobbly when someone threatens to call them a wussy. Instead, we have a bunch of wussies.

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

Monica Goodling and Thomas Heffelfinger

2007-05-24T23:35:00.000-06:00

U.S. attorney Thomas Heffelfinger (Minnesota) was one of the U.S. Attorneys who appeared on Kyle Samson’s firing list. Monica Goodling mentioned him briefly during her testimony this week. She said that she'd heard he “spent an extraordinary amount of time” on his work relating to his position as Chairman of the Native American Issues Subcommittee (NAIS) of the Attorney General’s Advisory Committee.

Heffelfinger appeared on the list in January 2006, and a month later he voluntarily resigned. When he heard of Ms. Goodling’s testimony he had this to say:

I did spent a lot of time on it... That's what I was instructed to do [by then-Attorney General John Ashcroft].

If it’s true that people within the Department of Justice were critical of the amount of time I was spending on Indian issues, I’m outraged. … Are they telling me I spent too much time trying to improve public safety for Native Americans, who are victims of violent crime at a rate 2 ½ times the national population? If they are, then shame on them.

Who could object to the fact that a U.S. Attorney from Minnesota was devoting his time to improving the lot of American Indians? Well, that would be whoever is victimizing a lot of American Indians.

Does the name Jack Abramoff ring a bell?

Admittedly, none of Jack Abramoff’s Indian client/victims were up in Minnesota. But after his guilty plea, also in January of 2006, the investigation into his nefarious activities widened. Disrupting the subcommittee of U.S. attorneys that dealt with American Indian issues at that crucial time probably didn’t help the investigation.

Or it could just be a coincidence.

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

Two negatives for the Bushies

2007-05-23T16:21:00.000-06:00

There were two negative pieces of news for loyal Bushies today. The first was Monica Goodling’s testimony.

Big Mitch predicts that the Republican spin-meisters will be pushing a story that goes like this: Monica Goodling testified and was obviously very sincere, careful and honest. She was subjected to long, arduous, penetrating questioning. In spite of this, no wrongdoing has been uncovered.

Bullshit.

First of all, we still don’t know how the list of U.S. Attorneys to be sacked came about. We can safely conclude that someone is withholding information. But let’s focus on the specific crimes that she testified about.

Monica Goodling testified today about a meeting she had with Alberto Gonzales shortly before she left the department. She stated that the conversation took place on the Thursday or Friday of the week before she left the department. She left on March 23rd -- so the conversation occurred on March 14th or 15th. Congress had already requested to interview Goodling about what she knew.

Goodling came to Gonzales to request a transfer because of the scandal. Gonzales did not immediately agree. He then began discussing what he remembered about the firing process. He asked her if she had "any reaction" to his recollection. The conversation made her “uncomfortable,” she testified. One can surmise that Gonzales was trying to shape her testimony.

On May 10th Gonzales testified in the House Judiciary Committee as follows: “I have not gone back and discussed this investigation with Sampson and others to protect the integrity of this investigation. I have not asked these specific questions.” General Gonzales appears to have been lying to Congress.

Ms. Goodling testified that she used political considerations in the hiring of non-political officials, in an apparent violation of the Hatch Act. On her behalf she admitted to “crossing the line,” but she said, she didn’t “mean to.” She also testified that McNulty was inaccurate and misleading in his testimony.

Regardless of what you hear Republicans saying, Ms. Goodling’s testimony today did nothing to restore confidence in Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

The second negative -- call it a double negative if you will -- is this little item from Roll Call today, reprinted in it’s entirety:

Vice President Cheney isn’t not on the phone records of the alleged D.C. Madam, who is accused of running a high-price call-girl ring in Washington, the accused madam’s lawyer said on Tuesday.

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

Republican Talking Points

2007-05-18T22:06:00.000-06:00

David Brooks of the New York Times has a weekly gig on The Newshour with Jim Lehrer, with Mark Shields. Here’s Brooks discussing the hospital visit by then White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales to ailing John Ashcroft:

There was nothing illegal that happened. There was a disagreement over this FISA statute. Nonetheless, the way it went about was so disrespectful of the institution: that’s what leaves a bad taste.

Give me a break.

A review of the facts is in order. Shortly after 9/11, the administration ordered up a vast program of domestic spying that was in apparent violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). The White House had obtained assent of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, led by John Yoo, to proceed with this program of illegal wiretapping. In October of 2003, Jack Goldsmith was confirmed as the head of the OLC. Goldsmith undertook a review of some of the more controversial opinions of Mr. Yoo.

It became obvious that the legal and factual underpinnings of the so-called Terrorist Surveillance Program did not pass constitutional muster. In March of 2004, Attorney General Ashcroft and Deputy Attorney General Comey discussed the matter and decided that the program was illegal, and that therefore, they could not sign off on it. Shortly thereafter, Ashcroft became ill, and was hospitalized. DAG Comey became the acting Attorney General.

The details of the hospital visit are well-known. On March 10, 2004, Ashcroft and Comey informed Gonzales and White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card that the program –which had been in effect for over two years -- was illegal.

The White House went ahead with it anyway, though two days later the President gave Comey authority to suggest changes to address his concerns. For the next two or three weeks the program went forward, without any changes even though Ashcroft, Comey, FBI Director Mueller, and others (Goldsmith?) had threatened to resign over it.

Later, Alberto Gonzales testified that there was no serious disagreement about the program. Several senators have suggested that this testimony may have been false, and they gave the Attorney General a chance to revise it. He declined to do so.

Get out your score sheets. There was a two year period when the government was engaged in an illegal program of spying on Americans without a warrant in direct violation of the FISA law. In their defense, they had found a partisan lawyer to give them his okay, but reliance on mistaken legal advice is not generally a defense. Then there was a period of two or three weeks, where the Justice Department had explicitly told the White House that the program was illegal, but they went forward with it anyway. And then there is “Fredo” Gonzales’ crime of perjury.

The Republicans have managed to lower the standard of conduct for this White House to “as long as no crimes were committed.” We saw this in the Scoter Libby affair, too. (In that case, it is urged by Republicans that since no crime was committed, it was okay for him to lie to a Federal Grand Jury.)

“There was nothing illegal that happened.” That’s a pretty low bar. But it is a break with reality to suggest that the White House cleared it.

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

Yesterday’s news

2007-05-17T17:41:00.000-06:00

As I reported in Scandal Fatigue, Democrats in the Senate asked the Attorney General if he stood by his earlier testimony in which he stated that there no substantial disagreements within the administration about the probity of the warrantless wiretapping program.

The Washington Post reports today:

The Justice Department said yesterday that it will not retract a sworn statement in 2006 by Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales that the Terrorist Surveillance Program had aroused no controversy inside the Bush administration, despite congressional testimony Tuesday that senior departmental officials nearly resigned in 2004 to protest such a program.

Big Mitch thinks he knows what the defense will be. Generalissimo ‘Fredo’ Gonzalez was very specific in his testimony in Congress. He said, “let me just say that I think the differing views that have been the subject of some of these stories does not – did not deal with the program that I am here testifying about today.”

My bet is that what he will say when this is explored further is that the program that he was testifying about at that time, was the program after it had made the changes obtained by the intervention of Comey and Mueller. After it was changed, it was a different program, the one that the President had confirmed, and about which there is was no substantial disagreement.

Of course, that’s yesterday’s news. Today, we learn (again from the Washington Post):

The Justice Department considered dismissing many more U.S. attorneys than officials have previously acknowledged, with at least 26 prosecutors suggested for termination between February 2005 and December 2006, according to sources familiar with documents withheld from the public.

Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales testified last week that the effort was limited to eight U.S. attorneys fired since last June, and other administration officials have said that only a few others were suggested for removal.

Will Gonzalez stand by his testimony, again? Is this yet another scandal?

Stay tuned for tomorrow’s news.

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

Scandal Fatigue

2007-05-17T02:27:00.000-06:00

James Comey testified that for a period of time – two or three weeks – the warrantless interception of electronic communication continued although the Department of Justice had opined that it was illegal. That’s scandal number one. But it is only coming to light because of the fired U.S. attorneys. We’ll call that scandal number two.

Marie Cocco, of the Washington Post Writer’s Group has a good post on Truth Dig:

It is time to stop referring to the “fired U.S attorneys scandal” by that misnomer, and call it what it is: a White House-coordinated effort to use the vast powers of the Justice Department to swing elections to Republicans.
…
In a fledgling democracy, we would consider this shocking corruption. The chilling truth is that it can happen here—and apparently it did.

Meanwhile, the Senate Democratic Caucus has sent a letter to Alberto Gonzales in which they contrast testimony from Deputy Attorney General James Comey to his testimony in which he stated “that the disagreement that occurred was not related to the wiretapping program confirmed by the President in December 2005, which was the topic of the hearing.” The letter concludes: In light of Mr. Comey's testimony yesterday, do you stand by your 2006 Senate and House testimony, or do you wish to revise it?”

That’s a different scandal: the Attorney General committed perjury in Congress.

Monica Gooding asserted a privilege against self-incrimination and received limited immunity so that she will testify in Congress. Ms. Goodling moved to block the hiring of prosecutors with résumés that suggested they might be Democrats, even though they were seeking posts that were supposed to be nonpartisan, two department officials said. That’s a violation of the Hatch Act, which is yet another scandal. See, Bush’s Monica and the Plot Against the Hatch Act.

In its efforts to investigate the goings-on at the Department of Justice we learned that the White House was using Republican National Committee servers for email. It looks like a violation of the Presidential Records Act. But we can’t say for sure because apparently Karl Rove deleted the emails that Congress is seeking. Is that one or two more scandals?

So many scandals. But they lack the sex appeal of a good-old fashioned Clinton scandal. That is, unless you buy into the thread at Wayne Madsen Report where he is flogging the D.C. Madam story. He reports, “The net may also ensnare two 2008 GOP presidential candidates, one declared and the other, as yet, undeclared.”

If that doesn’t pique your interest consider this May 14, 2007 posting: “WMR has received additional credible information on the patronage of Vice President Dick Cheney, while he was President and CEO of Halliburton in the mid to late 1990s, of the DC Madam's escort service.”

Keeping track of all these scandals makes a person tired.

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

For the record

2007-05-16T14:37:00.000-06:00

From James Comey’s testimony yesterday:

“Can you give us an example of an exercise of good judgment by Alberto Gonzales?” Republican Senator Arlin Specter asked.

“Let the record show a very long pause,” Specter said.

This exchange sent my mind back to August 24, 1960, when Nixon was running for President against JFK. President Dwight Eisenhower was asked if he could give an example of a major idea of Vice-president Nixon’s that was adopted by the administration.

“If you give me a week, I might think of one,” Ike replied.

But that was not the only thing redolent of Tricky Dick in Comey's testimony yesterday.

Comey testified that Gonzales and Card visited Ashcroft to “take advantage of a very sick man,” and get him to authorize a program that the Department of Justice had decided was illegal. To Comey’s great surprise, Ashcroft was able to forcefully resist.

A few minutes after the bedside confrontation, Card called the hospital. He "demanded that I come to the White House immediately," Comey testified. "I responded that, after the conduct I had just witnessed, I would not meet with him without a witness present."

"He replied, ‘What conduct? We were just there to wish him well.’"

What? Comey knew what he had just witnessed. Did Card think that he was going to convince Comey that there was no other reason for them to be there?

I’ve seen this type of conversation before. It occurs when one party knows that it is being tape-recorded.

You may think that the White House, having been burned by Nixon’s taping system would never repeat that mistake. It would be too stupid or too corrupt. But you would be wrong.

There is nothing too stupid or too corrupt for this White House.

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

A shocking account of White House lawlessness.

2007-05-16T12:47:00.000-06:00

If you had any doubt about what kind of people are running the government, you should watch the video below. In it, James Comey testifies to the Senate Judiciary Committee about the efforts of Alberto Gonzalez to take advantage of a very sick man, Attorney General John Ashcroft.

So thuggish were the behaviors of then-White House Counsel “Fredo” Gonzalez, that the Director of the FBI, Robert Mueller, had to order his G-men to protect Comey from Gonzalez and White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card. When the administration went ahead with the spying program without Department of Justice approval, Comey, Mueller, and several other Justice employees considered resigning. Comey was persuaded to stay on until Ashcroft was well enough to resign with them.

This is the testimony that the Washington Post said described as “an account of Bush administration lawlessness so shocking it would have been unbelievable coming from a less reputable source.”

A must-read analysis of this shocking testimony appears on Salon. I urge you to read it.

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

March 10, 2004

2007-05-15T18:13:00.000-06:00

The current crop of crooks that is installed in the White House continues to embarrass us, violate our rights, and generally screw up at every turn. So steady is the stream of scandals that older ones are pushed off the screen to make room for new ones.

A case in point is the Department of Justice. The firing of the eight U.S. Attorneys (or is it nine?) reveals the operations of this dysfunctional agency, leading to calls for the resignation of Attorney General Gonzales. It’s hard to take your eyes off this train wreck long enough to gaze back at the last DOJ scandal. Nevertheless, our recollection was refreshed today when former Deputy Attorney General James Comey testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Think back to when it was revealed that the government was engaged in wholesale spying on Americans in violation of the FISA law.

The story is not new. You may recall that the program was initiated at some time soon after 9/11, and that the president and his spokespersons defended it on the basis that it had to be re-certified by the Attorney General every 45 days or so. Back in January of ’06, I indicated that there was a disagreement between constitutional scholars about the validity of the defense that the Bush administration had offered for its domestic spying program. See, Horsefeathers vs. Poppycock: Constitutional Scholars weigh in.

Be that as it may, on March 10, 2004, Attorney General Ashcroft was in the hospital, and so the duty of re-certifying the program fell upon James Comey. He declined to do so.

The White House decided to visit Ashcroft in the hospital and seek his approval for the dubious program. Back in January of ’06, the NY Times reported that it “It is unclear whether the White House ultimately persuaded Mr. Ashcroft to give his approval to the program after the meeting or moved ahead without it.”

It is no longer “unclear.”

Here’s how Firedoglake summarized Comey’s testimony on the matter:

Office of Legal Counsel had told Comey there was no legal justification for parts of the NSA Domestic Spying Program. Comey briefed Ashcroft on it, and they agreed that they could not reauthorize the program in its current form. When Comey told that to Andrew Card, Card got pissed. That night, Comey got a call from his Chief of Staff, saying Mrs. Ashcroft had gotten a call at the hospital, saying Card and Gonzales were on their way over. Comey rushed to the hospital to try to prepare Ashcroft for what was about to occur. And then, in his drug induced state, Ashcroft refused to reauthorize the program, and said he wasn't AG anyway, Comey was acting AG.

The program was "reauthorized" anyway, w/o DOJ's blessing. For two weeks, according to Comey, it operated outside the rule of law (though one day after the hospital visit, Bush told Comey to "do what's right," so they started to put it in line with the law).

That night, Comey and a number of other DOJ staffers prepared their resignation, refusing to stay after they had been overridden.

You may be forgiven for thinking that on March 10th 2004, the Attorney General signed off on the program. After all, it had been in place for over two years, and we are told that it had been reviewed and approved by DOJ every 45 days. Why, you might wonder, did Ashcroft refuse to re-certify it in his hospital bed?

One reason might be that Comey had only recently convinced him that the program was not legal. Not very likely that Ashcroft would sign off on a program for two years, and then Comey would undertake to persuade him that it was illegal.

Another possibility is that Ashcroft felt that Comey was the Acting A.G. and that it was therefore Comey’s call. But Comey testified that in spite of his illness Ashcroft gave a cogent explanation of why he would not certify the program.

A third possibility exists. Could it be that when George W. Bush told us that the program required a sign-off by the Attorney General every 45 to 90 days, he was playing a little fast and loose with the facts? Who woulda thunk?

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

Class of ’71 reads the news

2007-05-14T13:16:00.000-06:00

In the late nineteen-sixties, there was an unpopular war being conducted by a corrupt president.

Opposition was so strong to the war, that colleges conducted moratoria and there were mass protest marches on Washington, D.C. Protest marches on campuses and elsewhere were common, too, and violence was not unheard of. Police rioted in Chicago during the Democratic National Convention, and in May of 1970, National Guard Troops shot and killed 4 protesters at Kent State University in Ohio.

I was a political science major at the State University of New York at Binghamton, which was also known as Harpur College. It was a very liberal campus in those days, and damn proud of it.

Yes, the hippie ethic was fully embraced. Drug use was common, although in those days hashish was more common than marijuana. (These drugs have the same active ingredient, and the same potential for abuse.)

Someone noticed that whenever there was a scheduled moratorium there seemed also to be a surfeit of opium-laced hash on campus. Hash came to the U.S. from the mid-East, mostly Lebanon. Opium came from the Far East. The theory at the time was that only the CIA had contacts in both areas and that only they were capable of importing sufficient amounts of opium-laced hashish to influence the market. The theorized motive was to make the campuses too stoned to protest. So widespread was acceptance of this conspiracy theory that the ethic of the time disapproved of getting high during a moratorium.

Was the CIA involved? I don’t know. What I do know is that distrust of the government was so strong, that a conspiracy theory like that was widely accepted, and belief in it shaped our actions.

Also in those days, there was a government agency called the ICC – the Interstate Commerce Commission. It was their duty to regulate, among other things, trucking and transportation on the interstate highway system.

In 1968, there was a moratorium scheduled and a march on Washington. Students from Harpur College had hired several buses to transport protesters to the nation’s capital. The night before the protest the ICC pulled the licenses of the bus companies. The plan backfired for the government. Before the ICC actions, there were several apathetic or apolitical students who had no intention of participating in the protest. Afterwards, nearly 100% of our college community traveled to Washington, where the protest devolved into a riot.

It is against this backdrop that I read today’s news. I am not a conspiracy nut, but I think that it is the duty of a citizen to maintain a healthy skepticism about anything that the government tells us. And the current administration has been so deceptive that skepticism serves us well.

Take today’s news. A Reuters headline tells us: “U.S. military believes al Qaeda has missing soldiers.” Oh, really?

The article begins by stating, “The U.S. military said on Monday it believed that three U.S. soldiers missing after an attack south of Baghdad on Saturday had been taken by al Qaeda or others associated with the militant group.” Now which is it—al Qaeda or others associated with it?

It’s not merely a rhetorical question, because a different group has claimed responsibility for the kidnapping. The group, Islamic State of Iraq, is described by AP as “a coalition of eight insurgent groups, including al-Qaida in Iraq.” The same article informs us that, “Late last month, the group named a 10-member “Cabinet” complete with a “war minister,” an apparent attempt to present the Sunni coalition as an alternative to the U.S.-backed Shiite-led administration of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.”

Let’s accept for the moment that one of the eight insurgent organizations under the mantle of Islamic State of Iraq is an insurgent organization called “al Qaeda in Iraq.” What evidence is there that it was al Qaeda in Iraq that kidnapped our soldiers? If there were any at all, I would expect that the government and its stenographers would be less mealy-mouthed in its description of the perpetrators than “al Qaeda or others associated with the militant group.”

I want to know what is the relationship of al Qaeda in Iraq to the group of Saudis that attacked our country on September 11, 2001. Do they take their orders from Osama Bin Laden? Do they have ambitions beyond the establishment of a Sunni Islamic government in Iraq? How do we know?

We have a duty to be skeptical. The administration’s protestations to the contrary notwithstanding, it has conflated our mission against Osama bin Laden’s al Qaeda with our war in Iraq at every turn.

If I distrust the latest pronouncements of the government, it’s only because I was paying attention in the ‘60s. I guess some good did come from putting down that hash pipe.

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

Mitt Romney’s religion

2007-05-11T14:24:00.000-06:00

According to Time Magazine, 29% of American voters say they would not vote for a Mormon presidential candidate. Back in November, a Rasmussen poll, had 43% saying they would never consider voting for a Mormon and only 38% said they would even consider casting such a vote. Nineteen per cent were not sure.

This is disgusting in a country founded on religious liberty and bound together by a Constitution which states “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

Growing up in New York, I had never met a Mormon, until I happened to sit next to one on the bus from my upstate college town to New York City. I continued in ignorance of what the LDS church believes and practices for many years, and it was not until the mid-1970’s that I got to count a member of the church among my friends.

When Jimmy Carter became President, there was a sudden upsurge of interest in the Southern Baptist church, which theretofore had been vaguely foreign to most northerners like me. Perhaps we will see a similar spurt of interest in the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-day Saints with the ascendancy of Mitt Romney and Senate Majority leader Harry Reid. For example, the Frontline/American Experience shows on PBS aired a four-hour series on The Mormons.

There is much to be admired in the culture of the Mormons, and plenty that is troubling in the history of this uniquely American church. (In the latter category consider the Mountain Meadows massacre and polygamy.)

But let us focus on that which is to be praised. One cannot learn about the Mormons and not be impressed with their devotion to the family. Consider the advertisements that the Mormons run on TV. The tagline is, “Family: isn’t it about time?” It is a Mormon practice to set aside Monday evenings for family home activities. The Mormon attitude to family is also reflected in the practice of genealogy and posthumous baptism. Mormons don’t get married “until death do us part,” but rather, for all eternity.

I am all in favor of family values and I love my family. But when I watched the Frontline series on The Mormons I realized that they have a different appreciation of the role of family. If I may be forgiven my presumptuousness, I would say that Mormons believe that the family provides for the individual and the individual should look primarily to the family to have his or her material and spiritual needs met.

It is insulting to Mitt Romney to acknowledge that he is a Mormon but deny that he is moved by the basic values of Mormonism. In any event, he gives us no reason to doubt that he is guided by his faith. For example, on his website he states: Americans are “a purpose-driven people founded on the family unit.” (Union Leader, March 19, 2006)

As I say, this may be laudable in a person’s personal life. Clearly, family is a great source of strength to the members of the LDS church. But what does it mean for a candidate for the office of the presidency?

It means that government doesn’t need to help people: that’s what families are for.

It means that government doesn’t need to provide a safety net for individuals because they can and should rely on their families when life deals them a harsh hand.

It means that government doesn’t need to create opportunity for individuals because people have unlimited opportunities in the context of their families.

It means that people who don’t share in the values of the conventional family don’t share in the values our national government, and therefore, it is not the role of government to protect their civil rights.

Mitt Romney is a conservative and as that term has come to be understood in the 21st century that means he is openly hostile to the institutions of government. Of course, he won’t come out and say that in so many words. He would like to see the role of government reduced as far as possible. And the way he sells this idea is to propose that the functions of government be performed by “the family.”

I take a back seat to no one when it comes to love of my family. But we are part of a greater society. Which is why I would never vote for Mitt Romney, or for that matter any of the buffoons I saw standing on the podium at the Reagan Library last week.

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

A flash of insight

2007-05-09T14:22:00.000-06:00

This 30-second video got me to thinking.
In the past, Big Mitch has argued that George W. Bush ought to be impeached for a variety of reasons. He lied us into a war. His use of signing statements is contemptuous of the Constitution. He illegally snooped on Americans. He is ultimately responsible for turning the Department of Justice into a wing of the Republican National Committee. The list goes on.

Looking at this video made me think of the real reason he ought to be impeached. To borrow a phrase from retired Major General John Batiste, he has “placed our country at peril.”

That’s the real reason why he ought to be impeached: he has violated his oath to preserve and protect the Constitution.

“... and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

From the Last Frontier: More Republican corruption

2007-05-08T12:48:00.000-06:00

Rich Mauer reports in the Anchorage Daily News (McClatchey):

Bill Allen, a welder who took the Veco Corp. from a small Kenai oil-field company to a billion-dollar international contractor and a major political force, pleaded guilty Monday to bribing at least four Alaska legislators, including former Senate President Ben Stevens.

Also pleading guilty was Rick Smith, Veco’s vice president for community and government affairs.

Lat Friday, former Representatives Pete Kott, (R-Eagle River) Bruce Weyrauch (R-Juneau) and current Representative Vic Kohring (R-Wasilla) were indicted for extortion and bribery in related matters.

Ben Stevens is the son of Ted Stevens, the most senior Republican in the United States Senate.He received more than $200,000 in phony “consulting” contracts.

There was a time when Alaska was a reliably Democratic state. Problems are mounting for Ted Stevens and Don Young (see, here and here.) Indeed, the problems for all Republicans are on the rise. Could it be that the past is prelude to the future?

Memo to Democrats: Prepare to take back Alaska.

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

Word for today: “Hagiography”

2007-05-06T22:09:00.000-06:00

From the recent hagiography of Ronald Reagan:

“Those are the things that Ronald Reagan taught us. You lead from optimism. You lead from hope. And we should never retreat in the face of terrorism.”

-- Rudy Giuliani, May 3, 2007 at a GOP debate held at the Reagan Library.

On April 18, 1983, the US embassy in Beirut, Lebanon, was bombed by a suicide truck attack, killing 63 people.

Then, on October 23, 1983, 241 United States services members were killed when suicide bombers attacked a U.S. Marine Barracks in Beirut. The Marines were part of a multi-national peacekeeping force during Lebanon’s civil war. President Ronald Reagan called it a despicable act.

The radical militant group Islamic Jihad took credit for both attacks. This group was led by Ayman al-Zawahiri, who later became the number two leader in al-Qaeda, (or so we were told.)

There was little or no retaliatory military response to the attack on the American troops. The Marines were promptly moved offshore so that they could not be targeted any further. On February 7, 1984, President Reagan ordered the Marines to begin withdrawal from Lebanon. By February 26th, the retreat was completed.

The Beirut bombings inspired Osama bin Laden to believe that the US can be defeated by suicide attacks. In a 1998 interview, which was reported on ABC on May 28, 1998, bin Laden stated:

“We have seen in the last decade the decline of the American government and the weakness of the American soldier who is ready to wage Cold Wars and unprepared to fight long wars. This was proven in Beirut when the Marines fled after two explosions.”

One thing we didn’t learn from Ronald Reagan is that the truth matters.

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

Giuliani. Thank God.

2007-05-02T23:08:00.000-06:00

The New York Observer has a nice take on Bob Kerry’s thoughts about Rudy Giuliani.

“When he turned and said to Bernie Kerik, ‘Thank God George Bush is President,’” said Mr. Kerrey, echoing one of Mr. Giuliani’s favorite (but now retired) 9/11 anecdotes. “What he should have said was, ‘Why the fuck didn’t George Bush call us and tell us this was going to happen?’ That was a more appropriate response.”

Anyone who watches Chris Matthews on Hardball knows that he has a man-crush on Rudy Giuliani. It is going to be quite a challenge for him to keep it under wraps when he moderates the “Reagan Library GOP Debate,” as it is being billed. Here’s a telling moment to watch for.

Big Mitch predicts that amid the soft-balls that Matthews tosses to Rudy, there will be a question about one of his most famous whoppers. At the 2004 Republican National Convention, Rudolph Giuliani told the audience that while standing in the rubble of the World Trade Center, he spontaneously grabbed Bernie Kerik’s arm and said, “Bernie, thank God George Bush is our President.”

That’s a powerful story and better than the one he told during a 2003 GOP fundraiser. In the earlier iteration, Kerik is missing: “I remember that day saying a little prayer of thank-you that George Bush was our president.” Well, you could see why that story needed a little punching up. But still, it is an improvement on the original rendering.

On December 23, 2001, Giuliani appeared on Meet the Press. He told of the days following the attack. According to this first edition of the story, Rudy did, indeed, utter the words to his police chief. But it was not on September 11th. Rather it was on September 14th, by which time George Bush had finished My Pet Goat and found his way to Ground Zero. It was in this context that Giuliani stated, “Thank God he [Bush] is here [i.e., in New York.]”

The ironic thing is that Giuliani embellished and prevaricated to show a fabricated devotion to President Shit-for-brains. It’s not like people needed another reason to not vote for the guy. But watch Chris Matthews give him a chance to clean it up.

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

Deconstructing the veto message

2007-05-01T17:27:00.000-06:00

The President said that he vetoed the Emergency War Spending Bill because it “mandated a rigid, and artificial deadline for American troops to begin withdrawing from Iraq.” Moreover, he claimed that the bill imposed “impossible conditions on our commanders in combat.”

Here’s what he is really saying: He wants to wage the same old war, which doesn’t have the support of the American people. He fails to understand that the people have spoken and that elections have consequences. Congress was elected to end the war, and it is completely appropriate to set a timeline for doing so.

The bill ends the war and describes a new and different mission. The bill would require that by the autumn of 2008 however many U.S. troops remain in Iraq may only be used for diplomatic protection, counterterrorism operations, and training of Iraqi Security Forces. Unless certain benchmarks are met, this re-deployment may be required to start earlier.

I suppose you could call that imposing impossible conditions on the commanders in combat. Congress wants to make it impossible to persist on the same course of conduct that isn’t working and which has lost the confidence of the American people.

Just so that we are clear: The President says that we need to stay in Iraq to fight terrorism. The bill that he vetoed allows him to keep troops in Iraq indefinitely for counterterrorism operations.

For as long as I can remember, all presidential speeches have ended with some version of “May God bless America.” A favorite formulation of this president has been “May God continue to bless America.” Tonight, in announcing that he was flouting the will of the American people, he concluded with a new twist: “May God bless our troops.” He may as well have said, “May God help our troops.” President Bush surely won’t.

The president vetoed a bill that prohibits the deployment of troops who are not “fully mission capable” as defined by the Department of Defense – in other words, troops who are fully trained, equipped and protected. The bill that he vetoed provided funding for the Veterans Administration. And the bill refocused the mission of our military on a job for which it is well suited: defeating al Quaeda and terrorists in Afghanistan. Once again, we see that it is the Democrats in Congress who care about the troops.

The president thinks that he has support for the current ill-defined mission in Iraq, and that support extends to stubborn perseveration into the fall of 2008. He’s wrong. As if to prove the point, he vetoed a bill to protect troops and care for veterans.

“... and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

Welcome back, Tony Snow.

2007-04-30T21:26:00.000-06:00

On this morning’s edition of Good Morning America we all were delighted to see that you are back, and apparently you haven’t lost any of your game. [fn.]

I especially liked the part where you said,

The President made it clear before the State of the Union in 2002 that there was no link between Saddam Hussein and September 11th. So, I am afraid that what is happening there is that George Tenet may be have been referring to something that has been misreported or at least twisted by people who may have political motives in recent years, but there has been no attempt to try to link Saddam to September 11th. So, uh, yeah.

Whoa, Tony! We get the point! Anyone who would suggest that the administration linked Saddam to 9-11 is a worthless liar.

Consider this letter from King George the Incompetent to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate, available on the White House website.

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

I am glad we have Tony Snow back to clear that up.

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

[fn.]View the video: QT WMV Courtesy of Media Matters.)

The case against George Tenet is an easy lay-up.

2007-04-30T15:00:00.000-06:00

George Tenet says that he deeply resents the fact that his “slam dunk” remark has been taken out of context.

We have seen the Vice President on Meet the Press saying that the administration was convinced that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. It is Cheny who quotes the CIA chief as saying that the evidence is conclusive, using the slam-dunk metaphor of Georgetown basketball-loving Tenet.

According to others, notably Bob Woodward, the comment came when King George the Incompetent listened to the evidence and questioned its sufficiency. My sense of it is that Dubya is a guy who likes a one-page memo, and likes a one-line summary even more. It is hard to imagine him saying that he needs more texture in his intelligence reportage.

For his part, Tenet says that he didn’t mean that the evidence was a slam-dunk case against Iraq. His story is that Dubya heard the evidence, and accepted it for decision-making purposes. The problem for Dubya was that he felt that the American people would demand a more persuasive case. “This is the best we’ve got?” one George asked the other.

Tenet, if he is to be taken at his word, understood this to mean, “Could you punch it up a little bit for Joe Public?” The other George told the president that would be no problem. “Slam dunk,” he said.

This is breathtaking, but we’ve seen this kind of excuse offered before by the Party of Bush.

When Cheney tried to excuse himself for not anticipating the level of violence in Iraq, I pointed out in Cheney admits guilt that this is not an excuse – it is an indictment of his lack of foresight. Remember when King George the Incompetent explained that he didn’t want to let the voting public know that he was about to shit-can Donald Rumsfeld because “didn’t want to inject a major decision about this war in the final days of a campaign?” So, he lied. As I said at Truth and Consequences,

Only one with total disdain for the electoral process would not be ashamed to admit that he had tried to mislead the public on this crucial matter. Someone with disdain for the electoral process like King George the Incompetent.

Again, the excuse offered is an admission of a greater offense.

At the risk of stating the obvious, the job of the Director of Central Intelligence is not to sell policy to Joe Public. That’s a slam dunk.

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

The scoop on Don Young

2007-04-29T19:09:00.000-06:00

On April 23, I wrote a note about Don Young in which I said, “The Jack Abramoff/Tom Delay scandal relating to the Northern Mariana Islands, has Don Young’s fingerprints all over it,” and then I went to sleep.

The next morning, I woke to learn that “one of Young’s aides will be pleading guilty to Abramoff related corruption charges,” and I duly reported it in a note called Who knew? giving credit to the Anchorage Daily News.

Today, the Anchorage Daily News took up the challenge of linking Young to the Abramoff/Saipan scandal. Hats off to their reporter, a guy named Richard Mauer, pictured, who recently returned from Baghdad.

There’s another story here, one which is percolating up on Bill Moyers Journal. Why are we reading this kind of story in McClatchy papers but not in the the New York Times and the Washington Post?

In a nutshell, the New York Times and the Washington Post are hugely influential newspapers because every decision maker in the nation’s capital reads these papers. But this influence has a price. All of the Washington bureau reporters for these papers know that their subjects will read what they write. The cost of pissing off these insiders might be paid in restricted access. And so, the nation goes to war based on the uncritical reporting of folks like Judith Miller.

But McClatchy (f/k/a Knight-Ridder) doesn’t have to play that game. John Walcott, a skeptical reporter of the run-up to the war explains it this way on Bill Moyer’s Journal:

Our readers aren’t here in Washington. They aren’t up in New York. They aren’t the people who send other people’s kids to war. They’re the people who get sent to war.

And so, they can afford to dig deeper and question the official line.

Or it could just be that the McClatchy chain has reporters with shoe leather and balls. Guys like this Rich Mauer. Go get ’em Rich!

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

How to help ‘our candidates’

2007-04-28T13:41:00.000-06:00

Back on April 23rd, I wrote a little piece about Don Young. I stated at the time:

The thing that made me think of Don Young recently is that over on TPM Muckraker they are reporting that 25 senators have demanded that the administration give some answers about GSA chief, Lurita Doan. Seems she has been trying to find a way to use the considerable buying power of the federal government to “help our [Republican] candidates.” In this effort, she employed a PowerPoint presentation which you can see here. (pdf)

I thought about it a little more since then, and here’s the question that I keep coming back to: How can the GSA help Republican candidates?

There are a couple of possibilities. One is by steering business into districts where the party has determined to make a stand because their incumbent candidate is vulnerable. By doing so, they can enable their candidate to point to his or her ability to bring home the bacon. As I pointed out in my Don Young piece, bringing home the bacon will win you votes. Not to put too fine a point on it, but it can be overdone. Witness the “Bridge to Nowhere.”

A more subtle variation on this text is that by spending money in a particular district, the GSA can improve economic circumstances there. Improved economic circumstances translate to increased satisfaction with the status quo, which in turn inures to the benefit of the incumbents. The problem here is that it is too subtle, too slow-working and too unreliable. This sort of program doesn’t get done at the management level that Ms. Doan was addressing with her PowerPoint presentation.

Here’s the real deal: If you want to engage in pork barrel politics, the way to do it is to get an earmark in some Christmas tree bill, and then show up at a ribbon-cutting ceremony. That’s the way to improve a local economy. But more importantly, that’s one way to make people feel good about their local incumbent. Notice that this does not involve the GSA.

So, how then can the administrator of the GSA help “our candidates?”

Let’s say you are a manufacturer of ballpoint pens in one of those districts that the Republicans need to defend. A contract for $20 million dollars worth of ballpoints can have a pronounced effect on your bottom line. So much so, that you might be grateful to the congressman or woman who steered the contract your way. It may even be enough to encourage you to make a big donation to that Congress member’s re-election campaign.

You know, a big donation would enable a candidate to pay for a media campaign. That’s another way to make people feel good about their local incumbent. Come to think of it, this technique works even if the candidate is a challenger.

So why is this a scandal? The answer is that if you are steering business to a company in order to get contributions to your Republican campaign committee, or even to the candidate’s campaign, and there is an explicit quid pro quo, then it starts to look a lot like you are shaking down local businesses for bribes.

And there’s a law against that.

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

Another brilliant philippic from Keith Olbermann

2007-04-26T10:54:00.000-06:00

Crooks and Liars had the following links to Keith Olbermann’s scathing Special Comment last night about the rank partisan fearmongering speech Rudy Giuliani gave before a New Hampshire Republican meeting Tuesday (CSPAN stream).

Download | Play Download | Play

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

Who knew?

2007-04-24T10:32:00.000-06:00

Who knew when I posted about Don Young last night that I would wake up to find the Anchorage Daily News reporting that one of Young’s aides will be pleading guilty to Abramoff related corruption charges. Of course, the article states that Young is not implicated. I wonder if it would be more accurate to state “Congressman Young is not implicated yet.”

Anyway, here’s the lede:

A former aide to a committee chaired by Alaska Rep. Don Young is expected to plead guilty today to a federal conspiracy charge in connection with convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

Mark Zachares, who was part of Young’s Transportation Committee staff between 2002 and 2004, was named in charging documents Monday alleging a pattern of rewards and favors that he and Abramoff termed their “two year plan.”

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

Don Young

2007-04-23T18:21:00.000-06:00

When the next congressional elections occur, Don Young will have been a member of the House of Representatives for 35 years, representing Alaska, a state where the average age of residents is below 34. He, himself, will be 75.

In 2008, he received 57% of the vote, down somewhat from his previous performances, but hardly anything to make him worry, or even campaign. Diane Benson, his Democratic opponent, ran a good campaign, which some regarded as the first significant challenge to the man who calls himself the “Congressman for all Alaskans.” The activist playwright, actress and poet received roughly 40% of the vote.

Big Mitch feels that she didn’t hit hard enough. The Jack Abramoff/Tom Delay scandal relating to the Northern Mariana Islands, has Don Young’s fingerprints all over it. In 2000, the Senate unanimously passed Sen. Frank Murkowski’s (R-AK) Northern Mariana Islands worker rights reform bill. Basically the bill was intended to address the slave-like working conditions in Saipan, where garment manufacturers produce clothing labeled “Made in America.” Don Young blocked the bill and so it was never considered in the House of Representatives. Given the working conditions there – which included forced abortions for women pressed into prostitution – this could have been a good issue.

Lately, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports that records show that Young’s campaign paid a $25,000 retainer to a law firm because the feds are looking into new truck-hauling rules that Young helped push through in 2005 as part of a major transportation spending bill. Dennis Troha, a Wisconsin businessman who personally benefited from the measure gave the Young $20,000 and he, too, has lawyered up.

All of which would make you think that Young is vulnerable in 2008. But you would be overlooking the fact that he brings home the bacon, and that counts for a lot in Alaska. After all, we are talking about a guy who in 1995, during the controversy relating to the homoerotic art of Robert Mapplethorpe, told an assembly of high school students that he opposed federal funding for any art that portrayed people doing “offensive things.” Pressed for an example by an inquisitive student, Young quickly answered, “Butt-fucking.” It’s pretty hard to defend his choice of words, but he gave it the old college try: He said that his answer would have lacked impact if he had used milder words.

The thing that made me think of Don Young recently is that over on TPM Muckraker they are reporting that 25 senators have demanded that the administration give some answers about GSA chief, Lurita Doan. Seems she has been trying to find a way to use the considerable buying power of the federal government to “help our [Republican] candidates.” In this effort, she employed a PowerPoint presentation which you can see here. (pdf)

Interestingly, said PowerPoint presentation indicates that Don Young may be vulnerable, and more importantly, that he may decline to run. It’s time for a Democrat to start gearing up to run for Congress.

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

Everyone knows…

2007-04-23T10:51:00.000-06:00

Everyone knows that the Congress is going to cave in to the President and send him an emergency spending bill without a deadline for withdrawing from Iraq. That’s because the Congress doesn’t have the spine to stand up to him, even though Big Mitch gave them a roadmap about how to do it.

By now, everyone knows that Harry Reid said, “I believe myself that the secretary of state, the secretary of defense — and you have to make your own decision as to what the president knows — that this war is lost, and that the surge is not accomplishing anything, as indicated by the extreme violence in Iraq yesterday.”

Everyone knows that Harry Reid is correct. Even William F. Buckley is saying the war has failed. The generals who say that are promptly fired, but everyone knows King George the Incompetent is not sending in 20,000 more troops because things are going so well. Everyone knows that our military is stretched beyond its limit. And deep within our hearts, everyone knows that this won’t be the last surge that Dubya proposes.

Want to know what the GI's in Iraq think? Look here:
Everyone knows that el Generalissimo Gonzales embarrassed himself last week. His testimony was incredible, incomplete, and internally inconsistent. His defense was that he takes responsibility for mistakes that were made, but no mistakes were made. He says he was in charge, but he didn’t know where the plan to fire 8 U. S. Attorneys came from. He says he thought it was a bad idea, but his chief of staff went forward with it anyway.

CORRECTION: Not everyone knows. Incredibly, the man Bill Maher calls “President Shit-for-brains” took the time today to tell us that Gonzo “is an honest, honorable man, in whom I have confidence.” He went on to say that Gonzales’ testimony “increased my confidence” in his ability to lead the Justice Department. He also said that he hadn't heard the testimony: he's relying on staff reports.

Congress’s power is in the power of the purse. If they are to stop this war, that is how it must be done. Congress can’t de-fund Alberto Gonzales, and impeachment is too disruptive. But everyone knows that he must go.

Someone in Congress needs to stand up and say that if King George the Incompetent has complete confidence in el Generalissimo Gonzo, then he can’t be trusted to run the war without some restraint imposed by Congress.

Memo to POTUS: You want an emergency spending bill to fund your war? Show Gonzales the door.

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

Blame the Victim

2007-04-20T15:56:00.000-06:00

Keith Olbermann has been handing out Worst Person in the World awards to right-wing pundits like John Derbyshire of the National Review On-line. Derbyshire blamed the victims who, he says, did not resist the well-armed psychotic murderer in Blacksburg, Va:

Where was the spirit of self-defense here? Setting aside the ludicrous campus ban on licensed conceals, why didn't anyone rush the guy? It’s not like this was Rambo, hosing the place down with automatic weapons. He had two handguns for goodness’ sake—one of them reportedly a .22.

Another Olbermann honoree, Nathaniel Blake, seconds the emotion in Where were the men?:

College classrooms have scads of young men who are at their physical peak, and none of them seems to have done anything beyond ducking, running, and holding doors shut.

Well, of course they are beneath contempt for their ersatz macho.

Nobody knows what was going on in the room where Seung-hui Cho did his murderous deeds. Moreover, nobody knows what he or she would have done in those circumstances. And, as the story does come out, we learn about incredible acts of heroism.

Then there are the regular right-wing nut cases, like Rush Limbaugh, who said,

Now, if this Virginia Tech shooter had an ideology, what do you think it was? This guy had to be a liberal. You start railing against the rich, and all these other things? This guy is a liberal. He was turned into a liberal somewhere along the line. So it’s a liberal that committed this act.

Let’s take a moment to talk about the victims. Since I know nothing about the individuals who were killed or maimed, I will not debase myself by talking about them. But in a sense all of America was victimized by this crime.

The right wing political dialogue is characterized by bullying and intimidation. Anyone who has tuned into Bill O’Reilly knows this. Indeed, O’Reilly revels it. Take for an example his defense of airing the Cho videotape originally mailed to NBC:

Evil must be exposed and Cho was evil. You can see it in his face, hear it in his voice. All of us who saw the tape will never forget it. And it made me and millions of others angry. Once evil is acknowledged, steps can be taken to contain it. And once anger is in the air, policy can change.

Do you get it? In O’Reilly’s weltanschauung, there’s good and there’s evil in the world, and the only way to confront evil, is with anger. And lest we forget, we have recently seen the firing of Don Imus for his bullyboy attack on the student athletes at Rutgers, followed in short order, by Tom DeLay trying to throw his weight around to punish Rosie O’Donnell.

Am I out of line to say that on the right side of the political spectrum there is a culture of bullying? Hell, I’ve called those bastards fascists, so this is nothing new. In his 1989 book, Our Contempt for Weakness: Nazi Norms and Values — and Our Own, Norwegian scholar Harald Ofstad argues that the bully mindset is at the core of the fascist personality, and it especially reveals itself in misogyny.

Today we read in the National Post (Canada) that Barbara Coloroso, an author and expert on bullying opines that Cho was a “bullied bully.” As a special-education teacher who was living in Columbine during the 1999 high school massacre, Ms. Coloroso believes most school killers are victims of extensive bullying. Of the 23 high school massacres she has studied, 18 of the gunmen had been bullied. Certainly, we see in Cho’s history of stalking and his later statements, his disdain for women.

I won’t blame the victims of this horrible crime. But it is right for us to look to the greater society and ask ourselves what could have caused this young man’s mental illness to manifest with such tragic consequences? Could it be the culture of bullying that is part and parcel of the right-wing zeitgeist?

I am just asking.

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

E-prime, or “To be or not to be.”

2007-04-19T17:48:00.000-06:00

In 1965, D. David Bourland, Jr. proposed E-Prime in an essay entitled A Linguistic Note: Writing in E-Prime. The term refers to a modified English vocabulary, which excises all forms of the verb “to be.” The passive voice does not exist in E-Prime. More directly to the point, the proponents of E-Prime say that it forces the speaker to think differently. Consider the difference between the English sentence, “The movie was good,” and “I liked the movie.” The latter acknowledges the subjective nature of the speaker’s experience of the movie. Thus, E-Prime promotes clarity of thought.

E-Prime does tend to eliminate tautological arguments. My mind turned to E-Prime today, as I listened to a local radio show discussing the recent decision of the Supreme Court upholding the law outlawing a particular abortion procedure. A caller argued that the question is “whether or not the fetus is a human being.”

Calling a fetus a human being may lead to one answer, and doing the opposite may result in a different answer. As Shakespeare said, “What’s in a name?” If the decision to call a fetus a human being dictates the outcome, then the desired outcome dictates the decision. When someone says, “a fetus is a human,” he or she intends to say, “I recognize a fetus as something with rights I wish to protect, even if doing so comes at the expense of an innocent woman, as in the case of rape or incest.”

Big Mitch comes to the opposite conclusion. I value the right of a woman to control her own body more than any rights that a fetus may or may not possess, whether or not we define a fetus as a human being. Furthermore, I don’t accept the proposition that calling a fetus a human being inexorably leads to the conclusion that the mother’s reproductive rights must be restricted.

Consider this case: A virtuoso violinist with a rare blood type becomes ill and needs a transfusion. His devotees determine that only you can serve as a donor. You are assured that blood donation poses no risks to you. Do you have a right to refuse? If you do refuse, does anyone have the right to compel you over your objection? Do you reach a different conclusion if instead of a violinist we hypothesized a cancer researcher whose students argue that his future work may greatly reduce human suffering? Do you have a right to refuse if a street person needs blood that only you can donate?

Note that in each of these cases, nobody can question that a “person’s” life depends on the your willingness to donate blood. Still, we place a high enough value on the autonomy of the individual that we respect the right of people to withhold consent to the taking of their blood.

Also note that in the above hypothetical, we stipulated that blood donation poses no risks to the donor. The case of pregnancy always presents risks, and until yesterday, sufficiently severe risks to the health of a woman constituted good cause for an abortion.

Over on Alternet Amy Goodman put it this way:

The Supreme Court's decision to uphold a ban on late-term abortion without an exception for the health of the mother sends a signal that, in many respects, the court thinks legislators, not doctors, are the ones best positioned to make health decisions.

In other words, the decision of the Supreme Court means that in the future the decision of a woman either to get or not to get an abortion may include Shakespeare’s existential question: “To be, or not to be?”

I wonder how one would say that in E-Prime.

“… and tell ’em big Mitch sent ya!”

Thirty-three

2007-04-18T11:09:00.000-06:00

Thirty-three tragic deaths occurred this week on the campus of Virginia Tech. The event is justifiably called a massacre. I judge the suicide death of Seung-Hui Cho to be a tragedy no less than the others, since it is an obvious case of mental illness gone untreated with lethal results.

Some, notably Keith Olbermann, Larry Johnson and Thom. Hartman, have had the guts to point out that a similar number of young Americans are killed in Iraq every ten days or so. Why, these worthies ask, are they not grieved for in the same way? It is a question that deserves an answer.

The answer is that the students didn’t sign up to put their lives on the line. As I wrote here,

When brave Americans sign up for military service, they say in effect that they are willing to lay down their lives for our country. Such love cannot be abused. We must be sure of our purposes and our prospects for success, if we are to ask these valiant men and women to risk, and in some cases, to sacrifice their lives.

Of course, we weren’t sure of our purposes and our prospects for success when America sent troops into Iraq.

The civil war in Iraq takes 30 or more innocent lives every week, out of a country less than 1/10th the size of the United States. For the families and loved ones of these Iraqi casualties, their death is as senseless and achingly unfair as the loss of those innocent Hokies is to the Virginia Tech community.

The murderer in Blacksburg is being described as mentally ill. The killing in Iraq is equally senseless. It’s just plain crazy.

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

Vox populi, Vox Dei

2007-04-16T19:35:00.000-06:00

It bothers me a great deal that the right wing gets to use the media to re-publish the most outrageous lies of the Party of Bush, and rarely gets called on it. It seems to me that the right wing, exemplified by the Fox network, routinely engages in what can fairly be called hate speech. Every so often, Bill O’Reilley goes off the deep end, and he may be ridiculed on the Daily Show or Olbermann, but by and large his rants go unchallenged. Ann Coulter can say the most hateful things imaginable, but tell me what consequences have befallen her for calling John Edwards a faggot, or saying that 9/11 widows were reveling in their husbands death? None.

It is for this reason that from time to time, I have toyed with the idea of calling for a boycott of companies that advertise on the Fox network.

The problem is that if you are committed to ideals of free speech, you must realize that such an activity raises grave concerns. The idea of boycotting a media outlet to influence the content, smacks of fascism. It is this nagging fear that has caused me to hold off on advocating such an action.

But if you are not committed to ideals of democracy, then why not call for a boycott of companies who sponsors those you disagree with? Consider the case of Tom DeLay, the indicted and disgraced former congressman who demands that Rosie O’Donnell be fired as retribution for what happened to Don Imus. You can read his despicable call to direct action here.

What is it about Rosie that irritates right wing-nuts in the way that calling a high-achieving student athlete a “nappy headed ho” disgusts all right-thinking people?

In "DeLay v. O’Donnell, Round 1," Jim David puts forth a convincing argument that it’s because “she's a liberal, loudmouthed lesbian who has opinions, and conservatives just can't stand it.”

Right-wingers will tell you that their popularity means that they are speaking the truth to power. It’s crazy talk. As it has been said, “Nec audiendi qui solent dicere, vox populi, Vox Dei, quum tumultuositas vulgi semper insaniae proxima sit.” (Neither are those who are apt to say ‘the voice of the masses is the Voice of God’ worth listening to, since the tumult of the rabble is always close to insanity.)

The real lesson may just be that fascists like Tom DeLay will use any excuse to stifle opposing opinions. People who believe in the value of free speech are more circumspect.

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

REQUISCAT IN PACE ...

2007-04-11T11:05:00.000-06:00

Kurt Vonnegut
(1922-2007)

Imus in the morning, afternoon and evening.

2007-04-10T17:14:00.000-06:00

It’s a slow newsday. Chris Matthews took the day off and Hardball was moderated by David Gregory. The entire show devoted to Don Imus. Tucker was essentially pre-empted by a very moving press conference by the Rutgers’ women’s basketball team. You could not have watched it and not been moved by the story of this Cinderella team nor impressed by the maturity and poise of these young women athletes.

Big Mitch would be remiss if he did not weigh in on the subject.

Don Imus may be a good guy, but if he called one my daughters a “ho,” losing his radio show would be the least of his problems. Any questions?

Don Imus tried to defend himself by saying that he was only doing comedy. Mr. Imus, do you want to share a laugh? Your wife is a whore. Get it?

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

The President won’t support the troops.

2007-04-10T15:19:00.000-06:00

The President promises to veto the so-called “emergency” spending bill that will fund the continuing operations in Iraq. Four years into this war, how is it that we have an emergency lack of funds for the troops in harm’s way? Big Mitch remembers seeing a sign in a judge's chambers that said, “Poor planning on your part does not constitute an emergency.” But I digress.

King George has two gripes about the funding bill that is headed his way. First, there’s the pork that was added in to the bill to obtain passage. It is too easy for the mouthpieces of the Party of Bush to complain about subsidies for peanut farmers in a bill ostensibly to fund the war. They should remember that we have elected as many peanut farmers to the presidency as we have members of Congress in the last 30 years.

More directly to the point, the administration’s request for $100 billion contained only $50 billion for military operations. But I digress.

What people must realize is that without a little logrolling the bill to fund the war would not have passed. It is a reasonable interpretation of the last election – not to mention the polls – that people want the war to end, and that means now. In the face of that sentiment, which is fairly overwhelming in some blue districts, voting in favor of funds to perpetuate the war is a repudiation of what members were elected to do. Please pass the pork: a little lard greases the skids.

Vetoing the bill is a stupid thing to do and therefore, we should expect Dumb Dubya to do it. It’s time to ask the question that we should have asked before we toppled Saddam, viz, “What next?”

This Congress was elected to end the war, and the way to do it is to exercise the power of the purse. But King George and his loyal scriveners have a pretty good talking point in that the funds are necessary for the troops. Well, do you support the troops or don’t you?

It’s a phony argument, not that we are surprised to hear it from King George the Incompetent. It is he who is vetoing funding for the troops. In point of fact, the bill passed in the House of Representatives contains 53 billion for military operations, including Iraq, and the Senate bill contains $49 billion. The administration’s request was only for 50 billion for military operations, out of a total request of $100 billion.

All right, then. Let’s talk about how the cow ate the cabbage. [fn. 1]

Sadly, a lot of the troops are coming home with head injuries. What are we going to do about that? Traumatic brain injuries [TBI] are some of the most horrific non-fatal injuries of the war. They are intractable in the current state of medical knowledge and they rob the victims of their dignity and in some cases, their personality. There is no prosthesis for the brain.

At present, the best hope for finding a medical cure for TBI is in stem cell research. Let’s see a bill to fund the war, with a timeline, and instead of the pork that so offends the Chimp-in-Chief, let’s have funding for stem-cell research. Well, Dubya, do you support the troops, or don’t you?

When the president of the United States says that we must support the troops, it may be time to ask another famous question, which was first posed by Tonto, the Lone Ranger’s faithful companion when they found themselves surrounded by hostile Indians. The Lone Ranger looked at Tonto and said, “It looks like we are done for, old friend.” To which the noble Tonto replied, “What you mean ‘we,’ White Man?”

Who is the “we” that must support the troops? Is it the richest Americans who saw their share of the tax burden go down during this war? Why not send a bill to the President repealing some of the tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans and use the funds to support the troops? Well, do they support the troops, or don’t they?

As Finley Peter Dunne observed, “Politics ain’t beanbag.” The Democrats have a tough row to hoe if they want to stop the war. But that’s why they were elected, and that’s why they get to pass out the big bucks. If they want to fulfill their responsibility, they have to be able to stand up to the phony attack that they don’t support the troops, and knock it down. If the President wants to keep vetoing bills to support the troops, send him some more of them.

Americans support the troops, and want them to come home on a timeline. Dubya doesn’t agree, and that’s why his approval rating is less than Sanjaya Malakar’s. That’s also why there’s a Congress led by the Democratic Party. It is their duty to let the public know that His Royal Codpiece is standing in the way of funding the troops because he doesn't want to bring them home.

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

[fn. 1] “An expression to indicate the speaker is laying it on the line, telling it like it is, getting down to brass tacks - with the connotation of telling someone what he or she needs to know but probably doesn't want to hear. The expression has its roots in a story about an elephant that escaped from the zoo and wandered into a woman’s cabbage patch. The woman observed the elephant pulling up her cabbages with its trunk and eating them. She called the police to report that there was a cow in her cabbage patch pulling up cabbages with its tail. When the surprised police officer inquired as to what the cow was doing with the cabbages, the woman replied, ‘You wouldn't believe me if I told you!’” Source.

What’s a 100 million dollars between friends?

2007-03-31T22:21:00.000-06:00

It is Saturday, my people’s Sabbath, and so you might think I would take a break from publicizing Republican scandals. No can do. They keep coming, and if I take time off, I just fall too far behind.

So here’s your Shabbat parsha … *

As we all know, the Republicans snuck an unnoticed provision into the USA Patriot Act that enabled them to appoint U.S. Attorneys without Senate confirmation. One of the beneficiaries of that act was a certain Rove protégé named Tim Griffin. His previous claim to fame was that he engaged in what appears to be a felonious plot to suppress the African-American vote in Arkansas. See, Had your fill of Republican scandals? Here’s another for you..

Well here’s yet another.

U.S. Attorney Jeffrey A. Taylor was appointed directly by Attorney General Gonzales without Senate confirmation when D.C.’s U.S. Attorney, Kenneth Wainstein, was promoted to assistant attorney general for national security. Prior to that Taylor worked as counsel to Attorney Generals Aschcroft and Gonzales for four years. And before that he worked as an aide to Senator Orrin Hatch.

Last Wednesday a judge ruled that in the largest tax prosecution ever, the treasury can’t recoup at least $100 million in restitution. Why not? According to U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman the binding plea agreement listed the wrong statute and failed to include any discussion of probation as is routine in such deals.

This is being described as a blunder. The Judge said, “I’ve come to the conclusion, very reluctantly, that I have no authority to order restitution. . . . This is a very poorly drafted agreement.”

Am I the first person to wonder aloud if maybe this “mistake” was not completely an innocent one? I am just wondering. It wasn’t poorly drafted from Walter Anderson’s point of view, was it?

This same Jeffrey A. Taylor may have a huge role in the upcoming confrontation with Ms. Monica Goodling. She is expected to take the fifth, as she has promised to do in letters to the Senate leadership, and more recently to the House leadership, too. For reasons that I described here, her claim of privilege is bullshit. If a congressional committee decides that she ought to be prosecuted for contempt of congress, responsibility for that would rest on Mr. Taylor.

For that reason, Congress may want to consider alternative means of coercing her testimony. As we all know, there is the immunity route.

There’s also another route. Congress can direct the Sergeant at Arms to arrest her, and let her fight her way out of jail in court. They may not have covered that at Regent Law School.

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

* Shabbat parsha literally means, Sabbath portion. It usually refers to the weekly portion of the 5 Books of Moses that is read during Sabbath services.

Don't resign, Fredo! Stay on for the sake of the children!

2007-03-29T19:31:00.000-06:00

On March 22nd El generalissimo Gonzales told a crowd in St. Louis Mo. that he's happy to be out of Washington - if just for a day. “I'm not going to resign. I'm going to stay focused on protecting our kids” Since then he has been traveling the country with Ernie Allen, president and CEO of the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children to promote a program called “Project Safe Childhood.”

Samuel Johnson said that “Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.” My experience teaches me that the real low-lifes will hide behind the need to protect children. Could this be el Generalissimo Gonzales’s game?

For two years a scandal has been swept under the rug in Texas. Hundreds of complaints of sexual abuse of children in the Texas juvenile justice system went unheeded. Texas Ranger Brian Burzynski made numerous attempts, beginning in early 2005, to get local, state and federal prosecutors to investigate allegations that teachers, administrators and guards had sex with minor male inmates.

Burzynski testified on March 8th to the Texas legislature’s Joint Committee on Operation and Management of the TYC. He complained that his investigation was stonewalled by everyone up the line, up to and including Alberto Gonzales. All refused to prosecute, he claimed, despite being presented evidence of sexual abuse at the Pyote school. At the conclusion of his testimony, Burzynski received a standing ovation from the joint committee and audience in the room. You can read more here. Fair warning: the reading about the abuse of children in the Texas Youth Commission is not for the faint of heart.

This can’t be good for el Generalissimo “Fredo” Gonzales.

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

Is this being tape recorded?

2007-03-29T14:25:00.000-06:00

Today, the Boston Globe reports on Senator Ted Kennedy’s accusations regarding the firing of 8 U.S. Attorneys:

At least two of the eight US attorneys fired by the administration refused to investigate spurious claims of voter fraud that were initiated by Republicans, Kennedy said. Two of the new US attorneys, meanwhile, had documented records of pursuing GOP goals, one as a Justice Department official and the other as a top aide to White House political adviser Karl Rove, he said.

Then there was U.S. Attorney Paul Charlton of Arizona. Just before he was fired, he opened an investigation of bribery and vote-selling involving Congressman Richard Renzi. Of course, this couldn’t have anything to do with his firing. We are told he was sacked because of a policy difference with the administration. But what was that policy difference?

William Moschella, Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General, told the House Judiciary Committee on March 6th that the Department of Justice has a policy against G-men tape recording the confessions of their suspects. Charlton disagreed.

One must wonder why this policy exists when it is becoming widely understood by police departments and others that taping and videotaping interrogations protects the officers from baseless accusations of unfair interrogation techniques, and protects suspects from being misquoted. It should not be overlooked that the practice also helps to uncover actual instances of unfair interrogation techniques.

For 22 years, it has been the law here in Alaska that the recording of a suspect’s interrogations in a place of detention is a reasonable and necessary safeguard, essential to adequate protection of accused’s right to counsel, right against self-incrimination and ultimately his or her right to a fair trial. State v. Stephan, 711 P.2d 1156 (Alaska 1985).

I suppose this helps explain why the White House is so adamant about there being no transcripts or recordings of Karl Rove and Harriet Miers’ testimony.

"... and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!"

Had your fill of Republican scandals? Here's another for you.

2007-03-28T23:53:00.000-06:00

On Chris Matthews tonight, I heard a typical Republican mouthpiece (in this case, Katie O’Bierne) push the Party of Bush’s talking point: there was no crime committed in the firing of the eight U.S. Attorneys. As I have argued elsewhere, it is a crime to sack a U.S. Attorney in order to obstruct an investigation into corruption. But tonight, we find new evidence of an even more egregious crime.

First, the background. As you may recall, one of the stated purposes of firing some of the U.S. Attorneys was that they were not coming down hard enough on voter fraud. Problem is, as the New York Times pointed out, there is no voter fraud in the United States. Well, that is if you ignore Ann Coulter, and who wouldn’t want to do that?

Voter fraud is a code, understood by the Party of Bush loyalists, and it means voter suppression. And it is the next scandal.

One of the fired U.S. Attorneys is H.E. “Bud” Cummins of the Eastern District of Arkansas. He was sacked to make way for Rove protégé Tim Griffin. Tim Griffin’s main experience is reported to have been as an opposition researcher for the Republican National Committee. It turns out that there’s more.

On March 9, GregPalast.com reported that Tim Griffin was the hidden hand behind a scheme to wipe out the voting rights of 70,000 citizens prior to the 2004 election, according to BBC Television. How did he accomplish this anti-democratic treachery?

It’s called “caging” and it works like this. The RNC sent first-class letters to new voters in minority precincts marked, “Do not forward.” Lists of vulnerable voters were discovered, and they had many sheets. Several of these sheets contained nothing but soldiers, other sheets, homeless shelters. Targets included the Jacksonville Naval Air Station in Florida and that city’s State Street Rescue Mission. Another target, Edward Waters College, a school for African-Americans.

If these voters were not currently at their home voting address, they were tagged as “suspect” and their registration wiped out or their ballot challenged and not counted. Of course, these ‘cages’ captured thousands of students, the homeless and those in the military though they are legitimate voters.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 makes it a felony to challenge voters en masse where race is an element in the targeting. Why am I not surprised that a Rove protégé is a criminal operative?

My favorite part of the story, by the way, is how it came to light. BBC Television reports “Griffin made a wee mistake. Instead of sending the emails — potential evidence of a crime — to email addresses ending with the domain name “@GeorgeWBush.com” he sent them to “@GeorgeWBush.ORG.” A website run by prankster John Wooden who owns “GeorgeWBush.org.” When Wooden got the treasure trove of Rove-ian ravings, he sent them to us.”

The White House picked a felon to be a U.S. Attorney, and a he’s bumbler, too. Is it any wonder that he doesn’t want to have to stand for confirmation in the Senate?

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

Support the Troops. It's not just a good idea. It's the law.

2007-03-28T19:57:00.000-06:00

We read on the Huffington Post that Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi urged the President to “Calm down with the threats, there’s a new Congress in town.” She went on to say, “We respect your constitutional role, we want you to respect ours.”

Nice, as far as it goes, but it doesn’t go far enough. It’s time for the House Democrats to start issuing some threats of their own. Try this one on for size. If Dumb Dubya vetoes the emergency funding bill, Congress will not pass another.

Don’t feel threatened yet, Dubya? Ponder this: Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States confers on Congress the following powers, inter alia,

To raise and support Armies …

To provide and maintain a Navy

When Congress passes legislation to raise and support Armies and to maintain a Navy, it is a bit of a dereliction of duty to not actually support the Army or maintain the Navy.

What to do with a President who is derelict in his duties? Coincidentally, the Constitution of the United States has something to say on that subject, too. See, Article II, Section 4:

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

So, Dubya – do you think the Dems are bluffing? Well, that’s another coincidence, because Big Mitch thinks you are bluffing, too.

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

Jack Abramoff is this generation's Alexander Butterfield.

2007-03-26T23:50:00.000-06:00

Remember July 16, 1973 when Alexander Butterfield revealed to the Senate Watergate committee that there was a secret taping system in the White House? It was the beginning of the end of a tyrannical Republican imperial presidency. What made me think of that?

Skip forward to today. Across the pond, The Financial Times of London is reporting that the congressional investigation into the firing of eight US attorneys has revealed an e-mail exchange in which J. Scott Jennings, the special assistant to the president and deputy director of public affairs, used an RNC e-mail account to communicate with Kyle Sampson, the former chief of staff to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales who is due to testify about the firing on Thursday.

It turns out that the Abramoff investigation revealed a pattern of using Republican National Committee email accounts to avoid getting evidence on the White House server.

Now that they have been busted, Henry Waxman has notified the RNC not to destroy any evidence or face the possibility of an obstruction of justice investigation.

This is going to get interesting.

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

It is my privilege to announce …

2007-03-26T18:50:00.000-06:00

The Huffington Post is reporting,

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’ liaison with the White House will refuse to answer questions at upcoming Senate hearings about the firings of eight U.S. attorneys, citing her Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination, her lawyer says.

The top aide is Ms. Monica Goodling, counsel to el Generalissimo Gonzo. Asserting the fifth amendment privilege is not an admission of guilt. No inference of guilt should arise from the assertion of the privilege. Yeah, sure.

Here’s what we know so far: her attorneys have spoken her. What they said is, of course, confidential. "I have decided to follow by lawyer's advice and respectfully invoke my constitutional right," she said in a statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Wait a second! Did she just waive her confidentiality by revealing the substance of her conversation with her attorney? I am just asking.

Anyway, we do know that at the conclusion of that conversation, the attorneys had a well-founded fear of prosecution. This is a prerequisite to the assertion of the privilege. When you take the fifth, you are saying something much more than, “No thanks, I would rather not testify.” You are saying that if you get on the stand, take an oath, and tell the truth, you might just get your tit in a wringer.

Her lawyer invoked the case of Scooter Libby in support of the argument that even innocent people can get caught up in a prosecution for perjury. This strange assertion was re-iterated on Hardball by John Yoo, a former Deputy Asst. Attorney General, who apparently is now paying the mortgage by shilling for the Party of Bush.

What these worthies seem to have forgotten is that Scooter Libby had a dream team defense and still managed to get convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice beyond a reasonable doubt. Strange, to say the least, that Ms. Goodling would like to be lumped with that convicted felon.

Of course, what she would seem to be trying to suggest is that if she tells the truth, the politically motivated powers that be might still prosecute her. Interestingly, this argument was explicitly rejected in the case of United States v. Susan McDougal. Yes, that Susan McDougal, who refused to testify at a Ken Starr chamber proceeding in relation to the Whitewater non-scandal.

In holding that Ms. McDougal had no fifth amendment privilege, the court noted that the order compelling her to testify provided:

That no testimony or other information compelled under this order (or any information directly or indirectly derived from such testimony or other information) may be used against SUSAN H. McDOUGAL in any criminal case, except a prosecution for perjury, giving a false statement, or otherwise failing to comply with this order.

Hey, let’s give Ms. Goodling use immunity for her testimony! That would take away her privilege against self-incrimination.

Of course, before we do that, we might want to know what is it for which she has a well-founded fear of prosecution. Since Ms. Goodling has decided to talk about the advice her attorney gave her, I wonder if she would answer just a few questions about that advice.

As I explained in The Pleasure of the President there are two different categories of crimes that might have been committed. First, there’s the whole misleading Congress thing. It’s serious, and it’s not something that Congress likes to overlook. But it is also a little tenuous. Let’s not forget that Goodling didn’t testify in Congress. Sure, as I pointed out, Kyle Sampson may be on the hook because his failure to prevent Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty from misleading Congress. But I am not feeling Ms. Goodling had a role to play in McNulty’s testimony before Congress. Tell me if I am wrong.

The other category of crime that might have been committed in connection with the firing of eight U.S. Attorneys has to do with anyone who corruptly “obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so,” including U.S. attorney investigations. Obstruction of Justice is a crime under 18 U.S.C. § 1512 (c).

You know, the funny thing is that if Ms. Goodling’s attorneys have a well-founded fear of prosecution for obstruction of justice, then you just got to think someone else ought to be equally fearful. This crime, if it was committed, wasn’t committed by Ms. Goodling acting alone.

So, Ms. Goodling, tell us. What are you afraid of?

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

I told you so.

2007-03-25T23:08:00.000-06:00

(What follows is an essay I wrote on the eve of the invasion of Iraq. Sad to say, much of what I predicted has come to pass.)

It’s War.
By Mitchel J. Schapira

War is Hell. America is poised at the brink of waging a huge war. There are over a quarter million troops in what almost certainly will be the Iraqi theater of operations. Though we are assured that the military will take every care to avoid civilian casualties, it is inconceivable that this war, if it comes, will not kill thousands of innocent civilians. It is reasonable to think that 100,000 Iraqi civilians will perish, and given the demographics of Iraq half can be expected to be under the age of 16 years old.

The war aims being what they are, the war will surely involve urban warfare. That means that Americans must be prepared to take casualties. It is no figure of speech to say that the decision to wage war is a life and death decision, and on a large scale, too.

Having said all that, I am not a pacifist. War is hell, to be sure, but it is not something which I oppose in all circumstances. The horrors of war, being almost incomprehensible, impose upon us a duty to seek peace whenever we can. I believe in a loving God Who calls upon us to love all of His children. This is my perspective as a citizen of the world.

But I am not just a citizen of the world. I am an American. My loyalty to America, my love of country, and if I may say it without sounding sappy, my patriotism inform all of my decisions. The problem is that it is hard to say what is in America’s interests.

When brave Americans sign up for military service, they say in effect that they are willing to lay down their lives for our country. Such love cannot be abused. We must be sure of our purposes and our prospects for success, if we are to ask these valiant men and women to risk, and in some cases, to sacrifice their lives.

One need not catalogue the horrors of war to make the case against it. But it should be observed that it is not just loss of life and limb that we wish to avoid. The costs of this war will be stupendous and estimates that factor in the reconstruction reach $200 Billion. That’s real money but my bet is that the $2x10 to the 11th is a gross underestimate. So in addition to the direct human costs, we must figure in the suffering that this money could have alleviated at home and elsewhere.

Fifty million people around the world are going to die from AIDS in a matter of days or months or at the most a few years unless they are treated immediately with the life-saving drugs that are now available. $200,000,000,000 buys a lot of medicine, or to put it more concretely, a lot of lives.

War. What Is It Good For? Let’s examine the purposes of this war. First, the war is sold to us as a necessary component of the war on terror. This is an easy sell on the American people because the events of 9/11 have left us angry and scared. But fundamentally, the argument, as presented, is fallacious.

Notwithstanding the fact that a shockingly high 40% of Americans think otherwise, there were no Iraqis among the 9/11 terrorists, and there is no evidence linking Saddam and Osama Bin Ladin. Indeed, Saddam’s secular (though totalitarian) state is anathema to Bin Ladin.

Like so many aspects of this situation, the reality is more complex than the sound bites used to promote policy. It is undoubtedly true that Saddam Hussein gives money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. And Saddam’s closest ally in the Arab world is Syria, state sponsor of terrorist organizations such as Hizbollah and Hamas. So, though the arguments offered against Saddam relating to September 11th are false, the links between Saddam and terrorism are real.

Let us assume there is a link between Saddam and terror besides the Israel connection. One question that needs to be answered is, “Will the war make us safer?” Intelligence services are widely reported to have warned that the war will make terrorist attacks more likely, increasing our risk rather than our safety.

Is it the task of America to fight terrorism wherever and however it rears its ugly head? This goes to the big question of what is to be America’s role in the world. Should America be the policeman of the world? I don’t have much trouble answering that one in the negative. But America does have a special relationship to Israel, and support for Palestinian suicide/murder bombers is not just terrorism in the abstract. Rather, it is an act of war against our strategic ally. On balance, I am prepared to say that Saddam must go, and the sooner the better.

Unfortunately, that doesn’t answer the question of whether or not America should go to war against Iraq. It is only logical to go from Saddam-must-go to we-must-invade if that is the only way or at least the best way to depose Saddam.

Before we address that question, we must take note of the other justifications for the war. Saddam has been said to have a nuclear weapons program. The U.N. inspectors say otherwise. We can only say that the current regime of inspectors is keeping the Iraqi nuclear program at bay, and there is no reason to think that Saddam will threaten us anytime soon with nuclear weapons. Even the White House has dropped this line of argument.

Saddam, we are told, possesses chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction. I believe it. We are told that Saddam is ruthless, and the inference is that he would threaten us with these weapons. On this, I am much more skeptical. Saddam may be ruthless, but he is not crazy. The costs of attacking America with chemical or biological weapons are just too high. Again, the inspectors impose a significant deterrent.

Of course, we are told that Saddam has “gassed his own people.” Put aside the fact that the Kurds are not Saddam’s own people any more than are the Chasidim of Boro Park. What is especially irksome about this justification for war is that it was the United States that supplied targeting information for Saddam’s gas attack on Kurdistan. So if the argument is that Saddam is evil and therefore we should attack him, what does that say about his collaborators? Are they not evil, too? Shall they lead us into this war? Their names by the way are Rumsfield, Wolfowitz, Perle, and Powell.

And then there is the problem of the United Nations which illustrates the complexity of this debate. One could argue that the United Nations serves American interests in many ways, not least of which is by reducing the scourge of war. Should we wage war against Iraq to establish the principle that the previous U.N. resolutions calling for Iraqi disarmament under threat of severe consequences must be obeyed? Or does proceeding to war without Security Council approval marginalize and thereby weaken the U.N.?

And what if it does? After all, we are talking about a Security Council which includes Syria, a state sponsor of terrorism. The United Nations does much which is good, some which is bad and a lot which is irrelevant. The posturing of Security Council members doesn’t impress me one way or the other, especially when one considers that France has a veto. France, it must be recalled, sold Iraq nuclear reactors, apparently under the impression that Iraq faced an impending shortage of fossil fuel. According to Bill Safire, France sold Iraq five tons of rocket fuel in violation of the U.N. Sanctions as recently as last April. So whether the war is good or bad for the U.N. is, simply put, not a worthy consideration here.

Don’t Worry; Be Happy The war will pit the American military against a regime that was to some degree disarmed 10 years ago, has little popular support, and has no realistic chance of military success. The American military might is awesome and overwhelming. Not to diminish the value of the lives that will be lost, it is reasonable to hope that within a short while, less than a month, the military objectives will be achieved, though not without costs.

Then what? The suggestion has been made that Americans will be welcomed as liberators, and that democracy will blossom in the desert, from whence it will spread throughout the Arab lands. Don’t believe it.

America has imposed a regime of sanctions on Iraq for a decade now, such that the 40% of Iraqis who are under the age of 14 cannot remember a time when clean drinking water, medicine and food were not limited by the sanctions. “UNICEF confirms that five to six thousand Iraqi children are dying unnecessarily every month due to the impact of sanctions, and that figure is probably modest,” Denis Halliday told a Congressional hearing in October 1998. Halliday, who had just resigned his post as U.N. Assistant Secretary General and head of the U.N. humanitarian mission in Iraq, spoke of the “tragic incompatibility of sanctions with the U.N. Charter and the convention on Human Rights.”

Though the Saddam regime could have traded oil for food and medicine, or taken other affirmative steps to avoid sanctions, it is too much to expect that the average Iraqi sees Saddam’s government as the responsible party for his or her deprivation. It is much more reasonable to think that after an initial show of gratitude, the Iraqi’s will chafe at the presence of Americans in their country, and feel the sting of the war which was brought to them by the United States. In six weeks, whatever goodwill there was, will be gone.

What will Iraq look like then? Here’s a worst case scenario provided by Mike Turner, a retired colonel and former policy planner for the Joint Chiefs of Staff on the Mideast and east Africa.

Now we've firmly committed ourselves to war with Iraq, and what is our political objective? To get Saddam. The uniformed Joint Staff in the Pentagon strongly opposed this plan early on. It requires an attack with a force half that of Desert Storm against an entrenched urban enemy renowned for its ruthlessness in defending its own survival. The uniformed Joint Staff was overridden, yet in so many horrifying ways this operation resembles Somalia, not Desert Storm, only with nerve gas and biological weapons. And without Turkey as a base to launch a northern assault, a dual-pronged attack will be all but impossible.

Perhaps we can pull this off, but here's a far worse scenario that's at least as likely. Within hours of our attack, Saddam launches Scuds on Israel. Israel's right-wing government launches a full-scale attack on Iraq, creating a holy war nightmare. Saddam, threatened with his own survival, uses chemical and biological weapons and human shields just as he has in the past. He torches his own oil fields, thousands of his own people are killed. Photos of American soldiers amid landscapes of Iraqi civilian bodies blanket the world press which aligns unanimously against the US. The US is condemned by NATO and the UN.

The war ends within a few weeks, but the crisis deepens. The US is left to administer a political vacuum in Iraq. Iran is emboldened to help the Shiites in the south. Disease breaks out, food and water are contaminated and the cost of the war skyrockets. The US economy is dealt a body blow, but the administration can find no credible way out. Britain's Prime Minister Blair is voted out of office.

Meanwhile, al-Qaeda, seeing an opportunity due to a shift in US focus, attacks a major US target. North Korea, emboldened by the distraction, ignores diplomatic efforts to restrain its development of nuclear weapons and begins to export weapons-grade plutonium to terrorists.

These are not remote possibilities, but in my view reasonable, possibly even likely outcomes.

Horrible as that scenario is, it doesn’t project what will happen to the Kurds in the northern part of Iraq. Past experience doesn’t supply the answer to that question, but it strongly suggests that whatever it will be, it will not be good.

There is another cost to consider as well. How does one measure the cost of setting a dangerous precedent? In this case the precedent is pre-emptive invasion. If the case for going to war were a stronger one, I might be persuaded to bear this cost as well as the others. After all, I did publicly defend Israel’s pre-emptive strike at the Iraqi nuclear bomb factory. (But let’s not forget that the U.S. condemned it.)

In the current situation, the arguments against war are fortified by the fact that this war can not be unequivocally viewed as a just, proportionate, response to an imminent threat, which left the U.S. with no alternative but to strike pre-emptively. Is this the case to establish the precedent of pre-emptive war? As the old lawyer’s saw has it, ‘Bad cases make bad law.’

We are told that we should trust our government and that there is much information that if only we knew it, we would support the President. There are many lessons to take from the Viet Nam war, but surely the most important one is that blind trust goes beyond the duties of citizenship. Indeed, it crosses over the line into abdication of responsibility. The manner in which the debate has been conducted in this country convinces me more than ever that it is our duty to form our own opinions and express them if they are based upon careful thought and investigation. And though the opinions of other countries count for only so much, they are not to be ignored entirely.

I can’t escape the conclusion that though the goals of ousting Saddam, and de-fanging Iraq are laudable, the risks of military invasion are not worth taking at this time. The costs in terms of life and treasure are too great. It’s a long-shot gamble at best and the stakes are too high.

I have seen nothing in the record of the current administration that warrants confidence in their ability to pull off the difficult balancing act required. One need only look at the damage that has been done to American prestige, to the NATO alliance, and, on the domestic side, to the economy and the budget. The conclusion that can’t be dismissed out of hand is that the President just doesn’t know what he is doing.

What to do? What to do? As I said, Saddam must go. I arrive at this conclusion on the strength of one argument, namely that he supports terrorism against Israel.

Israel is a strategic ally, and therefore, American interests strongly align with Israel’s in this matter. Furthermore, by removing Iraq’s leader, America can say to Israel, “okay, your security is improved; now you must take steps toward peace with the Palestinians.” America can also say to the Palestinians, “okay, your supporter is gone. Make peace now, or it will only get worse.” Since it is axiomatic that resolution of the Israel-Palestinian conflict is in America’s interests, Saddam’s demise is welcome by America directly, as well as indirectly for its benefit to Israel.

Two Problems. We have two problems to deal with. The first is the Iraqi situation. The second is the blundering president and the mess he has gotten us into.

The first problem is actually much easier to deal with than it seems at first blush. As I have said, inspections seem to be working to some extent. That is to say, inspectors have prevented Saddam from getting a nuclear development program under way, and have inhibited him from arming missiles with chemical and biological WMDs. All this is good, as far as it goes, but it doesn’t go far enough. What we need, is to destroy the weapons of mass destruction that he is presumed to have.

As long as America threatens unilateral military invasion, Saddam Hussein will do anything and everything to keep his weapons of mass destruction. This is especially true because Saddam reasonably believes that even if he were to destroy his weapons of mass destruction, America will invade and impose regime change. It is easy for Saddam to see that there is no percentage in him destroying his WMDs as long as America threatens unilateral action to depose him. Therefore, the United States must foreswear unilateral action, if there is to be any chance of success in disarming Iraq.

In order to destroy the WMD’s we need a new regime of inspectors. The inspectors should be empowered not merely to report to the UN, but also to destroy weapons and components wherever they are found. By ‘empowered’ I mean to say, given legal authority and military capability. The legal authority would come from the Security Counsel, or the General Assembly of the United Nations. The military capability should wear the uniforms of the UN troops. There must be a true coalition of the willing involving the vast majority of nations willing to back up the Inspectors with invasion if Saddam fails to cooperate in any way. This back up force has to be a significant multi-national force, mobilized and able to strike on very short notice.

What would trigger the multinational force? The plan I propose would necessarily involve a much more active inspector corps. They would be given provisional authority to order military strikes from a joint command. The implied bargain is this, “cooperate and live; fail to cooperate and you face the combined forces of the world’s free nations, which means certain death for you.”

Of course, we have said that Saddam must go, and that regime change is devoutly to be wished for. We should be willing to settle for Saddam dying peacefully of old age, if he is restrained from doing evil for the rest of his life.

I think that there is much that can be done to promote regime change from within Iraq. This goes beyond my expertise, but it seems obvious that America has supported the overthrow of tyrants before, and our intelligence services are capable of doing it again. It seems that we have made enough mistakes in the past that, were we disposed to learn from mistakes, we could be very wise, indeed. I might mention here that I am not a conscientious objector to Israel’s policy of targeted assassinations.

The specifics of how we could bring about regime change are difficult to discuss. I would observe that the inspectors would impose limitations on Saddam’s ability to resist popular uprising, and could also hamper his capacity for making mischief abroad.

If through the implementation of these measures Saddam is harmless until his time on earth comes to an end, I would count the policy as a great success. Of course, harmless means more than not employing WMDs. It also means not having the means by which to threaten peace. Therefore, the inspector regime should include specifically the ability to trace money and insure access of the Iraqi people to information. Transferring money to terrorists, or their families, is supporting terrorism, and that would be contrary to the commitments which Iraq would have to make. An attack on Radio Free Iraq, would be interpreted at an aggressive act, incompatible with a disarmed Iraq.

A special consideration is the role of sanctions on Iraq. It should be sufficient to observe that 10 years of sanctions have weakened Saddam no more than 40 years of sanctions have weakened Castro. Indeed, sanctions seem to have strengthened the anti-American component of support for these dictators. Elsewhere herein, I have suggested that they have made any post-invasion scenario greatly more problematic. Therefore, I would reverse the sanctions. In their place I would impose a program of directly aiding groups within Iraq which are not friendly to Saddam.

First and foremost among these is the Kurds. Since the Kurds live in Iraq’s northern no fly zone, it should not be an impossible task to give aid directly to them.

The Shi’ites in the South should be naturally allied with the Saudis against the Baathists. Saudi Arabia should be persuaded to find a way to support their brethren to obtain democracy in a way that doesn’t threaten the House of Saud directly. I say directly because in the historical time scale, all democracies threaten all monarchies. Nevertheless, Saudi support for Iraqi Shi’ites is sufficient if it keeps Saddam hunkered down in Baghdad, and creates an environment in which the seeds of democracy can be sown.

The other problem we have is that our President is a knucklehead and he has gotten us into a horrible mess. The solution to his incompetence is to vote against him in the next election, as most people did in the last. The solution to the horrible mess that he has gotten us into is to be guided by the words of the Good Book: “Pride goeth before a fall.” We must admit our mistakes, and not allow our nation to shed blood, lose treasure, and diminish our security to save face.

_____________________
“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

Welcome, Ike Ferguson.

2007-03-21T22:12:00.000-06:00

One of the most steadfast members of the Republican legal team is the little known Ike Ferguson. Today, Tony Snowjob revealed that he has lent his considerable talents to the White House.

First some background: Back in the relatively innocent days of Watergate, tape recordings in the Oval Office revealed Nixon channeling Ike Ferguson’s advice to his co-conspirators when he told them how to tailor grand jury testimony. “You say, ‘I don’t remember.’ You can say, ‘I can’t recall. I can’t give an answer to that, that I can recall,’” said Nixon.

Ike Ferguson’s clever hand was guiding the defense of notorious Republican supporter Ken Lay. Kenny-boy, as he was called by his buddy, Dumb Dubya, testified in his own trial, and said he didn't remember being told about any rules governing the use of loan money by banks to buy stock.

I don't recall them ever coming to my attention we were not in compliance with any of those loan agreements. I can't categorically say somebody didn't, but I sure can't recall.

Of course, it was not the first time that a corporate criminal took his cues from the indomitable Ike Ferguson.

Dumb Dubya himself was in a tight spot when he dumped a bunch of Harken stock just before it announced an unexpected loss. This could have been a problem because Dumb Dubya was a director and member of the firm’s audit committee. Sounds like insider trading, doesn’t it?

Well, as it happens there are laws about that, and one requires that an insider’s sales of stock has to be reported to the Securities and Exchange Commission. Bush didn’t do this until eight months after the required deadline, but as he explained, he didn’t know about Harken’s impending financial disaster, and he “simply forgot” to file the SEC reports.

Ike Ferguson was an important architect of the Scooter Libby defense team. Back on May 27th, 2006, I reported “Scooter Libby claimed that his misstatements regarding conversations he had with Judy Miller, Joe Cooper and Tim Russert are the products of a faulty memory.” Actually, Scooter didn’t claim this in his trial, since committing perjury at your trial for perjury is just a bad idea. But his lawyers were clearly following Ike Ferguson’s playbook.

Lo, these many years later, King George the Incompetent is still employing the services of Ike Ferguson. Today, March 21st, White House Press Secretary Tony Snow responded to questions about the politically motivated firing of U.S. Attorneys. Here’s what he had to say:

The president has no recollection of this ever being raised with him.

Maybe it’s time to reveal where this legal genius, Ike Ferguson came from.

Many years ago, a young German Jew immigrated to this country. His family sent him off with very little material goods but with plenty of advice. When he came to Ellis Island, he became thoroughly baffled and confused by the noise and cacaphony of the main processing building. When at last he stood before the immigration officer's desk, hat in hand, the immigration officer barked at him: “Name?”

The young man’s disorientation was so great that he could not recall even his own name. And so he replied, “Ich vergesse!” [fn. 1]

The overworked immigration officer, unperturbed, says, “Right! Ike Ferguson! Next!” and waved the young man on...

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

[fn. 1] For the Yiddishly challenged, “Ich vergesse!” means, “I forget!”

The Pleasure of the President

2007-03-20T22:40:00.000-06:00

Tomorrow the House Judiciary Committee, led by Chairman John Conyers, will vote in favor of subpoenaing Harriet Miers, Karl Rove, and the Alberto “Fredo” Gonzales. Thursday, the Senate Judiciary Committee will do the same under the leadership of Patrick Leahy. The White House can be expected to refuse to comply, claiming executive privilege.

It’s ironic, n’est pas? The Bush administration has claimed all along that it disapproves of the Court’s making laws, and that the role of the judiciary is to strictly apply the letter of the Constitution. Executive Privilege is not to be found anywhere in the Constitution of the United States.

But let’s take a moment to review what we know so far about executive privilege. There is not a lot of law on the subject, but clearly the leading case is United States vs. Nixon. That case arose in the context of the criminal case against John Mitchell, who was Nixon’s Attorney General. Mitchell was on trial for conspiracy to obstruct justice and other crimes relating to the break-in of the Democratic National Headquarters in the Washington’s Watergate complex. Nixon was an un-indicted co-conspirator.

The prosecutor wanted access to recordings secretly made in the White House, and he prevailed upon the District Court to issue a subpoena. The President appeared through counsel, moved to quash the subpoena and lost. The case made it to the United States Supreme Court, which unanimously ruled against Nixon’s claim of executive privilege.

Three observations are pertinent. First, the Nixon case clearly differentiates between military and diplomatic information in the possession of the executive branch and other information. Military and diplomatic information deserves special protection, but in the present controversy, the information sought does not merit this higher level of protection.

Second, the Nixon case dealt with a fight ostensibly between the executive branch and the judicial branch. In contrast, the controversy today will test the will as well as the power of the legislative branch vis a vis the executive branch. In a sense, this may be a distinction without a difference.

If Bush refuses to comply with the subpoena, Congress can hold him in contempt, and refer the case to the United States Attorney for indictment and prosecution. Assuming that he or she goes forward with the prosecution, the President will be in court, and the battle lines will be drawn between the courts and the executive.

Third, and most importantly, the Nixon case concerned “a subpoena essential to enforcement of criminal statutes.” In contrast, over and over again, we have heard the apologists for this administration point to the fact that the United States Attorneys “serve at the pleasure of the President.” Indeed, though the present case raises serious questions about the independence of United States Attorneys, we are repeatedly told “no crimes were committed.”

Let’s look a little closer.

Suppose you had a small business, and you hired a secretary. After a bit, you decided that you didn’t want him or her to work for you anymore. You could fire the employee with impunity: you don’t need a reason. Likewise, if you discovered that your employees were stealing from you, you could fire them because, obviously, you have a good reason. The point is you can fire an employee for a good reason or for no reason.

But now suppose you discovered that your secretary was married to a member of a minority group. If you decided to fire the employee for that reason you would be guilty of discrimination, and your conduct would be actionable. You can fire for a good reason, or for no reason, but not for a bad reason.

Turning now to the facts of the present controversy, there is an appearance that the United States Attorneys were fired not for a good reason, and not for no reason. Rather, there is growing evidence that they were fired for bad reasons.

As I reported back on January 17th

Tonight, Keith Olbermann reported that the Bushies are in the process of purging 7 U.S. Attorneys and giving no public explanation. One of them, Carol Lam, is responsible for the Duke Cunningham conviction, and according to Dianne Feinstein, she has subpoenas out for other members of Congress. The concern is that the purge is payback for going after corruption. A purge of those who are not loyal to the Party of Bush – it’s just so typical of these fascists.

Since then it has been learned that Ms. Lam's prosecution of Duke Cunningham was spreading to Republican Congressman Jerry Lewis of California. This provoked Mr. Kyle Sampson (Generalissimo Gonzales’ chief of staff) to write an e-mail message referring to the “real problem we have right now with Carol Lam.” He said it made him think that it was time to start looking for a replacement.

In a New York Times article entitled, It Wasn’t Just a Bad Idea. It May Have Been Against the Law. Adam Cohen points out the criminal statutes that may have been violated.

Start with 8 U.S.C. § 1505, which makes it illegal to lie to Congress, and also to “impede” it in getting information. That’s the statute that David Safavian went down on last year, and arguably it applies to the false statements of Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty who indicated that the White House’s involvement in firing the United States attorneys was minimal. “If Kyle Sampson withheld the information about the White House’s role in the firings from Mr. McNulty, who then misled Congress, Mr. Sampson may have violated § 1505,” says Mr. Cohen. And let’s not forget that el Generalissimo Gonzales asserted to Congress that, “I would never, ever make a change in a United States attorney position for political reasons.”

Then there’s 18 U.S.C. § 1512 (c), which applies to anyone who corruptly “obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so,” including U.S. attorney investigations. David Iglesias, one of the fired United States attorneys says he “felt pressured” by a call from New Mexico Senator Pete Domenici who wanted a corruption case against a political opponent to occur before the election. Read his story here. Indeed, firing Carol Lam, if it was done to obstruct the investigation of Jerry Lewis sounds like obstruction of justice.

Michael Elston, Mr. McNulty’s chief of staff, contacted one of the fired attorneys, H. E. Cummins, and suggested that if he kept speaking out there would be retaliation. There’s a name for that – witness tampering – and 18 U.S.C. § 1512 (b) makes it a crime.

Advise to Democrats: It’s time to start calling a spade a spade. The investigation raises serious concerns that crimes were being countenanced, if not committed, in the White House. Advice to Republicans: be careful about trying to distinguish this case from United States v. Nixon on the basis that the Nixon case was a criminal case. That case, like the present controversy, involved obstruction of justice.

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

Bedtime for Gonzo

2007-03-20T12:57:00.000-06:00

If there were any doubt that El Generalissimo Gonzalez is about to hit the bricks, it was removed today.

King George the Incompetent called him at 7:15 a.m. We read here, “The president reaffirmed his strong backing of the attorney general and his support for him. The president called him to reaffirm his support,” according to White House deputy press secretary Dana Perino.

Dumb Dubya might as well have painted a target on el Generalissimo’s forehead.

But what to make of Perino’s categorical denial of the story that the Bushies are looking for a replacement for Alberto?

To Big Mitch it can only mean one thing: the Bushies are looking for a replacement for Alberto. Hasta luego, Alberto.

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

Wilson? Yeah! Fitz? Feh!

2007-03-18T17:37:00.000-06:00

I just got a chance to review the testimony of Valerie Wilson before the Waxman committee. What an excellent witness she was!

The Party of Bush loyalists are still trying to get into the public discourse the idea that Mrs. Wilson was not a covert agent, but Mrs. Wilson and Henry Waxman drove a stake through the heart of that nonsense. But is that enough? The Party of Bush has a fall back position that also needs to be laid to rest.

The idea is that Mrs. Wilson might have been covert but that the bastards that outed her did not know that. It’s time for a little refresher course in the law.

It is a criminal offense to out a CIA covert agent. The statute is 50 U.S.C. 421. The elements of the offense are:

The perp had authorized access to classified information that identifies a covert agent,

He or she intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information,

knowing that the information disclosed identifies a covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent’s intelligence relationship to the United States.

It’s too late in the day to argue that Rove, Libby and Cheney didn’t have access to classified information that identified Mrs. Wilson, or that Robert Novak was authorized to receive classified information. The question is, did the party of Bush’s hit men “intentionally” disclose the information.

Intentionally is a word that seems to be brimming over with legal significance, and yet, it is quite simple. It means that the actor knew what he or she was doing. It is not intended to cover an act done through ignorance, mistake or accident. A person normally intends the natural consequences of his acts.

Rove may say that he was talking in his sleep, or that it was a slip of the tongue. Or he might argue that he thought he was talking to Cheney when he called up Chris Matthews and said, “Valerie Plame is fair game.” If so, he has the balls of a blind burglar.

On the other hand, if he admits that he knew that he was talking to someone not authorized to receive classified information, then he has ’fessed up.

There’s another part to the statute: the perp has to “know” that the information disclosed identifies a covert agent, who is being actively protected by the government. So, you can well imagine these guys saying, “we had no idea she was under cover.”

It’s a ludicrous argument, but certainly, not beneath the thugs in the service of King George the Incompetent. Here’s why it won’t work.

A typical jury instruction in cases like this would say something like:

When knowledge of the existence of a particular fact is an essential part of an offense, such knowledge may be established if the Defendant is aware of a high probability of its existence, unless the Defendant actually believes that it does not exist.

Which one of these buffoons could say with a straight face that he actually believed that Valerie Wilson was not covert? Not one. The most they might say is that they had no idea, and didn’t really think about it.

But were they aware that there was a high probability that she was a covert agent? Mrs. Wilson’s testimony on Friday laid it all out.

First, remember that the Royal Stenographer, Judith Wilson has stated that Irve Wilson, (a/k/a “Scooter”) told her that Joseph Wilson's wife worked for the CIA in WINPAC (Weapons Intelligence, Non-Proliferation, and Arms Control).

Mrs. Wilson confirmed that she was working in the Counter-Proliferation Division (CPD). What we know so far – and what Mrs. Wilson confirmed on Friday – was that almost everyone who works in the CPD was covert. In other words, it would be impossible to know that she worked in the CPD and not know that there was a “high probability” that she was covert.

Next time you hear someone sing the praises of Fitz, the special prosecutor remember he didn't get the guys who ruined the career of the patriotic Mrs. Wilson, and he let the guilty guys wriggle off the hook.

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

Take a bromide

2007-03-16T12:58:00.000-06:00

Victoria Toensing testified at Henry Waxman’s committee today. What a piece of work is she! She appeared wearing two watches, which reminded me of the observation that a person with one watch knows what time it is, but a person with two watches is never quite sure. Still, it did kind of make her look like a spy.

She testified that Mrs. Wilson was not a covert officer, which would surely come as a surprise to Mrs. Wilson who testified that she was. In fact, it must have come as a surprise to General Hayden, Director of Central Intelligence, who approved language used by Congressman Waxman, viz., “Valerie Plame was a covert officer.”

How can Ms. Toensing come to that surprising conclusion? Quite simply. She redefines the terms “covert officer.” I won’t go into the details of how she does this because, frankly, it’s too arcane. But you will get the idea from a famous riddle that President Lincoln posed:

Question: If you call a dog’s tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?

Answer: Four. Calling a tail a leg won’t make it so.

To bolster her case that Mrs. Wilson was not a “covert officer within the meaning of the law” Ms. Toensing asked a series of rhetorical questions, such as, “Why didn’t the head of the CIA go to Novak, when he knew the article was forthcoming, and ask him not to publish it?” and “Why didn’t the CIA briefer who spoke to Cheney and Libby tell them that Plame was covert?”

Whenever I hear someone use the rhetorical device of asking several questions in rapid fire, each containing untested assumptions, I am reminded of what my old man used to tell me: “A fool can ask more questions than a wise man can answer.”

But over and above that, don’t forget the possibility that each one of Ms. Toensing’s rhetorical questions has a logical answer. For example, why didn’t the Director of Central Intelligence call Novak to put the kibosh on the outing of Plame? Answer: Novak had already been told by the CIA not to publish the article.

In this case, Ms. Toensing’s questions threw enough baffle-dust into the air that you might come away with the conclusion that one can be a covert agent without being a “covert agent under the statute” covering unauthorized disclosure of a covert agent’s identity. But that doesn’t mean that Cheney, Libby, and Rove didn’t violate the relevant Executive Order relating to classified information. It’s clear that they did.

Bad news for Republicans: Democrats have subpoena power. A Republican hack like Victoria Toensing is not going to slow them down one bit. Go for it Mr. Waxman.

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

Breaking News: Generalissimo Gonzalez is a liar

2007-03-15T15:26:00.000-06:00

If someone in the Administration is responsible for misleading the Congress, you might think he should lose his job, at a minimum.

If you caught Generalissimo Gonzalez’s press conference on Tuesday, you got quite an earful.

The Attorney General took full responsibility for the fact that Congress was misled in the matter of the firing of the eight Assistant U.S. Attorneys. Of course, when Generalissimo Gonzalez says he takes full responsibility, he means, “I will not be held accountable, so let’s just stop talking about it.”

But he didn’t stop talking about it. Instead, he went on to describe what happened.

As a general matter, some two years ago, I was made aware that there was a request from the White House as to the possibility of replacing all the United States attorneys. That was immediately rejected by me. I felt that that was a bad idea and it was disruptive.
…
I was not involved in seeing any memos, was not involved in any discussions about what was going on.

He’s lying.

First of all, you can tell just by the way he was speaking: he’s not as slick a liar as some of the more polished politicians in his party. His speech was pressured, and he looked acutely uncomfortable. It was way out of proportion to the main message that he was ostensibly delivering, namely, There’s nothing wrong, or even unusual about firing a few AUSAs. I had nothing to do with it. My underling may have misled Congress, and he has been fired.

Some of the stress in his voice may have been related to the fact that the underling in question, Kyle Samson, is, Gonzalez told us, “still at the department, as he transitions out and looks for another employment.”

I mean, how much shame and disrepute to you have to bring upon the Department of Justice before they say, “clean out your desk, and never darken our towels again.” If he is responsible for misleading Congress, he should be off the payroll and on the Criminal Docket, not drawing a paycheck while he looks for a job.

A lot of folk would overlook a little fib about Kyle Samson because he was a trusted associate of el Generalissimo Gonzalez, who could be excused for spinning the truth. But what to make of the assertion that he immediately rejected the suggestion that all of the AUSAs be fired and that he was not involved in any discussions of the matter?

The head of the Department of Justice, (who never prosecuted a case) must have forgotten that when you send emails there is an electronic record and it doesn’t just go away.

Today, ABC News is reporting that soon-to-be released emails show that Turd Blossom and Generalissimo Gonzales were intimately involved in the scheme to replace all U.S. Attorneys.

White House press secretary Tony Snow told reporters Tuesday that Miers had suggested firing all 93, and that it was “her idea only.” Snow said Miers’ idea was quickly rejected by the Department of Justice.

The latest e-mails show that Gonzales and Rove were both involved in the discussion, and neither rejected it out of hand.

Can’t wait to see those emails.

Actually, Senator Mark Pryor (D-AR) has seen them. What they show is that Kyle Samson had a playbook that was implemented to get around Senate confirmation of Assistant United States Attorneys. The scheme involved stalling the Senate and lying to the members. The email says that all of this will be done in “good faith.” [quotation marks in original]

Senator Pryor – one of only six Democrats to vote for Gonzalez’s confirmation –reported on the floor of the Senate today that the plan was implemented and that pursuant to it, El Generalissimo performed exactly as directed. He says,

When the Attorney General lies to a United States Senator, I think it is time for that Attorney General to go. And again, he not only lied to me as a person, but when he lied to me he lied to the Senate, and he lied to the people I represent. And for that reason I am asking him and demanding that he resign today.

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

A Reminder

2007-03-13T13:02:00.000-06:00

The Files—
Office Files!
Oblige me by referring to the Files.
...
When your Imp of Blind Desire
Bids you set the Thames afire,
You’ll remember men have done so—in the Files.
-- Rudyard Kipling, “The Files”

The Articles of Impeachment adopted by the Committee on the Judiciary on July 27, 1974 contained three Articles. Article 1 referred to the burglary of the headquarters of the Democratic national Committee at the Watergate complex. Nixon was accused of obstructing justice with respect thereto.

Specifically, the means adopted to further this obstruction included, “interfering or endeavouring [sic] to interfere with the conduct of investigations by the Department of Justice of the United States …”

Generalissimo Gonzales must go, and if he won’t resign, then he must be impeached.

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

Can you top this?

2007-03-12T11:32:00.000-06:00

Over on Huffington Post, Steve Benen has an article called “What if we don’t want to ‘Get over it!’” in which he responds to the latest outrage from the Bush mob. Seems King George the Incompetent nominated Sam Fox, a generous donor to the Party of Bush, to be Ambassador to Belgium. Problem is, this same piece of work gave $50,000 to the Swiftboat Vets.

Some people are unhappy. Not least among them is Sen. Kerry. Benen quotes Wade Sanders, a former deputy assistant secretary of the Navy, decorated former swift boat skipper, and combat veteran, who wrote an op-ed last week attacking Bush’s nomination of Fox: “[A]s a military man, it doesn’t matter much who is being attacked -- John McCain, Max Cleland, John Kerry, or Jack Murtha -- I just don't believe that assaults on the military records of veterans belong in our politics.”

Frankly, it doesn’t bother me that a political donor got rewarded with a sinecure. The problem for me is that credibility is the main stock in trade of an ambassador, and the swiftboating Sam Fox doesn’t have any.

What got Benen’s goat was a “largely incoherent” editorial in the WSJ that urges Democrats to “Get over it!” Benin’s article evoked this comment from Tommo.

The stolen 2000 election. Katherine Harris. Bush v. Gore. Halliburton, Lockheed/Martin, and other crony war profiteers. The Aug. 6, 2001, presidential daily briefing. "My Pet Goat", Jack Abramoff. David Safavian. Ken Tomlinson. Signing statements. The phony Unitary Executive theory. The manipulation of terror alerts. The suppression and perversion of science, especially on global warming. The phony case for war in Iraq. The Downing Street memo. Ohio in 2004. Voting machines. Swiftboating. Claude Allen. Jeff Gannon. The lack of planning for and putting unqualified cronies in high positions in "postwar" Iraq. (See Kate O'Bierne's husband.) Dusty Foggo. Katrina. Michael Brown. Enron. Wiretaps. Bank records surveillance. The $8.8 billion (300 tons of cash) missing in Iraq. Destruction of Habeus Corpus. Torture. Illegal wiretapping/data mining. The politicization of AIDS prevention, the Justice Department, and economic statistics tracking. Unconstitutional Faith Based Initiatives. Cheney's energy task force. Record high gas prices. Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, "Extraordinary Renditions", Mark Foley (covered up by the White House/Rove), 9/11 Workers Health Risk suppression, shooting people in their face then obstructing an investigation, pay for positive political coverage, the destruction of Iraq antiquities, lack of body armor, up-armored Humvees, and training. Walter Reed. U.S. attorneys purge. Scooter Libby and destruction of the covert CIA Brewster-Jennings operation. Less water & electricity in Iraq than under Sadam. The botched execution. Record opium production. The stagnant stock market (markets hate instability). The pitiful state of health care in America; ditto education. The sinking of America's middle class. 3000 dead American soldiers in Iraq, 30,000 wounded, $1 trillion wasted, 650,000 dead Iraqis, 2 million Iraqi refugees. Osama still on the loose and the Taliban still strong in Afghanistan. Kim Jung Il has nukes. China holds a huge part of our debt. Putin is having people assassinated on American soil. Bush is trying to start a war with Iran, who probably couldn't have nukes for ten years. The Saudis are still grooming terrorists. The destruction of Colin Powell. The destruction of the National Guard. Recruiting felons. The world hates us.

Did he miss anything?

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

Relevant Conduct and Scooter’s sentence

2007-03-06T14:08:00.000-06:00

Sentencing in Federal Courts is guided by the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, which Congress enacted, inter alia to promote uniformity in Sentencing.

One of the problems associated with achieving uniformity in sentencing is that prosecutors have wide discretion to charge or not charge an offense. Imagine that every armed robbery resulted in a seven-year sentence. A serial offender, who is believed by the prosecutor to have committed 5 crimes could get a sentence between 7 and 35 years depending on which crimes the U.S. Attorney chose to prosecute.

Police officers have awesome influence, too. Suppose a undercover cop establishes a relationship with a drug dealer. He can buy an ounce or two. He will usually keep at it until he makes a big enough purchase to hammer the defendant.

To address these problems and others, the Federal Sentencing Commission proposed, and Congress agreed that sentencing would be based upon “relevant conduct,” defined as

(1) (A) all acts and omissions committed, aided, abetted, counseled, commanded, induced, procured, or willfully caused by the defendant; and

(B) in the case of a jointly undertaken criminal activity (a criminal plan, scheme, endeavor, or enterprise undertaken by the defendant in concert with others, whether or not charged as a conspiracy), all reasonably foreseeable acts and omissions of others in furtherance of the jointly undertaken criminal activity, that occurred during the commission of the offense of conviction, in preparation for that offense, or in the course of attempting to avoid detection or responsibility for that offense

Once the relevant conduct is determined by the court, the sentence is determined by looking on a matrix on which one axis is the offense and the other is the offender characteristics.

What is the relevant conduct for Scooter’s obstruction of justice? May I suggests that it is Disclosure of Information Identifying a Covert Agent.

§2M3.9. Disclosure of Information Identifying a Covert Agent

(a) Base Offense Level:

(1) 30, if the information was disclosed by a person with, or who had authorized access to classified information identifying a covert agent; or

(2) 25, if the information was disclosed by a person with authorized access only to other classified information.

Obviously, Libby had authorized access to classified information identifying a covert agent. Thus, he starts off with a base level of 30. If the court finds that this is the relevant conduct, and assuming that Scooter was as clean as a whistle before this episode, then he is looking at a sentence of 97-121 months, or roughly 8-10 years. About 15% of that comes off for good behavior, but, even still, Libby is looking at real time.

Additionally, the guideline for Obstruction of Justice assigns an offense level of 14 (or 17, if the offense “resulted in substantial interference with the administration of justice) and also provides that

if the offense involved obstructing the investigation or prosecution of a criminal offense, apply §2X3.1 (Accessory After the Fact) in respect to that criminal offense, if the resulting offense level is greater than that determined above.

Let’s look at the Accessory After the Fact calculation.

The accessory after the fact guideline provides that the Base Offense Level is 6 levels lower than the underlying offense. If the base level for the underlying offense, Disclosing Information Identifying a Covert Agent, is 30, as seen above, then Scooter starts off with a Base Offense Level of 24.

Again, reference to the matrix shows that he’s looking at 51-63 months.

There are serious reasons for concluding that Libby’s conduct was at the upper range of the guideline, since, after all, we are talking about silencing a critic of the Administration who busted Cheney for misleading the country into war, with the result that an undercover counter-proliferation program was terminated.

The bottom line here is that Libby is facing a tough choice. He can play ball with Fitzgerald, and substantially reduce his sentence. Or he can prepare to take a 5-10 year trip to the pokey. He can hope for a pardon but if he puts his eggs in that basket, he is risking being an absent father during the next decade of his children’s life.

Lots of folk are figuring that Bush’s loyalty to friends will result in a pardon. Big Mitch doesn’t believe that it is wise to rely on the loyalty of a narcissistic sociopath like Bush. Even if I am wrong, a pardon probably wouldn’t come until the end of Dubya’s term of office, nearly two years off. There’s a better than average chance that Libby will have to do a year and a half before that happens.

Keep this in mind when you hear talking heads saying that Libby is realistically facing a sentence of a year or so.

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

Horse Racing with Big Mitch

2007-02-27T23:42:00.000-06:00

Here’s what you need to know:

In trial heats, Giuliani beats Clinton (47-40), and McCain also beats Clinton (47-39).

John Edwards polls about the same as Clinton. He loses to Guiliani (46-40) and to McCain (47-38).

But Obama beats Giuliani (46-40), and he also beats McCain (44-40).

Mit Romney loses convincingly to all three Democrats.

Results are from Zogby America Poll. Feb. 22-24, 2007. The margin of error is +/- 3.

My view is that anyone of these Dems can beat the pants off of McCain or Giuliani. But for candidates other than Barack Obama, it’s an uphill battle.

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

An Open Letter to Prince Harry from my Pride and Joy

2007-02-25T02:05:00.000-06:00

Dear Prince,

I'm not sure if you read my father's blog or not, but after I read of your impending deployment I figured I just had to write.

It's good to see political scions in uniform—provided, as I’m sure you’ve had time to consider, that it’s a uniform from an Allied power. On this side of the pond, we’ve been seeing a bumper sticker reading “Draft Jenna,” a reference to our commander-in-chief’s daughter. The underlying sentiment, I think, is that if those in power had to think about putting their own kids in harm’s way, they wouldn’t be so quick to wage war.

I love my country, but I won’t enlist in support of a war that has, to my way of thinking, been conducted with neither foresight nor accountability. And if you do read Big Mitch’s blog, you’ve read that, mirabile dictu, he’s given a thought or two about a draft, if only to make our leaders think twice about sending young men and women to die.

My Pop says, “War is hell.” Men and women who return from it -- even those who bear no physical wounds -- are often scarred by the horrors of what they must do and what they observe. What effect will war produce on you? Of course, we pray for your safe return, just as we pray for the safe return of every one of our own brave troops. May it also be God's will that your experience fortifies you as a spokesman for peace.

I’ll send you off with a quote from another famous Harry: “Be copy now to men of grosser blood, and teach them how to war.” By “men of grosser blood,” I do not mean the brave British troops under your command, nor my own countrymen overseas. I mean the cowards who hold power in America, who keep their families safe at home while they profit from sending members of my generation to die.

Godspeed … and tell ’em Young Ike sent you!

Cordially,

Ike Schapira

Another old joke revisited

2007-02-24T17:16:00.000-06:00

Faithful readers of this space know I like to revisit old jokes when they become timely. See for example: here, and here. Well, here we go again.

First, the old joke:

“Did you hear they cancelled Easter this year? It’s true. They found the body!”

Now for the update, as reported in Time magazine:

In a new documentary, Producer [James] Cameron, [he, of Titanic fame,] and his director, Simcha Jacobovici, make the starting claim that Jesus wasn’t resurrected --the cornerstone of Christian faith-- and that his burial cave was discovered near Jerusalem. And, get this, Jesus sired a son with Mary Magdelene.

According to the article, cleverly entitled, “Jesus: Tales from the Crypt,” one of the tombs within the burial cave is inscribed “Jesua, son of Joseph.” I would say that undermines another cornerstone of the Christian faith.

Cameron's film will be shown soon on Discovery Channel, Britain’s Channel 4, Canada’s Vision, and Israel’s Channel 8.

Too bad that he’s already used the line: "I’m the king of the world!"

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

From MoveOn.com

2007-02-23T12:27:00.000-06:00

Subject: It's time to take on Fox

Hi,

I wanted to tell you about something pretty outrageous.

Fox News convinced the Democratic Party to let Fox host a nationally-televised Democratic presidential primary debate this summer in Nevada!

But Fox isn't even a legitimate news channel! It's a right-wing mouthpiece like Rush Limbaugh—dedicated to smearing Democrats. (Recently, Fox falsely claimed Sen. Barack Obama attended a terrorist school!)

There's a growing backlash of people demanding that Democrats drop Fox. Can you help out by signing this petition to the Democratic Party of Nevada? It's really easy—just click here.

Thanks!

"... and tell 'em Big Mitch sent ya!"

The Northern Lights have seen queer sights. (Robert Service)

2007-02-18T18:40:00.000-06:00

In the late ‘70s, I had a pal who purchased an abandoned mining site about 27 miles north of Fairbanks Alaska. He aimed to make it a lodge, but things got in the way. The hope was that he could attract Japanese honeymooners who consider it a portent of good fortune to see the Northern Lights on their wedding night.
Down the road was the Poker Flat Research Range described on its own website as “the world’s only scientific rocket launching facility owned by a university.”

Almost every night, rockets would go up from Poker Flat. I always wondered what it was all about. The answer that always came back was they were studying the Northern Lights. It kind of struck me as strange because, frankly, the Northern Lights may be eerie looking, but there is not a great mystery about what causes them. I figured they were part of a spy program that took a peek over the North Pole at our supposed enemies (in those days, the Russians.)

Anyway, today, AFP is reporting that

The US space agency NASA has launched its first five-satellite mission on board a single rocket aiming to unlock the age-old mysteries of the aurora borealis.

The two-year mission, dubbed THEMIS -- an acronym for Time History of Events and Macroscale Interactions during Substorms -- was launched successfully late Saturday after a 24-hour delay, NASA said in a statement.

Maybe I am getting a little hypersensitized to being lied to, or maybe I am just suspicious by nature. But here’s what we know so far.

They have been studying the Aurora Borealis for 30 years or so, and now NASA announces a “new” program. The name of the program is THEMIS, which coincidentally is the name of the the Titan who was the goddess of justice, of whom Homer said, “Themis, who looseth and gathereth the meetings of men.” (Odyssey, Book II)

Soon it will be March, named after Mars, the Roman name for the God of War. History teaches us that March is well named, because wars tend to start in that month. And thus it is that the zodiac sign of Aries begins in March, Aries being the Greek name for Mars. Aries, of whom Hesiod, Homer’s contemporary, said, “ally of Themis.”

It’s thirty years later, and I am still wondering what is so interesting about the Northern Lights that justifies so many satellite launchings, each one of which does damage to the ozone layer. I am still wondering if it’s part of a spy program that takes a peek over the North Pole at our supposed enemies. And I am still wondering if I am being lied to.

“… and tell ‘em Big Mitch sent ya!”

Pitchers and catchers report

2007-02-17T22:35:00.000-06:00

It is widely agreed that the Democrats took over the Senate because the nation wants to be represented by people who will debate, and end the war. Today, the minority party blocked debate on a non-binding resolution of disapproval. Here’s how it worked: according to the rules of the Senate, 60 votes are needed to debate an issue. The majority could only garner 56 votes vs. 34 against debate.

People are dying and it might be a good time some for some hardball. Pitch one is a high inside heater. Here’s how Big Mitch would make it so: First – a procedural vote to change the requirement so that a simple majority can bring an issue to the floor. Anticipate Republican filibuster, but do not move for cloture. Instead, let the Party of Bush filibuster till their heart’s content. The image of Mitch McConnell or Trent Lott reading from a phone book is what this country needs to let them know who is on our side.

What is the game plan of the Party of Bush? They aim to have a vote on a binding resolution that they will not cut off funds for the troops. This gives Dems a Hobson’s choice. Either vote for it, and face the ire of the pacifist wing of the Democratic Party or vote against it, and expose yourself to the plaint that “you voted against supporting the troops in harms way.”

Okay, so the Party of Bush wants to put the Dems in a box. Big Mitch says, we need another brush back pitch, to make the Republican’s jump out of the box.

Let’s have a bill that say they will not cut off the funding for troops. Good start, but it needs a couple of amendments. How about one that says: all funds for the surge will come from a Windfall Profits Tax on military contractors? Or, all funds for the surge will come from a rescission of tax breaks for Republicans? Or, all funds will be matched by funds for veterans’ benefits and medical care. Let’s get some votes on the record from the Party of Bush!

Now suppose all of those amendments fail. C’est la vie! The Democrats can walk out of the Senate en masse and let the vote proceed. Sure, it will pass, but in order to be binding, it has to pass in the House of Representatives – the People’s House – and Big Mitch is not feeling it. That’s your curve ball that looks like it’s going straight for the head, but breaks over the plate.

At some point, you have to go with what got you there. In the case of the Democratic Senate Majority, it is opposition to the war in general, and the surge in particular. Do you think the Party of Bush could lay off a pitch in the strike zone: a renewed motion for a non-binding resolution expressing disapproval of the surge? Seven Republicans crossed over on today’s vote and joined the Dems to start the debate. I am saying there are three more, who will have just lost confidence in their knees.

You may be thinking this is a lot of work for a resolution that is non-binding but hey, it’s only spring training. The real season starts in less than 6 weeks.

When the first batter steps up to the plate in April, here’s something to be thinking about:

In the first poll conducted for Newsweek since the State of the Union Address, 58 percent of respondents said, “they wish the Bush presidency was simply over.” Nearly 86 percent of Democrats shared that sentiment, compared to 59 percent of Independents, and 21 percent of Republicans. (Source: CNN Political Ticker)

John Conyers is the new Chair of the House’s Judiciary Committee. This is the committee which has jurisdiction over any possible impeachment proceedings. In a shot over President George W. Bush’s bow, Conyers told a peace rally that Bush likes to fire any military advisors who tell him he can’t win the war, but “he can’t fire you [the people]. He can’t fire us [the Congress], but ‘we can fire him.’” With that line a roar went up in the audience. The loud chant began: “Impeach Bush!”

Sure, the Speaker of the House has said that Impeachment is off the table. But it will soon be time to step up to the plate.

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

Bob Novak is a traitor

2007-02-12T19:08:00.000-06:00

Robert Novak testified today in the Irv “Scooter” Lewis trial.

Novak, in case you forgot, is the scumbag who outed Valerie Wilson, the covert CIA agent who communicated to her husband that the CIA counter-proliferation division wanted to send him on a mission to Niger because of questions raised by the Office of the Vice President about allegations that Saddam had attempted to purchase yellowcake from that African nation. Novak says that he got the information from two senior Administration officials, namely, Richard Armitage and Karl Rove.

The Huffington Post reports:

He describes his interview of Richard Armitage, which was on background.

He asked Armitage about Wilson’s trip to Niger. He asked Armitage why Wilson was sent. Armitage replied, “Well, it was suggested by his wife Valerie, who was employed by the counter-proliferation division of the CIA.” Armitage referred to her as Valerie, no last name.

(I wrote about Armitage’s role in this in Dick Armitage is a poor excuse last September.)

So the only thing that wasn’t handed to Novak on a silver platter by senior administration officials was Mrs. Wilson’s name, which Novak got wrong.

More importantly, Bob Novak knew that she was a covert operative. The entire counter-proliferation division of the CIA is covert. This is common knowledge in Washington D.C., but even if it weren’t, Novak testified that he talked to Bill Harlow, the CIA spokesperson.

Again, according to the Huffington Post, Novak says, “The use of the word ‘operative’ was his own choice. It didn’t indicate he had any knowledge she was an intelligence operative, he had no information she was covert.”

Big Mitch says, “Bullshit! Bob Novak is a traitor.”

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

Fart Jokes

2007-02-10T18:51:00.000-06:00

Let’s face it: the best humor involves fart jokes, and if you don’t agree, you need to loosen up. Take a peak at this howler from Think Progress:

Rep. Rohrabacher: Global Warming May Have Been Caused By ‘Dinosaur Flatulence’

This week, Congress held its first hearing on the landmark IPCC report on climate change. That report concluded that global warming is “unequivocal” and human activity is the main driver, “very likely” causing most of the rise in temperatures since 1950.

During the hearing, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) — one of the 87 percent of congressional Republicans who do not believe in man-made global warming — questioned the authors of the report about a period of dramatic climate change that occured 55 million years ago. “We don’t know what those other cycles were caused by in the past. Could be dinosaur flatulence, you know, or who knows?’

Now I like a fart joke as much as the next guy, but there is a serious question hidden within it. Apparently, 87 percent of congressional Republicans have their head so far up their asses that a good dinosaur fart is just like a breath of fresh air.

These people don't agree with the consensus of the scientific community that it is 90 percent certain that human activity is causing global climate change. Suppose they are right even though that sounds like another shitty joke. Do these buffoons also doubt that there is global climate change?

Assume that it is the case that temperatures are rising, glaciers are melting, oceans are rising and low-lying land is headed for inundation as hurricanes grow in intensity and frequency. Now suppose this is a natural phenomenon, the result of 6 billion people exhaling rather than the result of 2 billion people driving gas-guzzlers.

Are these Know-nothings going to shrug their shoulders and say, "Not my fault, man! The one who smelt it dealt it!" Shouldn’t even the oil company toadies in the Party of Bush issue a clarion call for American to harness her ingenuity to solve the problem of global warming? And what would it look like if they did?

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

How to tell the news from old jokes

2007-02-09T02:25:00.000-06:00

Almost a year ago, in The Truth Without Jokes, I wrote:

Several have commented that it is becoming more and more difficult to distinguish legitimate news headlines from the ones that appear in the The Onion.

Consider this old story, (as retold by Arthur Naiman, in “Every Goy's Guide to Yiddish”)

Murray and Esther, a middle-aged Jewish couple, are touring Chile. Murray just got a new camera and is constantly snapping pictures. One day, without knowing it, he photographs a top-secret military installation.

In an instant, armed troops surround Murray and Esther and hustle them off to prison. They can’t prove who they are because they’ve left their passports in their hotel room. For three weeks they’re tortured day and night to get them to name their contacts in the liberation movement. Finally they're hauled in front of a military court, charged with espionage, and sentenced to death.

The next morning they’re lined up in front of the wall where they’ll be shot.   The sergeant in charge of the firing squad asks them if they have any lasts requests.   Esther wants to know if she can call her daughter in Chicago.   The sergeant says he’s sorry, that's not possible, and turns to Murray.   

“This is mishagos (craziness)!” Murray shouts. “We're not spies!” And he spits in the sergeants face.   

“Murray!” Esther cries. “Please! Don't make trouble.”

Compare and contrast that with the following news item from the Huffington Post under the headline, “BREMER PAID ‘GHOST EMPLOYEES’ TO AVOID ‘REAL TROUBLE.’”

Paul Bremer told members of Congress today that he was aware that nonexistent “ghost employees” were on America's payroll when he was administrator of the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq in 2003 and 2004.

But because the real employees - who provided security for Iraqi ministries - were “74,000 armed men, it seemed a lesser risk to continue paying” everyone while trying to figure out who was actually showing up for work.
…

When Davis asked whether any of that money had wound up in the hands of insurgents, Bremer said he didn't know. But “if we stopped paying them, my judgment was we could have real trouble.”

How to tell which one is real, and which one is a joke? It’s simple really. Look at the numbers changing in the column to the right, and ask yourself this: “Which one isn't really funny?”

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

Memo to Hillary

2007-02-07T15:13:00.000-06:00

Need more humor. The “evil men” joke was a good start, but unfortunately it reminded us of what we hated most about Big Dog.

Here’s a suggestion for the next time someone asks you, “Knowing what you know now, would you have voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq?”

Answer: “If I knew then what I knew now, I would have bet everything on Point Given in the 2001 Belmont Stakes.”

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

What happens when a blogger relies only on the mainstream media

2007-02-01T08:35:00.000-06:00

Your faithful correspondent is determined to mine the mainstream media to find news of interest and to provide a unique analysis drawing on my personal political point of view and memories that extend back to the 1960’s. The problem is that the mainstream media often gives short shrift to news items that are inconvenient to their corporate interests. For example, a story that suggests that King George the Incompetent was not fairly elected is bad for business in two ways.

First, take a company like General Electric, one of the largest military contractors in the U.S. and the owner of the National Broadcasting Company. Well, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that bashing Bush is bad for business. And by the way, they got plenty of rocket scientists.

Second, take a company like the Fox network. It is obvious that by being pitchmen for the administration, the reporters have gained access at an unprecedented level. Dumb Dubya got Tony Snow a job, and the rest of us have been getting a snow job ever since.

Nevertheless, every once in a while, I glean little tidbit from some out of the way media source. That’s when my blogger instinct kicks in. For example, I ran across this little nugget in the Seattle Post Intelligencer: Election Staff convicted in recount rig.

CLEVELAND -- Two election workers were convicted Wednesday of rigging a recount of the 2004 presidential election to avoid a more thorough review in Ohio’s most populous county.

Jacqueline Maiden, elections coordinator of the Cuyahoga County Elections Board, and ballot manager Kathleen Dreamer each were convicted of a felony count of negligent misconduct of an elections employee. They also were convicted of one misdemeanor count each of failure of elections employees to perform their duty.

Prosecutors accused Maiden and Dreamer of secretly reviewing preselected ballots before a public recount on Dec. 16, 2004. They worked behind closed doors for three days to pick ballots they knew would not cause discrepancies when checked by hand, prosecutors said.

Though the article makes no mention of it, an accompanying picture shows Rosie Grier, (see below) who was acquitted on all seven counts of various election misconduct or interference charges.

And this is where the perspective of a veteran of the sixties comes in handy. You see, this ex-hippy is old enough to remember Rosie Grier, pictured here (second from left) when he was one of the “Fearsome Foursome,” the only complete defensive line all enshrined in the NFL Hall of Fame in Canton, Ohio. He is also remembered for serving as a bodyguard for his friend, U.S. Senator and presidential candidate Robert Kennedy, although he was hanging with Ethel Kennedy the night that Kennedy was assassinated in Los Angeles in 1968. According to my recollection, it was Rosie who seized the weapon used to shoot RFK. (Others say it was Rafer Johnson.)

The point is that the mainstream media provides no context to how this courageous defender of an icon of the liberal wing of the Democratic Party could ever be suspected of stealing an election for Dumb Dubya.

Let’s review what we know so far. This paragon of toughness was also an ordained minister, and the author of a book called “Needlepoint for Men.” Clearly, he had (shall we say?) a sensitive side. His autobiography is entitled “Rosey: The Gentle Giant.”

But if it weren’t for bloggers like Big Mitch who are willing to look beyond the scant reporting provided by the mainstream media, nobody would ever wonder how he turned into the person shown in the picture that accompanied the Seattle PI article:

Come to think of it, the mainstream media didn’t do a whole helluva lot of reporting about the fact that people were convicted in Ohio of rigging the election that put George W. Bush in office for a second term.

Somehow, I am left with the feeling that I may be missing a part of the story.

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

Habeas Corpus explained

2007-01-30T15:35:00.000-06:00

In Them’s fighting words, I tried to explain why calling Generalissimo Gonzales a fascist is justified. It has to do with his denial of the supremely obvious fact that the Constitution guarantees the right of Habeas Corpus to Americans.

Since that time, a half a million people protested against this administration in Washington, D.C. and many more in local demonstrations throughout our country. But the outrage did not ostensibly extend to the attack on basic civil rights by the Party of Bush.

I suppose the problem lies in the fact that the concept of Habeas Corpus is not widely understood, and therefore, the central role it has in the idea of ordered liberty is not appreciated. Along comes Larry Beinhart on Huffington Post. In an article entitled, What Habeas Corpus Means to You he explains what’s so great about the Great Writ. Here it is in a nutshell:

It is fundamental to - and a sort of shorthand for - the right to be in a legal system, with laws and judges, evidence and a defense.

…

Under Habeas Corpus, you have the right to say, I want to be brought into the court to determine if I am the right person charged, if there's an actual law prohibiting what I'm charged with, if the people who are holding me have the jurisdiction to do so, and I want that publicly known and I want the right to dispute all of that and the right to be tried too.

 Without Habeas Corpus you can be swept up off the street and never heard from again. Period. Nobody has to know. Nobody - including yourself - has to know why. Nobody gets to determine if there is a law against what you're charged with. You have no rights at all.

Big Mitch is not the only one calling the Party of Bush fascists. Read Larry Beinhart’s article to see how he puts it succinctly:

Habeas Corpus means you are in a society of laws. Without it, you are in the land of Saddam Hussein, August Pinochet, Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, Ivan the Terrible ... and ...

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

Fuck the Draft, Redux

2007-01-29T16:21:00.001-06:00

In the pre-quel to this post, I wrote:

In the past, we needed to institute a draft to protect us from the Fascism of the Axis powers. Later, we imposed a draft in the vain belief that we needed it to protect us from the totalitarianism of Chinese Communism and Soviet world domination. Now, as Charlie Rangel argues, we may need to institute a draft to protect us from American fascism. He’s got a point there.

An article, Fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan stirs thoughts of resurrecting draft, in the Anchorage Daily News on January 28th proves the point.

The Army now has about 512, 000 active duty soldiers. Bush intends to add 92,000 soldiers and marines over the next five years, which is about an 18% increase. Regarding the draft, the article reported:

“The Pentagon estimates that it would cost about $4 billion more a year to reinstate the draft. New facilities would have to be built to train and house the large numbers of inductees who’d be brought into uniform each year.”

Wait just a doggone minute!

First of all, when was the last time you heard someone in the Pentagon kvetch about spending money. It’s a new one on me.

Second, just because you have a draft, doesn’t mean you have to call up anything close to the number of young people who are eligible. The article states:

About 4 million men and women reach military age each year, but the military needs only a small fraction of that number. That’s a fact that those who argue for a return to the draft tend to overlook, said Bernard D. Rostker, the author of “I want You: The Evolution of the All-Volunteer Force.”

Okay, Bernie, so now I am laser focused on it. The way I figure, if 4 million young people come of military age, you need to draft about 2.3% of them to meet the 92,000 goal stated by the Bush administration.

You could accomplish this goal by putting 365 slips of paper in a fishbowl with a different day of the year written on each one. Randomly select 10, and if your birthday is called, you have been selected to serve by your Selective Service. If this plan is followed, the Pentagon will have enough draftees to meet the goal, even after allowing for deferments and exclusions.

Since King George the Incompetent has announced that he intends to enlist this many anyway, the additional cost should be limited to the price of a fishbowl and 365 slips of paper. You can use the change from that $4 Billion to make sure the draftees, and the enlistees, are well equipped.

I am at a total loss to understand why the Generals in the Pentagon would oppose this plan unless it is because Generals do what they are told to do by the civilian leadership in the Pentagon and the White House. And, as I argued in Fuck the Draft, a draft would protect this country from homegrown fascism. That’s got to be bad for the current White House residents, and their fellow travelers in the Party of Bush.

Let me be perfectly clear. I am not advocating in favor of a draft. I still can’t overcome the feeling that involuntary servitude is against deeply held beliefs about what America promises her citizens. Moreover, I don’t trust the government with the lives of young people. But in the arguments for and against the idea, I see responsible people on the left arguing that our country is at risk of falling into fascism, and on the right, I see people providing the evidence.

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”