Dick Armitage is a poor excuse.

So, what we know so far is that Deputy Secretary of State Dick Armitage was the first source for Bob Novak when he outed Valerie Plame. Here’s what the Washington Post had to say about it:

It follows that one of the most sensational charges leveled against the Bush White House -- that it orchestrated the leak of Ms. Plame’s identity to ruin her career and thus punish Mr. Wilson -- is untrue.

This is bizarre thinking, unworthy of the paper that played such a big role in uncovering Watergate. Of course, that was when Bob Woodward was into the whole Fourth Estate as a check on government abuse of power. Now, he’s more into the kissing administration asses to get the scoop, and if necessary keeping the outing of Valerie Wilson on the q.t. to suck up to his handlers.

The Post’s argument is that Armitage’s name-dropping was just a matter of sharing gossip with Bob Novak. Now, maybe the Post doesn’t know the difference between “gossip” and a secret dossier that was created to discredit Wilson, but you can bet your bippie that Armitage does. But more directly to the point, if it is true that Armitage’s loose lips were just a thoughtless act, how does that discredit the fact that the White House was engaged in a very pre-meditated, coordinated effort to respond to the Wilson article? It doesn’t.

The White House no longer denies that Karl Rove was pushing the story. Chris Matthews has said, “Karl Rove called [him] up and said that ‘Valerie Plame is fair game.’” Did Scooter Libby give up Valerie Wilson to the press? What we know so far is that his denials got him indicted for perjury and obstruction of justice. We know that Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald has alleged, and a grand jury has agreed, that there was a concerted effort in the White House to discredit Wilson in the course of which Valerie Wilson, a protected person, had her identity made public.

Joe Conason makes the point eloquently in The Observer, but he, too, is missing a crucial ingredient in this cocktail.

How did it help the White House to out Valerie Plame? The main theories put forward are (1) that it was simply to punish Joe Wilson, (2) it made Wilson look like a girly-man because his wife got him a gig, and (3) by portraying the trip to Africa as a “junket” they could deny that there was any fact-finding mission, at all. None of these make any sense, and it amazes me that they are accepted so uncritically.

Since The Price of Loyalty, at least, we have known that these are mean bastards in the White House. But would they destroy a CIA secret operative, engaged in learning about Iranian nuclear plans, to punish Joe Wilson, even in light of the damage that it did to ongoing operations by destroying her cover and exposing her contacts? Nah. They could have punished Wilson much more directly, for example, by trumping up some charges against him for revealing his “secret mission.” That would have bankrupted him.

Did you, dear reader, have the least bit of a negative reaction to Joe Wilson upon hearing that his wife may have played a role in sending him to Africa? Me, neither. It’s absurd to think that as buffoonish as these guys are, they would think, “Hey, once people learn that this former ambassador is married to a sexy spy, who sent him on a secret mission, people are just going to just think he’s a pussy and not pay any attention to him.” And how did it work out for them?

What about after you learned that when Saddam Hussein threatened to hang Ambassador Wilson, he put a noose on as if it were a necktie, and said, “I wanted Saddam to know that if he was going to hang me, I would bring my own fucking rope.” It was for this that Geo. Herbert Walker Bush called him, “a true American hero.”

Even if it were a “junket,” so what? Does that undermine the credibility of his findings? Nope. To do that, you have to attack Wilson’s credibility. There was plenty of that, to be sure, but it didn’t necessarily involve the Valerie Wilson connection. Also, notwithstanding the fumigations of the Washington post, none of it stood up.

When the White House launched the attack on Joe Wilson the war in Iraq was pretty much a done deal. And by the time the war came, the Bushies had acknowledged that the 16 words shouldn’t have been in the State of the Union address, and pretty much dropped the nuclear threat as a cause for the war.

So why did the White House attack Wilson’s wife? It was for one simple reason: the Bushies knew that Cheney had let King George make a State of the Union speech that he knew was bullshit. It wasn’t about hurting Wilson: it was about protecting Dick Deadeye. And so it was that Rove and Scooter were sent out to make the case that they had no idea about what Joe Wilson didn’t find in Africa.

It is crucial to understand that Darth Cheney thought that the article had stated that the he had personally sent Wilson to Niger. Wilson never said that, and what he did say was true, to wit: in response to questions raised by the Vice President, the CIA sent him on a mission to Niger. And so, when the veep’s clipping service sent him Wilson’s article, he scribbled some brainstorming ideas on how he can maintain plausible deniability regarding his knowledge of Wilson’s trip. “Was it a junket?” “Is it unusual to send a former ambassador on a trip like this?” You get the idea.

In order for Big Mitch’s theory to hold, you would want to see some evidence of Dead-eye Dick actually using plausible, but false, statements to deny his knowledge of Wilson’s trip. I posted it here and here:

This is from [Cheney’s] September 14, 2003 appearance on Meet the Press:

“I don’t know Joe Wilson. I’ve never met Joe Wilson. A question had arisen. I’d heard a report that the Iraqis had been trying to acquire uranium in Africa, Niger in particular. I get a daily brief on my own each day before I meet with the president to go through the intel. And I ask lots of question. One of the questions I asked at that particular time about this, I said, “What do we know about this?” They take the question. He came back within a day or two and said, “This is all we know. There’s a lot we don’t know,” end of statement. And Joe Wilson—I don’t who sent Joe Wilson. He never submitted a report -- that I ever saw -- when he came back.

How is that possible? Well, for an answer let’s look again at what Wilson said in the now famous article in the Times:

Though I did not file a written report, there should be at least four documents in United States government archives confirming my mission. The documents should include the ambassador's report of my debriefing in Niamey, a separate report written by the embassy staff, a C.I.A. report summing up my trip, and a specific answer from the agency to the office of the vice president (this may have been delivered orally). While I have not seen any of these reports, I have spent enough time in government to know that this is standard operating procedure.

You may say that this concern for Dick Cheney’s credibility is rather extreme. And you would be right. But extreme times call for extreme measures. Don’t forget that the bottom line on Joe Wilson’s argument is that the claim that Iraq was trying to obtain nuclear weapons was false, and Cheney knew it. Long ago, a majority of Americans came to the conclusion that if they lied us into a war, they ought to be impeached.

What happens when you get rid of a criminal vice-president who is the main reason for not impeaching the President of the United States? Ask Spiro Agnew.

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

Keith Olbermann’s brilliant philippic

Mr. Olbermann delivered a broadside against the Bush administration this evening. Delivered with all of the anger and passion of a man who loves his country and freedom, and who sees them under attack, it bears watching.



Video-WMV Video -QT (H/T: Crooks and Liars)

Herewith a transcript:


The man who sees absolutes, where all other men see nuances and shades of meaning, is either a prophet, or a quack. Donald S. Rumsfeld is not a prophet.

Mr. Rumsfeld’s remarkable comments to the Veterans of Foreign Wars yesterday demand the deep analysis - and the sober contemplation - of every American.

For they do not merely serve to impugn the morality or intelligence - indeed, the loyalty — of the majority of Americans who oppose the transient occupants of the highest offices in the land; Worse, still, they credit those same transient occupants – our employees — with a total omniscience; a total omniscience which neither common sense, nor this administration’s track record at home or abroad, suggests they deserve.

Dissent and disagreement with government is the life’s blood of human freedom; And not merely because it is the first roadblock against the kind of tyranny the men Mr. Rumsfeld likes to think of as "his" troops still fight, this very evening, in Iraq.

It is also essential. Because just every once in awhile… it is right — and the power to which it speaks, is wrong.

In a small irony, however, Mr. Rumsfeld’s speechwriter was adroit in invoking the memory of the appeasement of the Nazis. For, in their time, there was another government faced with true peril - with a growing evil - powerful and remorseless. That government, like Mr. Rumsfeld’s, had a monopoly on all the facts. It, too, had the secret information. It alone had the true picture of the threat. It too dismissed and insulted its critics in terms like Mr. Rumsfeld’s - questioning their intellect and their morality.

That government was England’s, in the 1930’s.

It knew Hitler posed no true threat to Europe, let alone England.

It knew Germany was not re-arming, in violation of all treaties and accords.

It knew that the hard evidence it received, which contradicted policies, conclusions - and omniscience — needed to be dismissed.

The English government of Neville Chamberlain already knew the truth.

Most relevant of all - it “knew” that its staunchest critics needed to be marginalized and isolated. In fact, it portrayed the foremost of them as a blood-thirsty war-monger who was, if not truly senile – at best morally or intellectually confused. That critic’s name was Winston Churchill.

Sadly, we have no Winston Churchills evident among us this evening. We have only Donald Rumsfelds, demonizing disagreement, the way Neville Chamberlain demonized Winston Churchill.

History - and 163 million pounds of Luftwaffe bombs over England - taught us that all Mr. Chamberlain had was his certainty - and his own confusion. A confusion that suggested that the office can not only make the man, but that the office can also make the facts.

Thus did Mr. Rumsfeld make an apt historical analogy. Excepting the fact that he has the battery plugged in backwards.

His government, absolute - and exclusive - in its knowledge, is not the modern version of the one which stood up to the Nazis. It is the modern version of the government… of Neville Chamberlain.

But back to today’s Omniscients. That about which Mr. Rumsfeld is confused… is simply this:

This is a Democracy. Still. Sometimes just barely. And as such, all voices count — not just his. Had he or his President perhaps proven any of their prior claims of omniscience - about Osama Bin Laden’s plans five years ago - about Saddam Hussein’s weapons four years ago - about Hurricane Katrina’s impact one year ago - we all might be able to swallow hard, and accept their omniscience as a bearable, even useful recipe, of fact, plus ego.

But, to date, this government has proved little besides its own arrogance, and its own hubris. Mr. Rumsfeld is also personally confused, morally or intellectually, about his own standing in this matter. From Iraq to Katrina, to the entire "Fog of Fear" which continues to envelope this nation - he, Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney, and their cronies, have – inadvertently or intentionally - profited and benefited, both personally, and politically.

And yet he can stand up, in public, and question the morality and the intellect of those of us who dare ask just for the receipt for the Emperor’s New Clothes.

In what country was Mr. Rumsfeld raised?

As a child, of whose heroism did he read?

On what side of the battle for freedom did he dream one day to fight?

With what country has he confused… the United States of America?

The confusion we — as its citizens - must now address, is stark and forbidding. But variations of it have faced our forefathers, when men like Nixon and McCarthy and Curtis LeMay have darkened our skies and obscured our flag. Note - with hope in your heart - that those earlier Americans always found their way to the light… and we can, too.

The confusion is about whether this Secretary of Defense, and this Administration, are in fact now accomplishing what they claim the terrorists seek: The destruction of our freedoms, the very ones for which the same veterans Mr. Rumsfeld addressed yesterday in Salt Lake City, so valiantly fought.

And about Mr. Rumsfeld’s other main assertion, that this country faces a "new type of fascism." As he was correct to remind us how a government that knew everything could get everything wrong, so too was he right when he said that — though probably not in the way he thought he meant it.

This country faces a new type of fascism - indeed.

Although I presumptuously use his sign-off each night, in feeble tribute, I have utterly no claim to the words of the exemplary journalist Edward R. Murrow.

But never in the trial of a thousand years of writing could I come close to matching how he phrased a warning to an earlier generation of us, at a time when other politicians thought they (and they alone) knew everything, and branded those who disagreed, “confused” or “immoral.”

Thus forgive me for reading Murrow in full:

“We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty,” he said, in 1954.

“We must remember always that accusation is not proof, and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law.

“We will not walk in fear - one, of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of un-reason, if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine, and remember that we are not descended from fearful men;

“Not from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate, and to defend causes that were - for the moment - unpopular.”

Good night. And good luck.

Thanks, Keith.

What do the Anchorage Daily News and the Socialist Worker have in common?

As I documented in Seeing is believing, one unfortunate Lebanese woman has been seen on the pages of various publications, returning to her various homes, and finding each of them destroyed. In two of the pictures, she is wearing the same distinctive clothing, and in yet a third, her distinctive scars are visible. I asked, "How much suffering can this poor woman endure?"

Sad to say, as of that writing, I was unaware of the full extent of her misfortune. Now, in addition to being on the cover of the Anchorage Daily News, she has managed to be on the cover of the Socialist Worker. bewailing the loss of still another home.Those who would like to see a clearer picture can pick up the July 22nd issues of the The Spectator (London), which featured her on the cover. The lead article begins, "Truth is generally the first casualty in war."

Here's how that picture was described on Zombie Time:

A close-up of the somewhat low-resolution image appears to faintly show the distinctive scar on the woman's left cheek, confirming it is her despite the different outfit. As [one ZombieTime reader] writes, "Once again we see the -- unmistakable -- eyebrowless Wailing Woman coming home only to find her third Beirut apartment destroyed. Different location of course, and this time she is wearing an up-market outfit: aqua silk scarf, checked coat, sling bag over her shoulder and holding car keys. She has apparently just got out of her car, seen the damage, slung the bag over her shoulder -- as you do when you discover your apartment is no more -- and gone for it, the double hand Heavenwards Wail."

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

The very definition of crazy

There’s a new definition over on Urban Dictionary.com, “Katherine Harris crazy.” It roughly translates to “batshit crazy.” Why is there no entry for “Ann Coulter crazy,” which can be used whenever, “psychotic to the nth power,” is too awkward?

Over on Crooks and Liars, you can see a video of Ann Coulter saying that “Osama is irrelevant. Things are going swimmingly in Afghanistan,” on Hannity & Colmes. When confronted with reality, she freaks out and nearly walks off the set.

You may recall the kid-glove treatment she got on Jay Leno. The audience was clearly not your typical west coast lefty audience that one would expect in Studio City. They cheered wildly for some of her more bizarre blathering. Then, her book shot to the head of the Amazon list, which also strikes me as strange. Could it be that purchases on Amazon were manipulated to give her screed the buzz?

Something is crazy here. I mean, besides Ms. Coulter. Normally people that crazy are placed in straight-jackets. Why is she on the cover of Time Magazine?

Start with asking, ‘Who benefits?’ Well, obviously it is the right wing of the Republican party. But how? After all, nobody with the brains that God gave animal crackers believes that Osama is irrelevant or that things are going well in Afghanistan.

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 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.

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

More from the left-wing so-called “mainstream media” (and the ultra-left-wing blogosphere.)

Today, Eric Boehlert, author of Lapdogs: How the Press Rolled Over for Bush reveals on the Huffington Post that “New York Times’ Eavesdropping Story Wasn’t The Only One Squashed For Bush During the 2004 Campaign.”

Boehlert documents how the main-stream media sat on stories such as Rove outing Valerie Plame Wilson to Joe Cooper (Cooper did not ask Rove for a waiver of confidentiality until after the election because the story was too “explosive” in an election year.)

In the same vein, NBC revealed two days after the election that “U.S. military officials have said for some time that they were putting off any kind of major offensive operation in [Fallujah] until after the U.S. elections, for obvious political reasons,” according to Jim Miklaszewski. Should voters have known that Bush planned to escalate the war right after the election? NBC doesn’t report, so you can’t decide.

Over on CBS, News president Andrew Hayward thought it would have been “inappropriate to broadcast [Ed Bradley’s 30 minute report debunking administration claims about Saddam’s nuclear weapon capabilities] so close to the presidential election.” [Emphasis added.] How close was it? The election was six weeks away at the time of the unusual announcement. That swift-boating of Dan Rather worked!

For Big Mitch, the most interesting part of the HuffPo note was that the New York Times sat on the story of the Bush bulge.

You may recall that during the presidential debates, many attentive viewers noted a bulge under Dubya’s jacket. He passed it off as the work of a “badly tailored suit,” and said that the presidential tailor had been fired. Surprise, surprise! Bush was lying.

The Times quashed a story of a NASA scientist who used the same techniques that are used to analyze photos from space to sharpen photos from the debate. These enhanced photos clearly showed that Bush could not be trusted.

Boehlert continues:

According to the reporting of David Lindorff, writing for Fairness and Accuracy in Report’s Extra!, Nelson was told by a Times reporters that the bulge article, complete with his compelling imagery, would run Oct. 28, five days before the election. Instead, on the night of Oct. 27 the story was killed. In an email the next day, one of the Times reporters apologized to Nelson: “Sorry to have been a source of disappointment and frustration to you.” Two months later, executive editor Keller explained, “In the end, nobody, including the scientist who brought it up, could take the story beyond speculation. In the crush of election-finale stories, it died a quiet, unlamented death.”

Why was this so interesting to Big Mitch? Because of one little-bitty parenthetical remark that Boehlert includes:

(The bulge was later confirmed to be a bullet proof vest.)

According to the Houston Independent Media Center, Dubya was “wearing a medical device for persons at risk of cardiac arrest.” It is a LifeVest wearable defibrillator. He started using it sometime after his January 2002 fainting spell, which was attributed to choking. Based on photos showing him wearing the device, one can conclude the fainting was due to atrial fibrillation (AF), which his father also had. His father’s AF was caused by Graves hyperthyroidism, which his mother also has. Bush likely has AF and less likely Graves’, based on his family history and symptoms. The AF may have caused a stroke or TIA (mini-stroke), of which physicians watching the debates detected symptoms. Observers have noted psychological symptoms consistent with this and with Wernicke-Korsakoff disease.”


Here’s another picture showing the device under Dubya’s tee-shirt.


People pretty much knew that Bush was a liar before the debate. I can only wonder if, in an election so close, it would have made a difference to know that the man who was one fluttering heartbeat away from the presidency was fellow heart–patient Dick Cheney, a man who’s warmth and popularity can be compared to that of body lice.

“… and tell ‘em Big Mitch sent ya!”

Seeing is believing

It is impossible not to feel the pain of the poor Lebanese woman pictured on Page 1 of the August 15th edition of the Anchorage Daily News, under the heading “Lebanese Return Home to Find Devastation.” Credit is given to Ben Curtis of the Associated Press for putting a human face on the suffering.

She is seen standing in front of a building apparently destroyed by Israeli bombers, in that country's efforts to rid Southern Lebanon of the terrorists who killed over two hundred U.S. Marines, bombed our embassy, and, who, by the way, were lobbing missiles at civilians in Israel.

How much has suffering can this poor woman endure? She is seen here lamenting the loss of a different house in a suburb of Beirut on August 5, 2006 in a photo taken by Hussein Malla for A.P.



As if that weren’t enough suffering for this poor woman, it must be recalled that she also lost a different home in Beirut proper on July 22, 2006, as evidenced by this photo, captured by Issam Kobeisi for Reuters:



As they say, seeing is believing.

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

Dubya responds to terrorist plot!

In The Ignorer-in-chief, I mused, “We will see if King George can extend his incredible string of ignoring problems, while there is still brush to be cleared in Crawford. I am betting he can.”

Today, I found the answer in AHN Newservice:

Crawford, TX (AHN) - President George W. Bush helps Republicans raise big money by headlining a barbecue at a ranch near his Crawford, Texas vacation home.

Kathy and Stan Hicky own the Broken Spoke Ranch, where the event took place. The fundraiser has been held annually since the start of Bush's presidency. The barbecue attracted 350 people, and raised $750,000 for the Republican National Committee.

The money will be given to Republican candidates on the ballot this fall. Only donors who had contributed at least $15,000 in the past were invited. They were treated to a spread of beef, ribs, turkey, pinto beans and potato salad.

As the president’s motorcade drove to the fundraiser, he passed anti-war protestors linked to Cindy Sheehan. They held signs, including one saying “WMD Lies Lost Lives.”

Of course, King George would argue that shaking down multi-millionaires for campaign donations is a critical element of the War on Terror. After all, if Democrats are elected, the terrorists will have won. At least that’s the import of the comments of Dick Cheney, and Tony Snow.

If this is to be his defense, I must say, it leaves me breathless. I wonder how Bush would answer the answer the underlying accusation that he is the Ignorer-in-chief, in light of this revelation from AP:

WASHINGTON - While the British terror suspects were hatching their plot, the Bush administration was quietly seeking permission to divert $6 million that was supposed to be spent this year developing new homeland explosives detection technology.

Congressional leaders rejected the idea, the latest in a series of steps by the Homeland Security Department that has left lawmakers and some of the department's own experts questioning the commitment to create better anti-terror technologies.

Republicans want to run on their record on terrorism? Bring it on!

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

Two reasonable questions

Terrorists were planning to blow up as many as ten trans-Atlantic airliners. Scotland Yard estimates that there were 50 individuals involved, of whom fewer than half have been taken into custody.

The White House is hoping that this will “play big” as a political opportunity, according to the Huffington Post. Let’s examine What we know so far …

The terrorists who were arrested were British born men of Pakistani extraction. We are told that Pakistan’s intelligence services provided crucial help to the Brits. I am not an intelligence analyst, but it seems to me that some part of the plot took place in Pakistan.

The plot involved pairs of terrorists boarding airplanes with innocuous liquids, which when combined form a peroxide explosive. These explosives were to be ignited with a flash from a disposable camera. If ten airliners blew up, the number of deaths involved would be multiples of the number who perished on 9-11.

This plot is identical to another one broken up in 1995, called Operation Bojinka, which was the brainchild of Kahlid Sheik Mohammed, the mastermind of 9-11. The British plot had other ear-marks of al-Qaeda, for example, the element of numerous coordinated targets. Of course, al-Qaeda has been promising a big operation for some time now.

Most of all, there is the Pakistan connection. MSNBC is reporting that the mastermind of the operation is believed to be hiding in Pakistan. Osama Bin Ladin is also believed to be hiding in Pakistan.

Osama Bin Ladin is a name I have not heard in all of the coverage of the spoiled terror plot. For those who may have forgotten, King George, in a moment of macho enthusiasm promised to get Osama Bin Ladin “dead or alive.” One of those who apparently have forgotten is Dubya, who in a candid moment, admitted he doesn’t spend a lot of time thinking about him.

A reasonable question to ask is this: “Why is that son-of-a-bitch, Bin Ladin, still alive?” The answer, of course, is that it is because of the incompetence of this administration at every level.

When the Presidential Daily Briefing said that Bin Ladin was determined to strike in America, the National Security Advisor considered it historical information, which was not actionable. She was later promoted to Secretary of State.

The Defense Department apparently lied to the 9-11 Commission to make it seem that they were more competent on that dreadful day than the newly released information indicates. (I wrote about it here.)

When we thought Bin Ladin was in Afghanistan, we pulled troops out of there to fight a war in Iraq over weapons of mass destruction that didn’t exist.

The head of Homeland Security is the same guy who was in charge of Homeland Security a year ago, when Hurricane Katrina brought their incompetence into sharp focus.

Here’s another reasonable question: How in the world can the White House think that this record of incompetence can “play big” as a “political opportunity.”

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

Cheney, Dick—Head cheerleader for Leiberman.

Today, Dick Cheney held a press conference via conference call because, as he said, “It’s suggested I chat with you a bit just for a couple of minutes here about the Connecticut Democratic primary yesterday …”

The Veep praised Joe Lieberman:

I think we can look at it on a personal basis and say I think he’s a good man. And if he were to leave the Senate, that would be a loss to the Democrats.

But then, as if he had caught himself being solicitous of Democrats,

But we’re not embracing Joe Lieberman’s candidacy.

Without actually embracing Joe Lieberman, he did manage to put forth the idea that a vote against Lieberman was a vote in favor of al-Qaeda and an invitation for another 9-11. This is how Republicans campaign; they sow fear, because fear has a well-documented capacity for over-coming reason. Witness this comment from Lieberman’s sub rosa supporter, Dick Cheney:

The thing that’s partly disturbing about it is the fact that, the standpoint of our adversaries, if you will, in this conflict, and the al Qaeda types, they clearly are betting on the proposition that ultimately they can break the will of the American people in terms of our ability to stay in the fight and complete the task.

Obviously, he’s on the same page as Tony Snow. Bush’s mouthpiece was in front of the podium yesterday. As he put it, Lieberman’s defeat was ratification of “one of the approaches [which] is ignore the difficulties and walk away.”

Now, when the United States walked away, in the opinion of Osama bin Laden in 1991, bin Laden drew from that the conclusion that Americans were weak and wouldn't stay the course, and that led to September 11th.

Here's a question for Tony Snow: If you believe that, what do you have to say about America’s walking away from Saudi Arabia, 17 months after the 9-11 attack? Here’s how it was reported in The Telegraph of Great Britian:

America began a historic reshaping of its presence in the Middle East yesterday, announcing a halt to active military operations is Saudi Arabia and the removal of almost all of its forces from the kingdom within weeks.

The withdrawal ends a contentious 12-year-old presence in Saudi Arabia and marks the most dramatic in a set of sweeping changes in the deployment of American forces after the war in Iraq.

Withdrawal of “infidel” American forces from Saudi Arabia has been one of the demands of Osama bin Laden, although a senior US military official said that this was “irrelevant.”

Since the Republicans control all branches of government, and most of the mass media, it follows that any encouragement that al-Qaida has received is their responsibility. So how is King George reacting to the news that an al-Qaeda planned to bomb as many as 10 trans-Atlantic flights, and that of the estimated 50 terrorists involved, less than half have been arrested?

He’s ignoring it and walking away to Crawford, where there is brush to be cleared.

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

The Ignorer-in-chief

Tony Snow, the White House mouthpiece, had this to say at his daily press briefing.

And the real question for the American people to ask themselves is, do you take the war on terror seriously, with all the developments going on around the world? And, if so, how do you fight it to win? There seem to be two approaches. And in the Connecticut race one of the approaches is ignore the difficulties and walk away.

Now, when the United States walked away, in the opinion of Osama bin Laden in 1991, bin Laden drew from that the conclusion that Americans were weak and wouldn't stay the course, and that led to September 11th.

The thing that leaps out is that it was Ronald Wilson Reagan who pulled our troops out of Lebanon. (This was the point made by Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann.)

I was drawn to the unstated alternative in the false dichotomy. Snow’s comment was that there were two approaches. What is the alternative to ignoring the difficulties and walking away? Funny you should ask: It is the policy of King George and Joe Lieberman, rejected by the Democrats of Connecticut and by 60% of Americans.

This policy – call it “faith-based foreign policy,” if you will – retains the element of ignoring the problems. In place of “walking away,” it introduces two different elements, namely, getting killed, and making matters worse.

For example, the war has already cost the U.S. treasury $302 billion dollars. Some would say deficits are a problem, but not the boys in the White House.

The Republicans have adopted a theory of economics, formerly known as voodoo economics, but now resurrected as faith-based economics. It is summed up in the words of Dick Cheney to former Treasury Secretary, Paul O’Neill: “Deficits don’t matter.”

But ignoring the difficulties caused by deficits is child’s play compared to ignoring the whole difficulty of the civil war in Iraq. Nobody was better prepared for the work of ignoring it than George W. Bush. According to Raw Story, “Former Ambassador to Croatia Peter Galbraith is claiming President George W. Bush was unaware that there were two major sects of Islam just two months before the President ordered troops to invade Iraq.”

Dubya has been busy ignoring sectarian violence as it descends into a civil war, and as he likes to remind us, “It is hard work.” He takes his information from his Generals.

Recently, as reported on Think Progress “Gen. John Abizaid, the Commander of the U.S. Central Command, raised the prospect that Iraq could be sliding toward civil war. Abizaid said, ‘I believe that the sectarian violence is probably is as bad as I’ve seen it in Baghdad in particular, and that if not stopped, it is possible that Iraq could move toward civil war.’ Gen. Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said, ‘I believe we do have the possibility of that devolving to a civil war.’”

How can Dubya ignore that?. Here’s the Decider at work:

You know, I hear people say, “Well, civil war this, civil war that.” The Iraqi people decided against civil war when they went to the ballot box.

Since that election, our military has sustained 1,155 deaths, and perhaps as many as ten thousand wounded. But Dubya has taken a firm stand in favor of ignoring their deaths. Not only has he boycotted their funerals, he wants you to ignore them, too. He has forbade any pictures of coffins coming home.

Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have marched under banners that said, “Bush and Saddam: Two sides of the same coin.” Who could ignore that? Bush is who! He is scheduled to begin a 10-day vacation in Crawford.

As I write these words, NBC News is announcing that a Scotland Yard has detected an Al Quaeda plot to blow-up trans-Atlantic flights to the United States. Twenty-one British born terrorists have been arrested. The threat level is ‘critical’ in Britain, and elevated to ‘Red’ in the U.S.

We will see if King George can extend his incredible string of ignoring problems, while there is still brush to be cleared in Crawford. I am betting he can.

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

Ehud Olmert, Prime Minister of the State of Israel

CORRECTION: I originally published this speech under the note The following is a speech of Ehud Olmert, Prime Minister of the State of Israel, published in Ma'ariv on Monday, July 31, 2006.

Subsequently I learned that although it may sound to some people like the kind of "tough talk" speech Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert might deliver to explain what Israelis are fighting for in their battle with Hezbollah forces in Lebanon, it's actually a case of someone's putting into the Prime Minister's mouth the words he wishes the Israeli leader would say.

This "speech" was an opinion piece created by Ben Caspit, a journalist writing for Israel's Ma'ariv newspaper, who expressed his viewpoint in the form of a "Suggested Speech for Prime Minister Olmert." Caspit's editorial has since been translated into English and widely circulated via e-mail, losing its original attribution in cyberspace and creating the impression that it is the text of a speech actually delivered by Prime Minister Olmert.

Nevertheless, it bears reading.

---

Ladies and gentlemen, leaders of the world, I, the Prime Minister of Israel, am speaking to you from Jerusalem in the face of the terrible pictures from Kfar Kana. Any human heart, wherever it is, must sicken and recoil at the sight of such pictures. There are no words of comfort that can mitigate the enormity of this tragedy. Still, I am looking you straight in the eye and telling you that the State of Israel will continue its military campaign in Lebanon.

The Israel Defense Forces will continue to attack targets from which missiles and Katyusha rockets are fired at hospitals, old age homes and kindergartens in Israel. I have instructed the security forces and the IDF to continue to hunt for the Katyusha stockpiles and launch sites from which these savages are bombarding the State of Israel. We will not hesitate, we will not apologize and we will not back off. If they continue to launch missiles into Israel from Kfar Kana, we will continue to bomb Kfar Kana. Today, tomorrow and the day after tomorrow. Here, there and everywhere.

The children of Kfar Kana could now be sleeping peacefully in their homes, unmolested, had the agents of the devil not taken over their land and turned the lives of our children into hell. Ladies and gentlemen, it's time you understood: the Jewish state will no longer be trampled upon. We will no longer allow anyone to exploit population centers in order to bomb our citizens. No one will be able to hide anymore behind women and children in order to kill our women and children. This anarchy is over. You can condemn us, you can boycott us, you can stop visiting us and, if necessary, we will stop visiting you.

Today I am serving as the voice of six million bombarded Israeli citizens who serve as the voice of six million murdered Jews who were melted down to dust and ashes by savages in Europe. In both cases, those responsible for these evil acts were, and are, barbarians devoid of all humanity, who set themselves one simple goal: to wipe the Jewish people off the face of the earth, as Adolph Hitler said, or to wipe the State of Israel off the map, as Mahmoud Ahmedinjad proclaims.

And you - just as you did not take those words seriously then, you are ignoring them again now. And that, ladies and gentlemen, leaders of the world, will not happen again. Never again will we wait for bombs that never came to hit the gas chambers. Never again will we wait for salvation that never arrives. Now we have our own air force. The Jewish people are now capable of standing up to those who seek their destruction - those people will no longer be able to hide behind women and children. They will no longer be able to evade their responsibility. Every place from which a Katyusha is fired into the State of Israel will be a legitimate target for us to attack. This must be stated clearly and publicly, once and for all. You are welcome to judge us, to ostracize us, to boycott us and to vilify us. But to kill us? Absolutely not.

Four months ago I was elected by hundreds of thousands of citizens to the office of Prime Minister of the government of Israel, on the basis of my plan for unilaterally withdrawing from 90 percent of the areas of Judea and Samaria, the birth place and cradle of the Jewish people; to end most of the occupation and to enable the Palestinian people to turn over a new leaf and to calm things down until conditions are ripe for attaining a permanent settlement between us. The Prime Minister who preceded me, Ariel Sharon, made a full withdrawal from the Gaza Strip back to the international border, and gave the Palestinians there a chance to build a new reality for themselves. The Prime Minister who preceded him, Ehud Barak, ended the lengthy Israeli presence in Lebanon and pulled the IDF back to the international border, leaving the land of the cedars to flourish, develop and establish its democracy and its economy.

What did the State of Israel get in exchange for all of this? Did we win even one minute of quiet? Was our hand, outstretched in peace, met with a handshake of encouragement? Ehud Barak's peace initiative at Camp David let loose on us a wave of suicide bombers who smashed and blew to pieces over 1,000 citizens, men, women and children. I don't remember you being so enraged then. Maybe that happened because we did not allow TV close-ups of the dismembered body parts of the Israeli youngsters at the Dolphinarium? Or of the shattered lives of the people butchered while celebrating the Passover seder at the Park Hotel in Netanya?

What can you do - that's the way we are. We don't wave body parts at the camera. We grieve quietly. We do not dance on the roofs at the sight of the bodies of our enemy's children - we express genuine sorrow and regret. That is the monstrous behavior of our enemies. Now they have risen up against us. Tomorrow they will rise up against you. You are already familiar with the murderous taste of this terror. And you will taste more.

And Ariel Sharon's withdrawal from Gaza -- what did it get us? A barrage of Kassem missiles fired at peaceful settlements and the kidnapping of soldiers. Then too, I don't recall you reacting with such alarm. And for six years, the withdrawal from Lebanon has drawn the vituperation and crimes of a dangerous, extremist Iranian agent, who took over an entire country in the name of religious fanaticism, and is trying to take Israel hostage on his way to Jerusalem - and from there to Paris and London. An enormous terrorist infrastructure has been established by Iran on our border, threatening our citizens, growing stronger before our very eyes, awaiting the moment when the land of the Ayatollahs becomes a nuclear power in order to bring us to our knees. And make no mistake - we won't go down alone. You, the leaders of the free and enlightened world, will go down along with us.

So today, here and now, I am putting an end to this parade of hypocrisy. I don't recall such a wave of reaction in the face of the 100 citizens killed every single day in Iraq. Sunnis kill Shiites who kill Sunnis, and all of them kill Americans - and the world remains silent. And I am hard pressed to recall a similar reaction when the Russians destroyed entire villages and burned down large cities in order to repress the revolt in Chechnya. And when NATO bombed Kosovo for almost three months and crushed the civilian population - then you also kept silent.

What is it about us, the Jews, the minority, the persecuted, that arouses this cosmic sense of justice in you? What do we have that all the others don't? In a loud clear voice, looking you straight in the eye, I stand before you openly and I will not apologize. I will not capitulate. I will not whine. This is a battle for our freedom. For our humanity. For the right to lead normal lives within our recognized, legitimate borders. It is also your battle.

I pray and I believe that now you will understand that. Because if you don't, you may regret it later, when it's too late.

Republicans taking hostages?

On Meet the Press today, Condaleeza Rice was asked directly if the U.S. would allow a mass emigration of Cuban Americans back to their native land, given that Castro’s health problems may present an opportunity for a transition to democracy in Cuba.

Her response was as straightforward as Dr. Rice is capable of being: “We are not going to do anything to stoke a sense of crisis” in Cuba. This is her way of saying “No way, Jose!”

Why should we? Well, for one thing, a cadre of people with a strong history of democracy can only assist in the island nation’s transition, if that is to occur. Additionally, capital may leave with these emigrants but if it is used to establish a prosperous trading partner 90 miles off the Florida coast, it is a good thing, is it not?

Call it xenophobia, or worse, but it must be admitted that within the Republican Party there exists a significant contingent that has deep concerns about preserving “American culture.” A couple of hundred thousand fewer Latinos in Florida couldn’t hurt their cause.

So why didn’t Dr. Rice say, “Hey, it’s a free country! If people want to leave, we don’t keep them here like they did in the bad old days of East Berlin. We wish them well, and we offer whatever help we can give in their noble efforts to establish a democracy in Cuba?”

The answer is that Cuban-Americans are, in Lincoln’s phrase, “not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it,” specifically, in Florida. While Cuban-American voters often split their votes between the two major parties in local or state elections, they tend to vote overwhelmingly Republican in presidential races, by margins that have fluctuated between 75 and 85 percent, making them perhaps the most solidly Republican ethnic bloc in the country. Without the support of Cuban Americans in Florida, Dubya would have lost both elections by margins too large to cover over with shenanigans.

Think about it! Cuban Americans being held hostage, kept in Florida against their will, so that Republicans can win elections. It is further proof, as if we needed any, that Republicans will stoop beneath dirt, to win elections. But don’t be so sure that Cuban-Americans will not see through this, and turn on the Republicans.

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

REQUISCAT IN PACE ...

Susan Butcher (1954-2006) Four-time Iditerod champion.

Seven Days

From 1998 to 2001, there was a show named “Seven Days” on network TV. It is now in syndication, and my teenage daughter loves it. The premise of the show is that the hero, Frank Parker, works for a secret government agency that has the capability to send him back in time one week, so that he can undo whatever the evil villains have done to us.

The pilot episode aired last week. It showed how Jack was recruited (from a mental hospital) to travel seven days back in time. And what was the horror he had to literally undo? Someone had taken an airplane and flown it into the White House.

All of which set my mind to thinking. It made me recall a time in 2004, when, in response to pressure from the families of 9-11 victims,* the White House reversed its policy and allowed Condoleeza Rice to testify before the Independent National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, commonly referred to as the 9-11 commission. She reiterated her previous statement that: “No one could have imagined them taking a plane, slamming it into the Pentagon into the World Trade Center, using planes as a missile.”

Maybe so, but 6 years earlier, someone had imagined them taking a plane and slamming it into the White House, using a plane as a missile.

As I pointed out in Cheney admits guilt, I consider it an admission of guilt when someone charged with planning for contingencies fails to imagine outcomes. This rule applies with equal force when the outcome is flying planes into the WTC, levees breaching, or levels of violence in Iraq, to name three examples where the administration has used this lame excuse. It also applies when the government we installed in Iraq, dominated as it is by Shi’ites, forms a military alliance with Shi’ite Iran, as I reported here.

Here’s the bottom line, the current administration is weak – hell, I’d go all the way to incompetent – when it comes to national security. The irony is not that King George ostensibly succeeded in an election by running on this issue. Rather, it is that Karl Rove still thinks Republicans can win on it in 2008.

Of course, the evidence I have submitted here relies on recognizing the failures of imagination as incompetence. But as it turns out, there is evidence beyond what is in the re-runs of Seven Days, that there actually was no failure of imagination.

On September 11, 2001 many branches of our defense community were engaged in exercises, a fact which figures prominently in the several conspiracy theories that have emerged since that dreadful day.

One of those exercises was a pre-planned simulation to explore the emergency response issues that would be created if a plane were to strike a building. This exercise was not being coordinated by first responders nor even by some agency like FEMA. Rather it was being conducted by the CIA. They’re the guys who are tasked with assessing and responding to international threats.**

But worse, this week, Vanity Fair reported on 30 hours of never-before-released tapes from the control room of NORAD's Northeast headquarters. What is revealed is confusion and chaos, perhaps not entirely surprising considering the circumstances, but very much at odds with the story told by NORAD to the 9-11 Commission.

This week the Ed Schultz radio show had one of the 9-11 commissioners, Richard Benviniste as a guest. Here’s some of my unofficial transcript:

Question: Do you believe there was a deliberate effort to mislead the commission on exactly what actions took place at the Pentagon on September 11, 2001?

Benveniste: Let me respond this way: The initial account which was provided to us in our first hearing was inaccurate in important aspects. We had to divert attention and investigative efforts (which was precious to us because of the time constraints under which we were operating) to get the correct story. And we increased our staffing from one person to seven in order to go out into the field and get the NORAD records, which challenged and conflicted with the initial story we had received.

Question: Did they lie to you?

Benveniste: That implies that there was a deliberate effort to mislead. I am not going to cross that bridge at this moment. They certainly provided a story that was inexact, it was incorrect in many important aspects.

That story, I think, had its genesis in an initial press release that came out of the Defense Department. And it would seem to me, if I were a betting person, that the initial press release then dictated how the public affairs people and then the leadership at NORAD responded to official inquiries about their actions. That was a terrible mistake from the standpoint of those who were investigating this, and I think the reputations of those involved.

Mr. Benveniste went on to say that the matter was referred to the Inspector Generals of the Defense Department, in the case of NORAD, and the FAA.

We now know the story. We don’t know why we got an inconsistent version. NORAD went so far as to publish a book, entitled, I think it was, Air War over America in which they recounted this bogus story of how they were tracking the two flights and how they were ready to shoot them down. That never happened. So I think they went ahead and tried to burnish their reputation by suggesting facts that didn’t exist.

I could tell you that no one could have imagined that the government would have lied to us or engaged in a cover-up of its own incompetence. But as Nixon once famously said, “It would be wrong.”

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

*Which, by the way, is why a certain witch named Ann Coulter subjected them such a venomous attack.

**When the AP reported this story, it said that the simulation was of a civilian aircraft “accidentally” crashing into the building after a mechanical failure.

Demand proof!

Israel has claimed repeatedly that Hezbollah is waging war from within civilian areas, thereby jeopardizing innocents by, in effect, using them as human shields. The world responds by saying, “Prove it.”

As they say in Lebanon, “Voila!”


In these two pictures, we see Hezbollah using high-density residential areas as launching pads for rockets and heavy-caliber weapons. The militiamen are dressed in civilian clothing so they can quickly disappear into the populace. The terrorists are seen carrying automatic assault rifles and ride on trucks mounted with cannon. The pictures appeared in Australia’s largest daily newspaper, the Herald Sun.

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

Defending Israel in the war against Hezbollah

Some may accuse me of bias in my reporting when it comes to Israel. I plead guilty. I am biased in favor of democracy. I am biased against terrorists. And I am sympathetic to a country that is the fulfillment of 2,000 years of Jewish yearning for a homeland, where Jews could defend themselves rather than depend on the kindness of those who regard them as strangers.

When I was a criminal defense attorney, I was often asked some permutation of the question, “How can you defend those people?” Today, on the heels of the Israeli attack on the UN observer post, and the disaster in Qana, I can expect the same question. How can I defend the Israelis?

Just watch me.

Let’s begin with the UN post. It has been widely publicized that a Scottish member of the UN force warned the Israelis that their fire was coming uncomfortably close. You would have to go to our neighbor to the north (or east, if you are in Alaska) to get a different take.

The Ottawa Citizen carried this story under the headline Hezbollah was using UN post as ‘shield’:

The words of a Canadian United Nations observer written just days before he was killed in an Israeli bombing of a UN post in Lebanon are evidence Hezbollah was using the post as a “shield” to fire rockets into Israel, says a former UN commander in Bosnia.

My question is this: What were the UN observers observing? Were they there to assist in the enforcement of UN Resolution 1559, which calls for the withdrawal of Hezbollah militias from the Bakaa? I guess not.

But what about the tragedy in Qana? For those to whom the name Qana is not familiar, here’s how the NY Times described today’s events:

An Israeli air raid on the southern Lebanese town of Qana killed dozens of civilians on Sunday, many of them children, marking the bloodiest day of this conflict and putting enormous pressure on Israel and the United States to move rapidly toward a cease-fire.

How is Israel to respond to this pressure on a day when 115 Kaytusha rockets aimed at civilians landed in Northern Israel?

Well, first Israel expressed deep regret and remorse at the loss of civilian life. Israeli Ambassador to the UN, Dan Gellerman put it this way on Meet the Press: "This is a horrible, devastating, bloody Sunday, and it’s a horrible morning, and we grieve the deaths of those civilians and children." Compare this to the Hezbollah, who regard the taking of civilian lives as a tactical objective and a victory to be celebrated.

Then, Israel unilaterally declared a 48 hour cease fire so that civilians could leave the areas infested with Hezbollah. Of course, we are talking about the civilians who did not evacuate when warned by the leaflets that the Israeli air force dropped.

Next, Israel announced that it would investigate the incident to learn the cause of so many civilian deaths. How is that investigation going?

What we know so far is that the Israeli attack was on an area from which the Hezbollah was firing rockets on Israeli civilians. The operation ended between midnight and one o’oclock in the morning according to Brigadier General Amir Eshel, Head of the Air Force Headquarters. The building collapsed seven or eight hours later.

Ambassador Gillerman said today, "We have a film which we will release very shortly which actually shows a missile which is being, being launched right from behind a three-story building there, very similar to the one that was hit.”

The building was allegedly empty, except for the basement, which was being used as a shelter. What we don’t know so far is whether or not the building was being used as a cache for Hezbollah rockets. Is it possible that secondary explosions caused the collapse of the building? What kind of people would store munitions in a building being used as a shelter for women and children? That would be Hezbollah.

In other news from Lebanon, UNICEF has begun to deliver relief to people displaced by the war against Hezbollah. You might think that this would be a matter of grave concern for the Israelis since UNICEF aid in the past has made it possible for the Palestineans to wage a war of attrition. How did Israel respond to the latest UNICEF action? By opening safe corridors for the delivery of relief to Lebanese civilians.


All of this was on my mind when I received an email from my friend Reb David. He enclosed this story:

Cry to those Using Babies as Shields

By Naomi Ragen

My son is in the army. He is not the type at all, believe me. Quiet, studious, a writer, a lover of Jewish history,
Talmud, ethics. He spent two years in a pre-army program in the Galilee called Karmei Chayil. He made many good friends
there from all over the country, and now he and all hisfriends are in the army. One of them I know well. A bit chubby, with payot, [the long side curls worn by some religious Jews -- Big Mitch]and a great laugh. He and my son have become like brothers. While both of them tried out for the elite paratroopers unit, only he made it in. He and his unit are the ones in Lebanon. They were there over a week, fighting under horrific conditions, running out of food and water. Even though the Israeli air force dropped tons of leaflets warning civilians to flee because they were in terrorist territory and likely to be injured, they still encountered civilians. My son spoke to his friend yesterday, and this is how he described it:

The village looked empty, and then we heard noises coming from one of the houses, so we opened fire. But when we went inside, we found two women and a child huddled in the corner of the room.

We were so relieved we hadn't hurt them. We took up base in one of the empty houses. And then all of a sudden, we came under intense fire. Three rockets were fired at the house we were in. Only one managed to destroy a wall, which fell on one of us, covering him in white dust, but otherwise not hurting him. I spent the whole time feeding bullets to my friend who was shooting non-stop. We managed to killed 26 terrorists. Not one of us was hurt. Our commanding officer kept walking around, touching everybody on the shoulder, smiling and encouraging us: “We're are better than they are. Don't worry.” It calmed us all down. And really, we were much better then them. They are a lousy army. They only win when they hide behind baby carriages.

Please remember this when you hear about the "atrocity" of the Israeli bomb dropped on Kfar Cana, killing many civilians, a place from which Hezbollah has fired hundreds of rockets at Israel. Unlike previous administrations, Mr. Olmert has my respect when he says: "They were warned to leave. It is the responsibility of Hezbollah for firing rockets amidst civilians."

Terrorists and their supporters have lost the right to complain about civilian casualties, since all they have done this entire war is target civilians. Every single one of the more than 2,500 rockets launched into Israel, is launched into populated towns filled with women and children.

Just today, another suicide belt meant to kill civilians in Israel was detonated harmlessly by our forces in Nablus. So don't cry to me about civilian casualties. Cry to those using your babies and wives and mothers; cry to those who store weapons in mosques, ambulances, hospitals, and private homes. Cry to those launching deadly rockets from the backyards of your kindergartens and schools. Cry to the heartless men who love death, and however many of their troops or civilians die, consider themselves victorious as long as they can keep on firing rockets at our women and children.

Save your sympathy for the mothers and sisters and girlfriends of our young soldiers who would rather be sitting in study halls learning Torah, but have no choice but to risk their precious lives full of hope, goodness and endless potential, to wipe out the cancerous terrorist cells that threaten their people and all mankind. Make your choice, and save your tears.

That terrorists have been unsuccessful in killing more of our women and children is due to our army, God and prayers, not to any lack of motivation or intention on their part.

If you hide behind your baby to shoot at my baby, you are responsible for getting children killed. You and you alone.

Stay tuned. Tomorrow, there may be an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council to condemn Israel. After all, how could anyone defend those people?

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

Global War on Terrorism sets off alarms

When I first started practicing law, I received some advice that stuck with me. I was told to trust everyone, at least until they prove themselves untrustworthy. The advice served me well. The pains I suffered from misplaced trust never exceeded the benefits I obtained by heeding this advice. One benefit was that I developed a highly sensitive bullshit detector.

It is against this backdrop that I recall my reaction to King George the Incompetent’s declaration of a global war on terror. Imagine a fire truck screaming on a submarine as it is about to submerge, while a loudspeaker blares: “Emergency! Emergency! Deploy Haz-mat Protection Immediately.”

I said to my buddies, “If this is a global war on terrorism, then when are we going to attack the PLO?”

Of course, the PLO went mainstream, but in the end it was crushed by the weight of its own corruption. Arafat’s demise was a death-knell for the organization, since only the cult of personality built around him could distract Palestinians from the incredible ineffectiveness of the organization.

Bush never tried to get Arafat to be serious about solving the problems of the Palestinians or cleaning up his own act because Clinton had spent so much energy unsuccessfully in trying to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I say ‘unsuccessfully’ although Clinton did accomplish this: He proved that, as the old saying goes, “The PLO never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity.” Further, it could no longer be disputed that the PLO just couldn’t take ‘yes’ for an answer.

Bush’s inattention to international terrorism while waging a global war on international terrorism produced some anomalous results. For example, in the Gaza, the terrorist organization, Hamas, was elected to succeed the Palestinian Liberation Authority. This is toilet paper democracy: use it once and throw it away.

The case for ignoring Hezbollah is even harder to grasp. Hezbollah claims credit for bombing an American embassy and a US Marine barracks, which led to the precipitous withdrawal of Americans from Lebanon on Ronald Reagan’s watch. (Did someone say, “Cut and run?”)

Hezbollah claims that it was formed to expel Israel from southern Lebanon. The raison d’etre no longer exists: Israel has withdrawn from the Bakaa valley in southern Lebanon, and the United Nations has certified this.

The United Nations has also passed a resolution implementing the cease-fire agreement that ended the Lebanese Civil War. It called for the dismantling of all militias in the Lebanon, but Hezbollah will have none of it.

The Cedar revolution began in Lebanon following the Feb. 14, 2005 assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Harriri. By the end of April, the demonstrations had accomplished their main goals: the withdrawal of the roughly 14,000 Syrian soldiers and intelligence agents from Lebanon, and the disbanding of the Pro-Syrian government.

Will the United States engage Hezbollah in the global war on terrorism? Don’t count on it. For one thing, our military resources are tied up in Iraq and Afghanistan. Our treasury has been emptied in order to fill the coffers of the super millionaires in our own country.

But there is another reason that the US is paralyzed. The administration clings to idea that it can be an enemy to terrorists and the countries that harbor them, a friend to democracy and in particular to Israel, and an even-handed intermediary between the warring parties in the region. It’s a tall order for a crowd that can’t walk and chew gun at the same time.

Today, we could see the President hard at work making the disparate threads of this difficult tapestry all pull together. Dubya entertained, Taylor Hicks, winner of “American Idol” to the White House, along with 9 runners-up.


“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

Big Mitch has A Really Stupid Idea.

I was listening to Al Franken and Laurence O’Donnell talking about what a great Op-Ed piece Peter Galbraith had in today’s New York Times. They said that if you can only read one article explaining the situation in Iraq, this was the one to read. So, I read Our Corner of Iraq.

The basic premise is that the Shiite dominated government in Baghdad doesn’t govern in Iraq, and the idea of turning over the defense of Iraq to this government is a mirage. To the extent that it governs at all in the south, it is because the Shiite warlords in the south also participate in the government in the capital. “[T]he administration should encourage the formation of several provinces into a Sunni Arab region with its own army, as allowed by Iraq’s Constitution.”

Galbraith argues that the Americans should re-deploy troops to Kurdistan, in the north of Iraq. This area is effectively a separate country, anyway. From Kurdistan, the U.S. could re-engage, if necessary to assist the Sunnis in their efforts to repel al Qaeda and foreign jihadists. In this, the Americans would be aided by the peshmerga, “Iraq’s only reliable indigenous military force.”

The fly in the ointment is Baghdad. Galbraith writes,

Because it is Iraq’s most mixed city, Baghdad is the front line of Iraq’s Sunni-Shiite civil war. It is a tragedy for its people, most of whom do not share the sectarian hatred behind the killing. Iraqi forces cannot end the civil war because many of them are partisans of one side, and none [is] trusted by both communities.

Somehow, Baghdadis have to find a modus vivendi. Americans must accept that they cannot play a constructive role in this process.

Here’s my Really Stupid Idea: Why not have a divided city? We can call it an “international city.” Wouldn’t that be grand?

Before you list off the myriad of reasons why this idea is as dumb as a screen door on a submarine, remember this: Many of the bloviating pontificators who talk about the solution to the Arab-Israeli problems advocate making the eternal capital of Israel into a divided, international city. Next time you hear some maven say this, tell him it’s a Really Stupid Idea…

… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!

Breaking News: Iran’s new regional ally is Iraq!

The war between Israel and Hezbollah rages on. Israel either for its own purposes, or because of necessity, or out of respect for world opinion has not launched a full scale invasion into southern Lebanon. For those living in the residential areas where Hezbollah prefers to hide, the distinction may be a bit too fine.

Today, 90 missiles fell in northern Israel. Israel estimates that the terrorists have lost up about half of their Iranian and Syrian made rockets. Mark Potter, reporting for NBC News, estimates that 2,000 Kaytushas rockets have been taken out, 1,200 have been fired, and 8-9000 are left in Hexbollah’s arsenal. (This is consistent with a pre-war statement of Sheik Nabil Qaouk, the commander of Hezbollah forces in the southern Lebanon,but Hezbollah has more motivation to overstate the number than Israel has to understate it.)

Last Friday, Ted Koppel wrote in the New York Times,

The United States is already at war with Iran; but for the time being the battle is being fought through surrogates.

Here are some specifics, as related by Koppel:

Over the past couple of months alone, [a senior Jordanian intelligence official] told me, Hamas has received more than $300 million in cash, provided by Iran and funneled through Syria. He told me what has now become self-evident to the residents of Haifa: namely, that Iran has made longer-range and more powerful rockets and missiles available to Hezbollah in southern Lebanon.

Obviously, the attack on Israel is an attack on the United States’ most faithful friend. But does America have any other friends in the area that can be counted on to provide balance against Iran and her proxies, Syria and Hesbollah? Well, there is one country where America has spent nearly $300 Billion to install a friendly government. How’s that going?

Funny you should ask. It just so happens that late this evening, Rep. William Delahunt D-Mass. (Quincy, Plymouth, Cape Cod) took to the floor of the House to give an update on the situation in Iraq.

It is not going well.

He quoted Mahmoud al-Mashhadani, a member of the Sunni Muslim Iraqi Accordance Front who happens to be the Speaker of the new Iraqi parliament.

Some people say ‘we saw you beheading, kidnappings and killing. In the end we even started kidnapping women who are our honor.’ These acts are not the work of Iraqis. I am sure that he who does this is a Jew and the son of a Jew.

I can tell you about these Jewish, Israelis and Zionists who are using Iraqi money and oil to frustrate the Islamic movement in Iraq and come with the agent and cheap project.

No one deserves to rule Iraq other than Islamists.

This does not bode well for lovers of democracy, a group conspicuously absent in the current administration.

But wait! It gets worse. Here’s the news that Rep. Delahunt broke on the floor of the House this evening:

A special relationship now evolving between Iran and Iraq. There have been agreement after agreement concluded between Iran and Iraq.

The Iranian Foreign Minister has visited in Bahgdad and consulted with the new Iraqi government. Iran has agreed to construct a new airport in Iraq. They have extended loan credits in the amount of one billion dollars to Iraq.

And Mr. Speaker, I think this is especially important for the American people to know:They have concluded a bilateral military cooperation agreement. Yes, Iran and Iraq have concluded a military agreement.

Unless you were watching C-SPAN late this evening, you heard it here first.

… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!

Big Mitch takes the Dershowitz challenge

I trust that it is no longer necessary to argue that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization. Further, relevant UN resolutions make it criminal for Hezbollah to continue its armed existence in Lebanon.

Prof. Dershowitz asks, “What would the United States do?” When the United States was attacked, it declared war on the terrorists, “and those that harbor them.” Notwithstanding differences of opinion regarding the war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, against al Quaida and the Taliban, seems to meet with near universal approval.

The problem in Lebanon derives from the fact that morality and international law stand firmly against the idea of collective punishment. Arab leaders, ever-eager to blame Israel, describe any and all actions against terrorists that have any untoward consequences for civilians as “collective punishment.”

Therefore, a first step would be to marshal the international community to condemn Hezbollah for jeopardizing civilians by hiding among them. It is already a war-crime to use human shields. If it is true that for the first time in recent memory world opinion is on the side of Israel, this should not be an impossible goal to obtain a UN Resolution.

Next, the people of southern Lebanon must be made to understand that Israel is trying to uproot Hezbollah from their midst. This is more difficult because Hezbollah has promoted itself as a provider of services, if not a protector of civilians. The UN resolution is crucial in this regard.

The next move is Israel’s. She must liberate “the human hostages.” To do this, Israel must be prepared to relocate and support 60,000+ Lebanese for the duration of this war. These people should be treated with the utmost of respect and cordiality. It is important to bear in mind that hospitality is a core value in mid-Eastern cultures. The site should be deep within Israel, so there can be no claim that Israel wants to create a permanent displaced persons problem. The Israelis should sub-out the care and protection of these people to the French or the Canadians, or to a NGO, perhaps even the Red Crescent or Oxfam.

Not to disparage the difficulty of achieving the foregoing, the next step is even more difficult. It requires Israel to set up a perimeter around Southern Lebanon. The Golan is the eastern border, the blue line is the southern border, and the Mediterranean is the western border. The northern border is a line far enough away from Israel, so that a less than complete expungement of Hezbollah is not an intolerable threat to the Galilee.

With the establishment of this line, Israel can allow refugees to escape Northward to Beirut. The Lebanese of the south who are not at French-run DP camps in the Negev, can seek shelter in Beirut or beyond. Equally important, the Lebanese army can be supported in a drive south against the Hezbollah militia.

With Hezbollah routed in Southern Lebanon, the process of rebuilding must begin. Israel and the Lebanese Government must work cooperatively in this. American Jews must be visible in their support of the rebuilding of Southern Lebanon.

As I am not a military expert, I cannot express a judgment about the feasibility of this plan from a logistical perspective. The devil is, as always, in the details. However, the main points of the plan can be a template of sorts. First, protect non-Hezbollah Lebanese. Second, actively align with and support the Lebanese army in southern Lebanon. Third, destroy the military arm of Hezbollah. Fourth, a program of rebuilding that does for the people of southern Lebanon, what the Marshal plan did for the people of Europe.

The 800-pound gorilla is Iran. How to keep her from throwing a monkey-wrench in the works? This will take the concerted efforts of the Sunni Islamic world, the Europeans and Russians and, of course, the U.S. Unfortunately, the U.S. is already engaged in a campaign to pressure Iran for unrelated reasons. (Indeed, some would say that the Hezbollah attack on Israel was in the service of diverting attention from world condemnation of Iran’s nuclear program.)

There is a chance that the Iranian man-on-the-street can come around to opposing the government in Tehran, but not if he sees the west as imposing hardship on it. Tehran buys their loyalty with subsidized fuel – gasoline is 10¢ a liter. Can the Saudis bring to bear pressure on Tehran by undercutting Iran’s price of export oil? Can Iraqis create a situation that distracts Iran from meddling in Lebanon? Somehow Iran must be neutralized, and I suspect that it will be in the realm of cloak and dagger operations.

If the several miracles necessary to make the plan succeed should all come to fruition, it may be possible to apply the template with appropriate modifications against Hamas in Gaza. After all, we are speaking of area renown for the miracles that have occurred there.

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

The Axis of Terrorism

The next series of posts will be an attempt to outline situation in the mid-east. Israeli ambassador to the UN, Dan Gillerman has described an Axis of Terrorism consisting of Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas. In this post, let’s meet Hesbollah.

Hezbollah was founded in 1982 by Iran to fight the Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon. The European Union and the United States government consider Hezbollah to be a terrorist organization. In 1983, Hezbollah was responsible for bombing the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, killing 63, and for a truck bomb which killed 241 U.S. Marines in their barracks, also in Beirut. After this, the United States pulled her forces from Lebanon.

In 1990, the Lebanese Civil war ended with the implementation of the Taif Agreement which called for the disbanding of all militias, including Hezbollah. Though the other militias did disband, Hezbollah refused to do so, claiming that continued Israeli presence in Southern Lebanon justified its defiance.

On May 24, 2000, Israel completed the withdrawal of its forces from southern Lebanon in accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 425. On June 16th 2001, the Security Council, endorsed the Secretary-General’s conclusion that, as of that date, Israel had fully complied with Security Council resolution 425. Unfortunately, throughout the Arab world, this was viewed as a victory for Hezbollah.

UN Security Council Resolution 1559, adopted on September 2nd 2004 re-iterated the Taif Agreement, and called “upon all remaining foreign forces to withdraw from Lebanon” and "for the disbanding and disarmament of all Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias.” Syria withdrew, but Hezbollah refused to comply.

It would be a mistake to under-estimate the support that Hezbollah has among the Lebanese. Hezbollah provides social services in Lebanon, and 23 members of Hezbollah serve in the 128-member Lebanese parliament. As mentioned above, Hezbollah gets credit for forcing Israel out of southern Lebanon. On the other hand, Syria has withdrawn from Lebanon, and many, if not most, Lebanese resent the presence of a proxy for Syrian and Iran in their country.

Hezbollah has frequently launched cross-border operations against Israel, often to divert attention from criticism of its state sponsors, Iran and Syria. The present provocation – the kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers on July 12th – certainly has overshadowed the G8’s condemnation of Iran’s nuclear program, and the decision to go to the Security Counsel to seek sanctions. Also, Hezbollah acknowledges its support for Hamas, another terrorist organization that is based in the Gaza. Hizbollah’s aggressive acts serve to draw attention away from Hamas’s kidnapping of an IDF soldier earlier this month.

There is fear in Israel that the captured soldiers will be transferred to Iran. To protect against this, a blockade has been imposed, and the airport in Beirut has been bombed and rendered inoperative.

Naturally, the government of Lebanon objects most strenuously. It has issued a statement that it had no pre-knowledge of the Hezbollah aggression, and that it does not condone it.

Meanwhile, scores of Ketusha rockets, manufactured in Iran, have rained down upon Israel, launched from Lebanese territory. For this reason, Israel holds Lebanon responsible, though her reaction has been targeted at Hezbollah targets.

Future posts will examine the role of Hamas in precipitating the current crisis.

Who do you trust?

Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) was on Countdown last night, going on about Homeland Security. Here is some of what she said.

This Homeland Security Department, which brought us Katrina, is just unbelievable. And you really do feel like Alice in Wonderland sometimes when you see some of the things that they do.

…

[W]e know the Golden Gate Bridge is a target, we know our buildings are targets in Los Angeles. We know that Sacramento was also taken off the list. It‘s our capital. And by the way, has a water system which, if it‘s breached, 230,000 people will be buried in water.

So this is outrageous. And even the inspector general, their own inspector general in Homeland Security, chastised them.

But this doesn‘t matter, and it all gets me to the point that we need change here in Washington so badly. We need to change the Congress. We need to get better checks and balances on this administration.

That’s good as far as it goes. But it doesn’t go far enough.

What we know so far is that we can’t trust the Republicans with national security. They are too incompetent, which we have known at least since Hurricane Katrina and the bungled aftermath. Now, the Republicans want to dismantle FEMA.

The Republicans are too crooked, and the hundreds of millions of dollars lost or missing in Iraq is just the latest evidence.

And they are too simpleminded, which is why they can’t tell the difference between a slogan and an exit strategy. National security is too important to leave to incompetent and crooked simpleminded Republicans. Here’s the question: Do you feel safer than you did six years ago?

You can’t trust Republicans with anything as important as National Security.

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

Somebody is fibbing

The administration's least favorite newspaper reported on July 3 as follows:

The Central Intelligence Agency has closed a unit that for a decade had the mission of hunting Osama bin Laden and his top lieutenants, intelligence officials confirmed Monday.

The unit, known as Alec Station, was disbanded late last year and its analysts reassigned within the C.I.A. Counterterrorist Center, the officials said.

King George the Incompetent was asked about this at a press conference that he held in Chicago.

Q: You said some time ago that you wanted Osama bin Laden dead or alive. You later regretted the formulation, but maybe not the thought.

BUSH: I regretted the formulation because my wife got on me for talking that way.

Q: We suspected as much, sir. But the question I have is: It appears that the CIA has disbanded the unit that was hunting him down. Is it no longer important to track him down?

BUSH: It's just an incorrect story.

I mean, we got a lot of assets looking for Osama bin Laden. So whatever you want to read in the story, it's just not true, period.

It just so happens that Michael Scheuer was on Washington Journal this morning. He was a senior analyst at the CIA, until he retired in 2004. He left the agency because he felt that it had been scapegoated in the 9-11 Commission report. He described himself as a conservative Republican who voted for George W. Bush twice. Mr. Scheuer is now a CBS News Terrorism Analyst.

He was the head of the CIA unit that was charged with responsibility for Osama bin Laden from when he founded it in late December 1995, until mid-June 1999.

Brian Lamb: Is there any truth to the fact that it’s been disbanded?

Michael Scheuer: As I understand it, the agency has confirmed that. Yes, sir. After 10 years of what I think, at least, is the most successful United States counter-terrorism unit that has ever been formed.

It seems to me that someone is lying.

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

Paul Krugman says it all

Once again, Paul Krugman nails it. In The Treason Card he says what’s on my mind. Here’s an example:

“Over the last few months a series of revelations have confirmed what should have been obvious a long time ago: the Bush administration and the movement it leads have been engaged in an authoritarian project …”

That’s why Krugman gets the big bucks.

A tyro like Big Mitch never learned to call a spade an implement for excavation. That’s why I call “an authoritarian project” the only word I know for it: “fascism.”

But there is one thing that Krugman and Big Mitch have in common. We seem to agree that the Bush administration and the movement it leads, must be resisted “for the sake of our country.”

Check it out…

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

A canary in a coal-mine coughs

Faithful readers of this blog know that I fear for the country I love because I see it descending into fascism. If you haven’t already read the article I referenced in Top 10 Signs of the Impending U.S. Police State, I encourage you to do so now.

Today, I find further evidence of this disturbing trend. Glenn Greewald writes about how “the thug and intimidation tactics of the Far Right go mainstream.” He tells of a disturbing, albeit Constitutionally protected, practice of publishing home addresses of people who offend the likes of Michelle Malkin. They are labeled “traitors” and the reader is encouraged sub rosa to commit acts of violence against them.

Greenwald recounts a story that I first saw on Crooks and Liars under the headline, The Stop the ACLU Coalition publishes Jewish family’s personal information: They are forced to move.

The tough-guy bullying of opponents is one hallmark of fascism. Embracing anti-Semitism is another.

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

Keeping Iraqis safe, winning hearts and minds.

Shamelessly copied from Jesus' General.

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

Aid and comfort to the enemy

Today, The National Journal reports that on June 24, 2004, King George the Incompetent was interviewed by federal prosecutors in the Oval Office. He admitted at that time that he had directed Cheney to disclose highly classified intelligence information that would not only defend his administration but also discredit Ambassador Joe Wilson, who had outed the administration for lying about Iraq’s efforts to acquire yellowcake with which to make nuclear weapons.

As we know, Cheney’s assistant, Scooter Libby, leaked information to the Royal Stenographer, Dame Judith Miller, at The New York Times. The Times dutifully published it.

W's role in leaking classified inormation to the Times is surprising on a lot of different levels. The most obvious is that King George has just recently reacted to the publication (in the same New York Times) of an article revealing that the administration is tracking financial transactions in an effort to obtain intelligence for use in the war on terror.

He called the publication “disgraceful” and averred that it did “great harm” to the country. Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, argues that The Times should be prosecuted under the 1917 Espionage Act.

It is obvious that the Rovians are trying to make the Grey Lady into the next Willie Horton. Will it work?

It is still too early to tell, but I am pessimistic. The Times gets to make its case only to readers of the Times, whereas the president has a pulpit from which to be a bully. The key will be whether or not other newspapers recognize this assault on the First Amendment and respond appropriately. The early returns are not encouraging.

The Wall Street Journal editorial page revealed that the same story had been leaked to them by officials at the Treasury Department:

What Journal editors did know is that they had senior government officials providing news they didn't mind seeing in print. If this was a “leak,” it was entirely authorized.

The WSJ editors went on to say that they don’t believe that the NYT editors act in good faith when deciding whether or not to publish an article that may be embarrassing to the administration, and concluded that the editor of the Times “has as a major goal not winning the war on terror but obstructing it.”

Luckily, most people know that the editorial page of the WSJ is a right-wing house organ for neo-con con-men. We await the weighing in of newspapers from the middle of America.

Hopefully, some of them will note that when the administration makes claims that national security demands secrecy, it suffers from a lack of credibility that is of its own making.

When the NYT published, “What I Didn’t Find in Africa,” by Joe Wilson, the administration committed treason to discredit Wilson, who, it should be noted, told the truth. The Bush-boys probably endangered the life of several CIA agents working in non-proliferation. The orders came from King George and Dead-eye Dick. Thus, if the editors at the NYT were skeptical of the administration, well, that’s what they get paid to be.

There’s a good chance – better than 50-50 – that the story will just die of its own accord in a day or two. Then what? Will other newspapers have felt the chilling effect of the onslaught against the Times? Will the Republican base have had a taste of red meat, so that come election day, they will arrive at the polls snarling and angry? Will others buy into the attack on the Times, so that when it reveals the next outrage, it will be that much easier for the neo-fascists to marginalize her?

In all of this, I find the most interesting part to be that the President claims that the publication of the article revealed secrets to “the enemy.” It is hard to imagine that, after the President himself had bragged that his administration was doing everything possible to track financial transactions of possible terrorists, that the terrorists have learned any “actionable” intelligence.

Perhaps the explanation is this: Diane Feinstein was on Stephanopoulos yesterday, and this is what she said:

Well, I’m on the Intelligence Committee. I can tell you when I was briefed and when the committee was briefed — and that was when it became apparent that the New York Times had the story and was going to run it. And that’s when and why they came to us and briefed us.

So, there you have it! The enemies who found out about the program are not the bastards in Al Qaeda. They are the Democrats in Congress.

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

Rudy Giuliani and his business partner

If you ignore vote-counting shenanigans, and accept the appalling notion that George W. Bush was elected twice to be President of the United States, you could look at it this way: He beat Gore by presenting himself as steady and not a flip-flopper, and he beat Kerry by presenting himself as more responsible and capable with respect to defending the homeland.

Here’s a story at the interstices between comedy and tragedy.

First, Bush flip-flopped on the Department of Homeland Security. He opposed the creation of the Department before he was in favor of it. Well, at least he didn’t say he invented the Internet.

But then it came time appoint a head of the new Secretary of Homeland Security. Who better than Bernie Kerick? He is the former New York City police commissioner, who pled guilty today to two misdemeanor charges of corruption. He was fined a mere $221,000.

Over on HuffPo, Kerik is described as a “former Giuliani official.” Actually, he was Giuliani’s business partner, after he was Giuliani’s police commissioner, which was after he was Giuliani’s driver and body-guard.

At the 2004 Republican National Convention, Rudolph Giuliani told the adoring audience that when he was standing in the rubble of the World Trade Center, he turned to Bernie Kerik and said, “Bernie, thank God George Bush is our President.” That’s obvious poppy-cock.

(During a 2003 GOP fundraiser, Giuliani told a different version, minus Kerik: "I remember that day saying a little prayer of thank-you that George Bush was our president." Probably the grain of truth in the story is that on Sept. 14, 2001, as Giuliani reported two months later on Meet the Press, he remarked to Kerik, “Thank God he [Bush] is here. [i.e., in New York]”)

Here’s the comedy part: people are talking about Rudy Giuliani as a potential Republican Presidential candidate. This is a guy who in addition to being the business partner of a convicted crook, is a liberal from New York, who was kicked out of Gracie Mansion by a wife with a domestic relations restraining order, went to live with a gay couple, and informed his wife that he was divorcing her on the evening news.

You go, Rudy.

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”