Shamelessly lifted from Slate.com

Bush's Baby Einstein Gaffe
The president lionizes a mountebank.
By Timothy Noah

In his Jan. 23 State of the Union address, President Bush paused briefly to pay tribute to a few everyday American heroes who'd been brought to the Capitol to sit beside his wife during the speech. It's a State of the Union tradition that began in 1982, when Ronald Reagan saluted Lenny Skutnik, a federal employee who, two weeks earlier, had plunged into the icy Potomac during a snowstorm to rescue the survivor of an airline crash. For the succeeding 25 years, every January some hapless White House functionary has been called upon to find a few new heroes to park next to the first lady in the House visitor's gallery. The supply was bound eventually to run a little thin, but whoever chose Julie Aigner-Clark, founder of the Baby Einstein Co., should have done a little more research.

There she was, sitting with Wesley Autrey, who leapt in front of a New York City subway train to rescue a complete stranger, and Army Sgt. Tommy Reiman, who repelled an enemy attack in Iraq with two legs full of shrapnel and bullet wounds in his arms and chest. Aigner-Clark's presence was, to say the least, incongruous. Here is how Bush summarized her achievement:

After her daughter was born, Julie Aigner-Clark searched for ways to share her love of music and art with her child. So she borrowed some equipment, and began filming children's videos in her basement. The Baby Einstein Company was born, and in just five years her business grew to more than $20 million in sales. In November 2001, Julie sold Baby Einstein to the Walt Disney Company, and with her help Baby Einstein has grown into a $200 million business. Julie represents the great enterprising spirit of America. And she is using her success to help others—producing child safety videos with John Walsh of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. Julie says of her new project: "I believe it's the most important thing that I have ever done. I believe that children have the right to live in a world that is safe." And so tonight, we are pleased to welcome this talented business entrepreneur and generous social entrepreneur—Julie Aigner-Clark.

That's high praise for a businesswoman who (if I may be permitted a cynical moment) gave not a dime either to Bush or to the Republican National Committee during the last four election cycles. [See, clarification at end of article.] What is Aigner-Clark's achievement? She got rich marketing videos to infants. No one told the president, I presume, that this profit-making scheme ignores advice from the American Academy of Pediatrics that children under 2 years of age shouldn't watch TV. One recent study went so far as to suggest, plausibly, that too much TV at so early an age can be a risk factor for autism. (See the Oct. 2006 Slate piece, "TV Might Really Cause Autism" by Gregg Easterbrook.)

Baby Einstein is part of what Alissa Quart, in an August 2006 piece in the Atlantic ("Extreme Parenting"), called the Baby Genius Edutainment Complex, an industry that preys on the status anxiety of neurotic parents who, until Aigner-Clark and others told them otherwise, didn't sweat the meritocratic rat race until it was time to place their pint-sized strivers in preschool. That changed in the mid-1990s, when Don Campbell, extrapolating wildly from earlier research involving college students that, Quart writes, has never been duplicated, trademarked the slogan "Mozart effect" and used it to market classical-music CDs for infants. Aigner-Clark followed suit with her Baby Einstein videos in 1997.

"Essentially," Harvard Medical School psychologist Susan Lynn told the Chicago Tribune "Media Mom" (and occasional Slate contributor) Nell Minow in December 2005,the baby video industry is a scam. There's no evidence that the videos are educational for babies, and a review of the research on babies and videos concludes that while older babies can imitate simple actions from a video they've seen several times, they learn much more rapidly from real life.

In May, a child-advocacy nonprofit filed a complaint to the Federal Trade Commission about Aigner-Clark's creation, alleging that claims made on the videos' behalf (example: With Baby DaVinci, "your child will learn to identify her different body parts, and also discover her five senses … in Spanish, English, and French!") are deceptive and false. Filed with the complaint were letters of support from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. "The reality," wrote the American Academy of Pediatrics, "is that parents play the videos to give themselves some time to do other household chores, like cooking dinner or doing laundry. However, they shouldn't be led to believe that it helps their baby."

There's a sucker born every minute, but only a select few get to be president of the United States.

Clairification, Jan. 25: As usual, my problem isn't that I'm too cynical but rather that I'm not cynical enough. A reader alerts me that although Julie Aigner-Clark didn't contribute to Bush or the Republican National Committee during the last four election cycles, her husband and business partner, William E. Clark, gave $5,150 to Bush and the RNC during the 2004 cycle.

Timothy Noah is a senior writer at Slate. The original article, complete with illunimating hyperlinks is located here.

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

Them’s fighting words

In Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire 315 U.S. 568 (1942) the United States Supreme Court affirmed a conviction under a New Hampshire statute prohibiting the use of offensive or annoying words when addressing another person in public. Chaplinsky had called the local constable a “damned fascist.” These are fighting words, outside the protection of the First Amendment’s protection of free speech, made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment.

I am calling Generalissimo Alberto Gonzales a damned fascist right now. I’ll get to the why in a minute, but first a little more law lessons.

The 5th Amendment to the Constitution guarantees to Americans something called “due process.” The founders were brilliant in their recognition of the fact that they were creating a republic that would last for years, and that the idea of fundamental fairness would evolve and mature, as indeed society has. Thus, they kept some things intentionally vague, confident that wise and good men would flesh out the skeleton they had created. Consider for example such phrases as “cruel and unusual punishment.”

The founders were learned in English Common Law, which serves as the basis of American law. Since the mid-12th century, anyone imprisoned has had the right to petition the court and obtain a writ, commanding the jailer to bring the prisoner to court and explain the reasons for the imprisonment. By 1305, the writ was known as Habeas Corpus, and Blackstone recorded its use.

In Harris v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 286, 290-91 (1969) the Supreme Court recognized the fact that “[t]he writ of habeas corpus is the fundamental instrument for safeguarding individual freedom against arbitrary and lawless state action.”

Without the Great Writ, as it is known, the other freedoms are meaningless. You can have free speech, or freedom of religion, or the right to assemble and petition your government; you can have your guarantees of freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, but it all doesn’t mean a damned thing if you have no recourse when the government snatches you up and holds you indefinitely for exercising those rights.

When the federal government deprives you of life, liberty or property, the Fifth Amendment guarantees that a certain amount of procedural safeguards are due to you. That’s what the Constitution calls “due process.” After the Civil War the Constitution was amended and the 14th Amendment imposed the requirement of due process upon the States and their political subdivisions. And for the last 700 years at least, the concept of due process has included the Great Writ of Habeas Corpus.

Do you want to know about the Original Intent of the Framers? Here’s a clue: Article I, Section 9, of the Constitution states that “the privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”

All of which is background to why I am calling Generalissimo Alberto Gonzales a fascist. In today’s Baltimore Chronicle and Sentinel, I read:

Alberto Gonzales questioned whether the U.S. Constitution grants habeas corpus rights of a fair trial to every American.

Responding to questions from Sen. Arlen Specter at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Jan. 18, Gonzales argued that the Constitution doesn’t explicitly bestow habeas corpus rights; it merely says when the so-called Great Writ can be suspended. “There is no expressed grant of habeas in the Constitution; there’s a prohibition against taking it away,” Gonzales said.

Gonzales’s remark left Specter, the committee’s ranking Republican, stammering. “Wait a minute,” Specter interjected. “The Constitution says you can’t take it away except in case of rebellion or invasion. Doesn’t that mean you have the right of habeas corpus unless there’s a rebellion or invasion?”

Sure, calling Generalissimo Gonzales a damned fascist is fighting words. It is a call to action: we must oppose these tyrants, while there is still time.

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

Does a leopard change his spots?

A little more than a year ago, it was discovered that the Bush administration was wiretapping Americans in a clear-cut, no-doubt-about-it violation of the Constitution and statutory law. The only court to rule on the matter agreed with this judgment. King George the Incompetent, and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales announced that they would keep on doing it and Congress, controlled by Republicans, responded by saying, “Yes, Your Highness: Your wish is our command.”

There is a new Congress in town, and it has no intention of giving King George a free pass. The administration responded by saying, in essence, “Okay, we’ll stop breaking the law.” This is confusing to many because obeying the law is so out of character for this crop of crooks.

My experience tells me that people who have been rewarded all their lives for living a certain way do not change after age 50. Dumb Dubya has believed since he was a child that the rules do not apply to him. He has surrounded himself with enablers and Alberto Gonzalez is the prime example.

Of course, people will change their conduct if the fear of getting caught or punished arises, and it is an obvious conclusion that this is what happened in this instance. Senator Arlen Spector was among the many who suggested as much when Generalissimo Gonzalez testified yesterday in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Big Mitch arrives at a different conclusion. I think that the Party of Bush administration has no intention of obeying the law and that the announcement of Generalissimo Gonzalez is no more than throwing sand in our eyes.

Let’s take a clearer look. El Generalissimo says that the administration has worked out an agreement, which took the form of an order from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, according to which it would over-see the domestic spying program.

The presiding judge of the FISA court said she had no objection to disclosing legal orders and opinions about the program that targets people linked to al-Qaida, but the Bush administration would have to approve release of the information.

El Generalissimo is not giving his approval, he told incredulous Senators.

“Are you saying that you might object to the court giving us a decision that you publicly announced?” asked committee chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt. “Are we Alice in Wonderland here?”

Responding, Gonzales said “there is going to be information about operational details about how we’re doing this that we want to keep confidential,” as if letting the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee know how the program worked were the same thing as putting the court’s agreement in sky-writing over Islamabad.

Meanwhile, over in the House Intelligence Committee, members were being treated to testimony from John Negroponte, the National Intelligence Director. If you can’t trust him, whom can you trust? Think back to the heady days of Iran-Contra, when he was the ambassador to Honduras, during which time military aid to Honduras rose from $4 million to 77.4 million a year, presumably to the benefit of the Contras. He was an enthusiastic supporter of the Honduran military chief who was blamed for having death squads with which he dealt with political opponents, a fact which Senator Dodd accused Negroponte of disingenuously withholding from Congress.

But what has Negroponte done for us lately? Testifying before the House Intelligence Committee yesterday, he said there may be separation of powers issues involved in turning over information to Congress about the program.

Did you catch that? It’s not being withheld on the basis of operational security. There’s a principle involved, and that principle is that the present administration is simply not going to admit that Congress has a role to play in running the country.

Maybe they ought to re-read the Constitution. I especially invite their attention to 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.

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

Of apologies and impugning the integrity of others

Consider Charles “Cully” Stimson, Esq., the scion of timber barons and a member of one of the richest, most influential and deeply rooted families in the Pacific Northwest. He is the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Detainee Affairs and a disgrace to the legal profession.

In a radio interview last week, Stimson spoke of the many ultra-prestigious law firms that provide pro bono legal services to detainees in Guantanamo. Like a good fascist, he named names. He said that companies might want to consider taking their business to other firms that do not represent suspected terrorists.

Today, he ‘apologized’ in a letter to the Washington Post:

Regrettably, my comments left the impression that I question the integrity of those engaged in the zealous defense of detainees in Guantanamo.

His original comments left no such impression: he never implied that they were unethical. If I had to bet, I would say that he is irked that, dig as he might, he can’t find a grain of dirt on any of them.

Stimson was very explicit: he was encouraging the punishment of the many prestigious law firms who were supplying attorneys on a pro bono basis to detainees in Guantanamo Bay. This is crude intimidation of those who are working for free to preserve our Constitution, and it is beneath contempt. It is the hallmark of fascists. If Stimson had a conscience have been apologizing for that.

It would be comforting to think that Stimson’s despicable attack were an isolated incident. After all, it was quickly disavowed by the Pentagon. But alas, such attacks are typical of the fascistic Party of Bush.

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.

A provision in last year’s re-authorization of the Patriot Act allows Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to appoint interim U.S. Attorneys for indefinite period of time. (Previously, interim prosecutors were appointed by courts.) One of Gonzales’s appointments is a 37-year-old attorney whose previous work experience consisted of digging up dirt on Democrats. Fat chance he will be prosecuting any corrupt Republicans. Consolidation of power in the hands of a unitary executive is also typical of fascists.

Get it, Stimson? That’s how you impugn the integrity of others. And I got nothing to apologize for.

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

Tim Russert asks a good question

On Meet the Press today, he asked Stephen Hadley, National Security Advisor to the President:

If you were wrong about weapons of mass destruction, you were wrong about the troop levels necessary, you were wrong about the costs of the war, you were wrong about oil revenues paying for reconstruction, you were wrong about being greeted as liberators, you were wrong about the level of sectarian violence, why should the American people trust you know and think you are right about a surge?

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

Are you as outraged as I am?

All I wanted to do was sit on my sofa and watch a little football. I am just an American dad always hoping to spend quality family time with my two teenage children. And what could be more American and wholesome than watching the Philadelphia Eagles play the New Orleans Saints?

And then it happened. Thirty three minutes into the broadcast, with 8:37 left in the first quarter, the Eagles quarterback, Jeff Garcia threw long into double coverage, and the ball was knocked away from Dante Stallworth. The Fox network coverage at this point cut away to a pretty blonde in the crowd celebrating the defensive prowess of her hometown Saints. For about 7 seconds, Fox focused on the bouncing celebration of this woman, who jiggled up and down with her hands over her heads. And there, blazoned on her midriff-revealing black tee-shirt were the words, “Fuck da Eagles.”

I was shocked. Shocked!

I would have thought that this sort of thing would not happen in our America, where a Republican Congress responded to the outrage provoked by Janet Jackson’s wardrobe malfunction by passing a law that allowed for fines of $375,000 per violation of decency standards by television networks.

The instant case cannot be seen as anything other than a pre-meditated attempt to broadcast obscenity into the homes of Americans who had hoped to see the wholesome fellowship of competition that we expect from the NFL.

If you are as shocked as I am, please let the Federal Communications Commission know.

You can file a complaint by E-mail to info@fcc.gov.

You may also choses to contact the Commissioners via E-mail
Chairman Kevin J. Martin: KJMWEB@fcc.gov
Commissioner Michael J. Copps: Michael.Copps@fcc.gov
Commissioner Jonathan S. Adelstein: Jonathan.Adelstein@fcc.gov
Commissioner Deborah Taylor Tate: dtaylortateweb@fcc.gov
Commissioner Robert McDowell: Robert.McDowell@fcc.gov

I know that Fox Broadcasting would like you to let your government know how offended you are. Well, they would if it were CBS, which broadcast Super Bowl XXXVII.

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

Worst Ever? (Secretary of Defense edition)

Dick Cheney says that Donald Rumsfeld is the finest Secretary of Defense ever. Okay, that’s just stupid. But there is an open question about whether he is the worst ever.

After all, Rumsfeld over-ruled the generals who said we shouldn’t invade Iraq, and if you do, you will need three times as many troops as were used. To give Rumsfeld his due, he did send a force of 120,000 troops to conquer Baghdad, and in a matter of weeks they toppled that dreaded statue.

Sure, we took too many casualties. Rumsfeld explained it away by telling the troops that they were not the army that he wanted to go to war with, but rather the army he happened to have on hand. The real reason for so many casualties was in part that we rushed into this war without taking the time to up-armor the Humvees and provision the troops with body armor.

Of course, the biggest failing of Donald Rumsfeld is that he didn’t do enough planning for the aftermath of his war of choice. He would have you believe that he did have a plan, but that it did not survive contact with the reality on the ground. Remember how he described the plan?

Freedom’s untidy, and free people are free to make mistakes and commit crimes and do bad things. They’re also free to live their lives and do wonderful things. And that's what’s going to happen here.

How long is this war going to last? Rumsfeld told us before it even started: “It might take 6 hours, 6 days, maybe 6 weeks, but I doubt it will take 6 months.” So far it has lasted longer than World War II, but who’s counting?

Those who are counting know that this war has cost 360 trillion dollars, and the lives of more than 3,000 American soldiers, sailors, and airmen, to say nothing of the tens of thousands of troops maimed, disabled and disfigured and the many more Iraqi civilian casualties most of whom are children.

Let’s be clear: even one casualty is too many in an unnecessary war that strengthens the hands of our avowed enemies, Iran and Syria, replaces one tyrant, Saddam, with another, Chaos, all the while making the entire region unstable. So much the more so, if in the prosecution of the war costs our beloved nation the respect and credibility that was our pride.

You must admit that Rumsfeld has a pretty impressive resume if he’s running for worst-ever Secretary of Defense. But Rummy goes way back with Dick Cheney and we have to assume that Dick doesn’t want to hang that collar on Rummy.

Which is why Cheney must have been delighted to have Robert Gates appointed to replace Rumsfeld. As I pointed out here, Robert Gates, when he was deputy director of the CIA, produced a phony chronology of the “enterprise,” to cover up the crimes and lies collectively known as the Iran-Contra scandal.

Since that time, Gates served in the Iraq Study Group which was supposed to be the best and the brightest thinking by experts on the subject of what to do about the mess the Bush and Rumsfeld got us into. The Iraq Study Group was hailed as bi-partisan, although it did not include anyone who opposed the war in the first place. Mostly, it was made up of friends of Bush 41, the most notable of whom was James Baker, who managed somehow to convince the Supreme Court of the United States that counting votes was unconstitutional and undemocratic.

After the report of the Iraq Study Group came out, King George was quick to praise it, but quicker yet to ignore it. Gates was appointed to be Secretary of Defense, and announced that in his new position he would need to be briefed and brought up to speed on this whole Iraq war thing.

Well, the briefing and vetting is done, and in consultation with nearly everyone, the Administration produced the latest iteration of the same old shit. Call it, “Urge to Surge,” but the bottom line it is more of the same, only more so. Now for the hard work of defending it to the American people who don’t trust Bush and disapprove of his handling of Iraq by margins of 2:1.

And so it was that Robert Gates was once more pressed into service, and how he found himself testifying in House Armed Services Committee. The Ithaca Journal reported it this way:

At one point Gates, just three weeks on the job, told lawmakers, “I would confess I’m no expert on Iraq.” Later, asked about reaching the right balance between American and Iraqi forces, he told the panel he was “no expert on military matters.”

Move over, Rumsfeld. If you want to be remembered as the worst Defense Secretary you are going to have to beat out a guy who conspired to give false testimony to Congress during the Iran-Contra scandal, and who now, in a surprising display of candor, testifies under oath that he is not qualified for his job.

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

A blast from the past

Today, CBS news is reporting U.S. Strikes in Somalia Reportedly Kill 31 Official Says Dead Were Civilians From Village Targeted In Hunt For Alleged Al Qaeda Suspects

Attack helicopters strafed suspected al Qaeda fighters in southern Somalia on Tuesday, witnesses said, following two days of air strikes by U.S. forces — the first U.S. offensives in the African country since 18 American soldiers were killed here in 1993.
…

The targets included the senior al Qaeda leader in East Africa and an al Qaeda operative wanted for his involvement in the 1998 bombings of two American embassies in Africa, [CBS News national security correspondent David] Martin reported. Those terror attacks killed more than 200 people.

Can you remember back to 1998, a time when the name al Qaeda was virtually unknown in the United States? Here's an essay I wrote back then.

al-Aqsa

The terrorists who bombed the US embassy in Kenya and Tanzania call themselves “The Islamic Army for the Liberation of Holy Places.” The operation in Tanzania was named “Operation al-Aqsa Mosque.” If there is to be a jihad for the holy places of Jerusalem, let not the first casualty be truth.

The news reports typically have identified al-Aqsa Mosque as the “third holiest site in Islam.” Indeed, according to the Moslem faith, it is where Allah took Prophet Muhammad by night from the Sacred Mosque in Mecca. Muhammad was then raised to Heaven from that place and brought back to Mecca, all in one night. (See, Koran Sura 17:1,2.)

The al-Aqsa Mosque is located on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. This is the site where King Solomon built his Temple. Jewish theology regards it as the place where God’s presence enters the world. There are many legends concerning why King Solomon built the Temple on that particular spot. By my lights, the most poignant tells of two brothers, each of whom was secretly putting supplies in the other’s storehouse under cover of darkness. As they carried food in the night, they literally ran into each other. God chose that very site for the construction of the Holy Alter.

The site is understood by Jews and Christians to be the place where Abraham endured his greatest trial. (Cf. Gen. 22:2, II Chron. 3:1 KJV) For his willingness to sacrifice his son, his only son, his son Isaac whom he loved, God vowed to him: “By myself I swear, the Lord declares: because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your favored one, I will bestow My blessing upon you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars of heaven and the sands on the seashore; and your descendants shall seize the gates of their foes. All the nations of the earth shall bless themselves by your descendants, because you have obeyed My command.” Gen. 22:16-18. JPS.

To say that the site is the holiest place in the Jewish world is to understate the case. It is the only Holy Place to the Jews, of whom it has been said, “they erect cathedrals in time, not in space.” The remnant of the wall surrounding it, built by King Solomon, was known as the Wailing Wall, until 1967 when it was liberated by the Israeli Defense Forces and since then it has been referred to as the Western Wall, or more simply, The Wall. To see a live picture of it, refreshed every 60 seconds, click here.

It is the tradition of the Jews to face towards the Western Wall when they pray, no matter where in the world they might be. (I Kings 8:30) Many Jewish homes have a decorative marker on the wall, called a Mizrach (literally: “East”) to denote the direction of the Temple Mount. When Congregation Beth Sholom was built in Anchorage, an important design element was orienting the sanctuary in light of this tradition.

During the Crusades, and since, political control over the area of the Temple Mount shifted back and forth between the Ottoman Empire, the Latin Church united with Rome, and the Orthodox Church. Freedom to make pilgrimages is regarded as a main objective of the crusades. After the conquest of Jerusalem by the Crusaders (1099), the dome of the Rock was converted into a church, (the Temple of the Lord) and al-Aqsa became a church called Templum Solomonis (Solomon’s Temple). They were converted into Muslim houses of prayer after Saladin’s conquest of Jerusalem in 1187 and have remained so ever since.

At the conclusion of World War I, with the defeat of the Ottoman Empire, the League of Nations, with the assent of the principle powers, granted Great Britain the Mandate of Palestine, including in Article 13, responsibility for “guaranteeing access to the holy places, religious buildings and sites and free access of worship.” In 1947, Great Britain announced that it was no longer willing to administer the Palestinian Mandate, and in 1948 the modern State of Israel was born. The Israeli Declaration of Independence declared, “The State … will safeguard the holy places of all religions.” The War for Independence ended with an armistice on April 3, 1948 according to which the site was granted to Jordanian control.

Prior to 1967 Jews were not allowed access to the holy sites on the Temple Mount. In 1967, Israel was invaded by its Arab neighbors. The cease-fire agreement of June 1967 united the city of Jerusalem under Israeli jurisdiction.

A meeting was held on June 27, 1967, which included the two chief rabbis, the representatives of the Muslim clergy, and the heads of the Christian communities, as well as the prime minister of Israel, Levi Eshkol. It was affirmed that the government of Israel regarded it as an essential principle of its policy to safeguard the holy places, emphasizing that the internal administration of their sites and measures to be taken for their management would be left entirely to the spiritual heads concerned. Also on that date, the Israeli Parliament passed the Law for the Protection of Holy Places, providing for lengthy prison terms for desecrating holy places, or for preventing free access to such a place.

Since 1967, the administration of the al-Aqsa mosque has been solely in the hands of the Islamic Authority. Indeed, when I visited the Temple Mount, I observed Moslems praying there, under the protection of Moslem police. The only hint of an obstacle to totally free access that I observed was a discrete sign, which said something to the effect of: “Warning: According to Jewish law, entry upon this site is forbidden because of its extreme holiness.”

Recently, Yassar Arafat has denied that there is a historical link between the Jewish people and King David’s city, Jerusalem. This, and similar remarks, are designed to deny the legitimacy of the Jewish people, and must be viewed as an attempt to create an environment for the destruction of the Jewish people, their religious sites, and their heritage. Various Palestinian leaders have fomented violence by falsely accusing the Israeli’s of attempting to destroy the al-Aqsa mosque. Many in the fourth estate have repeated this libel without questioning it. For this, Charles Krauthammer took them to task in an essay entitled “A Desecration of the Truth” which appeared in Time Magazine on October 14, 1996. You can read it by clicking here.

It seems to me that reporters who identify al-Aqsa Mosque as the “third holiest site in Islam,” are not telling the story in a balanced way. A more fair description would be “a site which is regarded as the seat of the Jewish nation and religion, as well as a holy site to Islam, which lamentably has been made into a symbol for the use of those who would stir violence and anti-Jewish hatred.”

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

Update to “Reading tea leaves? …”

When Fred Fielding reports to work he will join one of his colleagues from the heady days of Iran-Contragate, namely, Robert Gates, who was recently appointed to replace Donald Rumsfeld as the Secretary of Defense.

In my summary of the Iran-Contra scandal, I elided over some of the many contradictions and outright lies that Ronald Reagan told regarding sales of missiles to Iran, and the involvement of other countries. You can read about them in an article by Eric Alterman in the American Prospect. The point is that enough lies had been told, especially by the Great Communicator, that pressure was building for a credible explanation of the affair.

That’s when Robert Gates, deputy director of the CIA, joined CIA chief William Casey and National Security Advisor John Poindexter, to produce a phony chronology of the “enterprise,” to cover up their illegal deeds and protect Reagan. Oliver North and Poindexter would later testify that the chronologies were deliberately “inaccurate.”

Incidentally, Poindexter was convicted on multiple felony counts on April 7, 1990 for conspiracy, obstruction of justice, perjury, defrauding the government, and the alteration and destruction of evidence pertaining to the Iran-Contra Affair.[fn] Naturally, that didn't stop him from serving in the Bush administration. From December, 2002, to August, 2003, Poindexter served as the Director of the DARPA Information Awareness Office (IAO). But I digress.

Back to the subject at hand: Robert Gates. Eric Alterman concludes his article on Gates by saying:

In his own memoir, Gates later noted that “[t]he first ingredient in the Contra time bomb was an administration unwilling to make a major national political issue of Nicaragua and live with the results, yet so committed to the Contra cause that it would thwart the obvious will of Congress and, unprecedentedly, run a foreign covert action out of the White House funded by foreign governments and private citizens.” True, but a second ingredient was a CIA willing to go along with it. Let’s hope he’s learned something about the value of institutional independence in the interim.

That strikes Big Mitch as a rather modest hope. Couldn’t we at least aspire to having a government that doesn’t hire people who were right in the middle of lying to Congress to protect a criminal president?

I guess not.

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

__________________

[fn] The convictions were reversed in 1991 on the technical grounds that the prosecution’s evidence may have been tainted by exposure to Poindexter’s testimony before the joint House-Senate committee investigating the matter, in which Poindexter’s testimony was compelled by a grant of ‘use immunity’. The prosecution was not able to re-try the case.

Reading tea leaves? Nah, just reading t-shirts!

Imagine the scene: Big Mitch sitting on his couch, killing time and reading other people’s left wing blogs. There on one of the many blogs that many blogs link to, is an advert for a T-shirt with the slogan: Will someone please give the President a blowjob so he can be impeached?

It’s cute because it reminds us that this President hasn’t been impeached despite the fact that he lied us into a war, was grossly, yea, criminally negligent, in his protection of the homeland against hurricanes and terrorists, and in his prosecution of the war. He has contumaciously announced via ‘signing statements’ that he has no intention of obeying the law. His response to the discovery that he is engaging in wholesale violation of the FISA law, is to thumb his nose at Congress and say, in essence, I dare you to do anything about it.

On the other hand, Bill Clinton was impeached for having oral sex with an adult woman in the Oval Office. Spare me the protestations that the impeachment wasn’t about the sex but rather, it was about the lying. Clinton’s lies can’t hold a candle to Bush’s and, anyway, if you are cheating on your wife, lying about it is the least you can do.

And so it was, that Clinton almost went down, for having Monica Lewinsky go down and perform a sexual act that was famously portrayed on screen by Linda Lovelace, in a film called “Deep Throat.”

Speaking of Deep Throat and impeachment, you may recall an event called Watergate, in which we were shocked, shocked, to learn that a Republican president was a crook, his statements to the contrary notwithstanding. There was a leaker who made Woodword and Bernstein heroes, as they broke story after story about the mendacity of Nixon and his criminal crew. To keep secret this leaker’s identity, they gave him a code-name taken from the wildly popular porno flick: Deep Throat.

Until May 2005,[fn] the identity of Deep Throat was one of the favorite guessing games of the chattering classes. In April of 2003, a team of journalism students taught by William Gaines conducted a detailed review of source materials, leading them to conclude that Deep Throat was Fred F. Fielding.

Today, it was learned that the same Fred F. Fielding was appointed to replace Harriet Miers as White House counsel. You remember her: she was nominated by King George the Incompetent to be a Supreme Court Justice, and described by him as the best person for the job. Recently, she quit her job as White House counsel for no apparent reason. All Tony Snow could tell us was that she felt it was time to move on. (Having no family, she couldn’t claim the most clichéd of excuses for jumping ship.)

Could it be that she wasn’t the best person for the job of White House Counsel in these trying times? (I mean ‘trying’ as in, “The impeachment of the President begins in the House and is tried in the Senate.”)

Who is this fellow, Fred F. Fielding? He was the White House counsel for Ronald Wilson Reagan, who, as you no doubt recall, was President of the United States. It is one of the many things that Reagan himself could not recall in his final days, as he suffered from the affects of Alzheimer’s. However, even before the Alzheimer’s robbed him of his personality and dignity, his memory was none too great.

For instance, he couldn’t recall that he had authorized the actions that collectively became known as the Iran-Contra scandal. Wikipedia summarizes Iran-Contra thus:

The Iran-Contra Affair (also called the Iran-Contra Matter and Iran-gate) was one of the largest political scandals in the United States during the 1980s. The affair is still shrouded with secrecy and it is very hard to discover the facts. It involved several members of the Reagan Administration who in 1986 helped sell arms to Iran, an avowed enemy, and used the proceeds to fund the Contras, an anti-communist guerrilla organization in Nicaragua.

After the arms sales were revealed in November 1986, President Ronald Reagan appeared on national television and denied that they had occurred. However, a week later, on November 13, he returned to the airwaves to affirm that weapons were indeed transferred to Iran. He denied that they were part of an exchange for hostages.

As it was explicitly against the law to fund the Contras, and you might expect that Ronald Reagan would be impeached.

Instead, they named the national airport after him, and talked about putting his image on Mount Rushmore or, at least, on a dime. He must have had a hell of a lawyer. That would be ole Triple-F.

So, if you are looking for a lawyer who could help you fend off impeachment, you need to do better than someone who is merely the most qualified person in the country to replace Sandra Day O’Connor. You need someone with experience.

And what we know so far, is you can get Fred F. Fielding, without getting any Deep Throat. Good thing, too: A blow-job can get you impeached.

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

_____________

[fn] W. Mark Felt admitted that he was Deep Throat in May of 2005.

Daily News, Daily Blues

By now, you have heard of the President’s signing statement attached to the new postal reform act. Here’s how The New York Daily News reported it, under the headline W Pushes the Envelope on U.S. Spying:

President Bush has quietly claimed sweeping new powers to open Americans’ mail without a judge's warrant, the Daily News has learned.

The article, which bore the sub-headline, New postal law lets Bush peek through your mail reports that “experts said the new powers could be easily abused and used to vacuum up large amounts of mail.”

Let’s review what has happened.

The Constitution of the United States prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and sets forth the requirements of a warrant, viz., an affidavit stating probable cause to support said search.

[T]he most basic constitutional rule in this area is that “searches conducted outside the judicial process, without prior approval by judge or magistrate, are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment - subject only to a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions.” The exceptions are “jealously and carefully drawn,” and there must be “a showing by those who seek exemption . . . that the exigencies of the situation made that course imperative.” “[T]he burden is on those seeking the exemption to show the need for it.”

Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 454-55, 91 S. Ct. 2022, 2032 (1971) [footnotes and citations, omitted].

One of the few jealously and carefully drawn, well-delineated exceptions is the so-called “exigent circumstances exception.” For instance, if a police officer walking down the street hears the moaning and crying of an injured person behind a closed door, he or she may enter to render aid without getting a warrant.

President Bush’s signing statement appears to be a simple re-statement of that proposition. Additionally, there is statutory authority under the FISA law to open mail in exigent circumstances, and then get a warrant retroactively. Again, nothing new here. (Well, I say, nothing new, but that’s not counting the fact that Big Mitch is defending King George the Incompetent.)

And yet, a big question remains. Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies in Washington, put it this way: “The administration is playing games about warrants. If they are not claiming new powers, then why did they need to issue a signing statement?”

It’s a question that deserves an answer. One possibility is that King George is trying to bait the Congress and the left-wing blogosphere into a debate, when, strange though it may seem, the law is on his side.

You might think that it's working if you were to listen to the bleating of folks like Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Kate Martin (“The [Bush] signing statement claims authority to open domestic mail without a warrant, and that would be new and quite alarming.”) The entire tone and the accuracy of the Daily News article were reminiscent of another Daily News headline: “Ford to NY: Drop Dead!”

But King George can't pull off this dopey rope-a-dope. Dubya’s approval rating is in the 20’s, and his credibility is less than that of a Ouija board in the hands of a palsied moron.

The buzz on the invasion of postal privacy is just background noise -- amplification, if you will -- to the real news: Democrats control congress and they are going to investigate abuses of the FISA act, Presidential signing statements, and a whole lot more.

King George is wrong if he thinks a single instance of being right can drown all that out.

“... and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

P.S. While writing this, I did have an occassion to look at the lyrics of the Tom Paxton song whose title I borrowed. Read them yourself by clicking on the title of this article. Big Mitch

Ah, the intangible beauty of a tulip!

In 1593, a man by the name of Conrad Guestner imported the first tulip bulb into Holland from Constantinople. After a few years, tulip bulbs became a status symbol and a novelty for the rich and famous.

Initially, only the true connoisseurs bought tulip bulbs, but the rapidly rising price quickly attracted speculators looking to profit. Soon tulip bulbs were being traded on local market exchanges. By 1634, tulip mania had feverishly spread to the Dutch middle class. The name of the game was to buy low and sell high, just like in any other market. The whole Dutch nation was caught in a sweeping mania, as people traded in their land, livestock, farms and life savings all to acquire a single tulip bulb.

In less than one month, the price of tulip bulbs went up twenty-fold. All common sense and logic was thrown to the wind, and even scoffed at. This is exemplified by how many USEFUL items it cost to buy 1 single tulip bulb:

four tons of wheat

eight tons of rye

one bed

four oxen

eight pigs

12 sheep

one suit of clothes

two casks of wine

four tons of beer

two tons of butter

1,000 pounds of cheese

one silver drinking cup.

The modern day value of these items is over $40,000.

In 1636, tulips were trading hands on the Amsterdam stock exchange as well as on exchanges in Rotterdam, Harlem, Levytown, Horne and many other exchanges in other nearby European countries. These exchanges started to offer option contracts to speculators. Option leverage allowed an investment of $1,000 to balloon into $100,000. Unfortunately, leverage is a double-edged sword. If the tulip bulb price moved downwards ever so slightly, the option buyer’s investment would be lost and they might even owe money.

After some time, the Dutch government started to develop regulation to help control the tulip craze. It was at this point that a few informed speculators started liquidating their tulips bulbs and contracts. It was these people, or the smart money that secured large profits that were now in the form of cold hard cash. The tulip market began a slight down trend, but shortly after started to plummet much faster than prices went up.

Suddenly the market began a widespread panic when everyone started realizing that tulips were not worth the prices people were paying for them. In less than 6 weeks, tulip prices crashed by over 90%. Fortunes were lost. Wealthy became paupers. Bankruptcies were everywhere due to the negative side of option leverage. People that traded in farms and live savings for a tulip bulb were left holding a worthless plant seed.

The financial devastation that followed the tulip bulb crash lasted for decades, crippling Dutch commerce. The price of tulips at the height of the mania was $76,000; 6 weeks later they were valued at less than one dollar. The only people who prospered from the insanity were the smart money who liquidated at the top.

You may think that I bring this up to talk about the impending bursting of the real estate predicted by everyone. But you would be wrong. Here’s a clue: when everyone is predicting the direction of a market, everyone is wrong. Sure, that’s a lesson you can learn from the Tulip Mania described above. Indeed, it is the lesson pointed to by Tulip Mania from which the foregoing is adapted.

But it is not what sent my mind reeling back to the late 16th century. For that, see, the Harper’s Index in the January issue. Item no. 32, is as follows:

Estimated percentage of the assets held by S&P 500 companies in 1980 and 2006, respectively, that were intangible: 20, 70.

Huh? What is an intangible asset?

An intangible asset is an identifiable non-monetary asset without physical substance. An asset is a resource that is controlled by the enterprise as a result of past events (for example, purchase or self-creation) and from which future economic benefits (inflows of cash or other assets) are expected, according to International Accounting Standard No. 38 Did you notice that they can be purchased?

Here’s how it works: Rossum Universal Widgets decides to buy Widgets’R’Us, Inc. Five hundred dollar an hour lawyers negotiate a deal so that Widgets’R’Us gets paid 100 million dollars more than the value of its physical assets. Sweet.

Now, whoever owned Widgets’R’Us has an extra million C-notes, and a CEO who is no longer needed. After all, R.U.W. had its own CEO, thank you, and it didn’t just spend all that money to get rid of him. What to do? What to do?

Well, you could give the extra hundred million to the retiring CEO of Widgets’R’Us. After all, he deserves it. Maybe part of the money will be in a non-competition clause. Maybe some of it will be in a negotiated buy-out: a golden parachute, if you will. So far, so good.

The only problem is how to deal with the accounting of the hundred million. No problem. It shows up on the balance sheet of Rossum’s as “good-will.” The tangible assets of Rossums’ may be 45 million, but the company’s balance sheet says the company is worth 145 million smackers.

Did I say “No problem”? I guess I meant, no problem other than the fact that 70% of what the share-holders of Rossums’ Universal Widgets own went to keep some fat cat happy in his retirement.

One more problem: The 45 million dollar widget factory is turning out widgets like there is no tomorrow. And now, everyone wants one. So the owners of R.U.W. are making money hand over fist. And of course, what’s good for Rossum’s is good for the country, because they are paying taxes on the income they are making. Cool beans!

Well, on that taxes thing, let’s just cool it one darn minute, and talk to the bean counters. See, that 100 million dollars of good will, that won’t last forever. We are going to have to depreciate it, or expense it or something that is a charge against income. So, the cash flow isn’t affected, but the income goes down, and with it the tax liability. What’s good for Rossum’s isn’t so good for the country.

I mean my country. Not the other America. The one owned and operated for the benefit of multi-millionaires living off the sweat of other men’s brows.

“…and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

There's always room at the table.

What we know so far …

Thing 1: Today, we learned that Vice President Dick Cheney will testify in the perjury trial of Scooter “Take one for the Team” Libby. It is not news that Darth Cheney is no straight shooter.

He has lied at every opportunity to the American people, and the most recent example would defy the ability of anyone with a conscience to keep a straight face. He said that Donald Rumsfeld is the best Secretary of Defense in the nation’s history.

Certainly he was better than the lame-ass Dick who served from March 21, 1989, to the end of George H.W. Bush’s term. But how does he compare, for example, to George C. Marshall who served under President Harry S Truman? And Bill Cohen, for what it’s worth, did successfully prosecute a war in Kosovo in which the U.S. sustained negligible losses— according to official reports the alliance suffered no fatalities as a result of combat operations. Not bad for a Republican.

But I digress; the point here is that Dick Cheney is a congenital liar, if I may borrow a phrase from Bill Safire.

Thing 2: King George has been taking a lot of credit for an economy that he says is great.

It is great for his pals, if you exclude the ones who are going to jail like Jeff Skilling. F’rinstance, Goldman Sachs paid Lloyd C. Blankfein, its chairman and chief executive, a bonus of $53.4 million in 2006, the highest ever for a Wall Street chief executive. By the way, how was your Christmas bonus?

We also learned that inflation for the month of November was 2.0%. I’m no mathematician, but that sounds to me like a 24% annual rate. (If I were a mathematician, I would know that annualized, it is a 26.824% inflation rate.)

What the future holds...

Scooter is going down like a ton of bricks. Do not pass go, do not collect $200. In the process, it will be hard to avoid the conclusion that Dick Cheney committed perjury.

Meanwhile, we got a full plate of investigations going on in both houses of Congress. There’s a chance that they will discover that Bush is a genius, but it is about as likely as Laura Bush doing a strip-tease on the Capitol steps. The smart money is against either one. Somewhat more likely, they will conclude that Bush lied us into war, unlawfully spied on American citizens, paid ‘journalists’ to plant propaganda in the media, and lied to the public about a myriad of other things. Most egregiously, he has used “signing statements” to announce publicly that he has no intention of “faithfully executing” the laws of the United States. The evidence is mounting that King George is delusional, and I use that term advisedly.

For many Americans, none of this matters. They work hard all day, come home and watch “Deal or No Deal,” go to bed, and start all over. When it turns out that they are taking a 2% pay cut every month, things will change. Anger will grow, and who better to focus it on than the buffoon who kept telling us that the economy is going great?

Impeachment is off the table, we are told by the incoming House Majority Leader. There is a beautiful old expression in the African-American community: There’s always room at the table.

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

Terrorists in the least likely places

Harken back to yesteryear when the Bush regime was defending itself against charges that it had engaged in warrantless seizures of telephone communications in open violation of the FISA law and the Constitution.

The defense, boiled down to its essentials, was, “Yeah we did it. What are you going to do about it?” Of course, at the time, King George was speaking not so much to the American people, as to Congress, both houses of which were controlled by Republicans. And so it was that he could correctly predict that the answer was, “not a damn thing.”

In speaking to the American people, he used his favorite rhetorical tactic which is to say that his program was a necessary component of the war on terror. In particular, he used the following formulation: “If terrorists are talking to someone in America, we want to know about it.”

This formulation was well suited to King George, because, like him, it is simple. It overlooked the fact that the FISA law was specifically designed for the task of enabling the government to listen in on terrorists, and that therefore, the formulation really did nothing to explain why he should be allowed to break the FISA law with impunity.

More importantly, it overlooked the fact that the government was listening in on hundreds of thousands of conversations, and presumably not all of them involved terrorists. I argued here that the program of domestic spying was actually a program of domestic spying for political purposes.

Some may say the evidence I cited was weak, though it was more than the evidence that sent American troops into Iraq. Still, I have a heavy burden to bear if I am to convince an impartial world that the United States of America engages in spying for political purposes. What got me thinking about it today, was the latest news from across the pond.

According to The Guardian,

The American secret service was bugging Princess Diana's telephone conversations without the approval of the British security services on the night she died, according to the most comprehensive report on her death, to be published this week.

Who woulda thunk the Duchess of York was a terrorist?

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

Fuck the Draft

As a child in the Age of Aquarius, nothing seemed so self-evidently obvious as the fact that the draft was an unacceptable imposition on the freedom that is the birthright of all Americans.

The great Constitution of the United States safeguarded to us freedoms that included the right to express our attitude towards the draft in the pithy title to this post, according to Cohen v. California.

During World War II our nation imposed a draft because we were in an all-out war against Fascism, a war not of our choosing, but which, for better or worse, we sought to avoid. The draft took away the freedoms of some temporarily, so that the freedoms of all would not be lost permanently.

The internment of the Japanese proves that Americans were not fastidious about personal freedoms when it came to protecting the collective freedom of the nation. Along came the Vietnam War. The leadership of our country felt the familiar threat of totalitarianism, and as they say, the generals are always fighting the last war. The perceived threat to collective freedom again, overrode the commitment to personal freedom. Though we avoided the mistakes associated with internment camps, the draft was re-instituted.

But the war in Vietnam was not really a war to fight fascism. The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was a response to phony evidence. It was, as we know, not the last time such a thing would happen.

In the ‘60s, the Chicago Seven and the Kent State Massacre revealed the fact that the harm that could come to us from our own government was greater than the threat to us posed by the pajama-clad Viet Cong. And as Mohammad Ali put it in 1966, “No Viet Cong ever called me ‘nigger.’”

Of course, with love-ins, sit-ins, teach-ins and moratoria we stopped the War in Vietnam, as well as the draft. Now, the former hippies, those who inhaled and those who did not, are in positions of power. And therefore, the idea of resurrecting a draft is a total non-starter.

And yet, part of this ex-hippy sees the wisdom of Charlie Rangell’s argument:

“There's no question in my mind that this president and this administration would never have invaded Iraq, especially on the flimsy evidence that was presented to the Congress, if indeed we had a draft and members of Congress and the administration thought that their kids from their communities would be placed in harm’s way.”

When Jim Webb, D-VA, joins Sen. Tim Johnson, D-S.D., and Kit Bond, R-MO, in the new Congress, the number of Senators with “skin in the game” will increase by 50%.

For the most part, people are drawn to the military as a way of escaping circumstances that leave them with few choices. In the two Americas I spoke of in a previous post only one America must send their young off to war, and pray nightly for their safe return. Only one America has borne the pain of unanswered prayers. Is there anyone who doubts which America will draw down the ill-gotten gains of the war profiteers?

And so it is that I find myself torn in the argument about the draft. On balance, I come out against the draft, for the simple reason that I don’t trust the government to take control of young people’s lives and deal with them fairly. But I must make one observation:

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.

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

I saw a highway of diamonds with nobody on it.

According to Paul Krugman, the prices of pharmaceutical shares plunged after the election. I haven’t taken the time to confirm this, because Paul Krugman’s word is good enough for me.

He attributes the decline in equity values to the fact that the Party of Bush passed a Medicare bill which was intended not so much to provide medical coverage to people who have worked a lifetime to earn it. Rather it was intended to protect Big Pharma from the possibility that the Government of the United States might use its considerable economic leverage to obtain fair prices from the gatekeepers of health.

While I was busy not looking up the performance of equity shares of Big Pharma, I was also not looking up the profitability of these companies. Just for fun, I’m willing to bet that they are doing okay. Any takers?

If I am wrong, I am going to want to go double or nothing that regardless of how the companies are doing profit-wise, the CEOs have done a pretty good job of taking care of themselves. And their children. And their grandchildren. And the next 40 generations, assuming that they don’t choose to keep warm by burning crumpled up $100 bills. Should they indeed make such an obscenely profligate choice, maybe only 10 generations.

Such is the wealth they have extracted from a people whose founding document proclaims that it is self-evidently true that our Creator has bestowed on all of us an inalienable right to life, and that governments are instituted among men and women to secure that right.

In the defense of the stewards of capitalism who earn the big bucks, it must be observed that their job is difficult and not everyone can do it. I leave it to others to consider how this differs from doing backbreaking labor like digging ditches, which makes men too weak and tired to enjoy what life has to offer. (Big Mitch is a very healthy, strong 250-pound guy, and they haven’t yet printed enough money to tempt me into that kind of labor.) I guess it makes sense that a guy who works that hard with his back has no need for a Leer Jet, because he would be too worn out to go anywhere on the little time off he earns.

Now, we all know that a CEO's work is mostly indoors and involves no heavy lifting, to borrow Bob Dole’s famous description of the job of vice-president. It is assumed that in their domain, the Big Pharma’s CEOs are uniquely qualified on account of their brainpower, which is just as exceptional as the physical prowess of a world-class athlete. It’s a supply and demand thing. They must be geniuses.

And that’s what has me so confused.

If they are so smart, how could they not have seen the election results coming? How could they have figured that the gift of No Drug Company Left Behind would last for long past the election?

This was the mistake that Karl Rove made, too. And even though I am a bear of very little brain, I was able to call every Senate race and predict the Democratic takeover of the House, by the simple expedient of paying attention to the polls. This was the Lawrence O’Donnell technique, and it worked for me, too.

The inability of Big Pharma’s capitalists and other assorted Rovians to foresee the election outcome speaks volumes. What it says is that these people are totally out of touch with the reality of millions and millions or Americans. And when that happens, to borrow a phrase from one of the most astute of political observers, “a hard rain’s a-goin’ to fall.”

I give credit to John Edwards for his “Two Americas” stump speech, and for suiting his actions to his rhetoric in the years since the election. Now it seems that the message is beginning to resonate.

For example, consider Senator-elect James Webb, whom the media have dubbed a “conservative Democrat.” Here’s his take:

The most important--and unfortunately the least debated--issue in politics today is our society's steady drift toward a class-based system, the likes of which we have not seen since the 19th century. America's top tier has grown infinitely richer and more removed over the past 25 years. It is not unfair to say that they are literally living in a different country.

To read more of what Jim Webb has to say, (with The Daily Kos’s snarky debunking of the “conservative Democrat” meme interspersed) visit Webb, conservative…

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

Truth and consequences

Remember that old riddle about the explorer who comes to a fork in the road and knows that the native he encounters is either from the tribe of Liars or the tribe of Truth-tellers? What question should he ask the native to find out which is the road to the city?

While you contemplate that, consider this: If Dumb George Dubya says he’s a liar, well, for once in his life he’s a truth-teller. Go figure. As Media Matters tells it:

During his November 8 press conference, President Bush announced Donald H. Rumsfeld’s resignation as defense secretary and nominated former CIA director Robert Gates to take his place, even though days before the November 7 elections, Bush had said he wanted Rumsfeld to stay on through the end of his presidency. Bush explained that the reason for announcing Rumsfeld’s resignation after the elections was due to the fact that he “didn’t want to inject a major decision about this war in the final days of a campaign.”

There is so much here, that I don’t know where to begin.

Can someone please tell me why voters shouldn’t know before they vote, for whom they are voting? I realize that the Secretary of War was not strictly speaking on the ballot, but is there anyone who will deny that the election was inter alia a referendum on the war? 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.

Sure, it sounds like a trivial breach of civility for Dubya to casually admit to being a liar, a fact which anyone who has been paying attention knew for some time. But lest we forget: The House Judiciary Committee voted in favor of Articles of Impeachment against Richard M. Nixon, for “making or causing to be made false or misleading public statements for the purpose of deceiving the people of the United States…”

Now how are we to interpret the well publicized Republican extension of an olive branch to the Democrats who control Congress? I say, the best predictor of future activity is past conduct. These guys are stinkin’ liars. If you believe that they will not turn on the Democrats the second they get a chance, then you are a knucklehead. Any Democrat who trusts them doesn’t deserve a position of trust.

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

The people have spoken.

Democrat Marie Steichen, of Woonsocket, South Dakota, got 100 votes in the county commissioner's race in Jerauld County on Tuesday. defeating incumbent Republican Merlin Feistner, of Woonsocket, who had 64 votes. Marie Steichen will not be assuming her office, mostly on account of the fact that she has been dead for two months.

In the battle to turn red states in the heartland into blue states, Ms. Steichen had a convincing slogan: "Better dead than red."

One might think that Feistner would feel the sting of rejection, but, ever the optimomist, he is probably looking forward to be appointed Attorney General in a shaken-up Bush administration. After all, John Ashcroft did it!

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

Time is running out

It’s election day, and you might think there is no time left for bad news to reduce the chances of the Party of Bush holding on to Congress. The military newspapers are calling for Rumsfeld’s dismissal, and King George says, “It’s Rummy as long as I am the decider-in-chief.”

Everyone from James Baker III to Joe Sixpack thinks the war in Iraq is going south, and Dumb Dubya says “We will not change course.” Meanwhile they are cutting and running on the rebuilding effort having milked it for all it’s worth.

They’ve put plans for nyuclear bombs on the internets, as part of a Republican led effort to keep us safer. They have shut down the intelligence operation to catch Osama Bin Laden but maybe King George the Incompetent will look for him on the Google.

One House member pled guilty to corruption charges but didn’t immediately resign from Congress. He claims he wanted to stay on to help his people get jobs while he prepares to go to jail. I guess being a convicted crook doesn’t cut you out of the Republican networking loop.

Another Republican quit the House because he was busted for being a gay sexual harasser of minors, but he couldn’t get his name off the ballot in Florida. Republicans are the gang that couldn’t shoot straight when it comes to policing their own. For fear that they might give Dems an election-year issue, they swept the matter under a Republican rug, until it emerged in October, giving the Dems an election issue that at a minimum means Denny Hastert is out of the Republican leadership.

Elsewhere in Florida, the candidate for Senate has seen her first name morphed from ‘Katherine’ to ‘Bat-shit Crazy.’ Many Republicans are running away from Bush metaphorically, but in Florida, they are doing it literally.

The Rovians have been counting on their base to turn out as directed by their religious leadership, although the most prominent religious leader of the Evangelicals recently announced to his mega-church that he is “a liar and a deceiver.” The militant anti-gay minister turns out to be gay, not that there is anything wrong with that. He claims to have bought methamphetamine and then flushed it down the toilet. His intended audience spent eight years mocking Big Dog Bill Clinton who famously said, “I did not inhale.”

Melanie Sloan, of the Center for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington had a beautiful rant on other Republican ethics scandals, literally too numerous to recount here.

Republicans all over the country are getting caught in the old dirty tricks business. I say old, even though they are using robo-calling to harass Democrats, which basically is a new low.

You can imagine Dumb Dubya saying to Turd-blossom, “Hell, what more could go wrong?” And along comes the Washington Note with an answer:

US Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad is tired of being undermined by opponents in the White House and by elements of Iraq's unstable regime end-running him to influence rivals of his in the administration. He is reportedly on the verge of quitting.

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

An ole Sourdough remembers voter suppression in the good ole days.

I ain’t never been to rural Virginia, and I wonder what it’s like. It’s sure comfortin’ to traffic in stereotypes, but I won’t have none of it. I jes’ imagine it’s pretty, kinda like the open country we have here in Alaska but not no snow.

Like I been saying, I ain’t gonna figure them rustic Virginians to be no backwoods types, like some damn thing outa Deliverance. I reckon they got plenty technology in Virginia cause they got U.Va. down there, and that there was founded by none other than Thomas Jefferson. I ain’t a betting man, but if I were, I’d bet they got the very latest in voting machinery. Stuff that don’t need no paper cause it’s all done with that ‘lectricity, like that what them Democrats brought to the ole Tennessee Valley.

See, it would take some one a whole lot smarter’n me to figure out how to hack into those machines what’s supposed to count the votes. Up here in Alaska, we didn’t have no Thomas Jefferson, and we sure as shootin’ ain’t never had no University of Virginia.

Hell, when they had an election up here to move the Capital, all the ballots were on good old fashioned paper, just like the pages of a Gideon Bible. Now, them folks down in Juneau sure didn’t want the Capital of Alaska out in Wasilla, ’cause that would be like taking taters out of Idaho, or horses out of Virginny.

Betcha can just imagine that the folks down Juneau way, weren’t even going to let them yahoos up in Wasilla take the Capital away from them. Trouble is, they hadn’t invented them computified counting machines, and even if they had, back then folks in Alaska wouldn’t know what to do witha mini-bar key other than to have a good go at the Prinz-Brau.

See, if you wanted to steal an election in them days, you had to do real work. Not some sissified computer hacking where the heaviest thing you have to lift is a smart card, like the one some young stud lifted in Tennesee.

Back then you had to do stuff like open up a fire hydrant with a twenty-pound wrench. Oh boy, when I think of all them Wasilla voters slipping and sliding and blocking intersections, well, it’s a lead-pipe cinch they ain’t about to be voting to move no damn Capital to where they can keep an eye on them elected officials and all.

‘Course here in Alaska it’s cold, so a bunch of open fire hydrants sure goin’ to freeze up, and I guess them fancy pants politico scientists would call that “voter surpressin’.”

An like I was sayin, I ain’t never been to Virginny but I don’t figure you could count on ice to keep people from voting. But then again, I don’t know if an open fire hydrant would make a whole lot of mud in the Old Dominion, and I guess that could kinda get the votin’ bogged down, if you know what I mean. Especially in precincts where that George Allen feller is running so strong.

That weren’t all they done in Alaska to keep the Capital from being moved to where you would find the 60 or 70 percent of the Alaskans who live in or nearby to Anchorage. They had to take a big old chain, and drop it on a ‘lectric transmission line. ‘How did they do that?’ you might be asking, and hell, back them a lot of people asked the same question.

Turns out they used a whirly-bird heliocopter, which might could sound like going to a parcel of trouble just to drop a chain on a ‘lectric line. But somebody must have known something, because just about all of Anchorage went dark, and people started thinkin’ a lot less about where the Capital was gonna be, and a whole lot more about how they could keep their pipes from freezin’ up. I shutter to think what woulda happened if we had them modern ’lectric voting machines back then.

Well, that there was in the old days. Now in these modern times, Republicans steal elections just like falling off a log. And there ain’t hardly an old-timer around, who remembers what real work was. Or where to get a twenty-pound wrench. Or a damn whirlybird heliocopter. If you know what I mean.

If’n you do know what I mean, do me one favor. Don’t …

“… tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

Thank you Channel 9 in Denver CO.

From the NBC affiliate, 9News.com:

A gay man and admitted male escort claims he has had an ongoing sexual relationship with a well-known Evangelical pastor from Colorado Springs.

Mike Jones told 9 Wants to Know Investigative Reporter Paula Woodward he has had a "sexual business" relationship with Pastor Ted Haggard for the past three years.

Haggard is the founder and senior leader of the New Life Church in Colorado Springs. The church has 14,000 members. He is also president of the National Association of Evangelicals, an organization that represents millions of people.

Haggard is married with five children and an outspoken critic of gay marriage.

Jones broke his silence Wednesday morning on talk radio.
_________________________________

Read the entire story on the 9News.com website ...

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

Study hard, and you might avoid a tragedy

King George the Incompetent was out on the hustings today, campaigning for Mac Collins, candidate for the House in Georgia.

The president took aim at a familiar bogey-man, Senator John Kerry, the decorated war hero, who George quoted as saying:

You know education – if you make the most of it, if you study hard, you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart – you can do well. If you don’t – you can get stuck in Iraq.

Dumb Dubya said, “The suggestion that the men and women of our military are somehow uneducated is insulting and it is shameful.”

George, George, George: you’re a dumb schmuck.

He wasn’t talking about the men and women of our military. He was talking about you, George. Maybe if you had studied hard, done your homework, and made an effort to be smart, you might have been able to figure that out. Also, our country might not have become mired in a morass in Iraq, which as of this date has resulted in over 3,000 American deaths, including 101 in this month.

The President’s lack of zitsfleisch* coupled with his chronic shit-for-brains state of denial, has resulted in a misguided effort, which has made life for Iraqis worse off than in the days of Sadam, has introduced greater instability in the mid-East, motivated terrorists, emboldened the most radical regimes such as Iran and Korea, and distracted us from the war against terrorists in Afghanistan, all for a cost a mere $339 billion dollars and rising.

That’s why John Kerry had to point out that this tragedy, which may also cost the United States its pre-eminence on the world stage, could have been avoided if Bush had taken the time to figure out what he was getting into. It is hardly news, but the chimp in chief is a bear of very little brain, and a man who is long on faith, but short on curiosity.

As if to prove the point, the former Yale cheerleader offered the following riposte to Senator Kerry’s scathing criticism of his intellect:

The members of United States military are plenty smart.

George Bush has spoken, and now, you can sit back and watch the lap-dog corporate press, and the receipients of talking points faxes from the Party of Bush debate whether or not John Kerry owes our servicemen an apology.

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

*For the Yiddish-challenged, sitzfleisch means, literally, “flesh for sitting,” and refers to the ability to stick to one's studies.

Bush: "What, Me Worry?"

“They aren't even planning for if they lose.”

-- A “GOP insider who informally counsels the West Wing,” quoted by U.S. News & World Report on the Bush administration's “over confidence” about the midterm elections.

It is tempting to say that the Party of Bush has no exit strategy from power or that this is just so typical of the inability of these buffoons to deal with an inconvenient truth.

How is this different in kind from King George’s reaction to the report in Lancet that there have been over 600,000 Iraqi deaths as a result of the American invasion and occupation – a number 20 times the official U.S. estimate?

This was a scientific, peer-reviewed epidemiological study published in one of the world's most prestigious medical journals. The authors followed the same methodology that has been used to provide unchallenged estimates of deaths in other conflicts, such as the Congo.

Here’s Dubya’s reaction:

No question, it's violent, but this report is one -- they put it out before, it was pretty well -- the methodology was pretty well discredited. But I talk to people like General Casey and, of course, the Iraqi government put out a statement talking about the report.

Of course, King George has a vested interest in remaining ignorant of the extent of the death and destruction he has visited upon Iraq. But how will he profit from keeping his head in the sand vis-à-vis the end of Republican hegemony in Congress?

Assume there is a 20% chance of the Democratic party taking over both houses of Congress, and a 40% chance of them obtaining a majority in one house. Even Bush would have to deal with this possibility, since the possible consequences include impeachment.

You might think that Bush is sublimely confident because he has an October surprise that will swing the election. The problem with this theory is that anything that he might do just highlights people’s distrust of him. Invade Iran? I wouldn’t count on that to make people rally ‘round the flag-pole.

It is true that Bush has always benefited from bad news, 9-11 being the most conspicuous example. But it has worn thin. F’rinstance: did Dubya get a bump from North Korea exploding a bomb? I don’t think so.

Even if the plan for the Bushies is to have an October surprise, they had better have a plan B. And that is what scares me.

The way I see it, there’s only one reason why the Bush White House is not deeply concerned that they might lose the election. And that reason is … the fix is in.

Answer truthfully, if not out loud. Do you trust that the votes will be counted after the midterm elections? Are you willing to rely on Diebolt machines that leave no paper trail? My fear is that King George is, and that is why he’s not worried.

But you should be.

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

An Issue with National Implications

The Washington Post today reported that the Party of Bush is bracing for a gloomy Election day, and may lose as many as 30 seats in the House as well as control of the Senate. Part of the problem is that the Republican Guard knew of Foley’s illicit emails and salacious chats for several years. They did nothing to protect the pages, instead focusing all of their attention on the scandal’s potential for political fallout.

The WaPo writes:

As part of that strategy, the Republican National Committee is seeking to convince conservatives that the debate is fundamentally centered on politics, not values. The RNC is shipping reams of information to conservative radio hosts, television commentators and bloggers. Those GOP talking points detail the Democratic connections of groups including the Center for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and American Family Voices, which are working to turn the scandal into an issue with national implications.

What the hell?

How in the world can this not be an issue with national implications? Let’s review.

For 200+ years, during Democratic and Republican administrations, both Democratic and Republican congresses have accepted the responsibility of oversight of the administration as part of the job. This Congress has totally abdicated that responsibility.

They have failed to investigate the misuse of intelligence leading up to the war in Iraq, notwithstanding their promises to do so. They have failed to demand an accounting of the billions of dollars that disappeared into that sinkhole.

They have failed to hold accountable in any way the civilian leadership that ignored the advice of Generals and prosecuted a war without adequate troops, without even having adequate body armor for the too few troops in theater, and without an exit strategy.

They have failed to take the least grudging step against an administration that flouts the law by brazenly and contumaciously bragging “We don’t need no stinking FISA warrants.”

They have watched King George sign into laws bills while he announces that he reserves the right to break them, as if to say: “No man is above the law? Oh yeah? Just watch me, sucker!”

They have not lifted a finger to take action against torture and secret prisons. Indeed, the half-hearted attempt to score political points on the issue of torture turned into a repeal of the Constitution’s 5th Amendment protection of the Great Writ of Habeas Corpus.

They have acquiesced in the appointment of judges and Justices of the Supreme Court whose views are inimical to the rights of free men and women. They have tolerated the most transparent of lies during confirmation hearings, expecting us to believe that jurists fit for the Supreme Court have never opined about a woman’s right to choose.

They have tolerated all manner of incompetence in order to allow cronyism that places at danger all Americans, but especially the most vulnerable, as we have seen in New Orleans. And when this became no longer politically feasible, they have abided the scapegoating of one individual, rather than inquiring into the root causes of the problem.

And now we learn that when it turned out that a sexual predator was in their midst, they refused even to police their own, for fear of losing one seat in Congress.

Will Republicans protect us better than Democrats? The evidence shows that they can’t even protect those for whom they are entrusted to act in loco parentis.

All of this amounts to a stinging indictment of Republicans in Congress who are too craven in their lust for power to do even the least bit of oversight of the administration or of themselves.

But that is not all. This affair lays bare the claim that the Party of Bush is the Party of Values. Of course, anyone familiar with Dubya’s shady financial dealings, and his embrace of frat-boy values even after his so-called religious awakening, would know that he was as phony as wax fruit.

It is not simply Maf64’s immorality which stains the Republicans in Congress. It is the dawning realization throughout this nation that the Party of Bush will say or do anything to stay in power.

You’re damn straight this is an issue with national implications.

“… and tell ‘em Big Mitch sent ya!”

What the Foley Affair Teaches Us About the State of Affairs in Our Country

We have known for some time now that a Republican Congressman was sending inappropriate emails, and having highly inappropriate chats with pages. The fact of the matter is that we all know that people have differing sexual predilections. As long as they do not behave inappropriately as a result of them, I say, it is none of my business.

We also know that some people with odd predilections will act on them, even when it is against our common conception of morality, as, for example, when it violates a trusted position, or when it proceeds from a position of inequality. This is bad, but it is not news. When Mark Foley did it, it was merely the latest example of immorality in high places.

Foley was the Chair of the Republican Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children. To say that you are surprised by hypocrisy is to reveal yourself to be a complete moron. So basically, nothing Mark Foley did surprises me.

Republicans covered up for Foley. They may be lousy at protecting the country, but they are masters of protecting their own. Dennis Hastert, a former teacher, had his priorities bass-ackwards, but who among us is surprised?

Maybe we will be surprised later with other revelations about Hastert, perhaps arising from the fact that he lives with a confirmed bachelor in a Georgetown townhouse, and has a reputation in the gay community for being a player, specifically, a catcher. Or maybe he simply showed too much empathy for someone accused of inappropriate contact with minor boys because he had been forced to give up his carreer as a wrestling coach as a result of similar allegations. Who knows?

The extent of the cover-up is a little shocking, but in their mendacity, greed and incompetence, Republicans have always shown themselves to be adherents to the “Go Big or Go Home” philosophy. Nothing new here.

It is hardly news that the ethics-enforcement mechanisms of the Congress have been eviscerated. This was not even news to discerning consumers of the news back when Tom Delay was exposed as a crook.



The concern that has been expressed by the Bush team is that if Hastert were to resign it would have a negative effect on the party’s chances in the up-coming election. The party of personal responsibility doesn’t believe that Hastert should be held personally responsible, even though he personally accepted responsibility, all the while denying any personal wrong-doing.

I don’t know what it means to accept responsibility, unless it also means to accept consequences, but the sachems or the Party of Bush believe that would be bad for them. To hell with what it means for the Republic.

This is how Denny Hastert explained it to Laura Ingraham: “If I fold up my tent and leave, then where does that leave us? If the Democrats sweep, then we'd have no ability to fight back and get our message out.”

Only 27% of Americans think Denny Hastert should remain Speaker of the House of Representatives, compared to 43% who think he should resign from Congress. Another 20% think he should remain in Congress but resign his leadership position, and 10% haven’t made up their minds. The Party of Bush has determined that it would be unwise for Dennis Hastert to resign his speakership. Why is the leadership of the party of values so out of touch with the values of the American people?

The answer reveals something truly new to our country.

Hastert doesn’t need to resign because he needs to be punished for his misfeasance. He needs to resign because his nonfeasance has demonstrated that he doesn’t have the judgment needed to oversee the House of Representatives, and by extension, the rest of the government.

The Party of Bush believes that whatever is good for their party is good for our country. That is why Rep. Alexander (R-LA), the first member of Congress to be alerted to the problem, says he first contacted the NRCC. That’s the House Republicans’ election committee, a political organization entirely separate from the House bureaucracy and the Congress.

And that is why when the story of Foley’s misconduct was breaking, the Republican Guard notified only GOP members of the Page Oversight Board. Denny Hastert said that the Foley matter was handled “within the party.”

And that is what is new and different.

I have written extensively on this blog about my concern that country is heading towards fascism. With Le Cage au Foley we see another milestone passed. When the Communists controlled the Soviet Union, when the Fascists held sway in Italy and when the Nazis ruled Germany, it was not the government calling the shots: it was the Party.

Who is making decisions in this country? Only the Party of Bush decides about whether there will be oversight of the congress or oversight of the administration. Who controls the mechanisms of elections in this country? The party of Bush does.

Descent into fascism by placing the instruments of power in a party rather than in the government? Sad to say, there’s nothing new here either.

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

A Democratic Sex Scandal?

Fair and balanced? We report. You decide.

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

Republican sex scandal: do not judge too quickly.

It has frequently been observed that the crime is rarely as bad as the cover-up. So it was with Watergate.

In the case of a Republican congressman text messaging sicko sex talk to juvenile employees of the House of Representitives, the crime is so bad that it would have to be a really ugly coverup to eclipse the nastiness of this pervert's misconduct. Maybe this will be the exception that proves the aforementioned rule.

But wait! It turns out that Republican leaders knew about Mark Foley's odd proclivities for over 5 years. Yep, we may have a cover-up here that exceeds any we have ever seen.

The ABC News Blog reports:

A Republican staff member warned congressional pages five years ago to watch out for Congressman Mark Foley, according to a former page.

Matthew Loraditch, [pictured above] a page in the 2001-2002 class, told ABC News he and other pages were warned about Foley by a supervisor in the House Clerk's office.

…

Pages report to either Republican or Democratic supervisors, depending on the political party of the member of Congress who nominate them for the page program.

Several Democratic pages tell ABC News they received no such warnings about Foley.

…

Loraditch runs the alumni association for the U.S. House Page Program, and he is deeply concerned about the future effects this scandal could have on a program that he sees as a valuable educational experience for teens.

Are Republicans keeping us safe? Not if you are a congressional page, and happen to be a Democrat.

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

A Young Turk's Point of View

Tip of the Hat to Cenk Uygur, on The Young Turks: Rebel Headquarters.

In a piece entitled The Republican Protection Racket, he points out this Congress’ failure to investigate Congressman Foley’s proclivity for adolescent Congressional pages, though apparently several Republicans knew about the disgusting emails and internet chats. Uygur contrasts this to the penchant for investigations shown by Congress during the Clinton administration.

Back in the mid-1990s, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, aggressively delving into alleged misconduct by the Clinton administration, logged 140 hours of sworn testimony into whether former president Bill Clinton had used the White House Christmas card list to identify potential Democratic donors. (He wasn't.)

Rep. Dan Burton (R-IN), then chair of the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee, investigated whether taxpayers were footing the cost of stationery and postage for the fan club dedicated to President Clinton’s cat, Socks. (They were not - and it turns out Barbara Bush’s dog Millie had a fan club too.)

Uygur writes:

Duke Cunningham took millions of dollars in bribes. The people who were buying him off bought him a yacht called the Duke-Stir. He had a bribe menu on Congressional letter head. How many ethics investigations? Zero. Zilch. Nada.

Bob Ney took gifts and favors from Jack Abramoff. He has confessed and is about to go to prison. How many ethics investigations? Zero. None. Not one.

Then there is Hastert's shady land deal. Bill Frist's insider trading. Tom DeLay's money laundering. The list goes on and on. Every one of them had their ass covered by the rest of their Republican colleagues, crooks, whatever you want to call them.

…

Not one investigation into what's gone wrong with the war in Iraq, the $9 billion dollars missing in Iraq, why a CIA agent's name was leaked, why Osama bin Laden hasn't been caught or any of the corruption scandals.

I guess it would be crazy to think that a Republican controlled congress with a record like this would investigate whether or not King George the Incompetent lied about pre-war intelligence. Even though they promised they would after the election. That would be the 2004 election. Check out the incredible history of lies and broken promises by Republican Senator Pat Roberts, of Kentucky here…

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”