Take a bromide

Victoria Toensing testified at Henry Waxman’s committee today. What a piece of work is she! She appeared wearing two watches, which reminded me of the observation that a person with one watch knows what time it is, but a person with two watches is never quite sure. Still, it did kind of make her look like a spy.

She testified that Mrs. Wilson was not a covert officer, which would surely come as a surprise to Mrs. Wilson who testified that she was. In fact, it must have come as a surprise to General Hayden, Director of Central Intelligence, who approved language used by Congressman Waxman, viz., “Valerie Plame was a covert officer.”

How can Ms. Toensing come to that surprising conclusion? Quite simply. She redefines the terms “covert officer.” I won’t go into the details of how she does this because, frankly, it’s too arcane. But you will get the idea from a famous riddle that President Lincoln posed:

Question: If you call a dog’s tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?

Answer: Four. Calling a tail a leg won’t make it so.

To bolster her case that Mrs. Wilson was not a “covert officer within the meaning of the law” Ms. Toensing asked a series of rhetorical questions, such as, “Why didn’t the head of the CIA go to Novak, when he knew the article was forthcoming, and ask him not to publish it?” and “Why didn’t the CIA briefer who spoke to Cheney and Libby tell them that Plame was covert?”

Whenever I hear someone use the rhetorical device of asking several questions in rapid fire, each containing untested assumptions, I am reminded of what my old man used to tell me: “A fool can ask more questions than a wise man can answer.”

But over and above that, don’t forget the possibility that each one of Ms. Toensing’s rhetorical questions has a logical answer. For example, why didn’t the Director of Central Intelligence call Novak to put the kibosh on the outing of Plame? Answer: Novak had already been told by the CIA not to publish the article.

In this case, Ms. Toensing’s questions threw enough baffle-dust into the air that you might come away with the conclusion that one can be a covert agent without being a “covert agent under the statute” covering unauthorized disclosure of a covert agent’s identity. But that doesn’t mean that Cheney, Libby, and Rove didn’t violate the relevant Executive Order relating to classified information. It’s clear that they did.

Bad news for Republicans: Democrats have subpoena power. A Republican hack like Victoria Toensing is not going to slow them down one bit. Go for it Mr. Waxman.

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

Breaking News: Generalissimo Gonzalez is a liar

If someone in the Administration is responsible for misleading the Congress, you might think he should lose his job, at a minimum.

If you caught Generalissimo Gonzalez’s press conference on Tuesday, you got quite an earful.

The Attorney General took full responsibility for the fact that Congress was misled in the matter of the firing of the eight Assistant U.S. Attorneys. Of course, when Generalissimo Gonzalez says he takes full responsibility, he means, “I will not be held accountable, so let’s just stop talking about it.”

But he didn’t stop talking about it. Instead, he went on to describe what happened.

As a general matter, some two years ago, I was made aware that there was a request from the White House as to the possibility of replacing all the United States attorneys. That was immediately rejected by me. I felt that that was a bad idea and it was disruptive.
…
I was not involved in seeing any memos, was not involved in any discussions about what was going on.

He’s lying.

First of all, you can tell just by the way he was speaking: he’s not as slick a liar as some of the more polished politicians in his party. His speech was pressured, and he looked acutely uncomfortable. It was way out of proportion to the main message that he was ostensibly delivering, namely, There’s nothing wrong, or even unusual about firing a few AUSAs. I had nothing to do with it. My underling may have misled Congress, and he has been fired.

Some of the stress in his voice may have been related to the fact that the underling in question, Kyle Samson, is, Gonzalez told us, “still at the department, as he transitions out and looks for another employment.”

I mean, how much shame and disrepute to you have to bring upon the Department of Justice before they say, “clean out your desk, and never darken our towels again.” If he is responsible for misleading Congress, he should be off the payroll and on the Criminal Docket, not drawing a paycheck while he looks for a job.

A lot of folk would overlook a little fib about Kyle Samson because he was a trusted associate of el Generalissimo Gonzalez, who could be excused for spinning the truth. But what to make of the assertion that he immediately rejected the suggestion that all of the AUSAs be fired and that he was not involved in any discussions of the matter?

The head of the Department of Justice, (who never prosecuted a case) must have forgotten that when you send emails there is an electronic record and it doesn’t just go away.

Today, ABC News is reporting that soon-to-be released emails show that Turd Blossom and Generalissimo Gonzales were intimately involved in the scheme to replace all U.S. Attorneys.

White House press secretary Tony Snow told reporters Tuesday that Miers had suggested firing all 93, and that it was “her idea only.” Snow said Miers’ idea was quickly rejected by the Department of Justice.

The latest e-mails show that Gonzales and Rove were both involved in the discussion, and neither rejected it out of hand.

Can’t wait to see those emails.

Actually, Senator Mark Pryor (D-AR) has seen them. What they show is that Kyle Samson had a playbook that was implemented to get around Senate confirmation of Assistant United States Attorneys. The scheme involved stalling the Senate and lying to the members. The email says that all of this will be done in “good faith.” [quotation marks in original]

Senator Pryor – one of only six Democrats to vote for Gonzalez’s confirmation –reported on the floor of the Senate today that the plan was implemented and that pursuant to it, El Generalissimo performed exactly as directed. He says,

When the Attorney General lies to a United States Senator, I think it is time for that Attorney General to go. And again, he not only lied to me as a person, but when he lied to me he lied to the Senate, and he lied to the people I represent. And for that reason I am asking him and demanding that he resign today.

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

A Reminder

The Files—
Office Files!
Oblige me by referring to the Files.
...
When your Imp of Blind Desire
Bids you set the Thames afire,
You’ll remember men have done so—in the Files.
-- Rudyard Kipling, “The Files”

The Articles of Impeachment adopted by the Committee on the Judiciary on July 27, 1974 contained three Articles. Article 1 referred to the burglary of the headquarters of the Democratic national Committee at the Watergate complex. Nixon was accused of obstructing justice with respect thereto.

Specifically, the means adopted to further this obstruction included, “interfering or endeavouring [sic] to interfere with the conduct of investigations by the Department of Justice of the United States …”

Generalissimo Gonzales must go, and if he won’t resign, then he must be impeached.

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

Can you top this?

Over on Huffington Post, Steve Benen has an article called “What if we don’t want to ‘Get over it!’” in which he responds to the latest outrage from the Bush mob. Seems King George the Incompetent nominated Sam Fox, a generous donor to the Party of Bush, to be Ambassador to Belgium. Problem is, this same piece of work gave $50,000 to the Swiftboat Vets.

Some people are unhappy. Not least among them is Sen. Kerry. Benen quotes Wade Sanders, a former deputy assistant secretary of the Navy, decorated former swift boat skipper, and combat veteran, who wrote an op-ed last week attacking Bush’s nomination of Fox: “[A]s a military man, it doesn’t matter much who is being attacked -- John McCain, Max Cleland, John Kerry, or Jack Murtha -- I just don't believe that assaults on the military records of veterans belong in our politics.”

Frankly, it doesn’t bother me that a political donor got rewarded with a sinecure. The problem for me is that credibility is the main stock in trade of an ambassador, and the swiftboating Sam Fox doesn’t have any.

What got Benen’s goat was a “largely incoherent” editorial in the WSJ that urges Democrats to “Get over it!” Benin’s article evoked this comment from Tommo.

The stolen 2000 election. Katherine Harris. Bush v. Gore. Halliburton, Lockheed/Martin, and other crony war profiteers. The Aug. 6, 2001, presidential daily briefing. "My Pet Goat", Jack Abramoff. David Safavian. Ken Tomlinson. Signing statements. The phony Unitary Executive theory. The manipulation of terror alerts. The suppression and perversion of science, especially on global warming. The phony case for war in Iraq. The Downing Street memo. Ohio in 2004. Voting machines. Swiftboating. Claude Allen. Jeff Gannon. The lack of planning for and putting unqualified cronies in high positions in "postwar" Iraq. (See Kate O'Bierne's husband.) Dusty Foggo. Katrina. Michael Brown. Enron. Wiretaps. Bank records surveillance. The $8.8 billion (300 tons of cash) missing in Iraq. Destruction of Habeus Corpus. Torture. Illegal wiretapping/data mining. The politicization of AIDS prevention, the Justice Department, and economic statistics tracking. Unconstitutional Faith Based Initiatives. Cheney's energy task force. Record high gas prices. Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, "Extraordinary Renditions", Mark Foley (covered up by the White House/Rove), 9/11 Workers Health Risk suppression, shooting people in their face then obstructing an investigation, pay for positive political coverage, the destruction of Iraq antiquities, lack of body armor, up-armored Humvees, and training. Walter Reed. U.S. attorneys purge. Scooter Libby and destruction of the covert CIA Brewster-Jennings operation. Less water & electricity in Iraq than under Sadam. The botched execution. Record opium production. The stagnant stock market (markets hate instability). The pitiful state of health care in America; ditto education. The sinking of America's middle class. 3000 dead American soldiers in Iraq, 30,000 wounded, $1 trillion wasted, 650,000 dead Iraqis, 2 million Iraqi refugees. Osama still on the loose and the Taliban still strong in Afghanistan. Kim Jung Il has nukes. China holds a huge part of our debt. Putin is having people assassinated on American soil. Bush is trying to start a war with Iran, who probably couldn't have nukes for ten years. The Saudis are still grooming terrorists. The destruction of Colin Powell. The destruction of the National Guard. Recruiting felons. The world hates us.

Did he miss anything?

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

Relevant Conduct and Scooter’s sentence

Sentencing in Federal Courts is guided by the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, which Congress enacted, inter alia to promote uniformity in Sentencing.

One of the problems associated with achieving uniformity in sentencing is that prosecutors have wide discretion to charge or not charge an offense. Imagine that every armed robbery resulted in a seven-year sentence. A serial offender, who is believed by the prosecutor to have committed 5 crimes could get a sentence between 7 and 35 years depending on which crimes the U.S. Attorney chose to prosecute.

Police officers have awesome influence, too. Suppose a undercover cop establishes a relationship with a drug dealer. He can buy an ounce or two. He will usually keep at it until he makes a big enough purchase to hammer the defendant.

To address these problems and others, the Federal Sentencing Commission proposed, and Congress agreed that sentencing would be based upon “relevant conduct,” defined as

(1) (A) all acts and omissions committed, aided, abetted, counseled, commanded, induced, procured, or willfully caused by the defendant; and

(B) in the case of a jointly undertaken criminal activity (a criminal plan, scheme, endeavor, or enterprise undertaken by the defendant in concert with others, whether or not charged as a conspiracy), all reasonably foreseeable acts and omissions of others in furtherance of the jointly undertaken criminal activity, that occurred during the commission of the offense of conviction, in preparation for that offense, or in the course of attempting to avoid detection or responsibility for that offense

Once the relevant conduct is determined by the court, the sentence is determined by looking on a matrix on which one axis is the offense and the other is the offender characteristics.

What is the relevant conduct for Scooter’s obstruction of justice? May I suggests that it is Disclosure of Information Identifying a Covert Agent.

§2M3.9. Disclosure of Information Identifying a Covert Agent

(a) Base Offense Level:

(1) 30, if the information was disclosed by a person with, or who had authorized access to classified information identifying a covert agent; or

(2) 25, if the information was disclosed by a person with authorized access only to other classified information.

Obviously, Libby had authorized access to classified information identifying a covert agent. Thus, he starts off with a base level of 30. If the court finds that this is the relevant conduct, and assuming that Scooter was as clean as a whistle before this episode, then he is looking at a sentence of 97-121 months, or roughly 8-10 years. About 15% of that comes off for good behavior, but, even still, Libby is looking at real time.

Additionally, the guideline for Obstruction of Justice assigns an offense level of 14 (or 17, if the offense “resulted in substantial interference with the administration of justice) and also provides that

if the offense involved obstructing the investigation or prosecution of a criminal offense, apply §2X3.1 (Accessory After the Fact) in respect to that criminal offense, if the resulting offense level is greater than that determined above.

Let’s look at the Accessory After the Fact calculation.

The accessory after the fact guideline provides that the Base Offense Level is 6 levels lower than the underlying offense. If the base level for the underlying offense, Disclosing Information Identifying a Covert Agent, is 30, as seen above, then Scooter starts off with a Base Offense Level of 24.

Again, reference to the matrix shows that he’s looking at 51-63 months.

There are serious reasons for concluding that Libby’s conduct was at the upper range of the guideline, since, after all, we are talking about silencing a critic of the Administration who busted Cheney for misleading the country into war, with the result that an undercover counter-proliferation program was terminated.

The bottom line here is that Libby is facing a tough choice. He can play ball with Fitzgerald, and substantially reduce his sentence. Or he can prepare to take a 5-10 year trip to the pokey. He can hope for a pardon but if he puts his eggs in that basket, he is risking being an absent father during the next decade of his children’s life.

Lots of folk are figuring that Bush’s loyalty to friends will result in a pardon. Big Mitch doesn’t believe that it is wise to rely on the loyalty of a narcissistic sociopath like Bush. Even if I am wrong, a pardon probably wouldn’t come until the end of Dubya’s term of office, nearly two years off. There’s a better than average chance that Libby will have to do a year and a half before that happens.

Keep this in mind when you hear talking heads saying that Libby is realistically facing a sentence of a year or so.

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

Horse Racing with Big Mitch

Here’s what you need to know:

In trial heats, Giuliani beats Clinton (47-40), and McCain also beats Clinton (47-39).

John Edwards polls about the same as Clinton. He loses to Guiliani (46-40) and to McCain (47-38).

But Obama beats Giuliani (46-40), and he also beats McCain (44-40).

Mit Romney loses convincingly to all three Democrats.

Results are from Zogby America Poll. Feb. 22-24, 2007. The margin of error is +/- 3.

My view is that anyone of these Dems can beat the pants off of McCain or Giuliani. But for candidates other than Barack Obama, it’s an uphill battle.

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

An Open Letter to Prince Harry from my Pride and Joy

Dear Prince,

I'm not sure if you read my father's blog or not, but after I read of your impending deployment I figured I just had to write.

It's good to see political scions in uniform—provided, as I’m sure you’ve had time to consider, that it’s a uniform from an Allied power. On this side of the pond, we’ve been seeing a bumper sticker reading “Draft Jenna,” a reference to our commander-in-chief’s daughter. The underlying sentiment, I think, is that if those in power had to think about putting their own kids in harm’s way, they wouldn’t be so quick to wage war.

I love my country, but I won’t enlist in support of a war that has, to my way of thinking, been conducted with neither foresight nor accountability. And if you do read Big Mitch’s blog, you’ve read that, mirabile dictu, he’s given a thought or two about a draft, if only to make our leaders think twice about sending young men and women to die.

My Pop says, “War is hell.” Men and women who return from it -- even those who bear no physical wounds -- are often scarred by the horrors of what they must do and what they observe. What effect will war produce on you? Of course, we pray for your safe return, just as we pray for the safe return of every one of our own brave troops. May it also be God's will that your experience fortifies you as a spokesman for peace.

I’ll send you off with a quote from another famous Harry: “Be copy now to men of grosser blood, and teach them how to war.” By “men of grosser blood,” I do not mean the brave British troops under your command, nor my own countrymen overseas. I mean the cowards who hold power in America, who keep their families safe at home while they profit from sending members of my generation to die.

Godspeed … and tell ’em Young Ike sent you!

Cordially,

Ike Schapira

Another old joke revisited

Faithful readers of this space know I like to revisit old jokes when they become timely. See for example: here, and here. Well, here we go again.

First, the old joke:

“Did you hear they cancelled Easter this year? It’s true. They found the body!”

Now for the update, as reported in Time magazine:

In a new documentary, Producer [James] Cameron, [he, of Titanic fame,] and his director, Simcha Jacobovici, make the starting claim that Jesus wasn’t resurrected --the cornerstone of Christian faith-- and that his burial cave was discovered near Jerusalem. And, get this, Jesus sired a son with Mary Magdelene.

According to the article, cleverly entitled, “Jesus: Tales from the Crypt,” one of the tombs within the burial cave is inscribed “Jesua, son of Joseph.” I would say that undermines another cornerstone of the Christian faith.

Cameron's film will be shown soon on Discovery Channel, Britain’s Channel 4, Canada’s Vision, and Israel’s Channel 8.

Too bad that he’s already used the line: "I’m the king of the world!"

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

From MoveOn.com

Subject: It's time to take on Fox

Hi,

I wanted to tell you about something pretty outrageous.

Fox News convinced the Democratic Party to let Fox host a nationally-televised Democratic presidential primary debate this summer in Nevada!

But Fox isn't even a legitimate news channel! It's a right-wing mouthpiece like Rush Limbaugh—dedicated to smearing Democrats. (Recently, Fox falsely claimed Sen. Barack Obama attended a terrorist school!)

There's a growing backlash of people demanding that Democrats drop Fox. Can you help out by signing this petition to the Democratic Party of Nevada? It's really easy—just click here.

Thanks!

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

The Northern Lights have seen queer sights. (Robert Service)

In the late ‘70s, I had a pal who purchased an abandoned mining site about 27 miles north of Fairbanks Alaska. He aimed to make it a lodge, but things got in the way. The hope was that he could attract Japanese honeymooners who consider it a portent of good fortune to see the Northern Lights on their wedding night.
Down the road was the Poker Flat Research Range described on its own website as “the world’s only scientific rocket launching facility owned by a university.”

Almost every night, rockets would go up from Poker Flat. I always wondered what it was all about. The answer that always came back was they were studying the Northern Lights. It kind of struck me as strange because, frankly, the Northern Lights may be eerie looking, but there is not a great mystery about what causes them. I figured they were part of a spy program that took a peek over the North Pole at our supposed enemies (in those days, the Russians.)

Anyway, today, AFP is reporting that

The US space agency NASA has launched its first five-satellite mission on board a single rocket aiming to unlock the age-old mysteries of the aurora borealis.

The two-year mission, dubbed THEMIS -- an acronym for Time History of Events and Macroscale Interactions during Substorms -- was launched successfully late Saturday after a 24-hour delay, NASA said in a statement.

Maybe I am getting a little hypersensitized to being lied to, or maybe I am just suspicious by nature. But here’s what we know so far.

They have been studying the Aurora Borealis for 30 years or so, and now NASA announces a “new” program. The name of the program is THEMIS, which coincidentally is the name of the the Titan who was the goddess of justice, of whom Homer said, “Themis, who looseth and gathereth the meetings of men.” (Odyssey, Book II)

Soon it will be March, named after Mars, the Roman name for the God of War. History teaches us that March is well named, because wars tend to start in that month. And thus it is that the zodiac sign of Aries begins in March, Aries being the Greek name for Mars. Aries, of whom Hesiod, Homer’s contemporary, said, “ally of Themis.”

It’s thirty years later, and I am still wondering what is so interesting about the Northern Lights that justifies so many satellite launchings, each one of which does damage to the ozone layer. I am still wondering if it’s part of a spy program that takes a peek over the North Pole at our supposed enemies. And I am still wondering if I am being lied to.

“… and tell ‘em Big Mitch sent ya!”

Pitchers and catchers report

It is widely agreed that the Democrats took over the Senate because the nation wants to be represented by people who will debate, and end the war. Today, the minority party blocked debate on a non-binding resolution of disapproval. Here’s how it worked: according to the rules of the Senate, 60 votes are needed to debate an issue. The majority could only garner 56 votes vs. 34 against debate.

People are dying and it might be a good time some for some hardball. Pitch one is a high inside heater. Here’s how Big Mitch would make it so: First – a procedural vote to change the requirement so that a simple majority can bring an issue to the floor. Anticipate Republican filibuster, but do not move for cloture. Instead, let the Party of Bush filibuster till their heart’s content. The image of Mitch McConnell or Trent Lott reading from a phone book is what this country needs to let them know who is on our side.

What is the game plan of the Party of Bush? They aim to have a vote on a binding resolution that they will not cut off funds for the troops. This gives Dems a Hobson’s choice. Either vote for it, and face the ire of the pacifist wing of the Democratic Party or vote against it, and expose yourself to the plaint that “you voted against supporting the troops in harms way.”

Okay, so the Party of Bush wants to put the Dems in a box. Big Mitch says, we need another brush back pitch, to make the Republican’s jump out of the box.

Let’s have a bill that say they will not cut off the funding for troops. Good start, but it needs a couple of amendments. How about one that says: all funds for the surge will come from a Windfall Profits Tax on military contractors? Or, all funds for the surge will come from a rescission of tax breaks for Republicans? Or, all funds will be matched by funds for veterans’ benefits and medical care. Let’s get some votes on the record from the Party of Bush!

Now suppose all of those amendments fail. C’est la vie! The Democrats can walk out of the Senate en masse and let the vote proceed. Sure, it will pass, but in order to be binding, it has to pass in the House of Representatives – the People’s House – and Big Mitch is not feeling it. That’s your curve ball that looks like it’s going straight for the head, but breaks over the plate.

At some point, you have to go with what got you there. In the case of the Democratic Senate Majority, it is opposition to the war in general, and the surge in particular. Do you think the Party of Bush could lay off a pitch in the strike zone: a renewed motion for a non-binding resolution expressing disapproval of the surge? Seven Republicans crossed over on today’s vote and joined the Dems to start the debate. I am saying there are three more, who will have just lost confidence in their knees.

You may be thinking this is a lot of work for a resolution that is non-binding but hey, it’s only spring training. The real season starts in less than 6 weeks.

When the first batter steps up to the plate in April, here’s something to be thinking about:

In the first poll conducted for Newsweek since the State of the Union Address, 58 percent of respondents said, “they wish the Bush presidency was simply over.” Nearly 86 percent of Democrats shared that sentiment, compared to 59 percent of Independents, and 21 percent of Republicans. (Source: CNN Political Ticker)

John Conyers is the new Chair of the House’s Judiciary Committee. This is the committee which has jurisdiction over any possible impeachment proceedings. In a shot over President George W. Bush’s bow, Conyers told a peace rally that Bush likes to fire any military advisors who tell him he can’t win the war, but “he can’t fire you [the people]. He can’t fire us [the Congress], but ‘we can fire him.’” With that line a roar went up in the audience. The loud chant began: “Impeach Bush!”

Sure, the Speaker of the House has said that Impeachment is off the table. But it will soon be time to step up to the plate.

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

Bob Novak is a traitor

Robert Novak testified today in the Irv “Scooter” Lewis trial.

Novak, in case you forgot, is the scumbag who outed Valerie Wilson, the covert CIA agent who communicated to her husband that the CIA counter-proliferation division wanted to send him on a mission to Niger because of questions raised by the Office of the Vice President about allegations that Saddam had attempted to purchase yellowcake from that African nation. Novak says that he got the information from two senior Administration officials, namely, Richard Armitage and Karl Rove.

The Huffington Post reports:

He describes his interview of Richard Armitage, which was on background.

He asked Armitage about Wilson’s trip to Niger. He asked Armitage why Wilson was sent. Armitage replied, “Well, it was suggested by his wife Valerie, who was employed by the counter-proliferation division of the CIA.” Armitage referred to her as Valerie, no last name.

(I wrote about Armitage’s role in this in Dick Armitage is a poor excuse last September.)

So the only thing that wasn’t handed to Novak on a silver platter by senior administration officials was Mrs. Wilson’s name, which Novak got wrong.

More importantly, Bob Novak knew that she was a covert operative. The entire counter-proliferation division of the CIA is covert. This is common knowledge in Washington D.C., but even if it weren’t, Novak testified that he talked to Bill Harlow, the CIA spokesperson.

Again, according to the Huffington Post, Novak says, “The use of the word ‘operative’ was his own choice. It didn’t indicate he had any knowledge she was an intelligence operative, he had no information she was covert.”

Big Mitch says, “Bullshit! Bob Novak is a traitor.”

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

Fart Jokes

Let’s face it: the best humor involves fart jokes, and if you don’t agree, you need to loosen up. Take a peak at this howler from Think Progress:

Rep. Rohrabacher: Global Warming May Have Been Caused By ‘Dinosaur Flatulence’

This week, Congress held its first hearing on the landmark IPCC report on climate change. That report concluded that global warming is “unequivocal” and human activity is the main driver, “very likely” causing most of the rise in temperatures since 1950.

During the hearing, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) — one of the 87 percent of congressional Republicans who do not believe in man-made global warming — questioned the authors of the report about a period of dramatic climate change that occured 55 million years ago. “We don’t know what those other cycles were caused by in the past. Could be dinosaur flatulence, you know, or who knows?’

Now I like a fart joke as much as the next guy, but there is a serious question hidden within it. Apparently, 87 percent of congressional Republicans have their head so far up their asses that a good dinosaur fart is just like a breath of fresh air.

These people don't agree with the consensus of the scientific community that it is 90 percent certain that human activity is causing global climate change. Suppose they are right even though that sounds like another shitty joke. Do these buffoons also doubt that there is global climate change?

Assume that it is the case that temperatures are rising, glaciers are melting, oceans are rising and low-lying land is headed for inundation as hurricanes grow in intensity and frequency. Now suppose this is a natural phenomenon, the result of 6 billion people exhaling rather than the result of 2 billion people driving gas-guzzlers.

Are these Know-nothings going to shrug their shoulders and say, "Not my fault, man! The one who smelt it dealt it!" Shouldn’t even the oil company toadies in the Party of Bush issue a clarion call for American to harness her ingenuity to solve the problem of global warming? And what would it look like if they did?


“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

How to tell the news from old jokes

Almost a year ago, in The Truth Without Jokes, I wrote:

Several have commented that it is becoming more and more difficult to distinguish legitimate news headlines from the ones that appear in the The Onion.

Consider this old story, (as retold by Arthur Naiman, in “Every Goy's Guide to Yiddish”)

Murray and Esther, a middle-aged Jewish couple, are touring Chile. Murray just got a new camera and is constantly snapping pictures. One day, without knowing it, he photographs a top-secret military installation.

In an instant, armed troops surround Murray and Esther and hustle them off to prison. They can’t prove who they are because they’ve left their passports in their hotel room. For three weeks they’re tortured day and night to get them to name their contacts in the liberation movement. Finally they're hauled in front of a military court, charged with espionage, and sentenced to death.

The next morning they’re lined up in front of the wall where they’ll be shot. 

The sergeant in charge of the firing squad asks them if they have any lasts requests. 

Esther wants to know if she can call her daughter in Chicago. 

The sergeant says he’s sorry, that's not possible, and turns to Murray. 



“This is mishagos (craziness)!” Murray shouts. “We're not spies!” And he spits in the sergeants face. 



“Murray!” Esther cries. “Please! Don't make trouble.”

Compare and contrast that with the following news item from the Huffington Post under the headline, “BREMER PAID ‘GHOST EMPLOYEES’ TO AVOID ‘REAL TROUBLE.’”

Paul Bremer told members of Congress today that he was aware that nonexistent “ghost employees” were on America's payroll when he was administrator of the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq in 2003 and 2004.

But because the real employees - who provided security for Iraqi ministries - were “74,000 armed men, it seemed a lesser risk to continue paying” everyone while trying to figure out who was actually showing up for work.
…

When Davis asked whether any of that money had wound up in the hands of insurgents, Bremer said he didn't know. But “if we stopped paying them, my judgment was we could have real trouble.”

How to tell which one is real, and which one is a joke? It’s simple really. Look at the numbers changing in the column to the right, and ask yourself this: “Which one isn't really funny?”

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

Memo to Hillary

Need more humor. The “evil men” joke was a good start, but unfortunately it reminded us of what we hated most about Big Dog.

Here’s a suggestion for the next time someone asks you, “Knowing what you know now, would you have voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq?”

Answer: “If I knew then what I knew now, I would have bet everything on Point Given in the 2001 Belmont Stakes.”


“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

What happens when a blogger relies only on the mainstream media

Your faithful correspondent is determined to mine the mainstream media to find news of interest and to provide a unique analysis drawing on my personal political point of view and memories that extend back to the 1960’s. The problem is that the mainstream media often gives short shrift to news items that are inconvenient to their corporate interests. For example, a story that suggests that King George the Incompetent was not fairly elected is bad for business in two ways.

First, take a company like General Electric, one of the largest military contractors in the U.S. and the owner of the National Broadcasting Company. Well, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that bashing Bush is bad for business. And by the way, they got plenty of rocket scientists.

Second, take a company like the Fox network. It is obvious that by being pitchmen for the administration, the reporters have gained access at an unprecedented level. Dumb Dubya got Tony Snow a job, and the rest of us have been getting a snow job ever since.

Nevertheless, every once in a while, I glean little tidbit from some out of the way media source. That’s when my blogger instinct kicks in. For example, I ran across this little nugget in the Seattle Post Intelligencer: Election Staff convicted in recount rig.

CLEVELAND -- Two election workers were convicted Wednesday of rigging a recount of the 2004 presidential election to avoid a more thorough review in Ohio’s most populous county.

Jacqueline Maiden, elections coordinator of the Cuyahoga County Elections Board, and ballot manager Kathleen Dreamer each were convicted of a felony count of negligent misconduct of an elections employee. They also were convicted of one misdemeanor count each of failure of elections employees to perform their duty.

Prosecutors accused Maiden and Dreamer of secretly reviewing preselected ballots before a public recount on Dec. 16, 2004. They worked behind closed doors for three days to pick ballots they knew would not cause discrepancies when checked by hand, prosecutors said.

Though the article makes no mention of it, an accompanying picture shows Rosie Grier, (see below) who was acquitted on all seven counts of various election misconduct or interference charges.

And this is where the perspective of a veteran of the sixties comes in handy. You see, this ex-hippy is old enough to remember Rosie Grier, pictured here (second from left) when he was one of the “Fearsome Foursome,” the only complete defensive line all enshrined in the NFL Hall of Fame in Canton, Ohio. He is also remembered for serving as a bodyguard for his friend, U.S. Senator and presidential candidate Robert Kennedy, although he was hanging with Ethel Kennedy the night that Kennedy was assassinated in Los Angeles in 1968. According to my recollection, it was Rosie who seized the weapon used to shoot RFK. (Others say it was Rafer Johnson.)

The point is that the mainstream media provides no context to how this courageous defender of an icon of the liberal wing of the Democratic Party could ever be suspected of stealing an election for Dumb Dubya.

Let’s review what we know so far. This paragon of toughness was also an ordained minister, and the author of a book called “Needlepoint for Men.” Clearly, he had (shall we say?) a sensitive side. His autobiography is entitled “Rosey: The Gentle Giant.”

But if it weren’t for bloggers like Big Mitch who are willing to look beyond the scant reporting provided by the mainstream media, nobody would ever wonder how he turned into the person shown in the picture that accompanied the Seattle PI article:


Come to think of it, the mainstream media didn’t do a whole helluva lot of reporting about the fact that people were convicted in Ohio of rigging the election that put George W. Bush in office for a second term.

Somehow, I am left with the feeling that I may be missing a part of the story.

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

Habeas Corpus explained

In Them’s fighting words, I tried to explain why calling Generalissimo Gonzales a fascist is justified. It has to do with his denial of the supremely obvious fact that the Constitution guarantees the right of Habeas Corpus to Americans.

Since that time, a half a million people protested against this administration in Washington, D.C. and many more in local demonstrations throughout our country. But the outrage did not ostensibly extend to the attack on basic civil rights by the Party of Bush.

I suppose the problem lies in the fact that the concept of Habeas Corpus is not widely understood, and therefore, the central role it has in the idea of ordered liberty is not appreciated. Along comes Larry Beinhart on Huffington Post. In an article entitled, What Habeas Corpus Means to You he explains what’s so great about the Great Writ. Here it is in a nutshell:

It is fundamental to - and a sort of shorthand for - the right to be in a legal system, with laws and judges, evidence and a defense.

…

Under Habeas Corpus, you have the right to say, I want to be brought into the court to determine if I am the right person charged, if there's an actual law prohibiting what I'm charged with, if the people who are holding me have the jurisdiction to do so, and I want that publicly known and I want the right to dispute all of that and the right to be tried too.


Without Habeas Corpus you can be swept up off the street and never heard from again. Period. Nobody has to know. Nobody - including yourself - has to know why. Nobody gets to determine if there is a law against what you're charged with. You have no rights at all.

Big Mitch is not the only one calling the Party of Bush fascists. Read Larry Beinhart’s article to see how he puts it succinctly:

Habeas Corpus means you are in a society of laws. Without it, you are in the land of Saddam Hussein, August Pinochet, Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, Ivan the Terrible ... and ...

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

Fuck the Draft, Redux

In the pre-quel to this post, I wrote:

In the past, we needed to institute a draft to protect us from the Fascism of the Axis powers. Later, we imposed a draft in the vain belief that we needed it to protect us from the totalitarianism of Chinese Communism and Soviet world domination. Now, as Charlie Rangel argues, we may need to institute a draft to protect us from American fascism. He’s got a point there.

An article, Fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan stirs thoughts of resurrecting draft, in the Anchorage Daily News on January 28th proves the point.

The Army now has about 512, 000 active duty soldiers. Bush intends to add 92,000 soldiers and marines over the next five years, which is about an 18% increase. Regarding the draft, the article reported:

“The Pentagon estimates that it would cost about $4 billion more a year to reinstate the draft. New facilities would have to be built to train and house the large numbers of inductees who’d be brought into uniform each year.”

Wait just a doggone minute!

First of all, when was the last time you heard someone in the Pentagon kvetch about spending money. It’s a new one on me.

Second, just because you have a draft, doesn’t mean you have to call up anything close to the number of young people who are eligible. The article states:

About 4 million men and women reach military age each year, but the military needs only a small fraction of that number. That’s a fact that those who argue for a return to the draft tend to overlook, said Bernard D. Rostker, the author of “I want You: The Evolution of the All-Volunteer Force.”

Okay, Bernie, so now I am laser focused on it. The way I figure, if 4 million young people come of military age, you need to draft about 2.3% of them to meet the 92,000 goal stated by the Bush administration.

You could accomplish this goal by putting 365 slips of paper in a fishbowl with a different day of the year written on each one. Randomly select 10, and if your birthday is called, you have been selected to serve by your Selective Service. If this plan is followed, the Pentagon will have enough draftees to meet the goal, even after allowing for deferments and exclusions.

Since King George the Incompetent has announced that he intends to enlist this many anyway, the additional cost should be limited to the price of a fishbowl and 365 slips of paper. You can use the change from that $4 Billion to make sure the draftees, and the enlistees, are well equipped.

I am at a total loss to understand why the Generals in the Pentagon would oppose this plan unless it is because Generals do what they are told to do by the civilian leadership in the Pentagon and the White House. And, as I argued in Fuck the Draft, a draft would protect this country from homegrown fascism. That’s got to be bad for the current White House residents, and their fellow travelers in the Party of Bush.

Let me be perfectly clear. I am not advocating in favor of a draft. I still can’t overcome the feeling that involuntary servitude is against deeply held beliefs about what America promises her citizens. Moreover, I don’t trust the government with the lives of young people. But in the arguments for and against the idea, I see responsible people on the left arguing that our country is at risk of falling into fascism, and on the right, I see people providing the evidence.

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

A series of sub-clinical doses

Back in the 1970’s, Anchorage Alaska was a wild western town. The building of the trans-Alaska pipeline put huge amounts of cash into the hands of people who didn’t have much experience with that kind of money. Many young men worked hard on the North Slope (where there was no opportunity to spend money) for a two-week shift and then they partied even harder in a town where they had no family. It is not surprising that in those days before the rise of Aids and the invention of crack, that sex, drugs and rock’n’roll were the order of the day.

I suppose it was like the boomtowns where George W. Bush being an irresponsible youth in 1972, when he was arrested for cocaine possession. (Not to be confused with his arrests for theft and vandalism in 1968, and drunk driving in 1976.)

Cocaine sold in those days for about $100 a gram, about the price of 117 gallons of gasoline. (Today, you would have to pay $300 bucks for that much gas.) Even a rich, well connected party animal like George W. Bush who went to the expense and trouble of acquiring a gram of coke was likely to want to make it last.

And therein hangs a tale.

See, in order to ration out the cocaine, a lot of people would do a little bit, and then wait for the cocaine to take effect. After a period of time, they would feel that for $100 bucks, they should be feeling a little more euphoric, and so, they would take another little bit.

Problem was, the first little bit had worn off, its de minimus effects unnoticed, and now the second little bit, had the same unnoticeable effect. A parsimonious user could go through an entire gram of cocaine with no noticeable effect, other than the loss of a C note. I knew a woman with a medical background who used a memorable phrase to describe the phenomenon: “a series of sub-clinical doses.”

After 9/11, it made sense to go after the Taliban in Afghanistan, who had harbored the murderous al Qaeda. We sent in CIA, troops and airpower and destroyed the leadership in Afghanistan. But we did not root out all the supporters of the Taliban. Rather, we used just enough force to get the job almost done and then we pulled off troops to make them available for the adventure in Iraq. Today, the Taliban is resurgent in Afghanistan.

King George the Incompetent started a war in Iraq with just enough troops to defeat an enemy that had not been allowed to re-arm since the time his father defeated them in the first gulf war. The troops – and God bless ’em every one – won the war, but there simply weren’t enough of them to keep the peace.

As a result of the failure of planning –actually a failure to pay attention to the plans that Pentagon planners had made -- there are armed militias and they are engaged in a civil war. We are told that the Shi’ite armed militias are armed by Iran, and it makes sense to me.

You would think that after losing 3,000 troops, and spending $361 trillion we should have a little more to show for it than a banner on an aircraft carrier proclaiming “MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.”

Now Dumb Dubya wants to surge the number of troops. You might call it an escalation, but that would be considered tasteless, since it is redolent of Viet Nam. He’s talking about sending in another 21,500 troops, which is about a 15% increase. You might look at it as just another in a series of sub-clinical doses.

King George the Incompetent decided before the war that he would not heed the advice of anyone who knew what they are doing. He would send in just enough troops to not get the job done. That’s why I described this plan as “more of the same, only more so.”

That Dubya is as steady as a rock. Only dumber.

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

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