Seven Days

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question: Did they lie to you?

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

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

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

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

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

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

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

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

Demand proof!

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

As they say in Lebanon, “Voila!”


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

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

Defending Israel in the war against Hezbollah

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

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

Just watch me.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Cry to those Using Babies as Shields

By Naomi Ragen

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

Global War on Terrorism sets off alarms

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

Big Mitch has A Really Stupid Idea.

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

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

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

The fly in the ointment is Baghdad. Galbraith writes,

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

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

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

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

… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!

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

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

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

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

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

Here are some specifics, as related by Koppel:

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

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

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

It is not going well.

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

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

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

No one deserves to rule Iraq other than Islamists.

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

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

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

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

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

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

… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!

Big Mitch takes the Dershowitz challenge

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

The Axis of Terrorism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who do you trust?

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

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

…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

Somebody is fibbing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BUSH: It's just an incorrect story.

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

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

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

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

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

It seems to me that someone is lying.

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

Paul Krugman says it all

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

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

That’s why Krugman gets the big bucks.

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

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

Check it out…

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

A canary in a coal-mine coughs

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

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

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

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

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

Keeping Iraqis safe, winning hearts and minds.

Shamelessly copied from Jesus' General.

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

Aid and comfort to the enemy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

Rudy Giuliani and his business partner

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You go, Rudy.

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

What does Hamdan mean?

In a stunning blow to the President’s claim of nearly unlimited war-time powers, the Supreme Court held in favor of petitioner, Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a Yemini who is alleged to have been an intimate of Osama Bin Laden.

Justice Breyer, with whom Justice Kennedy, Justice Souter, and Justice Ginsburg joined, succinctly stated the import of today’s holding:

The dissenters say that today's decision would “sorely hamper the President's ability to confront and defeat a new and deadly enemy.” They suggest that it undermines our Nation’s ability to “preven[t] future attacks” of the grievous sort that we have already suffered. That claim leads me to state briefly what I believe the majority sets forth both explicitly and implicitly at greater length. The Court's conclusion ultimately rests upon a single ground: Congress has not issued the Executive a “blank check.” Cf. Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U. S. 507, 536 (2004) (plurality opinion). Indeed, Congress has denied the President the legislative authority to create military commissions of the kind at issue here. Nothing prevents the President from returning to Congress to seek the authority he believes necessary.

Where, as here, no emergency prevents consultation with Congress, judicial insistence upon that consultation does not weaken our Nation's ability to deal with danger. To the contrary, that insistence strengthens the Nation's ability to determine--through democratic means--how best to do so. The Constitution places its faith in those democratic means. Our Court today simply does the same.

Justice John Paul Stevens delivered the opinion of the court, which stated,

We conclude that the military commission convened to try Hamdan lacks power to proceed because its structure and procedures violate both the UCMJ [Uniform Code of Military Justice] and the Geneva Conventions.

It was not a good day for the Bush administration that had elsewhere argued that the Geneva Conventions, though, in the words of Attorney General Gonzales were “quaint,” were inapposite to the current War on Terror.

The Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (DTA) §1005(e)(1) provides that “no court ... shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider ... an application for ... habeas corpus filed by ... an alien detained ... at Guantanamo Bay.” The Court found that the DTA’s jurisdiction stripping provisions do not apply retroactively to Hamdan’s case, in which the crime charged allegedly occurred the AUFA (Authorization to Use Force in Afghanistan) and the charges were brought before the enactment of the DTA.

Justice Scalia noted that if the court had not denied retroactive application of this jurisdiction stripping statute, it would have had to deal with the provision of the Constitution which states that the Writ of “habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.”

The bad news for lovers of freedom is that the power of the Great Writ to survive Congress' efforts to strip the Supreme Court of jurisdiction is still in doubt. Chief Justice Roberts took no part in the Hamdan decision because he was part of a lower court that upheld the President’s military commissions.

In order to deny retroactive effect to the jurisdiction stripping provisions of the DTA, the majority looked at the legislative history of the statute, including the statements of various Senators made during the debate. The dissenters criticized the manner in which this was done, arguing that the statements were quoted selectively.

What does it foretell of the debate to come about the domestic surveillance by the NSA? Clearly, the Congress did not believe that it had authorized the administration to ignore the FISA law when it passed the AUMF. If the Court pays the same deference to congressional intent that it claims to have given here, the domestic spying program is sure to get slapped down.

What I find especially troubling is this parenthetical remark in Scalia’s discussion of the majority’s perusal of legislative history:

(Of course in its discussion of legislative history the Court wholly ignores the President's signing statement, which explicitly set forth his understanding that the DTA ousted jurisdiction over pending cases.)

I first wrote about the pernicious “signing statements” on January 4, 2006, here and here.

It should be observed that when Congress passes a law, the President can sign it or veto it. He knows what is the congressional intent, and he chooses whether to agree or disagree. If he disagrees, then Congress has an opportunity to over-ride the veto. But Bush does not veto bills: he just ignores them. Does Congress have any recourse?

Well, there is always the impeachment thing.

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

Another constitutional crisis narrowly averted.

The Founding Fathers and Mothers, to include Betsy Ross, can rest easy because the Senate has once again resisted the temptation to alter the Bill of Rights by amending it to prohibit flag desecration. The proposed amendment failed by one vote to receive the 2/3 necessary to keep it alive. It’s a good thing, too.

Had it been otherwise, the President of the United States would be guilty of a Constitutional offense, committed flagrantly and in full view of the public, and recorded photographically. See, infra.

Title 4 United States Code § 8 is entitled "Respect for flag."

(g) The flag should never have placed upon it, nor on any part of it, nor attached to it any mark, insignia, letter, word, figure, design, picture, or drawing of any nature.

4 USC § 3 says:

Any person who, within the District of Columbia, in any manner, for exhibition or display, shall place or cause to be placed any word, figure, mark, picture, design, drawing, or any advertisement of any nature upon any flag, standard, colors, or ensign of the United States of America; ... shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be punished by a fine not exceeding $100 or by imprisonment for not more than thirty days, or both, in the discretion of the court.

Who knows what would occur if the Chief Executive were to brazenly flout the Constitution in front of God and everyone? If past experience is any guide, the answer is absolutely nothing.



“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

An Inconvenient Truth -- Update

Back on January 28th, I wrote Cool it on the Climate Warming! in which I described the Bush administrations response to the growing consensus that we are reaching a “tipping point” in the coming ecological disaster of global weather change.

I quoted a N.Y. Times article which began,

The top climate scientist at NASA says the Bush administration has tried to stop him from speaking out since he gave a lecture last month calling for prompt reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases linked to global warming.

The scientist is James Hansen. You can see him in Al Gore’s movie, “An Inconvenient Truth.” He is testifying before then Senator Al Gore’s committee in 1989.

James Hansen has more to say in the New York Review of Books this weekend. Check it out here.

If you haven’t seen the movie yet, do.

“..and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

Dick Cheney has his feelings hurt

This just in from the New York Times:

WASHINGTON, June 23 — Vice President Dick Cheney on Friday vigorously defended a secret program that examines banking records of Americans and others in a vast international database, and harshly criticized the news media for disclosing an operation he said was legal and “absolutely essential” to fighting terrorism.

“What I find most disturbing about these stories is the fact that some of the news media take it upon themselves to disclose vital national security programs, thereby making it more difficult for us to prevent future attacks against the American people,” Mr. Cheney said, in impromptu remarks at a fund-raising luncheon for a Republican Congressional candidate in Chicago. “That offends me.”

Memo to Dick Cheney: Get over it.

This administration has enjoyed the biggest free pass from the press since before the days of Peter Zenger. Indeed, King George and Fearless Dick Cheney owe their jobs to the lapdog somnambulance of the press. Consider:

In 2000, the press bought into the meme that Bush was a man of character, a successful businessman, ignored his military record and at the same time echoed the ‘Gore is a liar’ storyline.

After 9/11, the New York Times consciously decided to bury the story that Gore won the recount in Florida.

Before the election of 2004, the New York Times made a deliberate decision to bury the story about the illegal wiretaps until after election day. (Given the closeness of the election, it could have easily tipped the balance.)

Dick got a free pass on shooting his friend in the face, which was clearly a felony.

And now, Dick Cheney has the chutzpah to complain that the press is hurting his feelings?

Listen, Dick. You have abused the trust of the American people for a period of 6 years. You have to expect that at some point, nobody is going to take you seriously when you say, “This is a matter of national security.” You have sold us a phony war on that slogan. You and Karl Rove have scared the American people into ‘electing’ you a second time, as it were.

Now you expect us to believe that the country is going to be made vulnerable because Al Quaeda is suddenly tipped off to the idea that we are trying to track their financial transactions. One would think that they pretty much had that figured out after the conviction of Yemeni cleric Mohammed Ali Hassan al-Moayad. By the way, there is a vast informal banking network throughout the Islamic world. It is the rule, rather than the exception, that terrorists would circumvent the banking system.

Maybe this is just wishful thinking on my part, but it looks like from now on, the press is going to be a little circumspect when the administration tries to silence it by claiming a threat to national security.

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

An obscene gesture

Yesterday King George the Incompetent signed an "Executive Order: Protecting the Property Rights of the American People." In essence the document prohibits the use of imminent domain in all cases except where the government has traditionally exercised eminent domain. The exceptions include cases in which the government takes land and then sells it to private entities. Most significantly, the last paragraph states:

This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity against the United States, its departments, agencies, entities, officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

So, to review, the executive order changes nothing, creates no new or enforceable rights, and is otherwise meaningless.

Except, it shows, as if we needed to be shown, what a total hypocrite George Bush is. For details about how Bush made his fortune by using his political influence to get the government to condemn land and then give it to him, see, Condemning Bush.

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

Cheney admits guilt

“I don't think anybody anticipated the level of violence we encountered,'” Cheney said in a question-and-answer session following a speech today at the National Press Club in Washington, according to Bloomberg News.

Am I the only person who considers this an admission, rather than an excuse? These are the people who were in charge of anticipating the level of violence. It’s a little thing I like to call, “planning.”

Instead of anticipating what may occur in Iraq, the Iraq group was busy making up lies to tell the American people. You remember. We know where the weapons of mass destruction are. Conflating Iraq with 9/11. Welcomed with candies and flowers. Out in three months. Paid for with Iraqi oil, etc., ad nauseum.

You know, we once had a President who lied to the American people. His name was Richard Millhouse Nixon. The Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives voted out some Articles of Impeachment, and the President had to resign. In case you are too young to remember, one of those articles accused him of “making or causing to be made false or misleading public statements for the purpose of deceiving the people of the United States …”

When Nixon resigned, some people thought the country was saved from fascism. We shall see.

… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

Joe Biden gets the memo

Today, the A.P. reported as follows:

Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., said he believes the American people are frustrated by the Bush administration's failure to articulate a clear strategy for winning in Iraq. Benchmarks and timetables for a withdrawal are needed to gauge progress and limit U.S. casualties, he said.

“If I had known the president was going to be this incompetent in his administration, I would not have given him the authority” to go to war, said Biden, the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Sounds like someone has been reading Big Mitch’s blog.

Back on Nov. 8, 2005, I asked, Why is it so hard for Democrats to say this? I predicted that the question, “Knowing what you know now, would you vote for the war in Iraq?” would be “a recurrent question from reporters who take their cue from the Republican disinformation machine.”

I also offered a simple answer for use by any Senator who might need it.

Let’s get something straight right now. I didn’t vote for this war when I voted to authorize the President to use force.

Knowing what I know now, I never would have trusted him. What we know now is that he was cherry picking the intelligence, and then twisting it to make his case. That’s what we know now and I suspect we will find out much worse when the full story comes out. So far, we know that the White House undertook a vicious campaign to ruin anyone who disagreed with it, and when they crossed the line into treason, the response was to lie to the FBI, lie to the Grand Jury and otherwise obstruct justice.

We gave the President authority to use force at a time when we were trying to convey to Saddam Hussein that there was no alternative but to cooperate and produce the evidence of dismantling his WMD regime. But we did not expect the President to go into Iraq without adequate troops, without an exit strategy, and without a plan for the peace. If we had known that he would run the war like the incompetent bungler he has proved to be, if we had known that he would use the war as an opportunity for profiteering by his cronies, if we had known that it would be a distraction from the war on terror, and that because he would fail to listen to military planners the country would become a breeding ground for terrorists, well, don’t be ridiculous, of course we wouldn’t have voted to trust the President.

You go, Joe!

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

Do you want to laugh? Or cry?

The following is available on the White House website. It is part of the transcript of the today’s presidential press conference in the Rose Garden.

THE PRESIDENT: … All we expect is people to be treated with respect and there to be self-governance in a way that tolerates differences of opinion.

Yes, Peter. Are you going to ask that question with shades on?

Q I can take them off.

THE PRESIDENT: I'm interested in the shade look, seriously.

Q All right, I'll keep it, then.

THE PRESIDENT: For the viewers, there's no sun. (Laughter.)

Q I guess it depends on your perspective. (Laughter.)

THE PRESIDENT: Touché. (Laughter.)

That Dubya is one funny son-of-a-gun. Well, I guess that also depends on your perspective. The above-named Peter is Peter Wallsten, White House correspondent for the Los Angeles Times.

As Think Progress notes, “[Peter] Wallsten is legally blind. Wallsten tells us he has a rare genetic disorder called Stargardt's Disease. The disease is a form of macular degeneration that can be slowed ‘by wearing UV-protective sunglasses and avoiding exposure to bright light.’”

You can watch the video here.

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

Nolle prosequi

The headline today is, “Rove Won't Be Charged in CIA Leak Case.” As reported by Toni Locy, for AP,

“Presidential adviser Karl Rove won't be a criminal defendant in the CIA leak case, but he could still end up being grilled in court as a witness.”

This story appears to be based on a single source, to wit., Robert Luskin, attorney for Turd Blossom. Fitz is not talking.

There is only one way to put these facts together so that they make sense. Karl Rove has been given a grant of immunity.

Here’s the way it works. There are two kinds of immunity. One is “use immunity,” and people who receive it are forced to testify, but the prosecution is prevented from using their testimony against them.

The other kind of immunity is called “transactional immunity.” It means that the subject testifies, but having received immunity for the entire transaction, he or she is at no risk of prosecution, and therefore, has no Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.

In the Federal system, the rule is that to force testimony, the prosecutor must grant use immunity. I’m guessing that this is what happened yesterday.

As always, there is a catch. First, obviously, a grant of immunity is not a license to commit perjury. Karl Rove may have breathed a sigh of relief today because he is not going to be indicted, but he also must have soiled his skivvies, because he is going to testify. If he lies, there is going to be heavy pressure to indict him. He has testified five times, and it is hard to feature that he will testify without contradicting something that he has already said.

The other reason that there is not unmitigated joy in Karl Rove’s black and malignant heart* is that the letter that grants immunity usually includes some language to the effect that this grant of immunity is to be null and void if the defendant testifies falsely, or fails to cooperate fully with any interview by the FBI. If the letter Luskin received is typical of similar letters I have seen, it emphasizes that it is entirely up to the U.S. Attorney to determine whether or not he has testified falsely.

If I were Luskin, I would have some real fears that my client would be unable to restrain himself from lying. But he is not the only one nervous because of today’s news.

Usually, an immunity letter such as the one I am supposing was received by Luskin doesn’t just drop out of the sky. It is only given after the recipient has made what is called “a proffer.” Basically, a proffer is an offer of testimony that takes the form: “If granted immunity, I will testify that XYZ.”

Now, Patrick Fitzgerald is what is known in the trade as a “prosecutor.” He is not, generally speaking, called an “immunizer.” He does not pass out the “Get out of jail free” cards for nothing. Whatever XYZ was, it was something that Fitzgerald must have thought was worth something.

The general strategy for a prosecuting attorney is to go up the chain. It can be up the supply chain in a drug prosecution, or it can be up the chain of command in a fraud prosecution. With Karl Rove, the chain does not go very much further up.

And here’s why this is a big bummer for Karl Rove. If he offered XYZ, and XYZ is testimony against one or both of the people up the chain from him, it really cuts down the likelihood that one of them will be in a pardoning mood on January 19, 2009.

As Michelle Malkin said in a different context: “Boo-freakin’-hoo.”

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

*P.S. "Black and malignant heart" is a legal term. Really.

CORRECTION: Upon further review:

18 U.S.C. § 6002. Immunity generally

Whenever a witness refuses, on the basis of his privilege against
self-incrimination, to testify or provide other information in a
proceeding before or ancillary to -
(1) a court or grand jury of the United States,
(2) an agency of the United States, or
(3) either House of Congress, a joint committee of the two
Houses, or a committee or a subcommittee of either House,

and the person presiding over the proceeding communicates to the
witness an order issued under this title, the witness may not
refuse to comply with the order on the basis of his privilege
against self-incrimination; but no testimony or other information
compelled under the order (or any information directly or
indirectly derived from such testimony or other information) may be
used against the witness in any criminal case, except a prosecution
for perjury, giving a false statement, or otherwise failing to
comply with the order.

The blog above has been corrected.

Al-Zarqawi is still dead.

Today, the U.S. government released details of the autopsy of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. The conclusion reached is that he is not merely dead; he is most sincerely dead. Big Mitch had reached a similar conclusion based on examination of the photos of him, which were released in apparent violation of the Geneva Convention.

One of al-Zarqawi’s last acts was to release a four-hour-long audiotape harangue against Shiites, saying militias are raping women and killing Sunnis and extorting his community to fight back.

The tape — available on the Internet — was an attempt to sabotage the formation of a unity government. Al-Zarqawi clearly wanted to fan the flames of rising Shiite-Sunni tensions across the Arab world. Al-Zarqawi, accused the Shiites of having only loyalty to their “mother country,” Iran. Read more here.

Iran is 98% Muslim, and 89% of the country adhere to the Shi’a branch of Islam, which is the official state religion.

Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said, “It is natural that we, like the Iraqi people, are happy from this occurrence [i.e., the death of al-Zarqawi.] This doesn’t mean that we cooperated with the U.S. in getting him. We had no exchange of intelligence with the U.S. at all (on this).”

Big Mitch says it sounds like the Iranians cooperated with the U.S. in getting him.

According to the self-described “leading Arabic International Daily,” Asharq Alawsat:

A high-ranking Iranian official has stressed that his country's influence is present in Iraq's current political situation in Iraq and that Iranian Intelligence have had a presence in Iraq since the era of deposed Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. The official, who was speaking during a lunch banquet with a group of journalists, said that Iran has friends in Iraq, including President Jalal Talabani, Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, and the parliament speaker.

Why would the Iranians cooperate with the Americans rather than just take out al-Zarqawi themselves, or through their proxies in the Iraqi government? The Iraqis could not do the deed because the risk of provoking a more open civil war than the one they already have on their hands. Also, why should they? It is easier, neater, and less expensive to just pass along the targeting information to the Americans.

For the Iranians they were faced with a win-win situation. First, the enemy of Shi’a Islam is dead as a mackeral. Second, there’s more blood on the American hands, making us even more unwelcome to the Sunnis sympathetic to the insurgency.

Still, the idea of the Iranians voluntarily cooperating with the Americans, even through Iraqi intermediaries, is a tough one to swallow.

Here’s a possibility. Suppose the Iranian’s cooperation was not voluntary. You may ask, what pressure could the American’s bring to bear in order to force the Iranians to cooperate in bringing al-Zaqawi to his well-deserved death? All I know is that the U.S. is exerting every possible kind of diplomatic pressure, up to and including the threat of invasion, on the Iranians. Nothing has been taken off the table, as Condi Rice would say.

The Bush administration tells us that the diplomatic pressure on Iran is to force them to abandon a nuclear weapons program, and they are honorable men. How dare anyone suggest that men such as these would inflate the threat of a nuclear weapons program to advance some ulterior purpose?

The best estimates indicate that the Iranians are ten years away from a nuclear weapon. I’m no expert, but I would think that a country with the oil revenues of Iran could go from a standing start to a nuclear weapon in less than a decade. Be that as it may, I simply cannot bring myself to believe that Bush, the devout millennialist, is concerned about what happens after he leaves office, much less a decade out. If he were, it would show up in his economic or environmental policies.

It makes a person wonder. Is it possible that all the saber rattling with respect to Iran is simply for tactical reasons in Iraq? If so, it’s a pretty risky play. That’s another hallmark of King George the Incompetent and his minions.

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

A scholar speaks of our predicament

On C-Span today, I heard the show, Q and A, with guest Chalmers Johnson. His book Blowback won an American Book Award in 2001 from the Before Columbus Foundation. He discussed Sorrows of Empire, published in 2004, which updated the evidence and argument from Blowback for the post-9/11 environment.

Here’s a quote for the record:

I believe there is a real threat to the continuation of the republican form of government. That is what provides our democracy; what provides our civil liberties and by this we mean divided government. The impossibility of somebody becoming a dictator; being checks and balances, a balance of power; imperial presidency is a good term for it today and it’s out of control.

You can read the entire transcript here or watch the show here.

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

A new nadir of political discourse.

On Chris Matthews’ show, Hardball, there is a regular weekly feature called HotShots, in which Matthews assembles three self-important mavens to discuss the week's events. Today, he had Tucker Carlson, Rita Cosby and Mike Barnicle as guests.

Political discourse reached a new low tonight when Chris Matthews asked his three conservative talking heads, “Do you find Ann Coulter attractive?”

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

Dear Mr. President,

I am writing on behalf of Dr. Juan Ricardo Espinoza-Villarosa. Dr. Espinoza has been a pioneer in oncology, and he is widely credited with reducing the mortality rate of certain cancers by 70% in his native Honduras. For this achievement, he has received the highest recognition of the Ministry of Science.

In addition to his accomplishments in the world of science, he has been a tireless advocate for the orphans and the poor in the capital city of Honduras. His work has led to the construction of orphanages throughout the capital district, completely paid for by private industry, where young people can learn a trade and achieve self-sufficiency. Mother Theresa wrote to Dr. Espinoza-Villarosa that his work “is a testament to the power of love, inspired by humility and the teachings of Christ.”

Recently, he converted to Christianity, and as a result he has been ostracized in his predominantly Catholic community of Tegucigalpa, Honduras. He believes that he could better continue his scientific work in the United States.

The reason I am writing is that Dr. Espinoza-Villarosa would like to emigrate with his wife of forty years. Theresa Espinoza has never worked outside of the home, except for some volunteer work that she did with orphans during the start-up stage of the first Tegucigalpa Orphanage. She was most inspirational to the youngsters because she has overcome her deafness to become a great spokesperson for the under-privileged and disadvantaged.

Naturally, Dr. Espinoza and his wife would like to become citizens of their adopted country. He is concerned that his wife may be disqualified because at this stage of her life it will be too difficult for her to learn to speak English.

On June 6th, in Laredo, Texas, you indicated that citizenship should be reserved for those who speak English. All of this is background to my request: Would it be at all possible for you to exert your influence with Prime Minister Tony Blair to assist Dr. Espinoza-Villarosa and his wife relocate to England, where it is hoped they will be more welcomed?

Thank you in advance for your help in this matter.

Very truly yours,


Big Mitch

al-Zarqawi dead! British foreign secretary says: “targeted killings of this kind are unlawful and unjustified.”

Big Mitch begs to differ. I say, Bravo Zulu* to the American Air Force for snuffing this murderous bastard.

It pains me to say this because I am opposed to the death penalty. But this is war, and war is hell. People get killed. And who better than al-Zarqawi?

So how could the British foreign secretary condemn flying warplanes and dropping bombs on terrorist leaders?

Of course the British foreign secretary was not speaking of the death of al-Zarqawi. Rather, he was speaking of the targeted killings of two previous leaders of a group that the United States government recognizes as a terrorist organization, namely, Hamas.

The British sentiment was shared by numerous human rights organizations. But it is not felicity for Hamas that animates the international condemnation of targeted killings. It was animosity to the government that performed those extra-judicial executions. Why? Because that government is the government of the Jewish state of Israel.

Read Alan Dershowitz’s essay on the hypocrisy of this double standard here.

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

* Bravo Zulu is a military expression that means “Well done!”

Genius Bush? An update.

Back on May 18th, I wrote in Bush is a genius? Maybe.as follows:

If you give Bush and Turd-blossom credit for being the evil geniuses that I half-way suspect that they are, I have a theory for you.

Rove and Bush figured out that immigrants are the new gays. By this, I mean, that bashing immigrants will do for the Republicans exactly what gay-bashing has done for them in the past. Largely meaningless gestures, designed to drive wedges between Americans, will energize the Republican base, and maybe even get them to forget how totally screwed up everything else is going.

Here’s the beauty part: Republicans in Congress can run against Ted Kennedy and the President on this issue. What does Bush care? He's the guy who put new levels of lame into lame duck.

Is it too Machiavellian for the guys in the White House? Probably. More likely, Turd-blossom is distracted because his baby-face is going to the Big House, and he's going to find out why they call it "the pokey."

Maybe I was onto something.

Here’s what Joe Scarborough had to say on Scarborough Country tonight regarding the contest in California’s 50th Congressional District, for the seat formerly held by convicted corrupt Republican Congressman Duke Cunningham:

That bellwether election instead turned into a referendum against the president’s own immigration plan. Republican Brian Bilbray snatched victory from the jaws of defeat by actually attacking the president’s so called “amnesty plan” – that’s what he called it.

The Republicans can hardly take solace in the results of that election. An inexperienced and weak candidate in an extremely conservative Republican district very nearly upset a former Republican congressman who outspent her 4:1.

And she has a rematch coming up in November.

Good luck, Francine Busby!

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

People are talking.

Last evening, and again this morning, I was subjected to several replays of Ann Coulter’s statements in which she attacked people who disagree with her for daring to participate in political debate. Let me be clear about this: Ann Coulter is a venomous, evil, deceitful, bat-shit crazy, self-promoting sociopath. She is a hater. Anyone who heard her on the Today Show with Matt Lauer knows this.

’Nuff said.

And yet, more will be said. She’s an easy target, and she represents the worst that is within the Republican Party. The worst within the Republican Party is some pretty ugly stuff. Why do Liberals self-flagellate with video clips of her? Is it because it makes us feel that we are better than her? Hell, I have garden slugs that are better than her!

This morning during the umpteenth replay of her bizarre diatribe, my wonderful wife turned to me and said the very words that were on my mind, viz, “It’s working.” Coulter’s mendacious malignancy was getting her airtime. Airtime translates to book sales.

The next news article was about the anti-Gay constitutional amendment, which went down to a well-deserved defeat. It never had a chance of success but the President had to support what, as I reported, Ted Kennedy called “bigotry, pure and simple.”

Why did King George go out on a limb for this mean-spirited and ill-advised symbolic act? Maybe he was listening to Bob Dylan: “There’s no success like failure, and failure’s no success at all.” I don’t think so.

The conventional wisdom is that Bush is doing so poorly – 1/3 of Americans think he is the worst President in the last 60 years – that he had to shore up his base. But as Robert Elisberg argues here, Bush could pretty much fling feces on the walls of the Oval Office, and his base still won’t desert him. I disagree with Elisberg that Bush doesn’t know this: in my view, Elisberg is misunderestimating Bush.

Republicans seem to think that Hillary Clinton will be the next Democratic nominee for President. They are wrong, but it does illustrate the power of wishful thinking, otherwise known as self-delusion. Still, if that is the operating assumption of the G.O.P., do you imagine that they worry that their base will abandon them and run to Mrs. Clinton because the Republicans were weak on gay-bashing?

So we come back to the question, why is Dubya spending his non-existent political capital on a doomed-from-the-start effort to write hatred into the Constitution? Because it’s working.

The lead story on the half-hourly news update on Air America is that the Senate has again voted against passage of the Constitutional amendment prohibiting both gay marriage AND civil unions. That’s what we are talking about.

What we are not talking about is the failure of the war in Iraq, or the lies that got us there. We’re not talking about the threats posed by Iran and Korea. We’re not talking about the fact that Palestinians have elected a terrorist organization to govern them. We’re not talking about how America’s prestige in the world has fallen so low. We’re not talking about deficits for as far as the eye can see, or national debt that is out of control.

We’re not talking about the failure of Bush’s Medicare program. We’re not talking about the American Bar Association voting unanimously to investigate the illegality of Bush’s crossed-fingers “signing statements.” We are not talking about warrantless eavesdropping on Americans, or enormous data-mining operations, or the outright lying, to Congress and to the American people, that make these programs possible. We are not talking about the treasonous criminality of destroying the career of Valerie Plame Wilson.

We’re not talking about the rising numbers of home foreclosures, or a major city being washed away because of cronyism and incompetence. We are not talking about the widening gap between rich and poor in this country, which threatens all of our institutions. We’re not talking about the Republican attack on science, which sets this country back in stem-cell research, in vaccinations to prevent cervical cancer, in education.

We are not talking about Robert Kennedy’s serious allegations that the 2004 election was stolen. We’re not talking about the fact that the 2000 election was stolen, at least according to a guy who won the Nobel Peace Prize for monitoring elections in emerging democracies.

We’re not talking about the fact that we’ve got maybe 10 years to turn things around or else the planet will become inhospitable to human life.

Thank heavens the gay-bashing amendment was defeated, now twice, in the Senate. Now, we can get on with the important business facing America.

Can we talk?

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

You want irony? Here’s a double dose!

The President spoke today in support of an amendment to the Constitution of the United States. It is advertised as an amendment in support of the sacred institution of marriage, but that is hogwash. It is, as Senator Ted Kennedy noted, “bigotry, pure and simple.”

It is totally incomprehensible to me how homosexuals getting married does anything at all to threaten marriage. I just don’t get it. The argument can more easily be made that encouraging gays to come out of the closet by treating them with respect in a spirit of equality strengthens marriage in at least two ways.

First, the habit of treating people with respect in a spirit of equality, if extended to hetero-sexual relationships, can only have a salutary effect on marriages.

Second, many marriages are tragic charades because husbands and/or wives are secretly gay. Giving these people legitimate outlets to express their true selves can only save people from becoming emotionally entangled with people engaging in this impossible deception.

It is important to realize that the proposed constitutional amendment not only outlaws gay marriage, it also outlaws civil unions. This aspect of the proposed amendment is not widely reported, and the reason is obvious. Not very many people give a damn about an arrangement that would allow one person, with the consent of another, to visit him or her in the ICU, or make decisions affecting end-of-life, and the like.

You may ask, “Why does anyone give a damn?” I suppose that insurance companies stand to have their actuarial tables up-ended if benefits are more widely available, but I am just supposing. It has always struck me as strange that a country where the majority of voters are women can’t pass an Equal Rights Amendment, leading me to the conclusion that someone with a lot of money at stake was manipulating the process. Maybe something similar is happening here.

Then there is the case to be made that right wing fundamentalists care about this more than anything else, and therefore, pandering to them is a means of activating Bush’s base supporters. “Base” in this context means “without moral principles, ignoble” rather than “core.”

I think this strategy has been exposed, and is losing its effectiveness, especially since today there are revelations that Bush’s close friend says, “He doesn’t give a shit about gay marriage.”

Interestingly, another source reports that Bush himself is gay or bisexual -- defined as having engaged in homosexual/bisexual adulterous behaviors with Victor Ashe, former mayor or Knoxville, Tennessee, who is now the ambassador to Poland. Leola McConnell, Liberal Democrat candidate for Governor of Nevada, claims to be an eyewitness to Dubya’s debauchery, and the woman described as a “41 year old woman currently residing in Las Vegas” in the above description of Bush’s walks on the wild side.

You may say that this is rich in irony. In the immortal words of Ron Popeill, “But wait! There’s more!”

Bush and Tony Snow have explained why this amendment is necessary. It is because, notwithstanding the will of the electorate, activist judges have declared civil unions to be a necessary concomitant with equal protection. “Marriage is the most fundamental institution of civilization, and it should not be redefined by activist judges,” King George said.

Ah, the old activist judges canard! It was activist judges that struck down laws forbidding inter-racial marriages in the appropriately named case of Loving vs. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967).

Doesn’t anybody remember? It was activist judges that overturned the will of the majority of Americans and installed that buffoon in the office of President of the United States!

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”

Top 10 Signs of the Impending U.S. Police State

This is a must read article: Top 10 Signs of the Impending U.S. Police State By Allan Uthman, and posted on alternet.org June 1, 2006. Follow the link to read his elaboration of each reason.

Is the U.S. becoming a police state? Here are the top 10 signs that it may well be the case.

1. The Internet Clampdown
Attempts to regulate and filter internet content are intensifying lately, coming both from telecommunications corporations (who are gearing up to pass legislation transferring ownership and regulation of the internet to themselves), and the Pentagon …

2. “The Long War”
This little piece of clumsy marketing died off quickly, but it gave away what many already suspected: the War on Terror will never end, nor is it meant to end. It is designed to be perpetual. … This short-lived moniker told us all, “get used to it. Things aren't going to change any time soon.”

3. The USA PATRIOT Act
Did anyone really think this was going to be temporary? …

4. Prison Camps
This last January the Army Corps of Engineers gave Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown & Root nearly $400 million to build detention centers in the United States, for the purpose of unspecified “new programs.” …

5. Touchscreen Voting Machines
Despite clear, copious evidence that these nefarious contraptions are built to be tampered with, they continue to spread and dominate the voting landscape, thanks to Bush's “Help America Vote Act,” the exploitation of corrupt elections officials, and the general public’s enduring cluelessness.
…

6. Signing Statements
Bush has famously never vetoed a bill. This is because he prefers to simply nullify laws he doesn't like with “signing statements.” Bush has issued over 700 such statements. …

7. Warrantless Wiretapping
Amazingly, the GOP sees this issue as a plus for them. How can this be? What are you, stupid? You find out the government is listening to the phone calls of US citizens, without even the weakest of judicial oversight and you think that's okay? …
Think about it: this administration hates unauthorized leaks. With no judicial oversight, why on earth wouldn’t they eavesdrop on, say, Seymour Hersh, to figure out who’s spilling the beans? It’s a no-brainer. Speaking of which, it bears repeating: terrorists already knew we would try to spy on them. They don’t care if we have a warrant or not. But you should.

8. Free Speech Zones
I know it’s old news, but... come on, are they fucking serious?

9. High-ranking Whistleblowers
Army Generals. Top-level CIA officials. NSA operatives. White House cabinet members. ... The fact is, when people who kill, spy and deceive for a living tell you that the White House has gone too far, you had damn well better pay attention. …

10. The CIA Shakeup
Was Porter Goss fired because he was resisting the efforts of Rumsfeld or Negroponte? No. …
If Bush’s nominee for CIA chief, Air Force General Michael Hayden, is confirmed, [as in fact, he was --Big Mitch]that will put every spy program in Washington under military control. Hayden, who oversaw the NSA warrantless wiretapping program and is clearly down with the program. That program? To weaken and dismantle or at least neuter the CIA. …
Remember the good old days, when the CIA were the bad guys?

Go read the entire article.

“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”