The last thing America needs is a Scalia clone on the Supreme Court, and by all accounts Samuel Alito is one of them. His record is unsettling, and in one instance cited by Think Progress, outrageous. Key graph:
ALITO SUPPORTS UNAUTHORIZED STRIP SEARCHES: In Doe v. Groody, Alito agued that police officers had not violated constitutional rights when they strip searched a mother and her ten-year-old daughter while carrying out a search warrant that authorized only the search of a man and his home. [Doe v. Groody, 2004]
Alito is the choice of the radical right for a reason--he's one of them. Urge your Senator to vote NO.
Democrats--show some damned backbone. FILIBUSTER ALITO.
Monday, October 31, 2005
Sunday, October 30, 2005
Frank Rich on the White House Culture of Lies and Delusions
A powerful piece by New York Times columnist Frank Rich that compares the current Bush-Cheney scandals to the Nixon-Agnew scandals of Watergate. Rich points out the utter arrogance of the Bush White House team and emphasizes their repeated attempts to evade responsibility and accountability. The key paragraphs:
There are many other mysteries to be cracked, from the catastrophic, almost willful failure of the Pentagon to plan for the occupation of Iraq to the utter ineptitude of the huge and costly Department of Homeland Security that was revealed in all its bankruptcy by Katrina. There are countless riddles, large and small. Why have the official reports on detainee abuse at Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo spared all but a single officer in the chain of command? Why does Halliburton continue to receive lucrative government contracts even after it's been the focus of multiple federal inquiries into accusations of bid-rigging, overcharging and fraud? Why did it take five weeks for Pat Tillman's parents to be told that their son had been killed by friendly fire, and who ordered up the fake story of his death that was sold relentlessly on TV before then?
These questions are just a representative sampling. It won't be easy to get honest answers because this administration, like Nixon's, practices obsessive secrecy even as it erects an alternative reality built on spin and outright lies.
Mr. Cheney is a particularly shameless master of these black arts. Long before he played semantics on "Meet the Press" with his knowledge of Joseph Wilson in the leak case, he repeatedly fictionalized crucial matters of national security. As far back as May 8, 2001, he appeared on CNN to promote his new assignment, announced that day by Mr. Bush, to direct a governmentwide review of U.S. "consequence management" in the event of a terrorist attack. As we would learn only in the recriminatory aftermath of 9/11 (from Barton Gellman of The Washington Post), Mr. Cheney never did so.
That stunt was a preview of Mr. Cheney's unreliable pronouncements about the war, from his early prediction that American troops would be "greeted as liberators" in Iraq to this summer's declaration that the insurgency was in its "last throes." Even before he began inflating Saddam's nuclear capabilities, he went on "Meet the Press" in December 2001 to peddle the notion that "it's been pretty well confirmed" that there was a direct pre-9/11 link between Mohammed Atta and Iraqi intelligence. When the Atta-Saddam link was disproved later, Gloria Borger, interviewing the vice president on CNBC, confronted him about his earlier claim, and Mr. Cheney told her three times that he had never said it had been "pretty well confirmed." When a man thinks he can get away with denying his own words even though there are millions of witnesses and a video record, he clearly believes he can get away with murder.
Mr. Bush is only slightly less brazen. His own false claims about Iraq's W.M.D.'s ("We found the weapons of mass destruction," he said in May 2003) are, if anything, exceeded by his repeated boasts of capturing various bin Laden and Zarqawi deputies and beating back Al Qaeda. His speech this month announcing the foiling of 10 Qaeda plots is typical; as USA Today reported last week, at least 6 of the 10 on the president's list "involved preliminary ideas about potential attacks, not terrorist operations that were about to be carried out." In June, Mr. Bush stood beside his attorney general, Alberto Gonzales, and similarly claimed that "federal terrorism investigations have resulted in charges against more than 400 suspects" and that "more than half" of those had been convicted. A Washington Post investigation found that only 39 of those convictions had involved terrorism or national security (as opposed to, say, immigration violations). That sum could yet be exceeded by the combined number of convictions in the Jack Abramoff-Tom DeLay scandals
People, we're in the grip of an Administration that has constructed an alternative reality. Its members maintain this reality by lying with pathological regularity, attacking anyone who threatens their deluded worldview, and engaging in simple psychological denial whenever the actual reality is brought to their attention. The damage they have done by these means has been grim; if they are not somehow stopped it will be catastrophic. Frank Rich is an invaluable voice in this fight, but we need much more. We need the dedication of Democrats, Independents, and fed-up Republicans to get these bastards out of office. That means a DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS elected in November 2006 and a DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT elected in November 2008. Only when the Republicans are voted out of office at every level of government can the salvation of our country begin. The tumor of rightwing Republicanism has to be cut out before it kills America.
Keep the pressure on Bush, Cheney, DeLay, Frist, and all the rest! We're not going to stop until we win--and America is saved.
There are many other mysteries to be cracked, from the catastrophic, almost willful failure of the Pentagon to plan for the occupation of Iraq to the utter ineptitude of the huge and costly Department of Homeland Security that was revealed in all its bankruptcy by Katrina. There are countless riddles, large and small. Why have the official reports on detainee abuse at Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo spared all but a single officer in the chain of command? Why does Halliburton continue to receive lucrative government contracts even after it's been the focus of multiple federal inquiries into accusations of bid-rigging, overcharging and fraud? Why did it take five weeks for Pat Tillman's parents to be told that their son had been killed by friendly fire, and who ordered up the fake story of his death that was sold relentlessly on TV before then?
These questions are just a representative sampling. It won't be easy to get honest answers because this administration, like Nixon's, practices obsessive secrecy even as it erects an alternative reality built on spin and outright lies.
Mr. Cheney is a particularly shameless master of these black arts. Long before he played semantics on "Meet the Press" with his knowledge of Joseph Wilson in the leak case, he repeatedly fictionalized crucial matters of national security. As far back as May 8, 2001, he appeared on CNN to promote his new assignment, announced that day by Mr. Bush, to direct a governmentwide review of U.S. "consequence management" in the event of a terrorist attack. As we would learn only in the recriminatory aftermath of 9/11 (from Barton Gellman of The Washington Post), Mr. Cheney never did so.
That stunt was a preview of Mr. Cheney's unreliable pronouncements about the war, from his early prediction that American troops would be "greeted as liberators" in Iraq to this summer's declaration that the insurgency was in its "last throes." Even before he began inflating Saddam's nuclear capabilities, he went on "Meet the Press" in December 2001 to peddle the notion that "it's been pretty well confirmed" that there was a direct pre-9/11 link between Mohammed Atta and Iraqi intelligence. When the Atta-Saddam link was disproved later, Gloria Borger, interviewing the vice president on CNBC, confronted him about his earlier claim, and Mr. Cheney told her three times that he had never said it had been "pretty well confirmed." When a man thinks he can get away with denying his own words even though there are millions of witnesses and a video record, he clearly believes he can get away with murder.
Mr. Bush is only slightly less brazen. His own false claims about Iraq's W.M.D.'s ("We found the weapons of mass destruction," he said in May 2003) are, if anything, exceeded by his repeated boasts of capturing various bin Laden and Zarqawi deputies and beating back Al Qaeda. His speech this month announcing the foiling of 10 Qaeda plots is typical; as USA Today reported last week, at least 6 of the 10 on the president's list "involved preliminary ideas about potential attacks, not terrorist operations that were about to be carried out." In June, Mr. Bush stood beside his attorney general, Alberto Gonzales, and similarly claimed that "federal terrorism investigations have resulted in charges against more than 400 suspects" and that "more than half" of those had been convicted. A Washington Post investigation found that only 39 of those convictions had involved terrorism or national security (as opposed to, say, immigration violations). That sum could yet be exceeded by the combined number of convictions in the Jack Abramoff-Tom DeLay scandals
People, we're in the grip of an Administration that has constructed an alternative reality. Its members maintain this reality by lying with pathological regularity, attacking anyone who threatens their deluded worldview, and engaging in simple psychological denial whenever the actual reality is brought to their attention. The damage they have done by these means has been grim; if they are not somehow stopped it will be catastrophic. Frank Rich is an invaluable voice in this fight, but we need much more. We need the dedication of Democrats, Independents, and fed-up Republicans to get these bastards out of office. That means a DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS elected in November 2006 and a DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT elected in November 2008. Only when the Republicans are voted out of office at every level of government can the salvation of our country begin. The tumor of rightwing Republicanism has to be cut out before it kills America.
Keep the pressure on Bush, Cheney, DeLay, Frist, and all the rest! We're not going to stop until we win--and America is saved.
Poor Tommy DeLay is Whining About How Mean His Critics Are
One of the chief architects of the Radical Right's politics of character assassination and smear campaigning is feeling a bout of self pity. Read the item and see if you don't agree.
The defeat of DeLay next year must continue to be a priority.
The defeat of DeLay next year must continue to be a priority.
Saturday, October 29, 2005
Financial Times: Rove Still in the Spotlight
Patrick Fitzgerald, who is rapidly becoming my personal hero, has left the door open in the matter of leveling charges against White House Uber Scumwad Karl Rove.
Oh please oh please oh please!
Oh please oh please oh please!
Bush's Lack of Character Was the Key Warning of Impending Disaster
A deeply insightful article by Jack Beatty in The Atlantic Monthly tells us in plain language that we should have seen Bush's disastrous presidency coming. It wasn't so much in his policy proposals. It was in his life story, which is one of repeated failure and an obsession with his father. Key graphs:
Failure—repeated, significant, pregnant with disaster—shouts beware from Bush's life. A reservist pilot who failed to report for duty, a failed politician, a serial failure in business until his dad, then vice president, intervened with the commissioner of baseball to get him taken in as a "partner" in the Texas Rangers, "W" misplayed winning hands and fumbled golden opportunities.
And those words fit his post-9/11 actions as well. A winning hand—the country's support for the war in Afghanistan. A golden opportunity—the world's sympathy for the U.S. and cooperation in the "war on terror." Lost, fumbled, trashed. Forty-two percent in one poll believe he will rank "below average" in the future's presidential ratings, twice the percentage who believe he will rank "above average." Bush finally holds a job from which he can't fail up.
Go and check it out.
Failure—repeated, significant, pregnant with disaster—shouts beware from Bush's life. A reservist pilot who failed to report for duty, a failed politician, a serial failure in business until his dad, then vice president, intervened with the commissioner of baseball to get him taken in as a "partner" in the Texas Rangers, "W" misplayed winning hands and fumbled golden opportunities.
And those words fit his post-9/11 actions as well. A winning hand—the country's support for the war in Afghanistan. A golden opportunity—the world's sympathy for the U.S. and cooperation in the "war on terror." Lost, fumbled, trashed. Forty-two percent in one poll believe he will rank "below average" in the future's presidential ratings, twice the percentage who believe he will rank "above average." Bush finally holds a job from which he can't fail up.
Go and check it out.
Ominous: Terrorist Bombings Strike India
A series of apparently coordinated bombings in New Delhi has killed at least 55 people and wounded many others. The reason I find this especially ominous is that if the terror is linked to Muslim extremists, an already dangerous situation between Pakistan and India may be exacerbated.
And don't forget--Pakistan is one or two assassinations away from being a radical Muslim state with nuclear weapons. India's government is keenly aware of this. Stay tuned.
And don't forget--Pakistan is one or two assassinations away from being a radical Muslim state with nuclear weapons. India's government is keenly aware of this. Stay tuned.
HA HA HA! Bush Now Seen As Less Ethical Than Clinton!
It's in the new Washington Post poll where the Naked Emperor has sunk to a new low in his approval ratings. Key finding:
In the aftermath of the latest crisis to confront the White House, Bush's overall job approval rating has fallen to 39 percent, the lowest of his presidency in Post-ABC polls. Barely a third of Americans -- 34 percent -- think Bush is doing a good job ensuring high ethics in government, which is slightly lower than President Bill Clinton's standing on this issue when he left office.
Man oh man, I hope the clowns at Fox News are writhing in agony over this stuff!
In the aftermath of the latest crisis to confront the White House, Bush's overall job approval rating has fallen to 39 percent, the lowest of his presidency in Post-ABC polls. Barely a third of Americans -- 34 percent -- think Bush is doing a good job ensuring high ethics in government, which is slightly lower than President Bill Clinton's standing on this issue when he left office.
Man oh man, I hope the clowns at Fox News are writhing in agony over this stuff!
Wow! Fastest Computer in the World Sets New Record
It's well on its way toward the coveted half a quadrillion calculations
per second mark.
And just think--by 2025 this computer may look like a stone tool.
per second mark.
And just think--by 2025 this computer may look like a stone tool.
Friday, October 28, 2005
Begala HAMMERS the Bushistas
Read this scathing piece in Huffington on the sickening moral hypocrisy of Bush and his people. Key graphs:
In the first year of George W. Bush's presidency, one major media figure told my wife and me to our faces that the difference between the Clinton crowd and the Bush team was that, "They're just better people than you are. They're more loyal to their President, more patriotic, less self-interested and ambitious. They're just better people."
Now we learn that these Better People have turned the White House into a criminal enterprise. And that the purpose of that enterprise was to mislead the country into going to war. 2,000 Americans killed. 15,000 horribly wounded. $200 billion gone. And a Muslim world -- and a non-Muslim world, for that matter -- that hates our guts. Al Qaeda is recruiting terrorists faster than we can kill them. And there is no end in sight.
That's it, Paul! Lay the lumber to 'em! As a former member of the Clinton White House, you've earned it.
In the first year of George W. Bush's presidency, one major media figure told my wife and me to our faces that the difference between the Clinton crowd and the Bush team was that, "They're just better people than you are. They're more loyal to their President, more patriotic, less self-interested and ambitious. They're just better people."
Now we learn that these Better People have turned the White House into a criminal enterprise. And that the purpose of that enterprise was to mislead the country into going to war. 2,000 Americans killed. 15,000 horribly wounded. $200 billion gone. And a Muslim world -- and a non-Muslim world, for that matter -- that hates our guts. Al Qaeda is recruiting terrorists faster than we can kill them. And there is no end in sight.
That's it, Paul! Lay the lumber to 'em! As a former member of the Clinton White House, you've earned it.
Remember What the Real Issue is in All of This
In all this talk about the Libby indictment and the arcana of the criminal law, we are in danger of losing sight of the main issue here. In my mind, it's pretty straightforward:
The Bush Administration's members came into office committed to a war against Iraq. The attacks on 11 September 2001 provided them with a cover for this war. Although Saddam's vile regime had nothing to do with 9/11 and was only tangentially related to Al Qaeda, Iraq was, bizarrely, made the focus (the "front line") of our war against the terrorists. Our efforts to fight terrorists in Afghanistan were shortchanged by the Administration's determination to topple Saddam. The Bush Administration's officials deliberately ignored evidence that refuted their contentions that Saddam possessed WMDs. They emphasized evidence that supported their preconceived notions. (They may even have contrived false evidence in support of the WMD accusation.) They waged a relentless public relations campaign to sell the war to the American people, including having Colin Powell make a speech at the UN in February 2003 that we now know was riddled with falsehoods. Joe Wilson challenged their lies and distortions, and they vowed to destroy him for it. That's why his wife was outed and her front company, Brewster-Jennings, ruined. The Plame outing, therefore, was a small part of a much more serious act: the deliberate deceiving of the American people in order to get their support for a tragically unnecessary war.
Period.
The Bush Administration's members came into office committed to a war against Iraq. The attacks on 11 September 2001 provided them with a cover for this war. Although Saddam's vile regime had nothing to do with 9/11 and was only tangentially related to Al Qaeda, Iraq was, bizarrely, made the focus (the "front line") of our war against the terrorists. Our efforts to fight terrorists in Afghanistan were shortchanged by the Administration's determination to topple Saddam. The Bush Administration's officials deliberately ignored evidence that refuted their contentions that Saddam possessed WMDs. They emphasized evidence that supported their preconceived notions. (They may even have contrived false evidence in support of the WMD accusation.) They waged a relentless public relations campaign to sell the war to the American people, including having Colin Powell make a speech at the UN in February 2003 that we now know was riddled with falsehoods. Joe Wilson challenged their lies and distortions, and they vowed to destroy him for it. That's why his wife was outed and her front company, Brewster-Jennings, ruined. The Plame outing, therefore, was a small part of a much more serious act: the deliberate deceiving of the American people in order to get their support for a tragically unnecessary war.
Period.
An Andrew Sullivan Reader Gets It Right (I Think)
Published in Sully's blog today.
Just got through reading a transcript of the Fitz press conference, and a few things stood out.
As bizarre as that baseball analogy was, I think it said a lot about what might happen in the next few days or weeks. Seems to me that when discussing the possibility of a leak-related crime, e.g. violation of either the Intelligence Identities Act or Espionage Act, Fitz focused on how such prosecutions were very difficult because they require proof of a mental state. (Hence the silly analogy about a pitcher throwing at guy's head.) Under both statutes, the disclosure of classified info must be intentional or purposeful, i.e., the perp must have "known" that the information was classified (for the Espionage Act) or that the agent was "covert," among other things (under the Intelligence Act). As Fitz asked, "was this something where he intended to cause whatever damage was caused? Or did they intend to do something else and where are the shades of gray?"
I don't know what Fitz knows. But I think he is one inch from prosecuting the leak itself - at least his public comments leave the impression that he's pissed about it - and the only thing holding him back is that he's afraid he can't prove state of mind. Proving state of mind is really hard in any case -- and it's especially hard when the defendant is an intelligent career political operative with an expensive white collar defense lawyer. I think Fitz can do it, and I think Fitz thinks he can do it, but he seems to be playing it cautious. Why?
Let's just take the Espionage Act. Fitz clearly said that Plame's position was classified, he implied strongly that it related to national security, and as Josh Marshall pointed out in a recent post, the indictment itself states that both Cheney and Libby knew the precise division of the CIA where she worked, which by definition made her covert. So right there - as soon as he tells that to Miller - you have a prima facie violation of the Espionage Act.
Fitz also said, "I don't buy that theory [that one should never use the Espionage statute], but I do know you should be very careful in applying that law because there are a lot of interests that could be implicated in making sure that you picked the right case to charge that statute ... You want to know what their motive is, you want to know their state of knowledge, you want to know their intent, you want to know the facts." He went on to lament the fact that Libby had lied, thus throwing the proverbial sand in his eyes.
What's all this mean? Well, seems like Fitz has a pretty strong case for the Espionage Act, and if Plame met the objective standards in the Intelligence Act, for that one too. And it seems like the fact that Libby lied repeatedly is very strong evidence of a culpable state of mind, belying any claim that he didn't "know" the info was classified or that divulging it was wrong. Add that to the very specific allegation in the indictment that he knew exactly where she worked, and there it is.
So why not charge it? Because Fitz has Libby nailed on the 5 counts from today's indictment. Just nailed. So he's bringing Libby in on those charges, they're going to talk some turkey, and Fitz is going to see if Libby will talk, maybe about VP, maybe about Official A (who's clearly Rove), or maybe about the VP's moles at State and in the CIA. Offer some carrots - maybe no jail - but if Libby refuses, then Fitz brings down the espionage or intelligence act charges. Libby has nowhere to go, and Fitz knows it. In my view, he's going to try to exploit that opening before wrapping this thing up.
Is Cheney the ultimate target of Fitzgerald's investigation? If so, this thing might just be ready to blast wide open.
Just got through reading a transcript of the Fitz press conference, and a few things stood out.
As bizarre as that baseball analogy was, I think it said a lot about what might happen in the next few days or weeks. Seems to me that when discussing the possibility of a leak-related crime, e.g. violation of either the Intelligence Identities Act or Espionage Act, Fitz focused on how such prosecutions were very difficult because they require proof of a mental state. (Hence the silly analogy about a pitcher throwing at guy's head.) Under both statutes, the disclosure of classified info must be intentional or purposeful, i.e., the perp must have "known" that the information was classified (for the Espionage Act) or that the agent was "covert," among other things (under the Intelligence Act). As Fitz asked, "was this something where he intended to cause whatever damage was caused? Or did they intend to do something else and where are the shades of gray?"
I don't know what Fitz knows. But I think he is one inch from prosecuting the leak itself - at least his public comments leave the impression that he's pissed about it - and the only thing holding him back is that he's afraid he can't prove state of mind. Proving state of mind is really hard in any case -- and it's especially hard when the defendant is an intelligent career political operative with an expensive white collar defense lawyer. I think Fitz can do it, and I think Fitz thinks he can do it, but he seems to be playing it cautious. Why?
Let's just take the Espionage Act. Fitz clearly said that Plame's position was classified, he implied strongly that it related to national security, and as Josh Marshall pointed out in a recent post, the indictment itself states that both Cheney and Libby knew the precise division of the CIA where she worked, which by definition made her covert. So right there - as soon as he tells that to Miller - you have a prima facie violation of the Espionage Act.
Fitz also said, "I don't buy that theory [that one should never use the Espionage statute], but I do know you should be very careful in applying that law because there are a lot of interests that could be implicated in making sure that you picked the right case to charge that statute ... You want to know what their motive is, you want to know their state of knowledge, you want to know their intent, you want to know the facts." He went on to lament the fact that Libby had lied, thus throwing the proverbial sand in his eyes.
What's all this mean? Well, seems like Fitz has a pretty strong case for the Espionage Act, and if Plame met the objective standards in the Intelligence Act, for that one too. And it seems like the fact that Libby lied repeatedly is very strong evidence of a culpable state of mind, belying any claim that he didn't "know" the info was classified or that divulging it was wrong. Add that to the very specific allegation in the indictment that he knew exactly where she worked, and there it is.
So why not charge it? Because Fitz has Libby nailed on the 5 counts from today's indictment. Just nailed. So he's bringing Libby in on those charges, they're going to talk some turkey, and Fitz is going to see if Libby will talk, maybe about VP, maybe about Official A (who's clearly Rove), or maybe about the VP's moles at State and in the CIA. Offer some carrots - maybe no jail - but if Libby refuses, then Fitz brings down the espionage or intelligence act charges. Libby has nowhere to go, and Fitz knows it. In my view, he's going to try to exploit that opening before wrapping this thing up.
Is Cheney the ultimate target of Fitzgerald's investigation? If so, this thing might just be ready to blast wide open.
Interesting Debate on the Ten Commandments
I know I should be blogging about Scooter Libby being indicted, but I was thinking about this issue tonight. This is a transcript from Crossfire of a debate involving Count Novakula, Paul Begala, Jay Sekulow (who does a lot of legal work for the religious right) and Barry Lynn, a strong advocate of church-state separation. It's actually pretty enlightening. I found this segment to be particularly interesting:
SEKULOW: Well, these monuments were put up by the Fraternal Order of Eagles.
(CROSSTALK)
BEGALA: To promote a movie.
SEKULOW: Actually...
(CROSSTALK)
BEGALA: Cecil B. DeMille made a film in 1956.
(CROSSTALK) SEKULOW: There's no doubt it. I mean...
BEGALA: This was a Hollywood promotional stunt.
SEKULOW: And it was...
BEGALA: It was. That's how they got there.
SEKULOW: It was a promotional stunt that took place.
Look, the evidence -- I have argued 12 of these cases. and just evidence is clear. Originally, these were going to be pieces of paper that a judge wanted to give out. And DeMille said, well, you know, I have got this movie going on. They used to send actually Yul Brynner...
Yes, folks, the Ten Commandments controversy was launched by a movie promotion. How did America survive for the 180 years that we didn't have the Ten Commandments plastered all over the place?
Look, it would be historically inaccurate to argue that our legal system has no religious roots. But the founders of our country were not using explicit religious traditions when they drew up our fundamental law. And we need to remember the roots of the American legal system in ancient Middle Eastern law, Greek law, Roman law, and especially English Common Law. Human institutions have complex roots; the great simplifiers on the Right often overlook this.
SEKULOW: Well, these monuments were put up by the Fraternal Order of Eagles.
(CROSSTALK)
BEGALA: To promote a movie.
SEKULOW: Actually...
(CROSSTALK)
BEGALA: Cecil B. DeMille made a film in 1956.
(CROSSTALK) SEKULOW: There's no doubt it. I mean...
BEGALA: This was a Hollywood promotional stunt.
SEKULOW: And it was...
BEGALA: It was. That's how they got there.
SEKULOW: It was a promotional stunt that took place.
Look, the evidence -- I have argued 12 of these cases. and just evidence is clear. Originally, these were going to be pieces of paper that a judge wanted to give out. And DeMille said, well, you know, I have got this movie going on. They used to send actually Yul Brynner...
Yes, folks, the Ten Commandments controversy was launched by a movie promotion. How did America survive for the 180 years that we didn't have the Ten Commandments plastered all over the place?
Look, it would be historically inaccurate to argue that our legal system has no religious roots. But the founders of our country were not using explicit religious traditions when they drew up our fundamental law. And we need to remember the roots of the American legal system in ancient Middle Eastern law, Greek law, Roman law, and especially English Common Law. Human institutions have complex roots; the great simplifiers on the Right often overlook this.
House Republicans Vote to Cut Food Stamps
At a time when hunger is rising among poor Americans, our "moral" Republican majority in the House has just decided to cut food stamp aid by by $844 million. You see, folks, the Republicans only give a damn about helping the prosperous and powerful. The poor can rot. You think I'm stereotyping here? Tell me where I'm wrong.
Thursday, October 27, 2005
Wednesday, October 26, 2005
White Sox Win!! YES!!
I'm 53. I never expected to live to see a Chicago baseball team win the World Championship, since it hadn't been done in my lifetime. So now I'm overjoyed as the White Sox have FINALLY won it all. But I'm also apprehensive. This must mean the End of the World is imminent.
Arianna Huffington: Plame Affair "Worse Than Watergate"
Damned right it is. And it's one HELL of a lot worse than any of the made-up-out-of-thin-air Clinton "scandals" with which America's media and political classes were obsessed in the 1990s.
Someday, the whole obscene story of how the radical Right tried to destroy Clinton through a campaign of lies and fraud, funded by the most vile fanatics imaginable, will be known. Some day everyone will realize the enormity of the Republican coup d'etat that stole the 2000 election. And everyone will know the story of the Bush Administration, which bankrupted the government, permanently crippled the economy, lied this country into an illegal war, failed miserably in its anti-terror efforts, legalized torture, damaged the social safety net, injured our international standing perhaps beyond repair, decimated America's environmental laws, and oversaw more sheer thievery and corruption than the Nixon, Harding, and Grant Administrations combined. I do not exaggerate when I say that the Bush Administration has been the worst, most disastrous one in American history. Bush as a president will someday be ranked down there with James Buchanan and Andrew Johnson: a flat out failure.
Someday, the whole obscene story of how the radical Right tried to destroy Clinton through a campaign of lies and fraud, funded by the most vile fanatics imaginable, will be known. Some day everyone will realize the enormity of the Republican coup d'etat that stole the 2000 election. And everyone will know the story of the Bush Administration, which bankrupted the government, permanently crippled the economy, lied this country into an illegal war, failed miserably in its anti-terror efforts, legalized torture, damaged the social safety net, injured our international standing perhaps beyond repair, decimated America's environmental laws, and oversaw more sheer thievery and corruption than the Nixon, Harding, and Grant Administrations combined. I do not exaggerate when I say that the Bush Administration has been the worst, most disastrous one in American history. Bush as a president will someday be ranked down there with James Buchanan and Andrew Johnson: a flat out failure.
Cheney: #1 Advocate of Legalized Torture
This powerful editorial in the Washington Post should outrage and shame any true American. It details Vice President Cheney's shocking advocacy of barbaric methods of interrogation and incarceration by U.S. forces. Cheney, it turns out, has been the driving force in the Administration for the use of torture. Read the article for yourself and feel the rage inside you.
I knew Cheney was an evil, morally bankrupt prick. But even for him, this is a new low.
I knew Cheney was an evil, morally bankrupt prick. But even for him, this is a new low.
Bush at Rock Bottom in Rasmussen Poll, 41-59 NEGATIVE
The Rasmussen Poll tends to be more sympathetic to Republicans than Democrats. And yet, in this current measure, Bush hits the lowest rating in the survey he has ever had. And check out the "strongly disapprove" number. Bush's political capital account is bankrupt--just like the U.S. Government under his disastrous "management".
Did Forged Documents Lead the United States Into War?
Buzzflash alerted me to this startling post by Josh Marshall. If the contentions it makes are true, it means the Bush Administration deliberately manipulated intelligence to make it appear as if Iraq had a functioning nuclear weapons program. The purpose of this deception was clear: to build a rationale for war with Iraq. To me, this is even more significant--and grave--of a matter than the treason involved in outing Valerie Plame. More than 2,000 Americans and over 10,000 Iraqis have died because of this phony rationale. If true, this "fixing" of intelligence must rank as one of the gravest offenses ever committed by an American administration. If this is true, than George W. Bush deserves to be removed from office through the impeachment, trial, and conviction process specified in the Constitution. Because if tricking this country into war through fraud isn't a "high crime", than I don't know what is.
More to come. Count on it.
More to come. Count on it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)