Plame Defenses Quickly Evaporating

Plame was important:

"CIA lawyers followed up the notification this month by answering 11 questions from the Justice Department, affirming that the woman's identity was classified, that whoever released it was not authorized to do so and that the news media would not have been able to guess her identity without the leak, the senior officials said."

Um...ouch. So much for "she was no big deal" and "everyone knew who she was."

Oh, and here's an opinion from a hardcore neocon in the know:

"This is a serious leak," former CIA Director James Woolsey said. "You can endanger intelligence and people's lives by revealing the identities of CIA case officers, so it's a serious matter."

So when are the apologists going to smear James "World War IV" Woolsey?

Better practice your hop, Karl.

(/) Roland X
Maybe they can argue what the word "leak" means

The Empire Strikes Back...Badly

Well, I have to admit, I'm impressed. It's not every day that you see a group of people display arrogance and desperation...simultaneously.

Arrogance:

McClellan said White House officials were not trying to determine on their own what had happened or who was involved. "Are we supposed to chase down every anonymous report in the newspaper? We'd spend all our time doing that."

Desperation:

In particular, McClellan said it was "ridiculous" to suggest that Karl Rove, Bush's top political operative, was involved, as once alleged by Wilson. "He wasn't involved," McClellan said of Rove. "The president knows he wasn't involved. ... It's simply not true."

I hope that it goes without saying that if the latter statement is accurate, it means that Bush knows who exposed Valerie Plame.

Meanwhile, the right wing of the blogosphere is going apesh*t. Several neocon apologists are coming up with the most pathetic excuses for their masters, from "s/he asked for it" (now there's a classic) to blaming others for the leak...after the leak was leaked (WTF?) to "why would they bother?" Another National Review article (The National Review appears to be the NuCon mouthpiece) claims that it's no big deal, because everyone who's anyone in Washington already knew about Valerie Wilson nee Plame. So there, nyah.

If I had enough time to riposte every NuCon screed, I'd be a happy (and rather wealthy) man. Suffice to say that I don't feel any particular need to argue these points, as they all take massive detours around the real issue: which two top White House officials outed an undercover CIA operative?

This, by the way, is according to another senior administration official.

If this is the best Act Two the New American Empire can come up with, Act Three is going to be awfully one sided.

(/) Roland X
Awww, and I was hoping for a big Dean/Bush lightsaber duel in October of '04... ;^)

Addendum: Morgan's excellent list of articles on the Plame scandal will likely fall behind fast now that the mainstream media is (finally) on the case, but it's an excellent primer for the first two months of the story's development.

The Other Guy Rule

While I am enjoying the (long overdue) Rove/Bush meltdown regarding Wilsongate, I am more than a little disconcerted by some of the rhetoric in my (left) half of the blogosphere. Are we really talking about forcing reporters to blow the anonymity of sources, here? Do we really want to go there?

Fellow bloggers, reporters' privilege exists for a reason. Imagine if this scandal were, instead, an Office of Special Plans' plot to overthrow Lula a la Chile in 1973. Imagine that a CIA source with the cojones to do something about it leaked the plot anonymously to Robert Scheer. Cheney would be howling with rage, demanding the offending agent's head on a plate, and the NuCon shills would be parroting along dutifully. And there's the real-world parallel to consider: an administration official confirmed that Novak's sources are legit. Anonymously. The White House could insist on a "fair and balanced" revelation, forcing NBC to out its resource as well.

The anonymity of sources is one of the most important tools in a reporter's arsenal when it comes to gathering facts. A journalist who gives up a source is not only committing career seppuku, they're weakening the entire press and its ability (such as it is) to get us the intel we need to be informed.

Patience, my friends. McClellan was just torn to shreds during the daily gaggle. The reporters know whodunit, and they're throwing themselves into making sure we learn who the culprits are as well. Sooner or later, the truth will out -- and if all goes well, not one source will have to be compromised.

After all, isn't such indiscretion what got Rove into this mess in the first place?

(/) Roland X
Who doesn't know what being "frogmarched" is, but looks forward to learning by watching Rove ;^)

Bush's Last Blunder?

Taking one for Rove wasn't his smartest move:

"He wasn't involved," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said of Rove. "The president knows he wasn't involved. ... It's simply not true."

Which pretty much says outright that the president does know who it is. And is covering up for them. Which would make him an accessory after the fact.

And this is assuming that Rove's actually innocent.

He'll never be impeached. He can lose the '04 election, though.

Anyone care to place bets on the chances that a Democratic president would pardon Dubya?

(/) Roland X
The Meltdown Continues...

Wilsongate Goes Mainstream

NBC, the Washington Post, Time Magazine, CBS, and the New York Times are all on this story.

The Washington Post story is the most damning:

A senior administration official said two top White House officials called at least six Washington journalists and revealed the identity and occupation of Wilson's wife. That was shortly after Wilson revealed in July that the CIA had sent him to Niger last year to look into the uranium claim and that he had found no evidence to back up the charge. Wilson's account eventually touched off a controversy over Bush's use of intelligence as he made the case for attacking Iraq.

"Clearly, it was meant purely and simply for revenge," the senior official said of the alleged leak.

Holy Jeebus. For those of you playing our home game, a major White House player just came out and busted two of his or her colleagues. That is one of those things that Simply Isn't Done in the Rove/Bush White House. Someone is seriously unhappy with the way this has developed. Prime suspects include Powell and Tenet, who have often seemed like voices of sanity in the crazed wilderness of the PNAC rush to conquest. Both have also been scapegoats for the administration's failures, Powell for "losing" the UN in the run-up to war and Tenet falling on his sword (yet missing all the major organs) regarding those "16 words."

As for the news corps' sudden escape from their drugged stupor, is this a brief respite, or has our SCLM finally woken up? Let us hope they're permanently back on the job. Team Bush has gotten a free ride for far too long, and the outing of Valerie Plame is one of their most despicable acts -- which, for this administration, is really saying something.

(/) Roland X
Support Our Spooks

No WMDs

None. Nada. Zero. Zip. Nil.

No WMDs. No facilities for making WMDs. No materials for making WMDs. Not even a plan for making WMDs.

All they've got is that Hussein wanted his people to develop a plan to make WMDs. Someday. Eventually. If they could ever get the US and the UN to stop crawling up his butt. Remember when the threat was so dire that we couldn't give inspectors two bloody weeks back in March?

You know our country is in a sad state when Al Franken is a better source of news about our government than the New York Times, Washington Post, and CNN combined. Lying liars indeed.

If this is the big David Kay "you'll be sorry" surprise, I'd like to see their idea of a letdown.

(/) Roland X
Can we finally bury the myth of "Honest George" now?

Winner of the Recall Debate: Gray Davis

I like this guy more and more with each passing day:

"I will tell you this: His ads say more about Mr. Schwarzenegger than they do about anyone else," Davis said. "He said he would not take special interest money, and now he's taking it. He said he would not run attack ads, now he has. He said he'd debate people, but now will only do it if he gets the questions in advance."

You said it, Governor.

Schwarzenegger's performance in his only debate proved that even having the questions in advance was no help to a man whose only political skill is in reciting talking points. His answers, even on his marquee subjects like business and education, were unfocused, unhelpful, and pale reflections of the McClintock wing of the Republican party. It's really too bad that McClintock is such a wingnut on most other issues.

Thus, I've finally figured Schwarzenegger's platform out: he's Ueberroth, only without the brains.

When Arianna refused to let Ahnuld speak over her, she said: "This is the way you treat women, we know that. But not now." The moderator called that a personal attack (true, though that doesn't address the accuracy of her comment 8^). Ahnuld's reply?

"I just realized that I have a perfect part for you in Terminator 4."

This was, apparently, a reference to the scene he enjoyed so much, where he "got away with" smashing a woman's head into a toilet. That, of course, was the Terminatrix, so "it wasn't really a woman."

Let us hope that Arianna proves to be the Terminatrix of his campaign.

"I need a lot of help," Schwarzenegger says. Boy, is he right.

Peter Camejo was as passionate and articulate as always. It's a pity he doesn't have a chance in Hades.

Which leaves, of course, Cruz Bustamante. The long-suffering Lieutenant Governor maintained his patience and good humor, waiting for Schwarzenegger to stop ranting over his opportunities to speak. When the excellent (if justifiably frazzled) moderator inevitably returned to him, Cruz finished making his points clearly and effectively. Unless viewers were completely blinded by Schwarzenegger's fame and his well-scripted closing statement, this is a two horse race now -- and the horses are named Davis and Bustamante.

(/) Roland X
No On Recall, Yes On Bustamante!

No On Recall, Yes On Bustamante

The election is on.

In less than two weeks, Californians will decide whether or not to recall Governor Gray Davis, and if they do, who will replace him.

Now, I love Arianna Huffington. I was registered Green myself until the 2000 election, and Peter Camejo sounded great in the first debate.

The truth is, however, that this election is down to three men: Gray Davis, Cruz Bustamante, and Arnold Schwarzenegger. This means we have two chances out of three to keep California out of play in the 2004 Presidential election. Governor Davis is not perfect -- what man is -- but he's turned his administration around, fighting the Enrons and working to stabilize the budget. And Lt. Governor Bustamante, meanwhile, is notably more progressive than Davis, which is why Issa is urging his supporters to vote "No" on the recall if Ahnold and McClintock are both in the race on October 7th.

Of equal importance is Proposition 54, the so-called "racial privacy" initiative. This abomination is basically intended to suppress data that proves the continuing racial bias evident in our country.

We have to beat these guys. If you live in California, get out and vote -- no on recall, yes on Bustamante, and no on 54. If not, please support us however you can. It may be a circus to the rest of you, but we have to live with the clowns once the tents come down.

(/) Roland X
Plus, expect a 24-hour recall cycle if Davis loses

This Is How You Run A Primary

Here's a look at why I'm for Clean Dean:

Dean campaign manager Joe Trippi was less critical. "I know we were surprised yesterday [Thursday] when we heard he said he would have voted for the resolution," he said. "But, look, he just got in the race. This is a new world of politics, and I think you've got to give him some time so we can learn where his positions are. But we think he's going to have an impact on the race, and other candidates should take him seriously. We do."

http://www.msnbc.com/news/971241.asp

PRESS: ...Now, OK, I'm Howard Dean. I'm anti-war, and I come along, and I'm Wesley Clark, and I'm anti-war, but I'm a four-star General. Checkmate, right?

STEVE MCMAHON, SENIOR STRATEGIST, DEAN CAMPAIGN: Do you think so? Well, I think that's something that the voters are going to have to decide... I mean, listen, we were one of the first people in this race to say the truth, which is that Wesley Clark is going to be a strong candidate. He has a lot to offer our party and our country and Howard Dean welcomed him into the race. His experience as a general is important, and it's significant. We think Howard Dean's experience as a governor is important and significant. He's got quite a few accomplishments as well, so, you know, the voters are going to make this decision.

Yeah, that Dean, he'll do anything to win, won't he?

(Quotes found at Billmon and The Horse.)

He's honest, he's honorable, he says what he stands for, and he states outright that practically no one is going to agree with him on every single issue. However, we've seen that he will listen to the American people and fight like hell for us. Dean's even willing (as the quotes above show) to put the all-important victory over Bush well ahead of his own ambition.

Oh yeah, and I agree with him on almost every single issue.

Check him out.

I'll back the eventual nominee with everything I've got. For now, however, Go Dean Go!

(/) Roland X
Take Your Country Back

Holy Jeebus

What the heck are you doing here? Go read Atrios.

"Vorlons or Shadows," "Moon Stick" (follow Bad Moon on the rise to Salon), and "The Accused Have Rights" cover the State of the Union better than Dubya ever did.

(/) Roland X
Brrr...someone turn down those chilling effects, willya?

Clark Wars I: The Phantom Clenis

Well, they're already at it:

WHEN WILL Wesley Clark stop telling tall tales? In the current issue of Newsweek, Howard Fineman reports Clark told Colorado Gov. Bill Owens and University of Denver president Mark Holtzman that "I would have been a Republican if Karl Rove had returned my phone calls."

Unfortunately for Clark, the White House has logged every incoming phone call since the beginning of the Bush administration in January 2001. At the request of THE DAILY STANDARD, White House staffers went through the logs to check whether Clark had ever called White House political adviser Karl Rove. The general hadn't. What's more, Rove says he doesn't remember ever talking to Clark, either.

Unfortunately for Mr. Continetti, the blogosphere is all over this. As pretty much anyone who stops here to read no doubt knows already, Clark was joking. (Look at his stands on the issues. Yeah, Rove'd love Clark.) The claim that this was serious comes from Owens and Holtzman. So basically, the White House has proved that they have a problem with reality, not General Clark.

As other bloggers have noted, the real question here is when the administration started having a more open policy regarding White House information, given how much trouble the bloody GAO has had dragging paperwork out of Cheney regarding his (blatantly corrupt) "Energy Task Force" meetings. Rove's talking points are trying to leak out as "news," but his Keystone Korps of press agents are trampling them to death in their panic over Clark's strong showing. (Hint: Clark is already beating Bush in polls.

A couple of other quick rebuttals based on this "article's" accusations:

Last June, the latest Democratic candidate for president implied that he "got a call" on 9/11 from "people around the White House" asking the general to publicly link Saddam Hussein to the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon.

This sentence construction creates an outright lie. What Clark said was that "people around the White House" were spreading the false "Saddam was behind 9/11" meme, and he "got a call" from a Canadian think-tank that asked him to back that on CNN. Which Continetti knows the source of:

While it turns out Clark did receive a call "on either Sept. 12 or Sept. 13," the call wasn't from the White House. It was from Israeli-Canadian Middle East expert Thomas Hecht, who told the Toronto Star that he called to invite Clark to give a speech in Canada.

So Mr. Continetti's quote combination above is, basically, a deliberate lie. Or unimaginably incompetent, take your pick.

Finally, there's this gem of skilled reporting:

As for Clark's accusation that the White House tried to have him fired from CNN--well, the general admits he has no proof. "I've only heard rumors about it," he said.

Pretty damning, huh? Except he writes it so that the "admission" seems like it came later. Here's the full quote from the interview in question:

"The White House actually back in February apparently tried to get me knocked off CNN and they wanted to do this because they were afraid that I would raise issues with their conduct of the war," Clark told Newsradio 620 KTAR. "Apparently they called CNN. I don't have all the proof on this because they didn't call me. I've only heard rumors about it."

Shocking! That anyone could possibly accuse Resident Bush of such a thing!

Rick Blaine: How can you close me up? On what grounds?
Captain Louis Renault: I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!
[A croupier hands Renault a pile of money]
Croupier: Your winnings, sir.
Captain Louis Renault: [sotto voce] Oh, thank you very much. [aloud] Everybody out at once!

The attack dogs are after Clark already. Fortunately, they've started by biting each other.

(/) Roland X
"Mad Dogs and Englishmen" -- and Blair's already frying...

What's This Knife Doing In My Back?

I don't usually just point people at other blogs without something of my own to say, but Josh "TPM" Marshall slam-dunks this one:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/sept0304.html#092303154pm

He says:

It's come to this. A US Congressman, Jim Marshall, Democrat from Georgia's 3rd District, says media bias is responsible for US troop deaths in Iraq.

From a column he penned the Atlanta Journal Constitution earlier this month, some of the highlights: "I found myself wondering whether the news media were somehow complicit in [Sgt. Trevor A. Blumberg's] death ... We may need a few credible Baghdad Bobs to undo the harm done by our media. I'm afraid it is killing our troops."

It really doesn't get much lower than that.

In fact, it does get worse. The "good" Congressman claims that the media isn't covering good news now, and that during the "hot" part of the war, "embedded journalists reported the good, the bad and the ugly." He also says, after hearing from a soldier with a positive attitude, "No one I spoke with said anything different." Well, duh. How many soldiers are going to ask for a court-martial by telling a Congresscritter what they really think of a war being increasingly screwed up? I guess the rest of us are just hallucinating the increasing sound of "this is bull" shots from the guys on the ground.

In what little defense I can muster for Congressman Marshall, he's a Vietnam veteran, so he sees the coverage through that bias. Nevertheless, in an age of Faux News and round-the-clock wingnut radio, how can he possibly make this claim with any seriousness?

(/) Roland X
Betrayal Knows No Party

Uncivil Conflict

So. Our Dear Leader is actually having to deal with (gasp!) criticism, now that Iraq is in shambles and the fearmongers can no longer silence America's voice. His policies are finally being exposed to the harsh light they deserve, and his rhetoric is being routinely dismantled by progressives, moderates, and classic conservatives.

Naturally, his response was to go to his party's propaganda machine, i.e. Faux News. An exclusive interview with a slavish reporter, however, was not enough to save Dubya...from himself.

Bush reveals his opinion of "objectivity" with this gem:

"I appreciate people's opinions, but I'm more interested in news," the president said. "And the best way to get the news is from objective sources, and the most objective sources I have are people on my staff who tell me what's happening in the world."

This, obviously, is how opinion peddlers can proclaim their rivals "objectively" pro-Saddam. Or something.

And then there's this beauty:

"But, you know, I don't think we're serving our nation well by allowing the discourse to become so uncivil that people say - use words that they shouldn't be using."

This, to accuse Edward Kennedy of dragging down political discourse.

"The Senate is more interested in special interests in Washington and not interested in the security of the American people." --George W. Bush, showing his respect for the United States Senate

"Now, there are some who would like to rewrite history —- revisionist historians is what I like to call them." --George W. Bush, on people who dare to note his contradictions

"And we gave him [Saddam] a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in." --George W. Bush, revisionist historian

"My answer is bring them on." --George W. Bush, supporting our troops

"It's an old Texas expression, show your cards when you're playing poker. France showed their cards," Bush said. "They said they were going to veto anything that held Saddam to account." --George W. Bush, master of international diplomacy

"I say it's pure politics. And that's just the nature of democracy. Sometimes pure politics enters into the rhetoric." --George W. Bush, trying to preserve the sanctity of rhetoric

"When you hear about war all the time on your TV screens, the speculation of war and the discussion of war, it's not conducive to a confident tomorrow." --George W. "Irony-Proof" Bush, on freedom of the press

"You see, the Senate wants to take away some of the powers of the administrative (sic) branch." --George W....ah, heck, you know. Something about separation of powers and all that.

With a tip o' the keyboard to The Complete Bushisms and DubyaSpeak for some of these. I wish he was still just a joke.

Okay, so we're going to have violently partisan politics for the foreseeable future. (Well, maybe there will be a cooling off period in early '05. Don't count on it, though.) You know what? I'm okay with that. Democrats are hitting back hard, and it should come as no surprise that the GOoPers aren't taking it lying down.

On the other hand, it is absolutely disgusting -- abjectly appalling -- that the Rovies are trying to claim the high ground after slamming the patriotism of genuine war heroes like John Kerry, Max Cleland (a man who left THREE LIMBS in Vietnam), and now Wesley Clark. Democrats, and the left as a whole, gave our "wartime president" a free pass on September 12, 2001. Rove used it to butcher our civil liberties and wage an uncivil war on dissent.

And now they're whining because the opposition party is behaving like an opposition party? Moaning because they're taking these plunderers to task for lying us into war, stealing from Iraq and America, and betraying our armed forces for financial and political gain? Pathetic. Their hypocrisy is displayed for America and the world to see. They chose the battlefield and they chose the weapons, so if they can't stand the heat then let 'em fry.

(/) Roland X
*snif snif* What's That Smell?

Why he's NAILED

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20030606.html

To wit:

To put it bluntly, if Bush has taken Congress and the nation into war based on bogus information, he is cooked. Manipulation or deliberate misuse of national security intelligence data, if proven, could be "a high crime" under the Constitution's impeachment clause. It would also be a violation of federal criminal law, including the broad federal anti-conspiracy statute, which renders it a felony "to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose."

Bush's statement in the letter to Congress, if not true (which he admitted), is clearly defrauding an agency of the United States. This is why I specified said letter. It doesn't matter if it was a "fudge," "exaggeration for effect," or "mischaracterization." Bush provided fraudulent information to Congress to justify a war. Given the Rove Regime's long and careful campaign of equating Iraq with al-Qaeda, this was almost certainly deliberate. I can't imagine a more impeachable offense than that.

Nailed.

(/) Roland X
Of course, we still have the most partisan Congress in living memory to deal with...

NAILED

We got 'im:

March 18, 2003

Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)

Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Sincerely,


GEORGE W. BUSH

But today, Bush says that:

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al-Qaida ties," the president said. But he also said, "We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the Sept. 11" attacks.

The failure to find any imminent WMD threat has now negated Article 1 of the rationale Bush used above. Today he says he has no evidence that Saddam was involved in September 11(when on March 18 he says he did have such evidence), which then negates Article 2 of his legislatively-required justification for war as outlined under PL 107-243.

Excuse me, but doesn't this mean he lied to comply with the provisions of PL 107-243? And is that not an impeachable offense?

Bold section for emphasis, I presume, by The Left Coaster. Major, major kudos to TLC for this one.

Tom Tomorrow and Daily Kos are all over this as well.

It's a good thing for Bush this wasn't a major lie like fooling around with a consenting intern. Then he'd be in real trouble.

Ah, who am I kidding? He is in real trouble. An alert poster on DKos notes that "including doesn't mean only," which is likely to be Rove's (craven nitpicky definition of is style) defense, but the letter doesn't leave enough fudge factor. The only mention of the word "nation" is under the September 11th section. The only readable meaning of the letter, by literal translation or connotation, is that Bush was justifying the attack on Iraq by a direct correlation to its involvement in the September 11th attack. Except, of course, he just admitted that it wasn't involved.

NAILED.

Here's the official White House page with the letter to Congress, but don't be surprised if it vanishes soon. Fear not, however, we (like several other lefty bloggers 8^) have screen-capped it for posterity.

And here's the article. The quote is from an interview on CNN with John King. Here's a transcript excerpt from Busy Busy Busy.

Hot damn, we GOT him!

(/) Roland X
Na na na na....na na na na...hey hey-ey...GOOD-BYE!

More Lies and Lying Liars

It's official: Faux News is the official propaganda machine of the Republican Party.

"Given the choice, it's better to be viewed as a foot soldier for Bush than a spokeswoman for al-Qaeda." --Irena Briganti, spokesbeing for Faux News

This really shouldn't come as any surprise to, well, anyone, really. But it's especially funny when you keep in mind that Ann "send Democrats to Guantanamo" Coulter is whining about the breakdown of discourse in politics. Gee, I wonder how that happened.

Still, this statement is rather shocking in its directness. It isn't so much a new low as a new level of bluntness from Murdoch's frothing attack-pundits, who seem to have a preference for brown shirts. If you believe in the right to dissent, the importance of open debate, or even the First Amendment -- and dare to say something about it -- you're promoting terrorists.

Welcome to the Imperial States of America. Papers, please.

Of course, we had to expect this. Now that liberals, progressives, and pretty much anyone who isn't a slavish neocon is fighting back, the culture wars are going to heat up. It's heartening to see that, if nothing else, that NuCon forces are showing all the subtlety and wit they've been known for since they Gingrichized political discourse in America. Keep it up, boys and girls. Bush's numbers haven't dropped as far as we'd like yet.

(/) Roland X
E Pluribush Nukem
(Out of many neocon lies, comes smackdown)

Hubris Ascendant

News update: Bush opens mouth, inserts leg up to knee:

"I think other nations have an obligation to participate," Bush said.

An obligation. A bloody obligation.

How dare he. How dare he. This administration was warned. They were warned by nearly every sane person on the planet. They were told, in no uncertain terms, that declaring war on Iraq would sink all the countries involved into a disastrous hellhole, that it would encourage terrorism, and that they weren't going to get involved, so the Kool Kidz of PNAC were on their own.

Richard Perle was dancing on the grave of the UN. The House Republicans busied themselves renaming any food with "French" in the name. The term "empire" was being seriously used as a positive word by neocons. Scorn was heaped on the fools of France, Germany, Russia, and anyone foolish enough to avoid joining the Coalition of the Bribed. America would take over Iraq, start pumping its oil, and establish a thriving democracy, all before summer. Then they'd be coming to our buddies in Iraq, cup in hand, for a bit of oil and reconstruction work, and they'd point to the US, and Bush would laugh. That was the working model -- when America won, the cheese-eating surrender monkeys would be grovelling in short order.

Gee, I wonder why they're a little reluctant to get involved.

What their obligation is, is to ensure that the Rove administration doesn't get away with highway robbery. Their obligation is to their people and the world community, to fight for a fair and just solution. Their obligation is to restore the United Nations' authority and the reputation of international law. France, Germany, Russia, and pretty much every other rational government on Earth has absolutely no obligation to the Shrub and his desperate attempts to have a prayer of actually winning an election.

There's going to be some grovelling, all right. France's government, however, isn't the one that's going to be doing it.

Especially if Bush shoves the leg in up to the hip.

(/) Roland X
That's Gotta Hurt

Flash! Democrats Fight Back! Republicans Cry Like Babies!

Wow. You call a President a "miserable failure" a few times, and look what happens.

We've already seen the Republicans accuse, well, anyone who questions them, of "aiding and abetting the enemy." More recently, we've heard, "The Democratic candidates continued their patter of political hate speech. These kinds of harsh, bitter personal attacks are unprecedented in the history of presidential politics," from RNC chairman Ed Gillespie after the second Democratic debate, and their website attacks the party for "pessimism and protest."

Gosh, you'd think we had an opposition party. Or something. (And Clinton doesn't count, of course. He was a liar and a murderer and had extramarital sex. So harsh, bitter personal attacks were completely justified.)

Since September 11, 2001, the Republicans have maintained a policy of "if you're not with us, you're un-American." For nearly two years, they successfully cowed the Democratic party into submission. Man, they got used to that fast. Still, this is endemic of a major blind spot for conservatives, particularly the NuCon variety: liberals are supposed to be wimps.

Seriously, that's how they think. It's like a rule for them. For some, it borders on a law of physics. Sure, you can point heroes like Martin Luther King and Mahatma Gandhi to them, but ironically, making them virtual saints has allowed some conservatives to mentally disassociate these figures from liberalism -- they transcend ideology, rather than representing one.

Never mind that progressives have traditionally had to face police forces eager to harass them, legal actions ranging from the dubious to outright framing, and even assassinations. Never mind that even the "foot soldiers" of the movement must march under sniper rifles and surrounded by lines of cops, and stories of marchers being herded into patently unjust mass arrests are widespread. Never mind that we must constantly fear for our jobs and our reputations, as we are under constant assault from those who claim to represent the "one true ideology" of our nation.

And yet behold, after pushing us and slandering us and marginalizing us (with, tragically, our acceptance), the Republicans, NuCons and religious wingnuts in particular, are howling in protest (and fear) at our furious response. How dare we resort to such tactics! How could we attack those poor, defenseless bullies like that? And pointing out the relentless wave of lies, cover-ups, and erosions of our freedoms is simply beyond the pale!

In other words, how dare we give as good as we get?

You know, when a bully torments a geek enough times, sooner or later the geek realizes that no amount of appeasement, fawning, or submission will provide any protection. Sooner or later, there's only going to be one option -- fighting back.

Fasten your seat belts, folks, cause you ain't seen nothin' yet.

(/) Roland X
Hit 'em high! Hit 'em low! Hit 'em fast! Hit 'em slow!
Ah, heck, just hit 'em! 8^)

John "Himmler" Ashcroft Shows True Colors

It was never about terrorism:

In the two years since law enforcement agencies gained fresh powers to help them track down and punish terrorists, police and prosecutors have increasingly turned the force of the new laws not on al-Qaida cells but on people charged with common crimes.

The Justice Department said it has used authority given to it by the USA Patriot Act to crack down on currency smugglers and seize money hidden overseas by alleged bookies, con artists and drug dealers.

...

"Within six months of passing the Patriot Act, the Justice Department was conducting seminars on how to stretch the new wiretapping provisions to extend them beyond terror cases," said Dan Dodson, a spokesman for the National Association of Criminal Defense Attorneys.

...

Tim Lynch, director of the Project on Criminal Justice at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, said it isn't far fetched to believe that the government might overstep its bounds again.

"I don't think that those are frivolous fears," Lynch said. "We've already heard stories of local police chiefs creating files on people who have protested the (Iraq) war ... The government is constantly trying to expand its jurisdictions, and it needs to be watched very, very closely."

And we all know what a bunch of pansy liberals run the Cato Institute.

Our freedoms are under direct, immediate assault. I've been trying to avoid statements this inflammatory, but with such obvious evidence at hand, I can say with a clear conscience that the Bush Administration must be kicked out in 2004 if we want to have a free country. If Rove gets his puppet elected, I seriously doubt that the 2008 election -- if it is even held -- will have any meaning whatsoever.

(/) Roland X
Liberty And Justice For All, Dammit!

Holy Joe Has To Go

Howard Dean, as the front-runner in the Democratic primary, is the main target of his rivals. This shouldn't be surprising. Most of the attacks are disappointingly "politics as usual" spin, but that is to be expected. Even Dean's campaign has descended to such tactics, though mercifully (like the majority of the candidates' efforts) he has mostly stayed to the high ground.

Even these jabs are made with attention to avoiding ammunition for Rove in the general election. Dennis Kucinich and Dick Gephardt have both taken aim at Dean, but their rhetoric has concentrated on bread-and-butter Democratic issues, hitting Dean from the left and raising issues that are (to some extent) legitimate.

Senator Lieberman is another story.

Comments like "the Bush recession would be followed by the Dean Depression" and accusing him of "not standing by our values in our foreign policy" in Dean's attempts to bring sanity to the Israel/Palestine issue are perfect fodder for the general election. I don't think Lieberman has really absorbed the fact that Dean could very well be the Democratic nominee in 2004. If Dean wins in the primaries, Senator Lieberman's comments could very well become part of Republican advertisements in the later part of the year.

Ironically, Lieberman's clueless attitude is merely a symptom of a greater problem. The reason that Democrats have a chance in '04 is because the party base is energized like never before. People across the political spectrum, including classic lefties, modern progressives, thoughtful centrists, and real conservatives alike are concerned about the Bush Administration. However, the heart of the Democratic party -- the practical liberals and moderates who want our government to serve justice and freedom alike -- is absolutely outraged by their attacks on freedom, their staggering incompetence in foreign policy, and their ransacking of the economy. Almost any candidate will be able to ride that outrage going into November of '04. Any candidate but Lieberman. His deliberate movement away from the party's spirit is alienating increasing numbers of the faithful, and will definitely blunt the trend of left-wingers leaving third-parties to return home. Both of these groups will lose turn-out if Lieberman wins the nomination, and many third-party members (including the all-important Greens) will stay with their own parties and candidates.

Lieberman himself, along with the Democratic Leadership Council, have declared this primary "a battle for the party's soul." Though the target was Dean, most of the other candidates are actually running to the left of Doctor Dean, including the other two front runners, Gephardt and John Kerry. The DLC has realized that the battle is already over, and the soul is the same as it has always been. (Terry McAuliffe, Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, has asked the DLC to stop its attacks on Dean, and they have apparently acquiesced.) The Senator has instead chosen to wage this battle all-out. He cannot win this way, and can only harm Democrats if he persists. If Lieberman does not moderate his rhetoric, his candidacy should be rejected by all Democrats of conscience.

(/) Roland X
He's still light-years ahead of Bush, though

Are you a September 12th American?

The Wall Street Journal's editorial page has become notorious as a home for wingnuts who want to give their vile screeds some credibility. Here's the latest:

Are You a 'September 10 American'?

This amazing example of propaganda asks the absurd question "How did fighting terrorism become a Republican cause?" This, of course, is the Biggest Lie of the Big Lie campaign currently being waged by the Republicans. However, Mr. Kaplan manages to conflate the political equation with the wider 'culture war,' dividing us into church-going, Bush-loving, heartland-based "September 11" Americans and secular, Bush-bashing, city-dwelling "September 10" Americans, to wit:

When September 11 Americans look back at the attacks, they see an event that requires an overhaul of national priorities. When September 10 Americans look back at the attacks, they see an event whose significance is emotional, even spiritual, but most of all historical. What they do not see is the opening salvo of a years-long struggle, much less its implications for politics and policy.

...

That most of us have resumed living by September 10 rules would hardly matter but for the inconvenient fact that America's foes still play by September 11 rules. Alas, the conceit that the war on terror will not require broad sacrifice, which persists even when circumstances do not justify such a conceit, has obscured this unpleasant truth. Preventing a repeat of September 11 will be difficult enough. Even more so if an attack that should have prompted a special vigilance prompts only a glance backward.

Totally aside from the outrageous untruth of the idea's very foundation, there is a larger problem to this article: it assumes that Bush's policies are somehow effective.

How many times have Islamic fundamentalists successfully attacked America? Other writers have been talking about how "successful" Bush has been, since we haven't been attacked in America since 9/11. How many times was America attacked by al-Qaeda or its spiritual cousins between the failed WTC bombing of 1993 and the successful attack in 2001? And yet Bush is a success and Clinton is somehow behind the failures of that day. (A mere three days before the attack, the administration was threatening to veto a bill that would give 600 million dollars to counter-terrorism operations. That was their attitude to al-Qaeda before September 11, 2001.)

What has really happened is that some people are, indeed, still trapped by their fear on that horrific day -- the "September 11" Americans -- but the rest of us have moved on. We do, in fact, recognize that we must face al-Qaeda, but we are no longer seeing the conflict through the emotional trauma. By looking at the root causes of the hate and fear of our enemies, we can devise real solutions to these problems. And we see that they don't involve conquering nations with no connection whatsoever to the attack. We no longer accept that we must, or even should, blindly follow a leader who has no idea what he's doing, where he's going, or (worst of all) why this fight is going on in the first place.

We also recognize that all of the world's other problems haven't gone away. Global warming has proven all too real (2003 was the hottest overall year on record), "free trade" that isn't is destroying jobs and lives in every nation, our fundamental liberties are being stolen wholesale, and the American dream is being hijacked by the very same villains who are causing and/or supporting all of the above problems.

We are not "September 10" Americans. We are September 12th Americans, who have recognized the wound inflicted on the nation's soul and accept the need to address it -- but we also realize that we cannot react merely out of grief and rage. America must look for real solutions to the problem, and we cannot do that while in a state of "with us or against us" war without end. Neither can we afford to ignore the myriad other problems facing our fragile Earth, and we fully realize that as well. Liberty and justice for all is what we are fighting for, and September 12th Americans realize that al-Qaeda is not our only enemy in that battle. We only wish that one of our foes wasn't the current executive administration of the United States.

That administration knows all too well that September 11th has come and gone. They are fully aware that the challenges represented by that day cannot be met by fury and violence alone. They don't care. They have lied, hidden evidence, played shell games with the American people, and done everything in their power to keep our fellow citizens in a "September 11" state of trauma. "September 11" Americans, after all, don't ask uncomfortable questions or demand accountability. A hypnosis of terror is the order of the day, and every American that can be trapped in that day of evil is an American who isn't looking at the Rove Regime's dismal record.

Which brings us to the demonization of questioning, of doubt, and of division. "September 10" Americans, we are told, are weakening our defenses. They are undermining the Great War of Our Time. The pinnacle of this demagoguery marks these Americans as outright traitors, and implies (or sometimes states directly) that they are as much the enemy as the terrorists -- and deserve the same treatment. They must be destroyed.

Except there are no such people. Those of us who have freed ourselves from the tar pit of 9/11 propaganda are moving forward, not back. We are trying to engage the situation constructively, with our eyes open to both the past (including all the parts the NuCons want us to forget) and the future. That is why the NuCons are waging total war on us. We see what they have done, and are still doing, and call it what it is -- betrayal.

So, to my fellow September 12th Americans, I salute you, and encourage you to keep telling the truth, keep using your rights, and keep fighting for our common dream -- liberty and justice for all. To the "September 11" Americans, I only ask you this: why are your leaders so afraid of dissent?

(/) Roland X
"Our Constitution ... gives to bigotry no sanction." -- George Washington

Earth's Greatest Heroes

Today is the second anniversary of the terrible attacks of September 11, 2001. Everyone knows that. Everyone remembers it. Sadly, the wonderful spirit that rose from the ashes of that horror has passed from this realm, like so many other beautiful dreams. We are once again bitterly divided, and anyone who reads this blog, or any of those I link to, knows who I would say is at fault.

Today, however, I don't want to point fingers or get political or even re-evoke the sick hatred of that day. Instead, I want to remind everyone of the one pure, untarnished good to come out of that terrible morning, when fire erupted out a beautiful blue sky over the archetypal metropolis.

We learned to appreciate our firefighters.

One of the most terrible tragedies of that day was the unprecedented loss of life among those firefighters -- three hundred and forty-three in a single day. Every last one of them was charging into Hell to save lives, to fight a primordial destructive force, to make a difference. We were reminded as never before that they do that, take that risk, every single day.

To fight fires is to be the pinnacle of a noble tradition, an ideal of courage and heroism akin to the knight in shining armor. Historically, however, knights were armsmen who served the nobility with steel and blood; the Arthurian romances were fantasy as much for their portrayals of romantic knights as their magic. The heroic figure of the firefighter is very real.

Imagine that your job is to be ready, on any given day, to risk one of the most horrible deaths imaginable to save others from that fate. Your "armor" is an all-too-thin layer of rubber or latex. Your "lance" is a stream of water that can only douse one section of a dragon that can engulf buildings. The only other advantage you have is your brotherhood -- a powerful advantage, to be true, to have so many brave companions, but they are as mortal as you. Success means going back to the station to wait for the call again, with satisfaction and (perhaps) grateful smiles your only possible rewards. Failure means that homes are destroyed, lives shattered or lost, friends consumed.

That is the life of a firefighter.

Certainly, they are human like any other people. They laugh, cry, love, hate, play, mourn, and have all the foibles that it is humanity's gift and curse to have. They are not perfect, and I would never claim that they are. It would cheapen who they are and what they do. They are our shining knights, and it is only right and fitting that we do them honor, especially today.

So to all our "emergency responders," and to the modern dragon-slayers in particular, on this day we remember you and salute you.

In Honor Of New York's Fallen Protectors

(/) Roland X
(Warning: If you go to the tribute page, you will cry.)

Democracy Means Us 8^)

Once again, I'm published on Democracy Means You, with my article Lies, Damned Lies, and Modern Media:

http://www.democracymeansyou.com/columns/rolandx/9-7-03-lies.htm

I even got my own graphic. Whoa. 8^)

DMY is a great site, BTW, whether it's publishing my work or not. Check out content both silly and serious, and join in the debate, whatever wing you're on. It's our democracy -- use it or lose it.

(/) Roland X
Using It (and get your mind out of the gutter ;^)

We've moved!

[ed note: This is a copy of the last post to the Xanga version of the Justice Log; Obviously, it's not the last post here :-).]

This is my last entry to my Xanga blog. From now on, I can be found at my new address on BlogSpot:

rolandx.blogspot.com

Enjoy, and thanks for visiting the Justice Log on Xanga. :-)

(/) Roland X
(But I'll Miss The Smileys ;-) )

Tax & Spend vs. Slash & Burn

Hello, and welcome to my new home on Blog Spot! 8^) I'm looking forward to a little more commentary, with some help from Squawkbox. First up, I offer a little insight into our enemy -- not Republicans or conservatives as a group, as they are not our enemies, just our rivals. I refer here to that unsavory subset that would have made Orwell's jaw drop at their breathtaking chutzpah.

The common wisdom is that fighting the freepers and reactionary trolls is a useless waste of time. Like all modern "common wisdom," it could use another look.

While arguing with a typical member of the breed over at Eschaton, I got hit with the usual "tax and spend" garbage over the money spent on public schools. Frustrated and suddenly inspired, I shot back that we'll keep trying to get money in until the right-wingers stop trying to take it out. And that's when it hit me.

They harp constantly about "tax and spend" liberals and how that never does any good. (Ignoring the millions fed during the Great Depression just for starters, I guess.) How many times have the conservatives cut resources to the things liberals put them into?

You'd think, the way they complain, that liberals never did anything other than bankrupt Americans to pay for nothing but frivolities. Ultimately, "tax and spend" is Exhibit A in the pile of evidence of the way that Gingrich Republicans twist the language. Governments -- all governments, ever -- collect money through taxation to pay for (aka spend on) what they do. Armies, emergency response, diplomacy, intelligence, security, civil service (like legislators), education, infrastructure, and yes, welfare, all cost money. Even the most die-hard conservative recognizes that at least some money has to go into those first six categories. That means -- you guessed it -- taxing and spending.

Meanwhile, the current Republican leaders cut funds for projects they deem unnecessary -- even if they themselves have proposed it. From 9/11 disaster relief for New York to Homeland Security to "No Child Left Behind," these Republicans go through the motions of "compassion," then stab state and local governments in the back (and the wallet). They wage absurd wars on flimsy pretexts (wasn't that supposed to be a liberal interventionist trait?) and then demand outrageous sums of money to cover their incompetence. Oh, and they alienate nearly every other nation on the planet through innumerable acts of sheer arrogance.

Therefore, I would like to make a small suggestion. The next time someone complains to you about "tax and spend" liberals, reply that they're better than "slash and burn" conservatives! After all, how much conserving is there in destroying everything in your path, from the Constitution to every ounce of goodwill earned over a century of world-saving, in pursuit of their dubious goals?

(/) Roland X
In Dungeons and Dragons, trolls are vulnerable to flame. I guess that just goes to show that life doesn't always imitate art...

Outrage Overload: Have They No Shame?

So the Rove Regime has finally admitted that the war, like Fox News, was "wholly without merit."

But it wasn't their fault! That wicked, tricksy, false Saddam sent "fake defectors" into America to convince them a Ba'ath-run Iraq was a horrible threat that needed to be bombed into oblivion! He deceived them into destroying every (foul) thing he held dear by convincing our intelligence agencies (except they weren't convinced) that he had WMDs (that every sane country knew were either useless or completely non-existent) and could attack at a moment's notice (45 minutes -- oops, that's for internal defenses only, sorry), ensuring that we had to attack Iraq!

Translation: She asked for it.

The Tide Turns

As nearly every lefty blog in creation seems to have noticed, Bush's Teflon has worn away entirely:

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=732

Yes, that's a 45% positive rating and a 54% negative rating on his job performance. There obviously isn't much ambiguity left in Americans' feelings about our Dear Leader. With unemployment continuing to climb, Wall Street sinking, and Iraq turning into a fiasco, Bush's invulnerability was long since a thing of the past. There's still over a year before the election, and anything can happen -- but such a drop at this stage, given his previously stratospheric numbers, shows remarkable vulnerability. Dr. Rove is almost certainly preparing his escape pod. :-D

Meanwhile, the Democrats were displaying impressive solidarity during the primary debate [link to http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0905debate05.html now dead] in New Mexico. While Senator Lieberman and Rep. Kucinich did indulge in the occasional pot shot at front-runner Howard Dean (which he riposted with skill and style, I might add), for the most part they drew distinctions between each other in a constructive and positive manner. Wisely, they saved their fire for Bush and his disastrous administration. Tellingly, nearly every jab earned cheers and applause from the audience, who were clearly overjoyed to hear the return of the opposition party.

The unthinkable has become the status quo -- the SS Bush is a sinking ship, while the winds of the Democratic primary race fill the sails of those most willing to take on the Commander-in-Thief. The tide is, indeed, turning, and even Rove can't make the tide wait for him.

(/) Roland X
That's Captain Roland X! ;-)

One Law To Rule Them All

We are told that history repeats itself -- the first time as tragedy, the second as farce. Still, a farce can yet be a tragedy...

It began with the forging of the Great Laws.

Three were given to the branches, checked and balanced, wisest and fairest of all governments.

Seven articles, to the legislators, great representatives and statesmen of the fruited plains.

And ten, ten amendments were gifted to the justice of Men, who above all else desire freedom.

For within these Laws was bound the strength and the will to govern each state.

But they were all of them deceived, for another Law was made.

Of Sheep and Wolves

Yes, I have my own blog, but as it's name says "Morgan's Reality Check" is more for pointing out facts than for expressing opinions. So, my I asked my husband if he minded me posting my opinion pieces here. As you can see, he doesn't mind :-).

Humans, like many other of nature's creations, have instincts. Some are stronger than others, but for the most part impulses like self-preservation, maternal instinct (not limited to female parental figures), and a need for companionship of some sort are universal. But the form some of those instincts takes can vary.

Groups tend to come in two types: herds and packs. Both band together for mutual benefit. Herds tend to be large bands of animals who congregate for safety, and packs are smaller groups who are often together as much for social reasons as for pure survival ones. The idea that more people are herd animals than pack animals is what prompted this writing, and research seems to bear it out.

Your Humble Host On DMY

Just a short post this time -- I've been published on www.democracymeansyou.com [ed. note: site now gone] in their "Serious" section, specifically:

http://www.democracymeansyou.com/columns/rolandx/8-28-03-giant.htm [ed. note: link will be updated when the content has been added to our own site]

And to anyone coming here from DMY, thank you, and welcome to the Justice Log. :-) I don't have time to update as regularly as progressive heavyweights like Daily Kos and Eschaton, but I hope to make this site worth your while.

(/) Roland
"Writing is easy. All you do is stare at a blank sheet of paper until drops of blood form on your forehead." -- Gene Fowler

The Tiger Roars...

(in a conciliatory, dignified sort of way)

Davis swore to fight like a "Bengal tiger" to survive the recall vote. I snickered at another writer's commentary on the habits of the real Bengal tiger. The image of the mighty jungle predator is what Davis was invoking, however, and after his performance in the two-part debate, he's starting to look more muscular (politically speaking, of course) than his most famous opponent.

Yeah, I'm partisan, but after watching the debate on tape, I have to say, McClintock proved himself to be both phenomenal at distorting issues and phenomenally out of touch with Californians, and Ueberroth (while more moderate) was very definitely a one-note candidate. Both blamed government malfeasance for the deficit, when anyone with the slightest clue knows that the money was stolen by Enron and the Power Pirates. As this was each Republican's only talking point, they're both Terminated.