chuckago

FROM ATHENAE AT FIRST-DRAFT.COM

Small Men

	Posted by Athenae on Wednesday, October 26 @ 17:54:20 EDT
	I went looking for this today, after explaining to a non-pol friend precisely why Karl Rove was as loathed and despised as he is. Link: And after Mr. McCain’s 2000 campaign, Mr. Weaver’s allies say, Mr. Rove ran him out of the party. Mr. McCain said Mr. Weaver was "blackballed by the White House and the Republican establishment," and McCain aides told The Observer that after Mr. Bush took the White House, his staff told members of Congress not to hire Mr. Weaver. "Rove made it clear that if you want help from this President in your campaign, you’ll be careful about what consultant you hire—meaning not John Weaver," said Mr. McCain’s chief of staff, Mark Salter. I was a follower of McCain's 2000 primary run, and I fell hard for him and his whole team (and yes, I know, Republican, I know, I'm over it mostly). What happened to them in South Carolina was brutal, it was unconscionable, and it was a blueprint for how Bush's administration planned to run the country: with a vicious intolerance for disagreement, and skill at only one thing: self-preservation. And knowing that Weaver has now supposedly reconciled with the White House, that McCain has been mentioned as a potential replacement for Dick, does nothing to change that. What happened happened. They can get over it, that's their right. They'll pardon me if I'm not so forgiving. I say to everybody who claims to be shocked at this turn of events, at the state of politics today, knowing what these guys were like before, what exactly did you expect? Joe Wilson got pissed off, tied a noose around his neck and showed up at a press conference to tell Saddam Hussein that if Hussein wanted to hang him, Wilson'd bring his own fucking rope. Valerie Plame got death threats from Al Qaeda, per Larry Johnson on CNN today, and went back to work the next day. These weren't people who didn't understand the importance of what they were doing. But to Bush and his administration, everything was a cheap political shot. It's been said of Republicans that they know how to run a campaign but have no idea how to run a country; there's nowhere that's clearer than it is in this case. They only have one speed: Week Before Election Day, when everything's about getting the smear out as fast as you can to taint the public's impression of your opponents. And man, does it ever work for them on the trail, except here's the problem. That's the only place it works. In order to get the job done, to fight terrorism and actually do it well, they were going to have deal with people who disagreed with them. They were going to have to deal with people they didn't like, and with people they didn't want to have around, because those people were good at their jobs. They could have tolerated a little dissent from some unexciting bureaucrats who got the job done, and yeah, there would have been a couple of days of kerfluffle and then it would have been over. Instead they went nuclear on everybody who spoke out against them, on Paul O'Neill, on Richard Clarke, on John Weaver, on anybody who so much as raised his or her voice, and the list goes on. It's not mark of strength, it never is, to barrel down on somebody smaller than you. If you're really the leader of the free world, if you're really the strongest and biggest badass the land has ever known, you aren't threatened by anybody. Least of all another American speaking his or her mind. But they never were our leaders. They told us to be afraid, and they turned us on each other, and they gave away our money to their friends and killed our sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers, husbands and wives. They sniped and they snarled, but they never did lead us. They never brought us an inch above ourselves, or a milimeter closer together. For all their blithering about restoring honor and dignity, for all the lofty words that come from their speechwriters' offices, they are small men, and their vision only extends to power, not poetry. They don't understand what service to your country means; look at their service records. They don't understand what respect that should entail; look what they did to Max Cleland, to John Kerry. They don't understand anything except how to step hardest on somebody's fingers on their way up the stairs. They got to the top, and had no idea where they were, or why. And the mountain's crashing down on them now, so I say again, what exactly did you think was going to happen? A.

this post was collected (not written) by chuckago@yahoo.com

FROM THE LIGHT OF REASON

SWEET IRONY, OR: OOPS

I wrote about the looming significance of the Hamdan decision—and of John Roberts’ role in that decision—several weeks ago.

Now it appears there is a critically important additional problem:

Four days before President Bush nominated John G. Roberts to the Supreme Court on July 19, an appeals court panel of three judges, including Judge Roberts, handed the Bush administration a big victory in a hotly contested challenge to the president’s military commissions.

...

At the time, the close proximity of the court’s decision and the Roberts nomination suggested no appearance of impropriety. Roberts had been assigned to hear the appeal back in December, and it was argued on April 7. Surely he had decided the case long before the administration first approached him about replacing Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who had announced her retirement on July 1. As it turns out, however, the timing was not so simple.

The nominee’s Aug. 2 answers to a Senate questionnaire reveal that Roberts had several interviews with administration officials contemporaneous with the progress of the Hamdan appeal. One occurred even before the appeal was argued. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales interviewed the judge on April 1. Back then, it was an ailing Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, not Justice O’Connor, who was expected to retire. The attorney general, of course, heads the Justice Department, which represents the defendants in Hamdan’s case. And as White House counsel, Gonzales had advised the president on the requirements of the Geneva Conventions, which were an issue in the case.

The April interview must have gone quite well because Roberts next enjoyed what can only be labeled callback heaven. On May 3, he met with Vice President Dick Cheney; Andrew H. Card Jr., the White House chief of staff; Karl Rove, Bush’s chief political strategist; Harriet Miers, the White House legal counsel; Gonzales; and I. Lewis Libby, the vice president’s chief of staff. On May 23, Miers interviewed Judge Roberts again.

Hamdan’s lawyer was completely in the dark about these interviews until Roberts revealed them to the Senate. (Full disclosure: Professor Luban is a faculty colleague of Hamdan’s principal lawyer.) Did administration officials or Roberts ask whether it was proper to conduct interviews for a possible Supreme Court nomination while the judge was adjudicating the government’s much-disputed claims of expansive presidential powers? Did they ask whether it was appropriate to do so without informing opposing counsel?

If they had asked, they would have discovered that the interviews violated federal law on the disqualification of judges. Federal law deems public trust in the courts so critical that it requires judges to step aside if their “impartiality might reasonably be questioned,” even if the judge is completely impartial as a matter of fact. As Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in a 1988 Supreme Court opinion, “the very purpose of [this law] is to promote confidence in the judiciary by avoiding even the appearance of impropriety whenever possible.” The requirement of an appearance of impartiality has been cited in situations like the one here, leading to the disqualification of a judge or the reversal of a verdict.

...

So, the problem in Hamdan is not that Roberts may have cast his vote to improve his chances of promotion. We believe he is a man of integrity who voted as he thought the law required. The problem is that if one side that very much wants to win a certain case can secretly approach the judge about a dream job while the case is still under active consideration, and especially if the judge shows interest in the job, the public’s trust in the judiciary (not to mention the opposing party’s) suffers because the public can never know how the approach may have affected the judge’s thinking.

The full article has much more, including an explanation of why the Hamdan case matters so much.

My irony meter is now irrevocably broken. Just think of it: the White House selects a nominee for the Supreme Court using a process that violated federal law—regarding the disqualification of judges.

Sweet.

[Still more about Roberts here.]

this post was collected (not written) by chuckago@yahoo.com

FROM DAILYKOS.COM

I haven't had much time to analyze the Camp Casey phenomena. I just read that I gave 250 interviews in less than a week's time. I believe it. I would go to bed with a raw throat every night. I got pretty tired of answering some questions, like: "What do you want to say to the President?" and "Do you really think he will meet with you?" However, since my mom has been sick I have had a chance to step back and ponder what I started in Crawford, Tx.

I just read an article posted today on LewRockwell.com by artist Robert Shetterly who painted my portrait. The article reminded me of something I said at the Veteran's for Peace Convention the night before I set out to Bush's ranch in my probable futile quest for the truth. This is what I said:

"I got an email the other day and it said, `Cindy if you didn't use so much profanity .... there's people on the fence that get offended.'

"And you know what I said? `You know what? You know what, god damn it? How in the world is anybody still sitting on that fence?'

"If you fall on the side that is pro-George and pro-war, you get your ass over to Iraq, and take the place of somebody who wants to come home. And if you fall on the side that is against this war and against George Bush, stand up and speak out."

This is what the Camp Casey miracle is all about. American citizens who oppose the war but never had a conduit for their disgust and dismay are dropping everything and traveling to Crawford to stand in solidarity with us who have made a commitment to sit outside of George's ranch for the duration of the miserable Texan August. If they can't come to Texas, they are attending vigils, writing letters to their elected officials and to their local newspapers; they are setting up Camp Casey branches in their hometowns; they are sending flowers, cards, letters, gifts, and donations here to us at Camp Casey. We are so grateful for all of the support, but I think pro-peace Americans are grateful for something to do, finally.

One thing I haven't noticed or become aware of though is an increased number of pro-war, pro-Bush people on the other side of the fence enlisting to go and fight George Bush's war for imperialism and insatiable greed. The pro-peace side has gotten off their apathetic butts to be warriors for peace and justice. Where are the pro-war people? Everyday at Camp Casey we have a couple of anti-peace people on the other side of the road holding up signs that remind me that "Freedom isn't Free" but I don't see them putting their money where their mouths are. I don't think they are willing to pay even a small down payment for freedom by sacrificing their own blood or the flesh of their children. I still challenge them to go to Iraq and let another soldier come home. Perhaps a soldier that is on his/her third tour of duty, or one that has been stop-lossed after serving his/her country nobly and selflessly, only to be held hostage in Iraq by power mad hypocrites who have a long history of avoiding putting their own skin in the game.

Contrary to what the main stream media thinks, I did not just fall off a pumpkin truck in Crawford, Tx. on that scorchingly hot day two weeks ago. I have been writing, speaking, testifying in front of Congressional committees, lobbying Congress, and doing interviews for over a year now. I have been pretty well known in the progressive, peace community and I had many, many supporters before I even left California. The people who supported me did so because they know that I uncompromisingly tell the truth about this war. I have stood up and said: "My son died for NOTHING, and George Bush and his evil cabal and their reckless policies killed him. My son was sent to fight in a war that had no basis in reality and was killed for it." I have never said "pretty please" or "thank you." I have never said anything wishy-washy like he uses "Patriotic Rhetoric." I say my son died for LIES. George Bush LIED to us and he knew he was LYING. The Downing Street Memos dated 23 July, 2002 prove that he knew that Saddam didn't have WMD's or any ties to Al Qaeda. I believe that George lied and he knew he was lying. He didn't use patriotic rhetoric. He lied and made us afraid of ghosts that weren't there. Now he is using patriotic rhetoric to keep the U.S. military presence in Iraq: Patriotic rhetoric that is based on greed and nothing else.

Now I am being vilified and dragged through the mud by the righties and so-called "fair and balanced" main stream media who are afraid of the truth and can't face someone who tells it by telling any truth of their own. Now they have to twist, distort, lie, and scrutinize anything I have ever said when they never scrutinize anything that George Bush said or is saying. Instead of asking George or Scotty McClellan if he will meet with me, why aren't they asking the questions they should have been asking all along: "Why are our young people fighting, dying, and killing in Iraq? What is this noble cause you are sending our young people to Iraq for? What do you hope to accomplish there? Why did you tell us there were WMD's and ties to Al Qaeda when you knew there weren't? Why did you lie to us? Why did you lie to the American people? Why did you lie to the world? Why are our nation's children still in harm's way and dying everyday when we all know you lied? Why do you continually say we have to `complete the mission' when you know damn well you have no idea what that mission is and you can change it at will like you change your cowboy shirts?"

Camp Casey has grown and prospered and survived all attacks and challenges because America is sick and tired of liars and hypocrites and we want the answers to the tough questions that I was the first to dare ask. THIS is George Bush's accountability moment and he is failing...miserably. George Bush and his advisers seriously "misunderestimated" me when they thought they could intimidate me into leaving before I had the answers, or before the end of August. I can take anything they throw at me, or Camp Casey. If it shortens the war by a minute or saves one life, it is worth it. I think they seriously "misunderestimated" all mothers. I wonder if any of them had authentic mother-child relationships and if they are surprised that there are so many mothers in this country who are bear-like when it comes to wanting the truth and who want to make meaning of their child's needless and seemingly meaningless deaths?

The Camp Casey movement will not die until we have a genuine accounting of the truth and until our troops are brought home. Get used to it George, we are not going away.

this post was collected (not written) by chuckago@yahoo.com

FROM AMERICABLOG.COM

White House Ignores 9-11 Group
by Michael in New York - 8/08/2005 06:44:00 PM

Bush hated the 9-11 Commission, argued against forming it in the first place, hated the idea of Homeland Security, fought against providing info to it every step of the way, fought against having any of his top officials testify, fought against having to testify himself and was too scared to testify without having Cheney sit next to him and hold his hand, and gave lip-service to its recommendations only because it was so popular. Really, why should Bush be interested in finding out how the worst intelligence failure in our nation's history happened on his watch in hopes of preventing it from happening again?

Now that the 9-11 group wants to do a follow-up, they have no official standing, so Bush can tell them to take a hike.

Thomas H. Kean, the former Republican governor of New Jersey who led the bipartisan Sept. 11 commission, said he was surprised and disappointed that the White House, the Pentagon, the State Department, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and several other executive branch agencies had failed to respond to requests made two months ago for updated information on the government's antiterrorism programs.

"It's very disappointing," Mr. Kean said of the administration's failure to cooperate with the group. "All we're trying to do is make the public safer."

Mr. Kean said there had been no response of any sort to interview requests for Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld; Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice; Porter J. Goss, the C.I.A. director; Robert S. Mueller III, the F.B.I. director, and Andrew H. Card Jr., the White House chief of staff, among others.

That's right. Bush can't even be bothered to say a polite "no." He's just closing his eyes and ears and pretending they don't even exist.

this post was collected (not written) by chuckago@yahoo.com

FROM DAILYKOS

Bush Threatens to Veto Attempts to Regulate, Investigate Abu Ghraib Torture

by Hunter

Fri Jul 22nd, 2005 at 19:51:23 PDT

OK. Seriously, I'm about done with this crap. Go read the last two posts, on the latest Bush attempts to block pictures and video of Abu Ghraib that document the rape of women and sodomy of children detained by U.S. forces.

Back now? Great. Now, courtesy Digby, read this Reuters article:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House on Thursday threatened to veto a massive Senate bill for $442 billion in next year's defense programs if it moves to regulate the Pentagon's treatment of detainees or sets up a commission to investigate operations at Guantanamo Bay prison and elsewhere.

The Bush administration, under fire for the indefinite detention of enemy combatants at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba and questions over whether its policies led to horrendous abuses at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, put lawmakers on notice it did not want them legislating on the matter. [...]

"If legislation is presented that would restrict the president's authority to protect Americans effectively from terrorist attack and bring terrorists to justice," the bill could be vetoed, the statement said.

Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain, who endured torture as a prisoner of war in Vietnam, said after meeting at the Capitol with Vice President Dick Cheney that he still intended to offer amendments next week "on the standard of treatment of prisoners."

South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, who was working on legislation defining the legal status of enemy combatants being held in Guantanamo, also said he would offer an amendment.

So on one hand, the Bush administration is frantically blocking the release of the photographic proof of the most horrific war crimes committed in U.S. military-run prisons.

On the other hand, the Bush administration is simultaneously threatening to veto any attempts by McCain, Graham or others to establish even rudimentary rules banning such torture -- or even investigating the torture already documented.

I think it's time to invent some new swearing, because there isn't anything currently in the language that fully encompasses the White House's unapologetic attempts to ensure the Bush administration's own crafted and approved "interrogation" policies be allowed to continue unhindered. Yes, according to the Bush administration, any attempts by Republican senators to legislate against, say, the sodomizing of detained children are unduly infringing on the president's fight against terrorists.

Truly, there is no sunken depth to which this White House does not feel comfortable indulging itself in.

this post was collected (not written) by chuckago@yahoo.com

FROM ATRIOS

People of Faith

My guess is that this is Spongedob Stickypants' kind of judge:

An Indianapolis father is appealing a Marion County judge's unusual order that prohibits him and his ex-wife from exposing their child to "non-mainstream religious beliefs and rituals."

The parents practice Wicca, a contemporary pagan religion that emphasizes a balance in nature and reverence for the earth.

Cale J. Bradford, chief judge of the Marion Superior Court, kept the unusual provision in the couple's divorce decree last year over their fierce objections, court records show. The order does not define a mainstream religion.

...

"There is a discrepancy between Ms. Jones and Mr. Jones' lifestyle and the belief system adhered to by the parochial school. . . . Ms. Jones and Mr. Jones display little insight into the confusion these divergent belief systems will have upon (the boy) as he ages," the bureau said in its report.

In case this isn't 100% clear, this isn't a dispute between the former couple, this is a dispute between the divorced couple and the judge. The parochial school their kid attends is Catholic, and apparently he's the first non-Catholic ever to do such a thing.

this post was collected (not written) by chuckago@yahoo.com

FROM FIRST-DRAFT.COM

How many American service men and women have given their lives for Chimpy's vanity war in Iraq? Lunaville counts 1,624 who have died in country. However, Soldiers For The Truth [UPDATE: original source here] (via Daily Kos) says the actual total is at least 7,834 when you consider this jaw-dropping statistic:

U.S. Military Personnel who died in German hospitals or en route to German hospitals have not previously been counted. They total about 6,210 as of 1 January, 2005.

UPDATE: Over at Kos Steve M did some clever spot-checking and found some soldiers who died in Germany listed in the Lunaville count. Does this mean that every soldier who died as a result of injuries sustained in Iraq is listed in that count? Of course not. It's not clear at all. What is clear is that we cannot trust the Bush assministration to tell us the truth about what is happening in Iraq. They lied before the invasion, they lied during the invasion, and have continued to lie in the aftermath of invasion. That alone is clear.

this post was collected (not written) by chuckago@yahoo.com

FROM DAVID SIROTA

ABC News: We're Not Interested in Covering the Iraq War

this post was collected (not written) by chuckago@yahoo.com