The Xsociate Files

Happy New Year

2008-01-01T07:13:00.001-05:00

Just wanted to let everyone know I'm still alive. Sorry for the absence. Anyone who knows me, knows that about the only thing that could pull me away from blogging is a girl. And lo and behold I met the most beautiful girl in the world on Christmas Day. Santa was good to me this year and I'm wondering what cosmos favor I must now repay. In any
event, wishing all a Happy New Year.

- X

Opening The Files: X-mas 2007

2007-12-25T04:00:00.001-05:00

I've never been one to celebrate Christmas but I certainly love the creativity that the season brings out in people. I've always found my muse to be a bit mischievous at times. And there is no lack of gifts I could write about as many Americans celebrate in the traditional way (the last minute, mad dash to the only Walmart still open in the tri-state area). I could make a crack about Rescue Rudy having a communication problem as he dissembles on the 9/11 radio ruckus. Or I could have a puntackular time with Bush's 2008 itinerary and how he'll be doing more spit shining in the last year of his presidency than a Marine boot camp cadet (no offense to said Marine cadet as his efforts will not be in vain). Or given the heavy emphasis on religion this campaign season, I could even get all deep and philosophical and discuss the intricacies of navigating a world of religion as someone not of a particular faith.

Nah! Bring on the snark. Happy Holidays everyone!

Bob Franken: Yule Fools

Watertiger: Wedged in the Chimney

Steve Young: A No-Spin Yuletide Blame

Moonbat: It’s a Blunderful Life

Libby Spencer: Christmas in Blogtopia

But we can't forget the serious.

Meteor Blades: Never Forget. Especially Today.

Jon Soltz: Helping The Wounded During the Season of Giving

(Filed at State of the Day and All Spin Zone)

Shootin' Thru The 'Tubes

2007-12-23T06:15:00.001-05:00

Twas the fortnight before Caucus and all through the land, much was stirring and Shootin' Thru The 'Tubes (Yea it doesn't rhyme, so sue me):

With barely two weeks to go before the Iowa caucus and Rescue Rudy tanking like a Brittney Spears' comeback tour, all eyes have turned to Mike Huckabee. Last week, Huckabee bashed the Bush administration's foreign policy as suffering from a "bunker mentality", which perhaps helped his poll numbers. But like all good little Repubs, he soon reserved course a bit to claim that prisoner treatment at Guantanamo Bay is "too nice".

Mitt Romney, however, embraced the Bush with much vigor. Such shouldn't have been any surprise since they seem to have some traits in common. For in seeking to defend his claim of seeing his father march with MLK, "No Lit Mitt" shows his grasp of the english language is about as tenuous as The Decider. Course what should be more worrisome is Mitt's equally messianic mentality.

John McCain has also been on the rise and was working doubly hard to suppress a rumor earlier this week. What it exactly was no one knows for certain but at least his learned his lessons from the '00 campaign.

Fred Thomspon...is he even still in this thing?

Tom Tancredo...nope.

(Filed at State of the Day and All Spin Zone)

Opening The Files: 12/20/07

2007-12-20T02:54:00.001-05:00

A Pernicious and Troubling Vigorous Sentiment

To no one's surprise, the New York Times reported this morning that the White House's involvement in the discussion of whether to destroy CIA interrogation tapes which may have depicted torture was far more extensive than previously revealed. Names now familiarly associated with the subject of torture -- Gonzales, Addington, Bellinger -- were all consulted. And while no one advocated directly for their destruction, there was what the Times called a "vigorous sentiment" that they be disposed of.

So how do the Bushies respond? Do they deny the claims of the report? Heaven's, no. As has become a hallmark of this administration, their defense comes down to an issue of semantics. Sure they were being evasive, the Bushies admit, but they weren't misleading anyone (save for of course anyone who'd take such a claim seriously).

While the Grey Lady ultimately caved to the White House's demands, this silly pushback was so laughable as to almost be undeserving of the usual derision.

But what I and many others do not find the least bit assuming is the fact that the Bush administration did not seek to deny the report. Talk about missing the forest fire for the burning trees. Then again, such should also not be surprising. Any administration that would countenance heinous -- and potentially illegal -- acts would certainly be more than willing to cover-up said acts. Maybe if the Bushies put more energies toward enacting sound policies as opposed to coming up with excuses to justify bad ones, they mightn't need to issue statements scolding the media for calling a spade a spade.

Their silence on that is perhaps the thing we should find far more "pernicious and troubling".

Christy wonders if it is just a coinkydink that a fire should break out at the White House at the same time we are learning their tenants were involved in possible destruction of evidence. Will Bunch on the other hand, delivers the snark.

The Heretik ponders who's the most vigorous of them all and comes up with only one answer.

(Filed at State of the Day and All Spin Zone)

In Which I Eat Humble Pie

2007-12-18T01:07:00.001-05:00

Most people don't like being wrong, but when it comes to my belief that the filibuster of the FISA bill debated before the Senate yesterday wouldn't matter, I'm gladly having a heaping helping of humble pie with my late night meal. Dodd's threat of a genuine, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington-style filibuster, succeeded in staving off the much expected cave.

While jubilation is warranted, the battle is not over. Even Dodd, who along with his fellow compatriots deserve praise for their efforts, recognizes this is only a temporary stay of execution. The bill has been tabled until after the first of the new year and by then the supposed deadline for passing some sort of bill will be even more immense and the Bushies will pull out all the stops to get their dictates enacted.

Now if you'll excuse me, I've got some pie to finish.

(Filed at State of the Day and All Spin Zone)

Why the Filibuster Won't Matter

2007-12-17T09:25:00.001-05:00

At some point this morning, the Senate will begin debate on a resolution to make permanent the provisions which passed as part of the Protect America Act last August. That egregious surrender to a lying, manipulative administration will no doubt be replicated today, despite the efforts of a patriotic few.

That is ultimately why as much as I wish the outcome of today's vote would be different this time, in my heart of hearts I know it won't. So long as we have the leaders in Congress that we do, nothing will change. No amount of lies will keep the Democrats from cowering in fear at the mere mention of Bush, a president who history will undoubtedly judge to be one of this country's worst.

All weekend, attention has been focused on who was endorsing whom as we reach the final stretch in the race to Iowa. And to me, it's probably for the best. Because the rat race to determine the next president will certainly have more influence than pleas to stand up for liberty. For only when there is someone in power who the right will not give undue deference to no matter how far astray they lead this country will the affronts to the Constitution and the American people begin to be corrected.

See also A.L. and Digby.

(Filed at State of the Day and All Spin Zone)

Holding Patterns

2007-12-15T06:55:00.001-05:00

A couple months ago when debate about the fate of FISA legislation passed in August was rekindled, Sen. Chris Dodd won high praise from the blogosphere for declaring his intent to not only place a hold on but if necessary filibuster any bill that sought to grant retroactive immunity to telecommunication companies that aided the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping program. Now it seems Dodd might have to make good on his promise now that Senate Majority Leadership Harry Reid has signaled that a FISA bill granting immunity will come up for a vote on Monday despite Dodd's hold.

Now Reid of course does not have to honor the hold but traditionally the practice is frowned upon as, along with the filibuster, it is a way of ensuring the minority party's views are expressed and considered. And given it is being issued by a fellow Democrat, one would think Reid wouldn't have been so willing to forgo tradition. Some might say that Reid is just doing what is necessary to unclog the bottleneck which has plagued the Congress for some time now but when you consider that not a peep has been mentioned about not honoring a similar hold placed on a bill banning waterboarding by Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, any claims that Reid just wishes to keep the debate rolling along just doesn't wash.

Anyone else think it might be time that Reid be applied the appropriate label?

See Glenn, Christy, and Libby on Reid and Digby has the last work on Huckleberry Graham.

(Filed at State of the Day and All Spin Zone)

Exercise in Futility

2007-12-14T03:44:00.001-05:00

I'm back to my one trick pony propensity again but given the serious of the subject matter -- the subjection to and potential cover up of the torture of US detainees -- I feel a bit of harping is warranted. But as with most things the Congress does these days, they just aren't thinking far enough ahead.

Yesterday, the House took the advice of a phalanx of retired Army and Navy officers to ignoring President Bush's threat to veto and passed by a ban on the practice of waterboarding.

The House approved legislation yesterday that would bar the CIA from using waterboarding and other harsh interrogation tactics, drawing an immediate veto threat from the White House and setting up another political showdown over what constitutes torture.

The measure, approved by a largely party-line vote of 222 to 199, would require U.S. intelligence agencies to follow Army rules adopted last year that explicitly forbid waterboarding. It also would require interrogators to adhere to a strict interpretation of the Geneva Conventions on the treatment of prisoners of war. The rules, required by Congress for all Defense Department personnel, also ban sexual humiliation, "mock" executions and the use of attack dogs, and prohibit the withholding of food and medical care.

The measure still must make it through the Senate, which given that some members have already signaled their willingness to downplay even the most heinous of practices, remains very much in doubt.

But even if it were to reach full passage, it would be -- as my post title suggests -- utterly meaningless. For you see the Congress has already affirmed such a ban. It was a little thing called the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005. And we all remember how long that "ban" lasted (hint: as long as it took the ink to dry on the "Only if I want to" note Bush attached to it).

So while we can applaud Congress for once again seeking to clear up the issue of just which practices are acceptable but we must realize that until we banish the Bogart, this latest affirmation won't matter one bit.

More from DHinMI and Carpetbagger.

Blog Thanks: Salon's Blog Report for linking to the ASZ of this post.

(Filed at State of the Day and All Spin Zone)

Opening The Files: 12/12/07

2007-12-12T23:34:00.001-05:00

You Can't Torquemada Anything

Sorry for the Mel Brooks pun but I felt that some levity was in order given the tortuousness of extracting even a modicum of information from the Bushies. The President still feigns ignorance of what some have taken to calling "Tapegate". This is despite the person he once deemed worthy of a spot on the Supreme Court being intimately involved in discussions with the CIA over the fate of the tapes. It would appear the Bush Bubble is now so opaque that it no longer permits light to penetrate, let alone reality.

There have been some rather inane defenses for why this issue isn't a big deal. And the depths to which the right will plunge in defense of torture shows there really is nothing that should ever be considered verboten.

Which is perhaps the biggest travesty in all of this. Because our leaders can no longer state unequivocally that we will treat our prisoners with a decency that the enemy may never show theirs, we've seceded any claim to being "better than that".

While the Bushies may not be able to come up with a clear instance in which torture "saved lives", Cenk Uygur reminds us of a clear instance in which it had the opposite effect.

Robert Scheer wonders if in destroying those tapes of harsh interrogations, we may have lost out on learning the truth behind the event that supposedly warranted the harshness in the first place.

Digby says that all the Bushies have succeeding in doing is blurring the moral clarity on an issue which requires a far more focused stance.

Scarecrow says it looks like the spooks at Langley aren't willing to be the fall guys anymore.

I'd have to agree with Micheal that Kit Bond really is the craziest Repub of the day for his claim that waterboarding is just the latest water sport craze. Is a name change in order?

Bob Cesca documents the righties attempt to downplay waterboarding as an "exercise in restraint" which isn't all that restrained after all.

(Filed at State of the Day and All Spin Zone)

Shootin' Thru The 'Tubes

2007-12-12T02:35:00.001-05:00

I'm starved for ideas so here's what's Shootin' Thru The 'Tubes:

It must be Huck season because everyone seems to be gunning for the former Gov, which isn't all that surprising given his rise in the polls of late. But what exactly does his rise mean? Is he truly the easy target candidate the Dems wish to run against, as he who rules our world alleges? Is he a flash in the pan or will he go the distance? Perhaps we may know when the media finally decides to pay more attention to a candidate's character and less to the cut of their trouser or perfectly coiffed, though not too expensive, hairdo.

Then again, maybe keeping us uninformed about what things that really matter is their way of keeping the populace depression free. Ignorance may be bliss but when it comes to voting on who will be the next leader of the free world, learning a thing or two about how they may govern goes along way.

If only we'd taken such to heart prior to the last couple of elections. With the myriad of scandals seeping from the Bush White House, it's nice to get a refresher course from time to time.

Speaking of which, looks like Christmas isn't coming early for Scooter Libby, as his gift from The Decider seems to have gotten lost in the mail. But hey, there's always next year.

(Filed at State of the Day and All Spin Zone)

Necessary Roughness

2007-12-11T03:06:00.001-05:00

The title of this post might suggest this is an homage to the Scott Bakula film of the same name (one of the few sports centric films I like). No the "necessary roughness" to which I speak of comes from a former CIA operative who claims that while practices such as waterboarding do constitute torture, it was nonetheless the right call given all the worthwhile information gleamed.

A leader of the CIA team that captured the first major al Qaeda figure, Abu Zubaydah, says subjecting him to waterboarding was torture but necessary.

In the first public comment by any CIA officer involved in handling high-value al Qaeda targets, John Kiriakou, now retired, said the technique broke Zubaydah in less than 35 seconds.

"The next day, he told his interrogator that Allah had visited him in his cell during the night and told him to cooperate," said Kiriakou in an interview to be broadcast tonight on ABC News' "World News With Charles Gibson" and "Nightline."

"From that day on, he answered every question," Kiriakou said. "The threat information he provided disrupted a number of attacks, maybe dozens of attacks."

Kiriakou says he struggled with the idea of which was more important: refusing to torture or learning valuable information in the hectic, post-9/11 scare. No doubt there are some who would view him as a Jack Bauer-esque figure, willing to do what was necessary to protect American lives. But as Kevin Drum reminds us just what we learned from Zubaydah via these tough love practices remains very much in doubt.

Kiriakou says he ultimately feels that waterboarding is torture and that as Americans "we're better than that". But that he would even allow that such may be necessary in some cases, he forfeits the seriousness of the claim. For when you open the gates, even seemingly out of necessity, you also risk moving into the "because we can" territory.

(Filed at State of the Day and All Spin Zone)

They Knew

2007-12-09T23:34:00.001-05:00

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing" - Edmund Burke

Yesterday everyone was up in arms over the destruction of interrogation tapes which may have depicted torture of US detainees. But turns out, some were a little less shocked than others since they'd been briefed on those same practices.

In September 2002, four members of Congress met in secret for a first look at a unique CIA program designed to wring vital information from reticent terrorism suspects in U.S. custody. For more than an hour, the bipartisan group, which included current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), was given a virtual tour of the CIA's overseas detention sites and the harsh techniques interrogators had devised to try to make their prisoners talk.

Among the techniques described, said two officials present, was waterboarding, a practice that years later would be condemned as torture by Democrats and some Republicans on Capitol Hill. But on that day, no objections were raised. Instead, at least two lawmakers in the room asked the CIA to push harder, two U.S. officials said.

This revelation is rightly causing outrage among many, despite protestations from the Democrats involved who claim their hands were tied due to secrecy clauses that prevented them from revealing what they had learned about the CIA program. While that excuse can only go so far, and indeed may not even be a valid one given the mechanisms available to Congress, the revelation is certainly likely to temper calls for investigation into CIA practices. And perhaps that was the reason this news was leaked in the first place.

In any event, we know one thing is for certain: The Democrats are now just as complicit as the Bushies.

(Filed at State of the Day and All Spin Zone)

Pantings the Opposition

2007-12-09T22:48:00.001-05:00

Back in July, I made note of an article in the Fashion section of the Washington Post that tittered about Hillary Clinton's neckline and started a controversy over her conniving cleavage. It was a childish attempt to be cute and I suppose it was inevitable given the gender make up of the current crop of presidential hopefuls, discussion would eventually work its way south. The same author now seems to suggest that Clinton's choice of pants over skirts is a way of compensating for lacking the one trait endemic to all the other candidates vying for the presidency.

Digby and Carpetbagger have more on the latest bit of frivolous fluff from the fashionistas at WaPo.

(Filed at State of the Day and All Spin Zone)

Torture, Lies and No Videotape

2007-12-09T00:58:00.001-05:00

Speculation is continuing apace in the blogs and media over what exactly was depicted on interrogation tapes destroyed by the CIA, with calls for investigations ringing out seemingly from every quarter. Some speculate the tapes would have shown how truly harsh our "harsh interrogation" practices were and that they were destroyed to prevent their use in possible criminal prosecutions. Others wonder if possible revelations of connections to prominent foreign allies were the reason the tapes were destroyed despite multiple warnings that they be retained.

The Bushies for their part have been all over the map with excuses. First they said it was in line with CIA practices, then they said they knew nothing about the tapes existence (as equally an incredulous claim as Bush not knowing the contains of the latest NIE on Iran), and now they've seem to have found themselves a scapegoat in the form of a former director of operations. But the idea that a senior CIA official would sanction a restroom break, let alone the destruction of evidence, without authority is so laughable as to be almost not worth putting forth. Then again, passing the laugh test has never been a hindrance to the Bushies before.

I know there are some who are jaded, assuming that once again we will be subjected to endless investigations and inquests that may reveal much but ultimately will result in zero consequences. But on this issue, one which not only has implications on our status in the eyes of the world but also on how Americans may be treated aboard, we really do need to learn just what has been done in our name.

(Filed at State of the Day and All Spin Zone)

A Law Unto Himself

2007-12-07T22:45:00.001-05:00

For a long time we've known that President Bush does not see himself bound by the law. He and his cohorts have suggested that he can order such actions as torture, indefinite detention, kidnapping and warrantless electronic surveillance of any person, even US citizens. But the one thing that was never truly discussed was the legal basis on which the Bushies determined the President had these authorities. Often it amounted to "because he's the President", a statement which was usually followed by the questioner's patriotism being called into question.

But now we learn just what legal opinions the Bushies based their arguments on. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, who sits on the Senate Intelligence Committee, took it upon himself to scour the Office of Legal Counsel and found that the office is rather superfluous since the Bushies have determined they do not need counsel, let alone consent.

Think Progress has Whitehouse's notes. According to the Bush administration:

1. An executive order cannot limit a President. There is no constitutional requirement for a President to issue a new executive order whenever he wishes to depart from the terms of a previous executive order. Rather than violate an executive order, the President has instead modified or waived it.

2. The President, exercising his constitutional authority under Article II, can determine whether an action is a lawful exercise of the President’s authority under Article II.

3. The Department of Justice is bound by the President’s legal determinations.

Now Bush apologists would most likely claim these usurpations to be a good thing, that we need a robust executive during war time to "cut through the bull" as it were.

To that I have only one question: What if it were Hillary?

More reactions via Meme.

(Filed at State of the Day and All Spin Zone)

The JFK Moment That Wasn't

2007-12-07T00:51:00.001-05:00

Well Mitt Romney finally gave was was long touted as his version of JFK's infamous speech addressing his own religiosity some 37 years ago. The consensus seems to be that not only did Romney fail to assuage many's concern over his Mormonism but he made some even more leery but for far different reasons than his religious dogmas. For unlike JFK's speech in which he made clear that his first responsibility would be to uphold the Constitution, Romney seemed bent on giving winks and nods to the evangelicals who were his true audience.

His long winded but ultimately uninspiring speech also showed how intolerant the man can be (as if that were already evident enough). As someone who does not practice a particular religion but nonetheless values freedom I'd have to agree that Romney's claim that "Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom" is deeply offensive. And his ignorance of the role that religion played to the founding fathers shows that despite his ability to pose, he really is no Jack Kennedy.

See also Walter Shapiro.

(Filed at State of the Day and All Spin Zone)

Olbermann on Chicken Little Presidency

2007-12-06T22:00:00.000-05:00

In perhaps his most scathing Special Comment to date, Keith lets loose at President Chicken Little who even after learning that the sky wasn't anywhere near falling, continued to coach his words to suggest just that. Bush may fancy himself a bald eagle of liberty but the only thing bald about his presidency have been the lies which he utters almost seemingly every time he opens his mouth.

Check out C&L for the video ~~until I can find a suitable YouTube to embed.~~

(Filed at State of the Day)

Rightie Regurgitation

2007-12-06T04:20:00.001-05:00

At least we finally know the real reason for why the Bushies were so keen to deem an audience of right wing bloggers with The Decider. Former White House Counsel Dan Bartlett dishes on why they just love them some winger blogs (via Drum):

I mean, talk about a direct IV into the vein of your support. It's a very efficient way to communicate. They regurgitate exactly and put up on their blogs what you said to them. It is something that we've cultivated and have really tried to put quite a bit of focus on.

"They regurgitate exactly and put up on their blogs what you said to them." Looks like I'm in for a trip to RadioShack since my snark-o-meter just exploded.

More meter explosions here.

(Filed at State of the Day and All Spin Zone)

Opening The Files: 12/05/07

2007-12-05T00:36:00.001-05:00

What did he know and when did he know it?

The more important question is: does it matter? In the case of President Bush, not a lick.

It's been a little over 24 hours since one of the most tail-spinningest revelations since the Brittney/K-Fed split. We learned that all the talk of Iranian nukes was all for naught. But never fear, even without the aid of his mistrusty brain, Bush could still spin the news to his advantage. For just like when it was revealed that there were no WMD's in Iraq, Bush and his supporters see the news of a similar absence of nukes in Iran as vindication that his manly approach to foreign policy was the right choice.

Get ready for some lawsuits, I have a feeling there's going to be a lot of filings resulting from all the sudden upper spinal displacements over this one.

The Decider gave a press conference this morning in which should forever warrant a new moniker: The Uninquisitor. For in claiming he was only fully briefed on the Iran NIE last week, Bush also admitted that he was told of "new information" some months ago. Given this "new information" covered what was one of the key issues he'd been harping on for well over a year, you'd think he would have at least been curious. Then again, according to Bush no one told him to tone it down either.

Apparently Bush is indeed out to set a new tone in Washington: Don't ask me, I just work here.

While Bush may be feeling "pretty spirited", Blue Texan documents the five stages of wingnut grief over the loss of the bomb Iran bombast. But Attaturk reminds us not all are giving up on "teh Crazy!"

Andy Borowitz reports on Iran being booted from a very prestigious club.

Steven D says with Bush it's all about the "knowledge". Or maybe it's the facts, at least as how Bush wants us to seem them.

And seems Bush isn't the only one who's incurious when it comes to Iranian intelligence. Mike Huckabee says he doesn't know a thing about it. Joe Biden would probably say that doesn't pass the smell test any more than Bush's Sgt. Schultz routine.

(Filed at State of the Day and All Spin Zone)

Iran NIE: Why Now?

2007-12-03T23:30:00.000-05:00

Two areas of debate have surfaced after the release of the latest intelligence estimate concluding that Iran has unlikely had an active nuclear weapons program since as far back as late 2003. The first question is why, after being told by the Bushies that no NIE would be released to the public, was it eventually revealed? Some speculated it was because of pushback from Congress but I think Fred Kaplan's hypothesis that the hardliners in the Cheney faction lost out this time is probably far more accurate given the legislature's recent penchant for believing whatever the Bushies choose to peddle.

And this leads us into the second area of discussion: why did the Bush administration continue to ratchet up the rhetoric on Iran even after the intelligence community concluded there was likely no 'there' there. The simplest answer is that the Bushies had no intention of releasing the NIE, at least in its current form. Most likely they were hoping to delay the findings until such time that a sufficient number of caveats could be added or deleted from the document so as to cast an ambiguous cloud over the reports findings. And as we've come to know with the Bush administration, ambiguousness is their modus operandi.

(Filed at State of the Day and All Spin Zone)

A Rug Pulled but Another Already Laid

2007-12-03T19:00:00.000-05:00

At least now we know why the Bushies were so hot to keep the latest intelligence estimate on Iran from the scrutinizing eyes of the public. Turns out it completely puts the kibosh on all that World War III rhetoric. Via The New York Times, who sadly know a thing or two about reporting on dubious claims of Middle Eastern nukes:

A new assessment by American intelligence agencies concludes that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 and that the program remains frozen, contradicting judgment two years ago that Tehran was working relentlessly toward building a nuclear bomb.

The conclusions of the new assessment are likely to reshape the final year of the Bush administration, which has made halting Iran’s nuclear program a cornerstone of its foreign policy.

The assessment, a National Intelligence Estimate that represents the consensus view of all 16 American spy agencies, states that Tehran is likely keeping its options open with respect to building a weapon, but that intelligence agencies “do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons.”

Now not to be a buzz kill or anything, while it is good news that the Iranians don't appear to be on the fast track to having a nuke anytime this decade, the Bushies have already done away with the threat of said nukes as a rationale for war. This estimate was ready well over a year ago and as Larisa reminds us, since then the rationale for war has shifted. So we can take this bit of news with a bitter grain of salt.

More reactions via Meme. See also Ray McGovern.

(Filed at State of the Day and All Spin Zone)

George, Hugo, and Vladimir

2007-12-03T07:30:00.000-05:00

Two votes. Two decidedly different outcomes.

Voters took to the polls overseas this weekend and the results are an illuminating look at how the US has handled its foreign policy. For in a country we ostensibly label an ally, democracy has taken even more of a backslide while in one constantly denounced as authoritarian, the voice of the people rang loud and rang true.

First up: Russia where President Vladimir Putin's party won a landslide sweep in the parliamentary elections. Speculation is already off and running that Putin will use this win to continue to remain in power past the end of his term early next year. What form that will take remains to be seen but it is a safe bet that like his soul eyed counterpart in the US, Putin will find someway to remain influential beyond his tenure.

But such an authoritarian move is getting very little attention as compared to that of the defeat of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez's referendum seeking more power. Unlike Putin, Chavez put the issue of whether he could stay past his current term to a vote and the people responded. Even more surprising is that Chavez, though chastised, vows to abide by the vote and even goes to far as claim it as proof that there is no dictatorship in his country.

So on the one hand we have a man who has been referred to as a Latin American version of Hitler praising a vote against him and on the other we have a man who seems bent subverting democracy to stay in power at all costs.

No wonder Bush sees eye to eye far more with the latter than he does with the former.

See also Cernig.

Blog Thanks: Salon's Blog Report for linking to the ASZ of this post.

(Filed at State of the Day and All Spin Zone)

A Hostage to Partisanship

2007-12-01T18:00:00.000-05:00

Yesterday the blogs were abuzz with news of the hostage situation unfolding at a Hillary Clinton campaign office in Rochester, New Hampshire. While giving new meaning to the phrase "battleground state", thankfully the drama ended as swiftly as it began. All the hostages were freed and the hostage taker, later determined to be a mentally unstable individual, was taken into custody.

But once the well wishes were issued, it didn't take long for the partisan rancor to set in amongst the right and it continues today. The typical jokes and jabs were elicited and some pundits were even trying to pick winners and losers in the crisis. Many are conspiratorially suggesting the event was possibly staged at worse or at best will be seized upon by the Hillary campaign to garner some form of pity vote. Michelle Malkin, who has in the past scolded lefty blogs for their impertinent commenters, was furiously deleting them from her site yesterday. At least she now understands how we on the left feel about and deal with such poor taste ramble rousers.

And this incident just highlights what is to come. Any situation or event even marginally connected to a Democrat will be picked over by the righties and the media with a fine tooth comb, where as genuine scandals like Rescue Rudy's taxpayer funded rendezvouses will be all but ignored.

I long for the day when basic decency will win out over politics. Sadly it seems that may never come true so long as there are those who will forever attempt to divide us.

See also fellow ASZer Steven Reynolds.

(Filed at State of the Day and All Spin Zone)

Do you GOPTube?

2007-11-29T13:30:00.000-05:00

After reading through some of the blog posts about last night's YouTube GOP debate the consensus seems to be the candidates did pretty awful. This was no doubt in part due to the types of questions CNN chose. While the network had already assured ahead of time there would be no "gotcha" style questions because Americans can't be trusted to pick good questions (as if CNN has any claim to fame in that area), outrage has nonetheless taken hold in Right Blogotopia. Not so much over the actual substance of the questions mind you. Most of them could care less about gays serving openly in the military or abortion unless, that is, it can be used as a wedge issue to divide Democrats. No what matters is always the messenger, in this case the supposedly ordinary Americans who were allowed to submit questions for the debate.

The righties have apparently taken to scouring the questions posed at last night shindig and finding that not all of the Tubers signed that loyalty oath that the Repubs are so fond of. Whether it was an openly gay ex-general asking about gays serving openly in the military being a Hillary supporter or an abortion questioner being an Edwards fan, righties are now saying this failure to disclose the political leanings of the Tubers is more evidence of liberal media bias. Some are even alleging that CNN specifically chose questions that would make conservatives look back.

Anyone else get the feeling they're just ashamed that out of so many questions submitted, so few could be included that didn't make the right look completely batshit crazy?

(Filed at State of the Day and All Spin Zone)

Opening The Files: 11/28/07

2007-11-28T03:30:00.000-05:00

Phoning It In

President Bush's brief appearance at a peace summit yesterday in Annapolis once again illustrates that not only should he be forever sequestered from attending any event with "peace" as the principal subject but also from giving any further speeches which may afford him more opportunities to mangle the name of a foreign head of state. For a president who has overseen some of the worst geopolitical upheaval in a generation to suddenly be spouting the need for two sides in a conflict he has thus far, and continues, to neglect is the height of irony.

Then again, even the Bushies weren't making this summit out to be anything other than the "mother of all photo-ops", one last attempt to spit shine a waning presidency so lacking in glorified successes that have yet to occur. And it does not say much when expectations have fallen so low that this latest bit of presidenting by proxy is deemed a success simply because more than just the janitors were in attendance.

Gordon brings us the illustrated version of Bush's Middle East peace process.

Eric says if we are going to focus on who RSVP this little shindig, perhaps we should consider the potential for actually accomplishing something.

AJ Rossmiller is glad that some narratives weren't allowed to stand uncontested. Some however...

And Maureen Dowd says that just like her exercise routines, Condi Rice's idea of diplomacy involves a lot of running but not getting anywhere.

(Filed at State of the Day and All Spin Zone)

Marriages of Convenience

2007-11-27T02:30:00.000-05:00

Now that the Bush administration has finally overseen that shotgun wedding they always wanted, perhaps now they can get to eliminating a new scourge threating our "relationship": cross dressing terrorists.

Soldiers manning a checkpoint near Baghdad stopped a wedding convoy to find that the purported bride and groom were wanted terror suspects, an Iraqi Defense Ministry official said Monday.

The Army set up the checkpoint last week in the Taji area, about 12 miles (20 kilometers) north of Baghdad.

The soldiers became suspicious of the convoy because its members -- save the "bride" -- were all male and because one of the cars in the convoy did not heed orders to stop, the official said.

Also, soldiers said, the people in the car seemed nervous and the groom refused to lift his bride's veil when soldiers asked him to, according to the official.

Soldiers ordered everyone out of the car, the official said.

Upon inspecting the convoy, soldiers found a stubbly-faced man, Haider al-Bahadli, decked out in a white bride's dress and veil.

Bahadli was wanted on terror-related charges, as was his groom, Abbas al-Dobbi, the official said.

And here I thought all those warnings from righties that the terrorists would come to this country and get gay married were just silly.

(Filed at State of the Day and All Spin Zone)

Can You Track Me Now?

2007-11-24T07:30:00.000-05:00

As someone who is pretty tech savvy, I'm well aware that any device like cellphones that are designed to connect to any sort of global network can in turn be used to track ones whereabouts. But your average Joe Q. Public might not understand or comprehend this. Further still, laws governing the use of such tracking technology are still very vague and ambiguous.

And it is this vagueness and ambiguousness that is allowing federal prosecutors far too much leeway in gaining access to this tracking information.

Federal officials are routinely asking courts to order cellphone companies to furnish real-time tracking data so they can pinpoint the whereabouts of drug traffickers, fugitives and other criminal suspects, according to judges and industry lawyers.

In some cases, judges have granted the requests without requiring the government to demonstrate that there is probable cause to believe that a crime is taking place or that the inquiry will yield evidence of a crime. Privacy advocates fear such a practice may expose average Americans to a new level of government scrutiny of their daily lives.

Realize that in some of these cases, requests for this data were granted simply on the basis that the individual to be tracked possessed a cellphone and therefore must be using it for criminal activity. It's an argument that amounts to saying that simply because someone possesses a means of communication, said communication may be used to track them. When such an argument is applied to the broader spying scandal, one can see the need why scrutiny of these activities is warranted.

So just remember this the next time you pick up that new Razor you get for Christmas: While you're reaching out and touching someone, the government could be reaching out and touching you back.

More from Meme.

(Filed at State of the Day and All Spin Zone)

Opening The Files: Not So Thankful Edition

2007-11-22T03:00:00.000-05:00

Thankin' the Obfuscatin'

Whew, for a while there it seemed like a loyal Bushie had gone off the reservation. Not to worry though since a stern warning of an invitation to go quail hunting with Dick soon straightened Scotty McC out. He now says he only thinks he was misled by his higher ups, not to suggest they did in fact lie to him. That he would still shill for them even after learning the truth just shows how much he values forthrightness, a trait he lacked in abundance when he was butting heads with the press.

Then again, maybe Scotty's just hoping he'll be one of the turkeys his former boss eventually bestows a pardon unto.

Christy has some unasked follow-ups.

John Dickerson says that this bit dog may have yelped a bit but its nothing we haven't heard before.

Joe Galloway bids good riddance to some of the unindicted co-conspirators who helped bring about things which were once unthinkable.

And Arianna reminds us of another time that Scooter tried to pass Scotty his Plame Blame cliff notes.

(Filed at State of the Day and All Spin Zone)

Stonewall Scotty Spills the Beans

2007-11-21T13:00:00.000-05:00

By now you've probably heard about the latest strapped for cash 'loyal Bushie' to give up some juicy details about the inner workings of the Bush White House. Perhaps the most surprising thing was who was doing the revealing: Scotty McClellan.

Scotty had a tough time as Bush's Press Secretary. The halcyon days of the post-Mission Accomplished fervor were beginning to fade and we were just starting to understand that we had been lied into a war. How he parried with the press corp regarding the CIA leak investigation was one of Scotty's most notable instances at obfuscation. While his favorite reply to any question about the case was "We won't comment on an ongoing investigation", he did offer up that both Karl Rove and Scooter Libby personally assured him that they were not involved in the leaking of Valerie Plame Wilson's identity. It was plainly false of course but turns out it went even further. Scotty, playing the fool, says Turdblossom and Scooter weren't the only ones involved.

The most powerful leader in the world had called upon me to speak on his behalf and help restore credibility he lost amid the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. So I stood at the White house briefing room podium in front of the glare of the klieg lights for the better part of two weeks and publicly exonerated two of the senior-most aides in the White House: Karl Rove and Scooter Libby.

"There was one problem. It was not true.

"I had unknowingly passed along false information. And five of the highest ranking officials in the administration "were involved in my doing so: Rove, Libby, the vice President, the President's chief of staff, and the president himself."

I know it's probably an exercise in wishful thinking but mightn't this revelation that the President of the United States was personally involved in the obstruction of justice warrant an inquest? Should we not be at least contemplating another round of Fitzmas?

Maybe if Scotty had mentioned something about interns and extramarital affairs, more than just those who value the rule of law would care.

More from Meme. See also Chris Dodd and Larry Johnson.

Update: The King of Obfuscation strikes again.

(Filed at State of the Day)

Files Shelved (Sort of)

2007-11-20T08:00:00.000-05:00

Due to interruption in my internet service and no idea when I will be able to get it restored, postings to The Xsociate Files will be even lighter than usual. I will still try to provide readers with the same acerbic wit I'm known for and I will still have access at work so thankfully I won't be in a complete blog blackout. And perhaps I should consider this break from the intertubes as a sort of an outrage overload reset. There are times its best to walk away and come back with a fresh mind.

X

Shootin' Thru The 'Tubes

2007-11-18T09:00:00.000-05:00

Relatively slow news weekend, but there some blurbs Shootin' Thru The 'Tubes:

I'll give Bush supporters (the few that remain outside of Laura and Barney) one thing: at least they haven't been passing off coinage with his visage as the save all of the economy ala Ron Paul supporters. Then again with the value of the dollar failing as fast as his approval ratings, if they did mint a coin of the realm with his likeness, even the preferred metal would likely be too expensive by then.

Remember what I said about journalists being the ones able to push a particular narrative? Case in point, a silly screed by columnist Robert Novak pushing rumors about rumors (not that I am implying the Douchebag of Liberty is in any way to be considered a "journalist"). Thankfully Team Obama lobbed the derisive molotovs in the right direction. Perhaps if Kerry had taken a similar track in '04 instead of waiting three years too late, we might have had a far different outcome.

And the media, ever mindful of their true patronage, are trying to muddy the waters of this election season's Swift Boating. Unfortunately for the revered target, these particular "veterans" come armed with something the last group lacked: the truth.

(Filed at State of the Day and All Spin Zone)

Pearls Before Swine

2007-11-17T03:30:00.000-05:00

For those who turn to debates such as the one held by the Democrats in Sin City on Thursday to learn more about the policies and positions of their perspective candidate of choice, doing so has become somewhat of an exercise in futility. Instead of a thoughtful and reasoned debate, more often we are treated to an endless series of “gotcha” questions designed to trip up the presumptive front-runner or media deemed pre-debate stand out. As of late that has been Hillary Clinton, who the consensus seems to be staged a well played come back from the last debate in which everyone including moderator Tim Russert piled on for the pillorying.

One tactic that referees like Russert like to employ is use of off-putting questions such as “What is your favorite Bible verse?” Knowing the answer to that will say little about how a particular candidate will govern yet is the often the answers to these precarious questions that become the focus of the media’s post debate analysis. That these events thus far have been principally moderated by news professionals whose stock and trade are these sorts of trumped of bugaboos makes the practice of the “gotcha” all the more apprehensible.

Now CNN is being called out on their latest attempt at cutesy. Seems a UNLV student who asked the final question of Sen. Clinton was prompted to ask it by CNN. Realize that is bit of ham-fisted canning comes less than a week after Clinton herself was being derided for prompting her own audience queries, albeit of a better nature than her taste in trinkets.

Just goes to show you: When you try to pass off a sow’s ear as silk one too many times, eventually someone’s going to notice the smell of bacon.

More via Meme.

(Filed at State of the Day and All Spin Zone)

Burning a Bridge Too Far

2007-11-15T01:30:00.000-05:00

How sad has our state of the union become that a comparatively mild protest during a game normally associated with little old ladies would turn into an international incident?

In the genteel world of bridge, disputes are usually handled quietly and rarely involve issues of national policy. But in a fight reminiscent of the brouhaha over an anti-Bush statement by Natalie Maines of the Dixie Chicks in 2003, a team of women who represented the United States at the world bridge championships in Shanghai last month is facing sanctions, including a yearlong ban from competition, for a spur-of-the-moment protest.

At issue is a crudely lettered sign, scribbled on the back of a menu, that was held up at an awards dinner and read, “We did not vote for Bush.”

By e-mail, angry bridge players have accused the women of “treason” and “sedition.”

I guess that would make the vast majority of Americans who didn't vote for Bush guilty as well. But part of me wonders if what has many, particularly the righties, so incensed by this was the reason for the improvised protest.

Ms. Greenberg [the US team's nonplaying captain] said she decided to put up the sign in response to questions from players from other countries about American interrogation techniques, the war in Iraq and other foreign policy issues.

“There was a lot of anti-Bush feeling, questioning of our Iraq policy and about torture,” Ms. Greenberg said. “I can’t tell you it was an overwhelming amount, but there were several specific comments, and there wasn’t the same warmth you usually feel at these events.”

Ms. Rosenberg said the team members intended the sign as a personal statement that demonstrated American values and noted that it was held up at the same time some team members were singing along to “The Star-Spangled Banner” and waving small American flags.

“Freedom to express dissent against our leaders has traditionally been a core American value,” she wrote by e-mail. “Unfortunately, the Bush brand of patriotism, where criticizing Bush means you are a traitor, seems to have penetrated a significant minority of U.S. bridge players.”

While it would be preferable that politics stay in the realm of politicians, the fact that the Bush administration has for so long sought to divide not only Americans but also the world at large into an "us vs. them" dynamic, it is not surprising the US team would seek to show some solidarity with their international colleagues. That they could be penalized for it makes this "ginned" up controversy all the more appalling.

(Filed at State of the Day and All Spin Zone)

Civility

2007-11-14T06:30:00.000-05:00

Perhaps New York Times columnist David Brooks should have held off on that slavish ode to Sen. John McCain who he says "still fights a daily battle against the soul-destroying forms of modern politics."

Via Greg Sargent:

We've just obtained some video of a Fox local affiliate reporting on a McCain campaign appearance in South Carolina. In it, one of McCain's supporters emphatically calls Hillary Clinton, McCain's fellow United States Senator, a "bitch."

McCain's response? According to the Fox affiliate's reporter, McCain "laughed off" the comment.

It never fails to amuse me when righties cry foul over foul language in political discourse when they and their supporters are among the worst offenders. That McCain did not immediately denounce the questioner perhaps shows just how serious he is in his "battle against the soul-destroying forms of modern politics".

And if we are going to get all bent out of shape over Hillary coaching her questioners, might not some intrepid soul be asking if the McCain campaign sought to plant a hate seed in with the hayseed to reap some valued red meat for the CDS sufferers among their constituency?

More from Meme.

(Filed at State of the Day and All Spin Zone)

Box Office Busts and Boffos

2007-11-13T06:30:00.000-05:00

The righties appear to be desperate for something to decry. So much so that they seem to have taken to tallying up box office receipts to determine America's patriotic mood. Thus they gloat that that because the new Robert Redford film "Lions for Lambs" bombed at the box office that Americans don't hate their country as much as liberal Hollywood would have us believe.

But there is another creature feature which is sure to have the righties giving raving mad reviews and that's the latest from director Tom Tancredo. While it's only playing is select battleground states right now, like most of the sort of cliched fare likely to be put out next summer in anticipation of November sweeps, the script for this latest bit of fictionalized terror just won't cut it with audiences anymore. Perhaps if the writers strike is ever resolved it will help breath some life into this stagnant sequel.

(Filed at State of the Day and All Spin Zone)

Shoo Fly, Don't Bother Condi

2007-11-12T03:00:00.000-05:00

Insect irks State Sec.

WASHINGTON (XF) - In what looked at the time to be a light-hearted annoyance on national television soon turned into a potentially life threatening incident. The Xsociate Files has learned that a fly which pestered Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice during an interview has been detained by Homeland Security on suspicion of links to terrorism.

According to security officials with knowledge of the incident, during a taping of This Week with George Stephanopoulos, a seemingly ordinary house fly continually interrupted Rice's interview to such a degree that the Secretary's personal security detail was brought in to subdue the errant insect. It escaped but was later apprehended while dinning on a sandwich belonging to a member of the ABC staff. The sandwich was also taken into custody.

This isn't the first time winged suspects have been apprehended. A bird which flung droppings on President Bush during an out door press conference was detained shortly thereafter. As with both incidents, the main concern was for the safety of White House officials.

"Secretary Rice's safety was paramount and that is why security was called in to intervene," said one of her aides on condition of anonymity, "I mean any preschooler can tell you what happened to the last lady that swallowed a fly."

(Filed at State of the Day and All Spin Zone)

Opening The Files: Veteran's Day 2007

2007-11-11T11:11:00.000-05:00

As with most anniversaries, it becomes exceedingly harder to write something profound year after year. I find it doubly hard to put down in words my thoughts on days like today. You see it is Veterans Day and while I feel compelled to say something on this solemn day, words fail me. But it is not surprising that I should find the effort difficult. Indeed what do you say to a man or a woman who has literally put their lives on the line time after time to defend you, your family, your livelihood. All the pageantry and ceremony in the world will never seem to be enough to thank this thankless lot of brave souls.

But there are some things we can do as a means of making amends for their sacrifice. We can ensure it is not done in vain. We can ensure they are afforded all the benefits that come with that highest of service to country. We can ensure there will not be those who seek to profit from their service. And most important of all, we can ensure their leaders will not take lightly the responsibility we bestow upon them and that they will be held accountable if they do fail.

John Nichols: 11th Hour, 11th Day, 11th Month

Fixer: Veterans Day

Jeff Huber: Breakfast of Veterans

The Mahablog: Armistice Day

Minstrel Boy: Veteran's Day 2007

RendRF: The Visual Veteran

Jonathan Powers: Honoring the Price of Freedom

Justin Hudnall: All Soldiers Fade Away

(Filed at State of the Day and All Spin Zone)

Shootin' Thru The 'Tubes

2007-11-11T05:00:00.000-05:00

Another lazy Sunday, so here's what's Shootin' Thru The 'Tubes:

It must be "Bring a Parent to Work" week as the Presidential and potential Presidential parents have been out in force defending their offspring. Bush Sr. just wants everyone to leave his poor boy alone (and go ahead and forget what he said before about Iraq). Meanwhile, fellow GOPer John McCain had his mom in tow during an interview but probably thought better of it the instant she opened her mouth to utter some Mormon malapropisms.

In addition to Paul Krugman, another must read columnist freed with the demise of the Times' dreaded firewall was Frank Rich, who with today's piece skewers the Bushies' Musharraf policies and the quite coup they've managed to conduct with the help of an abdicating and capitulating Congress.

And it's that time of year again boys and girls. Time to dust off those Holiday ornaments because it's open season on the War on Christmas season. As an added bonus, I hear the Feds, in an effort to thwart would-be holiday gift givers who adorn their presents with insufficient garland, will be rummaging through fruit cake buyer receipts.

(Filed at State of the Day and All Spin Zone)

Firsthand

2007-11-10T04:00:00.001-05:00

President Bush was asked during a recent interview for German television whether he thinks there is a point at which a military option will be the only one sufficient to deal with the Iranian imbroglio. Here is his response:

I would never say that. I would say that we would always try to try diplomacy first. In other words, I -- I've committed our troops into harm's way twice, and it's not a pleasant experience because I understand the consequences firsthand. And so I owe it to the American people to say that I've tried to solve this problem diplomatically.

Leaving aside the grammatical errors for a moment, the part that struck me was his claim that he understands the consequences of being in harm's way "firsthand". Sorry to get all nutty and foulmouth on you but that is a load of shit.

No Mr. Bush, you do not know the consequences firsthand. Someone who has never faced combat can never know firsthand. Someone who has never had to watch their fellow soldiers be struck down by a sniper's bullet or blown to bits by an roadside bomb can ever know firsthand. Someone who has never had to take the life of another human being will never know firsthand (and no, video games do no count).

Now you might like to think you know the consequences because of all those staged visits for photo-ops with wounded soldiers. But does seeing them ever make you think twice about your decision? Does it ever sacrifice your piece of mind?

And don't even begin to suggest you know the consequences of war more than the average Iraqi. While you might think you know what they should be thankful for, they know far better the consequences of your war.

Face it Mr. President. As much as you like to think you know firsthand, you don't. Your arrogance, stubbornness and narcissism blind you to the consequences and they always will. Sadly, these are qualities we've all come to learn about you firsthand.

(Filed at State of the Day and All Spin Zone)

The Righteous Recreancy of Resuce Rudy

2007-11-09T07:00:00.000-05:00

Sorry to have been off the grid lately but I've been transitioning to a new job and it has left me precious little time to keep up with the news (or sleep for that matter). I did, however, happen to catch some bits of Rescue Rudy's latest follies and foibles.

By now you're aware that Rudy received a much needed endorsement from religious right leader Pat Robertson the other day. The endorsement is unlikely affect the campaign much and may in fact be a liability since as it will only better juxtapose with Rudy's rather less than conservative past. That he does not see that nor the fraudulent irony of accepting the endorsement goes to show what poor judgment Rudy has.

Other examples are his choice of associates, such as with former police commissioner turned indictee Bernard Kerik. Rudy defends himself by saying it was a poor choice.

And since he is bringing up the issue of having made so many decisions as Mayor of New York (when he wasn't part timing all those other roles), mightn't now be a good time for the media to start questioning his judgment?

See also Josh Marshall.

Update: Meme has more.

Blog Thanks: Joe Gandelman has a great roundup on the Kerik indictment and gives yours truly the last word.

(Filed at State of the Day and All Spin Zone)

Countering a Tortured Argument Revisited

2007-11-07T05:00:00.000-05:00

Now that Attorney General nominee Micheal Mukasey has sailed through a Senate Judiciary Committee vote, a full Senate vote on his nomination could come as soon as this week where it is expected he will be approved. One hopes that my argument against those who countenance torture will be part of the floor debate but there is also another argument for why torture is not only morally wrong but also dangerous for our foreign policy: false confessions.

Few but the most meticulous of wonks will recall the story of Ibn al Sheikh al Libi, an Al-Qaeda operative whose allegations of a link between the terrorist organization and the government of Saddam Hussein were eventually used to justify the ouster of the Iraqi regime. That he later recanted his story was of little consequence since the damage had already been done and the US was deeply entrenched in a war which rages to this day.

ABC's The Blotter now reports that al Libi, who has since mysteriously disappeared, was subjected to harsh treatment at the hands of the Egyptian government, seemingly for no other reason than to elicit the "right" confession.

In one such six-foot-by-10-foot cell in February 2004, equipped with a low mattress and a bucket as a toilet, sat a man in shackles named Ibn al Sheikh al Libi, the former al Qaeda camp commander described by former CIA director George Tenet in his autobiography last year as "the highest ranking al-Qa'ida member in U.S. custody" just after 9/11.

In this secret facility known to prisoners as "The Hangar" and believed to be at Bagram Air Base north of Kabul, al Libi told fellow "ghost prisoners," one recalled to me for a PBS "Frontline" to be broadcast tonight, an incredible story of his treatment over the previous two years: of how questioned at first by Americans, by the FBI and then CIA, of how he was threatened with torture. And then how he was rendered to a jail cell in Egypt where the threats became a reality.

In his book, officially cleared for publication, Tenet confirms how the CIA outsourced al Libi's interrogation. He said he was sent to a third country (inadvertently named in another part of the book as Egypt) for "further debriefing."

The Bush administration has said that terrorists are trained to invent tales of torture.

Of course tales of torture weren't the only tales al Libi was "trained" in invent. The CIA believed al Libi's claims this time and wrote a series of cables to CIA headquarters documenting some of his treatment.

Under torture after his rendition to Egypt, al Libi had provided a confession of how Saddam Hussein had been training al Qaeda in chemical weapons. This evidence was used by Colin Powell at the United Nations a year earlier (February 2003) to justify the war in Iraq. ("I can trace the story of a senior terrorist operative telling how Iraq provided training in these [chemical and biological] weapons to al Qaeda," Powell said. "Fortunately, this operative is now detained, and he has told his story.")

But now, hearing how the information was obtained, the CIA was soon to retract all this intelligence. A Feb. 5 cable records that al Libi was told by a "foreign government service" (Egypt) that: "the next topic was al-Qa'ida's connections with Iraq...This was a subject about which he said he knew nothing and had difficulty even coming up with a story."

Al Libi indicated that his interrogators did not like his responses and then "placed him in a small box approximately 50cm X 50cm [20 inches x 20 inches]." He claimed he was held in the box for approximately 17 hours. When he was let out of the box, al Libi claims that he was given a last opportunity to "tell the truth." When al Libi did not satisfy the interrogator, al Libi claimed that "he was knocked over with an arm thrust across his chest and he fell on his back." Al Libi told CIA debriefers that he then "was punched for 15 minutes." (Sourced to CIA cable, Feb. 5, 2004).

Here was a cable then that informed Washington that one of the key pieces of evidence for the Iraq war -- the al Qaeda/Iraq link -- was not only false but extracted by effectively burying a prisoner alive.

Sadly the cables languished in the back pages of a Senate Intelligence committee report. Which isn't surprising since events at Abu Ghraib would soon come to dominant the news and were by far the clearest example of how the US treated its detainees.

But what happened to al Libi makes the debate on Mukasey all the more important. The Bush administration used a false confession to drive the US into the last war. By confirming Muskasey, the Congress would be ensuring the Bushies could do so again for the next one.

Blog Thanks: Salon's Blog Report for linking to the SotD of this post.

(Filed at State of the Day and All Spin Zone)

Olbermann on Torture

2007-11-06T02:30:00.000-05:00

In a Special Comment that should be read on the floor of the Senate as they vote tomorrow on whether to confirm Micheal Muskasey as Attorney General, Keith Olbermann practically seethes with contempt for the Bush administration. He tells of former acting assistant attorney general Daniel Levin, a man for whom should be commended for his willingness to do something so few in this administration have: put themselves on the line to determine the truth. Instead, Levin received a pink slip for the simple act of refusing to cover the ass of this President and his toadies. That even the counter argument matters naught to this group of individuals shows that their reign of error is best ended sooner rather than later.

C&L has the vid, ~~YouTube to follow when I'm out from behind the workplace firewall.~~ As they say, a must view.

See also Will Bunch.

(Filed at State of the Day)

Opening The Files: 11/05/07

2007-11-05T05:00:00.000-05:00

George and Pervez: Peas in a Pak

Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf continues his crackdown, rounding up more of the opposition. And it would seem my prediction that it might be awkward for the Bushies to continue to support Pervez was a bit off. Turns out that "nightmare scenario" was just a pipe dream since they apparently aren't feeling awkward at all. In fact some are giddy over the developments. And the Pentagon certainly isn't willing to disrupt business as usual over little things like human rights abuses, political imprisonment and military coups.

Such a half-hearted response almost makes one wonder if President Bush is casting a knowing wink and a nod towards his fellow Decider-in-chief.

Josh Marshall wondered how Pakistan's "mixed government" works. Good question given it's even less mixed than before.

Andy Borowitz reports that Bush has given Pervez some pointers.

Paula Newberg tallies up the score to find the rule of law down but hopefully not out.

The Heretik teaches us about high steps and goosesteps. Or something.

And Barnett Rubin, blogging from Islamabad, says that Pervez has taken on Bush's penchant for combating an overzealous judiciary.

(Filed at State of the Day and All Spin Zone)

Kooky

2007-11-04T12:30:00.000-05:00

Musharraf Leaves White House in Lurch.

Unconfirmed whether Cheney is Uncle Fester.

(Filed at State of the Day)

Percolating Problems

2007-11-04T03:00:00.000-05:00

Like many who choose to write about current events, one has to pick their battles wisely. There are only so many hours in the day after all. As such, much of my attention of late has been focused on documenting the inanities of the right wingers. A full time job in and of itself, it has sadly left little time to focus on foreign developments.

On that front there is a mix bag. Iraq may be seeing a noticeable turn for the better. If we have indeed "won" in Iraq, I would be among the first to gladly gobble a heaping helping of humble pie but as some note we are merely at the same level of violence that necessitated the surge to begin with.

Developments in Pakistan are even more distressing as President Pervez Musharraf, has declared a state of emergency, suspending the constitution and rounding up members of the opposition. The action does not bode well for US-Pakistani relations because it puts the Bushies in the awkward position of backing an ally in the war on terror who is now seen as suppressing institutions of democracy, a goal we are ostensibly trying to attain in Iraq.

But this has always been one consequence of how the US has handled its Mid-East foreign policy. For decades we have played one group against another, first with the Afghan fighters against the Soviets and now Pakistan is battling some of those same Muslim extremists we help cultivate. In a sense, we must rely on a new ally to confront an old one.

And when one is forced to rely on such a dynamic, one must occasionally be forced to confront the consequences when the new ally inevitably has to crack the whip.

More via Meme.

(Filed at State of the Day and All Spin Zone)

Countering a Tortured Argument

2007-11-03T05:00:00.000-05:00

With word that Sens. Diane Feinstein and Chuck Schumer have voiced their intention to back Attorney General nominee Michael Mukasey, his installment as head of the Justice Department is all but assured, barring some heretofore unheard of spinal stiffening by the remainder of the Dems in Congress. Thus far, the sticking point for those opposed to his nomination has been because of his hedging on the issue of whether or not waterboarding constitutes torture.

Here is the only question that need be asked of Mukasey (or anyone else) who refuses to affirm that waterboarding is indeed at form of torture:

If a member of our Armed Services, intelligence agencies or any American for that matter were ever subject to a procedure like waterboarding, would you consider the perpetrators to have committed war crimes?

I've used a similar argument before, but given that we are still at the point where torture is somehow considered a debatable subject, it bears repeating. And this argument works because of the "tortured logic" of it, as it were. Should the answer be yes, a follow up question could then be, "Why is it okay when the US does it?" If the answer is no, then one could ask, "Is it okay for any country to waterboard, say, a captured US soldier?" Of course the answer would be: "Absolutely not", which merely brings us back to the earlier point.

No doubt some will try to argue that it doesn't matter how we treat our detainees, because terrorists do not abide by the rules of war. While this is true, a good many countries, even ones we've ostensibly deemed "the enemy" do. And we may not always find ourselves in future conflicts solely with non-state terrorists. Indeed, a war with Iran seems to loom menacingly on the horizon even as I write this. How would we feel if the Iranians were to subject a captured U.S. pilot to some of the treatment we have inflicted on our own detainees?

There's an old saying which recommends treating others in the manner that you'd like to be treated. In the case of torture, that saying is paramount to countering the pro-torture argument.

(Filed at State of the Day and All Spin Zone)

A Prophetic Petulant Presser?

2007-11-02T07:00:00.000-05:00

Everyone was talking about President Bush's speech yesterday at the Heritage Foundation. And indeed petulant doesn't begin to describe President McPissyPants rant. I am starting to wondering if Dennis Kucinich may have been right to question Bush's faculties. With a mere 15 months left before he has to shuffle off back to Crawford or a Rancho in Paraguay, the guy has completely lost all touch with reality and it's showing in spades. He was at his fearmongering best, with references to tried and tested bogeyman like Bin Laden, Nazis and Communism. He scolded Congress for listening too much to the MoveOn's and Code Pink's of the world and less to the neocon warmongers who frequent the halls of the White House. He says they are falling down on the job in not confirming without question his tortured Attorney General nominee nor in doling out the cash to keep his war on.

The guy is grasping for relevancy. Right now that has mostly taken the form of vetoing everything under the sun. But as his poll numbers continue to dip and his sycophants continue to desert him, I fear that he may do something irrational. You know like start a war for no good reason just so he can relive one last time those halcyon days when no one questioned him and he was riding high on a wave of uber-patriotism and nationalism.

I know the cornered animal metaphor has become rather cliched at this point. But it really does feel as if he's looking for the opportune time to move away from take nips at his opponents and inflict a far more fatal wound.

See also Cernig, Larisa, and Booman.

(Filed at State of the Day and All Spin Zone)

The Not So Quite Generation

2007-11-01T08:00:00.000-05:00

A few weeks ago, Daily Kos diarist Georgia10 took to task NY Times columnist Thomas Friedman for his disdain of what he referred to as the Quite Generation. He lamented the seeming lack of any sort of meaningful protest from this generation's young voters. Georgia rightly pointed out that there are indeed those whose priorities far exceed merely waiting for the next XBox release or iPhone variant.

Nickelodeon had a program on the other day in which they document just some of those of that younger generation who Friedman says doesn't exist. Many of them aren't even old enough to vote, yet they are doing far more to further their various causes then many of Friedman's generation ever do. And for that, the righties are up in arms. They claim that Nickelodeon is "indoctrinating" children. That they are undermining American values. Yes for shame on Nickelodeon for undermining such American values as war, torture, and child labor.

The righties of course would rather children stay stupid, ignorant and watch some Spongebob (on second thought, forget Spongebob. He'll just indoctrinate them into the gay agenda). But if those depicted in that Nickelodeon program are any indication of our future, it looks far brighter than the one the righties would have them inherit.

Update: More from Libby.

(Filed at State of the Day and All Spin Zone)

There is a God

2007-11-01T07:00:00.000-05:00

Many of you are no doubt familiar with the exploits of Fred Phelps. He's the Kansas pastor made famous for his congregation's protesting at funerals for soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. What singled out the Phelps troop was how they chose to protest, carrying signs reading such things as "God Hates Gays" and "Thank God For Dead Soldiers". For you see Phelps and his band of homophobes (mostly his extended family) see the deaths of these soldiers as God's punishment for America's tolerance of homosexuality.

Now I'm not an overly religious person. If fact I'd probably describe myself as pretty agnostic about the subject. But this might make me think twice about the presence of heavenly deity.

A Baltimore federal jury awarded nearly $11 million Wednesday to the father of a Marine killed in Iraq, deciding that the family's privacy had been invaded by a Kansas church whose members waved anti-gay signs at the funeral.

It was the first-ever verdict against Westboro Baptist Church, a fundamentalist Christian group based in Topeka that has protested military funerals across the country with placards bearing shock-value messages such as "Thank God for dead soldiers."

They contend that the deaths are punishment for America's tolerance of homosexuality and of gays in the military.

Relatives of Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder wept and hugged at the jury's announcement, which came a day after closing arguments in the civil trial in federal district court.

"Now I know it's going to be harder for them to do it to anyone else," said Albert Snyder, who mourned at his son's funeral in March 2006 while seven Westboro members waved signs nearby.

The jury originally award the Snyder's $2.9 million dollars, a sum which was nearly triple the net worth of the Phelps clan's estate. Combine this verdict with laws being passed in many states barring any sort of protests at military funerals and we may be seeing the end of such shameful behavior. And Fred Phelps will likely be carrying signs of a different nature soon.

(Filed at State of the Day and All Spin Zone)

Opening The Files: 10/31/07

2007-10-31T07:00:00.000-05:00

The Not So Thrilla in Phila.

The Democrats held a debate last night in Philadelphia, yet another in the seemingly endless pre-pre-season horse race. For some live blogging of the main event check in with native Philadelphian Will Bunch, with more observations at Josh's and Kevin's.

Pretty much all day yesterday, the inside the Beltway media was breathless with speculation about whether Barack Obama would begin to poke some sharpened elbows at his front runner rival Hillary Clinton. But aside from a few jabs at her wishy washy record and a dated Rocky reference, the Thrilla from Illa(nois) failed to land any knock out blows.

That is not to say that Clinton wasn't the proverbial punching bag in the debate. She took a bruising for her waffling on driver licenses for illegal immigrants. Was pelted for her votes on Iraq and Iran. But despite the barrage, I have a feeling that Hilla will come through this, especially considering that the GOPers seem to have already singled her out as the opponent to beat. And really, as harsh as some of the things said about Clinton were last night, they are nothing compared to what has been and no doubt will be said about her by the Repubs.

Some other notable moments: Joe Biden got the biggest applause for a dig at Rescue Rudy for his limited vocabulary. Dennis Kucinich once again made calls for impeachment but because he also claims to have seen a UFO, that means no one should take him seriously. At least MSNBC had the good sense to forgo any overly long cutaway shots of Mrs. Kucinich.

Hunter lists reasons to be freaking sick of pre-primary season.

Michael Roston says that some of the digs at Hillary seemed more befitting of a Three Stooges routine.

Booman tells us some of the new things he learned.

And Walter Shapiro says that some of the dueling Dems appear to have sharpened their rapiers and are looking to draw some primary colors out of Hillary.

(Filed at State of the Day and All Spin Zone)

Phony Patrol

2007-10-29T07:15:00.000-05:00

Over the weekend, The Washington Post interviewed an Army unit on the last leg of a fifteen month deployment in Iraq. That it was the same unit from which a soldier whose less than truthful New Republic diaries caused a weeks long jihad by the righties was from was no doubt coincidental. Their similarly dejected outlook of the situation is sure to cause another bout any day now of what I will henceforth refer to as "shitizen journaljism".

But at least that unit, who feel that they have only assisted in what one called "a slow, somewhat government-supported sectarian cleansing" actually patrolled their little area of Surgeland, unlike some.

Iraq war veterans now stationed at a base here in upstate New York say that morale among US soldiers in the country is so poor, many are simply parking their Humvees and pretending to be on patrol, a practice dubbed "search and avoid" missions.

Phil Aliff is an active duty soldier with the 10th Mountain Division stationed at Fort Drum. He served nearly one year in Iraq from August 2005 to July 2006, in the areas of Abu Ghraib and Fallujah, both west of Baghdad...

Aliff said he participated in roughly 300 patrols. "We were hit by so many roadside bombs we became incredibly demoralized, so we decided the only way we wouldn't be blown up was to avoid driving around all the time."

"So we would go find an open field and park, and call our base every hour to tell them we were searching for weapons caches in the fields and doing weapons patrols and everything was going fine," he said, adding, "All our enlisted people became very disenchanted with our chain of command."

Looks like more phony soldiers to sacrifice on the pyre of pony pursuance. Only then will we be able to make real progress.

(Filed at State of the Day and All Spin Zone)

Fear Itself

2007-10-29T05:30:00.000-05:00

As is usual with the vaunted NY Times columnist, Paul Krugman's latest is a must read. The lede alone is enough to whet one's outrage appetite.

In America’s darkest hour, Franklin Delano Roosevelt urged the nation not to succumb to “nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror.” But that was then.

Today, many of the men who hope to be the next president — including all of the candidates with a significant chance of receiving the Republican nomination — have made unreasoning, unjustified terror the centerpiece of their campaigns.

Krugman also points out that despite all the need for Islamofascism "awareness", few are aware that there is nothing to be aware of.

For one thing, there isn’t actually any such thing as Islamofascism — it’s not an ideology; it’s a figment of the neocon imagination. The term came into vogue only because it was a way for Iraq hawks to gloss over the awkward transition from pursuing Osama bin Laden, who attacked America, to Saddam Hussein, who didn’t. And Iran had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11 — in fact, the Iranian regime was quite helpful to the United States when it went after Al Qaeda and its Taliban allies in Afghanistan.

This tactic of constantly creating enemies were none existed to further a preconceived agenda has of course been one of the defining attributes of the Bush administration. That so many in the GOP field seem willing to keep that tradition going is just another sign of how worse things can still become.

Blog Thanks: Salon's Blog Report and The Heretik for linking to the ASZ of this post.

(Filed at State of the Day and All Spin Zone)

Of Head Scarves and Head Cases

2007-10-27T08:00:00.000-05:00

Back in April, newly-minted Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi drew the ire of the White House and denizens of Right Blogtopia when she dared make a visit to Syria to meeting with their leaders. Much of the condemnation was directed at her temerity to meet with those they deemed "the enemy" but a few chose to focus on her choice of attire. For you see like previous female representatives of the US visiting predominantly Muslim countries, Pelosi chose to wear a veil in the style of the traditional Muslim "hijab" or headscarf as a way to honor their customs. Righties were outraged that not only was she kowtowing to their leaders by meeting with them but she also confirmed the continued subjugation of women under Islam. It was a silly issue to bring to the discussion but then again these are the same folks who went into fits over lack of sufficient lapel flare.

But I'll give them one thing, at least they've learned to be consistent. They've now directed their Islamo-fashion sense at First Lady Laura Bush who also donned the veil of surrender on a recent trip to the Middle East. Among other things, claims that the First Lady was a "butt kisser" were lobbed about with ever increasing veracity.

Of course, when it comes to kissing up, some cheeks are more equal than others.

(Filed at State of the Day and All Spin Zone)

Opening The Files: 10/26/07

2007-10-26T07:35:00.000-05:00

Setting the World Ablaze

Apologies again for being delinquent in my blogging duties but I have been inundated with all sorts of trials and troubles, resulting in a delay in this week's OTF. I have been trying to catch up on all the news and views, much of it devoted to the goings on in Southern California. It is not at all surprising given the human interest angle of the disaster but there are others fires threatening the illuminate the horizon as well.

The embers of war with Iran have smoldered for some time, flaring up and subsiding at irregular intervals. Last week, the Bushies began the last effort to fan the flames once more. President Bush's off-hand remark about preventing Iran from starting "World War III" perturbed many. Equal distressing was Vice President Cheney's follow-up, invoking language eerily similar to that in the run-up to the war in Iraq. Now if only Cheney can stay awake long enough to watch his handiwork.

For this week saw them up the ante, not only officially designating a part of Iran's military as a terrorist organization but also imposing some of the harshest unilateral sanctions against their government. And despite protestations from the Bush administration that these sanctions are in no way meant to force a military confrontation, few remain convinced. Bush's ever increasing trips to the Congressional ATM and hidden budget requests have some worried we may soon be looking at a conflagration that can not be extinguished.

But hey, just as we can't let those young whippersnappers in Iraq beat us, we certainly can't let all those Islamofascists in Iran do it.

The estimated costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have now been pegged at over two trillion dollars. That's trillion with a T. But the Bushies aren't worried about the numbers. Perhaps they're more interested in the dividends.

Arianna says its time for the Dems to play hardball.

Maureen Dowd says the there is no method to Cheney's madness. Rosa Brooks, meanwhile, posits another route to rout the "crazies" in the White House.

The Washington Post reports that bombing Iran would send oil prices skyrocketing (as if they aren't already breaking records). Kevin Drum says they obviously didn't get that memo about how great bombing Iran would be.

(Filed at State of the Day and All Spin Zone)

MOPping Up

2007-10-25T11:30:00.000-05:00

Back in September, the supposedly accidental transport via B-52 bomber of missiles tipped with nuclear warheads across the US cause quite a stir. That the ordnances landed at an airbase used for sorties in the Middle East only fueled further speculation that the weapons may have been meant for an attack on Iran. The story soon died away.

But hearing about how the Bush administration has requested funds to modify some B-2 stealth bombers to carry bunker busting bombs, I can't help but wonder if we might be in for another "accidental" nuke trip.

More from Meme.

(Filed at State of the Day and All Spin Zone)

We Didn't Start the Fire

2007-10-25T09:30:00.000-05:00

Note: Sorry I've been off the grid the last couple of days but my computer was fried during a power outage. Thankfully I've managed to salvage all the files from my hard drive.

Salvaging Fox News' reputation, such as it is, as a "news" organization will be a far more difficult endeavor.

As one would expect, the wildfires in California have been the top news story for most of the week. Speculation has run rampant about the cause of the blazes, with reports of possible arsonists having been apprehended adding fuel the flames (no pun intended).

But the flame throwers at Fox News added their own bit of fearmongering accelerant when on yesterday's Fox & Friends broadcast, they discussed an FBI memo stating interest of the Al-Qaeda terrorist organization in setting these sorts of massively destructive wild fires like those playing out in California. They cited an article about the memo as having been revealed this past week. Turns out the article in question is from 2003 and the particulars of the supposed plot were filled with so many discrepancies that the FBI didn't even feel the need to follow up on the claims. Of course that never stopped Fox when their was fearmongering to foment.

(Filed at State of the Day and All Spin Zone)

Wildfires

2007-10-23T01:00:00.000-05:00

Southern California is in the grip of crisis. Wildfires have ravaged hundreds of acres of land, leaving hundreds of homes burnt to the ground. Thousands have been forced to evacuate in the onslaught of what could become the worse wildfires in the state's history. Thankfully thus far the loss of life has been minimal. This is no doubt due in no small part to the outpouring of aid. Hundreds of firefighters from all over the state have come to battle the blazes. Complete strangers have opened their homes up to evacuees and donated time and money to helping those in need. It is times like these that test our humanity and we should all look on in pride as that humanity shines through in abundance.

Then there are people like Glenn Beck.

On the October 22 edition of his nationally syndicated radio program, host Glenn Beck stated, "I think there is a handful of people who hate America. Unfortunately for them, a lot of them are losing their homes in a forest fire today." Beck continued: "There are a few people that hate America. But I don't think the Democrats are those. I think there are those posing as Democrats that are like that." Beck's comment came as forest fires ravaged parts of Southern California, leaving one person dead, four firefighters wounded, and forcing about 1,500 people from their homes, according to The New York Times.

Beck's comment immediately followed his statement that "we're all one America" and "just because I disagree with you doesn't mean you hate America, and I love America. We all love America. We just disagree on how we should function."

This isn't the first time Beck has disparaged the victims of natural disasters. Beck once referred to the victims of Hurricane Katrina left to fend for themselves in New Orleans as "scumbags". But Beck has taken partisan rancor to a new low. While it is odious enough to seek to cast aside the hardships of victims of tragedy because of their economic standing, it is far worse to question their patriotism in doing so.

Just like hurricanes, tornadoes and floods, the wildfires in California do not discriminate based on ones political views. The fires that arsonists like Beck seek to ignite, however, do. And if we allow them to burn, we will all find ourselves equally consumed by the conflagration.

More reactions via Meme.

Blog Thanks: The Reaction and The Democratic Daily for linking to the SotD of this post.

(Filed at State of the Day and All Spin Zone)

Fair Game, Fair Plame

2007-10-22T07:30:00.000-05:00

Valerie Plame Wilson, whose covert status with the CIA was revealed in 2003 by members of the Bush administration, has a new memoir out today. In the heavily redacted tome, Plame reveals some details of her life with the agency, her efforts to cultivate sources in operations to thwart the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the threats put upon her and her family by her outing. Finally, she says, she is able to tell her side of the story.

But that is not to say that there are no longer those still willing to peddle the various claims made against her and her husband, Joe Wilson. Plame sat down with CBS' Katie Couric in advance of the book's release and we are once again treated to examples of why the Beltway media has become so worthy of derision. Here's a brief exchange from the interview (video here).

COURIC: You never for a moment thought this could potentially jeopardize my career?

PLAME: It’s called ‘living your cover.’ This had nothing to do with what I was doing. He was part of the debate.

COURIC: But admit it, it comes awfully close to what you were doing, even covertly. I mean, you were trying to ascertain if Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. He’s writing an article saying ‘it’s really not valid, this one assertion.’ I mean, can’t you see how those two things might collide and in a very dangerous way?

Couric seems to be suggesting that Plame should have assumed her status with the CIA would be brought into the debate and because she did not heed this bit of conventional Beltway wisdom, is deserving of what she got. Of course in any place other than BushWorld, revealing Plame's status still remains a crime, one which is considered so egregious that it is punishable by death.

But for the likes of Couric, being outed at the expense of political expediency is to be expected.

Katie, do us a favor. The next time you get that memo from Karl with the subject line "Please read on air", how's about you just toss it in the garbage, a place I'm sure you are all too familiar with.

See also Tristero and Christy.

(Filed at State of the Day and All Spin Zone)

Torture, Sexy, Uncool

2007-10-22T02:00:00.000-05:00

It didn't garner much attention last week, what with the latest episode of mindless turpitude from the mindfreaks on the right, but a former Guantanamo prosecutor made some pretty startling revelations in the wake of his resignation earlier this month. He alleged that the Bush administration sought to push high profile terrorism cases in lieu of those backed up by more solid evidence. He claims that he felt pressured to push cases deemed "sexy" and that could be milked for their "strategic political value". Given the scandal that ensued over the politicization of US Attorneys (one that may yet still net a few scalps), you would think the Bushies would shy away from anything but the utmost transparency when it comes to prosecutions. Then again, transparency went the way of "compassionate conservative" a long time ago.

But there is another problem the Bushies now face in their overzealous search for the "sexy". The LA Times reports that the FBI is in a mad dash to bolster some of the cases against terrorism detainees. Their main concern is that the CIA's interrogation practices may have rendered (no pun intended) some of the evidence inadmissible even to the highly scripted show trials at Gitmo.

By mid-2002, several former agents and senior bureau officials said, they had begun complaining that the CIA-run interrogation program amounted to torture and was going to create significant problems down the road — particularly if the Bush administration was ever forced to allow the Al Qaeda suspects to face their accusers in court.

[..]"Those guys were using techniques that we didn't even want to be in the room for," one senior federal law enforcement official said. "The CIA determined they were going to torture people, and we made the decision not to be involved."

A senior FBI official who since has retired said he also complained about the lack of usable evidence and admissible statements being gathered. "We knew there were going to be problems back then. But nobody was listening," he said. "Now they have to live with the policy that they have adopted. I don't know if anyone thought of the consequences."

Never was there a more apt description for how the Bush administration chooses to operate.

See also Carpetbagger and Steve Soto.

(Filed at State of the Day and All Spin Zone)

Shootin' Thru The 'Tubes

2007-10-21T05:30:00.000-05:00

Another lazy Sunday, perfect for the "Panderers on Parade Edition" of Shootin' Thru The 'Tubes:

There sure was a whole lotta pandering to the pious populace going on at the "Values Voters" summit this weekend. Here are just some of the things we learned from the fidelity festivities:

1. Despite unease about his Mormonism, Mitt Romney was able to read just enough of the script to win the top place in the straw poll.

2. Runner-up Mike Huckabee likens legalized abortion to the Holocaust. No word on whether he agrees that abstinence should be termed "genocide prevention".

3. Rudy Giuliani was down on bended knee and not in a sign of worship. Forget his past stances on gay marriage, Rudy's now all for a marriage amendment to the Constitution. Thankfully the thrice marriage candidate forewent the usual mid-speech phone call from the wifey this time.

3. John McCain. Yea he's still in the race.

4. Fred Thompson is more effective than Lunesta.

(Filed at State of the Day and All Spin Zone)

Bush Bemusement

2007-10-20T04:30:00.000-05:00

The righties have once again gone into pearl-clutch mode, this time over a heated comment from Rep. Pete Stark during the SCHIP veto debate. Stark made comments to the effect that Republicans won't vote for funds for children's health care but will appropriate funds to send soldiers to Iraq to quote "get their heads blown off for the president's amusement". The GOPers are outraged, I tell you, outraged and demand that Stark apologize for his comments.

Now I will admit that some of what he said was a bit over the top, but setting that aside for the moment, I want to focus on Stark's claim that soldiers are being sent to Iraq for Bush's amusement. Because I think he's on to something there.

Bob Cesca at Huffington Post has been documenting for some time the President's cringe inducing habit of flashing his taxpayer subsidized pearly whites at some really inappropriate moments. He's grinned and giggled on all sort of subjects but when it comes to discussions of war, nothing gets the giggle fest going more than that. Just the other day at his press conference, Bush was chuckling like a 10 year having just heard the word "poop" while discussing the oh so jocular subject of World War III.

And anyone else remember the laughs Bush got at the Corespondent's Dinner a few years ago?

Perhaps I'd be more inclined to scold Stark for his comments if they didn't seem so spot on.

More from Digby.

Update: Great post on the disparity of rhetoric in presidencies past by Maha.

(Filed at State of the Day and All Spin Zone)

Still a Law Unto Themselves

2007-10-19T07:05:00.000-05:00

Many were heartened by Attorney General nominee Mike Muskasey's responses at his confirmation hearings, particularly his answers regarding torture. And while some worry about his equivocating about whether or not waterboarding constitutes torture, it was his response on the issue of surveillance that I think is far more telling. In an exchange with Sen. Russ Feingold, Mukasey argued that there would be insistences in which President Bush's Article II authority would trump any laws that he says attempt to limit that authority. Now Mukasey did hedge a bit in saying he would ensure "push doesn't come to shove" but that he would even leave the door open to the possibility is a glaring example of why Congress needs to stand strong in the FISA fracas.

Leaving aside the possible monetary improprieties of Sens. Rockefeller and Reid (who has now said a vote on the FISA bill would proceed despite Dodd's call to hold it), there has always been an underlaying claim that has never been addressed. And that is that the Bush administration continues to insist that it has the authority to conduct any sort of activity regardless of any laws making such activity a crime. I've harped and harped on this issue in the past. That the Dems still refuse to confront it is a sure sign that they too may be aware that all of this haranguing about the rule of law is just so much hot air. It would make their fecklessness all the more appalling.

So long as Bush claims the authority to circumvent the law and Congress does not confront him on this, the law and Congress are essentially meaningless.

(Filed at State of the Day and All Spin Zone)

Feckless on FISA

2007-10-18T07:15:00.000-05:00

Despite his anemic approval ratings, President Bush has once again shown that all he need do is call a press conference and scold the Democrats to get them to submit to his will. The Dems have made a "deal" with the White House regarding telecom immunity. You would have thought they would have learned their lesson the last time they made such a deal but then they are more concerned that the Repubs will say they weak on terror. That the GOPers will do so no matter what only shows how easily cowed the Dems are, even with their majority status.

Forget fixing FISA, or ending the war in Iraq or overriding any vetoes. So long as the Dems refuse to truly stand up to Bush, they are the ones in need of proving they remain relevent. Until then, the Constitution and the rule of law will continue to suffer for their timidity.

Reactions via Meme.

Update: Seems there are still some willing to stand up for the Constitution. Sen. Chris Dodd announced he's going to place a hold on the FISA bill.

(Filed at State of the Day and All Spin Zone)

Turkey or Baloney?

2007-10-18T05:00:00.000-05:00

WASHINGTON (XF) - The overwhelming passage of a resolution by the Turkish parliament allowing so-called "hot pursuit" incursions into northern Iraq to hunt down Kurdish rebels has prompted an unusual response from Washington. According to sources familiar with the deliberations, White House officials are strategizing to determine whether or not US President George W. Bush has the authority to veto the Turkish resolution.

"The President wishes to stay relevent in the process," the source, speaking on condition of anonymity said, "So naturally we want to have a say with regards to any measures that would affect our efforts in Iraq". When asked how President Bush would have the authority to override a law passed by another country, the source is quoted as saying "Al-Maliki knows how that works", a reference to Iraq's Prime Minister.

Critics claim that Bush would be overstepping his authority should he choose void the Turkish law. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is quoted as saying "It's bad enough that he vetoes popular resolutions passed by our legislature, now he thinks he can do so with other country's governing bodies" Others claim that Bush would be alienating an ally in the war on terror, something which he has accused Congress of doing in considering passing a resolution condemning the 1915 Armenian genocide.

"If he [Bush] thinks Turkey would be upset by symbolic resolution condemning a ninety year old genocide, imagine how upset they'd be about having some other country's ruler negating their laws," one prominent critic said.

"The irony of course is that Bush is considering doing just what the Ottoman Empire use to do back in the day. Then again, he probably thinks Ottomans are those things you put your feet up on," a Congress aide is quoted as saying.

(Filed at State of the Day and All Spin Zone)

Colbert Declares!

2007-10-17T10:30:00.000-05:00

For those of you who may be bummed out that Al Gore is once again tamping down on rumors of an late entry bid for the White House, take heart. Someone else of prestigious stature has decided it was time.

Stephen Colbert announced his candidacy for president on "The Colbert Report," tossing his satirical hat into the ring of an already crowded race.

"I shall seek the office of the President of the United States," announced Colbert on his Comedy Central show Tuesday, as red, white and blue balloons fell around him...

Unsolicited campaign slogan: Vote for Colbert. He's the anti-Nader.

(Filed at State of the Day)

SCHIPs and Dips

2007-10-17T02:00:00.000-05:00

Okay, so I stole the title for this post from Dale in the comments over at Carpetbagger's place but it really is an apt description is it not? I know I'm falling into my one trick pony habit again but it really just can't be helped. Seems having survived mostly intact from Operation Frostbite, the righties set their sights on a new target: Bethany Wilkerson, a 2 year old who thanks to SCHIP was able to receive life saving surgeries to correct a serious heart defect. If only there were surgeries available to correct the heart irregularities amongst some right.

As with the Frosts, they've settled on calling the Wilkersons bad parents for the choices they've made, such as Dana Wilkerson's decision to quit a job that provided health insurance some six years before having Bethany. But National Review's Mark Hemingway takes that critique one step further, suggesting the Wilkersons are bad parents for well, choosing to be parents in the first place.

Digby puts it so succinctly:

[U]nderlying this destructive sniping is a serious idea, and it is that children are a privilege that only those with means should be allowed to have. (This translates to the idea that sex is a privilege as well, since they don't believe in abortion and birth control.) This is a very old trope and one which conflicts directly with one of conservatism's most important arguments: family values.

For the right, it all boils down to choices which, in the end, aren't really choices at all.

More from Meme. See also A.L.

(Filed at State of the Day and All Spin Zone)

Past Tense Much?

2007-10-16T11:00:00.000-05:00

Way back in August, the New York Times ran an op-ed by seven soldiers serving in Iraq that criticized the surge strategy. The righties pounced on the authors, some going so far as to question whether they were capable of comprehending the glorious vision of Saint Petraeus' grand plan. They were just a bunch of low level grunts after all. Even the deaths of two of those soldiers a fortnight later did not squelch the characterizations of these troops as wholly misinformed about how great the surge was.

Now the Washington Post as run a similar op-ed, this time by a contingent of former captains, disparaging the foolhardiness of continuing the occupation of Iraq. They place great emphasis on the deep seated corruption amongst the Iraqi leadership and military, a topic which the Bushies still refuse to even fully acknowledge as having a detrimental effect.

So how do the righties choose to combat this second wave of phony soldiers? Why by noting that none of them are currently serving in Iraq! You really have to be there to see how swimmingly things are going! Man, don't they know we're like this close to declaring Mission Accomplisheded!

Yea I know, does make a lot of sense but since when did that ever stop them?

(Filed at State of the Day and All Spin Zone)

Poster Childrens: Theirs and Ours

2007-10-16T05:00:00.000-05:00

The GOP is in quite a bind. They have found themselves on the losing side of the argument regarding Bush's SCHIP veto. And though there may be some discrepancies amongst the electorate, by and large Americans simply trust Democrats better on the issue. Thus far the GOPers has relied on surrogates like Stalkin' n' Balkin' Malkin to help muddy the debate (though it looks as though the Defrost Diva won't be doing any slinging anywhere near the Fear O'Reilly Factor).

But the GOPers think they may have found an issue where they have the advantage, even if only a marginal one. Via Carpetbagger:

[U]nlike Bush’s veto of the SCHIP bill — which was supported by a number of Republicans in the House and Senate and subsequently has caused significant heartburn for in-cycle GOP incumbents — Republicans are much more comfortable backing Bush on national security. […]

Specifically, Republicans are planning to use the kidnapping and subsequent murder of three U.S. soldiers in Iraq earlier this year to put a “human face” on the issue, the House staffer explained. According to this aide, while Democrats’ arguments about privacy may resonate with some voters, Republicans believe using real-world examples of how a weak FISA has put U.S. troops in danger will help galvanize public support for their position.

“We’re content to have the Democrats make these abstract and obtuse privacy arguments,” the aide said. “As long as we make this debate … about real world, human examples,” Republicans believe they can maintain party discipline on Bush’s veto and effectively fight Democrats in the public arena.

The Murdoch owned media was soon propagating the meme with gusto. The gist of it is that due to the need to gather those peaky FISA warrants, precious time was wasted that could have been spent trying to find those kidnapped soldiers. But when one delves into the details, we find that it wasn't any problems with FISA that resulted in delays but rather bureaucratic bumbling on the part of the Bushies. A cynical ploy to be sure, yet the righties work themselves into a froth over a 12 year old advocating expanding health care.

Thus we have the disparity of the right wing mind. When Democrats attempt to put a "human face" on a worthy cause, it is decried as cheap partisan politics. When Republicans do it for no other reason then to heap ever more authority unto an already lawless Unitary Executive, it is considered a winning argument.

What's the Frequency, Rudy?

2007-10-15T08:00:00.000-05:00

The next installment of The Real Rudy is out and it is even more damning than the first. For it highlights the failure of the Giuliani administration to address an issue that had persisted for nearly a decade: inadequate radios for first responders.

Ever since the first World Trade Center attack in 1993, Giuliani knew that the radios used by police and firemen were not up to the task of responding to large scale emergencies. It wasn't until 2001 that they finally got around to correcting the problem. Unfortunately, the natural Republican inclination toward cheap fixes and cronyism resulted in a sweetheart no-bid contract deal that provided untested equipment that later had to be recalled. First responders were forced to go back to using the old radios which again failed them on 9/11.

You can view the video here. For me, the most telling part is the scene in which Giuliani, testifying before Congress, praised the police and firemen who died that day for "standing their ground." Of course the "ground" to which he alluded was the tons of steel and concrete which eventually collapsed beneath their feet. Not surprisingly such a callous remark elicited howls from the audience, many of whom were loved ones of said responders.

The moment is telling because it shows that even back then, Giuliani's authoritarian complex was evident. Throughout his bid for the presidency, Rudy has sought to position himself as the only one capable of responding to the terrorist threat, as the only one with true leadership abilities. He envisions himself a general in this "war" and thus the first responders who died on 9/11 were merely the first casualties in the "terrorist's war on us" as he likes to call it.

But these were not a brigade of Marines or Army troops. They were not trained to kill but save lives and they did so admirably that day. That more of them may have died because Rudy failed to properly provide them with adequate equipment only makes his words all the more egregious because to a true general, the welfare of those he commands is paramount. That Rudy would not see the blatantly obvious is only evidence of how out of touch he really is.

In other words, he's perfect to carry on the Bush legacy.

More from Digby and Jane Hamsher.

(Filed at State of the Day and All Spin Zone)

Shootin' Thru The 'Tubes

2007-10-15T02:30:00.000-05:00

Let's call this the "Felled Firewall Flood Edition" of Shootin' Thru The 'Tubes:

Godwin's law was in full effect yesterday as righties bemoaned Frank Rich for equating American's complacency with some of the Bush administration's most nefarious practices with that of a similar mentality amongst the general German populace during the Nazi era. Whether the metaphor was apt or not, some say Rich sidestepped the issue of his own efforts at being a member of the complacent sect. But one consolation is he's taken up linkfesting like the rest of us lowly bloggers.

Paul Krugman says that the reason the righties have been going after Gore so vehemently is because he has succeeded in spite of their efforts to discredit him.

And Maureen Dowd's column was hijacked by some guy with a television show.

(Filed at State of the Day and All Spin Zone)

A Qwest for the Truth

2007-10-14T01:30:00.000-05:00

A recent appellate court filing by a former Qwest Communications CEO reveals something that shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone who has been extensively following the NSA spying scandal.

A former Qwest Communications International executive, appealing a conviction for insider trading, has alleged that the government withdrew opportunities for contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars after Qwest refused to participate in an unidentified National Security Agency program that the company thought might be illegal.

Now this isn't the part that's interesting. It is well documented how the Bushies choose to handle those who refuse to go along with their dictates. Just ask any of the US Attorneys who received their walking papers. No, the bigger issue is when the NSA approached Qwest to ~~browbeat them~~ ask for their assistance.

Former chief executive Joseph P. Nacchio, convicted in April of 19 counts of insider trading, said the NSA approached Qwest more than six months before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, according to court documents unsealed in Denver this week.

Details about the alleged NSA program have been redacted from the documents, but Nacchio’s lawyer said last year that the NSA had approached the company about participating in a warrantless surveillance program to gather information about Americans’ phone records.

This isn't the first time that such allegations have been made. And given it is being used as a defense to stave off a prison sentence, its validity remains suspect. But one would think, given all we have come to learn about how the Bushies operate, that it would at minimum warrant an inquiry from Congress. Especially since they are currently considering granting immunity to those telecoms who did choose to cooperate with the Bush administration. President Bush has been adamant that he will not sign any bill that does not contain an immunity clause. Perhaps it is time Congress ask an appropriate question: if they did nothing wrong, why do you they need immunity?

In a larger context, if these allegations prove to be true, it will only illustrate once and for all that the claim that "9/11 change everything" was mere bunk. Indeed, a far more apt characterization would that "Election 2000 changed everything". Because with that first act of being installed by like-minded ideologues in the judiciary, it has been evident that the Bushies have continued that legacy of utter disdain for every aspect of governance that could not be used to further their goals and agendas.

And if they were so averse to following the law from the start of their reign, who is to say they will abide by it at the end?

More from Meme. See also Steve Soto.

(Filed at State of the Day and All Spin Zone)

Opening The Files: 10/13/07

2007-10-13T08:30:00.000-05:00

An Assault on Nobel Reason

Depending on ones political slant, yesterday you were either suffering from Goremania or Gore-aphobia with the news that Al Gore had won the Nobel Peace Prize. Righties immediately sought to downplay the significance of the award. They were joined by the always obliging Fox News who, though a little slow on the uptake, were soon smearing in style.

With this cap to a year of awards, naturally the topic soon turned to the heated speculation (pun intended) of whether Al would seek out the most coveted prize of all: the Presidency. It's not all that surprising that in the wake of this award, the thirst for a Gore candidacy would only become more parched. After all, it is but another example of how were it not for the decision of nine Supreme Court justices seven years ago to award Bush the presidency, we may not find ourselves in such dire straits regarding a multitude of problems facing humanity.

In light of that, it's not surprising there are those pondering what might have been.

Noam Scheiber wonders what effect all the gaga over Gore is having on Bush. Al probably shouldn't wait up for that congratulatory call.

Gotta love Fox News' suggestion about who should have been awarded a "peace" prize. Then again, "peace" has been a pretty relative term with them for a while. Hunter, meanwhile, has some other suggestions.

Bob Franken ponders what a head to head with fellow Tennessean Fred Thompson would look like should Al run. For Fred's stake, lets hope it doesn't come down to giving short, concise answers.

And some wonder what Gore's advocacy of confronting climate change has to go with a world peace. My bloghost at ASZ Richard Blair connects the dots for us.

(Filed at State of the Day and All Spin Zone)

Perfected

2007-10-12T07:00:00.000-05:00

Apparently Ann Coultergeist was envious of all the attention that Stalkin', Balkin' Malkin was getting from the Frost fracas. She hasn't really had much in the way of attention of late and her desperation was showing in spades. Her insufferable comment about womens suffrage didn't make waves. Nor did her titillating tabloid tattling about a possible John Edwards extramarital affair meet with anything but giggles.

But now she has finally found a way to elbow her way back into the limelight. Unfortunately, the vampiric she-demon might have wished to avoid the harsh light of bigotry she chose to espouse this time 'round.

Appearing on Donny Deutsch's CNBC show, "The Big Idea," on Monday night, columnist/author Ann Coulter suggested that the U.S. would be a better place if there weren't any Jewish people and that they needed to "perfect" themselves into -- Christians.

It led Deutsch to suggest that surely she couldn't mean that, and when she insisted she did, he said this sounded "anti-Semitic."

Asked by Deutsch whether she wanted to be like "the head of Iran" and "wipe Israel off the Earth," Coulter stated: "No, we just want Jews to be perfected, as they say. ... That's what Christianity is. We believe the Old Testament."

I'm not sure why everyone is getting upset about this. Indeed this isn't the first time Coultergeist has suggested that those of a particular religion should be "perfected". Then again, she was only talking about those Islamofascist, Jew hatin' ragheads at the time. But now that she's taken on the Jewish community, suddenly everyone is rushing to denounce her comments.

I'd like to think it is because we've gotten to the point that we as a society have chosen to repudiate bigotry in all it's forms but the selectiveness of outrage leaves me to wonder. I know such a suggestion will no doubt earn me the ostracizing label of "anti-Semite" but then so should it be in Coulter's case as well. That there are many still willing to stick up for her even now only seems to suggest there is literally nothing a conservative can say to warrant true pariah status.

Blog Thanks: Salon's Blog Report for linking to the SotD of this post.

(Filed at State of the Day and All Spin Zone)

Good Faith and the Defrost Diva

2007-10-11T10:00:00.000-05:00

Yesterday, health care wonk Ezra Klein issued a challenge.

Let's have a good faith argument. I will debate Michelle Malkin anytime, anywhere, in any forum (save HotAir TV, which she controls), on the particulars of S-CHIP. We can set the debate at a think tank, on BloggingHeads, over IM. Hell, we can set up the podiums in the shrubbery outside my house, since that seems to be the sort of venue she naturally seeks out. And then if Malkin wants an argument, she can have one. We'll talk S-CHIP and nothing but -- nothing of the Frosts, or Congress, or her blog.

This seemed like exactly what Malkin was asking for. She keeps alleging that "leftists" refuse to debate the issue of SCHIP, instead choosing to hide behind children rather than defend their arguments. Here was a chance for her to have some face time with someone well versed on the subject.

Naturally, the Defrost Diva melted.

“Debate” Ezra Klein? What a perverse distraction and a laughable waste of time that would be. And that’s what they really want, isn’t it? To distract and waste time so they can foist their agenda on the country unimpeded.

Yes, can't be having these petty "debates" distracting us from the far more important issue of slandering and destroying a family already struggling to make ends meet who were lucky enough to have been eligible for help from the government when a life altering event could have easily forced them into true destitution.

Now if you'll excuse her, Ms. Malkin needs to go dig through her sources for the next installment of her investigative "reporting".

(Filed at State of the Day and All Spin Zone)

Melting Frost

2007-10-10T12:00:00.000-05:00

It's day two of "Flame the Frosts" in Right Blogtopia. Still leading the charge is Defrost Diva Stalkin' Malkin. Seems the erstwhile heir to BillO has taken to staking out the family Frost in an effort to determine whether they live in a cardboard box, which is now apparently a prerequisite for SCHIP eligibility. That they do not only proves the program is a scam to bailout the undeserving. Tax cuts for the wealthy on the other hand...

But even with their infinite skill from years spent following ex-lovers and the unrequited, there is only so much a Freeper peeper can do on their own. Thankfully they may have gotten by with a little help from their friends.

According to Senate Democratic aides, some bloggers have made repeated phone calls to the home of 12-year-old Graeme Frost, demanding information about his family's private life. On Monday, a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid accused GOP leadership aides of "pushing falsehood" in an effort to distract from the political battle over S-CHIP.

"This is a perverse distraction from the issue at hand," said Jim Manley, a spokesman for Reid, D-Nev. "Instead of debating the merits of providing health care to children, some in GOP leadership and their right-wing friends would rather attack a 12-year-old boy and his sister who were in a horrific car accident."

Manley cited an e-mail sent to reporters by a Senate Republican leadership aide, summing up recent blog traffic about the boy's family. A spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., declined to comment on Manley's charge that GOP aides were complicit in spreading disparaging information about Frosts.

The NY Times adds more details that suggest the GOPers were perhaps more intimately involved in stoking the fauxtage than originally thought.

Republicans on Capitol Hill, who were gearing up to use Graeme as evidence that Democrats have overexpanded the health program to include families wealthy enough to afford private insurance, have backed off, glad to let bloggers take the heat for attacking a family with injured children.

An aide to Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, expressed relief that his office had not issued a press release criticizing the Frosts.

The GOPers may not wish to get their hands dirty. But they certainly are more than willing to reap the benefits from other's mud-slinging. Too bad the Ragin' Righties have only managed to hit a sewer main in their attempts to dig up more dirt for the flinging.

(Filed at State of the Day)

The Surge Dirge: The Final Chapter

2007-10-09T05:00:00.000-05:00

Lost in the din of righteous rightie indignation in their attempts to scuttle the good ship SCHIP was news that another cruise liner these ship of fools frequent had hit the proverbial iceberg.

For months we have been told that the reason for the surge was to create enough stability to allow the various Iraqi factions in the government time to reconcile. The euphemistic "breathing room" was batted about quite at bit.

Well looks like you might not want to hold your breath. Because the Iraqis certainly aren't.

For much of this year, the U.S. military strategy in Iraq has sought to reduce violence so that politicians could bring about national reconciliation, but several top Iraqi leaders say they have lost faith in that broad goal.

Iraqi leaders argue that sectarian animosity is entrenched in the structure of their government. Instead of reconciliation, they now stress alternative and perhaps more attainable goals: streamlining the government bureaucracy, placing experienced technocrats in positions of authority and improving the dismal record of providing basic services.

"I don't think there is something called reconciliation, and there will be no reconciliation as such," said Deputy Prime Minister Barham Salih, a Kurd. "To me, it is a very inaccurate term. This is a struggle about power."

This was soon followed by word that the British are halving their presence and that the Iraqis are requesting that Blackwater be given their walking papers. All this puts the Bushies in a precarious position of having to continue to justify a strategy that has been a complete failure (not that that has ever stopped them before). And while it may sound good to those wishing to force a change in Iraq policy, the drawbacks are that this could also forces the Bushies to further ratchet up their scapegoating of Iran and drive us further toward confrontation.

If that happens, you can sure the surge won't be the only thing that is pushing up daisies.

More from Meme. See also PM Carpenter, Cernig and Steve Soto.

(Filed at State of the Day and All Spin Zone)

From Soldiers to Sick Kids

2007-10-09T01:00:00.000-05:00

Good to see I'm not the only one appalled by the tactics of the righties to smear the family of a 12-yr old recipient of SCHIP. That they would resort to such a thing only proves how desperate they are to prove their arguments against what any reasonable person would see as a worthy cause. What's more appalling is their choice of targets. It's one thing to go after able bodied adults who can defend themselves, such as these gentlemen. But it's another to go after a child whose only crime was being born to a family who has to struggle to make ends meet. That they would deny them aid and then slime them for having the temerity to speak out shows that there just isn't any bar low enough that the righties won't shinny under.

(Filed at State of the Day)

Halos and Halo?

2007-10-08T09:30:00.000-05:00

Back in August, plans by a Pentagon backed group to send copies of a Christian themed video game in which the player goes around killing unbelievers in a post-Rapture apocalyptic world, were scrapped over the furor generated by the idea. Critics, in addition to claiming it violated the separation of church and state, also claimed it was unseemly to peddle a video game that demonized those not of a particular faith.

And now the church has usurped the idea for themselves, this time utilizing the mass appeal of video games to lure younger patrons to the pews.

First the percussive sounds of sniper fire and the thrill of the kill. Then the gospel of peace.

Across the country, hundreds of ministers and pastors desperate to reach young congregants have drawn concern and criticism through their use of an unusual recruiting tool: the immersive and violent video game Halo.

The latest iteration of the immensely popular space epic, Halo 3, was released nearly two weeks ago by Microsoft and has already passed $300 million in sales.

Those buying it must be 17 years old, given it is rated M for mature audiences. But that has not prevented leaders at churches and youth centers across Protestant denominations, including evangelical churches that have cautioned against violent entertainment, from holding heavily attended Halo nights and stocking their centers with multiple game consoles so dozens of teenagers can flock around big-screen televisions and shoot it out.

Though I'm not to up on what the exact statistics are regarding religious youth, from what little I have heard about the subject, the need to bring more wee lambs into the fold as it were has become more paramount as the aging elders have fewer and fewer successors to their legacies. Given this dynamic, its not surprising churches would turn to whatever hook was able to bring in the most parishioners. But what I do find surprising is the chosen medium of Halo.

I know that it can probably be brushed off as merely the obvious choice given the popularity of the game but I can't help but wonder if the religious overtones of the game itself also play a role. Was Halo chosen not because you get to kill a bunch of invading aliens but because said aliens practice a different faith, as evidenced by the heavy emphasis of religion in the second game? In that sense, is the appeal of a game like Halo to the church going sect any different than the appeal of a game in which you get to kill a bunch of unbelieving hordes?

The idea of killing anyone, be they human or alien, should be abhorrent. Because in real life, there is no reset button.

(Filed at State of the Day and All Spin Zone)

Opening The Files: 10/08/07

2007-10-08T07:00:00.000-05:00

Of Symbolism and Sophistry

There was a lot of news to choose from for this weeks OTF. But there was a reoccurring theme I noticed throughout. Whether it was Bush's veto of expanding health care for kids, his administration's endorsement of torture, the phony flap over Obama's lack of patriotic pins or the righties rushing to Rush's side in the phony soldier faux pas, the underlying theme may well have been:

We don't play by the same rules you do.

Indeed that theme has become prevalent within the current state of political discourse and governance. Keen observers will of course know this has been present for some time. But the casual observer, sadly a large chunk of the general electorate, can be easily taken in by a particular slant on any given story or the lack of in depth coverage for that matter. We hear all about the latest news on Britney Spears or dieting tips but when it comes to such things as the war in Iraq, the drumbeat for war with Iran or the slow dismantlement of the Constitution, the media has been failing in their role as conduits to truth.

And if nothing else, the righties have become very deft at manipulating this phenomenon. They have honed the skill of emphasizing symbolism over substance to a fine art. And unfortunately for the rest of us, far too few in the media have been willing to cast a skeptical eye at the various wares that are forever being pawned off as the genuine article.

It should be noted that some media figures like Chris Matthews and Katie Couric are speaking up. Better late than never I suppose.

The Washington Post, meanwhile, offered up their fluffer services to help some soul-searching ex-loyal Bushies get a restful nights sleep. Carpetbagger noticed that Bush's Brain wasn't likely to be amongst those whose sleep, perchance, would be interrupted by his conscience.

A study finds the GOP has a problem with their religious base who say that the Bush years may well come to be seen as an anomaly. It's hard to see why since, as Paul Krugman reports, Bush is far more of a modern conservative than you might think.

But there are those still willing to pray for Bush and Speaker Nancy Pelosi appears to be one of them. Predictably, Fox News has to ask if they are the right kinds of prayers.

I've noticed something about what the media chooses to focus on. First it was John Edwards' haircut, then it was Clinton's cleavage and now it's the missing flare on Obama's chest. If they keep working their way south, will we be eventually be wondering whether boxers or briefs is more befitting of a Commander-in-Chief? Perhaps codpieces will be back in vogue by then.

(Filed at State of the Day and All Spin Zone)

Lessons from the Quiet Men

2007-10-06T13:00:00.000-05:00

When the NY Times revealed the other day that the Bush administration had secretly issued new memos condoning some of the harshest interrogation tactics ever used against terrorism suspects, the Bushies went into full spin mode. President Bush stuck to the script that the US does not torture and went on to praise the "highly trained professionals" who conduct these interrogations to keep America safe from terrorism.

I don't know about you, but these "highly trained professionals" could probably stand to learn a thing or two from their elders. (h/t Libby)

For six decades, they held their silence.

The group of World War II veterans kept a military code and the decorum of their generation, telling virtually no one of their top-secret work interrogating Nazi prisoners of war at Fort Hunt.

When about two dozen veterans got together yesterday for the first time since the 1940s, many of the proud men lamented the chasm between the way they conducted interrogations during the war and the harsh measures used today in questioning terrorism suspects.

Back then, they and their commanders wrestled with the morality of bugging prisoners' cells with listening devices. They felt bad about censoring letters. They took prisoners out for steak dinners to soften them up. They played games with them.

"We got more information out of a German general with a game of chess or Ping-Pong than they do today, with their torture," said Henry Kolm, 90, an MIT physicist who had been assigned to play chess in Germany with Hitler's deputy, Rudolf Hess.

The saying "You can catch more flies with honey" was no doubt well known to these men. That they would apply it even in the face of the truly existential threat of Nazi Germany is a testament to how far we have been lead astray by our leaders. Frankly, it leaves an acidic taste in my mouth that no amount of sugarcoated fluff we are force fed could ever remove.

(Filed at State of the Day and All Spin Zone)

Pins and Needling

2007-10-06T11:00:00.000-05:00

Well it seems that the righties finally decided to move on from MoveOn. Unfortunately, their current outrage de jour is even sillier than the snit they worked themselves into over a newspaper ad.

The current top story this Saturday morning is the flap over Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama's flagless lapel. The uber-patriotic righties naturally have flaggged and flogged this story to within an inch of is perilously short shelf life. With the response his decision to forgo wearing his patriotism on his sleeve - er- lapel, you'd swear he had vowed to don an "I Heart Osama" button instead.

Perhaps the most vapid response to the fauxtage came from Mr. Hanctimony himself, Sean Hannity, whose excuse for why it is so vitally important that we sport these nifty little trinkets is the same as every other excuse Hannity ever utilizes: Because the terrorists are out to get us!

One wonders how the tiny bit of metal will somehow prevent a terrorist attack. Heck, it doesn't even suffice as effective body armor. Though it is probably considerably more than what our troops are getting in Iraq and Afghanistan...

But for all the bloviating on the part of Hannity, he apparently hasn't been doing his part for the war effort. So this dog-with-a-red-white-and-blue-bone shtick suggests the question: why does Sean Hannity hate America?

Hey, if the pin fits...

(Filed at State of the Day and All Spin Zone)

Shootin' Thru The 'Tubes

2007-10-05T07:00:00.000-05:00

TGIF and here's what's Shootin' Thru The 'Tubes:

Ann Coultergeist, who no one can ever accuse of being good at political strategery, thinks it'd be a good idea to repeal the 19th amendment. You know the one giving women the right to vote. She says its a personal dream of hers that if women aren't allowed to vote anymore, there will never be another Democratic president elected. According to her, single women vote "stupidly" and thus shouldn't be given the chance. Take it from Coultergeist, she knows all about voting stupidly.

The Republican National Convention released their official logo for next year's event and promptly broke the innuendo-o-meter. The gifted snark was too good to pass up for some in the blogosphere and given my own fetish for Photoshop, I couldn't resist adding my own contribution to the fun.

(Filed at State of the Day and All Spin Zone)

Tortured Shame

2007-10-04T09:00:00.000-05:00

During his confirmation hearing in January of 2005, then-Attorney General nominee Alberto Gonzales was asked by Sen. Russ Feingold his stance on memos which had been circulating that suggested that the Bush administration could disregard long standing laws governing the use of torture. In response, Gonzales stated categorically that those memos had been withdrawn and rejected by the executive branch.

After the scandal at Abu Ghraib, the issue of torture was thrust into the limelight and this "categorical rejection" was seen as a way to assuage critic's concerns. Disavowing the infamous torture memos went along way toward backing up the Bush administration's claims that the US does not condone torture.

Of course as has become customary with the Bushies, while they were running away from one memo, they issued another that was even worse.

When the Justice Department publicly declared torture "abhorrent" in a legal opinion in December 2004, the Bush administration appeared to have abandoned its assertion of nearly unlimited presidential authority to order brutal interrogations.

But soon after Alberto R. Gonzales’s arrival as attorney general in February 2005, the Justice Department issued another opinion, this one in secret. It was a very different document, according to officials briefed on it, an expansive endorsement of the harshest interrogation techniques ever used by the Central Intelligence Agency.

More via Meme. I'd have to agree with resigned Deputy Attorney General James B. Comey who is quoting as saying that the Justice Department would be "ashamed" when the world learned of these overreaching legal opinions. We should all be ashamed that an issue as "abhorrent" as torture is even subject to debate. And given the lack of any contrition on the part of the Bushies thus far, the only shame likely to ever be evident will be history's.

(Filed at State of the Day and All Spin Zone)

Hitting Below the Belt

2007-10-03T03:00:00.000-05:00

As much as I am loathe to being a one trick pony and continuing to flog the Limbaugh phony flap, there are times when it becomes necessary. Besides, ignoring the likes of Limbaugh is the worst thing to do, because it only encourages this sort of behavior to continue. And really, who is more deserving of being knocked down a few pegs than the exalted grand master of the Dittoheads?

Rush should have put down the shovel when the trowel hit bedrock. Instead, he asked for a jackhammer and kept on digging. VoteVets.org released an ad featuring veteran Brian McGough, chastising Limbaugh for spreading lies about his service and that of so many other soldiers. The Big Giant Head responded to VoteVets in a way reminiscent of his slur of Michael J. Fox: he questioned McGough's competency and even worse, suggested that VoteVets was "strapping those lies to his belt, sending him out via the media and a TV ad to walk into as many people as he can".

Rush's comment was clearly a not-so-subtle allusion to McGough being akin to a suicide bomber (only armed with lies) but it may have been wise to have an intern do a little research prior to making this statement since McGough, who received a severe head injury in Iraq, was the victim of a real suicide bomber.

Keeping digging, Rush. With any luck you won't need anyone else's help to bury yourself.

As always, Meme has the Rush reactions.

Update: Fellow ASZer Steven weighs in with a call to action.

(Filed at State of the Day and All Spin Zone)

Opening The Files: 10/02/07

2007-10-02T07:00:00.000-05:00

Another Tour for the Phony Brigade

The "Rush Mad Rush" continues, this time with Senate Dems condemning his remarks about soldiers against the war. Majority Leader Harry Reid called his remarks "unpatriotic" and asked Senate Republicans to act with "equal fervor" in denouncing them. If by "equal fervor" you mean offering a resolution that praises Rush for his "ongoing public support of American troops serving both here and abroad" then yea, I guess you could say the Repubs are on board. No word yet on whether that "support" extends to the phony ones. Perhaps Rush wasn't the only one in need of a drug test.

Rush of course fired back at the charge in the only way he knew how: he dissembled more than Gonzo giving a committee testimony. Only in RushWorld could accusations that his words were taken out of context be "proven" by providing audio that completely removes the context. Then again, perhaps it is this contextlessness that has made him the darling of the right and why they are so willing to go to the mat for him.

Jane Hamsher says Rush should be booted from the Armed Forces Radio Network. Might as well since they aren't getting the whole story anyway.

Sen. Reid demanded that Rush apologize. Digby thinks such calls won't last long given how ineffectual they are when someone like Limbaugh is the one giving the "apology".

And Anonymous Liberal says that who the rightie blogs picked for their favorite people explains a lot.

(Filed at State of the Day and All Spin Zone)

The Shifting Road to Tehran

2007-10-01T00:30:00.000-05:00

Fed up with the inability to scare Americans with visions of mushroom clouds courtesy of Iran, the Bush administration has "shifted" the casus belli for military confrontation to one of that country's supposed meddling in Iraq, thus reports Sy Hersh in his latest for The New Yorker. According to Hersh, the Bushies have given up the WMD angle and are now focusing on the alleged involvement of Iran's Revolutionary Guard in supporting attacks on coalition forces in Iraq. They believe the idea of "surgical strikes" against RG garrisons inside Iran will be an easier sell and and thus there has been a "significant increase in the tempo of attack planning". They're even coming up with a "Clinton did it too!" excuse to justify their actions. As always, the main impetus for this push to war comes mainly from the Vice President's office.

And while Hersh took pains to note that Bush has yet to issue an executive order, given that last week the Congress largely agreed with this "shift", one is certainly already on the drafting table.

More from Meme. See also A.L. who examines how an attack on Iran might affect the race to the White House.

(Filed at State of the Day and All Spin Zone)

Shootin' Thru The 'Tubes

2007-09-30T06:00:00.000-05:00

Another lazy Sunday and here's what's Shootin' Thru The 'Tubes:

Looks as though The Big G is out for the '08 race. No not Gore, Gingrich. Satirists, cartoonists and Democrats are saddened by the loss.

Those still left in, however, are ripe for snarkification. I mean seriously, it's almost as if they want to make it easy for us. John McCain says that the US Constitution established a Christian nation and questions whether a Muslim is fit to be president. But I don't think Crazy Train should be positing about whether or not a person of a certain religiosity is worthy of office given his seeming inability to pick one himself.

Then there's Rescue Rudy, who now fancies himself a modern day Jesus because of how his personal life is scrutinized. The ironies in his allusion are so rich as to cause diabetic coma. And again with the 9/11, this time explaining his reason for taking a call from his wife at a function where he was already well over his 9/11 quotient for the day. Seems Rudy didn't get the memo that we're all outta 9/11 F.U.'s.

Update: Is Rudy's pandering not playing with the pious populace?

(Filed at State of the Day and All Spin Zone)

Redeploying the Phony Brigade

2007-09-29T02:30:00.000-05:00

A surprising thing happened on day two of "Rush to Condemn Rush". The Democrats, whose response to such incidents can usually measured at a glacial pace, moved rather quickly to scold Rush for his jab at soldiers favoring withdrawal. Word has it there will even be a House resolution introduced Monday to formally condemn his statements ala the MoveOn.org amendment. But as deserving as the Dittohead-in-chief is of condemnation, I wonder how much of this fracas is merely to get back at the GOP for forcing a response to the MoveOn Maelstrom. If that is the case, I don't think a resolution is warranted (for the record, I didn't think MoveOn should have been censured either). Issue a press release or hold a press conference, sure. But for the most part Congress should avoid these tit-for-tat resolutions.

And really the Dems should know better than to play this game, because the rules are always pliable when it comes to the GOP. As much as it might feel good, this is exactly the sort of thing the GOPers want. Because I'd bet good money that should a resolution come to the floor condemning Limbaugh, the GOPers will scold the Democrats for wasting the Congress' precious time on frivolous trivialities. I know it doesn't make much sense given the apoplexy over the importance to condemn MoveOn but when has anything the GOP done made sense?

Allowing any resolution that seeks to condemn free speech, even that which many find contemptible, only further illustrates the misplaced priorities of the Congress. And it shows how petty and sophomoric our political discourse has become. We already get enough of that from Rush, we don't need it from Congress as well.

Update: Upon further reflection, I find myself of two minds about whether 'tis wise for the Democrats to put forth a Rush resolution. On the one hand, as I note above, the GOP will surely bemoan the meaninglessness of the whole affair. But I am also sympathetic to the argument that bringing such a resolution to vote is designed to highlight that hypocrisy. Still further, the argument could be made that not seizing on this gifted opportunity could be a sign of weakness. The GOPers may harp on the fact that despite their widespread condemnations, the Dems won't follow through on their convictions. They have already locked themselves onto that course and were they to back off now, like a shark catching his first wisp of blood, the GOP will go into frenzy mode. Such are the tribulations of these vicious cycles of escalation and counter-escalation. All the more reason they should be avoided.

Sadly given the current partisan rancor that exists on both sides, that is unlikely to happen any time soon.

(Filed at State of the Day and All Spin Zone)

Top GOPers Skip Black Debate

2007-09-28T11:30:00.000-05:00

The top tier GOP candidates bailed on the debate last night at a predominately black college because of what were said to be "scheduling conflicts". Here now are some other excuses that may have been considered:

1. Worried they might slip up and mention how "surprised" they were that a black moderated debate was just like every other debate and no one was shouting "M-Fer, I have a question."

2. Were concerned about how they would act around all those "stocky black guys".

3. Would rather attend the symposium by Michael Medved discussing how slavery wasn't such a bad thing.

Feel free to add your own in the comments.

(Filed at State of the Day and All Spin Zone)

Charge of the Phony Brigade

2007-09-28T02:30:00.000-05:00

I don't know why everyone is so worked up over Rush Limbaugh's claim that those soldiers who support withdrawing from Iraq are "phony". These sorts of "foot-in-mouth" episodes are par for the course when it comes to Rush. That he always seems to slink by with nary a follicle out of place (sans the ones lost to a rapidly receding hairline) is a testament to how powerful the right wing media machine has become.

But I want to examine Rush's claim that soldiers who don't support the war in Iraq are "phony". If they are "phony" shouldn't we be doing something about it? I mean, if it's demoralizing to have gays openly serving in the armed forces, it must be equally demoralizing to have soldiers serving who don't support the war efforts 110%. Why not institute a "Do Ask, Do Tell" policy and any soldier found to be in favor of withdrawal be jettisoned before they are able to infect the rest of their units with similar sentiment. You know, like the gays do.

I am of course being facetious. Rush on the other hand is not and should be denounced for his comments. That his Oxy-Contin addled brain doesn't get that those soldiers who he derides as "phony" have fought and died so that he could speak his mind just shows who the real "phony" is in this debate.

More from Tim Grieve.

Update: Greg Sargent has another great catch. According to Rush, it's "not possible intellectually to follow" those people who favor withdrawal because their basic argument thus far has been "It's gonna bring our troops home. Save the troops. Keep the troops safe. Or whatever."

Greg boils it down:

The point here is that for Limbaugh, Boehner and other war supporters, the lives of the troops simply aren't part of the equation in any meaningful sense, and once in a while, this dirty secret slips out.

Defenders of the Bush administration often say that in order to really support the troops you must support the war. They are unable to differentiate the Cause (the war) from those fighting it (the soldiers). To them they are one in the same and Rush's commentary points to that inability to separate the two. People like Limbaugh just can not fathom the idea that each soldier is an individual with his or her own opinion. So when soldiers who choose to voice that opinion speak up, they are labeled "phony" to help preserve the integrity of this believed indistinguishableness.

To guys like Rush, the soldiers are just pawns to be moved about the chessboard of war. And should they fall, the collective reaction from righties is always the same.

Whatever.

(Filed at State of the Day and All Spin Zone)

Shootin' Thru The 'Tubes

2007-09-27T07:30:00.000-05:00

I'm still trying to find my muse this morning so here's what's Shootin' Thru The 'Tubes:

Despite warnings that it could be read as tacit approval for military confrontation with Iran, the Senate, following in the suicidal footsteps of their counterparts in the House, overwhelmingly passed an amendment by Joe "When can we bomb Iran?" Lieberman. And even though the amendment was parred down, removing some of the more provocative language, there is still debate about how the remaining provisions could still be used to draw the US into another war.

And since we're on the subject, a Spanish newspaper released what were claimed to be transcripts of a pre-Iraq war conversation between President Bush and Spanish Jose Anzar in which Bush claims he'd already made up his mind to invade Iraq no matter what. This Telemundo version of Downing Street might be food for thought for all those Congress Critters to think about the next time Bush says he wants to resolve the standoff with Iran diplomatically. Then again, it may already be too late.

But while the legislature may be willing to sign away their duties and responsibilities, thankfully there are those in the judiciary who aren't as eager. A second judge as ruled portions of the Patriot Act are unconstitutional, specifically those regarding the issuance of search warrants without probable cause.

And finally, a group of bloggers has set up a memorial fund in honor of Sgt. Omar Mora and Sgt. Yance T. Gray, the two soldiers who dead in a vehicle accident weeks after writing a New Times Op-ed critical of the surge strategy. I urge you to visit. For while the media may have chosen to move on, we would be doing a huge disservice to their sacrifice should we merely let them and the countless others be consigned to the forgotten.

(Filed at State of the Day and All Spin Zone)

Still Adding Insult to Injury

2007-09-26T13:00:00.000-05:00

Earlier this year, a firestorm erupted over the treatment of wounded soldiers convalescing in the squalled conditions at Walter Reed Medical Center. The Bush administration responded to the scandal much the same way they responded to Hurricane Katrina: they spent more time searching for a fall guy than they did actually addressing the problem. And even though heads did roll over the affair, critics were not assuaged. They demanded these soldiers be afforded the treatment they have rightfully earned and the Congress has put forth numerous bills since then that sought to increasing spending for veterans health. But even to this day, Bush still threatens to veto spending that doesn't suit his liking.

As a result, conditions at Walter Reed are about what one would expect.

Months after pledging to improve veterans care, the Bush administration has yet to find clear answers to some of the worst problems afflicting wounded warriors, such as delays in disability payments and providing personalized care, investigators said.

A report by the Government Accountability Office, released Wednesday, offers the first preliminary assessment of improvement efforts initiated by the Pentagon and Veterans Affairs Department after revelations in February of shoddy outpatient treatment at Walter Reed Army Medical Center.

The AP reports that staff shortages mean that nearly half of returning wounded veterans who are eligible for treatment don't receive any. Delays of 177 days or more for disability payments still persist. And the continued lack of a viable system for transferring medical records from facility to facility means further delays in treatment.

Back in March, President Bush said "We're going to fix the problem ... We're not going to be satisfied until everybody gets the kind of care that their folks and families expect." Six months later, they're still waiting.

(Filed at State of the Day and All Spin Zone)

How Do You Spell That?

2007-09-26T07:00:00.000-05:00

President Bush's speech before the UN General Assembly yesterday is receiving quite a bit of attention, mainly because of the huge disparity of his remarks vs. record on human rights.

President Bush implored the United Nations on Tuesday to recommit itself to restoring human decency by liberating oppressed people and ending famine and disease.

Speaking before the United Nations General Assembly, the president called for renewed efforts to enforce the U.N.'s Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a striking point of emphasis for a leader who's widely accused of violating human rights in waging war against terrorism.

Bush didn't mention the U.S. prisons in Afghanistan or at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay, the U.S. practice of holding detainees for years without legal charges or access to lawyers, or the CIA's "rendition" kidnappings of suspects abroad, all issues of concern to human rights activists around the world.

The article goes on to quote several members of various human rights groups who were astounded at the audacity of Bush to herald the UN Declaration when so many practices of the US in recent years have been so antithetical to that very charter.

Now the point of this post not to highlight Bush's hypocrisy. That this President has a tendency to talk out of both sides of his mouth, often times flubbing his lines to such a degree that his handlers probably wish to duct it shut is well know by now. But what we didn't know is just how much help he needed to get the lines out.

Via ABC's Political Radar:

ABC News' Ann Compton and Jennifer Duck report: Never before has the White House released a draft version of the President's speech to the annual United Nations General Assembly.

But this year, a glimpse of how the President sees his speeches was accidentally placed on the UN website along with the speechwriters' cell phone numbers.

Pronunciations for President Bush's friend French President Sarkozy "[sar-KOzee]" appeared in draft #20 on the UN website. Other pronunciations included the Mugabe "[moo-GAHbee] regime" and pronunciations for countries "Kyrgyzstan [KEYRgeez-stan]" and "Mauritania [moor-EH-tain-ee-a]."

One can only imagine how they would try to phonetically spell out a name like Ahmadinejad. Perhaps they employ the Katie Couric method?

Update: Fellow ASZer Steven wonders why no help with the one word Bush always mispronounces?

(Filed at State of the Day and All Spin Zone)

Ca$hing in on 9.11

2007-09-26T06:00:00.000-05:00

I like to rag on Rudy Giuliani for his shameless exploitations of the events of 9/11. He does it with such frequency that one has to wonder if he does in fact suffer from some sort of 9/11 Tourette's. But there was always one area where the exploitation thankfully never really delved into and that was fund raising. Sure he would use his 9/11 celebrity to garner all sorts of lucrative speaking engagements but he never overtly linked 9/11 to his pandering for money.

So much for that.

A supporter of Rudy Giuliani's is throwing a party that aims to raise $9.11 per person for the Republican's presidential campaign.

Abraham Sofaer is having a fundraiser at his Palo Alto, Calif., home on Wednesday, when Giuliani backers across the country are participating in the campaign's national house party night.

But Sofaer said he had nothing to do with the "$9.11 for Rudy" theme.

The Rudy campaign has since tried to distance itself from this saying it was an independent initiative not associated with America's Mayor. And though they've disavowed the stunt, it doesn't mean they won't still reap the rewards since they've yet to indicate whether that will accept the proceeds.

What I don't get is: why such a low figure? Most of these types of events pull in upwards of $1,000 a head. Why not go for the obvious $911? Even at that price it would have been decent discount.

Maybe they were testing the waters to see the reaction to such a blatant case of exploitation. If it received a tepid response, which it looks to have aside from expected condemnation from the blogosphere and Chris Dodd, we might be in for a significant markup in the "$'s for Rudy" campaign.

Then again, it may just be a sign of the times. Rudy has so flooded the landscape with references to 9/11 that he's forced to hawk it for less than the price of a previously-viewed movie at Blockbuster. And just like most of those ill-advised, direct-to-video sequels, I have feeling will be in for more of this sort of thing as the campaign season progresses.

Update: More from Hunter.

(Filed at State of the Day)

Opening The Files: 09/25/07

2007-09-25T07:00:00.000-05:00

Manic Mahmoud Monday

It was Mahmoudapalooza yesterday in Right Blogtopia. Apparently giddy from their triumph in squashing Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's trip to Ground Zero, they set their outrage phasers to "pearl clutch" and directed their ire to Columbia University, where the New Hitler spoke and held a Q&A cession. But they mightn't have bothered, since after a blistering introduction by CU President Lee Bollinger, Mahmoud proceeded to make a complete ass of himself. His claims about women's rights and the lack of gays in Iran were met with the only howls they truly deserved: laughter.

But for the righties, the mere thought of giving this man a platform from which to make himself look the fool is just too much and once again our lawmakers seem intent on making everyone wonder who the real fools are. Love those priorities. For a party that projects itself as the "Tough Daddies", the GOPers sure need to change their undergarments often. Are we really that fearful?

Anyone else getting the feeling that was really has people like William Kristol, Michelle Malkin, and Glenn Reynolds worried is that we might go over our blow hard quota?

The Garlic has the scoop on the real reason for Ahmadinejad's visit.

Will Bunch isn't holding his breath that anyone will point out how much ol' Mahmoud's rhetoric sounds eerily similar to that of certain members of the right. Martin Lewis, meanwhile, says Iran is starting to sound like a paradise.

Dilbert creator Scott Adams feels like he's been had.

Steve Soto wants proof beyond just the regurgitated talking points from the media.

And Joe Gandelman wonders who the target audience was for this made-for-TV drama.

(Filed at State of the Day and All Spin Zone)

Dial Tone Deaf

2007-09-23T09:00:00.000-05:00

Looks as though Rescue Rudy might be in need of some rescuing himself. During a speech to the National Rifle Association, America's Mayor took time to answer the call: from his wife that is. But given the reception his curiously timed interruption received, perhaps now would be a good time for Rudy to switch to a provider that doesn't have such great reception. Can you hear me now?

As for rest of Rudy's oration, he probably should have stuck with the I love yous. For his claim that 9/11 changed his view of how important is it to defend our rights under the Second Amendment seem rather specious when you consider that view likely doesn't extend to the rest of the rights ascribed on that piece of parchment.

And one last note, since Rudy has no problem with these glimpses into his personal life, maybe the media should learn to get over their aversion to pointing out the open secret.

(Filed at State of the Day and All Spin Zone)

Fulfilling the Prophecy

2007-09-22T05:30:00.000-05:00

"As democracy is perfected, the office of President represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."---H.L. Mencken, The Baltimore Evening Sun, July 26, 1920.

Mr. Mencken was of course being facetious when he wrote that statement nigh on a century ago but he could have easily been describing our current political landscape. We often like to make fun of President Bush for his, at best, estranged relationship with the English language. And he has yet to disappoint us, as he did the other day when he inartfully suggested that Saddam Hussein killed South African President Nelson Mandela (who is very much alive, by the way). I think what has most everyone tittering over this is the idea that Bush even knows who Mandela is, much less what he accomplished. Indeed, it wouldn't surprise me in the least to learn he had to be informed that Mandela wasn't a type of fruit.

One of the men vying to be his successor is apparently intent on continuing the Mencken prophecy. Like Bush, Rudy Giuliani must have also gotten mediocre grades in Econ 101 because he seems to think that we would be able to balance tax cuts with even more tax cuts. I don't know about you but the only place I know of where a negative times a negative equals a positive is in algebra, which I will admit it takes an advance degree in to sort out the current tax code.

And on the subject of why he now favors gun rights after seemingly years spent advocating stricter gun control laws? Three guesses what his answer was (Hint 1: it's his answer to everything) (Hint 2: No, not tax cuts).

When it comes to the President, it is really too much to ask that we elect someone based on more criteria than the presence of a pulse?

(h/t to Joe Galloway for Mencken quote)

(Filed at State of the Day and All Spin Zone)

Shootin' Thru The 'Tubes

2007-09-21T07:00:00.000-05:00

TGIF and it's the "Fauxtage Edition" of Shootin' Thru The 'Tubes:

The righties still can't move on from MoveOn. In the clearest sign yet that the Congress has their priorities seriously screwed up, they overwhelming voted to condemn a newspaper ad that disparaged Gen. Petraeus. President Bush even got in on the fun, calling the ad "disgusting" and chiding the Democrats for being to scared to challenge leftwing groups like MoveOn. Keith Olbermann took the Prez to task over his remarks in a must see Special Comment. His genuine outrage, as opposed to the trumped up kind being generated over MoveOn, is palpable.

But the MoveOn Maelstrom succeeded in the only respects that mattered to the righties: distracting from Petraeus' actual testimony. Indeed, since this came to dominate the headlines, when was the last time anyone outside of the blogosphere addressed the substance of his claims? My point exactly.

Something else that has the righties knickers in a twist was a request by Iranian President Ahmadinejad to visit Ground Zero. Now I can appreciate the concerns of some over having him visit what many see as hallowed ground. And I certainly have no love loss for the guy. But like Josh Marshall, I have to wonder if the righties (and a few lefties) upset by this aren't suffering from some prepubescent mentality where they continue to view everything through the prism of a good vs. evil paradigm. One would think our ever shifting alliances in Iraq, which they also herald as signs of success, would have disabused them of that world view. But then, these are the righties were talking about.

Update: More from Kevin Drum.

(Filed at State of the Day and All Spin Zone)

Indefinite Sentences

2007-09-20T06:00:00.000-05:00

Yesterday, thanks to the most obstructionistiest GOP body to date, those detained in the war on terror as well as those fighting it have now been told their fates track along much the same course. For while the suspects in places like Gitmo have once again been told they do not deserve a right to question their detention, the soldiers serving in Iraq have again been told that they do not deserve adequate time at home. That it would in fact "demean their service".

In a sense, both groups are trapped in sentences to which neither know the duration.

For the troops, it is having the predictable effect and no amount of cutesy, yet utterly meaningless proposals will change that. And yet somehow the GOP is still considered the party that "supports the troops". Some support.

Now some would say I am being treasonous for having the temerity to compare accused terrorists with members of our armed services. But as some have astutely observed in the past, this war is more about us than it is about them. That we would give up cherished liberties and condemn our fellow citizens to the turmoil of a war that many now realize was a mistake, all for the hubris of a small cabal of elites, says more about we as a nation than anything the terrorists could ever do.

(Filed at State of the Day and All Spin Zone)

Opening The Files: 09/19/07

2007-09-19T08:00:00.000-05:00

The Week Everything Changed...or Not

Last week, with its Petraeus parade and MoveOn ad apoplexy, was billed by the Beltway punditocracy as the week that was suppose to change everything. But if trends are any indication, P.T. Bush still has his work cut out for him convincing the American people that all those droppings left behind by his parade of prodigious pachyderms are anything but steaming piles of partially digested agitprop. Because despite even the copious amounts of Febreze from "fair and balanced" Fox, the public is still holding their collective noses.

A slew of post Petraeus polls show that Americans just aren't buying the PR surge. And they also go along way toward explaining the sudden spinal regeneration on the part of the Democrats. As much as I don't wish to devalue the significance of this development but it needs to be said that we have seen this song and dance play out before. Only time will tell if it's the same old two-step (usually backwards).

But what has been clear even before last week's "same strategy, new slogan" rollout is that Americans have soured on this war and nothing short of a deux ex machina moment will change that. That Dems would wait until they could gauge the publics reaction to the Petraeus parade also points to how little faith they have in our ability to understand the situation. Then again, a PR surge worked to get us into this war. But once bitten, twice shy as they say.

In any event, the Bushies are no doubt squirming and are already looking for a fall guy for when the eventual "return on success" shows little in the way of return and even less in the success department.

Will Durst helps us sort out Petraeus' testimony.

The ramparts at the Times may be no more but, as Digby points out, the Beltway Villagers still refuse to venture outside their comfort zone.

And like me, David Sirota is cautiously optimistic that the Dems have finally gotten over their phobia.

(Filed at State of the Day and All Spin Zone)