John Yoo Blasts Obama on Torture Ban - Incriminates Bush on War Crimes

In an WSJ Op-ed former OLC Attorney John Yoo blasts President Barack Obama for removing the One and Only Effective Tool for protecting America from the horrors of Terrorism which is - well - using Terrorism.

While these actions will certainly please his base -- gone are the cries of an "imperial presidency" -- they will also seriously handicap our intelligence agencies from preventing future terrorist attacks. In issuing these executive orders, Mr. Obama is returning America to the failed law enforcement approach to fighting terrorism that prevailed before Sept. 11, 2001.

You mean the policy that captured, tried and successfully imprisoned Terry Nichols, Ramzi Yousef, the "Blind Sheikh" and executed Timothy McVeigh under Clinton or the "Ok, Now you've covered you ass" policy of Bush?

He's also drying up the most valuable sources of intelligence on al Qaeda, which, according to CIA Director Michael Hayden, has come largely out of the tough interrogation of high-level operatives during the early years of the war.

Michael Hayden would be the former head of the NSA who illegally spied on Everyone? Yeah, we should take his advice.

Not only does Yoo have a rather distorted view of the past, he can see the future too.

The question Mr. Obama should have asked right after the inaugural parade was: What will happen after we capture the next Khalid Sheikh Mohammed or Abu Zubaydah? Instead, he took action without a meeting of his full national security staff, and without a legal review of all the policy options available to meet the threats facing our country.

What such a review would have made clear is that the civilian law-enforcement system cannot prevent terrorist attacks.

It can't? You mean that it wasn't civilian law enforcement that prevented the Millenium Attacks on the L.A.X., the bombing of Lincoln and Holland tunnels and Project Bojinka (A plot to blow up 12 planes over the Pacific simultaneously, led by WTC bomber Ramzi Yousef)?

It's not like regular cops, the border patrol and the FBI foiled all these plans using fully legal and humane methods.... except that they did!

What is needed are the tools to gain vital intelligence, which is why, under President George W. Bush, the CIA could hold and interrogate high-value al Qaeda leaders. On the advice of his intelligence advisers, the president could have authorized coercive interrogation methods like those used by Israel and Great Britain in their antiterrorism campaigns. (He could even authorize waterboarding, which he did three times in the years after 9/11.)

So Bush and Rice spent 9 months blowing off Richard Clarke who urged we need to take urgent action on al Qeada, and they blew off George Tenet and the August 6th PDB which said that al Qeada was likely to "Hijack Planes and attack New York and Washington" - and their only recourse after 9-11 - is to use Torture - and Yoo Verifies that Bush did exactly that at least three times!. Interesting that he wouldn't say any of that when he was under oath before congress.

Coincidence? I think not.

Then Yoo really starts talking some straight up nonsense.

The CIA must now conduct interrogations according to the rules of the Army Field Manual, which prohibits coercive techniques, threats and promises, and the good-cop bad-cop routines used in police stations throughout America.

No, it doesn't Mr. Boalt Hall Professor. From Media Matters via Thinkprogres.

In fact, the Army Field Manual explicitly permits good cop-bad cop interrogations under the name of “Mutt and Jeff” interrogations, which involve two interrogators “display[ing] opposing personalities and attitudes toward the source.” The Field Manual says the “goal of this technique is to make the source identify with one of the interrogators and thereby establish[ing] rapport and cooperation.”

Wanna go 0 for 6 Professor Yoo? I thought you did.

Mr. Obama has also ordered that al Qaeda leaders are to be protected from "outrages on personal dignity" and "humiliating and degrading treatment" in accord with the Geneva Conventions.

No, actually that Order came from the Supreme Court in Hamdan V Rumsfeld. It's also in the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 and the Military Commissions Act of 2006. Obama is simply following and implementing the law - unlike yourself.

His new order amounts to requiring -- on penalty of prosecution -- that CIA interrogators be polite. Coercive measures are unwisely banned with no exceptions, regardless of the danger confronting the country.

Y'know what - according to the people who actually perform interrogations, including former Special Forces Operative Matthew Alexander, the man who'se techniques led to the neutralization of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi head of Al Qeada In Iraq - Being Polite Works! - while getting all Jack Bauer with it actually puts us and our troops at far greater risk.

I learned in Iraq that the No. 1 reason foreign fighters flocked there to fight were the abuses carried out at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. Our policy of torture was directly and swiftly recruiting fighters for al-Qaeda in Iraq. The large majority of suicide bombings in Iraq are still carried out by these foreigners. They are also involved in most of the attacks on U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq. It's no exaggeration to say that at least half of our losses and casualties in that country have come at the hands of foreigners who joined the fray because of our program of detainee abuse.

...

I refused to participate in such practices, and a month later, I extended that prohibition to the team of interrogators I was assigned to lead. I taught the members of my unit a new methodology -- one based on building rapport with suspects, showing cultural understanding and using good old-fashioned brainpower to tease out information. I personally conducted more than 300 interrogations, and I supervised more than 1,000. The methods my team used are not classified (they're listed in the unclassified Field Manual), but the way we used them was, I like to think, unique. We got to know our enemies, we learned to negotiate with them, and we adapted criminal investigative techniques to our work (something that the Field Manual permits, under the concept of "ruses and trickery"). It worked. Our efforts started a chain of successes that ultimately led to Zarqawi.

More from Alexander on Countdown.


More Yoo.

Eliminating the Bush system will mean that we will get no more information from captured al Qaeda terrorists. Every prisoner will have the right to a lawyer (which they will surely demand), the right to remain silent, and the right to a speedy trial.

All of which are parts of - um - Our Constitution, y'now that thing you swore and oath to protect and defend as a member of the U.S. Government?

Here's the thing, Yoo notes that the Israelis and the British have used these techniques (against the PLO and IRA) respectively - but he leaves out the fact that both of them found that they generally created a ton of Blowback. Just as Alexander points out - it energizes the forces against you when you use inhumane techniques, Israel is having the problem right now after hitting Gaza with White-Phosphorus and destroying the UN headquarters.

He forgets that in WWII many Italian and even some German soldiers were more than eager to surrender because they knew they would be treated well by American Troops, and this was even true during the first Gulf War when many Iraqi soldiers gave up immediately upon encountering our forces with fighting. Contrast those facts to the rise of the insurgency following Abu Ghraib - and you have the answer to his hypothetical question of "risk vs reward" on the banning of torture in other coercive interrogation techniques. Following the law saves lives - Our Lives and Their Lives Too!

Yoo would seem to believe that techniques such as water-boarding are NOT torture simply because he wrote a memo saying so which re-defined "Torture" as treatment leading to imminent organ failure or death.

Here's the thing, if you stuff a pillow or a rag over someone's nose and mouth - how long will it take for their lungs to fail from lack of oxygen? And if you add water to that - how much quicker will they fail as the person DROWNS? The reason people respond so quickly to waterboarding is because - It's Attempted Murder. They're Killing YOU!

Oh sure, it doesn't leave any bruises - which allows for deniability, something that the Khmer Rouge certainly loved - but it's still attempted murder. The only thing that prevents from being full-on murder is whether they stop soon enough. And it's not that hard to cross that line.

According to Human Rights Watch - this type of "Murder" is not a hypothetical question from their 2006 Report

Since August 2002, nearly 100 detainees have died while in the hands of U.S. officials in the global “war on terror.” According to the U.S. military’s own classifications, 34 of these cases are suspected or confirmed homicides; Human Rights First has identified another 11 in which the facts suggest death as a result of physical abuse or harsh conditions of detention. In close to half the deaths Human Rights First surveyed, the cause of death remains officially undetermined or unannounced. Overall, eight people in U.S. custody were tortured to death.

Ya hear that Billo? Get it Johnny? Tortured TO DEATH. NOT "Near Organ Failure" - Not "Simulated" or "Feels Like" - Dead!!

Estimates from the ACLU's review of various autopsy reports are far higher, more than 44 detainees tortured to death. If true, that's 44 War Crimes all punishable by Execution under U.S. Law.

Those deaths - all of them in addition to thousands of needlessly injured, wounded and dead U.S. soldiers - lay directly at the feet on John Yoo, Alberto Gonzales and George W. Bush.

Eat it up Johnny.

Vyan


P.S. Jack Bauer is a Fracking Tool - not a "Hero".

Update from Comments:
FYI - John Yoo's Homepage at UC Berkeley

Bush Booed At Inaugural

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLDzJHdxWAc



For a man leaving office with 22% approval and 73% disapproval who specifically said he "didn't care what the American people thought..." - it should have been expected.

Vyan

President Bush's Final Insult to the Nation - Nothing Went Wrong with Katrina?

In his final press conference today, Soon-to-be-former President Bush indignantly defended the Federal Response to Hurricane Katrina - yet again displaying a total cluelessness that is both astounding and appauling.

Bush: You know, people said that the federal response was slow. Don’t tell me the federal response was slow when there was 30,000 people pulled off roofs right after the storm passed.

What President Without-A-Brain doesn't seem to realize is that those 30,000 people then spent the next seven days trapped in the Superdome without Food or Water!.

F-King Assclown!!

Thinkprogress has a list of exactly how slow the federal response actually was.

– National Guard troops did not arrive in the area until two full days after the levees were breached.

This of course, just as it did in Iraq - helped lead to widespread looter by both the hungry and the greedy.





Most people were just trying to survive.

– Bush did not leave his vacation home or assemble a task force until Wednesday, two days after the hurricane made landfall and the levees were breached.

Just like when he was told "Bin Laden Determined to Strike inside the U.S", when Katrina hit - Bush was too busy clearing brush on his Horse-less Ranch, to bother doing what he claims was his "Number one" duty: Protect the nation. Eventually he did do something, he went to have some Cake with John McCain.



And when he was done with that... he went to play some guitar.



Meanwhile New Orleans looked like THIS:

– By Thursday, three days after landfall, FEMA had yet to set up a command and control center.

– FEMA Director Michael Brown said he had not heard about the more than 3,000 evacuees stranded in the convention center until Thursday. Many evacuees had been there since Tuesday morning.

It's really odd that it took him that long, since one of those evacuees - was a member of FEMA. Marty Bahamonde, who was sending Brown text messages from his Blackberry from inside the Superdown.

Seattle Times: On Aug. 31, Bahamonde e-mailed Brown to tell him that thousands of evacuees were gathering in the streets with no food or water and that "estimates are many will die within hours." "Sir, I know that you know the situation is past critical," Bahamonde wrote. "The sooner we can get the medical patients out, the sooner we can get them out."

No response came from Brown.

In his defense, Brown actually did relay this message up the line to Michael Chertoff and to the Whitehouse with a request for more resources and support. They gave him BUPKIS!

Back to Thinkprogress.

– On Friday morning, Bush praised Brown: “Brownie, you’re doing a heckuva job.” He also said he was “satisfied with the response.”

Yeah, right!

– FEMA did not finalize its request for evacuation buses until Sunday, six days after Katrina hit. The buses “trickled into New Orleans, with only a dozen or so arriving the first day,” noted the Wall Street Journal.

– The Superdome was finally evacuated on Sunday, a full seven days after 30,000 evacuees had arrived there.

This is what happened to more than 3000 of the people that the Coast Guard "Saved".



And this...



And this...



Nice job, Bushee!

Besides the fact that Bush was Personally WARNED that this could happen prior to landfall, and that FEMA has done a simulation called Hurrican Pam which predicted the complete distruction of the city, his response to this issue, even after all this time, with so much evidence to the contrary, is just mind-bogglingly assholish!. Yes, the Coast Guard did a great job - but they were the ONLY ONES DOING THEIR JOB!!


Everything else fell apart. The cities resource were strapped, all the buses they had were destroyed in the storm. The Police cars were swamped didn't have boats, and the Bushies were more interested in making a Democratic Governor Suck IT than allowing her to use her own National Guard to help.

NEW YORK Former FEMA director Michael Brown says politics were a factor in decisions over whether to take federal control of areas affected by Hurricane Katrina.
Brown, in a lecture in New York, says some in the White House suggested only Louisiana should be federalized because it was run by a Democrat, Governor Kathleen Blanco. He says he recommended that all affected areas be federalized. That would have put the federal government in charge of all agencies responding to the disaster.

Brown says someone at the White House said Blanco's "a white, female Democratic governor and we have a chance to rub her nose in it." He didn't identify the person.

In his defense Bush suggests that the question of "doing more" somehow means he should have landed Air Force One in the middle of a disaster area. He then goes on to point of how ridiculous that idea would have been since his presence would have "drawn resources" away from the problem.

Let me just speak directly to Mr. Bush in all seriousness for a second:

Hey Shithead, the resources WEREN'T EVEN THERE TO DEAL WITH THE PROBLEMS - bringing in AF1 and it's ontourage of vehicles, back up planes and whatever would have helped. Doing anything would have helped. They could have used that shit to get people out of city - or to bring them Food and Water.

Nitwit.

Sorry, President NITWIT, to you.

This man - this so-called "President" - is and was a National Disgrace!! He stranded Americans - on American soil. ABONDONED THEM TO SUFFER AND DIE for a week, and he now says "Don't Tell me the Federal Response was SLOW!!"

Fuckerhead!

Good Bye and Good F-n Riddance!

Vyan

If this is "Safe", I wanna know what "Fucked, Beyond Belief" Is?

These days George Bush is looking forward to being an Ex-President. He's bought a new 2 Million Dollar home in Dallas, he's making the rounds in a series of "Exit Interviews" where he's managed to justify invading and attacking Iraq - even though they had nothing to do with 9/11, and didn't have WMD's and weren't going to share what they didn't have and weren't going to attack us - or anyone - and after more American have died in Iraq than did on 9/11, he still thinks he did he "right thing".


Ok, Sure, whatever.


His personal delusions don't bother so me much until it's obvious that they've been spreading to so many other people, particularly former Reagan speechwriter Peggy Noonan who recently stated:

When Republicans say, in coming years, "At least Bush kept us safe," Democrats will not want tacked onto the end of that sentence, "unlike Obama."

The man's not even in office yet and already he's supposedly "failed the nation"... oy vey!

I'm keeping this short, because it's really simple.

Here's the problem - BUSH DIDN'T KEEP US SAFE.


When Bush came into Office he REVERSED the previous Clinton focus on counter-terrorism.
Rather than respond to the Urgent Request for a high-level meeting on Al Qaeda and Bin Laden from NSA Counter-terrorism chief Richard Clarke - they ignored him for months while having meeting after meeting on Iraq.


When the August 6th PDB appeared stating clearly that Bin Laden would Attack America by Hijacking a set of planes, and that he had likely targeted New York and Washington - Bush IGNORED IT!

And finally when America WAS ATTACKED - he didn't do Jack SHIT!

Watch!

..

Most indications from counter-terrorism experts has been that Bush's actions both before and after 9/11 has made us LESS SAFE, not more.


Bush doesn't deserve credit, he deserves nothing but scorn for his incompetent and ineptitude at the cost of thousands of American Lives and Trillions of Dollars.


"Good job", Bushie - and Good Riddance.


More on this from Tonight's Countdown...

Vyan

Wherein the Appeasement-Gate Canard is Smashed

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHliQNZcmi8



The argument that simply speaking with the leaders of countries we disagree with being "appeasment", some type of surrender or traitorous behavior is simply ridiculous on it's face. It's false bravado, bully diplomacy done at the barrel of a gun and the dull plodding thoughlessness of a charging Rhino.

Most High School students, those with a better knowledge of Presidential History than Dana Perino, understand that Kennedy talked to Kruschev. Nixon talked to Mao, Reagan talked to Gorbachev, George H.W. Bush (via Rumsfeld) talked to Saddam, Bill Clinton's people talked to Jerry Adams and Milosevic, and George W. Bush's Administration has talked to both Qaddafi, Lil Kim Jong Il and the leaders of the Sunni Awakening.

Yet somehow - Obama is the misguided one here?

It's just so wrong and inaccurate it's galling to the point of rage.

The definition of "Appeasment" via Dictionary.com

ap·pease – verb (used with object), - peased, - peas·ing.
1. to bring to a state of peace, quiet, ease, calm, or contentment; pacify; soothe: to appease an angry king.
2. to satisfy, allay, or relieve; assuage: The fruit appeased his hunger.
3. to yield or concede to the belligerent demands of (a nation, group, person, etc.) in a conciliatory effort, sometimes at the expense of justice or other principles.

A discussion is not a concession to some belligerent demand. It's a discussion. It's communication. How can you make any progress in any direction at all unless you discuss the issues at hand?

Standing back while loudly bellowing "Give Up, Or I'll say GIVE UP again..." is not a ration foriegn policy.

Former G. H. W. Bush Secretary of State James Baker understands this fully - From Hannity and Colmes. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYC3jVaDDEg

Baker: My view is that you don't just talk to your friends, you talk to your enemies as well and that Diplomacy requires talking to your enemies. You don't reward them. Talking is not appeasement. I made 15 trips to Syria in 1990-1991 ...at a time when they were listed as a terrorist state. On the 16 trip Syria changed 25 years of policy and sat with the table with Israel, effectively recognizing their right to exist.

Maybe that is what Barack Obama want to discuss with Iran, Mr. McCain?

Fortunately though, Barack Obama himself knows how to seperate fact from their distructive inane fiction. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jm-VduN-FVc



In this speech Barack makes it clear that the failure to engage is not a sign of strength, it is a travesty of disastrous proportions. Since Bush and his ilk like to use a retroactive rewriting of history to suit their own rhetorical needs, lets suppose this had always been our policy and as a result we had have lost the Cold War?

If we hadn't negotiated with the Soviet Union...

There would still be Nuclear Missles in Cuba pointed right at Florida. East and West Germany would not have been reunited. There would still be a wall across the center of Berlin.

It's well past time we relearned something that we seemed to have always known before the reign of President George W. Bush.

Diplomacy Works.

Vyan

Olberman PWNS Bush

Leave George Bush Alone!

Leave George Bush Alone Part 1

Part 2


Nuff Siad.

Bush Vetoes SCHIP

From Thinkprogress.

President Bush’s veto of an SCHIP expansion was only the fourth veto of his presidency. AP reports that the White House “sought as little attention as possible, with the president wielding his veto behind closed doors without any fanfare or news coverage.” House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) said that they have not yet scheduled a date for an override vote, but it could be “next week” or “the week after.”

UPDATE: Families USA has released a “Bush v. kids” SCHIP ad. Take a look:

CBS Investigators finding confirm Rather's Killian Story

Writing in Salon today, Sydney Blumenthal reports that according to the documentation in the $70 Million lawsuit filed by Dan Rather against CBS news for his treatment prior to his (forced) retirement, CBS had hired an independent investigator on the infamous "Killian Memo" story who had found confirmation of claims made by Rather and producer Mary Mapes.

After allegations of forgery in the memo's by Col. Killian which proclaimed:

"I ordered that 1st Lt. Bush be suspended not just for failing to take a physical ... but for failing to perform to U.S. Air Force/Texas Air National Guard standards. The officer [then Lt. Bush] has made no attempt to meet his training certification or flight physical"

Rather and Mapes were placed before a CBS review panel.

Rather believed that the panel would conduct a fair-minded inquiry. But he
learned that neither he nor Mapes would be allowed to cross-examine witnesses. They heard from some researchers on the "60 Minutes II" staff that
before they had been questioned, a CBS executive had told them that they should feel free to pin all blame on Rather and Mapes.

But in his suit Rather alleges that, besides scapegoating himself and Mapes finding the truth was far from the panel's purpose.

CBS had told Rather to cease investigating the story and had even hired a
private investigator of its own, Erik Rigler. Rather and Mapes
discovered that Rigler's investigation had uncovered corroboration for their story. Rather's complaint states that "after following all the
leads given to him by Ms. Mapes, he [Rigler] was of the opinion that the Killian
Documents were most likely authentic, and that the underlying story was
certainly accurate." But rather than probing Rigler on his findings, the
panel, to the extent its lawyers questioned him in a single telephone call,
"appeared more interested whether Mr. Rigler had uncovered derogatory
information concerning Mr. Rather or Ms. Mapes, as to which he had no
information," according to the Rather complaint. Rigler's report was suppressed,
never presented to the panel, and remains suppressed by CBS. Nor did the
panel fully question James Pierce, the handwriting expert consulted by "60 Minutes" who insisted that the signature on the documents was surely Killian's.

Not withstanding the facts, including the interview with Killian's secretary who confirmed everything in the allegedly false memo was true - CBS surged forward with their plan throw Rather and Mapes from the train.

When it came to the merits of the facts the panel elided them. It never
addressed the facts at all. Instead it criticized the "60 Minutes" team for
failing to "obtain clear authentication" of the Killian documents, among other
"errors," though it admitted it could not prove one way or another whether they
were inauthentic. Mapes and three other producers were dismissed. "60 Minutes
II" was abolished. And on the day after Bush's reelection, Rather was
unceremoniously fired. His contract had called for him to continue as anchor for
an additional year and then to serve as a correspondent for "60 Minutes" and "60
Minutes II," but that promise was not honored. CBS believed that by severing its link with Rather it could put the whole incident behind it and begin a new happy relationship with the ascendant Republicans.

Vyan

Bush Obsessed by Betray US MoveOn Ad

From RawStory

Taking questions from reporters in the White House press room Thursday morning, President Bush seemed more eager to pile on a week-and-a-half's worth of Republican attacks on a MoveOn.org ad than he was to talk about issues with actual geopolitical impact.

In fact he was so upset by the ad that went into an "extended diatribe" over it at the end of his press conference.

The president called the group's full-page New York Times ad "disgusting," and he accused Democrats of caring more about the feelings of liberal activists than the US military.

Feelings.. nothing more than feelings...

Hey Commander Prez-Guy, can our troops have a side of Body Armor and Health Care to go with this old song and dance? Pretty Puhleeze?

Update A Short Clip from the Presser:

"I felt like the ad was an attack not only on General Petraeus but on the U.S. military.

Yet again, no one can say anything about any specific soldier without attacking the "ENTIRE U.S. MILITARY." It's not like they happen to be individuals or anything. What are they a multi-headed hydra joined at the hip or something? The Uni-mind? All is one - One is All. Y'know - like an Army of One!...

uh oh!

And I was disappointed that not more leaders in the Democrat party spoke out strongly against that kind of ad," Bush said. "That leads me to come to this conclusion: that most Democrats are (more) afraid of irritating a left-wing group like MoveOn.org ... than they are of irritating the United States military. That was a sorry deal."

He's upset that more Democrats didn't speak out against it? Let's see that ad was criticized by John Kerry, Joe Biden, John Edwards, Elizabeth Edwards and of course, Joe Lieberman - but who didn't speak out against it? Oh yeah - Hillary.

So this is just a pre-emptive jab a Hillary? Ok, fine - that just means Republicans are actually afraid of her. Good.

But it's interesting that when the show was on the other stage and you had people accusing someone like say - John Kerry - of being a "traitor" and giving "aid and comfort to the enemy" the President wasn't nearly so upset. Maybe that's because the President was one of the people making the accusation. (ala WaPo)

Appearing in the Rose Garden yesterday with Iraq's interim prime minister, Ayad Allawi, Bush said Kerry's statements about Iraq "can embolden an enemy." After Kerry criticized Allawi's speech to Congress, Vice President Cheney tore into the Democratic nominee, calling him "destructive" to the effort in Iraq and the struggle against terrorism.

As did Orin Hatch.

Democrats are "consistently saying things that I think undermine our young men and women who are serving over there."

And John Thune speaking about his then Senate rival Tom Daschle.

"His words embolden the enemy." Thune, on NBC's "Meet the Press," declined to disavow a statement by the Republican Party chairman in his state saying Daschle had brought "comfort to America's enemies."

And Dennis Hastert

Asked whether he believed al Qaeda would be more successful under a Kerry presidency, Hastert said: "That's my opinion, yes."

So did anyone on the Republican side of the aisle disavow these remarks? Did anyone at all stand up and say - "this is going too far - it's Disgusting!"? Hm, not so much.

The White House and the Bush campaign said they would neither endorse nor disavow the remarks by Hastert, Armitage and others. "Those statements speak to the great concern many people have about John Kerry's consistent vacillation under political pressure on the most significant issues the nation faces with regard to the war on terror," Bush campaign spokesman Steve Schmidt said.

White House press secretary Scott McClellan had no quarrel with the remarks. "They are expressing their opinion," he said.

So all these Republicans were just "expressing their opinion", say like the opinion that Senator Max Clelend has now become a member of Al Qeada simply because he voted against the Patriot Act. It's not like the Patriot has been abused a few thousand times or anything.

No one on the Republican side has spoken out about these actual abuses, not just theoretically ones, real ones. But somehow Democrats are deficient if they don't toss MoveOn from the train over "General Betray Us?"

Yeah, It's not like Repubilicans have ever attacked General Zinni.

MOWBRAY: Discussing the Iraq war with the Washington Post last week, former General Anthony Zinni took the path chosen by so many anti-Semites: he blamed it on the Jews.

Technically, the former head of the Central Command in the Middle East didn’t say "Jews." He instead used a term that has become a new favorite for anti-Semites: "neoconservatives."

Or General Batiste

Bush on Rumsfeld Criticism: ‘No military guy is gonna tell a civilian how to react.'

Or General Eaton.

In making his point that Secretary Rumsfeld should resign, Eaton also maligned nearly all of the military's key leaders of the past four years. Eaton's attack was innacurate, unprofessional and uncalled for. In summing up his case against the Secretary of Defense, the retired general illustrated a mindset that appears focused on issues that have already passed, rather than the problems being faced by commanders in the field today.

And guess what - Moveon didn't even invent the "Betray Us" term - the troops did as Time Online Reported way back in August.

AFTER being hailed as King David, the potential saviour of Iraq, the US commander General David Petraeus is facing a backlash in advance of his report to Congress in September on the progress of America’s troop surge.

Critics, including one recently retired general, are privately calling him "General Betraeus" on the grounds that he is too ambitious to deliver a balanced report on the war.

Lawrence Korb, a defence official under Ronald Reagan who is now at the Center for American Progress, a Democratic think tank, said Petraeus was regarded as "the most political general since General [Douglas] Mac-Arthur".

It's also interesting to note, as John Stewart did last night in discussion with General Wesley Clark, that Petreaus actually wrote the manual on counter-insurgency for the Army, yet his current strategy in Iraq is 180 degrees from what he wrote.

Hm. Could it be that it's not really his idea? (I mean, it's not like he wrote report all by himself or anything is it?)

Possibly not if you listen to what Petreaus own commanding officer, Admiral Fallon head of CentCom, really thinks of him.

Fallon told Petraeus [in March] that he considered him to be "an ass-kissing little chickensh*t" and added, "I hate people like that", the sources say. That remark reportedly came after Petraeus began the meeting by making remarks that Fallon interpreted as trying to ingratiate himself with a superior.

Might an "ass-kissing little chickenshit" toss his own long considered theories and opinions out the window in order to secure advancement and in effect BETRAY THE TROOPS in the process?

I think he might, and I think the fact that everything Petraus said contradicts the GAO, the CRS, The NIE and most recently released Pentagon Report on Iraq seems to back this up.

Democrats shouldn't be backing slowly away from Moveon.org - they should be piling on, particularly since everything Moveon.org has said about Petreaus - iS TRUE. (Psst! Just the way Republicans always do when what they're Playing the 'Traitor' Card!)

P.S. They should all take some lessons in courage from John Murtha (who has a few ribbons and medals to his credit, I think)

"I’m saying (Gen Petreaus) came back here at the White House’s request to purely make political statements," Murtha said. "That’s what I’m saying. There’s no question in my mind about it."

Vyan

Far Worse then just a Pardon

On the fourth anniversary of "Bring 'em On" and just hours after an highly unfavorable ruling by the appeals court which would have sent Irvin Lewis "Scooter" Libby to prison in just six weeks, George Walker Bush , the 43rd Resident of the White House, communted his sentence and completely obliterated all 30 months of jail time he would have served for perjury and obstruction of justice in a case that was tantamount to Treason During Wartime.

But that's not the worst part...

The public and the editorial pages across the nation are enraged.

The New York Times.

Presidents have the power to grant clemency and pardons. But in this case, Mr. Bush did not sound like a leader making tough decisions about justice. He sounded like a man worried about what a former loyalist might say when actually staring into a prison cell.

The Washington Post

We agree that a pardon would have been inappropriate and that the prison sentence of 30 months was excessive. But reducing the sentence to no prison time at all, as Mr. Bush did — to probation and a large fine — is not defensible.

Chicago Tribune:

But in nixing the prison term, Bush sent a terrible message to citizens and to government officials who are expected to serve the public with integrity. The way for a president to discourage the breaking of federal laws is by letting fairly rendered consequences play out, however uncomfortably for everyone involved.

Dallas Morning News:

Nearly a decade ago, a GOP-led House impeached President Bill Clinton for lying under oath and obstructing justice in a civil deposition. Yesterday, a Republican president commuted the sentence of former top White House staffer Lewis “Scooter” Libby, who was convicted of the same thing in a criminal investigation. Republicans are known for being tough on crime. Apparently there’s an exception when the criminal is a member of President Bush’s inner circle.

San Francisco Chronicle:

In commuting the sentence of former White House aide Lewis “Scooter” Libby, President Bush sent the message that perjury and obstruction of justice in the service of the president of the United States are not serious crimes.

And there's more on Thinkprogress.

We now know that Bush, as opposed to normal practice and procedures did not consult with the DOJ or the prosecutor prior to his decision. Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald was not silent on the matter.

It is fundamental to the rule of law that all citizens stand before the bar of justice as equals. That principle guided the judge during both the trial and the sentencing.

Unfortunately that principle doesn't guide George W. Bush, who has quite possibly never before commuted a sentence of someone who has not even served a single day of jail time, not to mention the other normal requirements such as having exhausted all appeals, and having shown "remorse" for your actions.

Libby fits none of these.

We all know that justice is more equal for some than others, but isn't it amazing that not even Judith Miller or Paris Hilton weren't able to receive the "justice" afforded to Scooter Libby?

It's even possible that this action by Bush just might have push him past the tipping point eroding away the last vestiges of his public support in the same manner that the Saturday Night Massacre essentially doomed Nixon.

But then again there's Fred Thompson, who in 1998 voted to convict and remove Bill Clinton, but now sits as a member of the Scooter Libby Defense Fund.

I am very happy for Scooter Libby. I know that this is a great relief to him, his wife and children.

While for a long time I have urged a pardon for Scooter, I respect the president’s decision.

This will allow a good American, who has done a lot for his country, to resume his life.

"A Good American" you say?

Yes, certainly let him "resume his life" because it's not like Joe Wilson who risked his life to save other Americans in Iraq as the first Gulf War started is a "Good American", and it's not like Valerie Plame-Wilson who'se career as a covert CIA operative tracking weapons of mass destruction is a "Good American" or that hundreds of other agents and assets at Brewster-Jennings who were compromised by Libby's actions were "Good Americans" -- they're just F-ing HEROES is all.

But Fredrick isn't the worst thing - just listen to what Novakula has to say.

“Bush is blamed by friends of Libby for losing control of the Plame investigation by putting it in the hands of a special prosecutor — the U.S. attorney in Chicago, Patrick Fitzgerald. In his decision sparing Libby jail time, Bush did not say a word of criticism about Fitzgerald.”

Yeah, right... Bush should've fired Ashcroft (like Archibald Cox) for even suggesting a Special Counsel was needed. This is how they view things in the psychosis laden "no underlying crime" world of Toensing and fTucker. There was "no crime", Plame wasn't "covert" even though Judge Walton said she was, Patrick Fitzgerald said she was, and both General Hayden and Valerie herself said she was a covert operative and covered by the IIPA while under oath before Congress.

Since these guys consider fantasy to be me more valid than fact maybe someone should point out to them that even in the first episode of Alias (the only show on TV that's ever had every one of it's episodes approved by the CIA) Sydney Bristow walked right through the front doors at Langley. Even on ABC/GOP/TV, they know that CIA agents don't avoid Langley like it's the plague.

What could be worse is what Kagro X posits, that Bush could continue to use this strategy to void all possible threats and looming prosecutions against his key advisors such as Alberto Gonzales (who is currently at risk for Perjury over the NSA Wiretaps, as well s Obstruction and Witness Tampering with Monica Goodling) or Condoleeza Rice, Harriet Myers and Sara Taylor (who are at risk for Contempt of Congress for refusing to respond to congressional subpoenas).

But I don't think that's the worst - I think, as was discussed on Rachel Maddow last night, that the reason Libby wasn't pardoned outright was to further protect the Bush Administration from scrutiny. Y'see, if Libby had been pardoned he would no longer be able to evoke his fifth amendment priviledge against self-incrimination. He's already been incriminated.

All leverage that Fitzgerald might have had to find out what really went on in this case and what's really hidden in those big Mosberg Safes, such as a reduction in sentence in exchange for a proffer against the Veep (aka Fourthbranch) has been foreclosed.

Even though the House Judiciary Committe is already planning to look into the circumstances of his commutation with hearings, this move just might be Check and Mate for Shooter in his ongoing battle against the Rule of Law.

We're seriously looking at a situation where the President and Vice President could effectively evade any and all accountability for a failed policy that left us wide-open and vulnerable on 9-11 and has led us into an unneccesary, obscenely costly and pointless Civil War in Iraq.

At this point there's only one move left for Congress to make and hold this Administration Accountable.

Impeachment.

The only question is, without the ability to make subpoenas or Contempt of Congress Stick, or the ability to get a Special Prosecutor to look into the NSA Wiretaping and/or the DOJ Purge and produce hard incontrivertable evidence (as the Nixon tapes did so long ago) - how will Congress actually get the smoking gun that they still need (yes, I know many disagree that this is needed, but IMO and likely the opinion of both Nancy Pelosi and John Conyers it is) to bring formal Impeachment charges against Cheney or Bush directly?

Cheney being a Dick and jerking around the White House Staff is annoying, but as long as Bush lets him - not a crime. Bush commuting of even pardoning Libby is not a crime. Bush firing US Attorney's is not a crime. But there clearly have been crimes committed (War Crimes, Torture, Election Fraud) and the trick is how do you catch a major criminal mastermind (Cheney) in the act when he's running the government?

Vyan


P.S. Judge Walton's response to the commutation indicates that it is self-contradictory. Someone can not serve probation without first serving jail-time under federal guidelines, and LithiumCola points out that the judges encouragement to legal counsel to gain "clarification" from the White House on the meaning of Libby's non-status status just might unveil The Wizard of Cheney hard at work manipulating the levers behind the curtain.

Maher: Jimmy Carter Must be Sent to Gitmo

Jimmy Carter must be sent to Gitmo

Gore: Bush has the blood of thousands of Innocents on his hands

From Raw Story

Former vice president Al Gore insists that he's "not a candidate," even though his new book The Assault On Reason is attracting headlines for it's "two-fisted" attacks on the Bush Administration.

"I'm not a candidate and this is not a political book, this is not a candidate book," Gore said on Good Morning America Monday. "It's about that there are cracks in the foundation of American democracy that have to be fixed."

ABC's Jake Tapper notes that Gore "doesn't assail any Democrats by name."

"Bush, however, he names," Tapper continues. "Over and over."

Tapper adds, "'President Bush has repeatedly violated the law for six years,' Gore charges, regarding the warrantless surveillance program. He argues that the president does not need the enhanced domestic surveillance powers he has sought and received, often in secret, but that the competent use of the information already available would have been sufficient. Such as, for instance, the fact that Sept. 11 terrorists Nawaf Alhazmi and Khalid Almidhar were already on a State Department/INS watch list."

The following video is from ABC's Good Morning America

Excerpts from ABC article on Gore's book:

In the book, Gore is accusatory, passionate, and angry. He begins discussing the president by accusing him of sharing President Richard Nixon's unprincipled hunger for power -- and the book proceeds to get less complimentary from there. While Gore stops short of flatly calling for the impeachment of Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, he certainly gives the impression that in his view such a move would be well deserved. He calls the president a lawbreaker, a liar and a man with the blood of thousands of innocent lives on his hands.

Vyan

It's Official: W is the Worst. President. Ever. - signed Jimmy Carter

Although there was one diary about this already, I think it deserves another look since it's like - totally unprecedented.

Former President and Nobel Peace Prize Winner Jimmy Carter has called the current sitting President out big time.

"I think as far as the adverse impact on the nation around the world, this administration has been the worst in history,"

"The overt reversal of America's basic values as expressed by previous administrations, including those of George H.W. Bush and
Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon and others, has been the most disturbing to me."

"We now have endorsed the concept of pre-emptive war where we go to war with another nation militarily, even though our own security is not directly threatened, if we want to change the regime there or if we fear that some time in the future our security might be endangered," he said. "But that's been a radical departure from all previous administration policies."

As I documented yesterday, this Presidency is a complete total abject failure.

It about time people started to openly talk about it, but to hear it from a former President is something unique.

Of course, this isn't the first time that a former President has criticized a current President. Although I'm sure that'll come as surprise to Brit Hume who once claimed, following the entire Bill Clinton/Chris Wallace kurfuffle over the U.S.S. Cole that President Bush Sr. never sunk so low as to ever criticize Clinton while he was in office.

Former President Bill Clinton has now done something his predecessor, the first President George Bush, did not do, and that is criticize the sitting president and his administration

Unfortunately for Hume - Bush Sr. did do it

In an appearance at a San Antonio grade school on October 13, 1993, Bush expressed concern that the humanitarian mission to Somalia that he had launched nearly a year earlier was being "messed up" by the Clinton administration. "If you're going to put somebody else's son or daughter into harm's way, into battle, you've got to know the answer to three questions," Bush told the students. He said the president has to know what the mission is, "how they are going to do it," and "how they're going to get out of there."

You think Pappy Bush has ever asked his own son those three questions? I don't, but then I'm a cynic.

In an interview published in the February 1994 issue of Washingtonian magazine, Bush criticized the Clinton administration's purported lack of a "general strategy" in the foreign policy arena and the "start-and-stop" failures it had exhibited. Bush pointed to the Clinton administration's handling of the situation in Haiti as an example and also criticized Clinton for his policy toward Bosnia:

As it happened, both Haiti and Bosnia ultimately turned out pretty well I think. In fact, after years of sectarian strife that began under Pappy Bush - Bosnia is now the flowering peaceful democracy that Jr. and Cheney claim that Iraq will become someday after they finally find those misplaced chocolates and flowers and stuff, or the "last throes" finally throw in the towell, or the surge-suppression finally takes, or we just plain run out of able-bodied willing troops once the insurgents and sectarian militias are done killing them where it's more "convenient".

But that wasn't all, Pappy actually took credit for the Clinton economic boom, which to this day remains the greatest in American history.

During a July 26, 1996, news conference with Bob Dole, then the Republican nominee for president, Bush "criticized Clinton for boasting of current economic stability," according to a Kansas City Star article published the following day. Bush argued that "he handed Clinton an economy that grew at about 5 percent in 1993." "That was not recession," he told reporters.

Pappy also though Ken Starr was a right fine guy.

In a letter released on April 23, 1998, Bush "criticized the White House and its allies for their continuing public campaign to criticize [independent counsel Kenneth] Starr and undermine his investigation," according to a New York Times article published that day. In the letter, Bush professed to hold Starr -- who at the time was investigating the Monica Lewinsky affair -- "in high regard."

So much for the "grand tradition" of previous Presidents refraining from commenting negatively on the current office holder.

But to be fair, Carter isn't the first to say the "W" word. The Washington Post has already noted that historians have already shown that Bush is the Worst Ever.

More often, however, the rankings display a remarkable year-to-year uniformity. Abraham Lincoln, George Washington and Franklin D. Roosevelt always figure in the "great" category. Most presidents are ranked "average" or, to put it less charitably, mediocre. Johnson, Franklin Pierce, James Buchanan, Warren G. Harding, Calvin Coolidge and Richard M. Nixon occupy the bottom rung, and now President Bush is a leading contender to join them. A look at history, as well as Bush's policies, explains why.

At least Nixon had a talent for diplomacy, and Polk who started our other false war with Mexico at least had the where-with-all to fracking win it!. Bush this guy Dubya... is a total mess.

Bush has taken this disdain for law even further [than Nixon, yet!]. He has sought to strip people accused of crimes of rights that date as far back as the Magna Carta in Anglo-American jurisprudence: trial by impartial jury, access to lawyers and knowledge of evidence against them. In dozens of statements when signing legislation, he has asserted the right to ignore the parts of laws with which he disagrees. His administration has adopted policies regarding the treatment of prisoners of war that have disgraced the nation and alienated virtually the entire world. Usually, during wartime, the Supreme Court has refrained from passing judgment on presidential actions related to national defense. The court's unprecedented rebukes of Bush's policies on detainees indicate how far the administration has strayed from the rule of law.

Carter didn't just bash Bush on his foreign policy, he also hit him hard on his domestic issues, particularly his so-called faith based initiatives - which is particularly ironic since Carter was the First "Born Again" President we ever had.

"The policy from the White House has been to allocate funds to religious institutions, even those that channel those funds exclusively to their own particular group of believers in a particular religion," Carter said. "As a traditional Baptist, I've always believed in separation of church and state and honored that premise when I was president, and so have all other presidents, I might say, except this one."

The historians are against him, the former Presidents both Clinton and Carter - if not Pappy - are against him. Except for the Neo-Con Cabal who this weekend gave Convicted Purgerer Scooter Libby a huge round of applause as they ponder their next targets for regime change (cuz their first target has turned out so spectacularly they just have to have a sequel) - the jury is basically in on this one. I will admit though that this type of historical judgement is arguably premature, but still I have a great deal of myself that the legacy of George Bush is only going to become burnished and shine with the passage of time.

More like dull and tarnished with age.

Maybe I'm wrong, but somehow I just don't think so....

Vyan

This Failed Presidency

Sometimes I'm completely dumbstruck at what this President has so nonchalantly wrought, how he has destroyed American credibility, broken our military and destroyed Iraq while time and time again letting those who attacked us off Scott Free and criminally neglecting the needs of nation at home.

The full depth of Bush's bullshit is truly staggering if you even try to recount it all, or even the half of it that we know about.

It's a bit like the old adage about the frog and the boiling water. Put him directly in a hot pot and he'll simply leap out, but place him in while the water is still cold then slowly raise the temperate and he'll sit there quietly until his skin peels off and he cooks alive.

That's what has happened to America.

This week we learned that Bush's former White House Counsel, Alberto Gonzales and his Chief of Staff Andrew Card with the direct support and intervention of President Bush ambushed Attorney General John Ashcroft on his sickbed, in order to override his deputy James Comey into implementing an illegal domestic spying program that would shatter the privacy of millions of Americans and that when they refused - Bush and the White House went ahead and did it without them anyway!

What's even more staggering is that ABC and CBS haven't even bothered to report this story.

Imagine if we'd learned of such a thing in the year 2000? Think back to how the press howled at the allegations that the Clinton's had prematurely removed members of the White House Travel Office merely because - they were about to be indicted, and strove to replace them with "someone they could trust."

Y'know, like people who weren't potential felons.

All the White House Press Office does is arrange for the travel by the White House Press Corp to accompany the President and his staff - period. They - unlike the fracking Justice Department - don't have any real power to influence or implement policy.

We also had the "scandal" of some people in the Clinton White House having access to the FBI records of members of the previous administration due to an outdated access list provided by the Secret Service.

"They must have wanted those records for political dirty tricks."

Yeah, sure - the Secret Service does that all the time.

Flip that scenario on it's head in terms of relative political targets and multiply by about 1.2 Million and you have the Bush's Domestic Spying program in a nutshell, albiet a rather l.a.r.g.e nutshell.

Now we have Senate Confirmed U.S. Attorney's being fired for no reason, some reason, mutiple-reasons - all smoke screens to hide the real reason - none of which new Attorney General Alberto Gonzales was aware of or can seem to remember. At one point Gonzales wished that his deputy Paul McNaulty knew more and was more involved, and then he later claimed that McNulty knew everything all along.

Uh huh. And somehow Gonzales still retains the "full confidence" of this President.

This President, who claims to "Support the Troops", yet never fails to use them as props and shields while letting our wounded languish in rat infested squalor, has opposed legislation to have our flags lowered to half-mast in honor of fallen soldiers in the same way that we honored those slaughtered at Virginia Tech. He has oppossed and threatened to Veto raising their pay and death benefits while the price tag for his failed war sky-rockets above $500 Billion.

Despite all the blood and treasure we've spent, not to mention the millions of Iraqis impacted by our sad misguided attempt at "regime change" - Iraq is still on the verge of become a failed state.

The Iraqi's didn't want the Surge, but we surged anyway.

So far, that Surge - like so many Bush initiatives - has failed. And doesn't look like thing will get any better "when September comes", so we can certainly expect Bush's response to be to call for a Super-Surge even though recruitment has become so dismal the Army has been coaching new recruits on how to beat the drug tests.

Addicts with heavy firepower. Great.

That's likely to just hand us more and more Haditha's.

The U.S. Army private accused of raping and murdering a 14-year-old Iraq girl "was a high school dropout with three misdemeanors and was accepted into the Army just as the military, desperate for recruits, began issuing more ‘moral waivers.’"

It's gotten so bad even Republicans are starting to say "if the Iraqi government wants to leave - we should"

Here's a newsflash, 83 members of the Iraqi Parliament (about 1/3rd) asked for a timetable for our troops to withdraw - almost two years ago. And just this month, that 1/3 has grown to a Majority of the members of Iraqi Parliament who've now signed a petition ASKING US TO LEAVE.

You think we're gonna leave? Not with this President.

This President, who went golfing and campaiging while an American City Drowned in a toxic stew of piss, raw sewage, gasoline and decaying bodies.

This President and White House, who when Governor Sebelius correctly pointed out that the equipment Kansas needed after a devastating tornado attack has been sent to Iraq, much like the lack of response to Katrina, Blatantly LIED and claims she never asked for any equipment.

What? Did she forget to say "Simon Says?"

This President, who despite all his tough He-man talk about "fighting them over there" (so our soldiers can die much more conveniently) Completely. Totally. Dropped. The. Ball. On. 9-11 when it Counted.

MR. RUSSERT (Speaking to George Tenet): Then in June, a briefer of the CIA named Rich B gave a conclusion saying, based on all the reporting we've seen, that "bin Laden is going to launch a significant terrorist attack against U.S." Israeli "interest in the coming weeks." July 10 you got another briefing so alarming that you picked up the phone, said to Condoleezza Rice, "I want to come see you now," jumped in the car with some of your key advisers, went to see her. Rich B, he gave her a briefing package. Opening line, "There will be a significant terrorist attack in the coming weeks or months!" And then you--and later July, Rich B sitting at the CIA, said, "They're coming here."

This President failed to recognize that Iraq was already disarmed despite being told exactly that by Foreign Minister Sabri, the UN mandated Full Declaration by Saddam and the Weapons Inspectors on the ground.

This President, who shoved a revokation of The Great Writ through a compliant supine Republican Congress simply to cover his own ass and hide his own not entirely secret campaign of terror and torture - to the delight of his ghoulish supporters and the horror of his commanding generals.

This President, who through his VP aided and abetted Treason by allowing the identity of a Covert CIA Operative to be revealed simply to support a lie and a forgery that would have undermined his justifications for an unneccesary war.

This President, who has established a shiny new set of American Concentration Camps for muslim immigrants and their children.

This President, has a VP who busted a cap in some old dudes face and is still hanging around.

This President's "No Child Left Behind" Initiative - has failed.

This President's "Abstinence Only" Initiative - has failed.

This President's "Faith-Based Initiatives" - have failed.

At every level, and in almost every way imaginable the policies and practices of this president have failed the American People.

We - the proverbial frog - have already been well and truly deep fry fucked. It's long past time we hopped out of the pot and began far more than just talk about, and drafting of resolutions for the Impeachments of Rice, Gonzales, Cheney and yes, even Bush himself. It's time to start implementing the tools of oversight of this goverment. Frankly, just impeaching Bush or one of the others is NO LONGER ENOUGH. All of them have to go because at this point I'm afraid that the damage already done just might be nearly permanent.

Iraq and it's people will never be the same again.

How do we get back the trust of the world's nations when we say we need to defend ourselves from this threat, or that threat after we FUBAR'd Iraq this badly?

The Gulf Coast, particularly New Orleans, and the survivors of Katrina will never be the same.

How do we as American people begin to trust our own government when it alternately spies on us, then neglects us when our local resources are overtaxed by flood, fire, hurricanes and tornados? Not after New Orleans and Kansas we can't. How do we trust that they'll ever be able to handle another attempted 9-11 attack?

How do we prevent future Presidents from amasing the same near unlimited power onto themselves via the fiat of quasi-constitutional signing statements, and then completely mismanaging that power as badly as Bush has?

This Presidency has Failed.

We can not afford to let this legacy stand. We can not afford to let this President or his criminal cronies escape their crimes quietly in 2009, they must be held accountable - or else we will see another future President commit them again. If possible, it might even be worse next time.

We have to get out of the pot. It may not be right now, but it has to be soon. The timer is almost about to go off.

And still, even if we do get out, American will never be the same.

Vyan

Gang of 11 Repubs Tell Bush he has "No Credibility on the War"

As reported on Olbermann last night. a group of 11 House Republicans met with the President and basically told him that he has "No More Credibility" on the Iraq War.



As noted in the New York Times.

WASHINGTON, May 9 — Moderate Republicans gave President Bush a blunt warning on his Iraq policy at a private White House meeting this week, telling the president that conditions needed to improve markedly by fall or more Republicans would desert him on the war.

The White House session demonstrated the grave unease many Republicans are feeling about the war, even as they continue to stand with the president against Democratic efforts to force a withdrawal of forces through a spending measure that has been a flash point for weeks.

Participants in the Tuesday meeting between Mr. Bush, senior administration officials and 11 members of a moderate bloc of House Republicans said the lawmakers were unusually candid with the president, telling him that public support for the war was crumbling in their swing districts.

One told Mr. Bush that voters back home favored a withdrawal even if it meant the war was judged a loss. Representative Tom Davis told Mr. Bush that the president’s approval rating was at 5 percent in one section of his northern Virginia district.

“It was a tough meeting in terms of people being as frank as they possibly could about their districts and their feelings about where the American people are on the war,” said Representative Ray LaHood of Illinois, who took part in the session, which lasted more than an hour in the residential section of the White House. “It was a no-holds-barred meeting.”

A year and half after John Murtha originally called for Redeployment of Our Troops from Iraq, prompting his being called a "Cut and Run Coward", being "Senile", "Too emotional", behaving like a "Hitler Sympathiser", accused of trying to "Slow Bleed" our troops and that he should be "Fragged".... Republicans are finally begining to realize that light they see isn't the end of the tunnel, it's an oncoming train.

Although the President did fulfill his promise to Veto the Murtha inspired legislation he was presented by Congress, precisely on the fourth anniversary of "Quagmire:Accomplished" -- it seems that the Republican ranks are completely falling apart, with not only Senator Olympia Snowe (R-ME) putting forth her own set of Iraqi Redeployment and Timetables, but many other Senate and House Republicans are scurrying for higher ground on this issue.

Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME)

A likely sticking point is whether to include penalties if the Iraqi government fails to meet the benchmarks. Democrats, and some Republicans such as Senator Olympia Snowe of Maine, insist that there be consequences for falling short, such as a loss of U.S. financial support or the withdrawal of some coalition forces.

“We can’t be there in an open-ended fashion,” Snowe said. “We have to say: how long does it really take to pass the benchmarks?” [Bloomberg, 5/2/07]

Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME):

“Obviously, the president would prefer a straight funding bill with no benchmarks, no conditions, no reports,” said Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine). “Many of us, on both sides of the aisle, don’t see that as viable.” [LA Times, 5/3/07]

Rep. Mike Castle (R-DE):

Rep. Mike Castle (R-Del.), a leading moderate, said many Republicans are looking for a way out of Iraq, and he hopes that the Democrats will work with them after Bush likely vetoes the $124 billion war supplemental this week. “I think a lot of us feel that the time has come for us to look for solutions to bring this war to a close,” Castle said. “And I don’t think that’s just a feeling among moderate Republicans but among Republicans in general.” Castle said Republicans of all stripes “are very reluctant to put in dates on our Army” but said that other ideas, including Blunt’s talk of a “consequences package” for the Iraqi government, could bring the parties together. [Roll Call, 4/30/07]

Sen. Norm Coleman (R-MN):

“I think we’re still in a fairly toxic political environment,” said Sen. Norm Coleman (R-Minn.), who opposed the president’s troop buildup but voted against the Democratic withdrawal plan. “And I think it will continue like this for a while. That’s the reality.” [LA Times, 5/3/07]

Rep. Bob Inglis (R-SC):

But a new dynamic also is at work, with some Republicans now saying that funding further military operations in Iraq with no strings attached does not make practical or political sense. Rep. Bob Inglis (S.C.), a conservative who opposed the first funding bill, said, “The hallway talk is very different from the podium talk.” [Washington Post, 5/3/07]

Rep. Charles Boustany (R-LA)

“We have to be engaged developing our own proposals and not just going along with what the executive branch is doing,” said Rep. Charles Boustany Jr., a Louisiana Republican who voted against the Democratic plan to force Bush to start withdrawing troops. [LA Times, 5/3/07]

Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA):

Rep. Jack Kingston, a Georgia Republican who has supported Bush’s war strategy even as the public has turned against it, said, “The marketplace has become ripe for a new idea.” [LA Times, 5/3/07]

Although I'm certain the President expected that it would be the Democrats who would blink after his Veto since they didn't have the votes to override - it's looking more and more to me that the people that will ultimately decide this argument aren't the Democrats or the President, it's the Congressional Republicans who have now run out of their Visine &trade I-V feeds.

Oh, and it appears that the House is Voting Today on yet another Iraq Withdrawal Bill, this one submitted by Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass) a member of the "Out of Iraq" caucus.

“In a change of plans, House Democratic leaders today plan to bring up legislation that would begin redeployment of U.S. forces and contractors from Iraq not later than 90 days after enactment and to be completed within 180 days before turning to a second Iraq war supplemental,” National Journal reports.

The more Bush stands his ground and stamps his feet like a child, the more the sands shift beneath him and the closer our boys (and girls) finally get to coming home.

Vyan

The Next Veto Threat - Bush *Hearts* Hate Crimes

Fast on the heels on his second all-time Veto, President Bush has already began the rumblings for his third. This time though the issue isn't Stem Cells, or the continuation of the Iraq Escalation - this time he's threatening to Veto legislation that would help prevent hate crimes.

Because, y'know Hate Crimes are something we certainly need more of...

Now exactly why would the President and Conservatives have a hard time with this bill? Could it be that they think they have a right to be bigots? From USA Today

WASHINGTON (AP) — The White House issued a veto threat Thursday against legislation that would expand federal hate crime law to include attacks motivated by the victims' gender or sexual orientation.

The hate crimes bill, with strong Democratic backing, is expected to pass the House Thursday. Similar legislation is moving through the Senate.

But the legislation, which also would increase the penalties for bias-based violence, has met outspoken resistance from conservative groups and their Republican allies in Congress, who warn that it undermines freedom of speech, religious expression and equal protection under the law.

"Equal protection?" - hm, seems some people are a bit more equal than others in the Conservative mind.

The White House, in a statement, said state and local criminal laws already provide penalties for the crimes defined by the bill and "there has been no persuasive demonstration of any need to federalize such a potentially large range of violent crime enforcement."

Although the vast majority of Hate Crimes reported in 2005 were cases of Racial Bias (4,691 offenses), the level of Sexual-Orientation Bias is still quite significant with 1,171 offenses. That is only slightly less that the incidents of Religions Bias (1,314) and more than bias based on National Origin (1,144) - not counting of course the recent Police Riot against immigrants on May Day in Los Angeles.

One point that should be emphasized is that this legislation also protects people assaulted for their gender - even if they happen to be straight - which is a statistic which isn't recorded by the FBI Hate Crime stats. In other words, it would protect women and as we've seen in the wake of the I-Mess the attitudes that continue to be projected onto women are no small contributor to violence perpetrated against them.

Somehow I'm not exactly surprised that conservatives who have evicerated Civil Rights Enforcement, attempted to change the constitution to ban same-sex marriage and gave us the so-called partial birth-abortion ban which won't save a single child, but will put far more women at greater risk or serious injury and possible death, especially those who are only 17-years-old and younger - really don't give a rat-ass about protecting women from Hate Crimes either.

I mean, let's not make a Federal Case out of this stuff...

It also questioned the constitutionality of federalizing the acts of violence barred by the bill and said that if it reaches the president's desk "his senior advisers would recommend that he veto the bill."

That's right - y,see - people like Ann Coulter have a Constitutional Right to call John Edward's a "Faggot" in reference to Isiah Washington's onset rant, or to say Al Gore is "Totally Gay". Rush Limbaugh is constitutionally protected when he wonders who would design Edward's "Inaugural Gown."

But if some violent religious nutbag like say - Eric Robert Rudulf - should take things up a notch from a few fighting words and - I don't know - decide to plant their own IED near a Women's Clinic or a Gay Bar - we wouldn't want to bother the FBI with it would we?

Even so, the legislation in question doesn't address hate speech - vile as much of it may be - it addresses hateful actions, not that James Dobson or John Boehner seems to know the difference.

Radical right-wing groups have lobbied aggressively against this bill. Focus on the Family founder James Dobson called it “insidious legislation” that would “silence and punish Christians for their moral beliefs.” (Listen to Dobson HERE.) The Concerned Women for America said the bill is meant to “grant official government recognition to both homosexual and cross-dressing behaviors, and to silence opposition to those behaviors.”

Today, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) reiterated this far-right talking point. He claimed that under the hate crimes bill, you would be charged with a crime if you were “thinking something bad” before you committed a crime against someone. “I just think it takes us down a path that is very scary.”

This news was posted while I was halfway through this diary, and it brings up something I had considered including by was going to let is slide. Well, not anymore.

The idea that "Hate Crimes" constitute "Thought Crimes" is frankly a total load of BullCrap. Everyday in courts all around the country the question of intent and Premeditation are regularly introduced. What you were thinking when you kill someone is the difference between manslaughter, 2nd and 1st degree murder.

BOHN-er is simply full of it. And in point of fact the focus of the legislation is very limited:

This legislation goes after criminal action, like physical assaults, not name-calling or verbal abuse. The bill clearly states that “evidence of expression or associations of the defendant may not be introduced as substantive evidence at trial, unless the evidence specifically relates to that offense.”

The hate crimes legislation is by endorsed by 31 state attorneys general and leading law enforcement agencies. Under current law, federal officials are able to investigate and prosecute “attacks based on race, color, national origin and religion and because the victim was attempting to exercise a federally protected right,” but unable to intervene “in cases where women, gay, transgender or disabled Americans are victims of bias-motivated crimes for who they are.”

All it's doing is allowing already protected federal rights, such as voting, from being abridged for women, gays and the disabled in the same way that it is already (allegedly) protected for racial and ethnic minorities.

For the record, I'm not gay - but I don't see any reasonable problem with that, although I do think I have an idea why some of these guys really can't stand the idea.

Here's some more details from the Hate Crime Stats.

Sexual-Orientation Bias
In 2005, law enforcement agencies reported 1,171 hate crime offenses based on sexual- orientation bias.

* 60.9 percent were anti-male homosexual.
* 19.5 percent were anti-homosexual.
* 15.4 percent were anti-female homosexual.
* 2.3 percent were anti-bisexual.
* 2.0 percent were anti-heterosexua

I've long argued that crimes committed against male-homosexuals are actually crimes against women-by-proxy. In the mind of a rough, tough Malboro kind of man - he's is to adored by women - and women only. The idea of some other guy being attracted to him, and possibly thinking about him in the same way he would treat a women - is repugnant. Those guys don't want someone else treating them the way they treat their girlfriends - FUCK THAT NOISE!

So naturally anyone who even sniffs at this "Man's Man" the wrong way is going to get, and deserves a beat down, right?

IMO there's a common thread among the "Macho Men", particular those who join the military (although thankfully far from all of them) linking the mindset that took us from Tailhook to Abu Ghriab.

It's not an accident that General Pace thinks homosexuality is immoral - despite the latest Scientific information which tends to indicate that being gay is biological and not neccesarily psychological, which means that discrimination against them is exactly a vile as that initiated on the basis of race or other biological factors.

The only "immoral" persons in this situation are the President and his Conservative enablers who continue to seek to deny all of us, gay and/or straight, the equal protection of the law as was promised 139 years ago, yet still has not been realized, by the 14th Amendment.

There are details on how to Contact Your Representatives and let them know how you feel in This Call To Action Diary.

Vyan