The Toughness Question

Much of DKos and other sites have gone full-on Obama as the level of rancor has reached a fever pitch. With the strike of pro-Clinton kossacks we really aren't hearing much from the other side of the argument and that just might be something we need to hear, and Obama needs to hear.

There actually are some reasons besides sexism and racism that people have been bitterly clinging to their support of Hillary Clinton, and I think it's simply the toughness question.

Does Barack Obama have what it takes to keep fighting and fighting and fighting...?

It doesn't really matter to Hillary supporters that she has continued to shift goal-posts, gone back on previous pledges, uses her fuzzy-math to claim the lead, has helped feed the fake outrage storm over his so-called elitist anti-american-secret-muslim leanings, and has fed the fires of White Wright-Panic and Affirmative Action resentment.

And there's only one reason why.

None of the under-handed dirty tricks and double-talk matters, because Hillary is showing us all something that we haven't seen from Nancy (Impeachment-is-off-the-table) Pelosi and Harry (We-just-can't-make-the-Republicans-Filibuster-the-War-Budget-Again!) Reid.

One word.

Backbone!

I've been a long-time Bill Clinton supporter and still feel he may have been probably the best President of the 20 Century after FDR. I think he did a massively important thing when he stood up to the Republican Congress to prevent them from gutting our budget with tax cuts, and twice shutdown the government.

They thought he would cave - like a typical Democrat - but he didn't.

Whether we Obama supporters like it or not, during this election Hillary Clinton has proven to be the Freaking Energizer Bunny of Politics.

In a way, seeing this side of any democrat is refreshing.

This carefully constructed image of invulnerability - laughing hysterically whenever she's asked a tough question, rather than grimacing and barking out a be-grudging answer or ducking the issue - is working for her precisely because it feeds into a deep seated need for Democrats to feel that someone is willing to be a full-on pit fighter for them.

We've had too many promises broken.

We've seen too many would be champions of the rule of law, such as John Conyers, eventually prove to be ineffective and deflatable. Henry Waxman and Pat Leahy had promised to dog the crimes of the Bush Administration to the ends of the earth, yet one memo from Fred Fielding claiming executive priviledge and their various investigations have crashed into a solid brick wall.

Not zesty.

We won the Congressional majority, but we still haven't stopped the war - or defunded it, in fact we have more soldiers in harms way today than we did when Pelosi and Reid were sworn in.

But Hillary? She keeps Going and Going and Going...

But she's not going to win. She simply doesn't have the numbers and she keeps bleeding supers.

And even if she does win in some magically way, what exactly are we getting?

Yes, it's clear we need Democrats who are willing to take it to the mat and then some, but the other question that needs to be asked and answered is - how much of our integrity, values and common-sense our we willing to give up in the process?

Winning isn't everything if in the process of winning you have to give up what it is your actually fighting for such as fairness, justice, integrity and truth. Do Democrats have to start operating "on the dark side" (as Dick Cheney has put it), and use any available excuse simply to get what they want?

Isn't that kind of "ends justify the means" thinking that has led the Bush Administration completely off the moral precipice with their ridiculous and endless justifications for Torture, Domestic Spying and Unprovoked War?

Here's another point that both Obamans and Clintonistas need to consider. It may be true that Obama has far less Washington experience than Clinton, but we need to consider what she's done with that experience and wonder just when have we ever seen this endless fighting spirit of Clinton's before?

As posted on Democratic Underground: When has Hillary Clinton really fought for anything except herself?

Where was her "fight" during the Senate confirmation of John Ashcroft?

Where was her "fight" during the Senate confirmation of Alberto Gonzales?

Where was her "fight" during the failed Senate confirmation of John Bolton?

Where was her "fight" when she voted FOR cloture on the nomination of corrupt corporatist Priscilla Owen, clearing the way for her confirmation to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals?

Where was her "fight" when she voted FOR cloture on the nomination of unqualified fascist Janice Rogers Brown, clearing the way for her confirmation to the DC Court of Appeals?

Where was her "fight" when she voted FOR cloture on the nomination of religious zealot and homophobe William H. Pryor, clearing the way for his confirmation to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals?

Where was her "fight" when she voted FOR cloture on the nomination of John Roberts, clearing the way for his confirmation as Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court?

Where was her "fight" during the Senate confirmation of Samuel Alito?

Where was her "fight" when she skipped the Senate debate and confirmation vote on Michael Mukasey?

Where was her "fight" against the Military Commissions Act?

Where was her "fight" during this summer's vote on the Iraq War Supplemental?

Where was her "fight" during the vote to extend FISA?

Where was her "fight" during the Walter Reid scandal?

Where was her "fight" during the debate on Telecom Immunity?

Where was her "fight" when she SKIPPED the Senate vote to strip TelCo immunity from the FISA bill?

Where was her "fight" on the possible impeachment of Dick Cheney?

Where was her "fight" on the possible impeachment of George Bush?

Where was her "fight" against the myriad scandals surrounding the current administration?

Where was her "fight" when she campaigned for Joe Lieberman against Ned Lamont?

Where was her "fight" when she proposed legislation to ban flag burning?

Where was her "fight" when she voted FOR the 2001 Bankruptcy Bill?

Where was her "fight" when she voted FOR the USAPATRIOT act?

Where was her "fight" when she voted FOR the renewal USAPATRIOT act?

Where was her "fight" when she voted AGAINST an amendment to prevent the use of cluster bombs against civilian populations?

Where was her "fight" when she voted FOR the Iraq War Resolution?

Where was her "fight" when she voted FOR the Kyl/Lieberman amendment?

For some reason, Hillary Clinton only seems to be "a fighter" when she's fighting to feed her own naked ambition. Is that really what we want in a president?

It may be fair to say that we have seen Hillary the head-strong my-way-or-the highway pugilist at least once before: During her ill-fated Universal Health Care project.

What Hillary supposed learned, what she supposed discovered from that experience was how to accommodate, negotiate and reach across the isle. This is why she can now sit down with Richard Mellon Scaife and not involuntarily flinch from the squick factor.

There's another name for this tendency: Blind Bullheaded Ambition.

That kind of ambition and bullheadedness is likely why she voted for the Iraq War (showing she wasn't the typical squishy democrat on defense), and continues to defend that vote to this vary day.

Toughness is important, but so is Judgment.

On a variety of issues they break even. One might argue that Hillary's heath care plan has advantages over Barack's, and that his support of Nuclear Power is troubling considering the lack of a plan for long-term waste disposal.

But Barack has certainly shown better judgment when it comes to numerous issues - particularly Iraq, ethics reform and tracking down lose nukes - while Clinton has become even more Hawkish than the biggest neo-cons with her proposal for a nuclear umbrella over the middle east.

Clinton has clearly shown that she cares more about saying what people want to hear, than saying what they need to hear. This is a trait she shares with George W. Bush.

It's also clear she would be a far better President than George W. Bush could even dream of, but is that good enough? If we can do better, shouldn't we?

We democrats and the nation should realize that we need more than an unrestrained angry rampaging bull in the china shop of our foreign policy, domestic security and financial well-being.

We need a grown-up.

We need someone who can do more than rattle sabers and exploit fear to make cheap political points, but actually knows how to work with, deal with and find common ground with people whom they might otherwise have deep seated differences with. People like, ironically enough, Reverend Wright. People like William Ayers. Barack has said that he'd be willing to sit down and negotiate with those people that we don't like, such as Ahmadenijad as well as those that we do like - that he can bring disparate people together to meet common goals, rather than simply try to crush them, or "obliterate them".

We can do better, we have to.

Shunning and disavowing people we disagree with is not how you bring people together and solve problems, you have to engage them and challenge them - not simply walk away and expect them to come crawling apologetically to your feet.

Barack needs to make the argument that his wide and varied aquiantences are not a detriment, but an asset. He needs to rise to Clinton and the medias ridiculous arguments, all of them, and beat them back to where they belong - in the garbage. And do it with a smile.

Barack has the judgment, he has the rabid support of the people, but what he also needs to show is that he can go toe-to-toe with one of the toughest democratic politicians and political machines of a generation and not just barely survive it, but learn from it.

He needs to use this experience to Toughen Up, but do so without losing his integrity or his argument that he represents a shift away from the "old-time politix".

This is truly a clash of generations, the tried and true vs the new and dynamic. He needs to make that argument, and he needs his surrogates and supporters to continue to support this meme - it's time to put away the dirty tricks, the fear-mongering, the politics of division of the past and move forward with clean - but well worn and hard-working and fully engaged - hands.

Vyan

What Came First the Torture or the Criminal Conspiracy to Avoid Prison aka the "Yoo Memos"?

In an LA Times Editorial last week, Scott Horton noted that the infamous torture memos from John Yoo and Jay Baybee may in fact have been written as an after-the-fact excuse to hide War Crimes which were already in progress.

... Yoo's account of how and why the torture memos were crafted may not hold up. Congress is preparing hearings into the subject, and they have invited Yoo to testify. International law scholar Philippe Sands and other writers have punched holes in Yoo's claims about the facts. It increasingly appears that the Bush interrogation program was already being used before Yoo was asked to write an opinion. He may therefore have provided after-the-fact legal cover. That would help explain why Yoo strained to take so many implausible positions in the memos.

So the question needs to be asked, can the President and his chief Principals (Rice, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Ashcroft, Tenet and Powell) knowingly commit War Crimes then simply blow it off with a pair of CYA memos?

The question of course is just how illegal did they know it was, and when did they know it?

Horton Continued.

It also appears that government lawyers had told Bush administration officials that some of the techniques already in use were illegal, even criminal. In fact, a senior Pentagon lawyer described to me exchanges he had with Yoo in which he stressed that those using the techniques could face prosecution. Yoo notes in his Pentagon memo that he communicated with the Criminal Division of the Justice Department and got assurances that prosecutions would not be brought. The question becomes, was Yoo giving his best effort at legal analysis, or was he attempting to protect the authors of the program from criminal investigation and prosecution?

We have to note, as mentioned during Congressional Testimony just yesterday by Rep Henry Wexler, that in 2002 FBI agents on the scene nearly arrested the CIA interrogators questioning Abu Zubaydah on the spot.

The videotapes, made in 2002, showed the questioning of two high-level Qaeda detainees, including logistics chief Abu Zubaydah, whose interrogation at a secret cell in Thailand sparked an internal battle within the U.S. intelligence community after FBI agents angrily protested the aggressive methods that were used. In addition to waterboarding, Zubaydah was subjected to sleep deprivation and bombarded with blaring rock music by the Red Hot Chili Peppers. One agent was so offended he threatened to arrest the CIA interrogators, according to two former government officials directly familiar with the dispute.

The videotapes made of these interrogations have since been illegally destroyed.

The initial justification for use of waterboarding and other techniques in all likelyhood did begin long before John Yoo's involvment, and in fact may have begun with a January 25,2002 memo from Alberto Gonzales which openly argued that the President and his administration just might face potential prosecution under 18 USC 2441 (The War Crimes Act) if certain precautions weren't taken, namely - eviscerating the Geneva Conventions.

"It is difficult to predict the motives of prosecutors and independent counsels who may in the future decide to pursue unwarranted charges based on Section 2441 [the War Crimes Act]," Gonzales wrote. The best way to guard against such "unwarranted charges," the White House lawyer concluded, would be for President Bush to stick to his decision--then being strongly challenged by Secretary of State Powell-- to exempt the treatment of captured Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters from Geneva convention provisions. "Your determination would create a reasonable basis in law that (the War Crimes Act) does not apply which would provide a solid defense to any future prosecution," Gonzales wrote.

The first problem with this is of course that The President Doesn't Make the Law, Congress does.

The second problem is that the Geneva Conventions have an open catch-all section which indicates that anyone whose status is undetermined are to be considered Covered by the Convention until their status (POW or Civilian Criminal) can be determined by a tribunal.

Geneva Article 5.

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

The President is NOT a competent tribunal.

The third problem, which was recently raised by John Ashcroft, is that treaties such as Geneva and the UN Convention Against Torture can have "Reservations" attached to it when they are ratified by the Senate. Again, yesterday, as Ashcroft attempted to use this argument to duck and dodge his own culpability in these War Crimes when confronted with them by a student at Knox college, he unwittingly revealed that yet again - Congress has the power to determine what is and isn't the law, not the President.

There was no legal basis in law (or logic for that matter) for Gonzales or President Bush to attempt to exclude the Taliban and Al Qeada from the Geneva Conventions. The only reason they did it was to avoid probable prosecution.

As it turned out when they actually began interrogations, the Gonzo Gift wasn't good enough. Even with the Jan 2002 Gonzales memo and the President's subsequent determination that Geneva didn't apply to "Enemy Combatants" there was still a fierce debate within the DOJ and Pentagon.

Apparently this conflict - as well as the capture of Abu Zubaydah - is what prompted the drafting of the Yoo Memos in March of 2002. But yet another problem arises, Yoo didn't have the authority to issue the memo.

On Friday, March 14th, 2003, that [Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Opinion] was Jay Bybee. [UPDATE: Post corrected to reflect fact that Jay Bybee remained AAG on the 13th.] Yet John Yoo issued the Opinion in his own name. John Yoo did not have the legal authority to issue this opinion . . .

. . . unless either Jay Bybee or John Ashcroft delegated Yoo the authority to issue such a momentous opinion without the supervision of the head of the office.

So here's another news flash, John Yoo has now declined to testify before congress to explain himself and his actions.

We have been expressly advised by the Office of Legal Counsel of the United States Department of Justice that Professor Yoo is not authorized to discuss before your Committee any specific deliberative communications, including the substance of comments on opinions or policy questions, or the confidential predecisional advice, recommendations or other positions taken by individuals or entities of the Executive Branch.

This may very well turn into a subpeona, which based on past experience, the Justice Dept won't enforce and Congress will have to vote on Contempt charges and defer the issue to a outside judge - again.

Oy vey.

With the advent of the Hamdan decision, the Gonzales rationale for torture was stripped away as the Supreme Court affirmed that "Enemy Combatants" are indeed covered by Geneva and hence protected from War Crimes. The Bush Administration responded to this with the Military Commmissions Act, which established retroactive immunity for all acts or torture or coercian which may have occurred between Sept, 2001 and 2005., revoked habeaus corpus for "alien enemy combatants", allowed for the use of self-incrimination and coerced testimony, and re-wrote the War Crimes Act to conform to the "Bybee Standard" (Torture isn't "torture" unless someone is about to die).

That's Game, Set and almost match...

Almost. Still, there is hope that they won't get away with it. First all of because some of those who've been held in detention and abused have actually met the Bybee Standard. They didn't just have a simulated death experience - They Died.

So read several of the 44 US military autopsy reports on the ACLU website -evidence of extensive abuse of US detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan 2002 through 2004. Anthony Romero, Executive Director of ACLU stated, "There is no question that US interrogations have resulted in deaths." ACLU attorney Amrit Sing adds, "These documents present irrefutable evidence that US operatives tortured detainees to death during interrogations."

Guess what George? We aren't just talking about a bunch of frat-boy pranks on the night shift at Abu Ghraib, we're talking about a specific plan to implement a policy of abuse and avoid the legal consequences - a plan which has led to the death of numerous detainees. Murder is still Murder. Imagine that.

Secondly the Military Commission Act is unlikely to withstand judicial scrutiny under Geneva which prohibits:

the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

Removing Habeaus, as well as the protection of the 5th and 8th Amendments doesn't really qualify as "affording all the judicial guarantees"... now does it?

And lastly Bush and his Cabal are unlikely to get away with it because what this long paper trail clearly shows us is there was a plot and a plan to engage in these actions, regardless of the existing law and procedures which should have been followed. Evidence was deliberately destroyed in violation of a court order and congressional subpeona to protect the guilty. What we now know is that with the various meetings of the Principals to discuss "enhanced interrogation" methods which were patently illegal is that what we really have here - is a conspiracy.

And under 18 USC 2430, that could still be a big problem for Bush and Co.

(a) Offense.— Whoever outside the United States commits or attempts to commit torture shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, and if death results to any person from conduct prohibited by this subsection, shall be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life.
(b) Jurisdiction.— There is jurisdiction over the activity prohibited in subsection (a) if—
(1) the alleged offender is a national of the United States; or
(2) the alleged offender is present in the United States, irrespective of the nationality of the victim or alleged offender.
(c) Conspiracy.— A person who conspires to commit an offense under this section shall be subject to the same penalties (other than the penalty of death) as the penalties prescribed for the offense, the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy.

Just as Gonzales warned in Jan 2002, the Bush administration is still at risk of being prosecuted by the next administration. Their only viable option left is to have a Pardon Party as they slide out the back door in Jan of 2009.

But let's just cling bitterly to the audacity to hope these thugs and criminals all have their day in court (something they've work so hard to deny to so many other people)

Vyan

What else would you expect from Disney/ABC?

have to admit I really really wasn't suprised by last night horrifically shoddy and superficial "debate".

Look, It's all over the internet.

Jason Linkins: Worst. Debate. Ever.

WaPo: The clear loser was ABC.

Now everyone knows ABC sucks donkey balls.

I'll be honest, I have been boycotting this network since they spent 4 hours lying about President Bill Clinton's attempts to contain Al-Qeada in "Path to 9/11", a program they aired without commericials. It was practically a free political donation to the GOP. Let's also remember that Disney/ABC refused to distribute Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" and nearly torpedoed the entire project.

But y'know, all of this might be a good thing in the long run.

It's almost funny how fraking clueless they are.

Gibson: "Now the crowd is turning on me"

Dude, the whole country is turning on you.

But we shouldn't have been surprised after ABC cancelled it's support for a Reality Show featuring a Gay couple ten days before it was supposed to air when James Dobson threatened not to buy boat loads of "Narnia" DVD's in protest.

This network has been carrying water for the wingnuts for years. They're owned by one of the biggest wingnut organizations in the world - Disney. One whose entire existence is based on taking someone elses work or story, completely mutilating it into something unrecognizable but kuddly, then repackaging and mass producing it. If you want to talk about fake-ass bullshit - that's the definition of Disney and the GOP in toto.

We have Disney to thank for Hannah Montana.

We have Disney to thank not only for Britney Spears, but also Christina Aguilera and Justin Timberlake.

Talk about distortions of reality.

Hasn't the entire Bush Presidency, particularly Rumsfled, operated in a Disneyian fog of make believe for the past seven years?

The Bush administration is all Shiny-Happy-Stepford-Disney-Secret-Zombie People with no real compassion for anything except their latest dividend statements from Dean=Whitter. Doesn't DISNEY just fit people like Lorita Doan and Monica Goodling to a "T"?

Both of them could be on American Idol if they were 15-20 years hunger and halfway talented vocally, they've alrady got the plastic smiles down pretty well. (Speaking of AI, I'm glad they finally kicked than phony patriot pandering countrified waif Kelly Cook the hell off the show last night... she actually sang that stupid "Proud to be an American" song the other week and even Simon kissed her ass like it was covered in English Muffins.)

Anywhoo...

When it comes to lousy treatment of their employees Disney tops the cake, paying kids in Haiti six cents a peice to produce Dalmation toys, long hours under horrible conditions, it doesn't get much worse than Disney. Just go ask the next guy in a Goofy Costume you see if he likes having all those size 5 footprints all over his ass.

If was ABC News who went through hours and hours of Reverend Wright's sermons and created the sound byte loops we've been hearing for weeks.

THEY. ARE. PURE. EVIL.

But, they can be useful. In the case of last nights debate what they've managed to do is completely and fully Vette Barack Obama. If he wsn't fully vetted before, he is now.

None of this crap is working against Obama. Bitter-Gate was a failure for Hillary.

The post debate numbers aren't available yet, but I suspect they won't be very different. IF anything Hillary is likely to lose more ground. But here's the thing, after both Hillary and ABC have thrown all these right-wing nutball frames at Barack - the guilt by association and the flag-pin fetish - what is McCain going to have left?

How is he going to take on Barack, if Barack has already defeated his best arguements as supplied by Hillary, Gibson and that little weasel Stephanopolous?

McCAIN'S GOT NOTHING - except the "stealth muslim" whisper campaign, which is going to work so well while people are talking endlessly about Barack being in the pews of a Christian Church for 20 years. How's that illogic supposed to fly?

Here's another thing - they didn't ask either of them the TORTURE and Prosecution question, even though it was ABC News who broke the Torture Meetings Story by the NSC Principals in the first place.

Yet again, inadvertantly, Disney did us a favor.

Other than KO and the Daily Show there's been a complete MSM news blackout on Bush's having admitted to being a War Criminal.

April 12, 2008 - Washington, DC -- In a stunning admission to ABC news Friday night, President Bush declared that he knew his top national security advisers discussed and approved specific details of the CIA's use of torture. Bush reportedly told ABC, "I'm aware our national security team met on this issue. And I approved." Bush also defended the use of waterboarding.

Recent reports indicate that high-level advisers including Dick Cheney, Condoleeza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell and George Tenet were part of the National Security Council's "Principals Committee" that met regularly and approved the CIA's use of "combined" "enhanced" interrogation techniques, even pushing the limits of the now infamous 2002 Justice Department "torture memo." These top advisers reportedly signed off on how the CIA would interrogate suspects – whether they would be slapped, deprived of sleep or subjected to simulated drowning.

"We have always known that the CIA's use of torture was approved from the very top levels of the U.S. government, yet the latest revelations about knowledge from the president himself and authorization from his top advisers only confirms our worst fears," said Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the ACLU. "It is a very sad day when the president of the United States subverts the Constitution, the rule of law, and American values of justice."

It's only the bloggers who seem to know what's really been going on.

If the Bush Administration became fully aware of Barack's stated intention to Prosecute their asses, he'd be sure to pardon everyone from himself down to Rumsfeld, Condi, Tenet, Scooter, Addington, Gonzales, Yoo and Bybee before he goes out the door on Jan 20th, 2009. Just like his father did with all the people who'd been convicted during Iran-Contra, many of who came back and were working in his son's Administration.

We really don't want him doing that do we?

Let's just keep the entire Barack is going to Prosecute you Murderous War Criminals thing under our hats okay? We really don't need to give al-Bushco our entire Playbook now do we?

Vyan

Gonzo Can't Get a Job

After an extra-ordinary duck, bob and weave performance before several sessions of congress last year. Not to mention extremely virilent protests at his various speaking engagements, (Guess who's NOT going to be earning $10 Mil a year for the next ten years?) former White House Counsel and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales can't seem to find himself a JOB. From the NYTimes.

WASHINGTON — Alberto R. Gonzales, like many others recently unemployed, has discovered how difficult it can be to find a new job. Mr. Gonzales, the former attorney general, who was forced to resign last year, has been unable to interest law firms in adding his name to their roster, Washington lawyers and his associates said in recent interviews.

He has, through friends, put out inquiries, they said, and has not found any takers. What makes Mr. Gonzales’s case extraordinary is that former attorneys general, the government’s chief lawyer, are typically highly sought.

I don't know - why would anyone have a problem hiring a guy who tried to make War Crimes Legal? A man who lied about having and innocent man Rendered from JFK airport to Saudi Arabia where he was tortured? Who once said "Upholding the Constitution was a GRAVE THREAT to the U.S."? A man who couldn't even find someone to defend him ON FOX NEWS!

Seriously,

Here's what Brit Hume said about Gonzales as he slunk he way out of the DOJ back door.

Gonzales was a man almost without fans in Washington at the end, because he was never much appreciated or accepted by the conservative base of the Republican party and the conservative activists in Washington. And he certainly wasn’t popular among the Democrats. He was simply a crony. And I don’t mean that word to sound any worse than it is, but that was the case here.

So it seems not even the Conservatives ever really like this rat-fucker.

That seems to explain quite a bit, particulary why Gonzo seems to be headed for the soup line.

The greatest impediment to Mr. Gonzales’s being offered the kind of high-salary job being snagged these days by lesser Justice Department officials, many lawyers agree, is his performance during his last few months in office. In that period, he was openly criticized by lawmakers for being untruthful in his sworn testimony. His conduct is being investigated by the Office of the Inspector General of the Justice Department, which could recommend actions from exonerating him to recommending criminal charges. Friends set up a fund to help pay his legal bills.

Asked about reports that law firms have not taken up feelers from Mr. Gonzales, Robert H. Bork Jr., a corporate communications specialist and his spokesman, said Mr. Gonzales was talking to many people about the next steps in his career. “He is considering his opportunities in law and business,” Mr. Bork said, “but after many years in public service he is considering his options carefully.”

d Mr. Gonzales “looks forward to the conclusion of the department’s inquiries and getting on with his life.”

Those of us who've been paying attention think Gonzales options should start with prison and end with a plea bargin for War Crimes, Obstruction of Justice and violations of the Voting Rights Act -- and he should take plenty of time weighing them.

Like a lifetime.

Couldn't have happened to a bigger dick-head IMO.

Vyan

But What does Iraq Want?

In the midst of this weeks latest edition of the Dave and Ryan Magic Show on capital hill, where it appears that if things get worse in Iraq, we have to stay and if things get better in Iraq, we have to stay - no matter what we have to again wait until September comes again - everyone seems to have completely forgotten to bother asking what the Iraqis want the U.S. do?

Well, here's what Iraqi PM Maliki says:

The prime minister told Bush during a 20-minute telephone conversation on Wednesday that Iraqi security forces are capable of carrying out their duties and U.S. troops should be pulled out as the situation permits, according to a senior government adviser who sat in on the phone conversation. He spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to disclose the confidential details.

Oops. Does this mean that Maliki wants us to Cut and Run?

Not only has the Bush Administration been completely oblivious to the desires of the American People...

CHENEY: On the security front, I think there’s a general consensus that we’ve made major progress, that the surge has worked. That’s been a major success.

RADDATZ: Two-third of Americans say it’s not worth fighting.

CHENEY: So?

RADDATZ So? You don’t care what the American people think?

CHENEY: No. I think you cannot be blown off course by the fluctuations in the public opinion polls.

Fluctuations? Do these look like "fluctuations" to you?

They also don't care what the Iraqi people seem to think. (via The Wapo)

...61 percent said the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq is making the security situation there worse.

No matter what the sitaution is on the ground, Patreaus and Crocker have made it clear that they remain hell bent for steel, and will pause the troop draw down, keeping our troops levels in Iraq at or even beyond the breaking point until at least 45 days past July, ensuring that there wil be at least 140,000 troops in the War Zone when the next President takes office.

In a speech at the White House, Bush hailed what he described as Iraqi progress in the political, economic and security realms. However, he said, Iraq remains "the convergence point" for two of the greatest current threats to the United States: al-Qaeda and Iran. He said that despite the reduction of a quarter of U.S. combat power in Iraq by the end of July, U.S. troops would continue hunting down members of the group known as al-Qaeda in Iraq. And he warned Iran to stop funding, arming and training extremist groups battling U.S. forces and the Iraqi government.

"If Iran makes the wrong choice, America will act to protect our interests, our troops and our Iraqi partners," Bush said.

He spoke after two days of congressional testimony in which Army Gen. David H. Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker described significant, but "fragile and reversible," progress in Iraq. Petraeus, the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, laid out a plan to reduce his troop strength to about 140,000 -- down from about 170,000 at the height of a "surge" last year -- and to suspend further reductions while commanders take stock of the situation.

This of course flies directly in the face of Bush previous promise that if the Iraqis asked us to leave - we would go.

BUSH: We are there at the invitation of the Iraqi government. This is a sovereign nation. Twelve million people went to the polls to approve a constitution. It’s their government’s choice. If they were to say, leave, we would leave. [...] We are there at their request. [...] but if they were to make the request, we wouldn’t be there.

Yeah, sure we would.

Vyan

Morgan Spurlock: A Real American Hero to the Rescue

n this midst of this weeks news that President Bush is so intent on "smoking him out of his holes" that he walked out of a recent NATO meeting about Afghanistan because - well, the meeting had gone on too long for him.

Bush is no fan of windy meetings and evidently had had his fill. He left behind Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates to represent him for the rest of the session, which concerned NATO operations in Afghanistan, but his departure was so sudden and unexpected that he left some of his motorcade behind, inculding his press pool, when he got into his car and headed back to his hotel.

Who knows maybe it was past his bedtime, what with Jetlag in Romania and all..

So in this bleak time we have but ONE MAN to look toward to help save this nation from itself, and track down the most deadly butcherous mass murderer in all history.

Who is that lone solitary figure of Bruckheimer-ish virility and manhood?

Morgan Spurlock maker of "Super Size Me" and FX's "30 Days".

Let us not forget that on George Bush's Watch, the Taliban and Al Qeada have merged operations, and also that in Pakistan - where Bin Ladin is most rumoured to be - there is a non-aggresion treaty between that government - our supposedly ally - and the Taliban.

Does that mean that the ally of our ally is not our enemy it? Or does it?

In the spirit that this farcical "Search for Osama" has become, Spurlock now brings you : Where in the world is Osama bin Laden?

Coming this Fall.

I know some of you are probably waiting on baited breath for the new season of 24 where Jack Bauer (Sets Congress Straight about Torture - but I for one can't wait for this.

Vyan

George Carlin and the Truth about American Pride and God's Blessing

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1aLkKtBZHi4

In this section from his recent HBO Special, comedic legend George Carlin does an amazing job of putting all of this "God Bless America"/"Proud to be an American" Crap in exactly the perspective it needs to be.

Here are some excepts:

I saw a slogan on a guys car that said "Proud to be an American" and I thought "What the fuck does that mean?"

I'm fully Irish, and when I was a kid I would go to the St Patrick's Day parade and they sold a button that said "Proud to be Irish", but I knew that on Columbus day they sold the same button only it said "Proud to be Italian", then came Black Pride, and Puerto Rican Pride. And I could never understand national or ethnic pride, because to me Pride should be reserved for something you achieve on your own.

Being Irish isn't a skill, it's a fucking genetic accident.

You wouldn't be proud to be 5'11". You wouldn't be proud to have a pre-disposition for colon cancer.

And then he gets to the entire "God Bless America" thang.

Here's another slogan you run into all the time, "God Bless America".

Once again, respectfully, I say to myself "What the Fuck Does that Mean?"

"God Bless America?" Is that a request? Is tht a demand? Is that a suggestion? Politicians say it at the end of every speech, as if it was some sort of verbal tick that they can't get rid of.

I guess they figure if they leave it out someone is going to think they're "bad Americans". Let me tell you something folks, God Does not give a flying fuck about America, ok? He doesn't care. He never cared about this country. He never has. He never will. He doesn't care about this country any more than he cares about Mongolia, Transylvania, Pittsburgh, the Suez Canal or the North Pole. He simply doesn't care, ok.

Listen, there are 200 countries in the world, do these people honestly think God is sitting around picking out his favorites?

Why would he do that?

Why would God have a favorite country? And why would it be America of all the countries? Because we have the most money? Because he likes our national anthem? Maybe it's because he heard we have 18 delicious flavours of classic Rice-O-Ronie?

It's Delusional Thinking.

If these people believe in God, they must have heard that God Loves Everyone, and he loves them equally. So why would these people ask God to do something that goes against his own teaching? Maybe they ought to check with that Jesus fella. They're always talking about "What would Jesus do"?

They don't want to know so they can do it, they just want to know so they can tell other people to do it.

Personally, I think he has a point.

Vyan

One Black Perspective on the Wright Discussion and Race

I'm writing today in response to this Diary:

Rev Wright and the White Observation of History which is a good diary, and a fair summation of how (some/many) white people may view the issues of Race in America and it's History.

The discussion was robust, but apparently now has some formatting problems in it's comments and can't be responded to.

I wanted to respond to this comment:

I see Wright engaging in the same bullshit, but from the opposite direction. The answer now isn't to tear down Jim Crow - that structure is long gone. What we have to do now is the profoundly unsexy, technocratic shit of improving education in inner cities, fostering development in urban areas, and making colleges affordable. IMHO, Wright's "get whitey!" rhetoric certainly doesn't help, and arguably hurts that effort.

We have to do all that, but "getting whitey" isn't neccesary.

Many white people may see the success of Tiger Woods or Barack, P-Diddy, BET or Hootie and the Blowfish and figure our dark racial past with hardcore discrimination has long ended. People like Pat Buchanan.

What is wrong with Barack’s prognosis and Barack’s cure?

Only this. It is the same old con, the same old shakedown that black hustlers have been running since the Kerner Commission blamed the riots in Harlem, Watts, Newark, Detroit and a hundred other cities on, as Nixon put it, "everybody but the rioters themselves."

...

White America needs to be heard from, not just lectured to.

This time, the Silent Majority needs to have its convictions, grievances and demands heard. And among them are these:

First, America has been the best country on earth for black folks. It was here that 600,000 black people, brought from Africa in slave ships, grew into a community of 40 million, were introduced to Christian salvation, and reached the greatest levels of freedom and prosperity blacks have ever known.

Wright ought to go down on his knees and thank God he is an American.

Just because we went from open oppression to only occasional oppression - like shifting from regular monday morning floggings to a being possibly blindsided every other fortnight on the evening news is not an improvement.

Welfare is not a "Payback" for Slavery, and even if it was - how long would it really take to payback 350 years of it?

Wright Discussion from "Real Time" Last Night.

Tavis Smiley makes a ton of great points, the fact that Dr. King's anti-Vietnam speech (Video) was just as incendiary as anything said by Rev. Wright. (Transcript)

Let me say finally that I oppose the war in Vietnam because I love America. I speak out against this war, not in anger, but with anxiety and sorrow in my heart, and, above all, with a passionate desire to see our beloved country stand as the moral example of the world. I speak out against this war because I am disappointed with America. And there can be no great disappointment where there is not great love. I am disappointed with our failure to deal positively and forthrightly with the triple evils of racism, economic exploitation, and militarism.

At the time, King - who had been the darling of so many - was cursed and marginalized for speaking out, just as Wright has been.

But the real problem - and the core of the divide between black and white - is that it hasn't gotten "Better"

Yes, Official Sanctioned Overt Racism and Discrimination have been banned - but that doesn't mean that Covert Discrimination doesn't continue. And frankly, it's a lot more difficult to find, fight and stop something that's in hiding, than something that's out in the open.

Since Jim Crow ended we've had brutal racial murders such as James Byrd, and an overall rise in Hate Crimes (aka Racial Terrorism) predominantly against black people. Since Jim Crow ended we've had horrid racial specticle such as the OJ Trial, the Rodney King Beating and Riots, we've seen continual erosion of the voting rights act to the point that someone who openly used Racial Caging of African American Voters was able to secure a position as a U.S. Attorney, we've seen situations where the authorities excused the use of terror devices (hanging nooses) and intimidation (attacks with bottles and shotguns) which ultimately led one set of young black men - feeling they had little recourse but to take matters in their own hands and protect themselves - retaliated violently in Jena, LA, and left one young man nearly comatose, we've seen Driving While Black, Walking while Black and even having your city DROWNED and Abandoned While Black, we've heard about the "Nappy Headed Ho's" and the "MF-ing Iced Tea" we've seen the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department - the place that is supposed to protect the rights of the vulnerable - Purged of black and females attorneys showing they can't even protect themselves, let alone the rest of us.

None of this has gotten any better, if anything it's gotten worse - and less covert - than it used to be.

The difficulty has now come from identifying what is and isn't racism, and what you can and can't do about it. Since when it happens, it is done covertly, black people can sometimes point the finger of race too quickly (Duke) - but then there is also danger is ignoring it until it becomes far too large and powerful to deal with (Katrina).

We have a lot of work still to do, we will need to be very patient with each other as we try and do it. We have to honestly listen to one another, when blacks complain they've been profiled and harassed, they just might have a point - when whites complain they've been frightened and passed over for a promotion due to "diversity" goals - they might have a point too.

It's going to take Courage - the courage to take the chance that our worst fears about each other, just might have a kernal of truth to them in some isolated instances, but in the vast majority of cases aren't true at all. It takes being willing to ignore who the Crimes Stats tell you should be afraid of - it takes being willing to ignore every time you've been put down for not "speaking proper" in mixed company or having an experience or an opinion that others might find "extreme".

There's only one way out of this, and that's through it - together.

Vyan