I'm not real sure whose head was so firmly planted into their butt in the White House, but once Anymice talk and then the Press Secretary essentially affirms the statement it becomes pretty obvious that stupidity is rampant.
Look here, I'm a Democrat and I've been active in the formal machinery of the Democratic Party and I know that the Democratic Party and Organized Labor are two different things. Maybe some people can't wrap their head around this, but Labor's agenda involves the distribution of wealth versus the plutocratic agenda of keeping it all. That by definition is LEFT.
Whatever Labor's reasons were for supporting a challenge to Sen Lincoln (I happen to agree) the simplest piece of this mess is that the goddam money was Labor's not the Democratic Party's or DSCC or any other arm. I frankly believe that the Democratic Party is best served by having a very good relationship with Labor. That is not served by the WH telling Labor that their agenda is a waste, it could have been served by simply stating that, "it is Labor's monney, not ours." There are times to have no damn opinion.
I'd really like to quit having to worry about being shot in the back by people who are supposed to be my friends.
**I've held fire hoping they'd fix this, they're not.
Showing posts with label White House. Show all posts
Showing posts with label White House. Show all posts
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Support the Troops
This is not something new, I just had no idea this was still going on. Get hurt in combat and be unable to finish your tour and the DOD wants back the portion of the signing bonus matching your unfinished tour.
I'm used to finding myself actually angry about this BushCo Administration, but this time around I want to hurt somebody. There's no whom there, though, so I'm stuck with a feeling I haven't had for a really long time, and I don't like it, one bit.
Ah.......
I'm used to finding myself actually angry about this BushCo Administration, but this time around I want to hurt somebody. There's no whom there, though, so I'm stuck with a feeling I haven't had for a really long time, and I don't like it, one bit.
Ah.......
Scott McClelland, "What Happened"
A May 28, 2008 post on Scott McClelland that has a bit more current relevance since this is a November 2007 article. I can't help that Google still like this old one.
Publisher Public Affairs offers an excerpt from Scott McClelland's new book about his tenure as George II's Press Secretary, What Happened :
I'll actually try, at this point, to be nice to the man. Of the front men for this presidency, Scott McClelland was the most likable in that he honestly seemed to try to give the press corps the truth and was uncomfortable dodging questions and didn't try to cover foot dragging with jocular "we're all pals here" condescension or manufactured anger. He did his job but at times he clearly didn't like how he was having to do it.
I don't know if I'll spend the money for is book, $27.95 publish date 4/21/08, I think I'll wait for some reviews - I could buy my wife a pretty nice dinner out for that price, and I'm sure I like her.
I think, at this point, that this is a storm in a tea cup.
Publisher Public Affairs offers an excerpt from Scott McClelland's new book about his tenure as George II's Press Secretary, What Happened :
Scott, I think there's a problem with the title you might want to fix before it hits the streets, it needs a "?" at the end.The most powerful leader in the world had called upon me to speak on his behalf and help restore credibility he lost amid the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. So I stood at the White house briefing room podium in front of the glare of the klieg lights for the better part of two weeks and publicly exonerated two of the senior-most aides in the White House: Karl Rove and Scooter Libby.
There was one problem. It was not true.
I had unknowingly passed along false information. And five of the highest ranking officials in the administration were involved in my doing so: Rove, Libby, the vice President, the President's chief of staff, and the president himself.
I'll actually try, at this point, to be nice to the man. Of the front men for this presidency, Scott McClelland was the most likable in that he honestly seemed to try to give the press corps the truth and was uncomfortable dodging questions and didn't try to cover foot dragging with jocular "we're all pals here" condescension or manufactured anger. He did his job but at times he clearly didn't like how he was having to do it.
I don't know if I'll spend the money for is book, $27.95 publish date 4/21/08, I think I'll wait for some reviews - I could buy my wife a pretty nice dinner out for that price, and I'm sure I like her.
I think, at this point, that this is a storm in a tea cup.
Thursday, November 08, 2007
Lt Col Couch Cannot Testify on Torture
House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) received a letter from Marine Lt Col V Stuart Couch, according to AP , which stated,
To be sure a sworn statement before a House sub-committee is different than an attributed statement to the WSJ, but the story is out and the difference is that it would not only be a matter of public knowledge, but sworn into evidence in the Legislature. The government is rather obviously scared spitless about torture, a condition that need not exist except for a certain difficulty- they do it. George II can stand on the White House steps all day long and intone, 'we don't torture,' but nobody believes they do not use at least one technique known as torture since the Inquisition. So we no longer need worry about the Bush Administration, we can now call it the BushCo Inquisition.
You may think BushCo Inquisition is a bit strong, but consider his government's stance, George II can determine that a US citizen is an enemy combatant, hold that citizen incommunicado, not bring them to trial, and torture them, possibly to death and have no responsibility to the citizenry for such action. The effect of George II's signing statements and legislation passed by his Republican Congress is that if he decides that Blogger 'X' has made him sufficiently uncomfortable to be of aid to "the enemy" that blogger will be disappeared and tortured and that's all there is to it. Like that idea?
"The Department of Defense has decided I cannot testify. Please be advised that I am willing to testify before the subcommittee in the event I am allowed to do so."The super secret issue at hand? Whether he iced the prosecution of Mohamedou Ould Slahi, accused of helping assemble a terrorist cell that included the hijacker who steered United Flight 175 into the World Trade Center due to incriminating statements obtained through beatings and psychological torture. As a prosecutor he believed, "In our zeal to get information, we had compromised our ability to prosecute him." How secret is that information? That was his statement to the WSJ.
To be sure a sworn statement before a House sub-committee is different than an attributed statement to the WSJ, but the story is out and the difference is that it would not only be a matter of public knowledge, but sworn into evidence in the Legislature. The government is rather obviously scared spitless about torture, a condition that need not exist except for a certain difficulty- they do it. George II can stand on the White House steps all day long and intone, 'we don't torture,' but nobody believes they do not use at least one technique known as torture since the Inquisition. So we no longer need worry about the Bush Administration, we can now call it the BushCo Inquisition.
You may think BushCo Inquisition is a bit strong, but consider his government's stance, George II can determine that a US citizen is an enemy combatant, hold that citizen incommunicado, not bring them to trial, and torture them, possibly to death and have no responsibility to the citizenry for such action. The effect of George II's signing statements and legislation passed by his Republican Congress is that if he decides that Blogger 'X' has made him sufficiently uncomfortable to be of aid to "the enemy" that blogger will be disappeared and tortured and that's all there is to it. Like that idea?
Thursday, August 16, 2007
White House's "Petraeus" Report
Buried deep in the LA Times report is the meat of the story, the long "anticipated" report by Petraeus and Amb Crocker will be no such thing, it will be written by the White House. With input, of course. Apparently the debate is how to credibly claim progress, credibly...
Al Qaeda in Iraq has overplayed its hand in Anbar, mimicking the BushCo stupidity of forgetting how tribal Iraqis are. Foreign fighters might manage to avoid resentment IF they keep to the "enemy of my enemy" school but as soon as they start acting like conquerors they're screwed. So they move along to where they're not already poison. And US troops somewhere else and Iraqis somewhere else have to deal with their depredations.
Meanwhile the Iraqi government (such as it ever was) is falling apart. Moktada's Mahdi Army is splintering out of whatever psychopathic control he had and US troops are pressing them. The Shiite militia faction in the Iraqi govt is way unhappy, the Sunnis are bailing, and there's nobody there with the glue to hold it together. Too much payback on the Sunnis for them to want to risk playing, the Shiite militias' government cover is inadequate so they're unhappy and Maliki has no credibility anywhere. Iran knows better, BushCo is tired of being burned, and Iraqis in general would like some power and water and maybe some sanitary services (oh hell, and to not be shot at for awhile).
BushCo worked real hard to have this war, they're not going to just lay down for Congress, they'll spin something. And Congress will just take it. They'll just take it because some of them honestly believe in this mess, because Lackey is too nice a word for some, because some have little to no nerve, and because for some there just aren't the votes - thanks to the other categories. BushCo will have this war for just exactly as long as George II stays in office, the reality on the ground in Iraq and in the US has no bearing, not now and not ever. The ones who might have had some ability to sway this are gone and have proven what butt kissers they actually are - Colin Powell springs to mind - and what's left are a band of incompetents. Condi Rice may be able to play piano but she's definitely not up to even mid-level management in government, Karl is gone (so much for the political end), Albie will cover BushCo as long as he can (conscience won't get in the way), Gate doesn't have the power, or the will, yep our kids will continue to die for the ego of the neocons and GWB for the foreseeable future.
Al Qaeda in Iraq has overplayed its hand in Anbar, mimicking the BushCo stupidity of forgetting how tribal Iraqis are. Foreign fighters might manage to avoid resentment IF they keep to the "enemy of my enemy" school but as soon as they start acting like conquerors they're screwed. So they move along to where they're not already poison. And US troops somewhere else and Iraqis somewhere else have to deal with their depredations.
Meanwhile the Iraqi government (such as it ever was) is falling apart. Moktada's Mahdi Army is splintering out of whatever psychopathic control he had and US troops are pressing them. The Shiite militia faction in the Iraqi govt is way unhappy, the Sunnis are bailing, and there's nobody there with the glue to hold it together. Too much payback on the Sunnis for them to want to risk playing, the Shiite militias' government cover is inadequate so they're unhappy and Maliki has no credibility anywhere. Iran knows better, BushCo is tired of being burned, and Iraqis in general would like some power and water and maybe some sanitary services (oh hell, and to not be shot at for awhile).
BushCo worked real hard to have this war, they're not going to just lay down for Congress, they'll spin something. And Congress will just take it. They'll just take it because some of them honestly believe in this mess, because Lackey is too nice a word for some, because some have little to no nerve, and because for some there just aren't the votes - thanks to the other categories. BushCo will have this war for just exactly as long as George II stays in office, the reality on the ground in Iraq and in the US has no bearing, not now and not ever. The ones who might have had some ability to sway this are gone and have proven what butt kissers they actually are - Colin Powell springs to mind - and what's left are a band of incompetents. Condi Rice may be able to play piano but she's definitely not up to even mid-level management in government, Karl is gone (so much for the political end), Albie will cover BushCo as long as he can (conscience won't get in the way), Gate doesn't have the power, or the will, yep our kids will continue to die for the ego of the neocons and GWB for the foreseeable future.
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Bush Politics Everywhere
Politics as the art of accomplishing the possible is interesting and valuable, as is the politics of opposition. But then there is the politics of never-ending campaigning, the politics of blatantly using governmental agencies to advance a political party. There is a vast difference between instituting policies that redound to the credit of your political agenda by succeeding in advancing the interests of the nation and creating political ploys and Party talking points for governmental agencies.
BushCo cannot seem to differentiate between the interests of the nation and Republican talking points. The WaPo reports that Bush top diplomats have received over a half-dozen Republican political briefings from White House aides. These included Karl Rove's PowerPoint presentation of Democrats targeted for defeat in '08 and a "general political briefing" at Peace Corps headquarters after the '02 mid-terms. Previous diplomats seem to find such goings-on unusual and the Hatch Act is pretty clear about using Federal Facilities for campaigning.
I guess a permanent Republican majority takes some special work.
BushCo cannot seem to differentiate between the interests of the nation and Republican talking points. The WaPo reports that Bush top diplomats have received over a half-dozen Republican political briefings from White House aides. These included Karl Rove's PowerPoint presentation of Democrats targeted for defeat in '08 and a "general political briefing" at Peace Corps headquarters after the '02 mid-terms. Previous diplomats seem to find such goings-on unusual and the Hatch Act is pretty clear about using Federal Facilities for campaigning.
I guess a permanent Republican majority takes some special work.
Monday, July 02, 2007
...And With Justice For Some
If you were taking the Pledge of Allegiance seriously, maybe you should re-think. Reflect on your station in life, are you a big political player or maybe rich? If you belong to a political party that makes a big deal out of law and order, and personal responsibility it's OK to perjure yourself and obstruct justice as long as you're a part of a corrupt secretive administration. You see, what counts is who your friends are and who you work for.
Five hours after the appeals court refused to intervene in Scooter's case, the President did, George II said 2 1/2 years was too severe. That Republican prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald said, "It is fundamental to the rule of law that all citizens stand before the bar of justice as equals." For the critics of the sentencing and even prosecution it is worth pointing out that darn near everybody professionally involved - prosecution, judge, appeals were Republican appointees and they agreed he should go to jail. But... Scooter has friends.
I suggest that my readers do not try this course, you are neither important enough nor well connected enough to stay out of jail. Now Scooter will have to pay his fines and do his probation and his reputation is "ruined." The "s are deliberate and meaningful, because his reputation is just exactly as good as the rest of his cohorts and now proven so. Politicians sometimes exaggerate their capabilities but they seldom engage in outright lies and this bunch seldom seems to avoid them.
I'll bet that if you paid any attention to the Paris Hilton junk, the one thing that struck you was that a little rich girl actually got spanked and maybe in the run up to this commutation you thought this might hold. Not in this administration, connections are all, you make fortunes, save corporations, stay out of jail, ad nauseum if you're hooked up. Of course, wealth, power, and connections have always been valuable and of great usefulness, but there was at least a pretense that the rest of us were in the game to some extent.
You had better understand that this is the natural outgrowth of "conservatism" as practised today. The "conservatives" will squeal, "not so," and try to make the point that this isn't conservatism while it actually is. It is the practice of unfettered greed with the government augmenting it while following practices that constrict working wages. It is called keeping the government out of the way, it's called "personal responsibility" (providing it only applies to the powerless), privatization of governmental services (providing you're hooked-up), the abdication of governance because it isn't important. If you follow each and every tenet of the Republican Party as enunciated over the past dozen years you will find its practice in effect today and of benefit to 0.1% of the population, the absolutely incredibly wealthy. Republicans are wont to call these kinds of statements "class warfare," and they'd be right, what they miss is that they are the ones waging it.
Five hours after the appeals court refused to intervene in Scooter's case, the President did, George II said 2 1/2 years was too severe. That Republican prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald said, "It is fundamental to the rule of law that all citizens stand before the bar of justice as equals." For the critics of the sentencing and even prosecution it is worth pointing out that darn near everybody professionally involved - prosecution, judge, appeals were Republican appointees and they agreed he should go to jail. But... Scooter has friends.
I suggest that my readers do not try this course, you are neither important enough nor well connected enough to stay out of jail. Now Scooter will have to pay his fines and do his probation and his reputation is "ruined." The "s are deliberate and meaningful, because his reputation is just exactly as good as the rest of his cohorts and now proven so. Politicians sometimes exaggerate their capabilities but they seldom engage in outright lies and this bunch seldom seems to avoid them.
I'll bet that if you paid any attention to the Paris Hilton junk, the one thing that struck you was that a little rich girl actually got spanked and maybe in the run up to this commutation you thought this might hold. Not in this administration, connections are all, you make fortunes, save corporations, stay out of jail, ad nauseum if you're hooked up. Of course, wealth, power, and connections have always been valuable and of great usefulness, but there was at least a pretense that the rest of us were in the game to some extent.
You had better understand that this is the natural outgrowth of "conservatism" as practised today. The "conservatives" will squeal, "not so," and try to make the point that this isn't conservatism while it actually is. It is the practice of unfettered greed with the government augmenting it while following practices that constrict working wages. It is called keeping the government out of the way, it's called "personal responsibility" (providing it only applies to the powerless), privatization of governmental services (providing you're hooked-up), the abdication of governance because it isn't important. If you follow each and every tenet of the Republican Party as enunciated over the past dozen years you will find its practice in effect today and of benefit to 0.1% of the population, the absolutely incredibly wealthy. Republicans are wont to call these kinds of statements "class warfare," and they'd be right, what they miss is that they are the ones waging it.
Sunday, June 17, 2007
Libby and Truth
I'd thought myself done with the Scooter nonsense, makes not a particle of difference what happens, he'll come out in fine professional and economic terms and considering the amnesia afflicting America, his reappearance on the scene will be greeted with, "who?"
I'm not particularly pleased nor am I surprised and I was pretty much willing to leave it alone. Right up until the flood of "he's such a nice guy" junk I was willing. I've called Mitt either an incompetent or liar for saying Saddam didn't let inspectors into Iraq and that's why we had to have our little adventure over there so I do want to be fair to another Republican. Let's get one thing straight first, Libby was convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice not being a lousy campaign speaker. This was a deliberate act followed by further matching conduct. He lied to federal investigators and a grand jury in order to throw rocks into the machinery of justice regarding an act that may well have had fatal consequences and he did it as a federal employee at the highest levels of government.
Now let's take that apart a little since we're talking about character, he lied for personal, professional, and political gain. He lied to thwart the pursuit of justice. He did so repeatedly. He did so when provided with an opportunity to correct his previous course.
He is a LIAR. He is an oath violator in court and in service to the State. He may not beat his children and wife and he may drive a nice car and he may even not stick up convenience stores but he did steal from the United States of America it's honor and it's duty to do justice. He is a thief of the most destructive sort, he steals what cannot be replaced, the non-material, the essence. His apologists are blind or partisan hacks with no more honor than Scooter himself.
I don't know what it is that passes for a good man in the sewers these people run in, but out here you trust a good man, you believe a good man, a good man keeps his word, a good man cares if another is harmed by his actions and tries to avoid it. This man has demonstrated himself beyond reasonable doubt to be a villain of the lowest sort, a lying oath breaking thug while every day kids with nothing to gain fulfill their oaths in the War he lied to advance.
Take that measure you beltway pukes. By all means the puke in chief should pardon this guy just to show where he stands. No, this doesn't piss me off... At least you've finally come out and shown us what you are - pukes.
I'm not particularly pleased nor am I surprised and I was pretty much willing to leave it alone. Right up until the flood of "he's such a nice guy" junk I was willing. I've called Mitt either an incompetent or liar for saying Saddam didn't let inspectors into Iraq and that's why we had to have our little adventure over there so I do want to be fair to another Republican. Let's get one thing straight first, Libby was convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice not being a lousy campaign speaker. This was a deliberate act followed by further matching conduct. He lied to federal investigators and a grand jury in order to throw rocks into the machinery of justice regarding an act that may well have had fatal consequences and he did it as a federal employee at the highest levels of government.
Now let's take that apart a little since we're talking about character, he lied for personal, professional, and political gain. He lied to thwart the pursuit of justice. He did so repeatedly. He did so when provided with an opportunity to correct his previous course.
He is a LIAR. He is an oath violator in court and in service to the State. He may not beat his children and wife and he may drive a nice car and he may even not stick up convenience stores but he did steal from the United States of America it's honor and it's duty to do justice. He is a thief of the most destructive sort, he steals what cannot be replaced, the non-material, the essence. His apologists are blind or partisan hacks with no more honor than Scooter himself.
I don't know what it is that passes for a good man in the sewers these people run in, but out here you trust a good man, you believe a good man, a good man keeps his word, a good man cares if another is harmed by his actions and tries to avoid it. This man has demonstrated himself beyond reasonable doubt to be a villain of the lowest sort, a lying oath breaking thug while every day kids with nothing to gain fulfill their oaths in the War he lied to advance.
Take that measure you beltway pukes. By all means the puke in chief should pardon this guy just to show where he stands. No, this doesn't piss me off... At least you've finally come out and shown us what you are - pukes.
Saturday, June 16, 2007
Incompetent Vs Loon
Somehow the Bush Administration leaves us with a rather depressing choice, outright incompetence or loony tunes. Now they're giving us the added spectacle of those two in a fray. Yes, it's Cheney vs. Rice and the ring is Iran. Cheney likes bombs and Rice is thrashing around. At the moment Rice seems to be on top. However since the Rice move to join with the EU, Russia, and China to pressure Iran to stop enriching uranium they've added around 1,000 centrifuges and the IAEA predicts if Iran can get past its technical problems they may reach 8,000.
This stirs the pot. George II has already stated that he will not tolerate a nuclear Iran, what precisely that means is open to debate. While he talks tough about Iran they are busy roiling the waters in the Middle East.
The NYT reports JD Crouch, recently departed deputy national security advisor, held a meeting with White House officials to inform them that Bush wanted an appraisal. The chief Iran strategist, Undersecretary of State R Nicholas Burns told them the negotiations with Iran could still be going on after the end of the Bush Presidency. While this makes no one particularly happy, the hawks figure this means Bush has no line in the sand Iran cannot cross.
Josh Bolton says force or regime change are the only options and David Wurmser told policy groups that Cheney thinks Rice is failing and that by spring 08 George will have to decide about military action. (Cheney won't talk about it and says he's fully on board with Bush) To understand what you're dealing with, Norman Podhoretz in Commentary magazine wrote 'The Case for Bombing Iran'
“In short, the plain and brutal truth is that if Iran is to be prevented from developing a nuclear arsenal, there is no alternative to the actual use of military force — any more than there was an alternative to force if Hitler was to be stopped in 1938.” Aw Jeeze
State and Treasury are pushing for stronger UN sanctions such as travel bans and banking restrictions. Iraq is, of course, making life difficult for the Administration and military options bleak. IAEA head Mohammed AlBaradei recently said military action would be "an act of madness."
So we have Secretary of State Rice with a track record of failures on one side and Cheney with a track record of loonyness on the other and Iran with a track record of trouble making in the middle of it - sounds promising to me.
This stirs the pot. George II has already stated that he will not tolerate a nuclear Iran, what precisely that means is open to debate. While he talks tough about Iran they are busy roiling the waters in the Middle East.
The NYT reports JD Crouch, recently departed deputy national security advisor, held a meeting with White House officials to inform them that Bush wanted an appraisal. The chief Iran strategist, Undersecretary of State R Nicholas Burns told them the negotiations with Iran could still be going on after the end of the Bush Presidency. While this makes no one particularly happy, the hawks figure this means Bush has no line in the sand Iran cannot cross.
Josh Bolton says force or regime change are the only options and David Wurmser told policy groups that Cheney thinks Rice is failing and that by spring 08 George will have to decide about military action. (Cheney won't talk about it and says he's fully on board with Bush) To understand what you're dealing with, Norman Podhoretz in Commentary magazine wrote 'The Case for Bombing Iran'
“In short, the plain and brutal truth is that if Iran is to be prevented from developing a nuclear arsenal, there is no alternative to the actual use of military force — any more than there was an alternative to force if Hitler was to be stopped in 1938.” Aw Jeeze
State and Treasury are pushing for stronger UN sanctions such as travel bans and banking restrictions. Iraq is, of course, making life difficult for the Administration and military options bleak. IAEA head Mohammed AlBaradei recently said military action would be "an act of madness."
So we have Secretary of State Rice with a track record of failures on one side and Cheney with a track record of loonyness on the other and Iran with a track record of trouble making in the middle of it - sounds promising to me.
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
Condi, Stick to Piano
She liked playing piano and was supposed to be pretty good at it, that's something - anyhow. At one time she was the Republican's darling, George II's heir or some hotshot R's running mate. Yep, after everybody quit saying nice things about Colin, she was not only going to be the first black president, but a woman to boot. The word combinations "black," "woman," and "President" have all become Democratic. As little use as I have for Hillary, the word competent isn't an antonym to her name and Obamma is evidently honest and engaging and sadly Condi doesn't even look good next to the riff-raff the R's are running. How far we fall...well a bit more.
The Foreign Affairs Council, composed of former Ambassadors and senior diplomats, released a report today that says the State Department has poor morale and too few people to fill places being drained by Afghanistan and Iraq. They seem to think Condi should have done something about it. If you'd like to see the Department spokesman's excuses, AP has them, along with a few more details.
I really long for a time when the Executive Branch isn't rotting off the tree of democracy, when competence is the minimum requirement, and somebody will tell the truth - or even something close to it. I bet Condi's biggest problem is that Regency U doesn't have enough little godlings that'll go do the dirty work overseas. If you think I'm just being snarky, consider - that place has only been a university for a few years, ranks right up there with Podunk U, and has 150 grads employed in the Executive Branch. yep, god hates us...
The Foreign Affairs Council, composed of former Ambassadors and senior diplomats, released a report today that says the State Department has poor morale and too few people to fill places being drained by Afghanistan and Iraq. They seem to think Condi should have done something about it. If you'd like to see the Department spokesman's excuses, AP has them, along with a few more details.
I really long for a time when the Executive Branch isn't rotting off the tree of democracy, when competence is the minimum requirement, and somebody will tell the truth - or even something close to it. I bet Condi's biggest problem is that Regency U doesn't have enough little godlings that'll go do the dirty work overseas. If you think I'm just being snarky, consider - that place has only been a university for a few years, ranks right up there with Podunk U, and has 150 grads employed in the Executive Branch. yep, god hates us...
Thursday, May 24, 2007
Crossing Lines With Monica
Monica is sorry. The point of Civil Service Rules is to allow the machinery of government to run without the interference of political agendas. This is not about an Administration or Congressional Majorities which are political agendas, this is about the actual gears of government. These are the people who do the nuts and bolts of governance, in some ways your county court's clerks or secretaries. They are not elected or subject to partisan spoils, it is in fact important that the papers be done in an even handed manner, whomever they effect. An Assistant DA does not get to make political decisions about the words of the law, it is simply the law the law passed by political agendas.
Monica apologized for asking political questions of career employment applicants. She may actually not have known what she was doing is against the law for one and that the law is not a pointless obstruction in the path to BushCo godliness. She might not have known because she graduated from a half-assed school and polished her knowledge in the RNC as an oppo researcher before getting in over her head. There are 150 of her fellow alumni in the Administration. This is a perfect example of ideology trumping competence - BushCo in three words.
Monica apologized for asking political questions of career employment applicants. She may actually not have known what she was doing is against the law for one and that the law is not a pointless obstruction in the path to BushCo godliness. She might not have known because she graduated from a half-assed school and polished her knowledge in the RNC as an oppo researcher before getting in over her head. There are 150 of her fellow alumni in the Administration. This is a perfect example of ideology trumping competence - BushCo in three words.
Bush, Iraq, and More Lies
George II went to the Coast Guard Academy and...tied 9/11, Iraq, and Ossama together, again. There are few things in life that I like less than people who lie and here's some whoppers,
"Here in America we are living in the eye of a storm." Sorry, there are storms and this ain't it.
"Hear the words of Osama bin Laden: He calls the struggle in Iraq a `war of destiny.'"
"Victory in Iraq is important for Osama bin Laden, and victory in Iraq is vital for the United States of America."
Not to pick nits, but Ossama could give a rat's patoot about winning in Iraq, he can't and he knows it - unlike George II - what he wants is to kill Americans and destabilize the area.
All of the stuff he trotted out was old news and mostly speculation about "credible" but unconfirmed intelligence. The people involved dead or Gitmo'ed, mostly dead. Iraq was posed as the center of al-Qeda, rather than Pakistan - possibly because Pakistan/Afghanistan is embarrassing.
"Here in America we are living in the eye of a storm." Sorry, there are storms and this ain't it.
"Hear the words of Osama bin Laden: He calls the struggle in Iraq a `war of destiny.'"
"Victory in Iraq is important for Osama bin Laden, and victory in Iraq is vital for the United States of America."
Not to pick nits, but Ossama could give a rat's patoot about winning in Iraq, he can't and he knows it - unlike George II - what he wants is to kill Americans and destabilize the area.
All of the stuff he trotted out was old news and mostly speculation about "credible" but unconfirmed intelligence. The people involved dead or Gitmo'ed, mostly dead. Iraq was posed as the center of al-Qeda, rather than Pakistan - possibly because Pakistan/Afghanistan is embarrassing.
Friday, April 27, 2007
Of Evil and Experts
The BushCo and its adherents / apologists have two favorite words, evil and expert. These words probably seem at first glance to be completely divorced from each other, but I think after defining them and exploring their usage we'll see a rather uncomfortable connection. I like Webster's Ninth New Collegiate, it's a little dated but gives quick and common usage definitions so I'll refer to its most relevant entries for:
evil (adj) : morally reprehensible : sinful, wicked
(2) expert (n) : one with the special skill or knowledge representing mastery of a particular subject
The administration has taken action against quite a few individuals and organizations on the basis of their "evil," without ever quite defining what that particular aspect is. George II says that people who use car bombs are evil. We certainly do not like car bombers or suicide bombers, but somehow the moralistic stance is lost on me, I have a problem differentiating between a 500 pounder dropped from a plane and an exploding Toyota, the object being the same, a big bang and people and things broken. The apparent moralistic difference seems to be a matter of budget, we can afford fancy airplanes and they can afford stolen Toyotas. As far as targeting goes, we do have a rather frequently used phrase - collateral damage. We do not like what they do, I certainly don't, but evil is an odd word in this usage, maybe applied to torture we'd have something real...
Experts are the "go to" reference for the White House and their adherents in the face of criticism or other policy ideas regarding Iraq. "The experts all say," is one of their favorites, by which they mean "their" experts. Now please pay close attention to who these experts are and who they are not, for example, in the lead up to the Iraq War the experts were primarily the authors and contributors to "The New American Century," a think tank exhortation to use "super-powerdom" energetically and for the benefit of US interests. The current term for these people is neocons (new conservatives - a misnomer if ever), and the who of them was primarily - once in power and pissed not to be, back in power. Now the odd part of it is that definition from Webster - mastery of a particular subject. This means you know it, cold, and you will be right about it. I think you can take it from there... Who they were not is just as telling, they were not agents with their feet on the ground, career analysts lost in the bowels of the building at mid-level, career diplomats from the area, in fact not political powers with something to gain, not to mention qualifying for the definition. Those people, in fact, got it mostly right, and it is just exactly what we did not do.
You will hear repeatedly from the BushCo experts that leaving Iraq will result in a bloodbath and a failed state refuge for terrorists to attack us. Keep in mind that these are the same experts who've been running the show since before we ever attacked the place and their track record of getting things right qualifies them as window washers or street sweepers or something inconsequential and harmless - not Policy.
The experts who advise this administration are so completely stupid that they mistake military tactics and logistical realities for a moral referent, they also are the morally bankrupt bunch that advocates the US engaging in actual evil - torture. Their qualification as expert is a self-referent, they are experts because somebody listens to them, it has absolutely not one single thing to do with experience, study, or especially results. They do not engage in critical thinking, they engage in ideological justification. Let's get one thing straight, al-Qeda is not going to win in Iraq if we're not there, the Shiites will slaughter them in short order. The Shiite militias don't like us - considering our results, not far fetched - and they do not want us there. Yes, they are primarily theocratic, but the whole place is theocratic with Saddam removed and it's going to go that way the second we leave, stable government or not. What they are not, is dedicated to harming the US on its home ground - that would be al-Qeda. There certainly will be some "score settling" between the Shiites and Suunis based on Saddam and al-Qeda, but the blood bath is already going on, with us in the middle. That middle is a bad place to be, we're busily trying unsuccessfully to keep them apart while attacking the ones attacking us and pissing everybody off in the process, which pretty much means adding to the ones attacking us and smashing whatever is left that wasn't already smashed.
There certainly is evil within the world population, but there is considerably less of that than what are simply policies and tactics we don't like. There is evil in terror, but primarily terror is an underdog's military tactic, and it holds much in common with military tactics we have engaged in ourselves. Mass artillery barrages and carpet bombing are tactics of terror, ask anyone who has been caught in it, Desert Storm certainly showed the utility of those tactics. Give "The New American Century" a read to find out the basis of the "experts" opinions, you might find the policy basis something you'd recognize as evil.
evil (adj) : morally reprehensible : sinful, wicked
(2) expert (n) : one with the special skill or knowledge representing mastery of a particular subject
The administration has taken action against quite a few individuals and organizations on the basis of their "evil," without ever quite defining what that particular aspect is. George II says that people who use car bombs are evil. We certainly do not like car bombers or suicide bombers, but somehow the moralistic stance is lost on me, I have a problem differentiating between a 500 pounder dropped from a plane and an exploding Toyota, the object being the same, a big bang and people and things broken. The apparent moralistic difference seems to be a matter of budget, we can afford fancy airplanes and they can afford stolen Toyotas. As far as targeting goes, we do have a rather frequently used phrase - collateral damage. We do not like what they do, I certainly don't, but evil is an odd word in this usage, maybe applied to torture we'd have something real...
Experts are the "go to" reference for the White House and their adherents in the face of criticism or other policy ideas regarding Iraq. "The experts all say," is one of their favorites, by which they mean "their" experts. Now please pay close attention to who these experts are and who they are not, for example, in the lead up to the Iraq War the experts were primarily the authors and contributors to "The New American Century," a think tank exhortation to use "super-powerdom" energetically and for the benefit of US interests. The current term for these people is neocons (new conservatives - a misnomer if ever), and the who of them was primarily - once in power and pissed not to be, back in power. Now the odd part of it is that definition from Webster - mastery of a particular subject. This means you know it, cold, and you will be right about it. I think you can take it from there... Who they were not is just as telling, they were not agents with their feet on the ground, career analysts lost in the bowels of the building at mid-level, career diplomats from the area, in fact not political powers with something to gain, not to mention qualifying for the definition. Those people, in fact, got it mostly right, and it is just exactly what we did not do.
You will hear repeatedly from the BushCo experts that leaving Iraq will result in a bloodbath and a failed state refuge for terrorists to attack us. Keep in mind that these are the same experts who've been running the show since before we ever attacked the place and their track record of getting things right qualifies them as window washers or street sweepers or something inconsequential and harmless - not Policy.
The experts who advise this administration are so completely stupid that they mistake military tactics and logistical realities for a moral referent, they also are the morally bankrupt bunch that advocates the US engaging in actual evil - torture. Their qualification as expert is a self-referent, they are experts because somebody listens to them, it has absolutely not one single thing to do with experience, study, or especially results. They do not engage in critical thinking, they engage in ideological justification. Let's get one thing straight, al-Qeda is not going to win in Iraq if we're not there, the Shiites will slaughter them in short order. The Shiite militias don't like us - considering our results, not far fetched - and they do not want us there. Yes, they are primarily theocratic, but the whole place is theocratic with Saddam removed and it's going to go that way the second we leave, stable government or not. What they are not, is dedicated to harming the US on its home ground - that would be al-Qeda. There certainly will be some "score settling" between the Shiites and Suunis based on Saddam and al-Qeda, but the blood bath is already going on, with us in the middle. That middle is a bad place to be, we're busily trying unsuccessfully to keep them apart while attacking the ones attacking us and pissing everybody off in the process, which pretty much means adding to the ones attacking us and smashing whatever is left that wasn't already smashed.
There certainly is evil within the world population, but there is considerably less of that than what are simply policies and tactics we don't like. There is evil in terror, but primarily terror is an underdog's military tactic, and it holds much in common with military tactics we have engaged in ourselves. Mass artillery barrages and carpet bombing are tactics of terror, ask anyone who has been caught in it, Desert Storm certainly showed the utility of those tactics. Give "The New American Century" a read to find out the basis of the "experts" opinions, you might find the policy basis something you'd recognize as evil.
Saturday, April 07, 2007
Who CAN We Talk To ?
Nancy Pelosi leads a delegation to talk to Assad in Syria and the White House blows a gasket all over the media and particularly the right noise machine. Evil countries cannot be talked to by the USA. Evil is one of those words that gets tossed around in politics, it's a sort of generic for us not liking what they are doing. I'm not defending what they do, but I really prefer more specific words.
The White House says they will not talk to Syria. They say it is because they support terrorists and interfere in other countries. I wonder exactly what talking or not talking has to do with that? If we're not to talk to them there must be something about talking to them that somehow benefits them or what they do. Talking to a country recognizes that it exists, um, they exist whether we talk to them or not. I suppose the stance could be taken that it somehow legitimizes them; they belong to the UN, their leaders do actually run the places, in fact they run the places in ways we don't like. I think they're already legitimate and what they do is a fact (or purported fact) so not talking to them doesn't make it not happen. If talking to them is supposed to create an aura of power for them the problem with that idea is that they already have the power to do the things we don't like and they know it and so do their people. These are some of the rationales for not talking that I've been able to come up with and I've actually tried to come up with some that aren't strawmen; but I ain't having any luck. As far as I can tell, not talking to these people makes all our stances regarding them postures. The Prez can pose for the cameras being tough guy, well heck, we already know he can wear a flight suit, "clear" brush, use Old West terminology, and movie lines like, "bring it on." So what?
If I object to my neighbor storing garbage, making a stink, and drawing pests complaining to my wife and friends will have no more effect than stomping my feet and moaning. I could actually go next door and tell him that it stinks and is drawing pests and I don't like it. Blowing up his house is not a good option, persuading him that there is mutual benefit available is a better approach. Syria is not run by a lunatic, there are reasons they do what they do. If there are reasons and we know them and understand them we have an idea of how to approach them with another path. You can't know something by guessing, you get answers by asking and, yes, you have to know how to ask. Trying to understand something is not the same as approving, it is in fact a strategic advantage to know what your opponent is thinking and why.
The world is a dangerous place, bad intelligence and guessing are the tools of failure in an arena where failure is not a good thing. Talking to your friends is nice, they say nice things and sometimes you make nice deals, talking to your enemies or opponents is critical, while you may not make nice deals you get the opportunity to not make real stupid mistakes (Iraq) and possibly make trade-offs. You might find that what is a major issue to your opponent involves what is to you a minor inconvenience, this isn't blind optimism, it has factually been shown throughout history. The problem is that during stare downs the rhetoric frequently obscures the actual issues and stupidity ensues.
Well, stupidity has ensued enough times under this administration, you'd think they'd have figured something out by now, but noooooo.
The White House says they will not talk to Syria. They say it is because they support terrorists and interfere in other countries. I wonder exactly what talking or not talking has to do with that? If we're not to talk to them there must be something about talking to them that somehow benefits them or what they do. Talking to a country recognizes that it exists, um, they exist whether we talk to them or not. I suppose the stance could be taken that it somehow legitimizes them; they belong to the UN, their leaders do actually run the places, in fact they run the places in ways we don't like. I think they're already legitimate and what they do is a fact (or purported fact) so not talking to them doesn't make it not happen. If talking to them is supposed to create an aura of power for them the problem with that idea is that they already have the power to do the things we don't like and they know it and so do their people. These are some of the rationales for not talking that I've been able to come up with and I've actually tried to come up with some that aren't strawmen; but I ain't having any luck. As far as I can tell, not talking to these people makes all our stances regarding them postures. The Prez can pose for the cameras being tough guy, well heck, we already know he can wear a flight suit, "clear" brush, use Old West terminology, and movie lines like, "bring it on." So what?
If I object to my neighbor storing garbage, making a stink, and drawing pests complaining to my wife and friends will have no more effect than stomping my feet and moaning. I could actually go next door and tell him that it stinks and is drawing pests and I don't like it. Blowing up his house is not a good option, persuading him that there is mutual benefit available is a better approach. Syria is not run by a lunatic, there are reasons they do what they do. If there are reasons and we know them and understand them we have an idea of how to approach them with another path. You can't know something by guessing, you get answers by asking and, yes, you have to know how to ask. Trying to understand something is not the same as approving, it is in fact a strategic advantage to know what your opponent is thinking and why.
The world is a dangerous place, bad intelligence and guessing are the tools of failure in an arena where failure is not a good thing. Talking to your friends is nice, they say nice things and sometimes you make nice deals, talking to your enemies or opponents is critical, while you may not make nice deals you get the opportunity to not make real stupid mistakes (Iraq) and possibly make trade-offs. You might find that what is a major issue to your opponent involves what is to you a minor inconvenience, this isn't blind optimism, it has factually been shown throughout history. The problem is that during stare downs the rhetoric frequently obscures the actual issues and stupidity ensues.
Well, stupidity has ensued enough times under this administration, you'd think they'd have figured something out by now, but noooooo.
Thursday, March 29, 2007
Machiavellian Politics
Politics have been studied and analyzed for a very long time, and written about for very nearly as long as writing has existed. One of the best known, and most reviled writers on the subject is Machiavelli; his book, The Prince, is a classic and much misunderstood work. The most often quoted piece of the book is, "the ends justify the means." The cliche term for short-sighted vicious politics is "Machiavellian."
This is not quite accurate, Machiavelli put forth solutions to problems and generally several solutions for a problem. A common problem was a noble plotting against the ruler, several solutions were mentioned, banishment of the noble, banishment of the noble and his family, confiscation of family property, killing the noble, killing the noble and his family, etc, etc. Along with the solutions came analysis of probable outcomes. Oddly enough, considering his reputation, Machiavelli preferred to take the long-term outlook and the solution that favored it. For instance, banishment put the noble out of reach and free to stir up trouble, compounded if the family was also banished by more people stirring the pot and the extended family/associates resentment, confiscation worked the same way and stirred resentment among others of property and other members of the family, killing creates martyrs, etc. There really is a need for a new adjective describing short-sighted vicious politics; I think maybe the term could be Rovian, as in Karl.
I've heard Rove described as a genius, or by perfectly good lefties, a despicable genius. I disagree, what has passed for genius is simply the willingness to use whatever means are available for short term gain, reflective of certain elements in 18th and 19th Century politics, the nastier elements. He is a nasty man who plays dirty for a short term payoff. The problem with this approach is illustrated by the current BushCo poll numbers and the general reputation of the Republican Party. Any political movement generates opposition, this is normal and to be expected, but opposition is a different animal from enemies. Rovian politics creates enemies, these are mortal foes, they will not agree with you and they will seek your downfall and expend serious assets to bring it about. People in general will begin to see through lies and be offended for being taken and become enemies. The art of politics becomes slash and burn warfare, a policy of scorched earth with little regard for the welfare of the state. Policy decisions become hostage to the accrual of power and failed policies become sacrosanct - the expenditure in their implementation now drives their continuation, the leader cannot fail. Fear becomes a handy weapon, but it is a very blunt instrument and the objects of its use soon tire of it or become inured to its effects.
Politics is about getting things accomplished, power is an aspect of that end but it is not the prime mover. In a system like ours you may have the power to force things through, for a while, but at some point the opposition must be taken into account. The trick is to offer something to the opposition that will take some of the sting out while showing the voters a willingness to "work together" and be "reasonable." If it is impossible to give the opposition enough to bring them into the process then it is of paramount importance to show them the respect of listening and debating the issue. You cannot afford more than a handful of enemies. There are going to be times when there is a congruence in your ends and the opposition's ends and their cooperation will be needed to succeed, it is important that they are not your enemies at that point.
Karl Rove has essentially two strategies, the accrual of power and the demonization (and thereby discrediting) of opponents. All government and it's appurtenances (media, etc) become objects of political advantage and the consolidation of power. Opponents no longer are policy opponents they become traitors and agents of class (etc) warfare. In the short run it is possible to show real gains with this methodology, in the long run real problems arise and depending on the force of application the recoil can be tremendous.
The latest problem, the US Attorneys, is a perfect example. The DOJ is subject to political appointments, the tenor of the establishment is going to be set by the AG and the political leanings of the operational end - US Attorneys - can be determined. This works well for instituting a philosophy of operation, but it is a poor way to accrue power. The DOJ enforces the laws and those laws apply to all citizens, if it becomes obvious that the law is being used as a political power lever or cudgel, the populous becomes unhappy and the other power centers become very unhappy. The general population is pretty law-abiding, primarily because they see reasonableness in the laws and a general application of them, remove these considerations and the people who write them begin to worry about being paid attention to. Rovian politics determines that a narrow advantage in voter roles outweighs public perception of law-enforcement. The math is extremely faulty, the few votes that might be discarded are long-term overwhelmed by public anger and political backlash.
This is exactly what has happened repeatedly in the last couple years and a solid Republican edge has not only dwindled but been put in serious danger of becoming a long term small minority. Best to leave Machiavelli out of the adjectives describing this Administration's politics, he was pretty good at it, this stuff is strictly Rovian. (and Bush league)
This is not quite accurate, Machiavelli put forth solutions to problems and generally several solutions for a problem. A common problem was a noble plotting against the ruler, several solutions were mentioned, banishment of the noble, banishment of the noble and his family, confiscation of family property, killing the noble, killing the noble and his family, etc, etc. Along with the solutions came analysis of probable outcomes. Oddly enough, considering his reputation, Machiavelli preferred to take the long-term outlook and the solution that favored it. For instance, banishment put the noble out of reach and free to stir up trouble, compounded if the family was also banished by more people stirring the pot and the extended family/associates resentment, confiscation worked the same way and stirred resentment among others of property and other members of the family, killing creates martyrs, etc. There really is a need for a new adjective describing short-sighted vicious politics; I think maybe the term could be Rovian, as in Karl.
I've heard Rove described as a genius, or by perfectly good lefties, a despicable genius. I disagree, what has passed for genius is simply the willingness to use whatever means are available for short term gain, reflective of certain elements in 18th and 19th Century politics, the nastier elements. He is a nasty man who plays dirty for a short term payoff. The problem with this approach is illustrated by the current BushCo poll numbers and the general reputation of the Republican Party. Any political movement generates opposition, this is normal and to be expected, but opposition is a different animal from enemies. Rovian politics creates enemies, these are mortal foes, they will not agree with you and they will seek your downfall and expend serious assets to bring it about. People in general will begin to see through lies and be offended for being taken and become enemies. The art of politics becomes slash and burn warfare, a policy of scorched earth with little regard for the welfare of the state. Policy decisions become hostage to the accrual of power and failed policies become sacrosanct - the expenditure in their implementation now drives their continuation, the leader cannot fail. Fear becomes a handy weapon, but it is a very blunt instrument and the objects of its use soon tire of it or become inured to its effects.
Politics is about getting things accomplished, power is an aspect of that end but it is not the prime mover. In a system like ours you may have the power to force things through, for a while, but at some point the opposition must be taken into account. The trick is to offer something to the opposition that will take some of the sting out while showing the voters a willingness to "work together" and be "reasonable." If it is impossible to give the opposition enough to bring them into the process then it is of paramount importance to show them the respect of listening and debating the issue. You cannot afford more than a handful of enemies. There are going to be times when there is a congruence in your ends and the opposition's ends and their cooperation will be needed to succeed, it is important that they are not your enemies at that point.
Karl Rove has essentially two strategies, the accrual of power and the demonization (and thereby discrediting) of opponents. All government and it's appurtenances (media, etc) become objects of political advantage and the consolidation of power. Opponents no longer are policy opponents they become traitors and agents of class (etc) warfare. In the short run it is possible to show real gains with this methodology, in the long run real problems arise and depending on the force of application the recoil can be tremendous.
The latest problem, the US Attorneys, is a perfect example. The DOJ is subject to political appointments, the tenor of the establishment is going to be set by the AG and the political leanings of the operational end - US Attorneys - can be determined. This works well for instituting a philosophy of operation, but it is a poor way to accrue power. The DOJ enforces the laws and those laws apply to all citizens, if it becomes obvious that the law is being used as a political power lever or cudgel, the populous becomes unhappy and the other power centers become very unhappy. The general population is pretty law-abiding, primarily because they see reasonableness in the laws and a general application of them, remove these considerations and the people who write them begin to worry about being paid attention to. Rovian politics determines that a narrow advantage in voter roles outweighs public perception of law-enforcement. The math is extremely faulty, the few votes that might be discarded are long-term overwhelmed by public anger and political backlash.
This is exactly what has happened repeatedly in the last couple years and a solid Republican edge has not only dwindled but been put in serious danger of becoming a long term small minority. Best to leave Machiavelli out of the adjectives describing this Administration's politics, he was pretty good at it, this stuff is strictly Rovian. (and Bush league)
Sunday, March 25, 2007
Take Your Allies Where You Find Them, AFA
Awhile back I posted about the formation of the American Freedom Agenda and said that I would find out what I could. You will find the AFA website here . Do not think that Barr, Keene, or Viguerie have changed their political stripes, they are Conservatives. Yes, with a capital 'C.' On social and economic issues our paths may coincide infrequently, our ideas about the role of government in those arenas is quite different, but here we are in complete agreement. I am going to directly copy and paste their 10 point agenda, so there is no mistaking my words or wishes with theirs :
Prohibit military commissions whose verdicts are suspect except in places of active hostilities where a battlefield tribunal is necessary to obtain fresh testimony or to prevent anarchy;
Prohibit the use of secret evidence or evidence obtained by torture or coercion in military or civilian tribunals;
Prohibit the detention of American citizens as unlawful enemy combatants without proof of criminal activity on the President’s say-so;
Restore habeas corpus for alleged alien enemy combatants, i.e., non-citizens who have allegedly participated in active hostilities against the United States, to protect the innocent;
Prohibit the National Security Agency from intercepting phone conversations or emails or breaking and entering homes on the President’s say-so in violation of federal law;
Empower the House of Representatives and the Senate collectively to challenge in the Supreme Court the constitutionality of signing statements that declare the intent of the President to disregard duly enacted provisions of bills he has signed into law because he maintains they are unconstitutional;
Prohibit the executive from invoking the state secrets privilege to deny justice to victims of constitutional violations perpetrated by government officers or agents; and, establish legislative-executive committees in the House and Senate to adjudicate the withholding of information from Congress based on executive privilege that obstructs oversight and government in the sunshine;
Prohibit the President from kidnapping, detaining, and torturing persons abroad in collaboration with foreign governments;
Amend the Espionage Act to permit journalists to report on classified national security matters without fear of prosecution; and;
Prohibit the listing of individuals or organizations with a presence in the United States as global terrorists or global terrorist organizations based on secret evidence.
Since their roll-out was March 20th the website is a little bare yet, but you should see it for yourself to ensure you know what I'm talking about. I am under no illusions about the differences in our Party affiliations, I also am under no illusions as to whether these matters supersede those affiliations. What is at stake is so basic to the structure of the US that our disagreements amount to small change. There is absolutely no point in trying to advance Democratic agenda absent our basic structure of government and law. That amounts to no more than spitting into the wind. The DOJ fight marks a beginning of Congressional interest in this, but is not any more than a first baby step.
The AFA has a Freedom Pledge for candidates, which is at least something. I am interested, but only in concrete pressure our public representatives to redress these grievances. Posturing bores me, quite plainly there is an ass kicking over due and it needs to be an enthusiastic one. This stance will put more stress on the politics of Republicans than Democrats for the obvious reason that Democrats didn't instigate this mess, though the amount of their kicking and screaming about it left quite a bit to be desired.
A little over 200 hundred years ago the instigators of this Constitutional mess would have been taken out and hanged for trying it. Today generating something close to discontent is difficult. It takes no more than the latest details of the affairs of a deceased blond to distract our attention. I will point out that in the face of all the BushCo crap, a NY Democratic Representative has the temerity to bring forward an assault weapons ban just to add to the insult and injury inflicted by the Republicans. Sometimes I really wonder just exactly how such stupid and asinine people manage to get themselves elected and if we really do deserve the kind of government the Framers put together.
Eight years ago I'd have fallen out laughing my butt off if somebody had suggested to me that Bob Barr could be an ally. I ain't laughing, I ain't smiling, I'm flat out pissed off and I'll take his hand, gladly. If you can't, maybe you'd better think over what kind of country you want to live in.
Prohibit military commissions whose verdicts are suspect except in places of active hostilities where a battlefield tribunal is necessary to obtain fresh testimony or to prevent anarchy;
Prohibit the use of secret evidence or evidence obtained by torture or coercion in military or civilian tribunals;
Prohibit the detention of American citizens as unlawful enemy combatants without proof of criminal activity on the President’s say-so;
Restore habeas corpus for alleged alien enemy combatants, i.e., non-citizens who have allegedly participated in active hostilities against the United States, to protect the innocent;
Prohibit the National Security Agency from intercepting phone conversations or emails or breaking and entering homes on the President’s say-so in violation of federal law;
Empower the House of Representatives and the Senate collectively to challenge in the Supreme Court the constitutionality of signing statements that declare the intent of the President to disregard duly enacted provisions of bills he has signed into law because he maintains they are unconstitutional;
Prohibit the executive from invoking the state secrets privilege to deny justice to victims of constitutional violations perpetrated by government officers or agents; and, establish legislative-executive committees in the House and Senate to adjudicate the withholding of information from Congress based on executive privilege that obstructs oversight and government in the sunshine;
Prohibit the President from kidnapping, detaining, and torturing persons abroad in collaboration with foreign governments;
Amend the Espionage Act to permit journalists to report on classified national security matters without fear of prosecution; and;
Prohibit the listing of individuals or organizations with a presence in the United States as global terrorists or global terrorist organizations based on secret evidence.
Since their roll-out was March 20th the website is a little bare yet, but you should see it for yourself to ensure you know what I'm talking about. I am under no illusions about the differences in our Party affiliations, I also am under no illusions as to whether these matters supersede those affiliations. What is at stake is so basic to the structure of the US that our disagreements amount to small change. There is absolutely no point in trying to advance Democratic agenda absent our basic structure of government and law. That amounts to no more than spitting into the wind. The DOJ fight marks a beginning of Congressional interest in this, but is not any more than a first baby step.
The AFA has a Freedom Pledge for candidates, which is at least something. I am interested, but only in concrete pressure our public representatives to redress these grievances. Posturing bores me, quite plainly there is an ass kicking over due and it needs to be an enthusiastic one. This stance will put more stress on the politics of Republicans than Democrats for the obvious reason that Democrats didn't instigate this mess, though the amount of their kicking and screaming about it left quite a bit to be desired.
A little over 200 hundred years ago the instigators of this Constitutional mess would have been taken out and hanged for trying it. Today generating something close to discontent is difficult. It takes no more than the latest details of the affairs of a deceased blond to distract our attention. I will point out that in the face of all the BushCo crap, a NY Democratic Representative has the temerity to bring forward an assault weapons ban just to add to the insult and injury inflicted by the Republicans. Sometimes I really wonder just exactly how such stupid and asinine people manage to get themselves elected and if we really do deserve the kind of government the Framers put together.
Eight years ago I'd have fallen out laughing my butt off if somebody had suggested to me that Bob Barr could be an ally. I ain't laughing, I ain't smiling, I'm flat out pissed off and I'll take his hand, gladly. If you can't, maybe you'd better think over what kind of country you want to live in.
Saturday, March 24, 2007
Covering Up Is Stupid
I suppose that anyone paying attention to the US Attorneys mess has heard multiple times, "the cover-up is worse than the crime," and is probably sick of it. There is a real truth in that bromide, and it bears some thinking about it. Most of the things that get attempted covered-ups are the result of over-reaching over-zealous subordinates. Something gets a "I wish" and turns into "I want." Some idiots burgled a Watergate office because somebody said "I wish I knew what they're up to," regarding a campaign that was a walk-over. There was nothing to actually be gained, a tremendous risk, and the act was carried out by entirely disposable subordinates. Covering up a piece of massive stupidity led to the downfall of one of the most politically astute Presidents.
Nixon was not innocent of responsibility, but certainly of having given such an order. His responsibility was the creation of an atmosphere conducive to such stupidity, a bunkered-up enemies list mentality which devalues opposition by demonizing it. The words enemies, traitors, and fifth columnists abounded, it took little stretch to reach the idea that spying on such was a good idea, one that would be supported by the "Boss." It is beginning to look as though the genesis of the Attorney firings was political. How large a reach is it to see an "appointed" president and his Rove looking at shrinking support demographics and a real threat to a permanent majority wishing some of those ne'er do well Democrats didn't vote. A cult of personal loyalty doesn't see independent thinking or decision making as acceptable and an echo chamber effect begins. These guys aren't following our agenda, something is wrong, somebody ought to do something, and we're off to the races. Some things are self-perpetuating and self-feeding. Once the idea is planted and somebody starts to work on it, it begins to look possible and in that possibility lies respectability, "after all they do serve at the pleasure of the President."
While George W Bush is not a retard, he also is not an intellectual heavy weight, if it gets more complicated than I win you lose don't look to him as the instigator. Harriet Meirs (oh you're the bestest...) fingerprints are all over the place along with Albies and it begins to look like Karl's. But even here people were just working over scenarios. Great goobered gobs of stinking mess scenarios, the kind engendered by people in fear of enemies, traitors, ... Then it started looking reasonable as it became more possible. "What use is power to appoint without Senate approval if we don't use it?" Look at how the possibilities for advantage multiply with each little bit of progress. Where did the actual policy enactment come from? At a guess, AG AG, though farther down the line is entirely possible.
I would bet that complete informational access would not place Bush or Rove's fingers in the pie, though their complicity in creating an atmosphere where this could flourish is absolute. The idea of gaining political advantage through use of the powers of the Justice Dept had to be appealing in the world of Republican power politics. These folks long term goals are always so amorphous and their short term ends so entrancing to them that they do not see probable fallout. For example they see "no Saddam" as so attractive that they fail to run alternate scenarios, because the short term end is "good" only their "good" can follow.
I would guess that Kyle Sampson sees himself as the fall guy and will try to hand responsibility back up the chain. The problem is that there may be no evidence what so ever up-chain. Or, if it can actually get handed up to Albie, the sword will be fallen on and that'll be it. No one will make the case that the problem isn't who ordered what, but that the mentality was fostered, that the entire White House is sick.
"Oh no, somebody tried to do that?? Well they're fired," would have put a stop to this entire mess. But they cannot do that. They have to cover, there's a sickness to be kept out of sight. The might be seen as what they are.
Nixon was not innocent of responsibility, but certainly of having given such an order. His responsibility was the creation of an atmosphere conducive to such stupidity, a bunkered-up enemies list mentality which devalues opposition by demonizing it. The words enemies, traitors, and fifth columnists abounded, it took little stretch to reach the idea that spying on such was a good idea, one that would be supported by the "Boss." It is beginning to look as though the genesis of the Attorney firings was political. How large a reach is it to see an "appointed" president and his Rove looking at shrinking support demographics and a real threat to a permanent majority wishing some of those ne'er do well Democrats didn't vote. A cult of personal loyalty doesn't see independent thinking or decision making as acceptable and an echo chamber effect begins. These guys aren't following our agenda, something is wrong, somebody ought to do something, and we're off to the races. Some things are self-perpetuating and self-feeding. Once the idea is planted and somebody starts to work on it, it begins to look possible and in that possibility lies respectability, "after all they do serve at the pleasure of the President."
While George W Bush is not a retard, he also is not an intellectual heavy weight, if it gets more complicated than I win you lose don't look to him as the instigator. Harriet Meirs (oh you're the bestest...) fingerprints are all over the place along with Albies and it begins to look like Karl's. But even here people were just working over scenarios. Great goobered gobs of stinking mess scenarios, the kind engendered by people in fear of enemies, traitors, ... Then it started looking reasonable as it became more possible. "What use is power to appoint without Senate approval if we don't use it?" Look at how the possibilities for advantage multiply with each little bit of progress. Where did the actual policy enactment come from? At a guess, AG AG, though farther down the line is entirely possible.
I would bet that complete informational access would not place Bush or Rove's fingers in the pie, though their complicity in creating an atmosphere where this could flourish is absolute. The idea of gaining political advantage through use of the powers of the Justice Dept had to be appealing in the world of Republican power politics. These folks long term goals are always so amorphous and their short term ends so entrancing to them that they do not see probable fallout. For example they see "no Saddam" as so attractive that they fail to run alternate scenarios, because the short term end is "good" only their "good" can follow.
I would guess that Kyle Sampson sees himself as the fall guy and will try to hand responsibility back up the chain. The problem is that there may be no evidence what so ever up-chain. Or, if it can actually get handed up to Albie, the sword will be fallen on and that'll be it. No one will make the case that the problem isn't who ordered what, but that the mentality was fostered, that the entire White House is sick.
"Oh no, somebody tried to do that?? Well they're fired," would have put a stop to this entire mess. But they cannot do that. They have to cover, there's a sickness to be kept out of sight. The might be seen as what they are.
Monday, March 19, 2007
March Madness Pool - Executive Privilege
How about we take a cue from the Senator from Arizona, the McCain guy who wanted Internet gambling squashed and run a pool? Here's the rules, all bets are made in BushCo-head pennies (the ones with the White House as a garbage bin), you bet on who gets executive privilege and who gets thrown to the wolves, pairing each. Only pairs count (if you pick Rove EP - Gonzales TW and both work - credit otherwise no credit) most pairs wins, no hedging bets - Gone-zales can't be TW in one and EP in another.
You can use the comments to give your picks. I won't tilt it by betting. Fame and fortune could be your's...
Don't try to use real money, the Feds will be on you like stink on poo, just like OBL. The winner also gets to be a White House Leaks suspect.
You can use the comments to give your picks. I won't tilt it by betting. Fame and fortune could be your's...
Don't try to use real money, the Feds will be on you like stink on poo, just like OBL. The winner also gets to be a White House Leaks suspect.
Friday, March 16, 2007
Justice Is A Political Football
The DOJ just cannot get its stories straight, when 8 US Attorneys were fired it was a simple personnel change and had something to do with performance. Time passes. The Federal Prosecutors object to the performance issue, with glowing performance evaluations in hand. The little 'appoint without Senate approval' clause comes to light, and scepticism mounts. Oh, a Karl Rove flunky is appointed, a political hack. More doubts are spoken. Congress starts nosing around and it appears that there was some coercion of Prosecutors to not complain - since some didn't seem to like being called incompetent. The idiot AG who can't find a right to Habeas Corpus in the Constitution insists that this is simply a personnel matter that's gotten out of hand. Then it comes out that a couple Republican Congresspeople were nosing around an investigation and were displeased that it wasn't going to impact the '06 election. There's a certain amount of impropriety involved, enough that Pete Domeneci lawyers up - big time. Things are starting to look a little more complicated than a simple personnel matter, in fact things are starting to look political. More AG 'there's nothing to see here,' kind of stuff, just a personnel matter that wasn't handled too well. Harriet Miers fingers show up in the pie, Kyle Sampson resigns as Deputy AG - the personnel guy - and the AG is back, and he was mislead (sound familiar?) and had incomplete info and didn't know what was going on and ...
So, now it appears that Karl Rove was one of the instigators. What struck me about the actual email that shows he was messing about was Kyle Sampson's question as to whether Karl thought "there is the political will to do it," asked of David Leitch who had forwarded Colin Newman's note that Rove wanted to know what they were going to do about the US Attorneys. This was a month before when the White House has admitted they were thinking about it. And what they were thinking about was how "loyal" to the Administration these guys were and how dedicated they were to the Administration's agendas, primarily voter fraud - Democratic. You know, voter purges like they got in Florida under Katherine Harris, almost completely Democratic and to a great extent unwarranted. What they were getting was competent prosecutions of federal crimes, not what they apparently wanted.
You remember that Gonzales didn't know about all this? Odd considering he and Sampson had discussed the idea while he was still White House council. He'll be explaining this one somehow, pretty soon.
So here's the deal, the Dept of Justice which is supposed to look out for the interests of all Americans is more interested in Democratic votes than crimes, and evidently, considering that Carol Lam bit it after Duke Cunningham's prosecution, way more interested in something other than political corruption. She wasn't doing enough about immigration cases, that may be important, but it might have been farther up the "to do" scale if the Republicans hadn't afforded so much corruption prosecution time. I'd guess that out of all the Republican appointed Republican US Attorneys there might be some who aren't doing such a hot job and could easily have superior replacements found, maybe they're just very "loyal Bushies." (a direct quote from Sampson's email)
There's a lot the AG "doesn't know about," somehow a person would think he'd be a little better informed, he doesn't know anything about any FBI misuse of the Patriot Act, the Constitution's provisions regarding Habeas Corpus, the Geneva Convention (it's "quaint"), in fact what he seems to know about is being George II's bitch.
So, now it appears that Karl Rove was one of the instigators. What struck me about the actual email that shows he was messing about was Kyle Sampson's question as to whether Karl thought "there is the political will to do it," asked of David Leitch who had forwarded Colin Newman's note that Rove wanted to know what they were going to do about the US Attorneys. This was a month before when the White House has admitted they were thinking about it. And what they were thinking about was how "loyal" to the Administration these guys were and how dedicated they were to the Administration's agendas, primarily voter fraud - Democratic. You know, voter purges like they got in Florida under Katherine Harris, almost completely Democratic and to a great extent unwarranted. What they were getting was competent prosecutions of federal crimes, not what they apparently wanted.
You remember that Gonzales didn't know about all this? Odd considering he and Sampson had discussed the idea while he was still White House council. He'll be explaining this one somehow, pretty soon.
So here's the deal, the Dept of Justice which is supposed to look out for the interests of all Americans is more interested in Democratic votes than crimes, and evidently, considering that Carol Lam bit it after Duke Cunningham's prosecution, way more interested in something other than political corruption. She wasn't doing enough about immigration cases, that may be important, but it might have been farther up the "to do" scale if the Republicans hadn't afforded so much corruption prosecution time. I'd guess that out of all the Republican appointed Republican US Attorneys there might be some who aren't doing such a hot job and could easily have superior replacements found, maybe they're just very "loyal Bushies." (a direct quote from Sampson's email)
There's a lot the AG "doesn't know about," somehow a person would think he'd be a little better informed, he doesn't know anything about any FBI misuse of the Patriot Act, the Constitution's provisions regarding Habeas Corpus, the Geneva Convention (it's "quaint"), in fact what he seems to know about is being George II's bitch.
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
More Money, More Money
The White House is embarrassed, not to ask for more money for Iraq, but because Congress already said they'd 'lowballed' the escalation costs. The AP Story makes it pretty clear another $2 billion or so needs to be added to the $93.4 billion requested to run the show through September.
You needn't be bothered by that number, it certainly won't cause taxes to go up, and you won't be expected to pay it. Your children will be stuck with the bill, or grand kids. At some point this mess will hit a brick wall, called interest on the debt. That's awhile down the pike, but here's the bad news, we are fast approaching the point where we will not be able to tax ourselves out of the collision. Grover Norquist may have gotten his wish to drown the system in the tub.
You needn't be bothered by that number, it certainly won't cause taxes to go up, and you won't be expected to pay it. Your children will be stuck with the bill, or grand kids. At some point this mess will hit a brick wall, called interest on the debt. That's awhile down the pike, but here's the bad news, we are fast approaching the point where we will not be able to tax ourselves out of the collision. Grover Norquist may have gotten his wish to drown the system in the tub.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)