Ooh, good answer!

As you probably know, I'm not voting Republican in 2008. But if I were to do so, well, I have to confess I heart Huckabee (that is, Republican Presidential Nominee candidate and Governor of Arkansas Michael D. "Mike" Huckabee). First of all, he seems to have more character and integrity in his little finger than the other GOP candidates could find with two hands and a flashlight; plus, he retains the added bonus of not being bat-shit crazy, as most of them are. Oh, we'd probably have a rousing debate on policy, Mike and I, but at least I know it would end with prayer and a salad instead of a wiretap and rendition.

But the election aside, I want you to hear what Mike said at the CNN/YouTube debate the other night in answer to the question if the candidate believes the Bible to be the literal truth, every word. Mike used to be a Baptist preacher and actually holds a theological master's degree, so I guess I shouldn't have been surprised at what a brilliant, thoughtful, and insightful answer he gives now. As a former Southern Baptist myself, I often cringe at how the divisions between left & right, red & blue, have manifested themselves as a fight between the faithful and the secular. And just like Texans, when the media gets a quote from a Christian, they usually sound crazy and right-wing. Sadly, Mike hasn't been much of an exception: I don't know if there was a turning point in his life but many sources like Wikipedia insist that he believes in biblical inerrancy (that the Bible contains nothing untrue, which may actually be argued as not the same thing as everything in the Bible being literally true, but that's for another post) and Mike's reputation for such things would put him in the Scary Christians camp for many voters.

But, you're still waiting for the money quote, right? Well, it's almost here. One more thing: if you're a Christian and you're not so obtuse as to believe every literal word of the Bible as being completely literally true, then print out this quote and put it on your fridge or cubicle. People have got to learn that Christians aren't crazy (or at least, that's not why). Ready?

"'Love your neighbor as yourself,' and 'As much as you've done it to the least of these brethren, you've done it unto me,'" Huckabee said. "Until we get those simple, real easy things right, I'm not sure we ought to spend a whole lot of time fighting over the other parts that are a little bit complicated. And as the only person here on the stage with a theology degree, there are parts of it I don't fully comprehend and understand, because the Bible is a revelation of an infinite God, and no finite person is ever going to fully understand it. If they do, their God is too small."

Ooh, thank you Mike! Not only did he answer the question beautifully, but he taught us a good lesson too. First, he says let's stop this petty gay-marriage-scare and all that and work on loving our neighbor (hello, Gulf Coast!) and caring for our fellow man (hello, SCHIP!) and I would add "turn the other cheek" (hello, diplomacy!) and until the day when each of us win a Nobel Peace Prize, we should stop worrying so much about these theological points of debate. Right on!!!!

Second, he said something really profound about the Bible issue. Some of my readers aren't Christian and may find this debate pedantic (it is) and obvious (it is), but here's the thing: for those of us with Judeo/Christian faith, the Bible is a guidebook for living, not in the parts that say, "Do this," or "Don't do that", but in the story parts. The parts where we think about Elijah dropping in on some poor woman trying to feed herself and her kid and he demands she use the last of her food to feed him first and then herself and her kid, and she does, and the food never runs out. What must the woman have thought when this stranger showed up at her door? Why does she say yes to feeding him before her son? Why does Elijah demand this of her in this way? What situation in my life is this similar to? What does the story tell me is the right thing to do? I have a friend who recently after a series of failures and missteps (with good intentions) found herself a single mom with $120 in the bank. The IRS, to whom she owes a few thousand (part of her not-so-great life), seized all the money. Like the widow Elijah meets, my friend had no choice but to give up her last $120 to the government instead of using it to care for her son. I'm not attacking the IRS here, but rather, I can imagine my friend turning to the Bible for comfort, and finding this story. The last of the widow's oil and grain was just like my friend's $120. Elijah's intractable attitude on the subject is like the IRS' immovability. But what my friend might draw hope from was that even when your last morsel of food or your last $120 is taken from you, it will still work out. God won't let that be the end of you, there is hope! And for my friend, getting on a payment plan and out of collections with the IRS was actually a step on the road to recovery for her whole life, so in the end, she too found hope.

Some people talk about the Bible being allegorical or literal. Allegorical would mean that the Elijah story never happened, but is merely there to illustrate a point, while literal would mean that it happened in history just as it says. But as I see it, "allegorical" for me means that I turn these stories into allegories that speak to my life whether they happened or not. Who cares if there was a real woman with a real bottle of oil? Who cares if Elijah was a spiritual prophet or a technical man? (Go back and read Elijah's whole story in Kings and tell me if you don't end up thinking he's a time traveler. It's totally eerie.) What's most important is, "How am I going to get through the end of the month with my last $120 gone?" and for that, you're going to make an allegory to your own life anyway, so who cares if it's literal or not?

Plus, if you're saying it's totally literal, then you're saying that it is a record of historical events that stands on its own whether it has meaning for anyone or not, which seems to undermine the point of the Bible. We can read the Constitution, for example, and if we just think of it as a description of the lives our founding fathers and the rules they made up for themselves in their point in history, then we can't apply it to today, and what would be the point of that?

Lastly, and I'm just piggybacking my own thought onto Mike's here, is that even if you thought the Bible was literally word-for-word true, we don't have the whole story. Looking back at the Elijah/widow story, we don't really know what he said to her (surely there were a few more words than, "Fetch me...", how about hello, where'd you come from, cute kid you got there, etc.) or what she said to him (she doesn't have any lines in the story, was she mute? had lockjaw? cat had her tongue? we don't know), or other details. There are a very few sentences that describe this story, and so that can't be all there is to it. So therefore if it's not the whole story then even if it is literally true, it's still not the whole truth, and one is then left to ponder, imagine, fill in blanks-- and what has happened then to your certainty in "truth"?

Same goes for the technical rules contained in the Bible. BTW, for those of you who aren't Christians, the deal is supposed to be that Jesus make a New Deal with us (the new "covenant" or "testament") that superseded all the old rules about animal sacrifices and stonings and hair lengths. So please stop asking Christians who take the Bible literally whether they think people should be stoned to death or follow other arcane practices; even if they took that literally, Jesus shook our hand on a new pact and we don't have to listen to those old rules anymore anyway. That should be a question saved for Jews, who you could say didn't shake on the new deal and are still following the old one. They're the ones who have to answer for all that, and most of them aren't taking it literally anyway, so, debate over.

But in any case, let's say it says (sorry, I don't want to take the time to look up a real one) to stone a guy if he sleeps with his brother's wife. A technical rule, and one that would have been possible to carry out because at the time it would have been legal and presumably customary. Nowadays, that would be first degree murder, so following Christ's admonishment that we "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" (follow civil laws), we know we couldn't stone anyone for any reason in modern America. So we have to look at it allegorically, that is, what this is saying to us is that sleeping with your brother's wife is seriously bad, and worthy of getting the smackdown from your friends and neighbors. So even tho this example is Old Testament (and we Christians aren't expected to follow it), I would say that it's telling me that I should cut this guy out of my life and stop being his friend until he ends the affair and starts living an honest life. Cutting him out of my life is the equivalent of "killing" him, and since I can't really kill him, that's the only option left open to me. Whew! I need to stop saying "I" in this example! I wouldn't do either, because of course Jesus said to turn the other cheek and not judge, but you get the point.

Boy, I really thought this was going to be a short post today! Let me just wrap up on the last bit of what Huckabee said:

Leaving aside the allegorical/literal debate, what Mike said at the end was that there is no end to the mind of God, and if this Bible is his revelation to us, then there is no end to it.

I'm a big Shakespeare freak, and what I find so cool about Shakes is that no matter what we descendants invent (19th century realism, 20th century "method" acting, 21st century rap), when we look back at Shakespeare, it's in there. This is much like what Mike was saying about the Bible, that it continuously reveals itself to us, which is a phenomenon that by definition expands beyond the debate of literal or allegorical.

Oh, Mike. Now if only you held progressive political ideals, my love for you could be complete...

Welcome to the Horror Coma

I didn't know there was anything beyond scandal fatigue, until I tried to pick up writing again. As John Dickerson said when he opened the Slate's Political Gabfest podcast a few weeks ago, "There's so much to cover... and we're sick of it all already." Amen, brother.

I've got a couple things on the stove (my writing stove, that is, where the heat source is righteous outrage), so I'm going to give you not one, but TWO posts to be thankful for today! First, privitization, then below this post you'll find one on Hillary Clinton.


Enjoy your turkey and your tryptophan comas!

Privitization & The NeoCon Economy: Maybe it's because Democrats can't hatch intricate plots to redesign the government (the last meeting disintegrated when the nice lady who brought brownies was brought to tears justifying them as cruelty-free AND not anti-feminist), but there really is a nefarious and wide-ranging plan on the right to create an economy based on fear and war (see Naomi Klein's Disaster Capitalism) that is executed primarily through privatization, that is, handing over implementation to private companies.

I have lots of problems with this, but I just want to take a step back here and say, this isn't just about Katrina (New Orleans public schools remaining= 4) or the Wars (Blackwater). In the film No End In Sight, we learned that the NeoConMen intended to use Iraq as a laboratory for these economic ideas. "We can't get the American people to see what a great idea this is and let us do it here," they apparently thought, "so let's topple another country and do it there!" The New York Times said in describing the film, "The knowledge and expertise of military, diplomatic and technical professionals was overridden by the ideological certainty of political loyalists. Republican Party operatives, including recent college graduates with little or no relevant experience, were put in charge of delicate and complicated administrative areas. Those who did not demonstrate lock-step fidelity to the White House line were ignored or pushed aside." OK, that sounds like the typical crap we hear from the GOP, just like the stories of the justice department. But what the film makes clear is that this was done specifically to implement necon ideals-- because (to paraphrase, I should have written down the quote) the older, experienced policy makers would have known better, would know that these trickle-down, "free market", privatizing ideas would not work, and so the spots were filled with fresh-faced, brainwashed, inexperienced kids who wouldn't know better and would do what their Leaders told them to. So if you want to see what the NeoEConomy would look like, look at Iraq. Isn't it swell?

Oh, there's lots more on this subject-- look at how housing monies in the Gulf Coast are being funneled to the ports for the good of the casinos-- and I will continue to stay on this topic in the weeks and months to come.

Let me just stop here and give you my philosophy.

We as a nation, as one people, make decisions through our elected representatives as to what will receive our allocations of time, money and resources. For example, recently in Texas we allocated millions of dollars for cancer research. We as a state, through voting, decided that we want to research cancer more and help cancer patients. Our allocation is for the public good. We Texans need cancer research, we're putting money to that for the people.

Cancer is an easy one because it's obviously "good". But when I talk about what America does for the public good, I mean we make moral decisions, decisions on what we feel is important. We have X number of dollars, and we decide to spend more on cancer than heart disease. This is a moral choice, a choice that reflects one's morality, or priorities.

Making a decision "for the public good" does NOT always mean the measure is in fact good-- it could be a mistake, or not the best way to go about things, or perhaps if the morality of the leaders is skewed, they might allocate resources to line their own pockets rather than on cancer. But as I am using the terms, even that is a moral choice because the act of allocating resources in our name is making moral choices for the public good, even if those choices are poor or even diabolical. With me so far?

If you allocate money and other resources for the public good, then as it goes through the government processes and all down the line we're working for the good of the people. But then at the end of the line, where the rubber meets the road, where the work or service is actually happening, if you privatize the implementation of this thing, you have suddenly and at the last minute handed over the process to a corporation who works solely for the good of the corporation, not the people. While all along we were working toward the common good, in the end we serve the good of a private corporation.

Consequently, that privatization in essence robs America of its morality.

I want to wrap up but I have to say this first: conservatives have said for years that the private sector is leaner, more agile, more able, than cumbersome and sometimes corrupt government agencies and bureaucracies. Well, if that is so, then let us LEARN from those companies, and do better. We have oversight of the agencies. If a corporation happens to be corrupt or inept, we can't do anything about it. We can't say, fire that boss and let's do better. But if it's our own government, if it's us, we can correct problems with both corruption and lumbering bureaucracy. And again, we retain the moral high ground.

Update: Here is a list of the Senior officials of the Iraq Coalition Provisional Authority. These are the senior, in-charge folks, so their resumes don't look as anemic as what is described in No End In Sight. However, you do see their NeoCon is showing.


Chew over that, next up, Hillary Clinton.

Stop creeping me out, Hillary!

Hillary Clinton: My other hot button on this day of thanks is the strangely Bush-esque qualities of the woman who's currently leading primary polls. I wrote about this months ago, and while at the time I tried not to be too harsh about it, I'm flat-out starting to worry. Since I heard Medea Benjamin from Code Pink talk about the "Clinton thugs" last year, I haven't heard any good news coming out of that camp.

Here's my problem: I smelled a rat with the Bush Administration when Cheney refused to release the information about his energy task force. (The rat was apparently named "we'll save the oil companies by bombing a country in the middle east and take their oil, and give it to the oil companies".) Free speech zones weren't far behind, and if you're not familiar, if you wanted to protest the government, you had to walk yourself into a little cage with other protesters where no one could see or hear what you had to say. We let a lot of really anti-American activities such as these occur on our watch, and I see the same kind of thuggery in Hillary. Now there's planted questions (as if she couldn't handle the crap questions that are asked in these debates anyway) and god knows what else.

We have two choices: either DEMAND that she change her tactics, or find an American candidate, one who will stand up for me to say whatever I want EVERYWHERE in this country. America is supposed to be one big giant Free Speech Zone, remember?

Quickly, because I'm late for turkey, let me say this: if you feel that getting rid of the Bush Administration is the most important goal, because our policies are better than their policies, then by all means vote for Hillary. As she constantly reminds us, she is the best fighter. If on the other hand you are more concerned with the behavior of this Administration and the trashing of the Constitution and the lying and the secrecy, you best look elsewhere. I see no evidence that her hands will be any cleaner. Personally, I can't take any more of this behavior.

Little Miss Hiatus

"This vote may have already happened!"

--Jeff Greenfield on Slate's Political Gabfest podcast (8/17/07) on the primary elections being held earlier and earlier.

I'm taking a break on posting to catch up on my podcasts and net surfing, and to catch up that my son has turned three. I noticed I pooped out last August, too. Lazy days of summer and all that. Enjoy your last days of sipping lemonade, and I'll see you in September (unless something outrageous happens before then). Keep watching the skies!

Obama's Plan to Solve this Mess

Today in Salon.com's War Room, they posted an "excerpt from the Obama campaign", which laid out his differences with the current adminstration vis a vis foreign policy and our answer to whatever war it is we're in. Now, it's only a campaign pledge, it doesn't mean much this early out, but I have to say, I do agree with this theory. The details may vary in yummy goodness, but this at least shows some intelligent thinking...

"Just because the president misrepresents our enemies does not mean we do not have them. The terrorists are at war with us. The threat is from violent extremists who are a small minority of the world's 1.3 billion Muslims, but the threat is real ... To defeat this enemy, we must understand who we are fighting against, and what we are fighting for.

"The president would have us believe that every bomb in Baghdad is part of al-Qaida's war against us, not an Iraqi civil war. He elevates al-Qaida in Iraq -- which didn't exist before our invasion -- and overlooks the people who hit us on 9/11, who are training new recruits in Pakistan. He lumps together groups with very different goals: al-Qaida and Iran, Shiite militias and Sunni insurgents. He confuses our mission.

"By refusing to end the war in Iraq, President Bush is giving the terrorists what they really want, and what the Congress voted to give them in 2002: a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.

"When I am president, we will wage the war that has to be won, with a comprehensive strategy with five elements: getting out of Iraq and on to the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan; developing the capabilities and partnerships we need to take out the terrorists and the world's most deadly weapons; engaging the world to dry up support for terror and extremism; restoring our values; and securing a more resilient homeland."

Obama hit two key points I agree with:

• the Pres has got us all confused. There are major differences in the different groups O mentioned. Al-Qaeda, for example, will NEVER be supported by Iran, because AQ is Sunni and Iran is Shi'a. They are not on the same side. These distinctions are not clear to the American public, and in this smoke and mirrors, the Pres can make anyone seem like an enemy.
• drying up support for extremists. The Pres once famously divided the world into those "with us" and "against us". The truth is, if you were inclined to divide the world in two, the split is over extremism v. moderation. Guess what, kids? We are extremists in this fight. The Islamic extremists, by Allah, want one world in their image, and the NeoConservatice extremists, by God, want another. We are caught between the two, and both seem intent on bloodshed. If, however, we had pressed for moderation, consideration, unity, and friendship with the nations of the world after 9/11 (and before), we could have helped to "dry up" extremism with moderation, much like a rash dries up with Caladryl.
  

Most people just want to live their lives in peace and freedom. Most people in the world are more concerned, truthfully, with their family budget, sick cat, carpools, their children's health, their parents' aging, and all the rest. They will only rise to arms when they feel like their well-being is threatened, either by their own society's or another's extremism. We excite these regular folks with our imperialistic "remaking" of the Muslim world. We are doing this, and it's time we realized it. We must remake ourselves into a voice for moderation, tolerance, freedom, and peace. I can't say this is what Obama was thinking, I can only go by the quote above, but I think his words represent a new way of thinking of our relationship with the world.

I am still not endorsing any candidate. It's too early. But I will report when they say something that rings true... or false.

Rummy's back!

And in fine form. He's testifying in front of the House hearing on Pat Tillman's death, and he answered Rep. Elijah Cummings' question (something like what the hell happened) was, (paraphrasing), "Well, you know, there are lots of investigations all the time, I mean, heck, how could everyone know everything?"

Someday when I grow up to be a real blogger I'll figure out how to get exact quotes while listening to CSPAN 3 on the net. In the meantime, here's where all the excitement is happening...

Attention El Paso!

In our US House, El Paso's 16th district is represented by Silvestre Reyes. In an article in USA Today, Reyes made a comment that incensed me. I'm telling you because his website will only take comments from people in his district. Maybe he'll hear about it, or maybe you're from El Paso or know someone who is. And in any case, the whole country is stuck with him.

Reyes is the chairman (ranking Democrat) on the House Intelligence Committee, and he is apparently friends with Alberto Gonzales. AG AG certainly has a lot of friends. I take it that he's sweet, and charming, and dumb as a box of hammers. (I heard a great quote similar to that but far funnier, when I figure out who said it and find it, I'll put it here!)

Every time AG AG testifies, Reyes comes out and says something fawning. Remember, this AG is the guy who burst into the hospital room of the ailing John Ashcroft to try to twist his morphine-injected arm. This is the idiot who said the Geneva Conventions were quaint, argued against habeas corpus' legitimacy from the Constitution, and the hospital visit itself was for something so nefarious that Mr. Ashcroft lifted his broken body up and lectured Alberto about why it should never be legal.

But what does the Gentleman from El Paso say? The Chairman of the committee investigating the AG?

"When there are issues of national security at stake, I think certainly one should not question the motivation of individuals," Reyes told reporters. "I'm willing to accept the rationale behind it."

WHAT?!?!? Isn't that the MAIN time to question individual's motivations?!?!?!

Now, I first saw this on Salon.com's War Room, so I am not the first person to do a spit-take over this. And in doing some research this morning, this is not the only apologetic quote from Reyes. Why, according to Reyes, AG AG "explained it very well", and... [frankly, writing time got interrupted by Lil Mr. Patriot who got up early. I'm going to have to fill in these other obsequious quotes later.]

This, BTW, is the same Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee who, when asked if Al-Qaeda was Sunni or Shi'a said the latter (it's the former) and when asked about Hezbollah answered, "Hezbollah. Uh, Hezbollah? ... Why do you ask me these questions at 5 o'clock? Can I answer in Spanish? Do you speak Spanish?" (Congressional Quarterly, Dec 2006)

Oh, El Paso, we love you. Love us back. Replace this idiot, loyal to his friend to the last, with someone who is loyal to us, the rest of the country, and our Constitution. And for those of you who have more time to write letters, write to Reyes and let him know this is not the time to be an apologist or a puppy who rolls over on command.

The Lady I Knew

Lady Bird Johnson 1912-2007

No, I never had the pleasure personally. But even if you came to Austin as politically untuned as I was 12 years ago, the Lady with the funny name could make an impression on you with the Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower Center. A riot of horticulture, this goes way beyond garden. If you're ever in Austin, visit the Lady Bird Center, and if you want a lift today, go to the web site and check it out.

Lady Bird passed away yesterday at age 94. A quick trip to the LBJ presidential museum (also here) and the first thing and the last thing you notice is the love these two people had for each other. After over 30 years of being apart, and after two richly lived lives, I'm glad they are together again.

If you thought Texas was like you see in the movies, think again. Here's a taste of why we love the Hill Country!

Just when you thought it couldn't get more ridiculous: Enter the Post-Surge

Or, If You Liked The Surge, You're Going to Looooove This!

From CNN.com:

Six months after announcing an increase of nearly 30,000 U.S. troops that became known as the "surge," Bush is scheduled to appear at a town meeting in Cleveland, Ohio, on Tuesday where he's expected to push for a "post-surge" phase of the four-year war, senior officials told CNN.

However, senior administration officials said that the Bush administration does not plan to make any major changes in its war strategy despite increased calls from Republican lawmakers to begin a drawdown of U.S. troops in Iraq.

...The report will show "some of the benchmarks have been made, some of them haven't" and will set off a debate that will result in "the beginning of a new way," White House spokesman Tony Snow told CNN's "American Morning" on Tuesday.

"What Congress will get this week is a snapshot of the beginning of the retooling of the mission in Iraq," Snow said. "Everyone says, 'We want to do it a different way.' We agree. It's just now started."

Oh, goodie. Because what we really need is

a snapshot (=generated image of a brief moment of the past which may or may not accurately represent the event)

of the beginning (=don't expect to see this yet)

of the retooling (=to redesign the machinery that will allow for improvements to happen in the future)

of the mission (=maintaining a holding pattern while the US crams an immoral oil law down the throats of Iraqis which will cost them billions in infrastructure while the four top oil companies will retain the lion's share of the revenue)

And worse, all that has "just now started"! Gasp!

I'm starting to think impeachment is too good for these people. Do they still do that thing with the ant hills and honey?

I met a wonderful young man who hopes (!) to be heading back oversees very soon. He's hoping because he's made the jump from grunt to Military Intelligence, and he's very excited about it, as any young man would be at his career taking a leap forward. When we talked, I asked him my two main questions (you're going to have to take my word for all this, now that he's in MI he really didn't want me revealing his name):

1. When you come back here and see us all being oblivious and shopping and watching American Idol, do you just think we're idiots? (I asked because I can only imagine coming back from a war zone and then listening to someone bitch about their iPhone must make you want to punch them.)
"No, because we all have our jobs, and that's how it should be. Mine is over there, yours is over here."

2. When you hear that there is discussion back here about the purpose of these wars and everything, does that hurt your morale?
"For me, no. But in general? Of course it does, yes. But everything hurts morale. Not having a shower in the morning hurts morale. So yes, hearing people (especially the ones who don't know what they're talking about) bitch about the war hurts morale. But everything does, so you just get used to that until it doesn't matter anymore."

My answer to this will be familiar to Constant Readers: Our big, shiny military is like a big, shiny gun. It's our job as civilians to take care of this gun, maintain it, treat it with care, and for God's sake be careful where you point that thing. We don't point it at ourselves (Posse Comitatus), we don't point it at our friends (treaties). As they say here in Texas, "Don't pull a gun unless you intend to use it, and don't use it unless you intend to kill with it." (A sentiment I don't quite follow, not being a gun person myself, but I'm sure folks around here would school me.)

I believe in the debate because I love our troops. If we don't debate, it's like shooting off the gun with a blindfold on. If we don't debate, and make sure we are doing the right thing, we are irresponsible. We are irresponsible to them, to that boy who is so excited to go back. We must take care of him, which not only means his equipment while he's there and his mind and body when he returns, but it means that we must be very, very careful where we send him and what mission we give him so that we do not waste our big shiny guns and our eye-candy boys (oops, sorry, I mean professional soldiers, but c'mon, he's dreamy!) on stupid conflicts handled poorly.

I can't confirm or deny that this exquisite specimen of Texan manhood is a member of the US Military.

What time is it? Subpoena Time!!!

Subpoenas!

Subpoenas!

Subpoenas!

Whoo-hoo!!!

Why we can't leave Iraq 2 (or should we?)

I wrote a post a year ago that explained why the lessons of Afghanistan teach us we can't leave Iraq to fend for herself. My point was that since we left Afghanistan in 1989 after fighting the Soviets, we left them alone; in that chaos grew Osama Bin Laden. I'm none to keen to see that happen twelve years from now.

Since then, my post been read by many people (I got a litte site tracker dealie) but what really shocks me is that lately, it's been read by a lot more people. People do Google searches on leaving Iraq, find my old piece, and read it. I thought it was time to update.

It's June of 2007 now and the death toll, just of our guys, is over 3500. I am not sure any more. I still believe in the ideas put forth here, but... You can talk about your various options for putting out a fire on the stove, but once the whole house is on fire, perhaps it's time to just shut up and get out.

What I really hate is that these are our two choices. The intractability of the President's "stay the course" plan has pre-determined its opposite: leave. He so stubbornly clung to his position that it caused everyone (now up to 75% I hear) to line up on the other side. (I don't know how that happens, some function of human nature, I suppose.) And once again, anyone who says anything between "stay" and "leave" comes off wishy-washy and unsure. Just because "stay" is wrong doesn't mean "leave" is the answer. We are so glad to have the 75% who don't want to be in Iraq on our side, that we forget that we needed them back in 2003 to keep us from going in. Their blind obedience to the point of view du jour isn't any more helpful now than it was then.

First, I have asked our candidates to stop telling me what they would do in Iraq if they are president in 2009.

Second, I have been reading about Richard I of England, known as the Lion-Hearted, who was a horrible king who started the Crusades after massacring Jews in England. I'm starting to understand why they might get sick of Western "help". It's the same thing as building the Bin Sultan air base in Saudi Arabia to "help" the Saudis defend their country; and that was on the top of the list for OBL's wrath. Building our base was insulting to the Saudis, who are capable of taking care of themselves (but we were gearing up for coming in and gettin' us some oil).

Third, I still believe the Iraqis will need some kind of help. Help by being left alone, or help from their neighbors, help in the form of money from us, or help from the Christmas Ghosts, I don't know. But I still believe that if the Iraqis don't get some kind of help, it will leave a gaping hole of instability that will surely spew forth demons as the Afghanistan did with Osama Bin Laden. And I believe in cleaning up messes you make. The Girl Scout motto is "Leave things better than you found them," and I take that very seriously.

Forth, I believe that the most important thing for the world is stability. I don't mean to imply that stability in the form of an iron-fisted dictator is preferable to the stability of small town America, but rather that worldwide stability is preferable to worldwide warmongering. Even the stability of the Cold War was better than the instability of erupting conflict we are now seeing in the Middle East. Worldwide stability gives us the platform to address pressing issues such as poverty, women's rights, child labor, dictators, free press, personal liberty, etc. When we are living in conflict, all we can address is ending conflict.

This is actually why many of us feel that we should not have opened instability in Iraq, even though she was being ruled by a terrible dictator. While we can use conflict to depose that dictator, we can't do anything else. While Saddam was still in power, we could have UN resolutions, weapons inspectors, negotiations. We had a framework within which to move closer to success. Oh, I'm glad he's gone too, but we can't get this new government to accomplish anything because of the instability in the country.

I have an ulterior motive, I don't want worldwide instability to have exploded in the next 16 years so that there is a draft when my son is of age.

Speaking of Little Mr. Patriot, he needs his lunch, so I must finish this later.

PS I found another post I'd done on this, found here, so this is actually the third one.

Tim Griffin and the Caging List Scandal, or How I Learned To Start Worrying And Fear The GOP

Tim Griffin, aide to Karl Rove, had caging lists developed for swing states of voters who were thought to vote Democrat so that, in removing them, the GOP change the outcome of the election.

He emailed the actual caging lists to Karl on the RNC email server. ["missing email scandal"]

The caging lists were apparently brought to the Civil Rights Division, which had been packed with GOPbots who would not question them, and thousands of names were removed from voter rolls in swing states. What happened in this stage of the game will surely be uncovered as the investigation continues. ["political hiring scandal"]

To avoid being caught, the Attorney General removed 8 to 10 US Attorneys (in the swing states where caging lists were being used) who had demonstrated an unwillingness to "play ball" politcally and might get wind of these caging lists and prosecute. ["US Attorney Firings Scandal"]

One of their replacements was Tim Griffin. He did not have to go through Senate confirmation, and so could not be questioned under oath and have his caging list crime uncovered. He was then a US Attorney, the prosecution, and the only one who could prosecute him would be the Attorney General, who was certainly part of this conspiracy at the level of firing the USAs, if not in other areas as well. ["change to the Patriot Act Scandal"]

Greg Palast wrote about this in his book. Senator John Conyers has caught wind of the story and is openly investigating. When that news broke, Tim Griffin resigned and is in the wind.

This is a crime committed to change the outcome of an election and establish a permanent GOP majority, and a conspiracy to cover up that crime. It is also the best example of how all these disparate stories (which smelled bad on their own but didn't seem to go anywhere) added up to a system in which this conspiracy, and possibly others, were permitted to occur.

Caging Lists

First of all, the term "caging" comes from direct mail and has only recently made its way into the political lexicon. As pertains to direct mail, the definition is quite different: it is a whole range of activities that add up to processing information in databases. While in politics it still pertains to databases, this time of voters, the use of the term is very different. If my definitions are not exact, it is because I am describing the practical application of vote caging, which is the most important to the Citizen Reader.

What is "vote caging"?

To cage votes is to separate out names of voters, based on their likelihood of voting for your opponent, and attempt to keep those votes from being counted. This is done with caging lists.

What is a "caging list"?

It is a list of voters whose voting status is challenged, with the hope of getting these voters off the rolls.

How does it work?

First, a political party wants to tip the election by removing thousands of voters off the rolls who are likely to vote for the opposition. These people will be unlikely to have a fixed address, will move a lot, or will be away from home for long periods (such as college students, deployed military, and homeless people). A mailer is prepared and sent to their voter registration address. It is marked on the outside "Do Not Forward", and the letter will request that you return some portion to confirm your address. Many of these voters will not be at their address (for example, it is sent to the stateside home of a deployed soldier) and the letters are returned. The party then takes the letters to the voting authorities and claims that none of these people are living at their voting address, and their registrations are likely fraudulent. In the interest of stopping voter fraud, the names are removed.

So, this happened?

Tim Griffin, Karl Rove's deputy, attached prepared caging lists to an email he attempted to send to Rove-- but sent it to a friend of a reporter instead. I've heard various reports on how many thousands of voters were caged, but it's 35,000 here and 70,000 there... It seems to be just enough to tip the election but not enough in any one spot to be obvious.

Missing Email Scandal

This is another vague, amorphous "scandal"... ish. But it has shocking ties right into the caging list scandal.

White House staff (and who knows who else) used the Republican National Committee email server to communicate about political machinations.

This is against the Hatch Act, which governs the political vs. public aspects of the White House. The more familiar aspect of the Act is to say that politicians aren't supposed to use their office, their official vehicle, or any other resources of the White House to do political business. For example, if Karl Rove wanted to find out the polling numbers for the GOP in Iowa, he couldn't use his WH email account for that. This keeps those in the administration from wasting government resources on their own re-elections.

But the other side of the Act also dictates that official business can't be done outside the office. While the flip side is about preserving resources, this side is about preserving all documentation about an Administration. Rove can't use his RNC account to discuss amendments to a bill, for example. Doing so would not only violate the Hatch Act, but also allow him to hide presidential records from the National Archives.

Hiding records by using an outside email account goes against the Presidential Records Act, which regulates how all the "paperwork" (in quotes because now it's virtual too, of course) generated by the Administration will be handled. Under the PRA, everything has to be saved until the National Archives says it's OK to throw it out (usually done during the sorting process for the Presidential Library, I suspect).

Which brings us to the next part of this story. When the Congressional committees who were holding hearings on various political machinations of the Administration, they found that when they subpoenaed all the records and emails, many, many were missing. Inquiries revealed that the WH officials and staff had been using the RNC server for both political and policy matters.

Yes, it is true that times have changed. Yes, it's true that not so long ago, no one had ever heard of email. Yes, it's true that those of us with multiple email accounts get confused too. However, emails that have been recovered show this was intentional:

Susan Ralston, who was Karl Rove’s executive assistant, invited two lobbyists working for Jack Abramoff to use her RNC e-mail account to avoid “security issues” with the White House e-mail system, writing: “I now have an RNC blackbeny which you can use to e-mail me at any time. No security issues like my WH email.” [ThinkProgress]

However, when Congress attempted to subpoena the emails from the RNC, they had been deleted. Four years worth of emails, approximately 5 million, were missing from the RNC servers. This is yet another assault on the PRA; had the emails been carefully preserved, the WH might have only gotten in trouble over the Hatch Act ("What were the emails doing on the RNC server in the first place?") but in this case, they have effectively destroyed administration records.

Or, are all the emails missing? At least 500 of these emails were victims of yet another mistake, this one for real: the sender typed in "rnc.com" instead of "rnc.org". (In fact much of what we know comes from similar mistakes in addressing.) Fortunately for history, "rnc.com" was a parody site that was owned by a friend of BBC reporter David Palast. As Palast describes in his book, Armed Madhouse, some of the incriminating emails Congress was looking for were in these 500, including the smoking gun of caging lists. Senator John Conyers is now investigating these emails.

UPDATE: While we can't get the MSM to pick up on this story, at least CNN today is finally mentioning that some emails are missing (altho it's buried in their politics page)...

Voter Fraud, or It's Not Us, It's You

In order to maintain a permanent majority, the GOP has been attempting to manipulate the system by crying "voter fraud". They first scare the public by claiming there is rampant polling place voter fraud. (It has been proven there isn't, but I can't find the link right now, sorry. Will update.) Then they put measures in place that have the effect of disenfranchising voters under the name of fighting fraud.

For example, they might claim that there are "so many" people trying to sneak in to vote without proper ID that we should have a "tamper-proof voter ID card". This card costs the voter $40. And now we effectively have a PRICETAG ON VOTING. There are many poor people who would have trouble coming up with $40, especially if it's between feeding their families and voting. Getting people to vote is hard enough, make it harder and many won't bother. So even though the GOP has skirted the law and not done anything illegal, in fact talked us into creating a law for them, they have in effect gotten the poor people to stop voting (read: stop voting Democrat).

They have also been packing the Civil Rights Division with rabidly political GOPbots. The Civil Rights Division has a Voter Fraud department.

There are TWO IMPORTANT things to remember:

The GOP's "War on Voter Fraud" is like the "Clean Skies Initiative". It means the exact opposite of what it sounds like.

They are whipping the people who are paying attention into a frenzy (even implying that ILLEGALS might try to vote, gasp!), and to those who only follow half of what's going on, they sound like they're addressing voter fraud instead of committing it. It's all a red herring, though. In this case, as in so many others with the GOP, look at what they're accusing the other side of, and you'll find their own faults there.

The office in charge of rooting out and prosecuting people for voter fraud is the US Attorney.

And this bunch, along with the Civil Rights Division has been packed with GOPbots just for this purpose.

Update: I found another interesting article in Salon about how this scandal relates to the firing of US Attorneys.

US Attorney Scandal

We all have a lot of questions, let me answer some for you.

1. Why are US Attorneys (USAs) Presidential appointees, and is that good?
Well, yes, it is, because one thing a President runs on is law enforcement.

For an oversimplified example, let's say you have two candidates, equal in all other ways, but they have two different views on immigration. President Adama says, "Let's go after the people hiring illegal immigrants!" and President Beauford says, "Let's go after the illegal immigrants and deport them!" If President A gets elected, his USAs will prosecute the employers as their main focus. If President B gets elected, his USAs will go after the workers and deport them. So it is important that USAs are Presidential appointees who implement the law enforcement priorities of the administration.

US Attorney candidates are reviewed and then confirmed by the Senate, just to make sure they're solid employees who aren't political zombies. (There's a wrinkle here too, we'll get to it later.)

2. Does being a political appointee automatically mean corruption?
Once they are hired, even if they're hired because they're political buddies with the Attorney General or the President, USAs are expected to act ethically and above the partisan fray.

Back to our example, USAs working for President A would go after corporations because that's what President A promised the people, but he would not let the party affiliations or political friendships of those corporations affect who he goes after and when. The CEO is hunting buddies with Cheney? Well, too bad. If he broke the law, the USAs is to prosecute him.

3. Don't all Presidents fire USAs? What's the big deal?
Because the USAs are political appointees, it is very common for a NEW President to come into office, clean out all the political appointees from the last administration, and put in all new ones. Remember our example: what if President A gets replaced by President B, who now wants to shift the focus of law enforcement to prosecuting illegal workers? He gets to do that. It's the main reason that the term for a US Attorney is 4 years; that way, their term runs out at the same time as the President's, and if the President isn't reelected, they can all toddle off on their merry way. If the President is reelected, he may choose to keep the US Attorney for another four-year term, or replace him to give someone else a chance, known as “resume padding”.

4. What is "resume padding"?
The US Attorney is a temp job, since it lasts 4-8 years. But one perk of the job is that it looks very good on a resume and helps people get elected to office later. Usually this is considered a side benefit to taking the job, which makes up for it being a temp job. However, if you're the GOP political guru, you might think that this is your chance to pad the resumes of a few more of your buddies by replacing some USAs in the middle of their term. There are 93 USAs, that's at least 93 resumes padded, and as many as 186 if you switch them out after their first four-year term. But in the middle of the second four-year term, you could kick out another 10 and squeeze in another 10 buddies for resume padding. This is also sometimes referred to by the Administration as, "giving someone else a chance".

This smells like a 2 day old fish (I don't eat fish, when do they start to smell?) but isn't actually illegal. If the current issue of the firing of these 8-10 USAs was about resume-padding, it would show a callous disregard for the office of US Attorney; it would be self-interest put before the interests of justice. However, since USAs “serve at the pleasure of the President”, this is not illegal, even if it isn’t very patriotic.

5. What about firing in the middle of a term?
It's not entirely unheard of to fire a US Attorney in the middle of his or her term. Like most jobs, there is a way to fire someone if you need to (for playing slap-and-tickle with the interns or taking three hour martini lunches). This is commonly referred to as "performance reasons".

Performance reasons can also extend beyond the “employee” aspects I've mentioned and into the gray area of political agenda. In our example, the US Attorney might get fired for ignoring the immigration issue altogether, and that would fall under "performance", because he is not serving the President’s law enforcement policy, which is his purpose. This is a slippery slope, and for those in the past who were fired for this type of political performance, their cases were well-documented and the AG would have been prepared to defend the firing. However, firings for performance, or for any reason in mid-term, are quite rare.

6. What about Senate confirmation?
As I said, the Senate is supposed to confirm the USAs to ensure that they won’t be corrupt partisan hacks.

This is also why the President doesn’t have a revolving door on the US Attorneys, why he doesn’t replace them constantly to pad as many resumes as possible. Senate confirmation hearings are long and arduous affairs that take up time and political capital. Replacing the whole slate of USAs at the start of your first term, replacing them all two years in, replacing them all at the start of your second term, and again another two years in translates to 372 Senate confirmation hearings. Yikes! This is why most Presidents put in their appointees and them leave them there, it’s too much trouble to change them all the time.

But when the Patriot Act was renewed, Sen. Specter's office (unbeknownst to him, he says) slipped in a provision in the dead of night that said that the USAs no longer needed Senate confirmation. (Since this scandal broke, this has been amended and now they do need confirmation again.) This would appear to have the effect of speeding up the process, and allowing staff changes without everyone looking over their shoulders. As we have recently learned, this also means that if the USA being considered has a checkered past, he is never vetted by the Senate. In the case of newly hired USA and former aide to Karl Rove Tim Griffin, the Senate might have discovered the dirty work he was doing for the Administration were he to be questioned under oath.

This would mean—and catch this, now—that criminal activity would be hidden from the prying eyes of the Senate, and the criminal himself is now a US Attorney! Who prosecutes the prosecutors? It should be the Attorney General, their boss, but if he was in on it, then who prosecutes? Why, no one! Isn’t this just evil genius?

7. OK, so what happened here?
The Attorney General’s office made up a list of USAs to be replaced in 2006. At first it seemed like there were 8 of these (which is why you might have heard about the famous “8”), but as we keep learning more it may be as high as 10 or more. No one knows who actually made the list, or how the names got on the list, since no one will cop to it. The AG did sign off on the final list himself, although he claims no knowledge of how it was developed. The replaced USAs were GOP appointees, and they were willing at first to go quietly into that good night. [Note: when considering to fire only a handful of USAs, Helen Myers suggested they replace the whole slate of 93. This was often referred to in the media as somehow more heinous, but I maintain her idea was politically clever: had they done so, the rest of the scandal would never have been uncovered.]

When the USAs were replaced, the Administration was asked about it. Instead of saying, “Well, you know, we can do whatever we want,” (which was true), they instead claimed it was for performance reasons. This angered the fired USAs, as it would you if your former boss started telling people he fired you for stealing pens when you didn’t. It was one thing to replace them for resume padding reasons, but quite another to besmirch their good names. The fired USAs began to speak out. Some of them, like David Iglesias, took to the media to deny the charges. For others, the lie was exposed through a quick look at the facts: California’s Carol Lam was also fired for “performance”—only she had just been awarded both the Director's Award for Superior Performance and the Attorney General's Award for Distinguished Service.

The Administration attempted to back off the performance claim and instead claim resume-padding. This just shows you how hinky everything was, that (the legal but unpatriotic) resume-padding was a better answer than the truth. Not only did this make them look bad, that they would use the office like a turnpike rest stop, but it also didn’t stick. The “performance” claim was already out there, too late to take it back.

It’s at this point that many people (both “red” and “blue”) shrugged their shoulders and said, “So what? The USAs ‘serve at the pleasure of the President’, he can do whatever he wants, Clinton fired all 93, big deal.” But as Randi Rhodes is fond of saying, “If there isn’t anything wrong here, THEN WHY IS EVERYONE LYING?” They lied about performance reasons, they lied about who drew up the list, the AG’s aide who testified to Congress took the Fifth and then got immunity to speak and still was cagey… Even if you can only see the smoke, there has to be a fire here somewhere.

8. Why were they really fired?
No one knows. It has been proven, through Congressional testimony and investigative reporting, that the charges brought against the USAs regarding their performance was false. We also learned that in most cases, the US Attorney clashed with the GOP for not playing politics. Iglesias refused to trump up charges against a Democratic candidate just before the election as he was pressured to do. Carol Lam had successfully prosecuted Republican Randy “Duke” Cunningham for conspiracy to commit bribery, mail fraud, wire fraud, and tax evasion; he was sentenced to eight-plus years in prison, and her investigation had turned to the 2nd man at the CIA, Dusty Foggo when she was fired. So while we don’t have any proof of why these USAs were fired—remember, no one will cop to building the list or explain how anyone got on the list—we do have proof that these USAs did not fail in performance. We can see they were fired for not toeing the party line, which is unethical at the very least. Again, we’re seeing the smoke even if we haven’t found the fire yet.

9. Tell me again why I care about this?
There are many reasons to care if you love your country, but there is one reason that has current signifigance:

One purview of the US Attorney is VOTER FRAUD. If the US Attorney is corrupt for the GOP and acting in a partisan fashion, he could either press false charges against Democratic candidates (and just by pressing charges, even if they are thrown out later, he can tank their shot at winning), or he could fail to charge GOP candidates with actual voter fraud.

Let me say that again. Picture fictional US Attorney John Smith. An election is coming up. He drums up false charges of voter fraud against the Democratic candidate, while helping to cover up actual voter fraud by the Republican candidate. And no one could, on the surface, accuse him of ignoring voter fraud, when, by gum, he’s been pounding the pulpit railing against voter fraud. Why, our boy John is on a voter fraud crusade! A classic case of misdirection.

Update: If you thought this post was a conspiracy theory, or you saw it as a warning about a slippery slope that we didn’t seem in any danger of sliding down, think again. David Palast of the BBC has uncovered an actual crime related to voter fraud, you will find my post on it here.

10. Why were there only 9 questions, when usually it’s the “top 10”?
Because I only had nine questions, smartass. And yet, I found a 10th. Happy now? :)

Update: I found another interesting article in Salon about how this scandal relates to voting fraud.

Why it's all so hard

Usually I get an idea for a topic and if I let it germinate, phrases begin to pop into my head, ways of explaining what I'm thinking. Get enough of those and I hit "New Post". Today I confess I'm still germinating, but I'm giving it a stab anyway.

Watching the Congress wrangle back and forth, you start to wonder what is wrong with us. Why can't we move forward on important issues that matter? Why is everything so hard?

First of all, I will point out that since 1994 we have watched a Congress who was controlled by one party, and since 2000 with a neat little Executive Branch to match. So you didn't see wrangling, compromise, politics. Granted, you saw nothing at all except the poor Shiavo family being torn apart by Frist (oh, if my parents didn't read this, what a name I usually call him!) and Delay (who has enough stupid names already). But specifically you didn't see the kind of back-and-forth, I'll-block-you until-you-say you'll-vote-for my-thing, icky-sausage-making that usually constitutes politics. So I'd say we're just not used to this. Also, those of us in the wilderness (that is, not GOP, whatever you are) found voices and politicians that we liked and who said the right things, but they were in the wilderness with us, not in the sausage factory, to mix a metaphor. Like a candidate with no experience, it's easy to rally behind people until they get down to the real work of politics. As soon as they walk into that sausage factory we call a government, we don't like what we see as much.

But more than that, it's been especially hard to watch the wrangling this time, and this time, the wrangling itself seems harder. I think it's because the politics go as politics go-- you don't have enough votes to pass something, you stick something on it to sweeten it, like a minium wage increase-- but the issues are suddenly so dire.

Let's say for example that all this wrangling and vetoes and everything we've seen regarding the Iraq supplemental was instead about No Child Left Behind. I don't like NCLB, but if the GOP said, wait until September, let's see if our surge (let's say in this case, of teachers or money) has any results, I'd be OK with that. Or let's say he needs to reauthorize the money for NCLB, but the opposition doesn't want to. They pass a bill that gives him the money but says that each school must show a 10% improvement by next spring. He vetoes it. They come back with another version, this time without the timelines, and he passes it, all the while saying, just give me until September, let's see how summer school went, let's see if the kids' test scores are up by the fall.

Well, you know what, I'd be fine with that. Politically speaking, to compromise and say, "OK, we won't shove this down your throat, we'll give you three more months to try to make it work, because we all want it to work, we all want what's best, we can compromise on that," is perfectly reasonable, and probably wise. Let his surge of teachers fail, as it will because that isn't the problem, and then we can move on.

The only problem is, when we took off on Monday to honor our war dead, eight more soldiers were added to that list. I don't know how you calculate averages on such a thing, but at that rate, 720 more American men and women would DIE before we "check in" in September to "see how it's going", and an untold number of Iraqis as well.

There's nothing really wrong with the way politicians are going about this, because like in our NCLB example, compromise and allowing other ideas to be tried is what politics are all about. And for those like Ted Kennedy or Orrin Hatch, politicians who have been around for a long time, this is how they are used to operating. I don't think blame should be assigned for that.

The real reason it's so hard is that we don't have another system set up to deal with the dire realities. This one is fine for arguing about education or immigration, but not so good for war. Congress, particularly the Senate, is meant to be slow and deliberative. Slow and deliberative are killing us, literally, in this context. We need an Express Lane for Congress. Oh, wait, we had one, it was called "one party rule". Things went by fast, but they also suffered from groupthink and Bush-worship, and the decisions made were awful. So maybe slow and deliberative is good, even in war?

Perhaps. But it's hard to look into the eyes of the parents and families of soldiers and say that.

I gotta run, I hope I did this topic some service. Please feel free to comment!

Don't promise me a rose garden

Presidential Candidates-- Now Hear This:

I don't need you to tell me what you're going to do in Iraq when you get into office two years from now.

There is really no way for anyone to say what they will do in two years.

In two years Iran might have gotten involved. Or Syria. Or China.

In two years the city of Baghdad might be entirely abandoned. Or nuked with a dirty bomb.

In two years, the number of displaced Iraqis turning up at the world's doorstep could equal the entire former population of the country.

In two years, terrorists could strike us, "poking the bear", as Rush Limbaugh would say, and feeding the public's bloodthirst...again.

In two years, the Iraqis may have finally found national unity in hunting down every American until we are run out of the country and the Fall of Baghdad rivals the drama of the Fall of Saigon.

My point is simply this: whatever you tell me you will do in Iraq, you're only reflecting what you might do under the current situation. No one can say, until January of 2009, what should really be done in Iraq under the next presidency, because without a crystal ball, there is no way to know what the situation will be then.

What I do need you to promise me is that you will not make the mistakes of this disastrous current administration.

Tell me you won't lie to me, or spy on me.

Tell me you won't abuse our troops, but that you will use them wisely, lovingly, and with care.

Tell me that you will stop and think before you act.

Tell me that you will put the good of the USA before the good of your party.

Tell me that you care less about permanent majorities than you do about permanent solutions.

Tell me that you care more about the truth than discrediting your critics.

Tell me you will take timely action, not time action to polical salesmanship.

Tell me you will talk to both our friends and our enemies, so that we may find a way to create peace and prosperity for all nations of the earth.

Tell me that you will never leave a family on a rooftop begging for help.

Tell me I don't have to worry about political payoffs and kickbacks and lobbyists and unethical behavior, because you are ethical and honest and you won't tolerate corruption.

Tell me you will promote science and reason so that we can trust government reports and so we have accurate information to move forward.

Tell me you will promote my expression of free speech and never try to silence or marginalize me, even if I disagree with you.

And even more than that, show me as best you can that these tales are not lies, but show me that you are honest, trustworthy, compassionate, fair, and thoughtful by how you run your campaign and how you conduct yourself.

If you do all of this, I will vote for you. And if you fail me, I will fight to impeach your ass. I will no longer stand idly by and watch my government fall into sin, death, and despair.

Don't promise me a rose garden, and you just might get The Rose Garden.

How the Tenet revelations explain Plamegate

So many of the scandals of this administration are downright confusing! The "Plamegate" scandal, which is the alleged outing of a covert CIA agent by the White House in order to discredit her husband, is no exception.

I've been promising a Plamegate tutorial, but the fullness of time adds revelations to the story; I'm not sure it's all played out yet. This week, former CIA Director George Tenet reveals even more about the nature of the relationship between the CIA and the White House.

Tenet recently released his new book At the Center of the Storm, and went on a lengthy press tour to promote it, hitting all the Sunday talk shows and 60 Minutes. It's self-aggrandizement at its best. Unlike some of these other "Hey, I've been maligned by this administration!" books, such as former CTU head Richard Clarke's Against All Enemies, or the Ron Suskind / former Treasury Sec Paul O'Neill book The Price of Loyalty, you don't get very far listening to Tenet's drivel before you begin to throw up in your mouth just a little. I went from not caring if he got the Presidential Medal of Freedom to wanting to rip it off his puffing chest and stomp on it. But I digress...

One thing this press tour has taught us is that all was not well behind the curtain in Oz. Before this, we saw Tenet getting that Medal and all this praise from the Pres (a kiss of death, as it turns out, see Brownie- Job, Heckuva) and it seemed like they were thick as theives.

This was noteworthy at the time because there was a story being floated, or more like an impression created by many stories, that there was a rift between the WH and the CIA. I don't remember a specific piece of info, but I remember the general public perception was that the CIA had completely dropped the ball, and the WH could only "do their best with what they had". The only good 9/11 joke I ever heard was, "Now even the crazy people have taken off their tinfoil hats, since clearly the CIA isn't that competent to read their minds" (or something like that, Little Miss Comedienne I'm not). So the WH was saying, "Don't look at us, it was them," and the CIA was somewhat pissed at them for it, or at least, sometimes it seemed that way.

Yet, there was Tenet--Medal, praise, etc.-- and so I thought, "OK, I guess they don't have a rift...?" And very quickly all that rift talk died down. Later, when the Plamegate scandal broke, the WH hinged their explanation on the idea that Joe Wilson was sent to Niger by the CIA to make the President look bad. Why would they do that? "Because the CIA hates the WH." Come again? Medal, praise... What were they talking about?

The Plamegate story is so confusing anyway, when the WH floated that theory and no one understood it, it just got lost in the flotsam and jetsam of the case. Furthermore, the outing of Valerie Plame was so shocking that it quickly eclipsed the "the CIA hates us" story, and so that story is largely forgotten, except on those rare occassions when a pundit will muse, "Why did they even leak her name, what was the point?" and another mentions this floated story, but again, it quickly evaporates because it appears nonsensical.

Ah, but here it all comes tumbling out with Tenet's book. Here we get a tale of an immigrant kid from the wrong side of the tracks who, when a new group of popular kids takes over the school, is invited to sit with them at lunch. He's so happy, so grateful to be at this table, he does whatever they say, fetches their lunches, steals copies of the tests before test day, writes their papers for them. "Slam dunk!" he yells, giddy and a little sweaty with a mix of gratitude and terror.

9/11 happens, and I don't care what Tenet says, he FAILED. Big time. 0 out of 100 points, baby. There is a laundry list of what he could have or should have done but didn't. If you are interested in time travel, there are several key moments where if you popped in from the future right then, you could change it all. One in particular is that in August 2001--after having given dire warnings to Condi Rice about Bin Laden's upcoming spectacular attacks and her doing ABSOLUTELY NOTHING with this information-- Tenet goes to Crawford and ends up riding alone with the Pres in a pickup truck. Does he say anything then? A well-timed, "Mr. President, there is something on my mind... I've tried to follow the chain of command, but I want to make sure that you've been briefed properly, here are my concerns..." Nope, nothing. Feel like ripping off his Medal and stomping on it yet?

And yet for all of his toadying, Tenet was never part of the cool kids. He was never fully accepted, but rather was praised when they wanted to use him for something, and ignored when they didn't. He was alternately Bush's wunderkind and Clinton's leftovers; he was tasked with a critical job of conducting foreign intelligence, and ignored when he reported it, until it contained the magic word, "Iraq". He was given all the credit for the Iraq intelligence, sitting behind Colin Powell at the UN, and then given all the blame (as if the Pres had never believed it in the first place). He was given the Medal of Freedom, and then drummed out of the administration. Heck, you almost can't blame the guy for sounding a little wackadoodle now after being pushed and pulled so.

But, as the Evangelicals learned in 2004, when you plan political machinations, when you kowtow to get power and control but not from an honest disire to create sound public policy, when you get in bed with people you might not bring home to Mother because they promise you the moon-- well, that's how you get the clap.

Then all the predictable things happened:
1. Tenet writes a book.
2. Tenet goes on a press tour and is asked tough questions and starts to sound like a lunatic.
3. The WH discredits him and generally distances themselves, but they don't have to do much because...
4. Tenet's press tour has now made him look like a complete liar, and as I said, the book is very self-flattering, and so he's discredited himself better than the WH could have done.
5. Now no one will listen to even the truths that may appear in the book, and the damage will never really touch the WH. Nice one, guys.

But there is something really interesting here: In the--

Wow, that sounded exciting, didn't it? I wonder what I was going to say. I leave a draft sitting for a couple of weeks and when I go back, it's like someone else wrote it. OK, I do know how to summarize and wrap this up, if I ever think of the really interesting thing, I'll update...

Every single person in this, with the exception of Mr. Wilson and Mrs. Plame-Wilson, comes off untrustworthy. I don't believe for a minute that Mr. Wilson's Niger trip was anything other than a true fact-finding mission, and I don't believe that anyone dictated his findings because "the CIA hates the WH" or any other reason. But as one by one each of the players gets discredited, it leaves us with no one to believe and ultimately an unsolved mystery, because there is no one left to ask.

Well, that worked out nicely for the WH, don't you think? Did they plan it this way? Well, I'll say this: that's why Scooter Libby is facing three years in prison for lying and obstruction of justice. Prosecutor Pat Fitzzgerald said that he was like an umpire trying to call a game while sand is being kicked in his eyes. Everyone but the Wilsons so far has lied, and we caught at least one, but that didn't make him tell the truth, and until the truth comes out, everyone gets off scot-free.

Come to think of it, that's a pretty interesting thing.

So while we did learn that there was something of a rift, which makes the WH rift-claim at least make more sense, we also crossed off another name from the list of people who could enlighten us.

I'll get right on that Plamegate tutorial... watch the skies...

The Tale of James B. Comey

I just wrote about this a couple of posts back, the gripping tale former Deputy Attorney General told at a Senate Judiciary hearing last Wednesday. Since then I've been listening to podcasts of news programs and have heard several versions of the same story. I want to try to straighten this out, for myself and for you. I'm going to keep updating this post as I learn facts, but this is how I understand the story.

Befroe I start-- I am really going to try not to speculate, but keep in mind, at times in Comey's testimony, he will say something in pieces one has to put together, or will fail to say something straight out. For example, he says that "Mrs. Ashcroft... had banned all phone calls... she reported that a call had come through... it was from the White House... it was taken in the hospital... as a result of that call Mr. Gonzales and Mr. Card were on their way to the hospital." (And those quotes are out of order as he looped back in answer to questions.) Is it speculating to translate that into, "The WH called and tried to talk to Ashcroft, Mrs. Ashcroft wouldn't let them, and so they sent over Gozales and Card to try to see him in person"? If I don't do at least that much "speculating", this post is going to be uber-long.

To read Comey's actual testimony, you can find it here at ThinkProgress.

The exciting events in the George Washington University Hospital that have captured our imaginations took place on Wednesday, March 10, 2004. But to understand those events, you have to know what led up to them.

The White House was undertaking a classified program that required certification of legality from the Justice Department, headed by John Ashcroft. We don't know precisely what that program was, although it is understood to be what we call the NSA domestic wiretapping/surveillance program. Comey himself was very coy about what he called "a particular classified program" and would not confirm what "It" was.

Comey said the Justice Department had "concerns" about "Its" legality. Why? Well, one rumor is that the WH was trying to rewrite the program to officially circumvent the FISA court once and for all. That may or may not be true-- we don't have confirmation this program was even "It"-- but it does make a good example of the sort of thing that would cross a line legally and make Justice refuse to cerify it, if you're having trouble picturing what that might be.

Ashcroft had a deadline to certify "It" by March 11th. A week before, Comey met with Ashcroft and went over his analysis of "It" and they "agreed on a course of action". Comey didn't say what that was, but it sounds like they had a week to either get the WH to change its mind about the exact nature of "It", or find the legal loophole that would allow them to certify "Its" legality. Perhaps the course of action was to wait until the last minute to tell the WH they weren't going to sign it (which is what ended up happening). Oh, there I go, speculating... I tell you, it's hard not to with this story! Certainly they were on the same page that "It" could not be cerified as it was.

Within hours of that meeting, Mr. Ashcroft was taken very ill. What I have heard, although it's not in Comey's testimony, is that he had to have his gall bladder removed, and he developed pancreantitis. I'm a blogger, not a doctor, Jim, and I've heard both the chicken and the egg as to which one he got first. In any case, he was critically ill, in ICU for over a week, and the power of his office of Attorney General was temporarily transferred to Comey (the Deputy AG), which is one of his responsibilities.

As will become important later, I've heard people talking this week about how unbelievably painful and debilitating pancreantitis is, and the amount of morphine a patient must be kept on. It sounds like something I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy (which is fine, because I have other plans in store for him, namely waiting for him to implode on his own, but I digress...).

During that week, Comey spoke to FBI Director Robert Mueller: "with whom I’d been discussing this particular matter and had been a great help to me over that week." On Tuesday the 10th, the day before the deadline, he "communicated" to the WH that he had no intention of signing off on "It" and why.

Back at the hospital, Mrs. Ashcroft spent the week valiantly protecting her husband from all visitors and phone calls, in concert with his FBI security detail. On Wednesday the 11th, the day of the deadline for signoff on "It", Mrs. Ashcroft gets a telephone call. Comey says, "I have some recollection that the call was from the President himself, but I don’t know that for sure. It came from the White House." Not to repeat myself, but here goes: The WH called and tried to talk to Ashcroft, Mrs. Ashcroft wouldn't let them, and so they were sending over Gozales and Card to try to see him in person. Mrs. Ashcroft calls David Ayers, the AG's chief of staff, who calls Comey, who is riding home from work with his security detail.

Sorry, kids, but Little Miss Patriot is fighting of the Little Miss Flu, and that's all I can sit here and write for now. Off to bed (cough, cough). Updates tomorrow. Go ahead and comment if you see something in this part.

Another one for the chart

Have you heard the tale about Alberto Gonzales and former WH Chief of Staff Andy Card going to the hospital room of then-AG John Ashcroft, struggling to survive a tough go with pancreantitis, to get him to sign off on the NSA wiretapping even though he and the entire Justice Department had rejected the plan before the AG took ill? The showdown between Mrs. Ashcroft, Justice Deputies, security details, and a steaming mad Gonzales? Honey, it's better than Desperate Housewives!

This tale was told yesterday in gripping detail by then-Deputy AG James Comey to the Senate Judiciary Committee. I can't say anything that wasn't more eloquently said in a Salon War Room post, and they have also posted a partial transcript of the hearing.

Not to trumpet Salon all day, but their Glenn Greenwald is also following this closely and has analysis on his blog on Salon. Mr. Greenwald is even more long-winded than I am, but he thoroughly and intelligently dissects the whole thing, and that's worth a read.

GOP Scandal Chart

Ooh, I've been wanting to do one of these for ages, but it requires more resources than I have: it's a full-on chart of everything the GOP is in trouble for currently!!!

Follow this link to the Wayne Madsen Report's GOP Scandal Scorecard.

This is arranged by state, to better organize the scandals and to include not just the national scandals but those of governors, representatives, and even members of the state party.

And what a party it is, too-- this chart is a whimsical romp through the twisted jungle of the GOP (un)ethical landscape.

You can go to your state and learn that, for example, Texas has 12 scandals listed ranging from Tom Delay to a "candidate for the Texas house", Sam Walls! Or you can do a search using your browser's search feature to learn that former lobbyist Jack Abramoff is mentioned no less than 111 times, not including his own listing! Why, the fun never ends with this new toy!!!

So, study it and then write us about it. Like TMZ Muckraker before us, let's each read it and let each other know what we learn, or perhaps give us more background on a scandal you know more about.

A Fly on the Pearly Gates

Well, it's finally happened. Jerry Falwell is dead.

In church we used to say that when someone died, "Jesus called him home," as if that were a sweet and gentle thing. Something tells me this time it sounded more like, "Jerry! Get your ass back here! What in the world have you been doing in My name? Get in here right now, young man! We need to talk about your future..."

Wow, I mean... Wouldn't you just like to be there when Jesus looks at him and says, "What part of love your neighbor didn't you get? Why did you have to be so mean and judgemental? Don't you see the pain you caused in many lives? The ignorance and intolerance you fostered? Did you think I gave you all these gifts and my Message just for that? Oh, Jerry..."

But, being Jesus, He would of course end this in a hug. Perhaps a hug right before handing Jerry his bus ticket to Hell, but a hug nonetheless...

I'm sorry, I suppose I could do better than speculate on the man's afterlife using the Christian paradigm, which is not much more than post-life gossip. It's just that I found Mr. Falwell to be easy to dismiss as insane when he was alive (possibly dangerous to our society, though we seemed to do just fine despite him), but always felt like the real action would come when he met the God he was claiming to represent.

I wonder, what will John McCain do now? He spent all that time sucking up to the all-powerful Falwell, does he say, "Whew, I don't have to worry about Falwell's support or lack thereof any more, what a relief!" or does he continue to cowtow to the organization "left behind" (pardon the pun)?

Despite my dancing on his grave, let me just point out, I'm not happy he's dead. Guys like this are much more fun to have around alive. And when they're dead, they become saints (like Reagan at the GOP debate last week) and people put all kinds of words in their mouths and do things in their names. (Like Falwell did to Christ, so there's justice, I guess.) Much easier to fight the real live idiot than the minions who spring up and deify him.

Well, Jerry, I normally would say "Rest in Peace" but this time I think "Good Luck" might be more appropriate.

------------
Update: A poster asked what Larry Flint thought, and so I'm including press releases from him and soon others.

Larry Flint:
"The Reverend Jerry Falwell and I were arch enemies for fifteen years. We became involved in a lawsuit concerning First Amendment rights and Hustler magazine. Without question, this was my most important battle – the l988 Hustler Magazine, Inc., v. Jerry Falwell case, where after millions of dollars and much deliberation, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled in my favor.
My mother always told me that no matter how much you dislike a person, when you meet them face to face you will find characteristics about them that you like. Jerry Falwell was a perfect example of that. I hated everything he stood for, but after meeting him in person, years after the trial, Jerry Falwell and I became good friends. He would visit me in California and we would debate together on college campuses. I always appreciated his sincerity even though I knew what he was selling and he knew what I was selling.
The most important result of our relationship was the landmark decision from the Supreme Court that made parody protected speech, and the fact that much of what we see on television and hear on the radio today is a direct result of my having won that now famous case which Falwell played such an important role in."

Tammy Faye Messner (calling in on Larry King Live):
"...And when he said Jerry had died, I just broke into tears... I think I wish we could have cleared everything up. I wanted to talk to him and settle him -- and settle things with him. And I tried to do it many times and I tried to do it nicely. And I wanted just so badly to just give him a hug and say, hey, you know, it's all right. It's OK. We're all human. We all make mistakes. Let's just start over again and -- and go forward from here.
Yesterday is yesterday. Today is today."

David Halberstam, reporter, passed away

[Sorry I've been out of pocket, Little Miss Mother-in-Law came to visit!]

Personally, I've never heard of David Halberstam. And according to him, that's a good thing:

By and large, the more famous you are, the less of a journalist you are.

He was apparently a well-respected journalist, and his death has reopened a debate -- as people sing his praises-- as to what exactly the role of the journalist is.

Look at this brief comparison Salon's Glenn Greenwald points out. Halberstam is describing a press briefing during the Vietnam War in which he stood up to a room full of intimidating generals.

Halberstam: And I stood up, my heart beating wildly -- and told him [we won't be intimidated]... Never let them intimidate you. Never. If someone tries, do me a favor and work just a little harder on your story. Do two or three more interviews. Make your story a little better.

Elizabeth Bumiller of the The New York Times (about press briefings in the runup to the Iraq War): ...in the East Room press conference, it's live. It's very intense. It's frightening to stand up there. I mean, think about it. You are standing up on prime time live television, asking the president of the United States a question when the country is about to go to war.

In other words, as Helen Thomas has been saying far more delicately than this, grow a pair.

Related to this is the concept of "access", which is to say, "If I write unflattering things about them, they won't talk to me anymore." Which sounds childish, but then, if a journalist doesn't have anyone to interview, he's an opinion columnist. (Ahem.) So the fear isn't just about standing up on TV, it's also about risking your career, which is pretty scary. (Again I say, grow a pair. Or quit and housesit cats, which is apparently all the excitement you can handle.)

However, I'm not sure that's the whole story. I've mentioned before that the media, particularly TV news, had the technology to create very splashy graphics, "The Situation Room", satellite feeds, etc., etc.-- and the time to get it all in place because the runup to the war gave it to them. They weren't asking the Big Questions because they were asking, "Can we make that banner a little redder, you know, like war?" They had to accept the inevitability of the war because that's what gave them the preparation time.

But something else has happened too, and when you read all this debate on journalism in this news cycle because of Halberstam's death, look for people talking about it.

Somewhere along the line, the media seemed to take the tack that they were there to record everyone's sound bites. This has been called "the Fox effect", wherein the conservatives complain that their side hasn't been heard, and everyone rushes out to get an Opinion B for each Opinion A. For every scientist interviewed about the possible effects of global warming, for example, we have to quote someone who says that science hasn't figured out global warming, and this passes for "fairness" and "balance".

And this is done with no regard for investigating the truth, which is to say that the journalist no longer feels the need to determine which Opinion, if either, holds any water. Wolf Blitzer's job seems to have become, "Get the sound bite from Opinion A Guy, then get the sound bite from Opinion B Gal, and we've done our job," rather than, "We have two opinions here, let's do some digging and see which one withstands scrutiny," with the idea of helping the public make sense of these opinions.

Apparently journalists feel that if they did that, they would be exhibiting a "bias"-- if I dig around and find that Mr. Opinion A has solid research behind him, while Ms. Opinion B happens to be a political operative sent out to spew talking points but no actual expertise or research, and so I tell my audience to listen to Mr. Opinion A (or even just imply it), then I'm "taking Mr. A's side" and therefore am clearly biased and not to be listened to.

And yet this used to be the role of the news, and we still tend to rely on our news reports as if they actually perform this service for us.

Instead, we get,

JOURNALIST: "What is the White House response to claims that the sky is blue, Mr. Talking Points?"

Mr. TP: "Well, Mr. Journalist, I'm glad you asked. The WH believes that we are right and everyone else is wrong. Even without looking at it, I can tell you the sky is green, that just makes sense. People who tell you the sky is blue are biased against the Green Sky Initiative because of politics."

JOURNALIST: "Well, there you have it, folks. The White House says the sky is green. Now let's look at pretty graphics before we listen to the next registration of talking points-- I mean, debate."

I should point out here that I'm not necessarily picking on Wolf Blitzer or any journalist in particular. This entire phenonmenon seems to reflect an actual shift in the mission of reporting, and to that end, these reporters are doing what the current millieu requires of them. Furthermore, if the new mission is merely to record talking points, then the overly splashy graphics and whatnot doesn't infringe on reporting, because once the talking points are quoted, there isn't much else to do. Asking "tough questions"-- that is, challenging the validity of assertions-- doesn't fit in this puzzle either, because all Wolf is required to do is record the Right and Left Opinions. He asks a question phrased to set up your talking point, you say it, and what else is there to ask you? You have your spin, you've said it, interview over.

Maybe this is a reflection of how sophisticated spin machines and campaigns have become. Maybe at some point the press corps just gave up trying to shake these operatives from their talking points. "No matter what I dig up," a reporter says, "they just stick to their story and spin my research away, so what's the point of asking them anything?" Which sounds lame, but really, if you were going to interview Cheney today, or the even more artful Rumsfeld a few months ago, would you expect either man to crack under your reporting and admit he's spinning? Would you expect to shake him off his talking points? And if you badgered him with questions that he spins away or refuses to answer, do you think you'll ever get to interview him again? It's like that saying about teaching a pig to sing*-- you won't get anywhere, and you'll annoy the pig, who will cancel all your interviews and take away your WH press credentials.

Whichever caused this, the chickenhawk or the egg, I can only imagine one way out. We must intentionally and in one mass movement shift the mission back to the principles we need so desperately in the Fourth Estate in order for it to inform us.

Perhaps a reporter breaks the Halberstam Law and gets famous by doing things the old school way-- for example, Anderson Cooper yelling at politicians during the aftermath of Katrina-- and in this way creates a new archetype of journalist that everyone strives to be. A better example than AC, who appears to have flashed in his pan already, might be the movie All the President's Men, which in its day inspired journalists to "bring down politicians" the way Woodward and Bernstein are portrayed as having done. In other words, we're holdin' out for a hero.

With or without him, though, what must follow is a fundamental, intentional shift in the mission. We must define what the New Journalism should be and create a Ten Commandments for it. The disintegration of the Fourth Estate into the Record Keeping Department happened not that slowly, but gradually over time. Redefining and reinvigorating the Fourth Estate cannot happen gradually and organically. It must happen intentionally and with the highest ethical standards.

This isn't the sort of thing you write your congressman about, or even the newspaper editor. My best advice is to a) spread the word amongst your people, so that they are aware of the shift that has happened, and b) write to journalism professors. Ask them to redefine journalism and set its path straight again, or suggest they assign this as papers or suggest it to their graduate students for their theses. We need academia to set out a new standard, because the commercial media is too busy making money to make principles. But if the principles are established and the public is crying out to have them implemented, they will follow us, because, after all, we have the money.


*BTW, I heard a new one recently: "like mud wrestling a pig-- you won't win, and the pig will love it." Actually, I think debating Rumsfeld probably fell more into this category, because he seemed to have a hell of a good time in his press conferences.