Add to Technorati Favorites

Thursday, May 31, 2007

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!

Sunday, May 27, 2007

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...

Tuesday, May 22, 2007

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.

Wednesday, May 16, 2007

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.

Tuesday, May 15, 2007

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."