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.