While we're worrying about the leakers...

Since the government seems so excited about learning who leaked the wiretapping info, I have to wonder why it is so unexcited about who leaked the name of Valerie Plame, a CIA agent.

This feels like a double standard to me. A convenient double standard I might point out. One investigation is designed to throw up a smoke screen having to do with Bush's actions. The other non-investigation is coincidently designed to do the very same thing.

What is the real shame is the fact that this administration seems to get away with it time and again. What there is to do about it, I have no idea. I leave that those smarter than me.

I see misdirect written all over this

I'm talking about the Justice Department launching an investigation into who leaked the information about the apparently illegal warrant less wiretapping. This is designed to take our eyes of the ball. Yes, someone surely illegally provided this information to the New York Times.

But NO, this is not the issue. The issue here is one of massive presidential overreach. It's not the first time, and sadly probably won't be the last. But it's one we know about, and can maybe through our legislators do something about. Knowing that the information may have come to us illegally doesn't detract from the factual matters addressed.

I think we should find out who leaked, but not at the expense of moving toward meaningful protection of our civil liberties.

Misinformed Americans

I like to think that on the whole Americans are a reasonably intelligent group of people. After all, this country has been in the forefront of most of the innovative ideas for many years.

My faith was shaken badly today by a poll out by the harris interactive polling assoc.
It asks a couple of basic questions that I thought most Americans knew the answer to:

"strong links to Al Qaeda."
-- Twenty-two percent (22%) of adults believe that Saddam Hussein "helped
plan and support the hijackers who attacked the United States on
September 11."
-- Twenty-six percent (26%) of adults believe that Iraq "had weapons of
mass destruction when the U.S. invaded."
-- Twenty-four percent (24%) of all adults believe that "several of the
hijackers who attacked the United States on September 11 were Iraqis."

Here's the link to the poll.

I don’t' really want to enter 2006 as depressed as I entered 2005, and I probably won't. These poll numbers however do give me pause. There has to be some turn around in the general populace if Democrats are to have a chance at retaking the house and winning more seats in the Senate. Don't you agree?

So, a Shite Muslim Theocracy it is

Isn't that just peachy. It looks like the vote in Iraq will stand. That means that our latest favorite, Allawi is out. So is our former favorite Chalabi.

My memory of the event might be hazy, but didn't Chalabi, exiled from Iraq, swear that Hussein had WMD? That we would be greeted with roses? I guess it turns out that the Iraqi people had a better idea of who this guy was than Bush and his crowd. The same goes for Allawi.

I suppose the best we can hope for now is a benevolent Shite Muslim Theocracy. That would certainly be worth the thousands of US soldiers lives, wouldn't it?

Does Frist still believe this?

"I will have no part in the creation of a constitutional double-standard to benefit the President. He is not above the law. If an ordinary citizen committed these crimes, he would go to jail."

I think we can all agree that Senator Frist has proven himself to be probably the worst majority leader the Senate has seen in a while. The statement above was spoken by Frist in reference to Bill Clinton when he was about to be impeached. As it happens I agree with the statement, at least in part.

The President is not above the law. However, the President should only be impeached for crimes associated with his conduct in his role as the President. Naturally, I don't think Clinton should have been impeached. His crime, lying to a grand jury was not related to his job.

Our current president, however, does seem to be violating laws as part of his role as our President. That's the difference. When a president violates his oath/the law in his role as president, he hurts every citizen in this country. Bush should be impeached if he has in fact violated the oath of his office. It is looking more like that to me every day.

Abortion and Republicans

There is an interesting article in the Wall Street Journal that discusses what conservatism is and how Republicans today are not conservatives. That's not actually news to Democrats and liberals.

One specific area is especially interesting. It is surprisingly frank. Here's the quote:

Abortion.

This has been a focus of conservative, and national, attention since Roe v. Wade. Yet abortion as an issue, its availability indeed as a widespread demand, did not arrive from nowhere. Burke had a sense of the great power and complexity of forces driving important social processes and changes. Nevertheless, most conservatives defend the "right to life," even of a single-cell embryo, and call for a total ban on abortion. To put it flatly, this is not going to happen. Too many powerful social forces are aligned against it, and it is therefore a utopian notion.

Roe relocated decision-making about abortion from state governments to the individual woman, and was thus a libertarian, not a liberal, ruling. Planned Parenthood v. Casey supported Roe, but gave it a social dimension, making the woman's choice a derivative of the women's revolution. This has been the result of many accumulating social facts, and its results already have been largely assimilated. Roe reflected, and reflects, a relentlessly changing social actuality. Simply to pull an abstract "right to life" out of the Declaration of Independence is not conservative but Jacobinical. To be sure, the Roe decision was certainly an example of judicial overreach. Combined with Casey, however, it did address the reality of the American social process.

I don't suppose today's conservative Republicans will agree with Mr. Hart's definitions. But than today's Republicans don't seem particularly attached to reality anyway.

Bush is reading

Does anyone really believe that? I see that the White Houseis putting out the word that Bush is an a “history buff” and “avid reader.”? That is how White House spokesman Trent Duffy described him.

It is comments like these that are calculated to undo a perception people have of Bush - one I might add that was created by Bush's own statements - that lead me to be highly skeptical of most everything that comes out of the White House. These types of statements only reinforce the idea that most of what we know about Bush is staged.

Like the military outfits, the military backdrops, etc. The notion that Bush is an authentic person is pretty laughable in my opinion.

But hey, that’s' just me...

Highly Recommended

Go to Informed Comment. It's a must read. Professor Cole lists the top ten myths about Iraq in 2005.

If your not already upset about the war, you will be after reading this.

That's the reason...

It seems that the FISA court has been turning down Bush administration requests at a pretty good clip recently. Is that the reason they decided to simply stop going to the court? Is that why suddenly Bush had all the authority he needs as commander in chief to do pretty much whatever?

If this is accurate, than it would seem that the administration is going around the court because it KNOWS it is breaking the law. Now, can we hold Bush legally libel for not upholding his oath to follow the constitution and protect this country? He's rapidly becoming as big a threat to our way of life as any terrorist could hope to be.

That's really scary and really sad.

What is done in the name of the" War on Terror"

I read a conservative blogger pretty regularly. In fact we email back and forth and he's a good guy. All of which makes me wonder; how does an obviously intelligent fellow fall for the company line being pushed by the Bush administration?

He is convinced that having the American public become aware of the CIA prisons, the massive NSA eavesdropping, and the radioactivity program has made it harder to fight "the war on terror". As though it would never occur to terrorists that our government would be attempting to track them down by a variety of means. That they wouldn't ALREADY be doing everything they can to stay under the radar.

The last point he makes, that when you find yourself dead at the hand of the terrorists, you'll be dying a well informed citizen, is one really whinny "I told you so".

Are we, as Americans, willing to see the rights guaranteed us in the Constitution go away to protect ourselves? Is that even possible? I don't think so on either count. Let's not destroy this country in the name of saving it. Let's not end up becoming a government that looks even more like an autocratic theocracy than that envisioned by the terrorists. Is it really a choice of becoming a Christian theocracy or a seeing our country fall? Not hardly.

The false arguments by conservatives only weaken this country; they do nothing to actually prosecute a war against the terrorists who would attack us.

"King George"

That phrase is getting around these days. And, it's not just used by the Democrats. To their credit, some conservatives have noticed that these days President Bush is threatening the US Constitution as much as the terrorists.

This is from a column by Steve Chapman in the Chicago Tribune:

President Bush is a bundle of paradoxes. He thinks the scope of the federal government should be limited but the powers of the president should not. He wants judges to interpret the Constitution as the framers did, but doesn't think he should be constrained by their intentions.

Chapman is among conservatives with raising reservations about Bush. These reservations are appearing on many fronts. There are several now, both in and out of the government that have serious concerns about how we were led into the Iraq War as well as its prosecution. There are those who are concerned about the secret CIA prisons and the apparent widespread warrantless wiretapping. Others fret about the massive growth of our national debt. Now they have concerns about Bush's power grab.

Will they coalesce? Will they become a force that finds common ground with the Democrats to not only slap this president down, but possibly hold him legally libel for his wrongdoings? Is Bush's impeachment out of the question?

I always thought so, but I'm beginning to think it's not out of the realm of possibility.

Back from a mini-family crisis

What a strange Christmas this was. I worked 12 hour day shifts both Saturday and Sunday. I basically missed the event. It's never a great season for me - I find that there is as much stress as good times.

This season too has included problems with a wayward stepson. I'd describe him as a narcissistic, self-absorbed 18 year old, but that doesn't really do him justice. Anyway, we're trying to help him make better choices. Lot's of luck to us on that count. But, family is family, he's really is a good kid.

Hope the season was good for all. There's always next year for me.

Have I used the "I" word yet?

Intentionlly NO. I think we could have impeached Bush in 2002 based upon the fact that he didn't uphold his oath to protect this country. There was plenty of evidence that al Qaeda was a threat, yet his administration did essentially nothing to stop them.

Hey, but that's just me...

No More Terror in the US?

The following is from Wikopedia:

On a blanket, nationwide level, it has been raised to orange five times:

* September 10 - September 24, 2002, around the first anniversary of the September 11, 2001.
* February 7 - February 27, 2003, near the end of the Muslim religious holiday Hajj. Intelligence reports suggested the possibility of terrorist attacks against "apartment buildings, hotels, and other soft or lightly secured targets."
* March 17 - April 16, 2003, around the beginning of U.S. and Coalition military action in Iraq.
* May 20 - May 30, 2003, "The U.S. Intelligence Community believes that Al Qaida has entered an operational period worldwide, and this may include terrorist attacks in the United States." - Tom Ridge
* December 21, 2003 - January 9, 2004, citing intelligence information suggesting large-scale attacks around the holiday season.

In addition, the alert has been raised to orange on a select or partial basis twice:

* August 1 - November 10, 2004, for specific financial institutions in northern New Jersey, New York, and Washington, D.C., citing intelligence pointing to the possibility of a car or truck bomb attack, naming specific buildings as possible targets. [11][12]
* July 7, 2005 - August 12, 2005, for mass transit systems only. The DHS secretary announced the level after the 7 July 2005 London bombings despite the absence of "specific, credible information suggesting imminent attack" in the United States. [13].

Other official terrorism warnings issued without raising the threat level above yellow:

* May 28, 2004, citing "credible evidence" of terrorist intent to affect upcoming elections.
* July 8, 2004, again citing "credible evidence" of terrorist intent to affect upcoming elections.

I guess the threat to our country miraculously passed once George Bush won his second election (or did he?) as President. Praise the Lord. More likely, he no longer had to frighten the public into believing he was the only one who could protect them. Never mind that 9/11 actually happened while he was protecting us. Never mind that his entire premise for invading Iraq was a bunch of lies. Never mind that we are stuck in a morass in Iraq - I'll refrain from using the "Q" word for now.

Or, maybe the Bush Administration got word that their terror level system was known to be a farce by one and all. If he just stayed up late enough to watch the late night shows he would have figured that out a long time ago...but our boy needs his sleep.

Bush Administration is 0-2

I'm talking about their plans to install the Iraqi leader of their choice.

Remember Ahmed Chalabi? His political group got just 0.36 percent of the votes in Baghdad and just 0.34 percent of the vote in Basra. So, he's out.

But what of our more recent favorite Allawi? This is from a joint press conference in Sept. 2004 (Bush is speaking), " Thank you all for coming. I'm honored to stand with the Prime Minister of a free and sovereign Iraq. Welcome, Mr. Prime Minister. I applaud your leadership and your courage. It's my honor to welcome a friend to the White House."

According to early election results, "The secular coalition led by Ayad Allawi, the former prime minister, had won only meager support in crucial provinces where it had expected to do well, including Baghdad."

Is our government ready to accept the vote of the Iraqi people if it means they set up a Shite Muslim theocratic government? We don't actually have a choice do we? Or are we prepared to throw that government out of office too, hoping for the perfect western style democracy we planned on?

There's an old phrase around, "Be careful what you wish for." It seems pretty applicable to our current situation in Iraq. We've bled the blood of thousands of our citizen soldiers, lost the lives of thousands more - all for this moment. Did we get our money's worth? NO, NO, NO.

How many ways are there to say NO.? It is simply not possible to list the ways in which the Bush Administration has screwed up. Those behind this ridiculous failed scheme won't be held accountable, and won't lose a minutes sleep either. And that's really sad.

Alito Defended Officials From Wiretap Suits

There is a God in Heaven (or whatever spiritual belief you have). So Alito has defended the indefensible already. The fact that he has already done so in the past means it's definitely fair game during his nomination hearing.

And I think this may well turn out to be his Achilles Heel. Or maybe just the straw that breaks the Camels back. (I definitely have to get the use of these handy little ditties under control, don't I?)

I will be interested to see how Alito manages to try and turn his defense of wiretaps into something he was doing "just to get a job, as part of an interview, as it were". It's not going to fly this time either.

We are getting a pretty good picture of why Bush chose him. They come from the same mold. And, that isn't a good thing.

Bush and War Powers

I'm glad Tom Daschle is talking. Assuming he is accurate - and I think he is - right after 9/11 Bush actually attempted to in effect declare war on the citizens of the United States.

According to the Washington Post article:

"The Bush administration requested, and Congress rejected, war-making authority "in the United States" in negotiations over the joint resolution passed days after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, according to an opinion article by former Senate majority leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.)"
see article here

Here' more:

Daschle's disclosure challenges a central legal argument offered by the White House in defense of the National Security Agency's warrant less wiretapping of U.S. citizens and permanent residents. It suggests that Congress refused explicitly to grant authority that the Bush administration now asserts is implicit in the resolution.

And this:

"Literally minutes before the Senate cast its vote, the administration sought to add the words 'in the United States and' after 'appropriate force' in the agreed-upon text," Daschle wrote. "This last-minute change would have given the president broad authority to exercise expansive powers not just overseas -- where we all understood he wanted authority to act -- but right here in the United States, potentially against American citizens. I could see no justification for Congress to accede to this extraordinary request for additional authority. I refused."

The main point to take from all of this is the fact that Bush sought and was rebuffed by congress in his attempts to make war on US citizens. The fact that he continued to use the NSA to spy on US citizens is the clearest example to date of his failure to protect and defend the constitution.

Where do we go from here? Is there really anything to be done? Or has King George, through deceit and lies become the autocratic leader of this country? Have we slipped into dictatorship, unaware, blind, carelessly ignoring the signs that our once great experiment in democracy is coming to an end?

One More Thought about Hillary

I see that Jeanine Pirro is abandoning her campaign for Sen. Clinton's Senate seat. Is Hillary about to run essentially unopposed?

That leads to the obvious question; if the Republican's can't find anyone to fight the good fight against Hillary in 2006, why do we think they will have any more success in 2008 if Hillary becomes the Democratic Presidential candidate?

While New York isn't a microcosm of the country, there are plenty of Republicans in the state, and she is popular among them too.

Hillary Clinton and Abortion

Hillary says that the just passed benefits cuts in Medicaid will ultimately lead to more abortions. Her reasoning - Medicaid cuts to contraception will lead to increased numbers of unwanted pregnancies and from there to more abortions.

I agree with her. It's not just rhetoric to say we want abortions to be rare and safe. Those words mean something. Providing contraceptions through Medicaid does cut the abortion rate. This is a fact. Abortions are safe for now. But, efforts to make abortion illegal again will almost certainly lead to unsafe abortions.

All of this is just common sense. And Hillary saying it doesn't make it any less logical. As a Pragmatic Liberal, I don't have any problems with Hillary's stance on abortion. In fact, hold the very same position philosophically. I wonder what the more liberal wing of the Democratic Party will think? It seems they have trouble liking anything she has to say.

Cheney back to take from the poor...

I see Vice President Cheney made it back in time to cut the benefits of those who need it. The amount comes to about $40 billion. Coincidentally (there's that coincidence again) the Republicans passed tax cuts that will give those earning more than $1 million that same $40 billion. All over the same 5 years.

I have to wonder, how do the Republicans sleep at night? They can't hide behind the philosophy of small government. The new Republican philosophy (maybe it was always there, just better hidden) is make the rich richer and keep the poor people poor, or better yet, make them poorer.

I guess it's not really all that new either. Going back to Reagan, the Republican Party has morphed into something completely unrecognizable to those who believed in small government, individual liberty, and keeping the government out of people's lives.