OMG, seriously—go read The Heretik, who’s decided to be extra brilliant today.
And on a totally unrelated note, thanks to Driftglass for the new endorsement in my righthand sidebar, which he kindly gave me permission to use, suitably thrilling me for the foreseeable future—I never thought I’d be so fortunate as to have such a lovely endorsement that also included the phrase ‘poop hole.’ I’m the luckiest bloggrrl in the world!
Recommended Reading
Fall into the Gap
Scott McClellan, White House Press Secretary and Professional Question-Dodging Ninja Master, has fallen into the gap with a thud:
Q On the leak investigation, does President Bush feel that it was appropriate for there to be an 11 or 12-hour time gap from the time that Chief of Staff Andy Card was notified that an investigation was underway to the time that staff here at the White House, including him ...Meanwhile, John Kerry, Senator Carl Levin, Ranking Member of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, and 24 other Senators have formally requested that Congress investigate the leak of covert CIA agent Valerie Plame’s identity. The other signatories to the request are Senators Stabenow, Schumer, Lautenberg, Rockefeller, Reed, Feinstein, Dorgan, Harkin, Kohl, Durbin, Carper, Salazar, Boxer, Inouye, Corzine, Wyden, Mikulski, Obama, Murray, Bayh, Johnson, Clinton, Sarbanes, and Landrieu. (Hat tip AMERICAblog.)
MR. McCLELLAN: I think the President has said that -- and the President directed the White House at the beginning of the investigation to cooperate fully with those overseeing the investigation. And that is exactly what we have done, and that's what we did in that context, as well. If you will recall, back on October 1st of 2003, these questions came up and I addressed it at that time. So you might want to go back and look at that discussion during that briefing.
Q But in the spirit of cooperation, and you had indicted (sic) on October 1, 2003, that the reason that the Justice Department was asked, is it okay to wait until the morning and the answer was that it was okay -- but in the spirit of cooperation, why did the notification not go out until 11 or 12 hours later?
MR. McCLELLAN: I talked about that in that briefing, and addressed all those questions at that time. And the President has made it clear that we should cooperate fully with the investigation. That's what we have done, that's what we continue to do.
***
Q Yes, Scott, can you assure us that Andrew Card did not speak to -- or did not tell the President or Karl Rove or Scooter Libby or anybody else about the Justice Department investigation?
MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, again, those questions came up back in October of 2003 and I addressed them at the time.
Q I know that none of you are speaking about this because it's an ongoing investigation. Can you explain why Alberto Gonzales would go on TV yesterday and do that, and talk about it?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, what he said was already said from this podium back in October of 2003, and I don't think he got into commenting in any substantive way on the discussion. But the President has said that we will be glad to talk about this once the investigation has come to a conclusion, but not until then. And there have certainly been preferences expressed to the White House that we not get into discussing it while it is ongoing.
Q Yes, thank you. There has been a lot of speculation concerning the meaning of the underlying statute and the grand jury investigation concerning Mr. Rove. The question is, have the legal counsel to the White House or White House staff reviewed the statute in sufficient specificity to determine whether a violation of that statute would, in effect, constitute treason?
MR. McCLELLAN: I think that in terms of decisions regarding the investigation, those are matters for those overseeing the investigation to decide.
Apparently, Senator Joes Liebertwat and Biden don’t have a problem with treason. Good luck in 2008, fellas.
Action Item
Help Pirabu.
Jazz at Running Scared, who asked me to give this issue some attention, and for whom I am more than happy to do so, has the story and all the relevant links so you can take action. It will be 5 minutes well spent.
Fractured Union
Why should we care about the schism in the AFL-CIO? Well, how’s this for a start?
The A.F.L.-C.I.O., with 13 million union members, has long provided the Democrats with their most effective get-out-the-vote operation. In the 2004 election, households with union members accounted for 24 percent of all votes, and among voters from those households, Mr. Kerry had a 5.8 million majority.My first concern upon first hearing about the schism was that it was more of what we’re seeing on the Left in lots of different blocs of voters—the what have you done for me lately? issue, and why wouldn’t it rear its head? The AFL-CIO has become, according to some people, too aligned with the Democratic Party, too focused on elections and not enough on its members. Perhaps that wouldn’t be a problem if the Dems were still truly the party of the people, but the Dems in large part have become as inveterate corporatists as the GOP, with far less attention (and legislation) being given to labor, while corporate gifts like the bankruptcy bill and the slew of hand-outs to Big Pharma get passed with little Dem opposition (and in some cases, *cough* Joe Biden *cough* support). Well, my concern was not unfounded:
In last year's campaign, unions mailed out more than 30 million pieces of literature and ran 257 phone banks with 2,322 lines in 16 states. Although unions splintered in the primaries behind Mr. Kerry, Mr. Dean and John Edwards, they ultimately rallied behind Mr. Kerry and worked hard for him. Union members voted two-to-one for Mr. Kerry in the general election.
The American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations, an umbrella group comprising 56 unions, coordinated campaign efforts nationwide, and many political leaders said a schism would inevitably undermine such coordination.
Some Democrats also expressed concern about the dissidents' assertions that unions have to stop letting the Democrats take them for granted.There was a time when knowing whether the D or the R candidate would be on the side of labor was a no-brainer. Not anymore.
"We can't stick just with the Democrats," said Anna Burger, secretary-treasurer of the Service Employees and chairwoman of the dissidents' newly formed group, the Change to Win Coalition.
"We need to hold officials, Democrat and Republican, accountable on issues that resonate with working people. We have to stick with candidates and officials, whether Democratic or Republican, who stick with us, and we have to take on elected officials, whether a D or an R, who don't stand with us."
The Dems really need to get their shit together. They are, by any interpretation, less objectionable than the GOP, but they don’t really do jack shit for progressive causes anymore. Where are they on labor? On gay rights? On endemic poverty? On healthcare? Why are so many Dems willing to compromise on abortion and birth control access issues? Look, I know it’s hard to get things done when you’ve lost the House, the Senate, the Presidency, and (coming soon!) the Supreme Court to the Right, but perhaps the reason everything’s been lost is because of that complacency. Perhaps it’s because the last time a Dem was in the White House, labor got NAFTA-ed, the LGBT community not only got DADT-ed, but also DOMA-ed, the poor got welfare reformed right into a cycle of poverty even more difficult from which to escape, etc.
Some suggest the GOP has gone so far Right at this point, that the Dems are inevitably filling a void in the center that leaves many of their progressive supporters disenfranchised from the party. But if that’s the case, they ought to be winning.
Anyway, I think this labor split is indicative of bigger problems that pervade the Left, and I’m not entirely sure what the solution is, but I know the old “stick with us; we’re not as bad as the other guys” mantra is growing thin.
(Pam’s got some thoughts on the split here, too.)
Sununu Too
I never thought in a million years I’d write anything especially favorable about John Sununu, and I probably never will about his politics, but this personal gesture is quite sweet:
In an act of solidarity with Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA), "who is completely bald because of chemotherapy treatments for his Hodgkin’s disease," Sen. John Sununu (R-NH) "shaved his head the week before last," Roll Call reports.
Pound Foolish
Paul Krugman has an interesting (as always) column today about how socialized healthcare, instead of bringing the country to its knees as conservatives always ominously warn it will, could actually make America more appealing to foreign industry when competing for their business. In this case, it’s about Toyota opening a new plant in Canada instead of the US, in spite of several southern states’ attempts to woo Toyota with financial incentives reportedly worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Krugman cites two concerns of Toyota’s. First, the poor level of training of the work force in the US’ southern states (for some additional insight on this issue, see here). Second:
Canada's other big selling point is its national health insurance system, which saves auto manufacturers large sums in benefit payments compared with their costs in the United States.So, add this to the list of reasons why we need a national healthcare program…and the list of reasons why America will continue to lose favor in the global marketplace, a list which already includes an immigration policy that is increasingly making non-American universities more attractive to and more easily accessible for international students, and an effective prohibition on stem cell research, which increasingly looks like the fertile ground from which the most important technological advancement of our future will spring. And our foreign policy isn’t exactly making us new friends, either.
You might be tempted to say that Canadian taxpayers are, in effect, subsidizing Toyota's move by paying for health coverage. But that's not right, even aside from the fact that Canada's health care system has far lower costs per person than the American system, with its huge administrative expenses. In fact, U.S. taxpayers, not Canadians, will be hurt by the northward movement of auto jobs.
To see why, bear in mind that in the long run decisions like Toyota's probably won't affect the overall number of jobs in either the United States or Canada. But the result of international competition will be to give Canada more jobs in industries like autos, which pay health benefits to their U.S. workers, and fewer jobs in industries that don't provide those benefits. In the U.S. the effect will be just the reverse: fewer jobs with benefits, more jobs without.
So what's the impact on taxpayers? In Canada, there's no impact at all: since all Canadians get government-provided health insurance in any case, the additional auto jobs won't increase government spending.
But U.S. taxpayers will suffer, because the general public ends up picking up much of the cost of health care for workers who don't get insurance through their jobs. Some uninsured workers and their families end up on Medicaid. Others end up depending on emergency rooms, which are heavily subsidized by taxpayers.
In the end, which will cost us more—socialized healthcare for all Americans, or bleeding business to countries who are willing to provide it to their populations while we continue to refuse?
Mind the 12-Hour Gap
How many documents do you think can be shredded in 12 hours? I bet someone at the White House knows…
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, responding to a strong charge in a column by Frank Rich in The New York Times’ today, said there was nothing improper about waiting 12 hours to “preserve all materials” after being informed by the Justice Department in 2003 that it was launching an investigation into the disclosure of Valerie Plame’s status as a CIA agent.12 hours. That’s almost 39 times 18 ½ minutes. These guys really do manage to out-crook Nixon at every turn, don’t they? Steven Brant at The Huffington Post has an excellent post on this issue, and the WaPo doesn’t lead with it, but it gets page A02, which is still pretty good.
Gonzales told Bob Schieffer on the CBS show “Face the Nation” that he had been given permission by the Justice Department to hold off overnight if he saw fit, which he did. But he did tell one man that night: Chief of Staff Andrew Card.
The White House did not immediately respond to questions Sunday about whether Card passed that information to top Bush aide Karl Rove or anyone else, giving them advance notice to prepare for the investigation, the Associated Press reported after Gonzales' revelation.
[…]
Schieffer then asked if he at least informed anyone at the White House that first night to “get ready” for the order.
Yes, Gonzales said, he told the president’s chief of staff that night, and then the president himself “first thing” the next day.
On a side note, are we meant to believe that Card didn’t mention this to Bush at all for those 12 hours, and Bush didn’t find out about it until Gonzales told him the next morning? Seems odd that this wouldn’t be brought to the president’s attention. Unless he was out riding his bike, of course.
I LOVE ARMADILLOS!
Lazy Sunday today; hanging out with my nephew, who is at the moment fiercely battling Mr. Shakes on some PS2 game, so I trotted away to check in. A big thank you to Thom of Societas for his guest post on the Patriot Act.
I also stopped by somewaterytart’s blog, some watery thoughts, and found a quiz that tells you what book you are…
You're A Prayer for Owen Meany!
by John Irving
Despite humble and perhaps literally small beginnings, you inspire
faith in almost everyone you know. You are an agent of higher powers, and you manifest
this fact in mysterious and loud ways. A sense of destiny pervades your every waking
moment, and you prepare with great detail for destiny fulfilled. When you speak, IT
SOUNDS LIKE THIS!
Take the Book Quiz
at the Blue Pyramid.
A very exciting result, as A Prayer for Owen Meany is one of my very favorite books! If you’ve never read it, I encourage you to do so immediately; I can absolutely guarantee it will make you feel good. And explain the subject line of this post.
Just a couple of good things I've noticed and want to recommend: The Heretik on the shooting in London, Pam on the administration's continued insistence on hiding Abu Ghraib images on child rape in spite of a federal order to release them, The Green Knight on Bernie Goldberg and his book-shaped object, Lance Mannion on nostalgia, Linnet on whether reading the NY Times can actually lower your IQ (yes), and Me4President on Bush lovers.
Quote of the Day
"There is a very serious message here. Before you shine up your American flag lapel pin and affix your patriotism to your sleeve, think about what the impact your actions will have on the security of the American people. Think about whether your partisan obfuscation is creating confidence in the United States in general and the CIA in particular. If not, a true patriot would shut up."
— from the testimony of James Marcinkowski, former CIA case office and a former prosecutor, at the unofficial hearing on the Plame/CIA leak held by the Senate Democratic Policy Council and the Democratic side of the House Government Reform Committee
(As David Corn notes, “The Democrats had no choice but to hold such a session because the Republicans in the House and Senate refuse to examine or investigate the leak.”)
More on McCain
Following on the heels of the cavery I mentioned in the previous post, can we all remember this when McCain runs in '08?
Repeat after me: He is not a maverick. He is a hack.
The War in Iraq Iran
It seems despairingly appropriate to note on this third anniversary of the DSM, three years after Bush and Blair decided to go to war with Iraq, that Iran seems to be our next stop. Matt Yglesias reports at the TPMCafe:
Justin Logan excerpts an article that's apparently in the print issue of The American Conservative:Ditto Matt’s caveat, but if there’s any truth to this at all, it seems like patent lunacy to me. Then again, so did the war in Iraq.
“The Pentagon, acting under instructions from Vice President Dick Cheney's office, has tasked the United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM) with drawing up a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States. The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites. Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option. As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States. Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing--that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack--but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections.”
Now, unfortunately, I have no idea whether or not that's true or even what context the assertion appears in. I should probably try and get a comp subscription, this kind of seems like a big deal.
If I’m honest, one of the things that most bothers me about that excerpt is the last sentence, noting that none of the senior Air Force officers who are appalled by this plan are willing to damage his career by posing an objection. I know that military men and women are trained to follow orders; that is, in fact, their job, and the efficacy of our military depends on their willingness and ability to do so, resolutely and unquestioningly. But at the same time, it seems contradictory to their pledge to die for their country, if necessary. What if going along with the machinations of the government fundamentally alters the country for which they’re willing to die? What if in their absolute dedication to America, the America they know is lost? Surely there’s a difference between what’s best for America, and what America’s government wants them to do. I acknowledge that’s an abstract concept, which is not the military’s stock in trade; absolutes dictate their days. But in the end, there’s something that seems rather cowardly about men who are willing to consider their careers, but not consider the fate of the country to which they have pledged their service. I’m just not sure we can be the land of the free if we’re not the home of the brave, too.
What if Colin Powell had not gone before the UN make the case for war, even though in his own opinion, it was bullshit? What if John McCain had not stood beside and embraced Bush during the 2004 campaign, instead speaking the truth about how dirty this administration really is, as he knows better than just about anyone?
How much is one’s career worth?
If I were in such a position, I would like to think I’d be more concerned about my country—and my conscience—than my career, once nuclear weapons are on the table. Three years from now, I would prefer not to be wishing an unhappy birthday to memos being written now, outlining plans for an unprovoked nuclear war with Iran.
(Hat tip to Shaker oddjob.)
DSM Day
Go read Maurinsky on the Mean Girls Administration.
UPDATE: And while you're at it, check out SFMike's Civic Center, too.
Hysteria
The BBC reports that the man shot yesterday by British police was not connected to the London bombing (hat tip Pam):
A man shot dead by police hunting the bombers behind Thursday's London attacks was unconnected to the incidents, police have confirmed.When I heard about this on the radio yesterday morning, my first thought—I’m not sure why—was that it was a mistake. And indeed it turns out to have been one, a very tragic mistake indeed.
A Scotland Yard statement said the shooting was a "tragedy" which was regretted by the Metropolitan Police.
[…]
"For somebody to lose their life in such circumstances is a tragedy and one that the Metropolitan Police Service regrets."
We’ve got to figure out a better way to combat terrorism—a realistic way that genuinely addresses the problem—because when innocent people are shot in public, prisoners are mistreated in an attempt to extract information from them (even if they were sold into capture and there’s no evidence, other than the words of those paid to turn them in, that they are viable suspects), and the general public subjected to an encroachment of civil liberties, I just can’t see how that differs from exactly what the terrorists want, which is for us to be terrorized and live our lives in fear.
Circle Jerk
Funny how the same names just keep popping up over and over every time there’s something remotely unseemly going on at the top levels of government:
TWN has just learned from a highly placed source -- and in the right place to know -- that John Bolton was a regular source for Judith Miller's New York Times WMD and national security reports.Imagine that.
The source did not have any knowledge on whether Bolton was one of Miller's sources on the Valerie Plame story she was preparing, but argues that he was a regular source otherwise.
Unhappy Birthday
‘Cause you’re evil
And you lie
And if you should die
I may feel slightly sad
(but I won’t cry)
-- The Smiths, “Unhappy Birthday”
It’s been three years since President Bush and UK Prime Minister Tony Blair began to construct a case for a war in Iraq.
It’s been three years since they fooled (many of) the people they ostensibly represent into believing that the war was a necessary evil, in spite of its being an unnecessary but inevitable consequence of a collective foregone conclusion, at best.
It’s been three years since the governments of two of the most powerful nations in the world conspired to provoke Saddam Hussein into a war, used the UN to deliver an ultimatum that had no out clause, and fixed the facts and intelligence around an unprecedented policy of preemption.
It’s been three years since crucial resources were diverted from pursuing the real culprits behind 9/11 (and now, 7/7) to embark on an unrelated folly.
It's been three years since Bush and Blair realized that their war was illegal, and decided they didn't really mind. (The Green Knight)
It's been three years since Bush and Blair decided that the most basic features of democracy -- an open and transparent government answerable to an accurately informed public -- didn't matter so much anymore. (The Green Knight)
It’s been three years since nearly 2,000 American soldiers and countless Iraqis were sentenced to die.
It’s been three years of fearmongering, divisive politicking, mistreatment of prisoners, encroachments on civil liberties, hiding the realities of the war, manipulating and controlling the media, marginalizing dissenters, seeking revenge on critics, and lies.
Lies and more lies.
Three years.
Unhappy birthday.
Busy
I’m really busy at the moment, but if I had the time, I’d be writing about this guy, and more Plame stuff. Also, there’s a flurry of good posts over at Alternate Brain you should check out.
Friday Night Afternoon Name That Movie
I’m doing it earlier this week so John Howard won’t moan about how I always post it when he’s not around.
Name the movie—and then name what all 10 have in common. (No cheating!)
1. Elvises, light your fires.
2. I want the people to know that they still have two out of three branches of the government working for them, and that ain't bad.
3. Who designed these costumes? It looks like Edith Head puked, and that puke designed these costumes.
4. Even if this was not a law, which it is, I'm afraid I would have a lot of difficulty endorsing an enterprise which is as fraught with genuine peril as I believe this one to be.
5. Oh, I like this…sort of Rebel Without a Cause meets Sound of Music—you're taking a fashion risk.
6. Why if I had half a chance, I could make an entire movie using this stock footage. The story opens on these mysterious explosions. Nobody knows what's causing them, but it's upsetting all the buffalo, so the military are called in to solve the mystery.
7. I figure marriage is kind of like Miami: it's hot and stormy, and occasionally a little dangerous. But if it's really so awful, why is there still so much traffic?
8. If I give you any more collagen, your lips are going to look like they got stuck in a pool drain.
9. That dumb dog will never learn to catch a Frisbee; you are the inferior species.
10. All I know is, on the day your plane was to leave, if I had the power, I would turn the winds around, I would roll in the fog, I would bring in storms, I would change the polarity of the earth so compasses couldn't work, so your plane couldn't take off.
Friday Blogrollin'
I’ll start with the three group blogs I mentioned the other day: Our Word, Cosmic Variance, and The UnCapitalist Journal.
From there, we head off to Blue Meme, which is both smart and funny, like most of the blogs on my blogroll, each in its own unique and wonderful way.
Next stop: A Brooklyn Bridge, which is yet another blog that I should have added long ago. (I’m sorry for the delay, Glen.)
Then onto The Curmudgeonly Crab, who offers commentary, essaylets, sacred cow tipping, miscellany and eclectia from a bleeding heart crustacean.
And finally, Driftglass, whose rants will have you in stitches, unless you’re an uptight asshole.
Tell me who else I’m forgetting, overlooking, should check out, etc. in comments. I’m always happy for recommendations, and don’t be shy about promoting yourself.
(Always remember, Shakespeare’s Sister is the Official Home of the Encouraged Blogwhore!)
Patriot Act Renewed
The House of Representatives reauthorized the Patriot Act yesterday by a margin of 257 to 171, with 44 Dems supporting it and 14 Republicans opposing it. I feel guilty that I didn’t pay enough attention to this issue leading up to the vote, but it looks like even if the blogosphere’s best efforts had managed all of the turncoat 44 Dems to oppose it, it still would have passed. We would have needed to convince 43 Republicans to oppose it, too, which seems like an impossible task, considering the tone of the debate in the House. (My math was stinky. Nevermind.)
In response, Dems on the House Judiciary Committee have prepared a 70-page dissent opposing the reauthorization.Republicans repeatedly argued throughout the 11-hour debate that the latest explosions in London showed how urgent and important it was to renew the law.
"Passage of the ... act is vital to maintaining the post-9/11 law enforcement and intelligence reforms that have reduced America's vulnerability to terrorist attack," Wisconsin Republican James Sensenbrenner told lawmakers.
Republicans also added a new provision to apply the federal death penalty for terrorist offenses that resulted in death and another establishing a new crime of narco-terrorism to punish people using drug profits to aid terrorism. These offenders will now face 20-year minimum prison sentences.
[...]The Senate judiciary committee voted unanimously to recommend its own version of the act on Thursday, which included only four-year renewals of these two clauses. The full Senate is expected to take its bill up in the fall.
The House also passed an amendment requiring the director of the FBI to personally approve all requests for library or bookstore records and a number of other amendments designed to add civil liberty safeguards to the bill.
[…]
Leading opposition from the left, the American Civil Liberties Union said the bill gave the FBI extraordinary power to obtain personal records, search individuals' homes or offices without their knowledge and to use a secret court to obtain personal date on ordinary Americans.
Unlike some Democratic opposition, those decrying the Patriot Act include a diverse panoply of voices: 389 communities and seven states have passed resolutions opposing parts of the PATRIOT Act, representing over 62 million people, they note.Raw Story’s got more.
The Patriot Act, I’m afraid, is a losing battle while both the House and Senate are controlled by the GOP. Our best plan for getting rid of this and other associated encroachments on our civil liberties is to keep pushing on the criminal activities of the current occupants of the White House and work our tails off to bring in new leadership who believes that there’s more to fighting terrorism than restricting civil liberties, preemptive strikes, and mistreating detainees—things instead like developing a comprehensive alternative energy plan and creating a strategy to implement comprehensive public transportation for Americans, even those who don’t live in cities.
Instead, major oil companies are posting record profits and “enjoying one of the biggest windfalls in [the oil industry’s] history.” Isn’t that amazing?
Action Items
1. Tune in to C-SPAN 2 (if you can) in about 10 minutes where you'll see a Dem hearing on the leak. More info on the hearing here.
2. On July 21, 2005, Congresswoman Barbara Lee (Dem., Calif.) introduced - along with 26 co-sponsors - a Resolution of Inquiry in the House of Representatives which, if passed, will require the White House and the State Department to "transmit all information relating to communication with officials of the United Kingdom between January 1, 2002, and October 16, 2002, relating to the policy of the United States with respect to Iraq." The text of the Resolution, H. Res. 375, and a list of current co-sponsors, is here. Ask your Congresspeople to support Lee's efforts; find out more information here.
And while I'm at it, my apologies to those who emailed me about last ditch efforts re: The Patriot Act. I dropped the ball.
