DO NOT SPEAK ILL OF THE DEAD
Bush rewrites history again. Not satisfied with screwing up everything during his own term, he now wants to go back and undo – or denigrate – the achievements of every previous Democratic administration too. And, no, I don’t think this is a coincidence. For a country ignorant of history, this is Roveanism par excellence – reframe the past as a way of cementing the Republican realignment
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2005_05_08.php#005651
[Josh Marshall] I'm glad to see it is already garnering a slowly-rising chorus of criticism. But let me just start with a brief comment on President Bush's historically ignorant and morally hideous claim that "the agreement at Yalta followed in the unjust tradition of Munich and the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact."
To compare the results of the Yalta Conference to the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, the key element of which was a secret agreement by which the 20th century's two great dictators agreed to carve up the defenseless neighbour between them, is truly unconscionable. And to compare it to Munich is little less so.
In making this argument the president joins a rich tradition of maniacs who believe that at the end of World War II we should have joined with the defeated remainder of the German army and fought our way through Eastern Europe to the border of Russia and, in all likelihood, on to Moscow to overthrow the Soviet Union itself -- certainly not a difficult proposition considering what an insubstantial land Army the Soviet Union had at the time.
http://hnn.us/articles/11835.html
Bush stopped short of accusing Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston Churchill of outright perfidy, but his words recalled those of hardcore FDR- and Truman-haters circa 1945.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_05/006292.php
But here's what I'm curious about: why did Bush mention Yalta at all? For most people alive today this is long dead history, but Bush's speechwriters are well aware that "Yalta" was once a codeword extraordinaire among a certain segment of the population. In fact, it was perhaps the single biggest bugaboo of the wingnut right in the late 40s and 50s, right up there with Alger Hiss and Joe McCarthy's list of communists in the State Department.
But most of those people are dead. So who was the reference aimed at? Not just the Latvians, that's for sure. Bush is a master of using codewords in his speeches, and inserting Yalta into this speech wasn't a casual decision. It was there for someone. Who?
[NB: Well, you have my answer. Here’s the rude version: http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2005/05/disposable-roosevelt-heres-little.html]
Tom Ridge admits that the Bush gang often inflated terror threat warnings against DHS’s recommendations
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/usatoday/20050511/pl_usatoday/ridgerevealsclashesonalerts
The Bush administration periodically put the USA on high alert for terrorist attacks even though then-Homeland Security chief Tom Ridge argued there was only flimsy evidence to justify raising the threat level, Ridge now says. . . Ridge, who resigned Feb. 1, said Tuesday that he often disagreed with administration officials who wanted to elevate the threat level to orange, or "high" risk of terrorist attack, but was overruled.
http://www.mydd.com/story/2005/5/11/14158/5143
Remember the chart that showed the relationship between Bush's approval rating and terror alters? The chart clearly suggested that terror alerts were used more frequently during times of unpopularity for Bush.
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/archive.html?blog=/politics/war_room/2005/05/11/terror/index.html
The two most questionable threat escalations came at crucial junctures for Bush. One, in February of 2003, came just as Bush was trying to rally the nation for war in Iraq, and the second, in August of 2004, in advance of Bush's Republican convention, where GOP officials dwelled on the war on terror. (Bush's handling of the war on terror consistently ranks as his highest scoring response in voter surveys.)
In Iraq, we have quietly INCREASED the troop numbers again – and it’s still not enough
http://www.juancole.com/2005/05/50-dead-90-wounded-in-iraq-bombings-on.html
http://www.first-draft.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3139
HOW in the world can someone like John Bolton get approved for the U.N.? It’s almost ridiculous now that every day brings new reports on his screw-ups, while the committee seems to be framing the vote strictly as a loyalty test to the Bush gang. Does it even MATTER that he may have broken the law and perjured himself before the committee?
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/000601.html
http://www.markarkleiman.com/archives/_/2005/05/perspective.php
http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/002033.html
And, though I hesitate to forward it, new sex allegations as well
http://www.first-draft.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3148
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/000602.html
[NB: Here’s the problem. Even if this brings him down, it’s not the way to do it. He should be rejected because he’s a lousy miserable excuse for a diplomat, and because putting him forward was an arrogant and cynical move by Bush in the first place. Let’s not let people lose sight of that. If he’s dropped because of distasteful sex allegations, it leaves people with a dirty feeling and even a bit of sympathy toward him. It’s just like Clarence Thomas – the Democrats didn’t have the nerve or the leverage to say what was obvious at the time: that he was an utterly unqualified candidate. Instead we got all caught up in Anita Hill’s allegations, and when those got deflected he was home free.]
Nevertheless, Lincoln Chafee says he will vote to confirm, using that gutless formulation “Bush should be able to have the team around him that he chooses.” Hey Senator Chafee: by this reasoning, WHY HAVE AN ADVISE AND CONSENT ROLE AT ALL?
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/archive.html?blog=/politics/war_room/2005/05/11/bolton/index.html
"I won't deny a lot of the information certainly brings great pause," Chafee said. "But I fight the administration on so many issues; this is one of those that I've been with them on -- to appoint their team."
Vote may be delayed again
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/archive.html?blog=/politics/war_room/2005/05/11/bolton/index.html
Though it may be too little too late, Senate Democrats appear to have reached a deal with the State Department on a slew of internal State documents that Bolton's opponents believe will reveal more about his career history. The department will turn over the documents in question if the Dems will reduce the scope of their request. . . The committee is scheduled to put Bolton's nomination to a vote on Thursday, though Biden has suggested that he might force another delay unless the State Department complies with Democrats' requests.
http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/002035.html
Senate Intelligence committee staff send word that tomorrow's Bolton hearings by their fellow Foreign Relations committee should be interesting. Senate Intel committee leadership were briefed yesterday on the NSA intercepts from which Bolton requested he be provided with the US persons identities on ten occasions. Senators Rockefeller and Roberts were apparently not told the names from the NSA intercepts; but go read the last two graphs of this wire report:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/05/11/national/w163635D47.DTL
Priscilla Owen (they’re destroying the Senate for THIS?)
http://www.buzzflash.com/alerts/05/05/ale05070.html
Another govt department (Agriculture) paid for fake news
http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/05/now-its-dept-of-agriculture-paying-for.html
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/archive.html?blog=/politics/war_room/2005/05/11/payola/index.html
Bush apologists now want to deny that he is trying to privatize Social Security at all
http://blog.rockthevote.com/2005/05/michael-medved-twisting-in-wind.html
Can we put that silly “liberal media” tag away now?
http://mediamatters.org/items/200505110005
http://www.mydd.com/story/2005/5/11/201136/084
Theocracy watch
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/12/education/12academy.html
A chaplain at the Air Force Academy has described a "systemic and pervasive" problem of religious proselytizing at the academy and says a religious tolerance program she helped create to deal with the problem was watered down after it was shown to officers, including the major general who is the Air Force's chief chaplain.
[NB: I love that, watering down the tolerance program – yeah, because we can’t have too much of THAT]
Bonus item: another goofy liberal
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/5/11/23651/7456
"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are [a] few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."
- President Dwight D. Eisenhower, 11/8/54
***If you enjoy PBD and support what we are doing, you can help by forwarding a copy of this issue to your friends (using the envelope link below) or by sending them a copy of its URL (http://pbd.blogspot.com).
I don't get anything personally out of this project, except the satisfaction of doing it (I don't run ads, etc). The credit really all goes to the people whose material I copy and redistribute. But if I do have a "mission," it is to get this information into the hands of as many people as I can.***
Wednesday, May 11, 2005
ALL IN
Will Frist throw in all his chips on the filibuster vote? Does Reid sound like someone who is worried about losing?
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/index.html?blog=/politics/war_room/2005/05/11/nuclear/index.html
Senate Majority leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., is itching to go all in -- force a showdown over a handful of stalled judicial nominees, play the nuclear option and eliminate the filibuster. After some D.C. chatter last week that Frist was rethinking the radical strategy (a Washington Post/ABC poll showed it's a loser with most voters), Frist, waving off talk of a compromise, announced the showdown is all but certain for next week, and that Texas Supreme court justice Priscilla Owen will likely serve as the nominee who will set the confrontation in motion.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/5/10/15536/2555
[Reid] Two weeks ago, Bill Frist and I exchanged proposals in an attempt to avert a vote on the nuclear option.
One proposal allowed for up or down votes on all but four judges - which many of us on both sides of the aisle considered to be the goal of this hyped battle over judicial nominations. . . It also took the "nuclear option" off the table, which even Ken Starr said yesterday was damaging to the Senate as an institution and "amounts to an assault on the judicial branch of government.". . .
Senator Frist's proposal does nothing to end the judicial impasse, as it would wipe away the very checks and balances that have prevented an abuse of power for more than 200 years. . . That result is unacceptable.
I still consider this confrontation entirely unnecessary and irresponsible. The White House manufactured this crisis. Since Bush took office, the Senate confirmed 208 of his judicial nominations and turned back only 10, a 95% confirmation rate. Instead of accepting that success and avoiding further divisiveness and partisanship in Washington, the President chose to pick fights instead of judges by resubmitting the names of the rejected nominees.
This fight is not about seven radical nominees; it's about clearing the way for a Supreme Court nominee who only needs 51 votes, instead of 60 votes. They want a Clarence Thomas, not a Sandra Day O'Connor or Anthony Kennedy or David Souter. George Bush wants to turn the Senate into a second House of Representatives, a rubberstamp for his right wing agenda and radical judges. That's not how America works. . .
But I want to be clear: we are prepared for a vote on the nuclear option. Democrats will join responsible Republicans in a vote to uphold the constitutional principle of checks and balances. . .
I also suggest two reasonable ways to avert this constitutional crisis.
First, allow up or down votes on additional nominees, as I addressed in my proposal to Frist two weeks ago. If this is about getting judges on the courts, let's get them on the courts.
Second, allow the Senate to consider changing the rules without breaking the rules. Every one of us knows that there is a right way and a wrong way to change the rules of the Senate; the nuclear option is the wrong way. Senator Dodd will go to the floor this afternoon to expand on the way the Senate changes its rules. . .
Either of these options offers a path away from the precipice of the nuclear option. But if neither of these options is acceptable to you, let's vote.
Why compromise with the Republicans is impossible
http://susiemadrak.com/2005/05/10/08/38/no-quarter/
WSJ was backing the judicial filibuster when the Republicans were using it
http://mediamatters.org/items/200505110001
Bolton: muerte
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/000596.html
[NYT] A new portrayal of John R. Bolton describes him as having so angered senior State Department officials with his public comments that the deputy secretary of state, Richard L. Armitage, ordered two years ago that Mr. Bolton be blocked from delivering speeches and testimony unless they were personally approved by Mr. Armitage.
The detailed account was provided to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee by Lawrence S. Wilkerson, a longtime aide to former Secretary of State Colin L. Powell. Mr. Wilkerson said that Mr. Bolton, who was then an under secretary of state, had caused "problems" by speaking out on North Korea, the International Atomic Energy Agency and other delicate issues in remarks that had not been properly cleared. . .
Mr. Wilkerson said that Mr. Bolton had been a major cause of tension and resentment at the highest levels of the State Department because of his temperament, his treatment of subordinates and the fact that he had "overstepped his bounds" on a number of occasions, including what Mr. Wilkerson called "his moves and gyrations" aimed at preventing Mohamed ElBaradei from being reappointed as the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations' nuclear monitoring body.
Mr. Wilkerson also disputed one account that had been provided by Mr. Bolton, and said that it was Mr. Armitage, and not Mr. Bolton, who decided in the summer of 2003 to postpone Congressional testimony that Mr. Bolton had planned to give on Syria and that had touched off significant opposition from American intelligence agencies. Mr. Wilkerson also provided a new account of the reaction within the State Department to a speech that Mr. Bolton delivered on North Korea in the summer of 2003, saying that the speech had not been fully vetted and that Mr. Armitage had become "very angry - that's to put it mildly" - at an assistant secretary of state who signed off on Mr. Bolton's language.
http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2005/05/index.html#006409
[Murray Waad] John R. Bolton, President Bush's designate to be the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, was one of more than a half dozen senior Bush administration officials who received highly classified NSA intercepts of conversations of private phone conversations of Mohammed ElBarbadei, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, according to government officials familiar with the matter. The IAEA is the United Nations' nuclear watchdog agency.
That the NSA was intercepting the phone calls of IAEA officers, particularly ElBarbadei, is in and of itself hardly big news. IAEA officials have known about the eavesdropping for more than a decade, and have made it a point not to conduct sensitive diplomacy over the telephone. An IAEA spokesman told reporters in Dec. of last year, for example: "We've always assumed that this kind of thing goes on. We wish it were otherwise, but we know the reality."
But Bolton differed from other consumers of the intelligence, according to two senior government officials familiar with the matter, in that when the intercepts proved all but useless to his cause to oust ElBarbadei from his IAEA post, he privately encouraged more aggressive intelligence gathering operations against the IAEA, the United Nations, and other international organizations.
More: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/10/AR2005051001264.html
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/000599.html
http://www.first-draft.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3123
http://susiemadrak.com/2005/05/10/07/55/our-man-in-state/
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/000600.html
http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/002029.html
Alternative names to Bolton already being floated?
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/000597.html
http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2005/05/index.html#006418
Social Security: they won’t give it up, even when their own numbers show that the Bush alternative would be a catastrophe
http://www.discourse.net/archives/2005/05/social_security_the_numbers_are_ugly.html
Still looking for the right description, as if it’s just poor word choice that people are rejecting
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2005_05_08.php#005650
Privatization 4.0 from Dick Cheney yesterday in Denver: "Personal property accounts."
But still it’s the liberal media’s fault
http://yglesias.typepad.com/matthew/2005/05/ah_media_bias.html
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2005_05_08.php#005654
Wow. A must read. . . (thanks to Attaturk for the link)
http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050508/OPINION04/505080346/1054/OPINION
[Molly Bingham] But the basic point for this discussion is that we both thought it was really journalistically important to understand who it was who was resisting the presence of the foreign troops. If you didn't understand that, how could you report what was clearly becoming an "ongoing conflict?" And if you were reading the news in America, or Europe, how could you understand the full context of what was unfolding if what motivates the "other side" of the conflict is not understood, or even discussed?. . . Just the process of working on that story has revealed many things to me about my own country. I'd like to share some of them with you. . .
Bush’s blinders
http://www.first-draft.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3128
Q: Mr. President, you are a transformational, they call it, and promoting democracy in the world is a very ambitious goal; and achieve peace, changing the world, and it's also acknowledging Europe. But such a far-reaching idealism can also easily lead to moral inconsistencies that risk to undermine your credibility. For instance, how does the way detainees at Guantanamo Bay are being handled, how does that relate to your promotion of democracy and the rule of law?
THE PRESIDENT: I appreciate that. That, and, for example, the pictures people saw about the prison -- prison abuse is different from the detainees in Guantanamo [Huh? Abuse of detainees in GITMO is not "prison abuse"?]. We're working our way forward, so that they -- and our courts, by the way, are adjudicating this. It is a clear, transparent review of the decision I made by the courts, so everybody can see it. And they're being argued in the courts as we speak. People are being treated humanely. They were illegal non-combatants [Huh? Non-combatants?], however, and I made the decision they did not pertain to the Geneva Convention [Again, huh? They did not pertain to the Geneva Convention ?]. They were not -- these were terrorists. Obviously, we've looked at Iraq differently.
I can understand people being concerned about prison abuse when they see the pictures out of Abu Ghraib, and it made Americans universally sick, because the actions of those folks didn't represent the heart and soul of America, didn't represent the sentiments of the American people. . . But I'm also a realistic person, and I'm realistic enough to know that images on TV have sullied our country's image, at times. And we've just got to continue to spread -- tell people the truth, be open about the mistakes of Abu Ghraib, hold people to account.
Why it’s important to read articles all the way through: buried in a generally favorable article on Rumsfeld is this bombshell
http://www.ericumansky.com/2005/05/rumsfeld_unrave.html
"When it became evident that we were going to face a determined and prolonged insurgency, he was very resistant to increasing troop levels, stepping up production of up-armored Humvees, and modifying the game plan," said Senator Susan Collins, a Maine Republican on the Armed Services Committee.
[NB: Why a bombshell? Because all along Rumsfeld has said that his generals didn’t ASK for more troops, and that he would gladly have sent more if asked. Now we see how that decision was really made]
Here’s how hard up the military is getting for recruits. . .
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/5/11/11427/2427
[KHOU, Houston] Sgt. Thomas kelt left this message on that young man's cell phone: "Hey Chris, this is Sgt. Kelt with the Army man. I think we got disconnected. Okay, I know you were on your cell probably and just had a bad connection or something like that. I know you didn't hang up on me. Anyway, by federal law you got an appointment with me at 2 o'clock this afternoon at Greenspoint Mall, okay? That's the Greenspoint Mall Army Recruiting Station at 2 o'clock. You fail to appear and we'll have a warrant. Okay? So give me a call back.". . .
[NYT] Interviews with more than two dozen recruiters in 10 states hint at the extent of their concern, if not the exact scope of the transgressions. Several spoke of concealing mental-health histories and police records. They described falsified documents, wallet-size cheat sheets slipped to applicants before the military's aptitude test and commanding officers who look the other way. . .
How deep in Delay’s pockets are Congressional Republicans? Very, very deep
http://www.mydd.com/story/2005/5/10/13594/1005
The thoroughgoing corruption of the conservative movement
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2005_05_08_digbysblog_archive.html#111575200036679925
Jack Abramoff, Ralph Reed and Grover Norquist came together as a power in the College Republicans during the Reagan years. Blackwell, Rove, Atwater, and many others powerful operatives and strategists had cut their teeth there, as well, but these guys came in at the beginning of the heady Reagan years and they were fueled by the belief that they were on the permanent winning side of history. The triumverate of Norquist, Abramoff and Reed is legendary --- and they are all implicated in the burgeoning Jack Abramoff/Tom DeLay scandal.
They have come to represent the three most important wings of the modern conservative movement --- the Christian Right (Reed), the movement ideologues (Norquist) and the big money boys (Abramoff.) They are the Republican party. And they are all corrupt. . .
The Franklin investigation, like the Plame investigation, may end up scrutinizing the incestuous network of government-media leaks and back channels. . . only this time, on the right-end of the spectrum
http://www.first-draft.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3130
GOP fiscal accountability
http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/1360
Real wages in the US are falling at their fastest rate in 14 years, according to data surveyed by the Financial Times.
GOP family values
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/archive.html?blog=/politics/war_room/2005/05/10/gop/index.html
Minister who kicked Democratic members out of his Baptist church gets kicked out himself. Otherwise the church was in jeopardy of losing its tax-exempt status
http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/05/preacher-who-kicked-out-dems-quits.html
Another blow against open government
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/11/politics/11cheney.html
A federal appeals court said on Tuesday that Vice President Dick Cheney did not have to divulge details about how the White House's energy policies were shaped, ruling in a case that touched on the constitutional separation of powers.
Ohio stops investing in rare coin fund (gee, it seemed like such a good idea at the time)
http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/05/ohio-stops-investing-in-gop-rare-coin.html
Bonus item: PBD gets its first mention in one of the Big Time blogs – but that’s not the point. Read this and think about it. . .
http://atrios.blogspot.com/2005_05_08_atrios_archive.html#111574686245206984
[Avedon] One reason I don't think it's at all paranoid to suspect that the Republicans have deliberately taken over the voting system in order to cheat is that they keep doing things that don't otherwise make sense. There's a rather long list of things you just wouldn't expect them to think they could get away with unless they really thought they could control the ballot box, because otherwise they would have to expect that the public would kick enough of them out to not only end some political careers but also make impeachment - and prison - a distinct possibility.
And then there's this nuclear option thing - why would they be willing to remove any possibility of stopping majority party initiatives unless they were absolutely sure that they could never become the minority party again?
Conservatives have made good use of the filibuster over the years, on judicial nominations and a lot of other things. Are they absolutely certain no one will wake up and get rid of them? Or are they just sure that how we vote isn't going to matter?
More, from Digby
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2005_05_08_digbysblog_archive.html#111576181700350905
As pointed out to me this morning by my favorite correspondent, the item at the top of the list (that may just be the "real" nuclear option) is this provision in the "Real ID" bill that removes judicial review. This article calls the hoohaw over the filibuster a trojan horse ---- it's the elimination of judicial review that's the constitution buster.
The right has held for decades that judicial review has no constitutional foundation. Because of various rulings over the past 50 years on civil and individual rights with which they disagree, they have developed the dogma that the courts do not have the right to determine if a law is unconstitutional. . .
http://www.ombwatch.org/article/articleview/2655/1/315?TopicID=1
A bill to establish national identification card standards and restrict asylum claims also contains a controversial provision to empower the Secretary of Homeland Security to waive any and all laws in the course of securing the borders from illegal immigration. The provision also includes an exemption from judicial review that not only shields the waiver decisions from court scrutiny but also strips courts of any power to order remedies for anyone harmed by the consequences of such decisions.
***If you enjoy PBD and support what we are doing, you can help by forwarding a copy of this issue to your friends (using the envelope link below) or by sending them a copy of its URL (http://pbd.blogspot.com).
I don't get anything personally out of this project, except the satisfaction of doing it (I don't run ads, etc). The credit really all goes to the people whose material I copy and redistribute. But if I do have a "mission," it is to get this information into the hands of as many people as I can.***
Will Frist throw in all his chips on the filibuster vote? Does Reid sound like someone who is worried about losing?
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/index.html?blog=/politics/war_room/2005/05/11/nuclear/index.html
Senate Majority leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., is itching to go all in -- force a showdown over a handful of stalled judicial nominees, play the nuclear option and eliminate the filibuster. After some D.C. chatter last week that Frist was rethinking the radical strategy (a Washington Post/ABC poll showed it's a loser with most voters), Frist, waving off talk of a compromise, announced the showdown is all but certain for next week, and that Texas Supreme court justice Priscilla Owen will likely serve as the nominee who will set the confrontation in motion.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/5/10/15536/2555
[Reid] Two weeks ago, Bill Frist and I exchanged proposals in an attempt to avert a vote on the nuclear option.
One proposal allowed for up or down votes on all but four judges - which many of us on both sides of the aisle considered to be the goal of this hyped battle over judicial nominations. . . It also took the "nuclear option" off the table, which even Ken Starr said yesterday was damaging to the Senate as an institution and "amounts to an assault on the judicial branch of government.". . .
Senator Frist's proposal does nothing to end the judicial impasse, as it would wipe away the very checks and balances that have prevented an abuse of power for more than 200 years. . . That result is unacceptable.
I still consider this confrontation entirely unnecessary and irresponsible. The White House manufactured this crisis. Since Bush took office, the Senate confirmed 208 of his judicial nominations and turned back only 10, a 95% confirmation rate. Instead of accepting that success and avoiding further divisiveness and partisanship in Washington, the President chose to pick fights instead of judges by resubmitting the names of the rejected nominees.
This fight is not about seven radical nominees; it's about clearing the way for a Supreme Court nominee who only needs 51 votes, instead of 60 votes. They want a Clarence Thomas, not a Sandra Day O'Connor or Anthony Kennedy or David Souter. George Bush wants to turn the Senate into a second House of Representatives, a rubberstamp for his right wing agenda and radical judges. That's not how America works. . .
But I want to be clear: we are prepared for a vote on the nuclear option. Democrats will join responsible Republicans in a vote to uphold the constitutional principle of checks and balances. . .
I also suggest two reasonable ways to avert this constitutional crisis.
First, allow up or down votes on additional nominees, as I addressed in my proposal to Frist two weeks ago. If this is about getting judges on the courts, let's get them on the courts.
Second, allow the Senate to consider changing the rules without breaking the rules. Every one of us knows that there is a right way and a wrong way to change the rules of the Senate; the nuclear option is the wrong way. Senator Dodd will go to the floor this afternoon to expand on the way the Senate changes its rules. . .
Either of these options offers a path away from the precipice of the nuclear option. But if neither of these options is acceptable to you, let's vote.
Why compromise with the Republicans is impossible
http://susiemadrak.com/2005/05/10/08/38/no-quarter/
WSJ was backing the judicial filibuster when the Republicans were using it
http://mediamatters.org/items/200505110001
Bolton: muerte
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/000596.html
[NYT] A new portrayal of John R. Bolton describes him as having so angered senior State Department officials with his public comments that the deputy secretary of state, Richard L. Armitage, ordered two years ago that Mr. Bolton be blocked from delivering speeches and testimony unless they were personally approved by Mr. Armitage.
The detailed account was provided to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee by Lawrence S. Wilkerson, a longtime aide to former Secretary of State Colin L. Powell. Mr. Wilkerson said that Mr. Bolton, who was then an under secretary of state, had caused "problems" by speaking out on North Korea, the International Atomic Energy Agency and other delicate issues in remarks that had not been properly cleared. . .
Mr. Wilkerson said that Mr. Bolton had been a major cause of tension and resentment at the highest levels of the State Department because of his temperament, his treatment of subordinates and the fact that he had "overstepped his bounds" on a number of occasions, including what Mr. Wilkerson called "his moves and gyrations" aimed at preventing Mohamed ElBaradei from being reappointed as the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations' nuclear monitoring body.
Mr. Wilkerson also disputed one account that had been provided by Mr. Bolton, and said that it was Mr. Armitage, and not Mr. Bolton, who decided in the summer of 2003 to postpone Congressional testimony that Mr. Bolton had planned to give on Syria and that had touched off significant opposition from American intelligence agencies. Mr. Wilkerson also provided a new account of the reaction within the State Department to a speech that Mr. Bolton delivered on North Korea in the summer of 2003, saying that the speech had not been fully vetted and that Mr. Armitage had become "very angry - that's to put it mildly" - at an assistant secretary of state who signed off on Mr. Bolton's language.
http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2005/05/index.html#006409
[Murray Waad] John R. Bolton, President Bush's designate to be the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, was one of more than a half dozen senior Bush administration officials who received highly classified NSA intercepts of conversations of private phone conversations of Mohammed ElBarbadei, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, according to government officials familiar with the matter. The IAEA is the United Nations' nuclear watchdog agency.
That the NSA was intercepting the phone calls of IAEA officers, particularly ElBarbadei, is in and of itself hardly big news. IAEA officials have known about the eavesdropping for more than a decade, and have made it a point not to conduct sensitive diplomacy over the telephone. An IAEA spokesman told reporters in Dec. of last year, for example: "We've always assumed that this kind of thing goes on. We wish it were otherwise, but we know the reality."
But Bolton differed from other consumers of the intelligence, according to two senior government officials familiar with the matter, in that when the intercepts proved all but useless to his cause to oust ElBarbadei from his IAEA post, he privately encouraged more aggressive intelligence gathering operations against the IAEA, the United Nations, and other international organizations.
More: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/10/AR2005051001264.html
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/000599.html
http://www.first-draft.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3123
http://susiemadrak.com/2005/05/10/07/55/our-man-in-state/
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/000600.html
http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/002029.html
Alternative names to Bolton already being floated?
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/000597.html
http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2005/05/index.html#006418
Social Security: they won’t give it up, even when their own numbers show that the Bush alternative would be a catastrophe
http://www.discourse.net/archives/2005/05/social_security_the_numbers_are_ugly.html
Still looking for the right description, as if it’s just poor word choice that people are rejecting
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2005_05_08.php#005650
Privatization 4.0 from Dick Cheney yesterday in Denver: "Personal property accounts."
But still it’s the liberal media’s fault
http://yglesias.typepad.com/matthew/2005/05/ah_media_bias.html
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2005_05_08.php#005654
Wow. A must read. . . (thanks to Attaturk for the link)
http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050508/OPINION04/505080346/1054/OPINION
[Molly Bingham] But the basic point for this discussion is that we both thought it was really journalistically important to understand who it was who was resisting the presence of the foreign troops. If you didn't understand that, how could you report what was clearly becoming an "ongoing conflict?" And if you were reading the news in America, or Europe, how could you understand the full context of what was unfolding if what motivates the "other side" of the conflict is not understood, or even discussed?. . . Just the process of working on that story has revealed many things to me about my own country. I'd like to share some of them with you. . .
Bush’s blinders
http://www.first-draft.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3128
Q: Mr. President, you are a transformational, they call it, and promoting democracy in the world is a very ambitious goal; and achieve peace, changing the world, and it's also acknowledging Europe. But such a far-reaching idealism can also easily lead to moral inconsistencies that risk to undermine your credibility. For instance, how does the way detainees at Guantanamo Bay are being handled, how does that relate to your promotion of democracy and the rule of law?
THE PRESIDENT: I appreciate that. That, and, for example, the pictures people saw about the prison -- prison abuse is different from the detainees in Guantanamo [Huh? Abuse of detainees in GITMO is not "prison abuse"?]. We're working our way forward, so that they -- and our courts, by the way, are adjudicating this. It is a clear, transparent review of the decision I made by the courts, so everybody can see it. And they're being argued in the courts as we speak. People are being treated humanely. They were illegal non-combatants [Huh? Non-combatants?], however, and I made the decision they did not pertain to the Geneva Convention [Again, huh? They did not pertain to the Geneva Convention ?]. They were not -- these were terrorists. Obviously, we've looked at Iraq differently.
I can understand people being concerned about prison abuse when they see the pictures out of Abu Ghraib, and it made Americans universally sick, because the actions of those folks didn't represent the heart and soul of America, didn't represent the sentiments of the American people. . . But I'm also a realistic person, and I'm realistic enough to know that images on TV have sullied our country's image, at times. And we've just got to continue to spread -- tell people the truth, be open about the mistakes of Abu Ghraib, hold people to account.
Why it’s important to read articles all the way through: buried in a generally favorable article on Rumsfeld is this bombshell
http://www.ericumansky.com/2005/05/rumsfeld_unrave.html
"When it became evident that we were going to face a determined and prolonged insurgency, he was very resistant to increasing troop levels, stepping up production of up-armored Humvees, and modifying the game plan," said Senator Susan Collins, a Maine Republican on the Armed Services Committee.
[NB: Why a bombshell? Because all along Rumsfeld has said that his generals didn’t ASK for more troops, and that he would gladly have sent more if asked. Now we see how that decision was really made]
Here’s how hard up the military is getting for recruits. . .
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/5/11/11427/2427
[KHOU, Houston] Sgt. Thomas kelt left this message on that young man's cell phone: "Hey Chris, this is Sgt. Kelt with the Army man. I think we got disconnected. Okay, I know you were on your cell probably and just had a bad connection or something like that. I know you didn't hang up on me. Anyway, by federal law you got an appointment with me at 2 o'clock this afternoon at Greenspoint Mall, okay? That's the Greenspoint Mall Army Recruiting Station at 2 o'clock. You fail to appear and we'll have a warrant. Okay? So give me a call back.". . .
[NYT] Interviews with more than two dozen recruiters in 10 states hint at the extent of their concern, if not the exact scope of the transgressions. Several spoke of concealing mental-health histories and police records. They described falsified documents, wallet-size cheat sheets slipped to applicants before the military's aptitude test and commanding officers who look the other way. . .
How deep in Delay’s pockets are Congressional Republicans? Very, very deep
http://www.mydd.com/story/2005/5/10/13594/1005
The thoroughgoing corruption of the conservative movement
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2005_05_08_digbysblog_archive.html#111575200036679925
Jack Abramoff, Ralph Reed and Grover Norquist came together as a power in the College Republicans during the Reagan years. Blackwell, Rove, Atwater, and many others powerful operatives and strategists had cut their teeth there, as well, but these guys came in at the beginning of the heady Reagan years and they were fueled by the belief that they were on the permanent winning side of history. The triumverate of Norquist, Abramoff and Reed is legendary --- and they are all implicated in the burgeoning Jack Abramoff/Tom DeLay scandal.
They have come to represent the three most important wings of the modern conservative movement --- the Christian Right (Reed), the movement ideologues (Norquist) and the big money boys (Abramoff.) They are the Republican party. And they are all corrupt. . .
The Franklin investigation, like the Plame investigation, may end up scrutinizing the incestuous network of government-media leaks and back channels. . . only this time, on the right-end of the spectrum
http://www.first-draft.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3130
GOP fiscal accountability
http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/1360
Real wages in the US are falling at their fastest rate in 14 years, according to data surveyed by the Financial Times.
GOP family values
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/archive.html?blog=/politics/war_room/2005/05/10/gop/index.html
Minister who kicked Democratic members out of his Baptist church gets kicked out himself. Otherwise the church was in jeopardy of losing its tax-exempt status
http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/05/preacher-who-kicked-out-dems-quits.html
Another blow against open government
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/11/politics/11cheney.html
A federal appeals court said on Tuesday that Vice President Dick Cheney did not have to divulge details about how the White House's energy policies were shaped, ruling in a case that touched on the constitutional separation of powers.
Ohio stops investing in rare coin fund (gee, it seemed like such a good idea at the time)
http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/05/ohio-stops-investing-in-gop-rare-coin.html
Bonus item: PBD gets its first mention in one of the Big Time blogs – but that’s not the point. Read this and think about it. . .
http://atrios.blogspot.com/2005_05_08_atrios_archive.html#111574686245206984
[Avedon] One reason I don't think it's at all paranoid to suspect that the Republicans have deliberately taken over the voting system in order to cheat is that they keep doing things that don't otherwise make sense. There's a rather long list of things you just wouldn't expect them to think they could get away with unless they really thought they could control the ballot box, because otherwise they would have to expect that the public would kick enough of them out to not only end some political careers but also make impeachment - and prison - a distinct possibility.
And then there's this nuclear option thing - why would they be willing to remove any possibility of stopping majority party initiatives unless they were absolutely sure that they could never become the minority party again?
Conservatives have made good use of the filibuster over the years, on judicial nominations and a lot of other things. Are they absolutely certain no one will wake up and get rid of them? Or are they just sure that how we vote isn't going to matter?
More, from Digby
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2005_05_08_digbysblog_archive.html#111576181700350905
As pointed out to me this morning by my favorite correspondent, the item at the top of the list (that may just be the "real" nuclear option) is this provision in the "Real ID" bill that removes judicial review. This article calls the hoohaw over the filibuster a trojan horse ---- it's the elimination of judicial review that's the constitution buster.
The right has held for decades that judicial review has no constitutional foundation. Because of various rulings over the past 50 years on civil and individual rights with which they disagree, they have developed the dogma that the courts do not have the right to determine if a law is unconstitutional. . .
http://www.ombwatch.org/article/articleview/2655/1/315?TopicID=1
A bill to establish national identification card standards and restrict asylum claims also contains a controversial provision to empower the Secretary of Homeland Security to waive any and all laws in the course of securing the borders from illegal immigration. The provision also includes an exemption from judicial review that not only shields the waiver decisions from court scrutiny but also strips courts of any power to order remedies for anyone harmed by the consequences of such decisions.
***If you enjoy PBD and support what we are doing, you can help by forwarding a copy of this issue to your friends (using the envelope link below) or by sending them a copy of its URL (http://pbd.blogspot.com).
I don't get anything personally out of this project, except the satisfaction of doing it (I don't run ads, etc). The credit really all goes to the people whose material I copy and redistribute. But if I do have a "mission," it is to get this information into the hands of as many people as I can.***
Tuesday, May 10, 2005
WAR STORIES
Onward Christian soldiers. . .
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/5/9/154459/3494
Jerry Falwell:
God is pro-war
Throughout the book of Judges, God calls the Israelites to go to war against the Midianites and Philistines. Why? Because these nations were trying to conquer Israel, and God's people were called to defend themselves.
President Bush declared war in Iraq to defend innocent people. This is a worthy pursuit. In fact, Proverbs 21:15 tells us: "It is joy to the just to do judgment: but destruction shall be to the workers of iniquity."
One of the primary purposes of the church is to stop the spread of evil, even at the cost of human lives. If we do not stop the spread of evil, many innocent lives will be lost and the kingdom of God suffers.
James Dobson:
Today on his national daily radio broadcast, Focus on the Family President Dr. James Dobson expressed support for the troops serving in Operation Iraqi Freedom, and he called our nation to prayer. Dobson, heard by 8.9 million listeners each week, stated his support for President Bush by saying that the government has a "moral obligation" to stop evil and tyranny.
http://www.first-draft.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3116
The Family Research Council has drawn attention to discrimination in the nation's courtrooms and in the halls of Congress against those who hold to a conservative Christian faith. Now such "Christophobia" is being exposed even in the military. Military chaplains have sued the Navy for denominational discrimination in assignments and promotions. Even more shocking are charges that evangelicals are being reprimanded for preaching the gospel of salvation through Jesus Christ, instead of a more "pluralistic" message. This happens even though federal law explicitly protects the right of a chaplain to "conduct public worship according to the manner and forms of the church of which he is a member.". . .
[Tena] The reason this interests me is because it illustrates about as well as anything I've seen, the inside-out nature of the Right's framing. No one has ever tried to keep conservative Christians from practicing their religion except where that practice infringes on other people's freedom of religion. The Christian mullahs, however, would have it that they are always embattled and that Christianity is under siege in America. I've been told that it violates their constitutional rights when people say Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas, and the guy seemed to be serious. Where the argument really goes inside out, however, is the assertion that restraining Christians from infringing on other peoples' rights or on the constitution itself, is a violation of the constitution. They seriously contend that unless they are allowed to abrogate the constitutionally mandated separation of church and state, their own constitutional right to freedom of religion has been violated. If that was true, the constitution would be in conflict with itself, and it isn't.
Army, Marine recruiting way down: maybe it’s time for those armchair war supporters to start filling out their enlistment cards
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/5/9/104813/3757
Yet the Jonah Goldbergs don't feel the cause is worthy enough to justify their well-being:
“As for why my sorry a** isn't in the kill zone, lots of people think this is a searingly pertinent question. No answer I could give -- I'm 35 years old, my family couldn't afford the lost income, I have a baby daughter, my a** is, er, sorry, are a few -- ever seem to suffice.”
[NB: His faux self-deprecations aside, there isn’t a single one of his self-described disqualifications that doesn’t fit hundreds, or thousands of soldiers now deep into their extended tours of duty. Of course, the honest answer is, “Who, ME enlist? Are you kidding? I'm an Important Person"]
Two accounts of the battle in Western Iraq: what happens when news is reduced to recycling military press briefings as opposed to actually reporting on site
http://www.ericumansky.com/2005/05/always_look_at_.html
The New York Times and Washington Post both have stories on the top of their Web sites announcing a Marine offensive near the Syrian border. According to the stories, the jarheads are kicking some ass. . . Both stories rely on military spokesmen, since which is understandable since the stories are filed from Baghdad. . .
But turns out the Chicago Tribune has a reporter traveling with the Marines. It ain't such a pretty picture:
[James Janega] While some American units were able to conduct limited raids north of the Euphrates on Sunday, most of the rest were trapped south of the river while Army engineers struggled to build a pontoon bridge across it.
Overnight, the Army's 814th Multi-Role Bridge Company crawled along back roads towards the Euphrates, where it was to construct a pontoon bridge that would allow the Marines to cross. The trucks were forced to use their headlights to allow them to spot land mines along the route.
But the routine safety practice apparently alerted area residents to the convoy's presence. An entire town along the route switched off its lights all at once, a move Marines believe is used to send signals from one river town to the next.
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/world/11605487.htm
[James Janega] The Marines who swept into the Euphrates River town of Ubaydi confronted an enemy they had not expected to find - and one that attacked in surprising ways. . . As they pushed from house to house in early fighting, trying to flush out the insurgents who had attacked their column with mortar fire, the Marines ran into sandbagged emplacements behind garden walls. Commanders said Marines also found a house where insurgents were crouching in the basement, firing rifles and machine guns upward through holes at ankle height in the ground-floor walls, aiming at spots that the Marines' body armor did not cover.
The shock was that the enemy was not supposed to be in Ubaydi at all. Instead, American intelligence indicated that the insurgency had massed on the other side of the river. Marine commanders expressed surprise Monday not only at the insurgents' presence but also the extent of their preparations, as if they expected the Marines to come.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2118366/fr/rss/
As you might notice, most of the papers' stories actually cite "as many as" 100 insurgents killed. (Kind of like TP is "as much as" 6ft. tall). Then turn to the LAT, which quotes the commander in the field puzzling over the hundred figure and saying "a couple of dozen" insurgents were probably killed.
More: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/iraq/la-fg-offensive10may10,0,7177158.story
Members of Allawi’s interim government are sneaking out of Iraq to avoid prosecution for corruption
http://www.first-draft.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3111
The dilemmas of Gitmo: what is Bush going to do with the detainees? Can’t try ‘em, can’t release ‘em, can’t keep ‘em locked up forever (or can they?)
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/index.html?blog=/politics/war_room/2005/05/09/black_hole/index.html
[NB: Simple: like everything else with this gang – drag it out and let the next admin deal with it]
You think the National Security State is only eavesdropping on terr’ists and furriners?
http://www.discourse.net/archives/2005/05/wayne_madsen_on_the_nsa_again.html
NSA Director General Michael Hayden approved special communications intercepts of phone conversations made by past and present U.S. government officials. . . NSA insiders report that Hayden approved special intercept operations on behalf of Bolton and had them masked as “training missions” in order to get around internal NSA regulations that normally prohibit such eavesdropping on U.S. citizens.
[NB: There’s a reason why the WH refuses to release these NSA intercepts: looks like there’s a bombshell buried in there about abuse of power and the use of national security instruments for political purposes]
The arrogance of power: State Dept. will only respond to Republican requests for information
http://thinkprogress.org/index.php?p=831
This morning the NYT reported that the State Department will not provide critical documents about John Bolton requested by Sen. Joe Biden (D-CT):
The State Department is refusing to make public internal documents…about repeated clashes between John R. Bolton and American intelligence agencies over Syria, administration officials say.
During today’s press briefing, spokesman Tom Casey revealed two important things about the State Department’s position.
1. The State Department is only responding to requests that are approved by Republicans:
All we’d done is made sure that what we’ve put forward is in keeping with the agreements that the committee had, which was to pursue this in a joint way. And what we’ve been doing is giving answers to the things that the chairman [Sen. Dick Lugar (R-IN)] believes he and his colleagues on the Democratic side can all agree are relevant and important to the investigation.
2. The information being withheld may not be classified:
I don’t know whether they are all classified or not. Certainly they involved preparation of, in some cases public statements; in some cases, classified testimony.
A little insight into what the United Nations might look like if Bolton is confirmed; and a lot of insight into the kind of person he is
http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/002019.html
[Steve Clemons] In the Fall of 2004, John Bolton was given the task of communicating U.S. admninistration policy on Iran -- and commenting on the prospect and process of European negotiations with Iran -- at a Washington meeting of certain G8 principals.
Normally at such U.S.-chaired meetings, there is lots of discussion, lots of investment in consensus-building, back and forth commentary, etc.
At this meeting, however, Bolton simply "quickly stated administration policy and that was it. He stopped. No more discussion. He gave 'one read' of the policy and refused to do more.". . . Bolton read the administration's policy from a prepared text, but he refused to distribute that text -- and he refused to read the statement again. . .
And then, as they say, there was silence. . .total dumbfounded silence. . .
Bolton didn't like the policy, so he wouldn't hand out copies of it. And he would only read the statement once. . .fast.
This is not mature behavior.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2118366/fr/rss/
The NYT's and WP have the latest leaks of interviews from the John Bolton Senate vetting: Former Secretary of State Powell's chief of staff told the committee staffers that Bolton's habit of speaking off-the-cuff and off-the-wall caused such "problems" that Bolton was told to clear everything he said. "No one else was subjected to these tight restrictions," said the official. Meanwhile, a former top intel man testified that Bolton took "isolated facts and made much more of them to build a case than I thought the intelligence warranted. It was a sort of cherry-picking."
More on what a jerk Bolton is: http://www.thenation.com/blogs/outrage?bid=13&pid=2414
It’s small stories like these that reveal the depths of human character
http://www.first-draft.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3106
Host President Vaira Vike-Freiberga of Latvia invited her counterparts from Lithuania and Estonia to make opening statements, but forgot Bush before opening it up to reporters' questions. . . Bush interjected, and she demurred to her high-profile visitor.
"I think maybe somebody from across the ocean should be given a chance to make a statement, as well," she said, drawing laughs from Bush and the reporters.
After Bush finished, Vike-Freiberga then explained that they would take four questions — one for each president. Again, Bush tried to interrupt, saying, "Or you can have all four questions to me," knowing that foreign reporters usually want to use the opportunity to probe the U.S. president.
Vike-Freiberga ignored the remark as she called on a Latvian journalist, and Bush threw his arms up and looked to help from aides offstage. The Latvian journalist said he would prefer to question the U.S. leader, and Bush responded, "Yeah, I thought that might be the case."
Senate head counts on voting for the nuclear option
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/archive.html?blog=/politics/war_room/2005/05/09/nuclear/index.html
A proposal to prevent the showdown? It sounds like capitulation by the Democrats to me
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2005/05/09/filibuster_showdown_could_be_averted.html
I don’t think the Dems are in a capitulating mood: calling the Republicans’ bluff
http://susiemadrak.com/2005/05/09/21/50/ready-aim-fire/
As Sen. Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) works to negotiate with Republican Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN), Democrats circulated a document Monday detailing each of the Republican senators who had ever filibustered or blocked a nominee.
The filibuster is a process by which 40 senators can veto a bill or nominee. Democrats have 44 members in the Senate, and are thereby able—when unified—to prevent a Bush judicial nominee from being confirmed.
Some senators, like Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID), have filibustered as many as 13 nominees.
Why hasn’t it happened yet?
http://talkleft.com/new_archives/010644.html
Sen. Bill Frist may have developed a classic case of trigger-finger on the nuclear option. Despite pleas from the radical right evangelical fringe, he hasn't launched the plan. Despite pleas from fellow Senators and Congressmen, he hasn't called it off. What's causing him to stay in status quo mode, despite earlier promises to launch the nuke? Some possibilities:
• He doesn't have the votes necessary to win
• The public opinion polls are against the nuclear option
• His job as Senate leader is to compromise. The nuclear option is anything but, and will throw the Senate into disarray. His leadership ability will be called into question if he takes this risky route.
George Mitchell on the history of filibusters (thanks to Raul Zaritsky for the link)
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/10/opinion/10Mitchell.html
A strong push-back on Social Security too
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_05/006287.php
[Rich Lowry] Just had a conversation with a Republican senator. A few things he said: . . . On Social Security, it's looking “not great.” Grassley will try to get a bill out of his committee that has the progressive indexing, but no personal accounts. If that doesn't work, it’s a sign that there's no support for reform whatsoever. He guesses that Frist will end up using — excuse the Senatese — Rule 14 to get a bill with personal accounts onto the floor. The Democrats will filibuster and that will be that. Chances for a deal are very low: “In this environment, I just can't see it. The Democrats are so negative. Even people who will normally look at things, are saying, 'No way on this one. We're blood brothers.'”
[Kevin Drum] That's good news, and it sounds about right to me. I just don't see Dems suddenly turning into good hearted compromisers on this after Bush has spent the past six months trying to cram private accounts down everyone's throats.
Bush’s Medicare plan: lies piled upon lies piled upon lies
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/archive.html?blog=/politics/war_room/2005/05/09/drugs/index.html
As the New York Times reported over the weekend, some seniors who take advantage of the prescription drug plan will in fact see some of their savings offset by a cut in the food stamps they receive. The thinking: If seniors are spending less on drugs, then they surely they have more to spend on food.
http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2005/05/index.html#006402
The Washington Post reports that "federal health officials are circulating a draft handbook that elder advocates and insurers say is sprinkled with omissions, inaccuracies and material that could make an already complicated endeavor even more confusing." The subject is the new Medicare prescription-drug bill, and while the article makes all this sound like some kind of accident, if you read the story you'll see that the errors all tend to point in the direction of making the bill seem less like an absurd boondoggle than it actually is. In light of the administration's long history of malfeasance on this subject, people would do well to be suspicious.
The complacency of corruption
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/5/9/95129/44823
DeLay's prowess in fundraising, for instance, was always a pillar of his power in the House. Lining up a corporate aircraft to ferry him to an event was usually arranged with a single phone call. These days, Republican officials report that they are having trouble finding available aircraft -- as businesses fret that DeLay may be radioactive.
[NB: What is revealing about this story, of course, is the routine expectation that a simple phone call would unleash buckets of corporate largesse. Just civic duty on their part, I’m sure]
Abramoff’s tentacles are woven throughout the conservative movement
http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2005/05/index.html#006378
http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/002022.html
The bad idea of a national ID system
http://atrios.blogspot.com/2005_05_08_atrios_archive.html#111568662464020800
Homeland Security Data Network. . . isn’t secure
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/09/AR2005050901076.html
A Department of Homeland Security network that shares classified information with intelligence and law enforcement agencies was put together too quickly to ensure it can protect the information, according to the department's acting inspector general. . . In a new report, the acting inspector general, Richard L. Skinner, said the department could not show that the network's security standards and policies were in place. . . Homeland Security "does not have assurance that HSDN will satisfy user needs and adequately protect classified information," the report found.
Bonus item: Feeling safer yet?
http://www.theindychannel.com/news/4458549/detail.html
A thief stole riot gear and several replica guns from a trailer owned by the Department of Homeland Security, police said.
***If you enjoy PBD and support what we are doing, you can help by forwarding a copy of this issue to your friends (using the envelope link below) or by sending them a copy of its URL (http://pbd.blogspot.com).
I don't get anything personally out of this project, except the satisfaction of doing it (I don't run ads, etc). The credit really all goes to the people whose material I copy and redistribute. But if I do have a "mission," it is to get this information into the hands of as many people as I can.***
Onward Christian soldiers. . .
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/5/9/154459/3494
Jerry Falwell:
God is pro-war
Throughout the book of Judges, God calls the Israelites to go to war against the Midianites and Philistines. Why? Because these nations were trying to conquer Israel, and God's people were called to defend themselves.
President Bush declared war in Iraq to defend innocent people. This is a worthy pursuit. In fact, Proverbs 21:15 tells us: "It is joy to the just to do judgment: but destruction shall be to the workers of iniquity."
One of the primary purposes of the church is to stop the spread of evil, even at the cost of human lives. If we do not stop the spread of evil, many innocent lives will be lost and the kingdom of God suffers.
James Dobson:
Today on his national daily radio broadcast, Focus on the Family President Dr. James Dobson expressed support for the troops serving in Operation Iraqi Freedom, and he called our nation to prayer. Dobson, heard by 8.9 million listeners each week, stated his support for President Bush by saying that the government has a "moral obligation" to stop evil and tyranny.
http://www.first-draft.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3116
The Family Research Council has drawn attention to discrimination in the nation's courtrooms and in the halls of Congress against those who hold to a conservative Christian faith. Now such "Christophobia" is being exposed even in the military. Military chaplains have sued the Navy for denominational discrimination in assignments and promotions. Even more shocking are charges that evangelicals are being reprimanded for preaching the gospel of salvation through Jesus Christ, instead of a more "pluralistic" message. This happens even though federal law explicitly protects the right of a chaplain to "conduct public worship according to the manner and forms of the church of which he is a member.". . .
[Tena] The reason this interests me is because it illustrates about as well as anything I've seen, the inside-out nature of the Right's framing. No one has ever tried to keep conservative Christians from practicing their religion except where that practice infringes on other people's freedom of religion. The Christian mullahs, however, would have it that they are always embattled and that Christianity is under siege in America. I've been told that it violates their constitutional rights when people say Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas, and the guy seemed to be serious. Where the argument really goes inside out, however, is the assertion that restraining Christians from infringing on other peoples' rights or on the constitution itself, is a violation of the constitution. They seriously contend that unless they are allowed to abrogate the constitutionally mandated separation of church and state, their own constitutional right to freedom of religion has been violated. If that was true, the constitution would be in conflict with itself, and it isn't.
Army, Marine recruiting way down: maybe it’s time for those armchair war supporters to start filling out their enlistment cards
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/5/9/104813/3757
Yet the Jonah Goldbergs don't feel the cause is worthy enough to justify their well-being:
“As for why my sorry a** isn't in the kill zone, lots of people think this is a searingly pertinent question. No answer I could give -- I'm 35 years old, my family couldn't afford the lost income, I have a baby daughter, my a** is, er, sorry, are a few -- ever seem to suffice.”
[NB: His faux self-deprecations aside, there isn’t a single one of his self-described disqualifications that doesn’t fit hundreds, or thousands of soldiers now deep into their extended tours of duty. Of course, the honest answer is, “Who, ME enlist? Are you kidding? I'm an Important Person"]
Two accounts of the battle in Western Iraq: what happens when news is reduced to recycling military press briefings as opposed to actually reporting on site
http://www.ericumansky.com/2005/05/always_look_at_.html
The New York Times and Washington Post both have stories on the top of their Web sites announcing a Marine offensive near the Syrian border. According to the stories, the jarheads are kicking some ass. . . Both stories rely on military spokesmen, since which is understandable since the stories are filed from Baghdad. . .
But turns out the Chicago Tribune has a reporter traveling with the Marines. It ain't such a pretty picture:
[James Janega] While some American units were able to conduct limited raids north of the Euphrates on Sunday, most of the rest were trapped south of the river while Army engineers struggled to build a pontoon bridge across it.
Overnight, the Army's 814th Multi-Role Bridge Company crawled along back roads towards the Euphrates, where it was to construct a pontoon bridge that would allow the Marines to cross. The trucks were forced to use their headlights to allow them to spot land mines along the route.
But the routine safety practice apparently alerted area residents to the convoy's presence. An entire town along the route switched off its lights all at once, a move Marines believe is used to send signals from one river town to the next.
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/world/11605487.htm
[James Janega] The Marines who swept into the Euphrates River town of Ubaydi confronted an enemy they had not expected to find - and one that attacked in surprising ways. . . As they pushed from house to house in early fighting, trying to flush out the insurgents who had attacked their column with mortar fire, the Marines ran into sandbagged emplacements behind garden walls. Commanders said Marines also found a house where insurgents were crouching in the basement, firing rifles and machine guns upward through holes at ankle height in the ground-floor walls, aiming at spots that the Marines' body armor did not cover.
The shock was that the enemy was not supposed to be in Ubaydi at all. Instead, American intelligence indicated that the insurgency had massed on the other side of the river. Marine commanders expressed surprise Monday not only at the insurgents' presence but also the extent of their preparations, as if they expected the Marines to come.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2118366/fr/rss/
As you might notice, most of the papers' stories actually cite "as many as" 100 insurgents killed. (Kind of like TP is "as much as" 6ft. tall). Then turn to the LAT, which quotes the commander in the field puzzling over the hundred figure and saying "a couple of dozen" insurgents were probably killed.
More: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/iraq/la-fg-offensive10may10,0,7177158.story
Members of Allawi’s interim government are sneaking out of Iraq to avoid prosecution for corruption
http://www.first-draft.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3111
The dilemmas of Gitmo: what is Bush going to do with the detainees? Can’t try ‘em, can’t release ‘em, can’t keep ‘em locked up forever (or can they?)
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/index.html?blog=/politics/war_room/2005/05/09/black_hole/index.html
[NB: Simple: like everything else with this gang – drag it out and let the next admin deal with it]
You think the National Security State is only eavesdropping on terr’ists and furriners?
http://www.discourse.net/archives/2005/05/wayne_madsen_on_the_nsa_again.html
NSA Director General Michael Hayden approved special communications intercepts of phone conversations made by past and present U.S. government officials. . . NSA insiders report that Hayden approved special intercept operations on behalf of Bolton and had them masked as “training missions” in order to get around internal NSA regulations that normally prohibit such eavesdropping on U.S. citizens.
[NB: There’s a reason why the WH refuses to release these NSA intercepts: looks like there’s a bombshell buried in there about abuse of power and the use of national security instruments for political purposes]
The arrogance of power: State Dept. will only respond to Republican requests for information
http://thinkprogress.org/index.php?p=831
This morning the NYT reported that the State Department will not provide critical documents about John Bolton requested by Sen. Joe Biden (D-CT):
The State Department is refusing to make public internal documents…about repeated clashes between John R. Bolton and American intelligence agencies over Syria, administration officials say.
During today’s press briefing, spokesman Tom Casey revealed two important things about the State Department’s position.
1. The State Department is only responding to requests that are approved by Republicans:
All we’d done is made sure that what we’ve put forward is in keeping with the agreements that the committee had, which was to pursue this in a joint way. And what we’ve been doing is giving answers to the things that the chairman [Sen. Dick Lugar (R-IN)] believes he and his colleagues on the Democratic side can all agree are relevant and important to the investigation.
2. The information being withheld may not be classified:
I don’t know whether they are all classified or not. Certainly they involved preparation of, in some cases public statements; in some cases, classified testimony.
A little insight into what the United Nations might look like if Bolton is confirmed; and a lot of insight into the kind of person he is
http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/002019.html
[Steve Clemons] In the Fall of 2004, John Bolton was given the task of communicating U.S. admninistration policy on Iran -- and commenting on the prospect and process of European negotiations with Iran -- at a Washington meeting of certain G8 principals.
Normally at such U.S.-chaired meetings, there is lots of discussion, lots of investment in consensus-building, back and forth commentary, etc.
At this meeting, however, Bolton simply "quickly stated administration policy and that was it. He stopped. No more discussion. He gave 'one read' of the policy and refused to do more.". . . Bolton read the administration's policy from a prepared text, but he refused to distribute that text -- and he refused to read the statement again. . .
And then, as they say, there was silence. . .total dumbfounded silence. . .
Bolton didn't like the policy, so he wouldn't hand out copies of it. And he would only read the statement once. . .fast.
This is not mature behavior.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2118366/fr/rss/
The NYT's and WP have the latest leaks of interviews from the John Bolton Senate vetting: Former Secretary of State Powell's chief of staff told the committee staffers that Bolton's habit of speaking off-the-cuff and off-the-wall caused such "problems" that Bolton was told to clear everything he said. "No one else was subjected to these tight restrictions," said the official. Meanwhile, a former top intel man testified that Bolton took "isolated facts and made much more of them to build a case than I thought the intelligence warranted. It was a sort of cherry-picking."
More on what a jerk Bolton is: http://www.thenation.com/blogs/outrage?bid=13&pid=2414
It’s small stories like these that reveal the depths of human character
http://www.first-draft.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3106
Host President Vaira Vike-Freiberga of Latvia invited her counterparts from Lithuania and Estonia to make opening statements, but forgot Bush before opening it up to reporters' questions. . . Bush interjected, and she demurred to her high-profile visitor.
"I think maybe somebody from across the ocean should be given a chance to make a statement, as well," she said, drawing laughs from Bush and the reporters.
After Bush finished, Vike-Freiberga then explained that they would take four questions — one for each president. Again, Bush tried to interrupt, saying, "Or you can have all four questions to me," knowing that foreign reporters usually want to use the opportunity to probe the U.S. president.
Vike-Freiberga ignored the remark as she called on a Latvian journalist, and Bush threw his arms up and looked to help from aides offstage. The Latvian journalist said he would prefer to question the U.S. leader, and Bush responded, "Yeah, I thought that might be the case."
Senate head counts on voting for the nuclear option
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/archive.html?blog=/politics/war_room/2005/05/09/nuclear/index.html
A proposal to prevent the showdown? It sounds like capitulation by the Democrats to me
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2005/05/09/filibuster_showdown_could_be_averted.html
I don’t think the Dems are in a capitulating mood: calling the Republicans’ bluff
http://susiemadrak.com/2005/05/09/21/50/ready-aim-fire/
As Sen. Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) works to negotiate with Republican Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN), Democrats circulated a document Monday detailing each of the Republican senators who had ever filibustered or blocked a nominee.
The filibuster is a process by which 40 senators can veto a bill or nominee. Democrats have 44 members in the Senate, and are thereby able—when unified—to prevent a Bush judicial nominee from being confirmed.
Some senators, like Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID), have filibustered as many as 13 nominees.
Why hasn’t it happened yet?
http://talkleft.com/new_archives/010644.html
Sen. Bill Frist may have developed a classic case of trigger-finger on the nuclear option. Despite pleas from the radical right evangelical fringe, he hasn't launched the plan. Despite pleas from fellow Senators and Congressmen, he hasn't called it off. What's causing him to stay in status quo mode, despite earlier promises to launch the nuke? Some possibilities:
• He doesn't have the votes necessary to win
• The public opinion polls are against the nuclear option
• His job as Senate leader is to compromise. The nuclear option is anything but, and will throw the Senate into disarray. His leadership ability will be called into question if he takes this risky route.
George Mitchell on the history of filibusters (thanks to Raul Zaritsky for the link)
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/10/opinion/10Mitchell.html
A strong push-back on Social Security too
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_05/006287.php
[Rich Lowry] Just had a conversation with a Republican senator. A few things he said: . . . On Social Security, it's looking “not great.” Grassley will try to get a bill out of his committee that has the progressive indexing, but no personal accounts. If that doesn't work, it’s a sign that there's no support for reform whatsoever. He guesses that Frist will end up using — excuse the Senatese — Rule 14 to get a bill with personal accounts onto the floor. The Democrats will filibuster and that will be that. Chances for a deal are very low: “In this environment, I just can't see it. The Democrats are so negative. Even people who will normally look at things, are saying, 'No way on this one. We're blood brothers.'”
[Kevin Drum] That's good news, and it sounds about right to me. I just don't see Dems suddenly turning into good hearted compromisers on this after Bush has spent the past six months trying to cram private accounts down everyone's throats.
Bush’s Medicare plan: lies piled upon lies piled upon lies
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/archive.html?blog=/politics/war_room/2005/05/09/drugs/index.html
As the New York Times reported over the weekend, some seniors who take advantage of the prescription drug plan will in fact see some of their savings offset by a cut in the food stamps they receive. The thinking: If seniors are spending less on drugs, then they surely they have more to spend on food.
http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2005/05/index.html#006402
The Washington Post reports that "federal health officials are circulating a draft handbook that elder advocates and insurers say is sprinkled with omissions, inaccuracies and material that could make an already complicated endeavor even more confusing." The subject is the new Medicare prescription-drug bill, and while the article makes all this sound like some kind of accident, if you read the story you'll see that the errors all tend to point in the direction of making the bill seem less like an absurd boondoggle than it actually is. In light of the administration's long history of malfeasance on this subject, people would do well to be suspicious.
The complacency of corruption
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/5/9/95129/44823
DeLay's prowess in fundraising, for instance, was always a pillar of his power in the House. Lining up a corporate aircraft to ferry him to an event was usually arranged with a single phone call. These days, Republican officials report that they are having trouble finding available aircraft -- as businesses fret that DeLay may be radioactive.
[NB: What is revealing about this story, of course, is the routine expectation that a simple phone call would unleash buckets of corporate largesse. Just civic duty on their part, I’m sure]
Abramoff’s tentacles are woven throughout the conservative movement
http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2005/05/index.html#006378
http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/002022.html
The bad idea of a national ID system
http://atrios.blogspot.com/2005_05_08_atrios_archive.html#111568662464020800
Homeland Security Data Network. . . isn’t secure
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/09/AR2005050901076.html
A Department of Homeland Security network that shares classified information with intelligence and law enforcement agencies was put together too quickly to ensure it can protect the information, according to the department's acting inspector general. . . In a new report, the acting inspector general, Richard L. Skinner, said the department could not show that the network's security standards and policies were in place. . . Homeland Security "does not have assurance that HSDN will satisfy user needs and adequately protect classified information," the report found.
Bonus item: Feeling safer yet?
http://www.theindychannel.com/news/4458549/detail.html
A thief stole riot gear and several replica guns from a trailer owned by the Department of Homeland Security, police said.
***If you enjoy PBD and support what we are doing, you can help by forwarding a copy of this issue to your friends (using the envelope link below) or by sending them a copy of its URL (http://pbd.blogspot.com).
I don't get anything personally out of this project, except the satisfaction of doing it (I don't run ads, etc). The credit really all goes to the people whose material I copy and redistribute. But if I do have a "mission," it is to get this information into the hands of as many people as I can.***
Monday, May 09, 2005
ANNIVERSARY PLUS ONE
Building on something my colleague David Prochaska said, if someone had been saying five years ago that electing George Bush would result in any of the following, they would have been branded as a paranoid conspiracy nut:
• the largest budget surplus in history would be squandered through tax cuts and turned in just a few years into the largest deficit in history
• the government, through lies and manipulation of intelligence, would construct a phony “imminent threat” from another country in order to trick the U.S. people into approving a war costing hundreds of billions of dollars in debt and tens of thousands of U.S. dead and wounded
• following a horrible terrorist attack that brought international sympathy from nearly every country in the world, the U.S. government would within months turn us into a country despised and mistrusted nearly everywhere because of their arrogance, duplicity, and “with us or against us” rhetoric
• the U.S government would secretly approve, and publicly rationalize, the widespread use of prisoner torture and mistreatment expressly forbidden by the Geneva Convention, forever sullying the nation’s moral stature
• a President and Vice-President long affiliated with oil industries would preside over energy policies that they let oil company execs write, turn over to their corporate donors billions in war profits, let them impose extortionist gasoline price hikes, and carry out the aforementioned war in order to boost oil supplies – all without a serious investigation or public outcry
• survivors of the Iran-Contra affair would be rehabilitated and returned to positions of power to re-establish the very same practices of skullduggery and deception that almost brought down the Reagan administration
• religious groups would extend their influence into nearly every corner of public life, taking encouragement from an openly evangelical President to demolish the Constitutional wall between church and state – indeed, denying that such a wall even exists
• the first election of George Bush would come down to a razor-thin vote count in the state run by his brother. When a call is made to recount the vote, the case is taken all the way to the Supreme Court, where the five Republican-appointed judges put a halt to all recounts, saying that their ruling “only applies to this specific instance.” All objective data show after the fact that a full and fair recount would have turned the state, and the election, against Bush. The Secretary of State who oversaw the election in Florida subsequently won election to Congress with strong Bush administration support
•the re-election of George Bush would feature a vast increase in the use of electronic voting machines that are easily hacked and which produce no paper trail of votes – yet when the reported vote totals in two major Bush states (Ohio and Florida) are found to be seriously out of accord with exit polling (polls which are so accurate they are routinely used to check the accuracy of vote tabulations), suddenly it is the exit polls that are thrown into jeopardy. No serious investigation is carried out despite widespread evidence of vote suppression and other electoral irregularities. The Secretary of State who oversaw the election in Ohio now is seeking election as Governor, with strong Bush administration support
• a ruthless and radical House Majority leader would repeatedly violate House ethical standards and abuse the privileges of the majority party without losing his job, or even being seriously admonished
• a handpicked and underqualified Senate Majority leader would be installed in power and then encouraged to dismantle decades of Senate traditions and institutional checks and balances in order to drive through a slate of judicial nominations that include “activists” of the most extreme order
• a candidate openly contemptuous of the United Nations would be seriously considered as the U.S. representative to the same, despite copious evidence of unreasonable, unethical, and possibly illegal conduct
• a plan would be relentlessly pursued to demolish the most successful and egalitarian social welfare policy ever invented
• despite all of this the major media networks, cable news, and even public t.v. and radio would continue to praise the decency and personal popularity of the man presiding over these policies, and not a single major figure would be tried, punished, or removed from office for any of them – in fact, several would receive conspicuous government awards and/or promotions
No this is not a nightmare, it is America 2005 – and this is Year Two of Progressive Blog Digest. . .
It is becoming more and more apparent that the true struggle over the filibuster is over religious judges and the far-right Christian agenda. Listen to what their leaders say, and you will see why the Republicans take this fight very, very seriously
http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/05/nuclear-option-this-week.html
[John Aravosis] Major papers seem to think this is the week of the nuclear option. And, when you read the articles one thing is clear: It is all about the theocracy. This issue is being driven by radical religious leaders who want to impose their extreme views on the rest of us. . .
[NYT] James C. Dobson, the founder of Focus on the Family, described the fight as the tipping point of the Bush presidency. "Nothing good took place last November, only the potential for something good," Dr. Dobson said.
[WP] Baptist minister Rick Scarborough was tireless in promoting his conservative Christian way of thinking.
He attacked high school sex education courses, experimental medical treatments and transsexuals trying to change their gender identification. He recruited like-minded candidates to run for the local school board and city council. He crisscrossed the country to protest the ousting of Roy S. Moore, former chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, for installing a Ten Commandments tablet at his courthouse. And Scarborough created a network of "Patriot Pastors" to lead evangelicals to the polls in 2004.
Now he has set his sights on bigger stakes: pushing Senate Republicans to change the rules so that Democrats cannot block President Bush's judicial nominees. The fight over the judgeships was once a largely academic argument over the constitutionality of the filibuster. But now it provides a fiery new front in the culture war. And Scarborough is emblematic of the Christian right leaders who have been drawn to the fray.
Scarborough and other grass-roots conservative religious leaders believe the federal courts are trouncing Christian values on marriage, abortion and other right-to-life issues raised in the Terri Schiavo case. While he lacks the name recognition of more prominent religious activists, such as James Dobson of Focus on the Family, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council and evangelist Pat Robertson, Scarborough is a potent force with close ties to House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) and influential Senate conservatives.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/5/8/21525/02047
Anytime Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) or other GOP leaders appear to be backing away from a showdown with the Democrats over the filibuster, Scarborough and his backers are there to give them a shove. . .
Game on
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2005/05/07/filibuster_fight_nears_showdown.html
Beginning Monday, Senate Republicans and Democrats -- and their allies on the outside -- "will follow a day-by-day schedule of demonstrations, legislative maneuvers and other public events in anticipation of an imminent floor showdown," the New York Times reports.
"Senators and political analysts say the confrontation will inevitably spill into the 2006 midterm elections, especially in what portends to be a no-holds-barred battle for Senate seats, and beyond. The parties are honing competing messages that they will try to drive home over the coming months should Republicans prevail in thwarting the filibusters."
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/5/8/15035/73840
Democratic Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev). . . says the fight over Senate rules and the filibuster is the "most important" issue he has worked on. "There have always been filibusters. If they do this, it will change our basic framework," he said. "It will make the Senate an extension of the House of Representatives. "I will never give up the right for extended debate," Reid said. "I'd rather they try the nuclear option and show what a real abuse of power is.". . .
"I can't imagine how Orrin Hatch can keep a straight face," Reid told The Salt Lake Tribune editorial board. "I don't know how, within the framework of intellectual honesty, he can say the things he does.". . . Reid says Hatch is "disingenuous" in his recollections of history, pointing out that Democrats have approved 207 of the president's judicial candidates and rejected just 10.
He calls five judges Democrats have blocked - including Texas Supreme Court Justice Patricia Owen and California Supreme Court Associate Justice Janice Rogers Brown - the "worst of the worst." Reid notes that under Hatch, 69 of former President Clinton's judicial nominations "never saw the light of day" because Utah's senior senator stopped them from proceeding to the Senate floor for a vote. . .
http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/05/real-numbers-in-filibuster-debate.html
Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE). . . noted that Republicans prevented votes on many of President Clinton's choices for the federal bench.
"The Republicans' hands aren't clean on this either. What we did with Bill Clinton's nominees - about 62 of them - we just didn't give them votes in committee or we didn't bring them up," Hagel said.
Checking our progress in Iraq
http://www.first-draft.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3097
An explosion of insurgent violence in Iraq killed seven U.S. servicemembers over the weekend. . . The spiking violence — including roadside bombs and suicide attacks — has raised concern in Washington where Sen. Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat and member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said only a quarter of the 168,000 Iraqi forces being trained and equipped by the U.S.-led coalition "are able and willing to take on the insurgents.". . . Levin said if Iraqis fail to write a constitution, elect a new government and develop reliable security forces by early next year, Washington will have to rethink its commitment to Iraq. Sen. Chuck Hagel, a Nebraska Republican and member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, agreed.
Eight: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/iraq/la-fg-iraq9may09,0,7536929.story
One govt position we WON’T let the Iraqis choose for themselves
http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/1350
[KR] The CIA has so far refused to hand over control of Iraq's intelligence service to the newly elected Iraqi government in a turf war that exposes serious doubts the Bush administration has over the ability of Iraqi leaders to fight the insurgency and worries about the new government's close ties to Iran.
The director of Iraq's secret police, a general who took part in a failed coup attempt against Saddam Hussein, was handpicked and funded by the U.S. government, and he still reports directly to the CIA, Iraqi politicians and intelligence officials in Baghdad said last week. Immediately after the elections in January, several Iraqi officials said, U.S. forces stashed the sensitive national intelligence archives of the past year inside American headquarters in Baghdad in order to keep them off-limits to the new government. . .
http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/002018.html
Senior members of those parties, however, suspect the real reason behind U.S. reluctance to hand over the archives is that Americans don't want them to know the extent of U.S.-led spying on the Shiite politicians Iraqis risked their lives to vote into office. . .
Alberto Gonzales, still splitting hairs
http://talkleft.com/new_archives/010623.html
Gonzales... said many of the widely publicized incidents of abuse by the military and civilian contractors cannot be prosecuted as torture. "Torture, as a matter of prosecution, is defined by Congress as the intentional infliction of severe physical and mental pain or suffering. . . Congress intended a very high bar here in order to be prosecuted for engaging in torture," he said. "There may be conduct that you may find offensive that falls far short of torture."
[NB: I think the key word there at the beginning is “many”. . . ]
Whitewash: http://www.first-draft.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3098
A first-hand report: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1479040,00.html
An American soldier has revealed shocking new details of abuse and sexual torture of prisoners at Guantánamo Bay in the first high-profile whistleblowing account to emerge from inside the top-secret base.
Erik Saar, an Arabic speaker who was a translator in interrogation sessions, has produced a searing first-hand account of working at Guantánamo. It will prove a damaging blow to a White House still struggling to recover from the abuse scandal at Abu Ghraib jail in Iraq.
In an exclusive interview, Saar told The Observer that prisoners were physically assaulted by 'snatch squads' and subjected to sexual interrogation techniques and that the Geneva Conventions were deliberately ignored by the US military. . . Saar paints a picture of a base where interrogations of often innocent prisoners have spiralled out of control, doing massive damage to America's image in the Muslim world. . .
His tale describes his gradual disillusionment, from arriving as a soldier keen to do his duty to eventually leaving believing the regime to be a breach of human rights and a disaster for the war on terror. . .
Saar was an enthusiastic supporter of George Bush in the 2000 elections but he has changed his world view after being exposed to Guantánamo Bay. 'I believe in America and American troops,' he said, 'but it has drastically changed my world view and my politics.'. . .
Here is yet another reason why torture is wrong
http://www.discourse.net/archives/2005/05/so_much_for_the_third_degree.html
Intelligence officials who have been questioning Abu Faraj al-Libbi, the senior al-Qa’eda suspect arrested last week, have cast doubt over claims by the Pakistani prime minister, Shaukat Aziz, that the interrogation is “proceeding well”. . . The officials say that al-Libbi, who is believed to be al-Qaeda’s number three, has defied efforts to make him reveal valuable intelligence about its senior hierarchy, despite coming under “physical pressure” to do so. . .
One senior intelligence official told The Telegraph: “So far he has not told us anything solid that could lead to the high-value targets. It is too early to judge whether he is a hard nut to crack, or simply that he doesn’t know more than he has told us.”. . . Al-Libbi had been beaten and injected with the so-called “truth drug”, sodium pentothal, said the official. “They have tried all possible methods, from the ‘third degree’ to injecting him with a truth serum but it is hard to break him,” he said.
He can’t answer the questions because it’s the wrong guy!
http://talkleft.com/new_archives/010628.html
Amidst much fanfare last week, President Bush announced the capture of Abu Faraj al-Libbi, supposedly a very senior al Qaeda leader in Pakistan who might lead us to Osama. . . Now it turns out, the capture may have been just another Emily Littella moment. The Sunday Times of London reports that European counter-terrorism experts believe Bush and Rice got it wrong, and confused al-Libbi with another much more senior al Qaeda leader named Anas al-Liby, who is thought to be a mastermind of the 1998 US embassy bombings in East Africa. al-Liby has not been captured:
“Al-Libbi is just a ‘middle-level’ leader,” said Jean-Charles Brisard, a French intelligence investigator and leading expert on terrorism finance. “Pakistan and US authorities have completely overestimated his role and importance. He was never more than a regional facilitator between Al-Qaeda and local Pakistani Islamic groups.”. . . A former close associate of Bin Laden now living in London laughed: “What I remember of him is he used to make the coffee and do the photocopying.”
Some believe al-Libbi’s significance has been cynically hyped by two countries that want to distract attention from their lack of progress in capturing Bin Laden, who has now been on the run for almost four years.
David Corn: “From Iran-Contra to Iraq” (thanks to Doug Kellner for the link)
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/capitalgames?bid=3&pid=2386
Meet Tom DeLay (no, he isn’t really a nice guy once you get to know him personally)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/08/AR2005050800835.html
DeLay friends do not dispute these observations, agreeing that the personal toll is becoming increasingly obvious. "He's withdrawn, he's tired, he looks like he's not sleeping," said a Republican aide who has worked closely with DeLay. . .
Meet Douglas Feith (warning: motion sickness tablets recommended in advance)
http://www.newyorker.com/printables/fact/050509fa_fact
WH refuses to turn over NSA documents to the Senate Foreign Relations committee reviewing John Bolton’s nomination. Now we’ll see whether those Republicans who said they would never agree to vote for Bolton without a thorough investigation of the charges against him, have any spines or not. A vote is expected May 12
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/000591.html
[Steve Clemons] The Senate Foreign Relations Committee will not get the much-wanted National Security Agency intercepts in which John Bolton expressed so much interest during his tenure as Under Secretary of State for International Security and Arms Control. Under Secretaries with questionable intentions can get the transcripts -- but Senators with Constitutional oversight responsibilities seemingly cannot. . . Senators Lugar, Murkowski, Alexander, Voinovich, and Hagel are believers in the Republic and in their role in it. They will be cautious about yielding to administration abuse on this front -- because Lugar put his own credibility on the line in requesting those NSA intercepts.
http://www.discourse.net/archives/2005/05/bolton_its_a_constitutional_crisis_now.html
[Michael Froomkin] The Bolton Affair, which until now was just an engrossing political slug-fest in which the Vice-President gambled his boss’s political future has suddenly lurched into a Constitutional crisis.
The administration has put so many chips on the table for this one that losing would not only dent, but actually detonate, its image of invulnerability. Once blood is in the water the legislative sharks start to circle, and the administration’s ability to cram legislation down congress’s throat becomes reduced or non-existent. So far, that’s just politics as usual. . .
What is not politics as usual is that the Bush administration has suddenly escalated the Bolton stakes yet again — this time to a constitutional crisis level. Bolton is suspected of using NSA intercepts to spy on his colleagues or to undermine then-Secretary of State Powell. Nothing has been proved. The chair of the Foreign Relations Committee and Democratic Senators have asked to see copies of the same NSA intercepts that Bolton (a mid level appointee) was allowed to see, in order for the Senate to weigh those charges.
Now the administration has said Senators with a constitutional advise and consent duty can’t have the same access to NSA intercepts that third-level state department people get. As Steve Clemons says, that changes everything.
Lugar says the Bolton nomination will probably pass
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-05-08-bolton-lugar_x.htm
Lugar said he thought the vote, delayed since mid-April, would come off as scheduled. But he acknowledged that Democrats who want to get more information about Bolton have many procedural ways to stall the vote.
Four committee Republicans supported a postponement of that April vote in order to review fresh allegations against Bolton. While none has indicated plans to oppose Bolton, it would take only one Republican to side with the committee's eight Democrats to create a tie vote — jeopardizing the nomination.
One of those four Republicans, Sen. Chuck Hagel, said on ABC's This Week that he has yet to learn anything about Bolton that would keep him from supporting the nominee. But Hagel, R-Neb., said he was reserving his vote until he heard all the facts.
Bolton has been accused of trying to get subordinates whose intelligence information he opposed fired and of having a combustible personality inappropriate for a U.N. ambassador.
The top Democrat on the committee is still awaiting information about Bolton that he requested from the State Department. Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., raised the possibility of trying to delay the committee vote if he does not get the material. . .
Why Bush needs for this nomination to succeed
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-05-08-bush-bolton_x.htm
Good to know that homeland security spending is just as poorly managed and wasteful as every other area of govt spending
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/08/national/08screen.html
After spending more than $4.5 billion on screening devices to monitor the nation's ports, borders, airports, mail and air, the federal government is moving to replace or alter much of the antiterrorism equipment, concluding that it is ineffective, unreliable or too expensive to operate.
In Iran and North Korea policy: FAILURE
http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/002012.html
http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/002017.html
You couldn’t make this up – no one would believe you
http://www.markarkleiman.com/archives/_/2005/05/is_bush_taking_political_money_from_terrorists.php
[AP] A year after FBI and Homeland Security agents raided his home in a terrorism investigation, Muslim businessman Syed Maswood is lucky to get on an airplane without being detained and searched.
But that didn't stop him from getting an invitation to dine with President Bush.
Maswood, a nuclear engineer who has not been charged with any crime and has been trying for months to get his name off no-fly lists, received an invitation to serve as an honorary chairman at the President's Dinner, a Republican fundraiser with Bush in Washington next month.
A Republican who has donated money over the years to GOP campaigns, Maswood said he briefly considered attending but his wife refused to fly. The last time they were in Washington, he said, they were held for hours at the airport.
More: http://www.markarkleiman.com/archives/_/2005/05/eerie_silence.php
Looks like Sibel Edmonds will never get her day in court
http://susiemadrak.com/2005/05/08/08/38/setback/
Dutch treat
http://slate.msn.com/id/2118302/fr/rss/
The LAT notices that President Bush had a "youth round-table" in Holland yesterday, during which, in an apparent failure of advance work, the president was actually asked questions. "You made many laws after 9/11," said the first student. "I'm wondering, will there be a time when you drop those laws and when you decrease the measures?" The next second student said the U.S. has been involved in "a lot of wars," and wondered how Americans cope. That was the last query heard by reporters, who were subsequently "ushered from the room." The chat continued, but was not "included in the White House transcript."
George Bush comes out against Yalta, suggests that following WW II he would have immediately turned his troops eastward (no, I’m not exaggerating)
http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/2005-3_archives/000868.html
Paul Krugman on David Brooks and other liars on Social Security
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/09/opinion/09krugman.html
Hell hath no fury like a scammer foiled. The card shark caught marking the deck, the auto dealer caught resetting a used car's odometer, is rarely contrite. On the contrary, they're usually angry, and they lash out at their intended marks, crying hypocrisy.
And so it is with those who would privatize Social Security. They didn't get away with scare tactics, or claims to offer something for nothing. Now they're accusing their opponents of coddling the rich and not caring about the poor.
Well, why not? It's no more outrageous than other arguments they've tried. Remember the claim that Social Security is bad for black people?
Before I take on this final insult to our intelligence, let me deal with a fundamental misconception: the idea that President Bush's plan would somehow protect future Social Security benefits. . .
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/5/9/03353/60113
In the genteel (and small) world of the op-ed pages, a columnist can't call a colleague out by name. But there is no doubt in my mind that Krugman has Brooks in his sights, and the good doctor of economics is pissed. Card shark? Used car artist? Scammer? This may not be the strong language of a good Brooklyn-style verbal take-down, but for the New York Times, it's some pretty harsh stuff.
How Republican Presidents (mis)handle the budget – with a handy chart
http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/2005-3_archives/000865.html
One of the most striking patterns in recent American budgetary history is the way that every newly-elected Republican President blows the budget deficit wide open in his first term. . .
More: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_05/006282.php
The top chart shows income growth during non-election years, and it displays the usual characteristics: under Democrats, income growth is strong overall and the poor do a bit better than the well off. Under Republicans, income growth is weak overall and is tilted heavily in favor of the already prosperous. . . But. . . Republicans produce great economic growth for all income classes in election years, and that's all that voters remember. . .
You won’t believe this: how the GOP rules (thanks to Brad DeLong for the link)
http://ezraklein.typepad.com/blog/2005/05/protecting_pred.html
About a week ago, the House Judiciary Committee was prepared to approve the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act. Dem committee members offered some fairly reasonable amendments to shield some parties from criminal responsibility...For example, one amendment, offered by Rep. Bobby Scott (D-Va.), sought to exempt “cab drivers, bus drivers and others in the business transportation profession from the criminal provisions in the bill.” So, if an underage woman takes a bus to another state to have an abortion, the bus driver, who probably wouldn’t have any knowledge of the abortion, couldn’t be charged with a federal crime. Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) not only helped kill the amendment, he decided to rephrase it for the official record:
"Mr. Scott offered an amendment that would have exempted sexual predators from prosecution if they are taxicab drivers, bus drivers, or others in the business of professional transport."
Sensenbrenner did this multiple times. Every Dem attempt to amend the legislation was manipulated to make it appear Dems were trying to protect sexual predators. Whether one supports the bill or not, this was pathetic.
More on the increasingly bizarre Ohio rare coin scandal
http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/05/more-on-ohio-gop-rare-coin-scandal.html
In case you missed it earlier, the Ohio Workers Compensation Fund invested $50 million in a rare coin fund. . . which is considered a very risky investment. The person who controls the fund is Tom Noe who is a major, major player in the Ohio GOP. . . And, he was a Bush Pioneer.
The Toledo Blade first broke the rare-coin story in early April. Then, it turned out that 121 of the coins purchased by Ohio were missing. Gets even better. . . Apparently, Tom Noe, the major GOP fundraiser/Bush "pioneer" with whom the state of Ohio invested $50 million in a rare-coin fund, failed to tell the authorities that 121 of the coins were missing. . .
The syndicated column by Robert Koehler, linked here a couple of days ago, recounting the still-unanswered questions about the 2004 election, was NOT RUN by many Tribune company outlets (eh, old news, right boys?)
http://atrios.blogspot.com/2005_05_08_atrios_archive.html#111558904242549553
[Atrios] The corporate media keeps pretending that this is all about overturning the election and refusing to accept defeat. They just don't seem to get it that it's democracy's loss, not Kerry's, that's at issue here.
Look, we have an election result we cannot verify. That's unacceptable. Among other things, it means we can't know that any future elections will be honest - unless we stop this business now, before those future elections take place.
Funny. As we know, nothing good can ever be said about Clinton in GW’s White House – but it turns out that Bill and his parents are getting along very nicely, thank you
http://atrios.blogspot.com/2005_05_01_atrios_archive.html#111550778461555050
Bush and Clinton, in part because they have worked so closely on fund-raising efforts, have forged a close friendship in recent months, prompting some humor from former first lady Barbara Bush when she introduced the former presidents. . . "It's my great honor to introduce America's favorite new couple," she said. "Everyone is talking about the 'odd couple,' George and Bill — or, as I now call him, Son."
Bonus item: Are You a Republican? (take the test)
http://paulkienitz.net/republican.html
***If you enjoy PBD and support what we are doing, you can help by forwarding a copy of this issue to your friends (using the envelope link below) or by sending them a copy of its URL (http://pbd.blogspot.com).
I don't get anything personally out of this project, except the satisfaction of doing it (I don't run ads, etc). The credit really all goes to the people whose material I copy and redistribute. But if I do have a "mission," it is to get this information into the hands of as many people as I can.***
Building on something my colleague David Prochaska said, if someone had been saying five years ago that electing George Bush would result in any of the following, they would have been branded as a paranoid conspiracy nut:
• the largest budget surplus in history would be squandered through tax cuts and turned in just a few years into the largest deficit in history
• the government, through lies and manipulation of intelligence, would construct a phony “imminent threat” from another country in order to trick the U.S. people into approving a war costing hundreds of billions of dollars in debt and tens of thousands of U.S. dead and wounded
• following a horrible terrorist attack that brought international sympathy from nearly every country in the world, the U.S. government would within months turn us into a country despised and mistrusted nearly everywhere because of their arrogance, duplicity, and “with us or against us” rhetoric
• the U.S government would secretly approve, and publicly rationalize, the widespread use of prisoner torture and mistreatment expressly forbidden by the Geneva Convention, forever sullying the nation’s moral stature
• a President and Vice-President long affiliated with oil industries would preside over energy policies that they let oil company execs write, turn over to their corporate donors billions in war profits, let them impose extortionist gasoline price hikes, and carry out the aforementioned war in order to boost oil supplies – all without a serious investigation or public outcry
• survivors of the Iran-Contra affair would be rehabilitated and returned to positions of power to re-establish the very same practices of skullduggery and deception that almost brought down the Reagan administration
• religious groups would extend their influence into nearly every corner of public life, taking encouragement from an openly evangelical President to demolish the Constitutional wall between church and state – indeed, denying that such a wall even exists
• the first election of George Bush would come down to a razor-thin vote count in the state run by his brother. When a call is made to recount the vote, the case is taken all the way to the Supreme Court, where the five Republican-appointed judges put a halt to all recounts, saying that their ruling “only applies to this specific instance.” All objective data show after the fact that a full and fair recount would have turned the state, and the election, against Bush. The Secretary of State who oversaw the election in Florida subsequently won election to Congress with strong Bush administration support
•the re-election of George Bush would feature a vast increase in the use of electronic voting machines that are easily hacked and which produce no paper trail of votes – yet when the reported vote totals in two major Bush states (Ohio and Florida) are found to be seriously out of accord with exit polling (polls which are so accurate they are routinely used to check the accuracy of vote tabulations), suddenly it is the exit polls that are thrown into jeopardy. No serious investigation is carried out despite widespread evidence of vote suppression and other electoral irregularities. The Secretary of State who oversaw the election in Ohio now is seeking election as Governor, with strong Bush administration support
• a ruthless and radical House Majority leader would repeatedly violate House ethical standards and abuse the privileges of the majority party without losing his job, or even being seriously admonished
• a handpicked and underqualified Senate Majority leader would be installed in power and then encouraged to dismantle decades of Senate traditions and institutional checks and balances in order to drive through a slate of judicial nominations that include “activists” of the most extreme order
• a candidate openly contemptuous of the United Nations would be seriously considered as the U.S. representative to the same, despite copious evidence of unreasonable, unethical, and possibly illegal conduct
• a plan would be relentlessly pursued to demolish the most successful and egalitarian social welfare policy ever invented
• despite all of this the major media networks, cable news, and even public t.v. and radio would continue to praise the decency and personal popularity of the man presiding over these policies, and not a single major figure would be tried, punished, or removed from office for any of them – in fact, several would receive conspicuous government awards and/or promotions
No this is not a nightmare, it is America 2005 – and this is Year Two of Progressive Blog Digest. . .
It is becoming more and more apparent that the true struggle over the filibuster is over religious judges and the far-right Christian agenda. Listen to what their leaders say, and you will see why the Republicans take this fight very, very seriously
http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/05/nuclear-option-this-week.html
[John Aravosis] Major papers seem to think this is the week of the nuclear option. And, when you read the articles one thing is clear: It is all about the theocracy. This issue is being driven by radical religious leaders who want to impose their extreme views on the rest of us. . .
[NYT] James C. Dobson, the founder of Focus on the Family, described the fight as the tipping point of the Bush presidency. "Nothing good took place last November, only the potential for something good," Dr. Dobson said.
[WP] Baptist minister Rick Scarborough was tireless in promoting his conservative Christian way of thinking.
He attacked high school sex education courses, experimental medical treatments and transsexuals trying to change their gender identification. He recruited like-minded candidates to run for the local school board and city council. He crisscrossed the country to protest the ousting of Roy S. Moore, former chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, for installing a Ten Commandments tablet at his courthouse. And Scarborough created a network of "Patriot Pastors" to lead evangelicals to the polls in 2004.
Now he has set his sights on bigger stakes: pushing Senate Republicans to change the rules so that Democrats cannot block President Bush's judicial nominees. The fight over the judgeships was once a largely academic argument over the constitutionality of the filibuster. But now it provides a fiery new front in the culture war. And Scarborough is emblematic of the Christian right leaders who have been drawn to the fray.
Scarborough and other grass-roots conservative religious leaders believe the federal courts are trouncing Christian values on marriage, abortion and other right-to-life issues raised in the Terri Schiavo case. While he lacks the name recognition of more prominent religious activists, such as James Dobson of Focus on the Family, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council and evangelist Pat Robertson, Scarborough is a potent force with close ties to House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) and influential Senate conservatives.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/5/8/21525/02047
Anytime Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) or other GOP leaders appear to be backing away from a showdown with the Democrats over the filibuster, Scarborough and his backers are there to give them a shove. . .
Game on
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2005/05/07/filibuster_fight_nears_showdown.html
Beginning Monday, Senate Republicans and Democrats -- and their allies on the outside -- "will follow a day-by-day schedule of demonstrations, legislative maneuvers and other public events in anticipation of an imminent floor showdown," the New York Times reports.
"Senators and political analysts say the confrontation will inevitably spill into the 2006 midterm elections, especially in what portends to be a no-holds-barred battle for Senate seats, and beyond. The parties are honing competing messages that they will try to drive home over the coming months should Republicans prevail in thwarting the filibusters."
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/5/8/15035/73840
Democratic Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev). . . says the fight over Senate rules and the filibuster is the "most important" issue he has worked on. "There have always been filibusters. If they do this, it will change our basic framework," he said. "It will make the Senate an extension of the House of Representatives. "I will never give up the right for extended debate," Reid said. "I'd rather they try the nuclear option and show what a real abuse of power is.". . .
"I can't imagine how Orrin Hatch can keep a straight face," Reid told The Salt Lake Tribune editorial board. "I don't know how, within the framework of intellectual honesty, he can say the things he does.". . . Reid says Hatch is "disingenuous" in his recollections of history, pointing out that Democrats have approved 207 of the president's judicial candidates and rejected just 10.
He calls five judges Democrats have blocked - including Texas Supreme Court Justice Patricia Owen and California Supreme Court Associate Justice Janice Rogers Brown - the "worst of the worst." Reid notes that under Hatch, 69 of former President Clinton's judicial nominations "never saw the light of day" because Utah's senior senator stopped them from proceeding to the Senate floor for a vote. . .
http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/05/real-numbers-in-filibuster-debate.html
Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE). . . noted that Republicans prevented votes on many of President Clinton's choices for the federal bench.
"The Republicans' hands aren't clean on this either. What we did with Bill Clinton's nominees - about 62 of them - we just didn't give them votes in committee or we didn't bring them up," Hagel said.
Checking our progress in Iraq
http://www.first-draft.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3097
An explosion of insurgent violence in Iraq killed seven U.S. servicemembers over the weekend. . . The spiking violence — including roadside bombs and suicide attacks — has raised concern in Washington where Sen. Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat and member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said only a quarter of the 168,000 Iraqi forces being trained and equipped by the U.S.-led coalition "are able and willing to take on the insurgents.". . . Levin said if Iraqis fail to write a constitution, elect a new government and develop reliable security forces by early next year, Washington will have to rethink its commitment to Iraq. Sen. Chuck Hagel, a Nebraska Republican and member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, agreed.
Eight: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/iraq/la-fg-iraq9may09,0,7536929.story
One govt position we WON’T let the Iraqis choose for themselves
http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/1350
[KR] The CIA has so far refused to hand over control of Iraq's intelligence service to the newly elected Iraqi government in a turf war that exposes serious doubts the Bush administration has over the ability of Iraqi leaders to fight the insurgency and worries about the new government's close ties to Iran.
The director of Iraq's secret police, a general who took part in a failed coup attempt against Saddam Hussein, was handpicked and funded by the U.S. government, and he still reports directly to the CIA, Iraqi politicians and intelligence officials in Baghdad said last week. Immediately after the elections in January, several Iraqi officials said, U.S. forces stashed the sensitive national intelligence archives of the past year inside American headquarters in Baghdad in order to keep them off-limits to the new government. . .
http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/002018.html
Senior members of those parties, however, suspect the real reason behind U.S. reluctance to hand over the archives is that Americans don't want them to know the extent of U.S.-led spying on the Shiite politicians Iraqis risked their lives to vote into office. . .
Alberto Gonzales, still splitting hairs
http://talkleft.com/new_archives/010623.html
Gonzales... said many of the widely publicized incidents of abuse by the military and civilian contractors cannot be prosecuted as torture. "Torture, as a matter of prosecution, is defined by Congress as the intentional infliction of severe physical and mental pain or suffering. . . Congress intended a very high bar here in order to be prosecuted for engaging in torture," he said. "There may be conduct that you may find offensive that falls far short of torture."
[NB: I think the key word there at the beginning is “many”. . . ]
Whitewash: http://www.first-draft.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3098
A first-hand report: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1479040,00.html
An American soldier has revealed shocking new details of abuse and sexual torture of prisoners at Guantánamo Bay in the first high-profile whistleblowing account to emerge from inside the top-secret base.
Erik Saar, an Arabic speaker who was a translator in interrogation sessions, has produced a searing first-hand account of working at Guantánamo. It will prove a damaging blow to a White House still struggling to recover from the abuse scandal at Abu Ghraib jail in Iraq.
In an exclusive interview, Saar told The Observer that prisoners were physically assaulted by 'snatch squads' and subjected to sexual interrogation techniques and that the Geneva Conventions were deliberately ignored by the US military. . . Saar paints a picture of a base where interrogations of often innocent prisoners have spiralled out of control, doing massive damage to America's image in the Muslim world. . .
His tale describes his gradual disillusionment, from arriving as a soldier keen to do his duty to eventually leaving believing the regime to be a breach of human rights and a disaster for the war on terror. . .
Saar was an enthusiastic supporter of George Bush in the 2000 elections but he has changed his world view after being exposed to Guantánamo Bay. 'I believe in America and American troops,' he said, 'but it has drastically changed my world view and my politics.'. . .
Here is yet another reason why torture is wrong
http://www.discourse.net/archives/2005/05/so_much_for_the_third_degree.html
Intelligence officials who have been questioning Abu Faraj al-Libbi, the senior al-Qa’eda suspect arrested last week, have cast doubt over claims by the Pakistani prime minister, Shaukat Aziz, that the interrogation is “proceeding well”. . . The officials say that al-Libbi, who is believed to be al-Qaeda’s number three, has defied efforts to make him reveal valuable intelligence about its senior hierarchy, despite coming under “physical pressure” to do so. . .
One senior intelligence official told The Telegraph: “So far he has not told us anything solid that could lead to the high-value targets. It is too early to judge whether he is a hard nut to crack, or simply that he doesn’t know more than he has told us.”. . . Al-Libbi had been beaten and injected with the so-called “truth drug”, sodium pentothal, said the official. “They have tried all possible methods, from the ‘third degree’ to injecting him with a truth serum but it is hard to break him,” he said.
He can’t answer the questions because it’s the wrong guy!
http://talkleft.com/new_archives/010628.html
Amidst much fanfare last week, President Bush announced the capture of Abu Faraj al-Libbi, supposedly a very senior al Qaeda leader in Pakistan who might lead us to Osama. . . Now it turns out, the capture may have been just another Emily Littella moment. The Sunday Times of London reports that European counter-terrorism experts believe Bush and Rice got it wrong, and confused al-Libbi with another much more senior al Qaeda leader named Anas al-Liby, who is thought to be a mastermind of the 1998 US embassy bombings in East Africa. al-Liby has not been captured:
“Al-Libbi is just a ‘middle-level’ leader,” said Jean-Charles Brisard, a French intelligence investigator and leading expert on terrorism finance. “Pakistan and US authorities have completely overestimated his role and importance. He was never more than a regional facilitator between Al-Qaeda and local Pakistani Islamic groups.”. . . A former close associate of Bin Laden now living in London laughed: “What I remember of him is he used to make the coffee and do the photocopying.”
Some believe al-Libbi’s significance has been cynically hyped by two countries that want to distract attention from their lack of progress in capturing Bin Laden, who has now been on the run for almost four years.
David Corn: “From Iran-Contra to Iraq” (thanks to Doug Kellner for the link)
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/capitalgames?bid=3&pid=2386
Meet Tom DeLay (no, he isn’t really a nice guy once you get to know him personally)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/08/AR2005050800835.html
DeLay friends do not dispute these observations, agreeing that the personal toll is becoming increasingly obvious. "He's withdrawn, he's tired, he looks like he's not sleeping," said a Republican aide who has worked closely with DeLay. . .
Meet Douglas Feith (warning: motion sickness tablets recommended in advance)
http://www.newyorker.com/printables/fact/050509fa_fact
WH refuses to turn over NSA documents to the Senate Foreign Relations committee reviewing John Bolton’s nomination. Now we’ll see whether those Republicans who said they would never agree to vote for Bolton without a thorough investigation of the charges against him, have any spines or not. A vote is expected May 12
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/000591.html
[Steve Clemons] The Senate Foreign Relations Committee will not get the much-wanted National Security Agency intercepts in which John Bolton expressed so much interest during his tenure as Under Secretary of State for International Security and Arms Control. Under Secretaries with questionable intentions can get the transcripts -- but Senators with Constitutional oversight responsibilities seemingly cannot. . . Senators Lugar, Murkowski, Alexander, Voinovich, and Hagel are believers in the Republic and in their role in it. They will be cautious about yielding to administration abuse on this front -- because Lugar put his own credibility on the line in requesting those NSA intercepts.
http://www.discourse.net/archives/2005/05/bolton_its_a_constitutional_crisis_now.html
[Michael Froomkin] The Bolton Affair, which until now was just an engrossing political slug-fest in which the Vice-President gambled his boss’s political future has suddenly lurched into a Constitutional crisis.
The administration has put so many chips on the table for this one that losing would not only dent, but actually detonate, its image of invulnerability. Once blood is in the water the legislative sharks start to circle, and the administration’s ability to cram legislation down congress’s throat becomes reduced or non-existent. So far, that’s just politics as usual. . .
What is not politics as usual is that the Bush administration has suddenly escalated the Bolton stakes yet again — this time to a constitutional crisis level. Bolton is suspected of using NSA intercepts to spy on his colleagues or to undermine then-Secretary of State Powell. Nothing has been proved. The chair of the Foreign Relations Committee and Democratic Senators have asked to see copies of the same NSA intercepts that Bolton (a mid level appointee) was allowed to see, in order for the Senate to weigh those charges.
Now the administration has said Senators with a constitutional advise and consent duty can’t have the same access to NSA intercepts that third-level state department people get. As Steve Clemons says, that changes everything.
Lugar says the Bolton nomination will probably pass
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-05-08-bolton-lugar_x.htm
Lugar said he thought the vote, delayed since mid-April, would come off as scheduled. But he acknowledged that Democrats who want to get more information about Bolton have many procedural ways to stall the vote.
Four committee Republicans supported a postponement of that April vote in order to review fresh allegations against Bolton. While none has indicated plans to oppose Bolton, it would take only one Republican to side with the committee's eight Democrats to create a tie vote — jeopardizing the nomination.
One of those four Republicans, Sen. Chuck Hagel, said on ABC's This Week that he has yet to learn anything about Bolton that would keep him from supporting the nominee. But Hagel, R-Neb., said he was reserving his vote until he heard all the facts.
Bolton has been accused of trying to get subordinates whose intelligence information he opposed fired and of having a combustible personality inappropriate for a U.N. ambassador.
The top Democrat on the committee is still awaiting information about Bolton that he requested from the State Department. Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., raised the possibility of trying to delay the committee vote if he does not get the material. . .
Why Bush needs for this nomination to succeed
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-05-08-bush-bolton_x.htm
Good to know that homeland security spending is just as poorly managed and wasteful as every other area of govt spending
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/08/national/08screen.html
After spending more than $4.5 billion on screening devices to monitor the nation's ports, borders, airports, mail and air, the federal government is moving to replace or alter much of the antiterrorism equipment, concluding that it is ineffective, unreliable or too expensive to operate.
In Iran and North Korea policy: FAILURE
http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/002012.html
http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/002017.html
You couldn’t make this up – no one would believe you
http://www.markarkleiman.com/archives/_/2005/05/is_bush_taking_political_money_from_terrorists.php
[AP] A year after FBI and Homeland Security agents raided his home in a terrorism investigation, Muslim businessman Syed Maswood is lucky to get on an airplane without being detained and searched.
But that didn't stop him from getting an invitation to dine with President Bush.
Maswood, a nuclear engineer who has not been charged with any crime and has been trying for months to get his name off no-fly lists, received an invitation to serve as an honorary chairman at the President's Dinner, a Republican fundraiser with Bush in Washington next month.
A Republican who has donated money over the years to GOP campaigns, Maswood said he briefly considered attending but his wife refused to fly. The last time they were in Washington, he said, they were held for hours at the airport.
More: http://www.markarkleiman.com/archives/_/2005/05/eerie_silence.php
Looks like Sibel Edmonds will never get her day in court
http://susiemadrak.com/2005/05/08/08/38/setback/
Dutch treat
http://slate.msn.com/id/2118302/fr/rss/
The LAT notices that President Bush had a "youth round-table" in Holland yesterday, during which, in an apparent failure of advance work, the president was actually asked questions. "You made many laws after 9/11," said the first student. "I'm wondering, will there be a time when you drop those laws and when you decrease the measures?" The next second student said the U.S. has been involved in "a lot of wars," and wondered how Americans cope. That was the last query heard by reporters, who were subsequently "ushered from the room." The chat continued, but was not "included in the White House transcript."
George Bush comes out against Yalta, suggests that following WW II he would have immediately turned his troops eastward (no, I’m not exaggerating)
http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/2005-3_archives/000868.html
Paul Krugman on David Brooks and other liars on Social Security
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/09/opinion/09krugman.html
Hell hath no fury like a scammer foiled. The card shark caught marking the deck, the auto dealer caught resetting a used car's odometer, is rarely contrite. On the contrary, they're usually angry, and they lash out at their intended marks, crying hypocrisy.
And so it is with those who would privatize Social Security. They didn't get away with scare tactics, or claims to offer something for nothing. Now they're accusing their opponents of coddling the rich and not caring about the poor.
Well, why not? It's no more outrageous than other arguments they've tried. Remember the claim that Social Security is bad for black people?
Before I take on this final insult to our intelligence, let me deal with a fundamental misconception: the idea that President Bush's plan would somehow protect future Social Security benefits. . .
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/5/9/03353/60113
In the genteel (and small) world of the op-ed pages, a columnist can't call a colleague out by name. But there is no doubt in my mind that Krugman has Brooks in his sights, and the good doctor of economics is pissed. Card shark? Used car artist? Scammer? This may not be the strong language of a good Brooklyn-style verbal take-down, but for the New York Times, it's some pretty harsh stuff.
How Republican Presidents (mis)handle the budget – with a handy chart
http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/2005-3_archives/000865.html
One of the most striking patterns in recent American budgetary history is the way that every newly-elected Republican President blows the budget deficit wide open in his first term. . .
More: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_05/006282.php
The top chart shows income growth during non-election years, and it displays the usual characteristics: under Democrats, income growth is strong overall and the poor do a bit better than the well off. Under Republicans, income growth is weak overall and is tilted heavily in favor of the already prosperous. . . But. . . Republicans produce great economic growth for all income classes in election years, and that's all that voters remember. . .
You won’t believe this: how the GOP rules (thanks to Brad DeLong for the link)
http://ezraklein.typepad.com/blog/2005/05/protecting_pred.html
About a week ago, the House Judiciary Committee was prepared to approve the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act. Dem committee members offered some fairly reasonable amendments to shield some parties from criminal responsibility...For example, one amendment, offered by Rep. Bobby Scott (D-Va.), sought to exempt “cab drivers, bus drivers and others in the business transportation profession from the criminal provisions in the bill.” So, if an underage woman takes a bus to another state to have an abortion, the bus driver, who probably wouldn’t have any knowledge of the abortion, couldn’t be charged with a federal crime. Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) not only helped kill the amendment, he decided to rephrase it for the official record:
"Mr. Scott offered an amendment that would have exempted sexual predators from prosecution if they are taxicab drivers, bus drivers, or others in the business of professional transport."
Sensenbrenner did this multiple times. Every Dem attempt to amend the legislation was manipulated to make it appear Dems were trying to protect sexual predators. Whether one supports the bill or not, this was pathetic.
More on the increasingly bizarre Ohio rare coin scandal
http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/05/more-on-ohio-gop-rare-coin-scandal.html
In case you missed it earlier, the Ohio Workers Compensation Fund invested $50 million in a rare coin fund. . . which is considered a very risky investment. The person who controls the fund is Tom Noe who is a major, major player in the Ohio GOP. . . And, he was a Bush Pioneer.
The Toledo Blade first broke the rare-coin story in early April. Then, it turned out that 121 of the coins purchased by Ohio were missing. Gets even better. . . Apparently, Tom Noe, the major GOP fundraiser/Bush "pioneer" with whom the state of Ohio invested $50 million in a rare-coin fund, failed to tell the authorities that 121 of the coins were missing. . .
The syndicated column by Robert Koehler, linked here a couple of days ago, recounting the still-unanswered questions about the 2004 election, was NOT RUN by many Tribune company outlets (eh, old news, right boys?)
http://atrios.blogspot.com/2005_05_08_atrios_archive.html#111558904242549553
[Atrios] The corporate media keeps pretending that this is all about overturning the election and refusing to accept defeat. They just don't seem to get it that it's democracy's loss, not Kerry's, that's at issue here.
Look, we have an election result we cannot verify. That's unacceptable. Among other things, it means we can't know that any future elections will be honest - unless we stop this business now, before those future elections take place.
Funny. As we know, nothing good can ever be said about Clinton in GW’s White House – but it turns out that Bill and his parents are getting along very nicely, thank you
http://atrios.blogspot.com/2005_05_01_atrios_archive.html#111550778461555050
Bush and Clinton, in part because they have worked so closely on fund-raising efforts, have forged a close friendship in recent months, prompting some humor from former first lady Barbara Bush when she introduced the former presidents. . . "It's my great honor to introduce America's favorite new couple," she said. "Everyone is talking about the 'odd couple,' George and Bill — or, as I now call him, Son."
Bonus item: Are You a Republican? (take the test)
http://paulkienitz.net/republican.html
***If you enjoy PBD and support what we are doing, you can help by forwarding a copy of this issue to your friends (using the envelope link below) or by sending them a copy of its URL (http://pbd.blogspot.com).
I don't get anything personally out of this project, except the satisfaction of doing it (I don't run ads, etc). The credit really all goes to the people whose material I copy and redistribute. But if I do have a "mission," it is to get this information into the hands of as many people as I can.***
Sunday, May 08, 2005
ONE YEAR ANNIVERSARY
This is the one year anniversary of PBD (though it existed as an email newsletter for a while before that).
Here was my inaugural post:
http://pbd.blogspot.com/2004_05_01_pbd_archive.html#108461877938199525
Abu Ghraib had just been publicized, and the Bush team looked to be on the ropes. . .sigh, it seems so long ago.
Taking a day off for Mother's Day: back again tomorrow.
This is the one year anniversary of PBD (though it existed as an email newsletter for a while before that).
Here was my inaugural post:
http://pbd.blogspot.com/2004_05_01_pbd_archive.html#108461877938199525
Abu Ghraib had just been publicized, and the Bush team looked to be on the ropes. . .sigh, it seems so long ago.
Taking a day off for Mother's Day: back again tomorrow.
Saturday, May 07, 2005
HOLD THEM RESPONSIBLE
Yet another Bolton disclosure. It’s about time to put this “tough boss” nonsense to rest. These issues have nothing to do with that. They have to do with a political appointee trying to get conscientious intelligence professionals fired or reassigned when they dare to point out that he is distorting or misrepresenting or LYING about intelligence matters – and not just once, but as a repeated pattern that can only be explained in one way: he was the point man on trying to discipline the intelligence community into shaping intelligence data to fit Bush Co. policy justifications. It’s astonishing that even after the recent story confirming that the Iraq war was built upon a foundation of lies and phony intelligence we are still taking a bum like this seriously for a PROMOTION to a crucial position in international diplomacy
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/07/politics/07bolton.html
John R. Bolton's effort in 2002 to oust a top Central Intelligence Agency analyst from his post in a dispute over Cuba represented a troubling breach of the line between policy makers and intelligence, the agency's former deputy director has told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, according to a transcript of the exchange. . . The ex-official, John E. McLaughlin, who spent 32 years in the C.I.A., said the episode was "the only time I had ever heard of such a request" from a policy maker, that a C.I.A. officer or analyst be transferred. . . The analyst, Fulton Armstrong, was the national intelligence officer for Latin America and had clashed with Mr. Bolton's office about a speech that Mr. Armstrong thought overstated the extent of Cuba's weapons programs.
More: http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/000589.html
Richard Armitage surprises everyone by publicly backing Bolton’s nomination. It’s surprising because it is apparently common knowledge in DC that he has been working hard behind the scenes to undermine Bolton’s case. So, what game is Armitage playing? Steven Clemons peels back the different layers
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/000590.html
Where is Colin Powell? http://www.first-draft.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3078
Bush linked to Abramoff: will he give back the money?
http://www.buzzflash.com/alerts/05/05/ale05068.html
False piety: distasteful in anyone, but utterly gag-inducing coming from Tom DeLay
http://www.first-draft.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3077
"Just think of what we could accomplish if we checked our pride at the door, if collectively we all spent less time taking credit and more time deserving it," DeLay told the 54th annual National Day of Prayer gathering on Capitol Hill. "If we spent less time ducking responsibility and more time welcoming it. If we spent less time on our soapboxes and more time on our knees."
DeLay drew appreciative smiles when he added, "For in God, all things are possible, ladies and gentlemen. And even greatness from lowly sinners like you and me -- especially me."
[NB: Yes, that’s right, especially you. I think I read that admitting your sins is the first step toward forgiveness. We’ll be waiting for that. . .]
GOP Representative says that we’re in Iraq for the oil: thanks for making it explicit, Congressman Lungren
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/index.html?blog=/politics/war_room/2005/05/06/oil/index.html
I don’t know how much oil we’re getting out of Iraq, but it looks like we’ll be there for a long, long time. . .
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/_/id/7287564
http://slate.msn.com/id/2118295/fr/rss/
The Washington Post and Los Angeles Times front, and the NYT teases, the latest carnage in Iraq, where eight days of insurgent violence have left more than 270 dead. The violence culminated in twin suicide bomb attacks that killed 25. . . The resurgence of attacks following the election has surprised U.S. officials, "ending hopes that the success of the January elections had set back the insurgency."
More victories for Bush’s tough-guy foreign policy (in which it seems more and more that the strategy is not to be able to influence events, but simply not to be blamed for them)
http://www.juancole.com/2005/05/will-iran-get-bomb-it-seems-pretty.html
It seems pretty obvious that Iran will get the nuclear bomb and there is not much anyone can do about it. I'm not saying it is a good thing. I'm just saying that I can't imagine what would stop it.
http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/1346
[NYT] White House and Pentagon officials are closely monitoring a recent stream of satellite photographs of North Korea that appear to show rapid, extensive preparations for a nuclear weapons test, including the construction of a reviewing stand, presumably for dignitaries, according to American and foreign officials who have been briefed on the imagery.
Kansas and creationism: the stakes are perfectly clear
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_05/006266.php
I'm glad to see that the Kansas folks aren't wasting time pretending that Intelligent Design has nothing to do with religion or creationism. Newly elected board member Kathy Martin is open about where she stands: "There are alternatives. Children need to hear them....We can't ignore that our nation is based on Christianity — not science."
Looks like the term of the new Pope is going to be even tougher for liberal Catholics
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/07/national/07catholic.html
An American Jesuit who is a frequent television commentator on Roman Catholic issues resigned yesterday under orders from the Vatican as editor of the Catholic magazine America because he had published articles critical of church positions, several Catholic officials in the United States said. . . The order to dismiss the editor, the Rev. Thomas J. Reese, was issued by the Vatican's office of doctrinal enforcement - the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith - in mid-March when that office was still headed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak on the matter, said. Soon after, Pope John Paul II died and Cardinal Ratzinger was elected pope, taking the name Benedict XVI.
Bonus item: How many “Al Qaeda number threes” can we capture?
http://www.first-draft.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3070
[NB: Maybe when we catch one, all the others move up a notch?]
***If you enjoy PBD and support what we are doing, you can help by forwarding a copy of this issue to your friends (using the envelope link below) or by sending them a copy of its URL (http://pbd.blogspot.com).
I don't get anything personally out of this project, except the satisfaction of doing it (I don't run ads, etc). The credit really all goes to the people whose material I copy and redistribute. But if I do have a "mission," it is to get this information into the hands of as many people as I can.***
Yet another Bolton disclosure. It’s about time to put this “tough boss” nonsense to rest. These issues have nothing to do with that. They have to do with a political appointee trying to get conscientious intelligence professionals fired or reassigned when they dare to point out that he is distorting or misrepresenting or LYING about intelligence matters – and not just once, but as a repeated pattern that can only be explained in one way: he was the point man on trying to discipline the intelligence community into shaping intelligence data to fit Bush Co. policy justifications. It’s astonishing that even after the recent story confirming that the Iraq war was built upon a foundation of lies and phony intelligence we are still taking a bum like this seriously for a PROMOTION to a crucial position in international diplomacy
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/07/politics/07bolton.html
John R. Bolton's effort in 2002 to oust a top Central Intelligence Agency analyst from his post in a dispute over Cuba represented a troubling breach of the line between policy makers and intelligence, the agency's former deputy director has told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, according to a transcript of the exchange. . . The ex-official, John E. McLaughlin, who spent 32 years in the C.I.A., said the episode was "the only time I had ever heard of such a request" from a policy maker, that a C.I.A. officer or analyst be transferred. . . The analyst, Fulton Armstrong, was the national intelligence officer for Latin America and had clashed with Mr. Bolton's office about a speech that Mr. Armstrong thought overstated the extent of Cuba's weapons programs.
More: http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/000589.html
Richard Armitage surprises everyone by publicly backing Bolton’s nomination. It’s surprising because it is apparently common knowledge in DC that he has been working hard behind the scenes to undermine Bolton’s case. So, what game is Armitage playing? Steven Clemons peels back the different layers
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/000590.html
Where is Colin Powell? http://www.first-draft.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3078
Bush linked to Abramoff: will he give back the money?
http://www.buzzflash.com/alerts/05/05/ale05068.html
False piety: distasteful in anyone, but utterly gag-inducing coming from Tom DeLay
http://www.first-draft.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3077
"Just think of what we could accomplish if we checked our pride at the door, if collectively we all spent less time taking credit and more time deserving it," DeLay told the 54th annual National Day of Prayer gathering on Capitol Hill. "If we spent less time ducking responsibility and more time welcoming it. If we spent less time on our soapboxes and more time on our knees."
DeLay drew appreciative smiles when he added, "For in God, all things are possible, ladies and gentlemen. And even greatness from lowly sinners like you and me -- especially me."
[NB: Yes, that’s right, especially you. I think I read that admitting your sins is the first step toward forgiveness. We’ll be waiting for that. . .]
GOP Representative says that we’re in Iraq for the oil: thanks for making it explicit, Congressman Lungren
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/index.html?blog=/politics/war_room/2005/05/06/oil/index.html
I don’t know how much oil we’re getting out of Iraq, but it looks like we’ll be there for a long, long time. . .
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/_/id/7287564
http://slate.msn.com/id/2118295/fr/rss/
The Washington Post and Los Angeles Times front, and the NYT teases, the latest carnage in Iraq, where eight days of insurgent violence have left more than 270 dead. The violence culminated in twin suicide bomb attacks that killed 25. . . The resurgence of attacks following the election has surprised U.S. officials, "ending hopes that the success of the January elections had set back the insurgency."
More victories for Bush’s tough-guy foreign policy (in which it seems more and more that the strategy is not to be able to influence events, but simply not to be blamed for them)
http://www.juancole.com/2005/05/will-iran-get-bomb-it-seems-pretty.html
It seems pretty obvious that Iran will get the nuclear bomb and there is not much anyone can do about it. I'm not saying it is a good thing. I'm just saying that I can't imagine what would stop it.
http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/1346
[NYT] White House and Pentagon officials are closely monitoring a recent stream of satellite photographs of North Korea that appear to show rapid, extensive preparations for a nuclear weapons test, including the construction of a reviewing stand, presumably for dignitaries, according to American and foreign officials who have been briefed on the imagery.
Kansas and creationism: the stakes are perfectly clear
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_05/006266.php
I'm glad to see that the Kansas folks aren't wasting time pretending that Intelligent Design has nothing to do with religion or creationism. Newly elected board member Kathy Martin is open about where she stands: "There are alternatives. Children need to hear them....We can't ignore that our nation is based on Christianity — not science."
Looks like the term of the new Pope is going to be even tougher for liberal Catholics
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/07/national/07catholic.html
An American Jesuit who is a frequent television commentator on Roman Catholic issues resigned yesterday under orders from the Vatican as editor of the Catholic magazine America because he had published articles critical of church positions, several Catholic officials in the United States said. . . The order to dismiss the editor, the Rev. Thomas J. Reese, was issued by the Vatican's office of doctrinal enforcement - the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith - in mid-March when that office was still headed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak on the matter, said. Soon after, Pope John Paul II died and Cardinal Ratzinger was elected pope, taking the name Benedict XVI.
Bonus item: How many “Al Qaeda number threes” can we capture?
http://www.first-draft.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3070
[NB: Maybe when we catch one, all the others move up a notch?]
***If you enjoy PBD and support what we are doing, you can help by forwarding a copy of this issue to your friends (using the envelope link below) or by sending them a copy of its URL (http://pbd.blogspot.com).
I don't get anything personally out of this project, except the satisfaction of doing it (I don't run ads, etc). The credit really all goes to the people whose material I copy and redistribute. But if I do have a "mission," it is to get this information into the hands of as many people as I can.***
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)