Scalia: Just be Glad he’s not a fan of Itchy and Scratchy



Marge: Do you want your son to become Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, or a sleazy male stripper?
Homer: Can't he be both, like the late Earl Warren?
Marge: Earl Warren wasn't a stripper!
Homer: Now who's being naive?



Ah, Nino, if only you watched the Simpsons instead of that other Fox show, 24. You’d see a much truer version of America.
And maybe you’d have an easier time distinguishing fact from fiction.

As you’ve probably read by now, it seems our Justice Scalia, long revered by conservatives for his intellect, has been pointing to the exploits of TV’s own Jack Bauer, to justify torture. “Jack Bauer saved hundreds of thousands of lives,” he exclaimed to a group of judges discussing the issue of torture in Canada.

Actually, I doubt Scalia really is watching 24. If he were, he would know that the anti-terrorist agency CTU, where Jack Bauer works when he isn’t being fired, imprisoned, hunted, or tortured by Chinese/Arab/Russian thugs is:

A. run by incompetent but well meaning nincompoops who can’t even secure their own building from terrorist infiltration through sewer lines and probably the front door,
B. Staffed by computer geniuses who can’t tell when their system is breached, and don’t notice when the terrorists they desperately seek have set up shop just blocks away from them, and
C. constantly letting terrorists escape when the bad guys use techniques like the old, they-got-in-their-SUVs-and-drove-away trick

In short, CTU is a pretty good approximation of FEMA, or the TSA. Or, the Department of Homeland Security.

On the other hand, the people at CTU can be captured and tortured with a power drill in the shoulder one minute, and be back at their work stations the next, without so much as a whimper. Government employees, and no doubt unionized. Also, their cellphones work absolutely everywhere, even in the cargo hold of a jet at 20 thousand feet.

By the way, Judge, Jack Bauer (and by that I mean the fictional character) knows when he’s breaking the law—it’s just that he does it anyway. He’s always willing to face the legal consequences.

It’s shocking to hear a Supreme Court justice utter statements like,
“Jack Bauer saved Los Angeles!. …Are you going to convict Jack Bauer?” but you have to admit it is consistent with his world view.

I wonder if he is planning to support Fred Thompson because he’s been such a good district attorney.

On the other hand, it could be worse. We should be grateful that Scalia’s apparently not a fan of the Itchy and Scratchy Show. Imagine:

“Are you going to convict Itchy? He wrapped a lit bomb up with Scratchy’s tongue. Sure he blew Scratchy’s head off just for fun, but Itchy saved Springfield.”

Antonin Scalia gave us George W. Bush as our president in 2001. Maybe, if we’re very, very good, he’ll help Jack Bauer become president in 2008. Although, personally, I’d like to see Chloe get a chance.

Things I learned from the Republican Debate


Clearly, the candidates are as eager for the end of the Bush/Cheney era as the rest of us, and there was some hating on Bush from time to time. Tancredo, Huckabee and McCain all took direct shots at Their President, and almost everybody took indirect shots when they talked about global warming and energy policy.


Nothing scares Americans more than cancer.
--Sam “Snowflake” Brownback

The islamodemocrats will socialize our medicine and are fighting the Cold War which Ronald Reagan won singlehandedly.
---Guiliani


America is about to turn into the Balkans, or at least is about to be “split apart into a lot of balkanized pieces” so never mind learning Spanish, better brush up on your Croatian or Serbian idioms.
---Tom Tancredo

Tom Tancredo is bat shit crazy
--everybody else

But at least he said George Bush can never darken the doorstep of a Tancredo White House, unless he’s holding a leaf blower and ready to do the yard work that the deported Mexicans are no longer around to do.

Probably a lot of people died needlessly in Iraq because Bush and Rumsfeld and Cheney are total fuck ups. (“Americans have made great sacrifices, some of which were unnecessary because of this management of the war -- mismanagement of this conflict.
---McCain


Mitt Romney believes in God and Jesus Christ is his savior. Sam Brownback knows that God knows and loves him. But no one believes in God more than Mike Huckabee. Still, he is forced to admit he “wasn’t there” when God created the Heavens and the Earth. Also, he doesn’t know that humans actually are primates (“If anybody wants to believe that they are the descendants of a primate, they are certainly welcome to do it.")

John McCain believes that “God loves us,” except Rudy Guiliani, whom He tried to smite with a lightning bolt, but missed

Tuesday was the birthday of Ronald Reagan, the One True God of republicans. Shouldn’t we all have had the day off or something?
--Huckabee

Duncan Hunter hates immigrants, but he loves the cheap Mexican Lipitor for “Grampy.”

Guiliani Time is suspended for poor, overly harshly sentenced Scooter Libby

The reason that Republicans got their asses kicked in 2006 was they spent too much money on prescription drug plans.

The only way the Republican debates could bring more funny is if Curly Sue co-star and fake red pick up driver Fred Thompson gets into the race.

Cindy Sheehan Calls it Quits

In a Dailykos diary entitled “Good Riddance Attention Whore” Cindy Sheehan announces that she is going home, resigning, as she puts it, from the role of “the face of the American anti-war movement.”

She is obviously exhausted, embittered, frustrated, and angry, saying that being called “an attention whore” is one of the milder rebukes she’s faced. The Iraq funding bill was the last straw for her. Like so many other anti-war activists, she felt betrayed by the Democrats who supported the bill; after the vote she publicly quit the party.

On Memorial Day, (her dead son Casey was born on Memorial day in 1979), she wrote:

I am demonized because I don’t see party affiliation or nationality when I look at a person, I see that person’s heart. If someone looks, dresses, acts, talks and votes like a Republican, then why do they deserve support just because he/she calls him/herself a Democrat?
And this:

The most devastating conclusion that I reached this morning, however, was that Casey did indeed die for nothing. His precious lifeblood drained out in a country far away from his family who loves him, killed by his own country which is beholden to and run by a war machine that even controls what we think. I have tried every since he died to make his sacrifice meaningful. Casey died for a country which cares more about who will be the next American Idol than how many people will be killed in the next few months while Democrats and Republicans play politics with human lives. It is so painful to me to know that I bought into this system for so many years and Casey paid the price for that allegiance. I failed my boy and that hurts the most.


For what it’s worth, Cindy, you didn’t fail Casey. We all did—his fellow citizens who didn’t do enough to prevent a shameful, needless war, and the politicians who won’t do what it takes now to stop it.

We owe a huge debt to Cindy Sheehan, who was as brave in her own way as her son Casey was. Even now, as she leaves the fray, she’s demonized by the right wing nutblogs.

Meanwhile, the best way to make certain we Americans get the full story about how well things are going in Iraq is to decree that we don’t see its failures. No photos of bombings, no photos of the wounded (without their prior consent in writing) and, of course, no photos of flag draped coffins.


The war grinds on, and grinds up the lives of so many good people.

Learning about Gun Control From the Anti-Abortion Advocates

Today was supposed to be OneDayBlogSilence day, in honor of the memories of the 32 students and teachers killed at Virginia Tech two weeks ago. I didn't favor silence when it was announced, and I don't now. We don't talk enough about guns and mental illness in this country. So here's a suggestion. Democrats should go back at gun control, instead of cravenly avoiding any discussion of it to stay away from the wrath of the NRA. But they should go back at it the way the anti-abortion forces have fought against Roe v. Wade. One step at a time. Pick an extreme example, the way anti-abortion activists brought the late term abortion case to the Supreme Court. For gun control advocates there are at least two obvious ones. One is, don't let people with known mental illness, who are declared to be a danger to themselves and/or others, get guns. Period. This is controversial, not because the NRA opposes it--they don't--but because mental health advocates see it as an invasion of the privacy and rights of the mentally ill. Sorry, but nobody has an absolute right to a gun, just as nobody has an absolute right to a driver's license (or, in the case of gay couples, a marriage license).

The second example is an absolute no brainer; people on terrorist watch lists can buy guns. And they do. Why? Why is it I can't get on an airplane with a bottle of Prell, but terrorists can buy guns. This is the kind of crazy gun law that can be overcome.

Of course, it's only a start. Reinstating the assault weapons ban would be the next logical step. But at least it's something.

Spare Us All Your “Suffering”, Laura




Gosh, it just has to suck to be Laura Bush. Imagine holidays with her mother-in-law, for starters. And then, of course, there’s her husband, the master of disaster himself. I picture her secretly wearing an “I’m with Stupid” t-shirt under her knit suits, just to compensate.

And now it turns out she’s really bummed out about the war in Iraq, way more than you or I, or anybody else except the Fortunate Son himself. She told Ann Curry on the Today Show (h/t americablog):

“No one suffers more than the President and I,” watching the television reports of endless death and misery from Iraq. If only.

Of course, had she thought for just a moment before emitting Stepford wife-speak, she would have realized how clueless, and how arrogant a statement that was, and how it would sound to the families of the thousands of soldiers killed, wounded, or currently in harm’s way in the endless war in Iraq. But no. Arrogance is the default mode for the entire family. They are entitled to your sympathy and support, because they have feelings, just like regular people, only more so.

No good ever comes of the Bushes trying to demonstrate they’re just like the rest of us, from the robotically delivered “Message: I care,” by GHW Bush in an unguarded moment, to Barbara Bush’s “things are working out very well for them,” as she surveyed Katrina victims in Houston, to The Decider himself, who doesn’t go to soldiers’ funerals, and waited six weeks after the scandal broke to go to Walter Reed (to name just two examples).

Laura Bush wants you to know the burden is heavy on her husband.
Well here’s the deal, Laura: no one should suffer more than he does.
There’s a simple solution—end the damned war.

Secretly Abandoning A Two Year Old Strategy--When the Iraqis Stand Up, We’ll…Still be There.


When Defense Secretary Gates told the Iraqis last week that they had to get serious about reconciliation, who knew he meant reconciliation between al Maliki’s government and the Bush administration?

Yes, once again, in another painful demonstration of the futility of the American mission, al Maliki countermands the US military’s security plan, this time, for the 3 mile long Great Wall of Adhamiyah, meant to protect a Sunni neighborhood from Shiite thugs. You will recall he also ordered American troops last fall to pull down roadblocks around Sadr City when it pissed off Muqtada al-Sadr.

No matter the intention, it was kind of a no brainer that the Sunnis would feel that they were being caged in by a wall. It’s also a no brainer that al Maliki needs the support of other Arab nations, which are mostly led by Sunnis who want to see more Sunnis in his Shiite majority government.

Speaking of standing down, remember “when the Iraqi army stands up, we’ll stand down”? Sure you do. It was the strategy of the United States since 2005. Bush said it repeatedly. So did Rummy and the generals. They even gave us progress reports, none of them true, about the number of Iraqi divisions who were ready to stand up, as it were, and take over for American troops.

Yeah, well, never mind. The Pentagon’s policy has “shifted,” according to an under-noticed but important story by the McClatchy news service.

“Training Iraqi troops is no longer the focus of US policy,” it said. The Abizaid/Casey strategy of transitioning from American troops to Iraqis has been ditched in favor of American troops securing the country, defeating the insurgents and sectarian trouble makers.

In other words, getting in the middle of the civil war.

Gates didn’t even mention training Iraqi soldiers when he was in Iraq Thursday to warn al Maliki that the clock is ticking. You see, it’s ok for Gates to threaten the Iraqis that America’s patience is running out, and that he and Petraeus will be evaluating the situation this summer to see whether to end the surge or keep the soldiers there. It’s okay for Gates to strongly suggest that if they don’t make political progress by June 30, including a plan for sharing oil profits and allowing Saddam era Sunni politicians back into government, bad things could happen to the al Maliki government. Like, al Malilki could be out.

But it’s definitely not okay for Democrats to essentially prove Gates is correct by putting a withdrawal timetable in the Iraq funding bill. That would be failing to support the troops.

Proving that he approves of some of the ways the Bush government operates, al Maliki is denying that there is a civil war in Iraq. Maybe he gets his intelligence from Cheney.

If you can read this story, about the torture and murder of one of Iraq’s most prominent television news anchors, a Shiite who was killed because she refused to be pushed out of her home, and conclude that there isn’t a civil war in Iraq, there’s a press secretary job waiting for you.

OneDayBlogSilence--A Lovely Gesture, but...


There is a clearly heartfelt movement afoot to create a blogosphere memorial to the victims of the Virginia Tech shootings, on April 30, called OneDayBlogSilence.

The goal is to cause everybody who reads and/or writes blogs to stop and think. No words, and no comments, just silent reflection about the dead in Virginia, and, if you like, victims of violence everywhere.

It seems these days that the unexpressed thought has gone the way of the buggy whip, thanks to the web, 24/7 cable, blackberrys, etc. And yet, as much as I admire the OneDayBlogSilence gesture, I don’t think silence is the best way to share our heartbreak and support for the families of these victims.

Because of the Imus situation, there’s been a lot of talk about the “national conversation,” as it relates to race relations. That phrase always makes me roll my eyes. Far too often what passes for a national conversation is no more than we the people watching television as other people speak, presumably, but not necessarily, for us.

Invariably issues that deserve a national conversation are ignored until there’s a fresh incident. Then we watch people talk at each other, or yell at each other, for hours and hours, until the producers and the hosts and the home audience are exhausted, and move on to the next hot issue.

One day it’s race, another day it’s guns. There’s an event, an easily digestible moment, and if there’s video to go with it, yippee. Television coverage, however, does not equal a thoughtful “national conversation,” since it lacks participation by any of the actual people who are the “nation.”

The blogosphere, on the other hand, can do a better job of providing a forum for an honest dialogue. (It often doesn’t, for a variety of reasons, but it certainly can). And as the shootings this week remind us, we need to talk about our country’s fascination with both real and fictional violence. The second amendment and the availability of guns are only part of the equation. Any position you can reduce to a prefix, pro- or anti-, is easy to grasp. This issue isn’t that easy. Conversation is only a start, but it can at least lead to consensus. Democrats have been so afraid to even talk about guns that it’s hard to know exactly what the consensus opinion is.

Senator Harry Reid is quoted as saying that before tackling the issue we should all take a breath. Fair enough. But while we’re waiting to exhale, I would say devoting April 30 to wrestling with the national appetite for violence, that issue and no other, would be an equally fitting memorial to the horror that occurred at Virginia Tech. That’s what I’ll be doing on my blog.

Wanted: One Scapegoat For New “War Czar” Position


Because some of the generals they’ve approached have begun to talk about it, we’re now hearing about the Bush war machine’s efforts to hire a “War Czar.” The problem is, for some reason, nobody wants the job.

I know, I know, you’re thinking we already have a war czar. It’s the guy who likes to dress up in flight suits and call himself a war president (and who in fact is the Commander in Chief).

The War Czar is supposed to direct the Iraq and Afghanistan war efforts, issuing orders to the Pentagon, the State Department and other agencies.

The job, according to the Washington Post, has been offered to at least three 4 star generals, who’ve all turned it down. One of the generals is ret. Marine General Jack Sheehan. He describes a White house torn between delusional Cheney’s hard line “al Qaeda is there and we’ve got to fight them" attitude, and the pragmatists who see a catastrophe for Republicans in 2008, and want to find a way out.

The very fundamental issue is, they don't know where the hell they're going," Sheehan is quoted as saying to the WaPo.

If you’re not sure how you feel about the idea, consider that it’s enthusiastically endorsed by Fred Kagan of the American Enterprise Institute, who was the author of the surge plan:

“Hope they do it, and hope they do it soon.” Gosh, that means it's a great idea.

So let’s help them write a want ad.

Wanted: Scapegoat with high threshold for pain, low self-esteem to act as mouthpiece/puppet for Bush war. Must be willing to provide “guidance” to the President on the conduct of the war, in the form of stating to him what he already wants to do so that he can say it was Czar’s idea. Must be able to take responsibility for mistakes and disasters. Must be prepared to leave job suddenly and without warning.

On the other hand, they could just give the job to McCain. He loves the shopping.

Al Gonzalez and Al Capone--Two of a Kind




As the Washington Post reports today, the nation’s chief law enforcement officer, our very own Alberto Gonzalez, has “retreated from public view this week” to rehearse his upcoming testimony in front of the Senate Judiciary committee about the US attorneys purge. They’re planning three days of “rigorous mock testimony.”

The first question, of course, is why do you have to rehearse if you intend to tell the truth? (The second question is, when they rehearse, who plays the role of Senator Orrin Hatch—a cocker spaniel?)

Sure he’ll be asked detailed questions, but it’s not like he can’t refer to notes. So what’s the problem?

Other than the discomfort of having to acknowledge that he lied or was inexplicably able to remember exactly how much he was involved in the purge as it was unfolding, he’s got another hurdle.

He can’t talk to his crew so they can get their stories straight ahead of time. From the Washington Post:

“Justice officials and outside experts said the effort is further hampered by legal conflicts among Gonzales and his senior aides. Top Democrats have also accused department officials of misleading Congress in previous testimony, leading Justice lawyers to insist on limiting contact between key players to avoid allegations of obstructing a congressional investigation, officials said.”

It was put more plainly by former Senator Dan Coats, a Republican who helped prep Justice Alito (and, sadly, Harriet Miers) for their confirmation hearings.

“You don't have the ability to coordinate with other organizations or individuals that are going to be testifying, and there will be a lot of people looking for inconsistencies. It is no small challenge for the attorney general.”

The icing on the cake is the presence of Timothy E. Flanigan as one of the guys who is prepping Gonzalez. Flanigan was a deputy White House counsel who left to become chief counsel at Tyco. When Tyco wanted to kill tax legislation that would have barred them from receiving federal contracts, Flanigan hired Jack Abramoff to lobby for them.

He was nominated to be a deputy attorney general by Bush in 2005 but withdrew his name when it became clear he’d have to talk about Abramoff.

Flanigan also helped Gonzalez write the book on the Bush administration’s torture policy.

Gonzo should stop wasting his time—he’s toast. And when he goes down, it won’t be for helping the Bush administration shred our constitution and moral standing around the world. It will be for an “overblown personnel matter,” to use his own description.

You know, like Al Capone going to jail for tax fraud. Fitting, that.

McCain A Democrat? It almost happened....


Was John McCain on the verge of switching parties in 2001?


There’s a fascinating story in The Hill today, in which they report that according to both Tom Daschle and former Congressman Tom Downey (D-NY), McCain’s close adviser, John Weaver, approached Downey in 2001 to talk about McCain switching parties. Downey, a close friend of Weaver’s, is quoted as saying that Weaver told him McCain would be interested “if the right people asked him.” What followed were two months of talks with Daschle, who says they discussed “committees and his seniority” among many other things.

So what happened? Before a deal could be done, Senator Jim Jeffords of Vermont quit the Republican party to become an independent, throwing control of the Senate to the Democrats. The talks with McCain (and also Lincoln Chafee, whom the Democrats had approached) broke off.

The McCain people are vehemently denying the story. But the level of detail, and the fact that some of it is already included in Tom Daschle’s 2003 memoir, convince me that it’s true. Besides, what would be the motive for Daschle or Downey to lie? As for the McCain campaign…

How does this story not translate to the end of a short but exceedingly bumpy road for the Straight Talk Express 2008? No wonder Republicans are looking at former senator and “Curly Sue” co-star Fred Thompson so hopefully.

You could shrug it off as just another bad day in a very bad week for John McCain, except for this:

Can you imagine Senate Democrats trying to form a cohesive Iraq exit strategy with McCain in the party, and Lieberman tagging along?

Talk about a nightmare scenario.

Rummy's Privatized Obsession and the Impact on Walter Reed



The firing of the Army Secretary and removal of the temporary head of Walter Reed may make you wonder what’s going on in Washington. Here’s a hint: This is what accountability looks like. You may have forgotten—after all we’ve never seen it before in the Bush administration. You can’t count finally shoving Rummy out the door as “holding him accountable” for anything, not with the glorious send-off he got and the continuing accolades (“the finest secretary of Defense this nation has ever had”) from Darth Cheney.

So, at least we can say good for Defense Secretary Gates for forcing Army Secretary Francis Harvey out. The last straw, apparently, was Harvey’s appointment of General Kevin Kiley as temporary commander of Walter Reed, replacing General Weightman. Kiley was in charge of Walter Reed before Weightman, and had been told repeatedly of the disgraceful conditions in the outpatient care facilities. Gates wouldn’t have Kiley back, even temporarily.

A key issue to be resolved is how much Rumsfeld’s obsession with privatizing the military contributed to the Walter Reed situation. Fortunately both the House and Senate have hearings scheduled, beginning Monday at Walter Reed.

General Weightman is scheduled to appear before Rep. Henry Waxman’s Oversight committee. It took the threat of a subpoena to make it happen, since the Army was dead set against him testifying, but now he will show up.

The Army Times reports the committee wants to talk to Weightman about the impact of the Army’s decision to award a five year, 120 million dollar contract to IAP World Services, which is run by Al Neffgen, former COO of Halliburton’s KBR, and David Swindle (that’s really his name), also formerly of KBR. The decision to bring in private contractors at Walter Reed led to a virtual mass exodus of experienced career staffers.

Waxman’s committee released a memo from Garrison commander Peter Garibaldi to Weightman which:

“describes how the Army’s decision to privatize support services at Walter Reed Army Medical Center was causing an exodus of ‘highly skilled and experienced personnel.’ ... According to multiple sources, the decision to privatize support services at Walter Reed led to a precipitous drop in support personnel at Walter Reed.”

IAP won the contract under highly suspect circumstances in the first place, and they’re known for having failed to deliver ice to Katrina victims.

Rumsfeld is gone but his impact lives on.

“Finest” defense secretary ever, yessiree.

Gates has his work cut out for him.

No Scrotums, Please, We're Republicans


It always seems to be two steps forward, one step back in this country. Here I was so relieved that there was no mass right-wing hysteria created when Prince did Shadow Puppet Porn with his guitar at the Superbowl (maybe we’ve matured since the Janet Jackson moment, I thought), only to pick up the paper this morning to learn that the word “scrotum” is too dirty for 10 year old school children. Librarians in a number of states are refusing to order the book, a Newberry Award winner, because of the presence of the word “scrotum.” Gosh, I hope they don’t have to decide on a biography of Tom Vilsack….

By the way, the book is called The Higher Power of Lucky, by Susan Patron. And speaking of books, which I see is Number 20 on the Amazon list, thanks, no doubt, to the controversy.

Don't tell me you still haven't bought Naked Republicans, a Full-Frontal Exposure of Right-wing Hypocrisy and Greed.

JUST SAY IT, HILLARY

Hillary Clinton is a very smart woman, and her husband remains one of the canniest political analysts ever. So I have to believe they will soon dump the strategy of refusing to admit her Iraq war vote was a mistake. All over New Hampshire this weekend she was asked to renounce her vote, but she wouldn’t do it. If she had, it would be a one day story before the press moved on to something else. Instead, the refusal is itself becoming a big part of the campaign story, and that ain’t good.

Check out the headlines from her weekend in New Hampshire:

In the Washington Post: “Clinton Parries Iraq Question in N.H.”
The New York Times: “In New Hampshire, Clinton Owns Up to her Vote on Iraq” (and today’s front page NYT: “For Clinton and Obama, Different Tests on Iraq”). And here on HuffingtonPost: “Clinton Dodges Iraq Questions, says Bush Incompetent”
“Clinton Cheered in NH: Some war Foes Skeptical” on Politico.com.

NBC Nightly News described it as “The question that won’t go away.” And Terry McAuliffe, former DNC chairman and Hillary Clinton adviser, on CNN’s Late Edition Sunday, spent about half the interview defending her decision not to acknowledge her vote was a mistake.

Saturday a voter named Roger Tilton from Nashua New Hampshire challenged her this way:

"I want to know if right here, right now, once and for all and without nuance, you can say that war authorization was a mistake," Tilton said. "I, and I think a lot of other primary voters -- until we hear you say it, we're not going to hear all the other great things you are saying."

Her answer? “Well, I have said, and I will repeat it, that knowing what I know now, I would never have voted for it.”

Now the question is why? Why allow yourself to be dogged by this question, one that is easy to handle and could then be put aside. In a front page NY Times story today Clinton adviser Mark Penn suggests that the term “mistake” should be reserved for Bush. Okay, then find a different way to say it. It's not going away.

Over at Talking Points Memo, they’ve posted Hillary’s full pre-war vote speech. As you’ll see, she did not vote for a pre-emptive war, as she has pointed out frequently while campaigning. Of course you’ll also see that she was a hawk, and you’ll see that in the final paragraphs, her thinking bears a certain resemblence to Bush/Cheney’s when it comes to conflating 9/11 with Saddam:

"And finally, on another personal note, I come to this decision from the perspective of a Senator from New York who has seen all too closely the consequences of last year's terrible attacks on our nation. In balancing the risks of action versus inaction, I think New Yorkers who have gone through the fires of hell may be more attuned to the risk of not acting. I know that I am."
--SENATE SPEECH Oct 10 2002


It seems the Clinton strategists are thinking ahead to the general election, calculating she has be more centrist to win independents. (Why they feel that way I don’t know, since Independents voted Democratic and anti-war in 2006). But even with her big lead in name recognition and money, it’s difficult to see how she, or any Democrat, is going to get the nomination without being a full throated, anti-war candidate. Senator Clinton is being pulled left by Edwards and Obama (and the other anti-war candidates) and maybe she thinks she’s gone far enough.

She hasn’t. Democrats who’ve been anti-war since day one remember that when Hillary was busy earning her national security cred as a tough, hawkish freshman Democrat, she was pretty sure of her facts about Iraq.

Here’s what she told Code Pink in March 2003, before the war:

"There is a very easy way to prevent anyone from being put into harm's way, that is for Saddam Hussein to disarm". "I have absolutely no belief he will. I have to say this is something I've followed for more than a decade."

That was then. Now, to say, “I have taken responsibility for my vote. The mistake was by this President who misled the Congress,” isn’t going to cut it.

Yes, Bush did lie and mislead Congress. But 23 of your Senate colleagues were not taken in by the deceptions; they voted against the war. What does it mean to “take responsibility” for your vote, anyway? You were misled, and it was a mistake to trust the President to use war as a last resort. Oh, and you're sorry.

Just say it, will ya?


It's not too late to buy Naked Republicans, A Full-Frontal Exposure of Right-wing Hypocrisy and Greed.

363 Tons (of dollars) And What Do You Get?


363 tons of cash were shipped to Iraq on wooden pallets just before the “hand over” of the government—that’s about 4 billion for those of you who don’t usually weigh your hundred dollar bills. This news was first revealed in the summer of 2005, but more details were provided yesterday in oversight hearings chaired by Rep. Henry Waxman, who asked, “Who in their right mind would send 363 tons of cash into a war zone?”

Paul Bremer, the guy who was the administrator of the Coalition Provisional Authority back when the Bush Administration thought the Mission Was Accomplished, told the committee that the Iraqi finance minister asked for the cash.

Almost nine billion of that money was never accounted for, you’ll be surprised to learn.

Hey, they were in the middle of a war, and there was no banking system, he said.

"I acknowledge that I made mistakes and that, with the benefit of hindsight, I would have made some decisions differently," Bremer said.

Ya think?

The timing of this vivid war story is especially bad, coming as it does on the heels of the President’s just submitted budget for 2008.

Oh, and guess who’ll be paying for Bush’s War?

If you guessed grannies, kids and the working poor, you’ve obviously been paying attention to how things work in the Bush Administration. Finally, the President is asking Americans to share the sacrifice for his war. Not all Americans, mind you—just the ones who are needy.

To pay for the Bush/Cheney war machine, and, of course, tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and corporations, the President suggests cuts in Medicare and Medicaid, and that’s just for starters. Because our eyes glaze over at the word “budget” most of us can’t even imagine how to convert the numbers into real human costs, which, of course, the White House is counting on. But Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont breaks it down. (So did Diane Feinstein and others, by the way).

Eliminating the Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP), which is a vital nutrition program primarily for low-income seniors but also serving mothers, infants and children across the country.

A $379 million cut to the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, which helps senior citizens and low income families pay for home heating.

A $100 million cut for Head Start, at a time when only about one-half of the children eligible for this program actually participate due to a lack of funding.. A complete elimination of the Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) Program even though each and every year more people are diagnosed with TBI than those who suffer from breast cancer, HIV/AIDS, Spinal Cord Injury and Multiple Sclerosis combined.

A $310 million cut in the National Institutes of Health, including a big cut for the National Cancer Institute. A $172 million cut in elderly housing and a $115 million cut in housing for persons with disabilities.

Fortunately, with a Democratic majority, much of this is DOA.

Speaking of DOA, how about that Joe Lieberman (R-I-D Conn.) terror tax? As leader of the one man R-I-D Joe party, he proved that he can piss off both Republicans and Democrats at exactly the same time by proposing that Americans support the Bush war with a war on terrorism tax. (Doesn’t he know that to Republicans, every tax increase is like terrorism?) Good luck with your new friends, Joe.

Of course, I can't talk about numbers and Iraq without mentioning the numbers that matter most of all--3110 American soldiers killed, more than 22,800 wounded, and who even knows exactly how many Iraqis killed and wounded.

Some costs cannot be recouped, ever.

Dick Cheney's "Stomach for War"


Nothing like getting lectured about guts from a guy whose idea of hunting is to go to a private club and shoot cage-raised birds. And yet that’s what we got Sunday, when Dick Cheney was brought above ground, re-animated and rolled into Fox News, to tell America we need to have the “stomach to finish the task in Iraq.”

It was especially interesting to compare and contrast Darth Cheney’s gut check with the president’s comments later on 60 Minutes, when he said he didn’t watch the entire Saddam hanging video. Didn’t stay for the icky part—you know, the part when the guy he spent billions of dollars to have killed actually was killed. “They could have handled it a lot better,” Mr. Bush said.

Odds are the warrior in chief won’t be watching the video of Monday’s hangings, either, especially the part where Saddam’s half brother was accidentally decapitated by the ineptitude of the local hangman. (Or at least, the Iraqi officials said it was an accident.)

Let’s see…what exactly are we supposed to have “the stomach” for?
Three thousand dead Americans, 22 thousand injured Americans, hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis, and as part of an “important milestone” for the new Iraqi nation, three truly horrific, brutal execution that cannot help but bring shame by association to the people of the United States.

The question is not whether America has the stomach to keep fighting, but whether our leaders have the stomach to stop fighting. The Democrats, as usual, cannot agree on an anti-war strategy, perhaps because the Mainstream Media’s conventional wisdom still maintains that it is politically risky to vote to cut off funding for the escalation. But why? How is it that it requires courage to do what two thirds of the people want you to do? If you believe that, you are conceding that it’s impossible to beat Karl Rove, or his stand-ins, in 2008, when they try to paint anti-war candidates as “abandoning the troops.” Why are so many Democrats afraid that the American people, who have led the anti-war movement all along, will suddenly turn on them?

John Edwards had it right at the Riverside Church Sunday.

“Silence is betrayal, and I believe it is a betrayal not to speak out against the escalation of the war in Iraq.” Your move, Democrats.

On the other hand, maybe I’m making too much of this whole Iraq nightmare. After all, Cheney did tell us just this Sunday that “we have, in fact, made enormous progress.”

Which reminds me, when Cheney testifies in the Scooter Libby trial, will they even bother to swear him in? Will anybody on a jury believe that he’s capable of telling the truth?

CONDI'S DIARY: "NOTHING YOU CAN SAY CAN'T MAKE ME TURN AWAY FROM MY GUYS"



Dear Diary,

What drama! First there was the awkward overshare when I was caught on an open mike saying “my Fox guys, I love every single one of them.” (It was almost as bad as the time I slipped and referred to the president as “my husb—“ at a cocktail party. Remember that one, Diary? Ugh!) Then there was the whole dust up with Barbara Boxer over my Family of One…me.

At first blush, the “Fox guys” gush made me sound a little trampy, I suppose, especially that “I love every single one of them” part, but let’s face it, Brit, and Gibby, and Billy O, and of course, my honey Hanny, they’re all so dreamy. And more than that, they are dependable and reliable—they are there for me whenever I need them. Unlike so many, many men I know. (Robert Novak, I’m looking at you).

Like Thursday, when we needed a good distraction from the steaming heap of warmed over crap we call the New Way Forward, or, whatever. There I was, getting hammered from both sides at a Senate Foreign Relations committee hearing. I had nothing—they just totally crushed me. But then, my Fox Guys rescued me. It was beautiful, the way they stirred up a feminist fracas over Senator Boxer’s remark that I wouldn’t have to personally pay the price for all of our war mistakes because I have no immediate family involved.

Just between you and me, Diary, I know that Boxer, who is the original Mean Girl on campus (remember how she called me a liar?) never did say that it was because I’m single and have no children, not even a Snowflake baby, to groom for the Perpetual War Machine. When she went on about who pays the price for our Glorious War, I thought it was annoying, but I didn’t take it personally. Not like when Laura Bush told People Magazine I wouldn’t run for president because I’m single.

Thank God the Fox guys and the ever-vigilant patriots of the blogosphere were there to leap into battle. They drummed up a fake war even faster than Karen Hughes and the White House Iraq Group did. And all for me, me, me.


Honestly, diary, it was exactly like the time cute but communist John Edwards mentioned that Mary Cheney is a lesbian during the VP debates, and Dick didn’t bat a lizardy eye about it until Karl and Lynne C. made it the PC crime of the century.

And to think that Rush Limbaugh would suddenly make a case for feminists! Tee hee! (Didn’t he coin the term “femi-nazis” to describe Hillary Clinton and others?) I might even be offended that he made it a thing about race if it weren’t so funny, coming from him. How many times has he made racist comments on his radio show?

Between you and me, Diary, I don’t need any of those hunky Fox blowhards to defend me. I’m smarter, better educated, and more powerful than all of them put together.

But we did need a distraction from what I was actually talking about (“It’s not an escalation, it’s an augmentation”—ouch.) And these guys gave me enough cover to get the hell out of town and over to the Middle East, where everybody hates us but at least they have good reason to.

Note to self, Diary: when we send soldiers into Iran, point out to Rosie O’Donnell that Donald Trump thought it was a good idea. That’ll give us cover for weeks.

G'nite Diary.
xoxo
Condi