It's not the sex... it's the politics

Josh Marshall has been all over this story too and points us to this...

Finally, one detail here isn't getting enough attention. Rep. Alexander (R-LA), the first member of Congress to be alerted to the problem, says he contacted the NRCC. That's the House Republicans' election committee, a political organization entirely separate from the House bureaucracy and the Congress. (The head of the NRCC this cycle is Rep. Tom Reynolds (R-NY).) That is, to put it mildly, not in the disciplinary and administrative chain of command of the House of Representatives. Considering that the issue involved a minor, it seems highly inappropriate to discuss the matter with anyone not charged with policing the House. More to the point, however, you tell the head of the NRCC because you see the matter as a political problem. Reynolds is the one in charge of making sure Republican House seats get held. If an incumbent might have drop out or be kicked out you want him to know so that he can line up someone to replace him. You at least want to keep him abreast of the situation if you think a problem might develop. I cannot see any innocent explanation for notifying the head of the NRCC while not information the full membership of the page board.

Howie Klein has more. After asking When Will Hastert Resign?, he offers:

Like I said earlier, the Republican leaders can't get their stories straight about who knew what when. Last night Boehner said Hastert knew and promised "to take care of it" and today Boehner seemed to change his story. Hastert reacts like an enraged mother elephant if anyone suggests he knew. Unfortunately for the Illinois Elephant, Tom Reynolds decided he's not taking the rap for this one. Already sinking in the polls in his own re-election campaign, Reynolds went on the record today to say Hastert knew all along.

"National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Tom Reynolds (N.Y.) issued a statement Saturday in which he said that he had informed Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) of allegations of improper contacts between then-Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fla.) and at least one former male page, contradicting earlier statements from Hastert. GOP sources said Reynolds told Hastert earlier in 2006, shortly after the February GOP leadership elections. Hastert's response to Reynolds' warning remains unclear. Hastert's staff insisted Friday night that he was not told of the Foley allegations and are scrambling to respond to Reynolds' statement."

Hastert is a real piece of work. He was, after all, the one who covered Tom DeLay's ass all these years-- remember he was a protege of DeLay's not the other way around-- even going so far as to fire the chairman of the House Ethics Committee, Joel Hefley, after the Committee gave DeLay a mild slap on the wrist, replacing him with a low-IQ bimbo shill, "Doc" Hastings. Even the right wing Chicago Tribune is asking why Hastert let Foley keep his child-protection job.

Like a rat off a sinking ship...

That's they way I see the formerly great investigative reporter Bob Woodward who has since traded that honourable title for that of the connected insider hack. Apparently Bob has since seen that the only light at the end of the BushCo tunnel is the light of a train barreling down on us all and he's jumping out of the way. Having lost my respect for "AllThe President's Men" Woodward years ago, this latest turn-around just confirms my contempt. The enemy of my enemy is a bobby-come-lately hack.

As (the proudly eponymous) Matt Yglesias asks:

What's The Deal With Bob Woodward? His new book:

In Bob Woodward’s highly anticipated new book, “State of Denial,” President Bush emerges as a passive, impatient, sophomoric and intellectually incurious leader, presiding over a grossly dysfunctional war cabinet and given to an almost religious certainty that makes him disinclined to rethink or re-evaluate decisions he has made about the war. It’s a portrait that stands in stark contrast to the laudatory one Mr. Woodward drew in “Bush at War,” his 2002 book, which depicted the president — in terms that the White House press office itself has purveyed — as a judicious, resolute leader, blessed with the “vision thing” his father was accused of lacking and firmly in control of the ship of state.

Why were the earlier books so different? Did he somehow not notice this stuff before? It's a serious problem for the most prominent people in the journalism world to be merely lagging indicators, praising leaders when they're popular and then pointing out that, in fact, they suck only after a whole series of disasters discredit them.

Jack keeps giving...

Digby tells us that:

Crooked republican lobbyist, Jack Abramoff now is being reported to have had hundreds of meetings inside the White House. Offering gifts to the richest men in the White House. Free concert tickets, free dinners to nice restaurants, free trips, free travel. FREE FREE FREE.

Quite ironic how the poor of Katrina were left to starve and die, but Bush's friends get concert tickets and a free meal. The average American can't afford to take a vacation and these corrupt pieces of human garbage get free trips to Scotland to play golf. All they had to do was agree to screw over the Indians. It seems from the evidence that it was an easy call for them to make.

The question one wonders is how much more harm to America could George Bush and the republicans do to America if they were with the other side?

Kevin Drum has a favourite among the hundreds:

The House Government Reform Committee has released a bipartisan report on the Jack Abramoff scandal, including hundreds of emails between Abramoff and various GOP luminaries, including Karl Rove's assistant, Susan Ralston. And why not? Ralston used to work for Abramoff, after all.

You can see 'em all here. Mostly they seem to be obsessed with the giving and getting of skybox tickets to various sporting events, but Abramoff's bilking of Indian tribes and other clients is an ongoing favorite too. I haven't read the whole bunch, but I've reproduced my favorite exchange so far below. I wonder how many emails to "Susan's mc pager" didn't get into the White House system?

UPDATE: Or is it "Susan's rnc pager"? I can't tell.

ThinkProgress has more:

A House Government Reform Committee report establishes — based on e-mail messages and other records subpoenaed from criminal lobbyist Jack Abramoff’s lobbying firm — that at least 485 contacts occurred between Abramoff’s lobbying team and White House officials between 2001 to 2004.

The Committee documents 13 instances of Abramoff personally meeting with White House staff. Abramoff billed his clients for 32.3 hours for time spent with White House staff.

Last January, former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan repeatedly misled the public as to the extent of the relationship between the White House and Abramoff, suggesting there had only been "a few staff-level meetings."

Foley's Folly

The big issue for me is not that Foley is gay nor even that he might have had sex with a sixteen year old (which, as Glenn notes, may in fact be legal). The big issue is that the Republicans made a big show of passing a bill, the so-called "Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006" (of which Foley was a co-sponsor), because the Republicans cared so much about children.

Hastert: "At home we put children first, and Republicans are doing just that in the House."

GWB: "to protect our children from sexual and other violent crimes, will help prevent child pornography, and will make the Internet safer for our sons and daughters."

Yet when the GOP House Leadership became aware of the fact that Foley was a sexual predator, they exposed their hypocrisy and did, worse than nothing, they covered it up.

As Josh Marshall said:

I don't think cover-up is too strong a word since there was apparently an active effort to keep the allegations from the only Democrat who serves on the Page Board. That decision, I think, speaks volumes.

Glenn opines:

The most significant fact I've heard thus far is that, as reported by Roll Call, the GOP Chairman of the House Page Board (as he admits) excluded the Democratic Congressman on the Board from deliberations over what to do about Foley, thus ensuring that only Republicans knew about this problem (and therefore enabled them to conceal it and do nothing about it). And the conflicting, still-shifting stories about who in the House Leadership knew what and when they knew it suggest some real wrongdoing and, at the very least, produces precisely the whiff of cover-up which ensures that more and more reporters will be digging around and the story will endure.

Billmon:

So the congressional point man on sexual predation is -- or rather was -- a sexual predator. Why am I not surprised?

[...]

I think there's a long post, if not a book, to be written about this particular truth, which is the Jeckyll-and-Hyde split between appearances and reality in 21st century America -- the America where prostitutes pose as journalists (or vice versa), "Christian" activists lobby for legalized torture, generals swagger like Rambo in front of the cameras but cringe before their civilian masters in private, libertarian law professors write secret memos justifying the creation of a police state, sworn enemies of big government gorge themselves on pork, vomit, then gorge some more, and U.S. Senators with the racial values of a klavern leader masquerade as "compassionate conservatives."

And then, of course, there's our president, who preaches democracy and freedom by day and rewrites the Geneva Conventions by night.

Brad DeLong has more on the cover up:

You cannot read Roll Call and both versions of the Post story without concluding that Boehner was lying to somebody last night: three different stories in quick succession defeats all credulity.

You cannot read the Post this morning without concluding that Weisman and Babbington are unseemly eager to keep their readers from learning that Boehner was lying to somebody last night.

The State of the Union

Brad DeLong says of the torture bill:

This is bad. Very bad. I can't underscore how bad this is. This is our Fugitive Slave Act, our Sedition Act, our Korematsu. This is a danger to our domestic liberties and a terrifying threat to our national security--for its impact on our international standing and on our alliances may be terrible indeed.

[..]

Daniel Webster will certainly walk tonight, for nobody today can say that the Republic is rock-bottomed and copper-sheathed.

But she nevertheless does stand as she stood. Things have been just as bad, and things have been almost as bad in the memory of men yet living.

And then he talks about the events of the McCarthy era. Let's hope that the Edward R. Murrow's of today are hard at work against these latest crazed fear & hate mongers.

The numbers weren't there... do something about it.

The Editors at the Poorman have this to say about the Dems responsibility in this debacle and what voters can do in November.

It'’s true, “"the Democrats"” didn'’t send this awful, anti-Democratic bill to defeat. But, then, they didn'’t have the votes for it. Nor, indeed, did they fillibuster the bill. But, as Sen. Reid confessed, and as the final vote proved out, they didn'’t have the votes for that, either. But they should have made a futile gesture! you complain. Well, many Democrats did make futile gestures, futile speeches even, even crappy Hillary Clinton. But they should have made the futile gesture I wanted them to make! Well, perhaps they should have, but I fear we this discussion may now drifting from political commentary into interpretive dance criticism. The bottom line is the votes weren'’t there. The day was lost.

Basic mathematics explains why. Only 2-3% of the representatives of the majority party voted against it, as opposed to 75-85% of the minority. It would have been nice if, under circumstances carefully contrived by the majority party to be as politically difficult as possible, 100% of the minority went down to defeat. It would have been nice if any of the 15 trojan horse amendments introduced by the Democrats had suceeded. And a pony, if you please. But that didn'’t happen, and so we have to settle for defeat, and a Democratic rate of opposition only 30 times as high as the Republican.

From our history: the Fugitive Slave Act, the Alien and Sedition Acts, the internment of Japanese-Americans. Now the McCain Torture Bill - and this, too, shall pass. Now, whether it will pass into a shameful memory, or be overshadowed by still greater outrages on every alternate September, remains to be seen. What will most determine this is what party controls the aparatus of government - the party of 97-98% authoritarianism, or the party of 15-25%. Because if the Republicans are in control in 2008, and want to further degrade the country in order to hold on to the Congress and the White House, they will be proposing something which is as unthinkable today as the normalization of Abu Ghraib was two years ago - and the same merciless math assures us that this bill, too, shall pass. So, if this possibility concerns you, of fucking course it matters who wins in November. Look at the numbers. It matters more than anything.

But if you simply must blame Democrats for this, at least blame the ones who earned it. They have names.

The underachieving Bush

Deciding that, if it was OK to ask Clinton, it would be OK to ask they guy who still is President, Keith Olbermann investigates what GWB did to "stop bin Laden" in his first eight months in office preceding 9/11. The answer... nothing. And something they didn't do was take up the offer by the Taliban to turn bin Laden over to the Saudis. As Clinton said: At least I tried!

Olbermann also proves more conclusively that Bush, Cheney and Rice all lied about how no one could have anticipated the attacks by citing evidence that there were reports warning of such things and there had been for years.

They Hate Our Freedom

From Atrios:

The writ of habeas corpus is one of those basic foundations of modern Democracy. Without it, words like liberty and freedom have no meaning.

These are bad people running our government. Very bad.

Jack's back

From Justin Rood at the Muckracker we get confirmation of something unsurprising but still being denied by BushCo. It's as if... they were lying.

Roll Call's John Bresnahan and Paul Kane reports (sub. req.):

Hundreds of contacts between top White House officials and former lobbyist Jack Abramoff and his associates "raise serious questions about the legality and actions" of those officials, according to a draft bipartisan report prepared by the House Government Reform Committee.

The 95-page report, which White House officials reviewed Wednesday evening but has yet to be formally approved by the panel, singled out two of President Bush's top lieutenants, Karl Rove and Ken Mehlman, as having been offered expensive meals and exclusive tickets to premier sporting events and concerts by Abramoff and his associates.

In total, the committee was able to document 485 contacts between White House officials and Abramoff and his lobbying team at the firm Greenberg Traurig from January 2001 to March 2004, with 82 of those contacts occuring in Rove's office, including 10 with Rove personally. The panel also said that Abramoff billed his clients nearly $25,000 for meals and drinks with these officials during that period.

The Travesty

The black mark has now been indelibly etched in the Congressional record. The final Senate vote for the torture bill was 65-34. I am at a loss for words but, fortunately, Glenn Greenwald, though equally disgusted, is still articulate. Writing about Judge Taylor, who "today refused the Bush administration's request to issue a "stay" of her Order in the ACLU v. NSA case", he said:

As is the case virtually every time the legality of its conduct is challenged, the Bush administration has displayed nothing but contempt for the court in this case as well as for the very idea that their behavior can be or should be subject to the rule of law (which happens to be exactly why Congress today is going to give them the power to put people into black holes for the rest of their lives without being bothered by any review from any court or tribunal; the President knows best and must not have his decrees regarding Guilt and Permanent Imprisonment -- or eavesdropping -- reviewed by any court).

In talking about the travesty itself, Glenn wrote:

Opponents of this bill have focused most of their attention -- understandably and appropriately -- on the way in which it authorizes the use of interrogation techniques which, as this excellent NYT Editorial put it, "normal people consider torture," along with the power it vests in the President to detain indefinitely, and with no need to bring charges, all foreign nationals and even legal resident aliens within the U.S. But as Law Professors Marty Lederman and Bruce Ackerman each point out, many of the extraordinary powers vested in the President by this bill also apply to U.S. citizens, on U.S. soil.

As Ackerman put it: "The compromise legislation, which is racing toward the White House, authorizes the president to seize American citizens as enemy combatants, even if they have never left the United States. And once thrown into military prison, they cannot expect a trial by their peers or any other of the normal protections of the Bill of Rights." Similarly, Lederman explains: "this [subsection (ii) of the definition of 'unlawful enemy combatant'] means that if the Pentagon says you're an unlawful enemy combatant -- using whatever criteria they wish -- then as far as Congress, and U.S. law, is concerned, you are one, whether or not you have had any connection to 'hostilities' at all."

This last point means that even if there were a habeas corpus right inserted back into the legislation (which is unlikely at this point anyway), it wouldn't matter much, if at all, because the law would authorize your detention simply based on the DoD's decree that you are an enemy combatant, regardless of whether it was accurate. This is basically the legalization of the Jose Padilla treatment -- empowering the President to throw people into black holes with little or no recourse, based solely on his say-so.

There really is no other way to put it. Issues of torture to the side (a grotesque qualification, I know), we are legalizing tyranny in the United States. Period. Primary responsibility for this fact lies with the authoritarian Bush administration and its sickeningly submissive loyalists in Congress. That is true enough. But there is no point in trying to obscure the fact that it's happening with the cowardly collusion of the Senate Democratic leadership, which quite likely could have stopped this travesty via filibuster if it chose to (it certainly could have tried).

[...]

There is a profound and fundamental difference between an Executive engaging in shadowy acts of lawlessness and abuses of power on the one hand, and, on the other, having the American people, through their Congress, endorse, embrace and legalize that behavior out in the open, with barely a peep of real protest. Our laws reflect our values and beliefs. And our laws are about to explicitly codify one of the most dangerous and defining powers of tyranny -- one of the very powers this country was founded in order to prevent.

One could cite an infinite number of sources to demonstrate what a profound betrayal this bill is of the fundamental promises of the American system of government. As Justice Jackson wrote in his concurring opinion in Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443, 533 (1953):

Executive imprisonment has been considered oppressive and lawless since John, at Runnymede, pledged that no free man should be imprisoned, dispossessed, outlawed, or exiled save by the judgment of his peers or by the law of the land. The judges of England developed the writ of habeas corpus largely to preserve these immunities from executive restraint.

Thomas Jefferson, in his letter to Thomas Paine, 1789. ME 7:408, Papers 15:269, said: "I consider [trial by jury] as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution." And Patrick Henry warned us well in advance about Government officials who would seek to claim the right to imprison people without a trial:

Is the relinquishment of the trial by jury and the liberty of the press necessary for your liberty? Will the abandonment of your most sacred rights tend to the security of your liberty? Liberty, the greatest of all earthly blessings--give us that precious jewel, and you may take everything else! ...Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel.

In one sense, these observations are compelling because they define the core of what our country is supposed to be. But in another sense, they don't matter, because our Government is controlled by people and their followers who literally don't understand and, worse, simply do not believe in the defining values and principles of America. They know that this bill is a seizure of the most un-American powers imaginable, but their allegiance is to the acquisition of unlimited power and nothing else.

[...]

And as a result, we are now about to vest in the President the power to order anyone -- U.S. citizen, resident alien or foreign national -- detained indefinitely in a military prison regardless of where they are -- U.S. soil or outside of the country. American detainees are cut off from any meaningful judicial review and everyone else is cut off completely. They can be subject to torture with no recourse, and all of this happens on the unchecked say-so of the administration. Really, what could be more significant than this?

Sen. Harry Reid said this in voting against the bill:

Second, this bill authorizes a vast expansion of the President’s power to detain people – even U.S. citizens – indefinitely and without charge. No procedures for doing so are specified, no due process is provided, and no time limit on the detention is set. . . .

History will judge our actions here today. I am convinced that future generations will view passage of this bill as a grave error. I wish to be recorded as one who voted against taking this step.

But, as Glenn says:

it is still difficult to understand the Democrats' strategy here. They failed to try to mount a filibuster because they feared being attacked as coddlers of the terrorists. But now they are going to vote against the bill, thereby ensuring those exact accusations will be made, and loudly (the White House already started today). Yet at the same time, they absented themselves the whole time from the debate (until they magically appeared today) and thus lost the opportunity to defend their position. They make this same mistake over and over.

600

The House voted for GWB's torture bill... I'm not surprised, but I'm saddened and sickened. On GWB's say-so, anyone can be declared an unlawful enemy combatant, kidnapped, imprisoned, tortured... forever, with no right to a charge, evidence, trial or review. Disgraceful! Appalling!!!

The House approved an administration-backed system of questioning and prosecuting terrorism suspects yesterday, setting clearer limits on CIA interrogation techniques but denying access to courts for detainees seeking to challenge their imprisonment at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and elsewhere.

The 253 to 168 vote was a victory for President Bush and fellow Republicans. Bush had yielded some ground during weeks of negotiations, but he fully embraced the language that the House approved with support from 34 Democrats and all but seven Republicans.

Rove's not brilliant... the Dems are stupid!

Jack M. Balkin at Balkinization and Glenn Greenwald at Salon explain why I'm forced to conclude what I just wrote above. I have implored them so many times before to Do the right thing!, but they are such moral cowards! It's only this current crop of Republicans that could make these Dems seem like a better alternative. Bear with me as I quote extensively, the importance of what they say necessitates it.

Greenwald:

Many political pundits have opined that the key to a Democratic victory in November (as is true for most midterm elections) is high turnout, which is accomplished by energizing the party's base. Voting for and lauding the president's torture and detention bill does not exactly appear to be a politically astute way to energize the base, to put it mildly.

In 2002, substantial numbers of Democratic senators voted in favor of the resolution to authorize President Bush to use military force in Iraq. At the time, they argued that they had no choice politically but supporting that measure because their opposition would be used by Karl Rove to depict them as weak on terrorism. Despite support of the war resolution by a solid majority of Democrats (29-22), the centerpiece of the GOP campaign against Democrats nonetheless was the accusation that they were weak on terrorism. The GOP even ran commercials morphing the face of Max Cleland into Saddam Hussein's face even though Cleland had voted for the resolution.

That Rovian strategy -- luring Democrats into supporting Bush's terrorism policies and then accusing them anyway of being weak on national security -- is precisely what led to the 2002 GOP takeover of the Senate and historic midterm gains.

In 2004, Democrats rejected a candidate who unambiguously opposed the Iraq war (Howard Dean) in favor of a candidate who voted for the war resolution (John Kerry), only to watch as Republicans successfully depicted Democrats as being weak on terrorism. Over and over, Democrats allow Republicans to depict them as weak on terrorism because they are afraid to take a stand and to articulate the rationale behind that stand.

Rove has made no secret of the fact that he plans to repeat this strategy to stave off defeat this year, and few things could aid that strategy more than the Democrats' failure to oppose the torture bill in any meaningful way. Some Democrats of conscience will vote against it, which will enable Rove -- despite substantial Democratic support for the bill -- to argue that Democrats are weak on terrorism. As the Times reports: Republicans "said they were hoping to send the bill to Mr. Bush by the end of the week for a signing ceremony that could help them kick off the home stretch of the campaign with a message that Republicans were taking strong steps to protect the nation from terror attacks."

[...]

Beltway Democrats and many of their supporters seem incapable of understanding that their central flaw has not been that they are "too liberal" on national security, but that they are perceived as standing for nothing. They appear weak and unprincipled not when it comes to standing up to the terrorists, but when it comes to standing up to the president for what they actually believe. Support for the torture bill is unconscionable; that ought to go without saying. But it is also politically self-destructive, because it depresses their base (who wants to vote for a party that supports the president's torture bill?) and inflames the perception that they are unwilling to fight for their convictions unless doing so is politically expedient.

The principal difference between Republicans and Democrats in 2004 was that Republicans stood firm on their principles while Democrats were perceived not to have any. In 2004, Bush's policies were already unpopular, including the war in Iraq, yet this was the defining line from his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention: "In the last four years, you and I have come to know each other. Even when we don't agree, at least you know what I believe and where I stand. (Applause.)" If Democrats vote for the torture bill in significant numbers, how could the same be said for them?

As I've tried to document previously, there are ample reasons to hope for a Democratic takeover of Congress notwithstanding the unprincipled capitulation of many Democrats on what may be the most profoundly important bill of the Bush presidency. But Democrats who support the torture bill are doing very little to help that cause.

Balkin:

I am puzzled by and ashamed of the Democrats' moral cowardice on this bill. The latest version of the bill blesses detainee abuse and looks the other way on forms of detainee torture; it immunizes terrible acts; it abridges the writ of habeas corpus-- in the last, most egregious draft, it strips the writ for alleged enemy combatants whether proved to be so or not, whether citizens or not, and whether found in the U.S. or overseas.

This bill is simply outrageous. I doubt whether many Democratic Senators or staffs have read the bill or understand what is in it. Instead, they seem to be scrambling over themselves to vote for it out of a fear that the American public will think them weak and soft on terror.

The reason why the Democrats have not been doing very well on these issues, however, is that the public does not believe that they stand for anything other than echoing what the Republicans have been doing with a bit less conviction. If the Republicans are now the Party of Torture, the Democrats are now the Party of "Torture? Yeah, I guess so." Not exactly the moral high ground from which to seek office.

[...]

If the Democrats do not stand up to the President on this bill, if they refuse to filibuster it or even threaten to filibuster it, they do not deserve to win any additional seats in the House or in the Senate. They will have delivered a grievous blow to our system of checks and balances, stained America's reputation around the world, and allowed an obscenity to disfigure the American system of law and justice. Far worse than a misguided zealot is the moral coward who says nothing and allows that zealotry to do real harm.

Rush to Error

WaPo has an editorial today with the sub-title: Congress should not allow itself to be pushed into approving a flawed plan for holding terrorist suspects which says it all. What's the rush? The only real answer is political considerations... once again. But will Congress heed the advice this advice? You may as well save your breath for your next water-boarding.

After barely three weeks of debate, the Senate today will take up a momentous piece of legislation that would set new legal rules for the detention, interrogation and trial of accused terrorists. We have argued that the only remedy to the mess made by the Bush administration in holding hundreds of detainees without charge at Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere since 2001 was congressional action. Yet rather than carefully weigh the issues, Congress has allowed itself to be stampeded into a vote on hastily written but far-reaching legal provisions, in a preelection climate in which dissenters risk being labeled as soft on terrorism.

As we have said before, there is no need for Congress to act immediately. No terrorist suspects are being held in the CIA detention "program" that President Bush has so vigorously defended. Justice for the al-Qaeda suspects he has delivered to Guantanamo has already been delayed for years by the administration's actions and can wait a few more months. What's important is that any legal system approved by Congress pass the tests set by Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.) months ago: that the United States can be proud of it, that the world will see it as fair and humane, and that the Supreme Court can uphold it.

[...]

White House pressure may have persuaded many in Congress that the easiest course is to quickly approve the detention bill in its present form and leave town. If so, their actions almost surely will come back to haunt them. Until this country adopts a legal system for the war on terrorism that meets Mr. Warner's standard, the war itself will be unwinnable.

Faith-Based Torture

Digby waxes eloquent on this travesty of a torture bill that is winging its way through Congress. Read it and weep...

I don't know why the Senators are even pretending to know what's in this bill. One of the most important pieces of legislation in recent American history is being put together in the dead of night and hurried through the congress for political reasons. It's a constitutional clusterfuck.

The vote is going to happen and it's going to pass. But I can't help but wonder if the momentum wouldn't have gone the other way if some of the Democrats who constantly exhort the rank and file to be more friendly to religion and values and morals had stood up and said no. Imagine if Barack Obama had staked out a leading position against this legislation making the explicit argument that it is immoral and unamerican to torture. That would have gone farther to demonstrate our respect for religious values than his frequent process talk and scolding could ever do.

Or imagine if Holy Joe Lieberman showed even one tenth the righteous indignation toward this torture legislation that he showed toward president Clinton's personal affairs.

[...]

But we aren't going to see the moral scolds standing up on this, I'm afraid. At least I'll be very shocked if they do. They believe, as do so many Republicans and members of the press that morals are attached to somebody elses crotch. They apparently don't see that institutional torture isn't just something that a few bad apples learn from popular culture.

[...]

Makes a tear come to the eye, doesn't it, the way men like McCain and Lieberman keep evoking Lincoln and the Bible as they work to institutionalize torture and continue a bloody, useless war that kills thousands and thousands of people? It's all very inspirational.

Keep your eyes on Holy Joe as the debate unfolds. If he bothers to show up at all, I will be shocked if his vaunted religious values lead him to vote against the bill. And that says everything you need to know about his sincerity. When it comes to lying about consensual sex he's all over it, leading the charge. Torture and endless imprisonment with no trial, not so much.

I'm with Atrios. If these religion scolds vote for this bill I will never stand for being lectured by them again about how liberals need to be more respectful of the faith and values crowd. The time is now for them show what they are made of. Let's see it.

Damning Evidence

Larry Johnson writing at the Booman Tribune provides some graphic evidence to support the truth of the latest NIE claims and, in so doing, explains why BushCo so desperately tried to surpress it.

Although the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) regarding Iraq and terrorism is still classified (UPDATE: The Key Judgments are now declassified and can be found at this link), the data behind the findings is not and has been publicly available for three years.

I have written repeatedly on this fact and it has been, I am told, the judgment of the intelligence community for at least two years. The statistics on terrorist activity, until this year, were published in the State Department's annual report on terrorism (Patterns of Global Terrorism). The Bush Administration tried to not publish the report last year because the data showed an unprecedented surge in international terrorist attacks. The following chart shows the bad news (it is based on the statistics collected by the CIA and supplied to the Department of State)

A "Significant" terrorist incident is one in which a person was killed, wounded or kidnapped (or there was property damage in excess of $10,000). The statistics tell a very clear and simple story (I bet someone who can read My Pet Goat can figure it out).

[...]

Ray Close , who served as the top CIA official in Saudi Arabia, has offered the following on the importance of the current NIE:

No reasonable person can possibly deny that our intervention in Iraq has been an enormous stimulus to terrorist activity worldwide. Efforts by John McCain and others to discount the significance of that factor by pointing out that the attacks on 9/11 occurred before our overthrow of Saddam Hussein is as trivial and irrelevant as they are disingenuous. As someone who devoted his entire career to the intelligence profession, I was shocked and angered to read this in the NY Times this morning:

"Several of the lawmakers who appeared on Sunday talk shows said they had not seen the classified document . . [the National Intelligence Estimate]. Intelligence reports from American spy agencies are not circulated widely on Capitol Hill, and Congressional officials said neither the House nor the Senate intelligence committees had been formally briefed on the report."

A National Intelligence Estimate is just exactly what the title says it is. An NIE isn't issued every day. It sometimes takes weeks to write and coordinate. Even the decision to prepare an NIE in the first place is a painstaking one. It is a BIG DEAL, in other words. An NIE is not a single report from a single agency, but represents the considered judgment of the entire intelligence community (16 different agencies, in theory) on a subject deemed to be of vital significance to makers of national security and foreign policy.

If key members of Congress (like Majority Leader Bill Frist, who claimed ignorance of this report), and neither the House nor the Senate intelligence committees, have seen the document since it was produced in April, then we have to ask ourselves whether the White House and Congress take any serious interest in the most important products of America's enormous (and extremely expensive) intelligence empire. Are we to conclude that the "brains" of the United States Government (presumably those who formulate and carry out national policy) are simply not interested in making use of the best information and advice available to them? That seems to confirm the growing impression that policy is influenced today more by considerations of ideology and political expediency than by painstaking and objective study of the world situation.

Once again we are witnessing the Bush Administration trying to ignore the bad news the intelligence community is obligated to tell the President. The willful ignorance of President Bush, his advisors, and his Congressional enablers is creating a more dangerous world. Instead of taking the bull by the horns and confronting the issue, Bush and company are burying their heads in the sand. Just remember that when we are hit again by a mass casualty attack.

Matt demonstrates that... he's not insane

Matthew Yglesias must have heard of that old definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different results. It's unfortunate that he needs to point out that predicting that something will happen doesn't mean that that is what you want to happen. But maybe that's a confusing concept for members of the non-evidence based community who regularly try to effect change by... hoping really hard -- the old Disney movie approach.

Seriously, people, think before you open your mouths and crack open your laptops.

Does anyone -- anyone -- on the right genuinely believe that those of us who favor withdrawal from Iraq do so because we don't think it would be a good idea to turn the country into a shining success? Of course we don't think that. We favor withdrawal because we don't believe that indefinite continuation of an open-ended military presence in Iraq is likely to generate success. The country has been doing this for three and a half years now and things aren't improving; they're getting worse. Nobody disputes the desirability of success; we dispute the notion that continuing to do the same things that aren't working now, and weren't working one year ago, and weren't working two years ago, are going to magically start working if we give it another year.

Why he responds to the 32%

J.D. Henderson of Intel Dump writes in the Comments to someone called Diogenes something that resonated with me -- not just the analysis but his understanding of human nature and reality of this world that we share with Dio and his "32%".

Your weak attempts to link Saddam and Al Queda show that you can not admit the truth to yourself - you were lied to and you believed it. You still do, and no facts I present will change that.

Some will wonder why I bother to respond to Dio instead of ignoring him as a troll? Because he is not a troll. He believes what he is saying, and 32% of US voters agree with him. They can't really say why they agree, or they rely on "documents" that even the White House won't push for fear of giving the Democrats another cudgel to beat them with - in short, the administration knows that such talk is nonsense. But why do they still imply such nonsense? Because people WANT to believe that the president has a plan, they WANT to believe that our nation was not misled or lied to, they WANT to believe that our cause, for which we have sacrificed so much, is just and right. They WANT to believe that invading Iraq was the right thing to do.

That is why I reply - because that deliberately ignorate 32% that refuses to face an unpleasant reality (that we are the aggressor, our invasion was unjust, and we are losing this war) only requires 18.1% of the remaining US voters to agree with them and the party that led us into this mess will triumph again. Right now it is 50/50 whether the democrats will take back the House. If they do not then we will most likely go to war again, and we will most likely lose.

More lies from Condi "Mushroom Cloud" Rice

UPDATE: A memo received by United States Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice shortly after becoming National Security Advisor in 2001 directly contradicts statements she made to reporters yesterday, RAW STORY has learned.


As BushCo tries to control the damage resulting from Clinton's accusations this weekend, they resort to their usual technique -- lying. ThinkProgress has the proof of another Condi lie in a piece entitled: "Rice falsely claims Clinton administration did not leave a "strategy to fight al Qaeda". Rice boldly said: "I would just suggest that you go back and read the 9/11 commission report" so TP did and... guess what...?

In her interview with the New York Post, Condoleezza Rice claims that the Clinton Administration did not develop a strategy to fight al Qaeda:

The secretary of state also sharply disputed Clinton's claim that he "left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy" for the incoming Bush team during the presidential transition in 2001.

"We were not left a comprehensive strategy to fight al Qaeda," Rice responded during the hourlong session.

Here'’s what the 9/11 Commission Report has to say about it:

As the Clinton administration drew to a close, Clarke and his staff developed a policy paper of their own [which] incorporated the CIA'’s new ideas from the Blue Sky memo, and posed several near-term policy options. Clarke and his staff proposed a goal to "“roll back"” al Qaeda over a period of three to five years ...[including] covert aid to the Northern Alliance, covert aid to Uzbekistan, and renewed Predator flights in March 2001. A sentence called for military action to destroy al Qaeda command-and control targets and infrastructure and Taliban military and command assets. The paper also expressed concern about the presence of al Qaeda operatives in the United States.” [p. 197]

Clarke, who also worked for the Bush administration, wrote Condoleezza Rice a memo as soon as the Bush administration took office, stating, "“[W]e urgently need... a Principals level review of the al Qida network."” His request was denied.

UPDATE: Raw Story has the text of the Clarke memo.

A KO delivered by K.O.

Keith Olbermann does it again! Keith held back no punches but delivered a telling body blow directly to soft underbelly of former champ, GWB. I hope it proves to be a knockout because this chump doesn't deserve his title.

Sample:

Thus was it left for the previous President to say what so many of us have felt; what so many of us have given you a pass for in the months and even the years after the attack:

You did not try.

You ignored the evidence gathered by your predecessor.

You ignored the evidence gathered by your own people.

Then, you blamed your predecessor.

That would be the textbook definition… Sir, of cowardice.

The president's power to imprison people forever

Think about that for a minute... That's pretty stark, isn't it? But that's exactly what has been handed on a platter to GWB. Glenn Greenwald, writing at Salon puts it this way:

The administration is obviously aware of the transparent, and really quite pitiful, election-based fear that is consuming Democrats and rendering them unwilling to impede (or even object to) the administration's seizure of more and more unchecked power in the name of fighting terrorism. As a result of this abdication by the Democrats, the Washington Post reports, the administration spent the weekend expanding even further the already-extraordinary torture and detention powers vested in it by the McCain-Warner-Graham "compromise."

[...]

Put another way, this bill would give the Bush administration the power to imprison people for their entire lives, literally, without so much as charging them with any wrongdoing or giving them any forum in which to contest the accusations against them. It thus vests in the administration the singularly most tyrannical power that exists -- namely, the power unilaterally to decree someone guilty of a crime and to condemn the accused to eternal imprisonment without having even to charge him with a crime, let alone defend the validity of those accusations.

[...]

The administration would be able to abduct anyone, anywhere in the world, whom George W. Bush secretly decrees has "supported" hostilities against the United States. And then they could imprison any such persons at Guantánamo -- even torture them -- forever, without ever having to prove anything to any tribunal or commission.

[...]

And now, it is about to obtain (with the acquiescence, if not outright support, of Senate Democrats) the express statutory power to detain people permanently (while subjecting them, for good measure, to torture) without providing any venue to contest the validity of their detention. And as Democrats sit meekly by, the detention authority the administration is about to obtain continues -- literally each day -- to expand, and now includes some of the most dangerous and unchecked powers a government can have.

How can we possibly have sunk to this point...?

NIE 2

Josh Marshall informs us that the word on the hill has it that there is a second NIE (see below) dealing exclusively with Iraq which BushCo doesn't want to declassify. Wonder why? It really must be hard... lying all the time and having to deal with all those nasty facts that keep popping up to embarrass them... as if they had any shame.

This morning at TPM we got word that in addition to the already reported April Iraq/Terrorism NIE, there was another NIE exclusively on Iraq.

We talked to various Hill sources who confirmed its existence. And then Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA), ranking member of the House intel committee discussed the report and called for its release at an event at the National Press Club.

Only there was another wrinkle to the sources. Hill sources tell TPMmuckraker that the administration has been sitting on the report, trying to prevent its dissemination before the election, presumably. And it turns out, from what we've heard, that this NIE actually hasn't been given the official "NIE" label because doing that would have required sharing it with various members of Congress.

The President has already said he's releasing "parts" of the April NIE -- which likely means it'll cleansed of all the important details. But both should be released. The April NIE and this NIE that dare not speak its name too.

[...]

We've also talked to a number of Hill sources who tell us the report is being slow rolled, presumably to keep its findings from being released before the November 7th election.

[...]

According to CNN, "An angry President Bush Tuesday said he would declassify an intelligence document that reportedly finds that the Iraq war increased the terrorist threat to the United States, saying the American people should come to their own conclusions."

Remember though what happened back in 2002.

When the president was called on to release the Iraq WMD NIE, they had all the information casting doubts on Iraqi WMD removed from the public document.

And, also, what about the other NIE we now learn they're sitting on? The one just on Iraq. Let's see that one too. In time for the election.

GOP, Party of Cutters and Runners

Glenn Greenwald does righteous indignation well and does so this time in debunking...

... the accusation voiced this weekend by Chris Wallace in his Fox News interview with President Clinton (a favorite accusation of neoconservatives) that Clinton "emboldened" Al Qaeda when he withdrew American troops from Somalia as soon as we suffered casualties, which (so the neoconservative mythology contends) led Osama bin Laden to believe that we were weak and could be defeated.

President Clinton's response was refreshingly aggressive because the premise of the question is so patently and outrageously false. Clinton responded: "They were all trying to get me to withdraw from Somalia in 1993 the next day after we were involved in 'Black Hawk down,' and I refused to do it and stayed six months and had an orderly transfer to the United Nations."

That's right, the group that is now criticizing Clinton for having left Somolia too soon (after six months) was arguing for immediate withdrawal at the time and Glenn has the quotes from both the Cut 'n Run GOP and Stay 'n Fight Dems from that time. What hypocrites!

As I document in the Salon post, that defense, if anything, is a profound understatement, because it was Clinton (along with Senate Democrats like John Kerry) who wanted to stay in Somalia because a precipitous withdrawal would be panicky and weak, but it was primarily conservatives in Congress -- mostly Republican Senators and some conservative Southern Democrats -- who were demanding that American troops be withdrawn immediately, and were even threatening to cut off all funds for our troop deployment.

[...]

As always, no matter how many times it occurs, it is truly disturbing how there seems to be no limit on the false propaganda and rank historical revisionism which can be disseminated by this administration and its followers and uncorrected by our national media.

Pathetic

I'll accept that CNN isn't as bad as FauxNews but I don't buy the argument that because both sides criticize it, CNN must be being doing a good job. I seldom watch the news on TV because... there is seldom anything news-worthy being presented on TV. Let's just say that tonight's little foray confirmed that my previous opinion about CNN's shortcomings was still evidence-based.

The subject that caught my eye while channel-surfing between innings of a baseball game was the alleged Clinton "meltdown" during his interview with Chris Wallace. I watched it and the topics that were addressed were: much ado about the nature of the meltdown (not whether it was anything more than Clinton making his point forcefully), the significance of his finger-wagging (because the talking heads asserted that the last time he wagged his finger while speaking was when he denied having sex with that woman) and some dressing gaff that caused him to show some skin when he crossed his legs! That's it!

The former President criticizes (for the first time!) the current President's handling of GWOT (and his own, by implication) by making the distinction that "at least I tried" and points out the glaring double-standard and hypocrisy of FauxNews and CNN doesn't even discuss the merits of the question, the answer or the context. Just awful ! And then talking head # 1 signs off from the segment by thanking (what's with this "thanking" anyway?) talking head # 2 and stating parenthetically "part of the best news team on television".

I think my jaw dropped open...

Tell the Truth

Chris Wallace, the disgraceful FOXNews host who has been a source of right-wing talking points for years, tried to embarrass Bill Clinton during an interview this weekend (transcript here). But, it seems that Wallace "misunderestimated" his guest and Clinton exposed him for the hack that he is. In a particularly effective segment, Clinton exposed Wallace's double-standard and called upon him to "tell the truth":

WALLACE: I asked a question. You don'’t think that'’s a legitimate question?

CLINTON: It was a perfectly legitimate question but I want to know how many people in the Bush administration you asked this question of. I want to know how many people in the Bush administration you asked: Why didn'’t you do anything about the Cole? I want to know how many you asked: Why did you fire Dick Clarke? I want to know…

WALLACE: We asked…Do you ever watch Fox News Sunday sir?

CLINTON: I don'’t believe you ask them that.

WALLACE: We ask plenty of questions of…

CLINTON: You didn'’t ask that did you? Tell the truth.

WALLACE: About the USS Cole?

CLINTON: Tell the truth.

WALLACE: I... with Iraq and Afghanistan there'’s plenty of stuff to ask.

[...]

CLINTON: And so, if you'’re going to do this, for God'’s sake, follow the same standards for everybody…

But, it would appear that (surprise, surprise) Wallace didn't tell the truth because ThinkProgress has followed up and finds that:

Neither Chris Wallace, nor his predecessor, Tony Snow ever asked anyone in the Bush administration why they failed to respond to the bombing of the USS Cole, according to a Lexis-Nexis database search. Wallace and Snow have had plenty of opportunities:

-– Vice President Dick Cheney has been on Fox News Sunday 6 times.

- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has been on Fox News Sunday 9 times.

- Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has been on Fox News Sunday 23 times.

-– National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley has been on Fox News Sunday 4 times.

For the record, this was Bill Clinton'’s first solo appearance on Fox News Sunday.

Instead, the record shows that Wallace has been a consistent hack and ThinkProgress has the evidence here, here and here.

Feeling safer?

Glenn Greenwald says that the Dems can hang their hats on this one story for the up-coming elelctions. But I can just hear BushCo saying: Making the world safer is dangerous. I don't think we can stand being any safer.

Numerous sources told the NYT about the contents of NIE, which "are the most authoritative documents that the intelligence community produces on a specific national security issue, and are approved by John D. Negroponte, director of national intelligence." So this assessment -- that the war in Iraq has increased the terrorist threat to the U.S. -- is from the Bush administration itself and is the consensus of the same intelligence community which the administration purged of all dissidents.

Only in the U.S., with its toxic mix of Bush administration propaganda and media listlessness, could it ever even be a question open to debate whether invading, bombing and occupying a Muslim country in the Middle East for almost four years would fuel Muslim radicalism, inflame anti-American resentment, and create far more terrorists than ever existed before. And only in the current political climate where up is down could the political party directly responsible for severely exacerbating the terrorism problem with a pointless, disastrous and seemingly endless war have their chances for victory depend upon maximizing the country's focus on terrorism -- the very problem they have so severely exacerbated.

So, a recap of the Iraq war: there were never any WMDs. The proliferation of government death squads and militias in Iraq means that, compared to the Saddam era, human rights have worsened and torture has increased to record levels. Iranian influence has massively increased, as a result of a Shiite fundamentalist government loyal to Tehran replacing the former anti-Iranian regime. We've squandered hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of lives. And we have -- according to the consensus of our own intelligence community -- directly worsened the terrorist problem with our invasion, and continue to worsen it with our ongoing occupation.

How can anyone claim with a straight face that this war was a good idea? There are no even theoretical justifications left for it. And all of the Republican election-driven fearmongering over terrorism ought to be met with this clear, straightforward report documenting that that threat has worsened under this administration directly as a result of its policies and, in particular, as a result of its signature policy -- the war in Iraq.

NIE, what a surprise... not!

The first National Intelligence Estimate in four years reports that "the American invasion and occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks". Oh man... do you realize how hard GWB is going to have to work now in order to discredit all sixteen agencies?

The intelligence estimate, completed in April, is the first formal appraisal of global terrorism by United States intelligence agencies since the Iraq war began, and represents a consensus view of the 16 disparate spy services inside government. Titled “Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States,’’ it asserts that Islamic radicalism, rather than being in retreat, has metastasized and spread across the globe.

An opening section of the report, “Indicators of the Spread of the Global Jihadist Movement,” cites the Iraq war as a reason for the diffusion of jihad ideology.

The report “says that the Iraq war has made the overall terrorism problem worse,” said one American intelligence official.

More than a dozen United States government officials and outside experts were interviewed for this article, and all spoke only on condition of anonymity because they were discussing a classified intelligence document. The officials included employees of several government agencies, and both supporters and critics of the Bush administration. All of those interviewed had either seen the final version of the document or participated in the creation of earlier drafts. These officials discussed some of the document’s general conclusions but not details, which remain highly classified.

[...]

For more than two years, there has been tension between the Bush administration and American spy agencies over the violence in Iraq and the prospects for a stable democracy in the country. Some intelligence officials have said the White House has consistently presented a more optimistic picture of the situation in Iraq than justified by intelligence reports from the field.

Spy agencies usually produce several national intelligence estimates each year on a variety of subjects. The most controversial of these in recent years was an October 2002 document assessing Iraq’s illicit weapons programs. Several government investigations have discredited that report, and the intelligence community is overhauling how it analyzes data, largely as a result of those investigations.

The broad judgments of the new intelligence estimate are consistent with assessments of global terrorist threats by American allies and independent terrorism experts.

At least I tried...

UPDATE: Crooks & Liars has video here.

Apparently, Chris Wallace of FoxNews had Bill Clinton on his show to discuss the Clinton Global Initiative, but opened with questions like "Why didn't you do more to put bin Laden and al-Qaeda out of business when you were president?" Needless to say, Clinton was pissed and he proceeded to rip a strip off Wallace while putting the matter straight.

As many others have said in his defense, Clinton pointed out that those who now claim to be critical of his lack of action were, at the time, criticizing him for doing too much and, in fact, accusing him of Wag The Dog efforts to distract the nation from the important business of blowjobs.

The transcript is here and it's pretty good. It closes with this:

Wallace: Do you think you did enough, sir?

Clinton: No, because I didn't get him.

Wallace: Right.

Clinton: But at least I tried. That's the difference in me and some, including all of the right-wingers who are attacking me now. They ridiculed me for trying. They had eight months to try, they did not try. I tried. So I tried and failed. When I failed, I left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy and the best guy in the country, Dick Clark, who got demoted.

The Myth of the Independent Republican Senators

In light of this latest outrage -- the "compromise" bill that legalizes torture -- Glenn Greenwald, referring to an article he wrote for Salon, says:

I have a plea (directed to myself as much as anyone) to declare dead -- forever -- the Myth of the Independent, Dissident Republican Senator and bury it in a coffin deep in the ground where it belongs. At this point, I think encountering the Lochness Monster is more likely than finding a genuinely independent Republican Senator willing to impose meaningful limits of any kind on the President.

From a trip down memory lane:

When the New York Times revealed on Dec. 16 of last year that the Bush administration has been secretly eavesdropping on Americans without warrants even though doing so is a felony under federal law, several Republican senators expressed what they called "grave concerns," and they both demanded and promised full-scale investigations. Two key Republican senators in particular, Olympia Snowe and Chuck Hagel ("key" because they are members of the Senate Intelligence Committee) emphatically vowed in a Dec. 21, 2005, letter that there would be hearings to investigate fully the National Security Agency's wiretapping program. They proclaimed: "We strongly believe that the Judiciary and Intelligence Committees should immediately seek to answer the factual and legal questions which surround these revelations, and recommend appropriate action to the Senate."

[...]

But when Sen. Jay Rockefeller introduced a motion in the Intelligence Committee on March 8 to hold hearings to investigate the NSA program, each and every Republican senator -- including Snowe, Hagel and DeWine -- voted against it, and the motion thus failed by an 8-7 vote. With that complete capitulation, the Intelligence Committee -- which has as its prime function ensuring that intelligence activities (such as, say, government eavesdropping on Americans) comply with the law -- held no hearings on the NSA program, and as a result, we (meaning American citizens, as well as our senators) still do not know even the most basic facts about warrantless eavesdropping, including how many Americans have been spied on, which Americans were subjected to warrantless eavesdropping, how they were selected for eavesdropping, etc.

Anyone who, at any time over the past five years, has placed faith in those Republican senators who parade around as independent checks on the president has suffered nothing but one disappointment after the next.

[...]

It is time for every honest and rational person who wanted to believe in the Myth of the Independent Republican Senators (and I include myself in that group) to declare this myth dead and bury it once and for all.

More Outrage

Digby writes:

Goddamit, I told you so. I couldn't be more unhappy that I was right.

You can read here where he predicted this disgraceful outcome. Today, Digby has this to say:

Can anyone in the know explain to me how letting McCain run with this torture debate benefitted the Democrats in any way?

Here's how the optics look to me:

McCain, the Republican rebel maverick, showed that Republicans are moral and look out for their troops.

Bush, the Republican statesman and leader, showed that he is committed to protecting Americans but that he is willing to listen and compromise when people of good faith express reservations about tactics.

The Democrats showed they are ciphers who don't have the stones to even say a word when the most important moral issue confronting the government is being debated.

Unless the Dems ready to threaten to filibuster a national security bill a month before an election --- which I doubt --- I expect that the Republicans are going to rush this through the conference and force through this piece of shit bill in a hurry, just like they forced the AUMF through in October 2002 and give the republicans a big honking "victory" in the GWOT.

The Dems are all going to be twisted into pretzels and look like they have no backbones as they struggle with a united GOP saying that McCain and Huckleberry Graham made sure "the program" is moral and necessary. Vote for it for for the terrorists. So they'll end up voting for it without getting any benefit from it.

I honestly think it would have been much, much better if they'd have forced their way into the debate and taken a firm stand -- if only to show they give a damn. This is a turn-out election and I have a feeling many a Democrat's stomach will turn as they see this triumph of GOP "leadership" in action. Why bother to vote when the Democrats don't bother to show up?

Tristero posting at Digby's blog says:

So tell me, my fellow Americans:

How does it feel knowing that your government will pass laws permitting the violation of the Geneva Conventions against torture?

How does it feel knowing the taxes you pay from money you earned are going towards the salary of legally sanctioned torturers?

How does it feel knowing that the only political party with an organization large enough to stand in opposition to the American fascists in charge of this country's legislature and executive were actually boasting that they were not going to get involved in one of the most important moral debates of our time?

And how does it feel to have George W. Bush, that paragon of moral probity, mental stability, and well-informed intelligence, granted the legal right to determine what is and isn't torture?

I'll tell you how I feel. I am outraged and ashamed.

Kudos to Digby for calling this exactly right from the start. Shame, shame, shame on the cowards in both parties that permitted this disgracefully grotesque farce to happen. This is as inexcusable a stupidity as the neglect that permittted the 9/11 attacks, the idiotic reasoning and intellectual blindness that advocated and executed the Bush/Iraq war, and the failure to prepare for Katrina. What the hell is going on, that a country that prides itself on its heritage of freedom and liberty, that fought such an awful war over the degrading enslavement of human beings - that such a country would vote to permit some of the most repulsive and evil practices human beings are capable of and place the power to do so directly in the hands of a moral midget?

The Silent Party

As I read about the torture "compromise" and try to suppress my gag reflex, I wonder where are the voices of sanity. Sadly for all of us I fear, they are not coming from the Democratic Party representatives. Charles P. Pierce, in an article in Tapped entitled, The Silent Party, is troubled too.

You worthless passel of cowards. They're laughing at you. You know that, right?

The national Democratic Party is no longer worth the cement needed to sink it to the bottom of the sea. For an entire week, it allowed a debate on changing the soul of the country to be conducted intramurally between the Torture Porn and Useful Idiot wings of the Republican Party, the latter best exemplified by John McCain, who keeps fashioning his apparently fathomless ambition into a pair of clown shoes with which he can do the monkey dance across the national stage. They're laughing at him, too.

The New York Times has the right of it here, limning the pathetic gullibility at the heart of the "compromise." There is nothing in this bill that President Thumbscrews can't ignore. There is nothing in this bill that reins in his feckless and dangerous reinterpretation of the powers of his office. There is nothing in this bill that requires him to take it -- or its congressional authors -- seriously. Two weeks ago, John Yoo set down in The New York Times the precise philosophical basis on which the administration will sign this bill and then ignore it. The president will decide what a "lesser breach" of the Geneva Conventions is? How can anyone over the age of five give this president that power? And wait until you see the atrocity that I guarantee you is coming down the tracks concerning the fact that the president committed at least 40 impeachable offenses with regard to illegal wiretapping.

And the Democratic Party was nowhere in this debate. It contributed nothing. On the question of whether or not the United States will reconfigure itself as a nation which tortures its purported enemies and then grants itself absolution through adjectives -- "Aggressive interrogation techniques" -- the Democratic Party had…no opinion. On the issue of allowing a demonstrably incompetent president as many of the de facto powers of a despot that you could wedge into a bill without having the Constitution spontaneously combust in the Archives, well, the Democratic Party was more pissed off at Hugo Chavez.

This was as tactically idiotic as it was morally blind. On the subject of what kind of a nation we are, and to what extent we will live up to the best of our ideals, the Democratic Party was as mute and neutral as a stone. Human rights no longer have a viable political constituency in the United States of America. Be enough of a coward, though, and cable news will fit you for a toga.

However, because I know it is vital for the Democrats to "recapture" the good Christian folks, there's a passage from Scripture that seems apropos: "When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it."

16 Words - the book

Jane Hamsher, creator of FDL, has "taken it upon herself to start FDL books -- a blogs-to-book publishing team to bring the best of the blogs to bookstores and beyond". Her first project will be called 16 Words is about the Plame Scandal (FDL's raison d'etre) and is being written by Marcy Wheeler (emptywheel of FDL fame). Jennifer Nix, who acted as publisher of Glenn Greenwald's very successful book, How Would a Patriot Act?, will do so again for this book.

For a foretaste, here's Marcy explaining Why Armitage Doesn't Exonerate Dick.

The cocktail weenie class is still claiming that Armitage's recent confession means that Patrick Fitzgerald's whole investigation is now meaningless. So McCaffrey the MilleniaLab, who likes to clear brush as much as our President, will help me explain it really simple-like, so even the cocktail-weenie intoxicated can understand. There are three reasons why Armitage's confession doesn't affect the value of Fitzgerald's investigation.

• There is ample evidence that Scooter Libby conspired to expose Plame's identity
• There is ample evidence that Libby's lies serve one primary purpose--to hide the fact that Dick Cheney was personally involved in--and may have authorized--the leak of Plame's identity
• Armitage was not the source of the most important information Novak published when he outed Plame

Evidence that Scooter Libby conspired to expose Plame's identity

Regardless of what Armitage did on June 13 and July 8, we know that Libby started collecting information to smear Joe Wilson, beginning in May. Arguably, it was Libby's search for information on Wilson that led to Armitage learning of Plame's purported involvement. In response to Libby's request for information, Marc Grossman asked INR to develop its famous INR memo on Wilson's trip, which is apparently the source of Armitage's knowledge.

More importantly, Libby showed malicious intent in his treatment of Plame's identity. He admitted to Ari Fleischer on July 7 that the information about Plame was sensitive. Nevertheless, the following day, he leaked that information to Judy Miller (before Armitage met with Novak, incidentally). Unlike what we know of Armitage's actions, Libby sought out all the information he could on Wilson and his wife. He had reason to know she was covert, yet he still leaked her identity to Judy Miller.

Evidence that Libby's lies hide the fact that Dick Cheney was personally involved in the leak

But Libby didn't do this alone--Dick was involved at every stage of the process. Dick informed Libby that Plame worked in Counter-Proliferation (which almost certainly meant she was covert). Dick seems to have drafted the talking points used later in the week, as he read Joe Wilson's op-ed. Dick authorized Libby to leak something to Judy Miller on July 8. And Dick tailored the leak strategy with Libby on July 12. By pretending that he learned of Plame's identity from Tim Russert, and not Dick Cheney, Libby tried to hide Dick's involvement in this plot.

Of particular importance is Dick's authorization for Libby to leak something to Judy on July 8. Libby says Dick authorized him to leak the NIE, and not Plame's identity. But we know he did leak Plame's identity. And we know his claims that the authorization related to the NIE simply don't hold up.

Therefore, there is a very high likelihood that Libby's alleged crimes--lying to obstruct an investigation--served to protect Dick from the culpability he has for authorizing the Valerie Plame leak.

Armitage was not the source of the most important information

And finally there's the detail everyone seems to miss in Isikoff's and Corn's coverage of Armitage's involvement.

Armitage acknowledged that he had passed along to Novak information contained in a classified State Department memo: that Wilson's wife worked on weapons-of-mass-destruction issues at the CIA. (The memo made no reference to her undercover status.)

[snip]

Fitzgerald found no evidence that Armitage knew of Plame's covert CIA status when he talked to Novak and Woodward.

This very clearly explains that Armitage only had the information included in the INR memo. That, in turn, shows he didn't leak Plame's covert identity and he didn't leak Plame's maiden name. Now, Novak claims to have learned those details through a kind of immaculate knowledge. But Novak's claims, like Libby's, are suspect.

Therefore, whoever else leaked to Novak told him that Valerie Wilson worked under the name Plame and was an operative.

The cocktail weenie class would like to have you believe Armitage's revelation of information that doesn't merit an IIPA violation and wasn't even the most important part of the Novak column somehow exonerates Dick and Libby for plotting to out a CIA spy.

I guess that says lots about the moral judgment of the cocktail weenie class.

Repetition makes the message stronger

Swopa at FDL has some suggestions on how to counteract BushCo's noise-machine in this election campaign -- it's by using their tactics:

every time the Fear President opens his mouth, he makes clear to even his strongest supporters the least attentive listener that his top priority is protecting the American people, and it’s the core reason behind just about everything he does. If Dubya can use this tactic in the service of lies and moral cowardice, Democrats can certainly use it in the service of truth and conscience. Our side doesn’t often trumpet its concern about defending America, perhaps because it seems like belaboring the obvious — who doesn’t care about protecting our country? But when your target audience is one that isn’t paying close attention, sometimes belaboring the obvious is exactly what’s required.

So, if all Democrats are going to get on TV or in newspapers is a one-line soundbite on each issue (if they’re lucky), they’d better make sure those soundbites advertise their priorities and reinforce each other, like this:

– Iraq? "There’s a better way to defend this country than having 1,000 Americans a year die in Iraq."

– Torture? "There’s a better way to defend this country than becoming the first nation in the world to quit the Geneva Conventions."

– Warrantless NSA spying? "There’s a better way to defend this country than to gut the Constitution."

– Iran? "There’s a better way to defend this country than to dive into another war without knowing what happens the day after the bombs fall."

This way, we not only get our objections across, we communicate to all those distracted "security moms" and NASCAR families that Democrats really do give a crap about whether we get blown up or not, contrary to what Dick Cheney and Karl Rove would have them believe.

If someone is interested enough ask what our "better way" is, particularly with regard to torture and NSA spying, an added soundbite I would throw in is that the best way to defend America is to be America. The other day at Needlenose, I quoted Ron Suskind on the real front line against terrorism, which is ordinary citizens in obscure locations around the world who might get wind of a plot against the U.S. — if those random citizens react by thinking, "F—ing Americans, they deserve it" instead of "That’s terrible, I should tell the police," America is less safe. When our country is an example of freedom and tolerance across the world — the kind of nation that drew the world’s sympathy after September 11th — America is safer.

There’s plenty more left to be said on this topic. But the gist of it is, for the past five years Republicans have shown us their way of trying to protect America — based on hysterical threats, ignoring facts, and reckless actions — for which we’re now paying a huge price. We’ve seen the results of their way. Democrats think there’s a better way, based on an honest assessment of danger, telling the truth to the American people about it, and living up to our fundamental values as we do what has to be done. [emphasis, mine. -- bill]

Which way would you vote for?

What moral authority?

Glenn Greenwald is rightfully outraged by how BushCo has destroyed any moral authority the U.S. once had. You don't need due process... you're a terrorists if BushCo accuses you of being a terrorist. Arrgh! These bozos are a disgrace.

So on top of operating secret torture gulags in Eastern Europe, we also kidnap people, charge them with no crime, give them no opportunity to defend themselves, deny them contact with their consulate in violation of international treaties (as the Canadian report complained about), send them off to be tortured for months, and then when it turns out that they are completely inncoent, we block them from obtaining compensation in our courts because our Government claims that national security would be jeopardized if they were held accountable for their behavior.

How can you be an American citizen and not be completely outraged, embarrassed, and disgusted by this conduct? What the Bush administration is doing on so many levels is a grotesque betrayal of every national value and principle we have always claimed to embrace and for which we have fought, and which we claim we are defending as part of our current "war".

Can it even be debated at this point that the Bush administration has so plainly, as Billmon described it the other day, "forfeit(ed) forever its ability to chastise the human rights abuses of others without triggering a global laughing fit"? Who would ever take seriously the notion that a Government that engages in this behavior can lecture anyone on human rights abuses or import democratic values around the world?

And how much more potent of a case could there be to underscore the point that being detained by the Bush administration. or being accused by them of being a terrorist, does not mean that someone is a terrorist -- a most basic logical axiom which Bush followers constantly violate because the media allows them to? Advocating minimal due process protections for military commissions before people are executed for being "terrorists" cannot honestly be described as "giving rights to terrorists" because they are not terrorists solely by being accused -- and anyone who describes it as such is engaged in deceit and distortion, not "framing" techniques or political spin. The same is true of oppositing torture ("advocating terrorist rights"), warrantless eavesdropping ("opposing spying on terrorists") and every other related debate -- conflating accusations of terrorism with being a terrorist is not political advocacy but outright dishonesty and the media has the responsibility to describe it as such.

Not-my-department department

In commenting on the release of the findings of the Canadian commission investigating the rendition and torture of Maher Arar, a Canadian citizen, Attorney-General, Alberto "Abu" Gonzales claimed that "we were not responsible for his removal to Syria". This seemed rather strange considering that "American officials ordered him [Arar] taken to Syria, an action documented in public records".

However, all has been clarified:

On Wednesday, a Justice Department spokesman said Mr. Gonzales had intended to make only a narrow point: that deportations are now handled by the Department of Homeland Security, not the Department of Justice.

The spokesman, Charles Miller, said the attorney general forgot that at the time of Mr. Arar’s deportation, such matters were still handled by the Immigration and Naturalization Service, which was part of the Department of Justice.

For you see, "Abu" was just making one of those distinctions without a difference: it wasn't DoJ, it was DHS, only it was wasn't. It was INS which is DoJ. Clear? And what was his point anyway? As one of Arar's lawyers said:

Maria C. LaHood, Mr. Arar’s lawyer at the Center for Constitutional Rights in New York, called Mr. Gonzales’ comments “unbelievable.”

“I had hoped that they would actually step up and say, ‘We made a mistake, we accept the report’s findings, we clear Mr. Arar’s name and we apologize,’ ” Ms. LaHood said.

But you see, BushCo don't apologize, ma'am. We screw up, lie about it and move on... to screw up again. And by the way... why are you helping the terrorists? Would you step over here? we've got some questions (and a plane ride) for you.