Quote of the Day

Thinking is the hardest work there is, which is probably the reason why so few engage in it.
   - Henry Ford

Civil Rights For Some

Major League Baseball has decided to turn one of its final spring training games into a PR opportunity by anointing the St. Louis - Cleveland matchup on Saturday as its inaugural Civil Rights Game.

That would be the St. Louis Cardinals against the Cleveland Indians. While we aren't advocating that the Indians should be required to change their name, it's easy to understand how some find it offensive, just as they do the Washington Redskins. After all, would a team named the Charleston Blackskins or the New Orleans Darkies be ok? Or how about the San Francisco Fags - team colors white on pink? Just what makes these options too offensive to be taken seriously but not a team named after the original habitants of the United States, who, as we all well know, were repeatedly and forceably removed from any land of value and dumped like trash where nobody cared, treaty after treaty being negotiated and then broken in the process. Discrimination against Native Americans continues even today.

At the very least, would it have been too much to ask MLB to find a team other than the Indians for its first Civil Rights Game? After all, civil rights are for everyone and the fight for them is long from over. MLB's effort to reach out to a segment of the country that's under-represented in the stands and remind them of the role baseball played in desegregation winds up being scored as an error.

Quote of the Day

The important thing is not to stop questioning.
   - Albert Einstein

Quote of the Day

Don't fret about going nowhere as long as it's an interesting path.
   - Anonymous

The Perjury Trap

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' senior counselor, Monica Goodling, first took a leave of absense when the shit hit the fan over the firings of eight U.S. Attorneys. Her role in this latest fiasco of The Decider's administration was to serve as the DOJ liaison to the White House, so she's basically been the messenger between the Rove political leviathan and Gonzales' former Chief of Staff, Kyle Sampson, who drew the short straw to actually perform the wet work.

Now that Goodling has had the opportunity to retain counsel (John Dowd) and consider how things may play out, she's decided to refuse to testify before Congress on the basis of the 5th Amendment's protection from criminal self-incrimination. That's quite an interesting contrast to Kyle Sampson, who has welcomed the opportunity to testify under oath and on the record. FWIW, Goodling is an alum of right-wing religious kook Pat Robertson's Regent University, an institution devoted to turning the United States into a Christian theocracy. We have to wonder why faith in the Lord and the Truth leads one to fear she will she be charged with criminal conduct if she appears before Congress.

Dowd has called her potential appearance "a perjury trap." We see two things going on with this maneuver. First, this is part of a larger White House spin strategy to poison the public's perception of the Congressional hearings before they even happen. If the administration's noise machine and its media supplicants can convince the American sheeple that these hearings are nothing more than a partisan witch hunt whose outcome has already been decided, they can sell the idea that anything that may come of them should be rejected out of hand.

More importantly for Goodling, her attorney has surveyed the situation and found a no-win situation for his client; a situation completely of the White House's making. If Goodling agrees to testify, her testimony will be judged for veracity by comparing it to others. Senior administration figures such as Karl Rove have already demonstrated that the way they approach testimony is for everyone to agree to a story and then stick to it. Thus, Goodling can either tell the truth about her role to use the DOJ to carry out Rove's political agenda and risk being the odd woman out or she can get with the program and tell the agreed-upon story and risk the truth coming out from a source she doesn't control. Either way, the moment she takes the oath and opens her mouth, she risks being sacrificed to save the real players, even if she's completely honest about what went on.

What's the best choice for someone in Goodling's shoes? The only option that doesn't put her in jeopardy of being charged with perjury is to not say anything at all. It's a shame that the person who served as the liaison between the White House and the DOJ won't be sharing her story - it would be very enlightening. Kyle Sampson's should also be interesting, but much of what he'll have to say about Karl Rove's involvement will be hearsay - hearsay from Monica Goodling, who will neither confirm nor deny what she may or may not have said.

In the end, this is precisely what the White House wants. They've made it clear to those who make the mistake of joining their mob that anyone who gets out of line gets rubbed out. Goodling's gotten the message, loud and clear, and it's the American people who will once again be denied the truth.

The Rove-Cheney Endgame

There's an article over at the Daily Kos that analyzes what happens when someone is found in contempt of Congress for refusing to answer a subpoena to appear before it. Congress has no enforcement powers of its own; rather, it must rely upon the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia to actually bring charges.

So imagine the following scenario. Karl Rove ignores his subpoena to appear before Congress to testify under oath and on the record about the firings of eight U.S. attorneys. The U.S. Attorney for D.C., who serves at the pleasure of The Decider, is then asked by a Democratic Congress to prosecute the person who's making the lists of who to fire and who to keep. Just how many ways do you think this administration can come up with to give the Congress it no longer controls the finger?

That's some game, eh? Enforcement of the contempt power falls to the U.S. Attorneys -- the political strong-arming and contamination of which brought us to this crisis in the first place. Heck, you'd almost think they... planned it.

Realize that the resolution of this stand-off will determine the extent to which the Congress is able to investigate everything that's still on their plate. If they lose this showdown, they lose their leverage in investigating NSA spying, the DeLay/Abramoff-financed Texas redistricting, Cheney's Energy Task Force, the political manipulation of science, the Plame outing... everything.

And that's why Bush is playing it this way. Remember, too, that his "administration" is populated by Watergate and Iran-Contra recidivists, chief among them Dick Cheney, who has wanted to relitigate the boundaries of executive power since forever. Cheney and others on the inside believe that this time, with a friendlier judiciary, these issues can be decided the "right" way, overturning the victories won against Richard Nixon's insane theories of executive power.

Their thinking is that they'll either win it in courts, or run out the clock trying.

And the day they get five Justices to say they're right, everything you thought you knew about checks and balances becomes wrong.

We find this analysis quite insightful, and precisely the kind of political endgame that Rove and Cheney would concoct. Regardless of the midterm elections, regardless of record-low poll numbers, regardless of various court opinions that have rejected its perspective of an executive who is unchecked and above all else, the puppet-masters of this administration continue in their orgy of power. Impeachment of both the President and the Vice President may well be the only way to stop the madness.

Quote of the Day

Faith in a holy cause is to a considerable extent a substitute for the lost faith in ourselves.
   - Eric Hoffer

Karl Rove - Proven Liar

Karl Rove is a proven liar. That's the thesis of Joe Conason's March 23rd column over at Salon.com. And, as he explains, if it's the truth we're interested in, even placing Rove under oath and on the record may not produce it.

Rove is a proven liar who cannot be trusted to tell the truth even when he is under oath, unless and until he is directly threatened with the prospect of prison time. Or has everyone suddenly forgotten his exceedingly narrow escape from criminal indictment for perjury and false statements in the Valerie Plame Wilson investigation? Only after four visits to the grand jury convened by special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, and a stark warning from Fitzgerald to defense counsel of a possible indictment, did Rove suddenly remember his role in the exposure of Plame as a CIA agent.

Not only did Rove lie, but he happily let others lie on his behalf, beginning in September 2003, when Scott McClellan, then the White House press secretary, publicly exonerated him of any blame in the outing of Plame. From that autumn until his fifth and final appearance before the grand jury in April 2006, the president's "boy genius" concealed the facts about his leak of Plame's CIA identity to Time magazine correspondent Matt Cooper.

There is no reason to believe that Rove would ever have told the truth if Fitzgerald had not forced Cooper to testify before the grand jury and surrender his incriminating notes, with a contempt citation and the threat of a long sojourn in jail. Indeed, there is no reason to think that even knowing Cooper had testified would have made Rove testify accurately. He failed to do so from July 2005 until April 2006, after all. But in December 2005, Fitzgerald impaneled a new grand jury and started to present evidence against him.

Of course Karl Rove should be made to testify before Congress regarding the firing of the eight U.S. attorneys under oath and on the record. He is a political advisor to the President, not a legal or national security advisor. While we realize that in The Decider's administration, such a role is considered paramount, in the real world political considerations are supposed to take a back seat to running the country in its citizens' best interests, not overwhelm them. And if anyone is going to lie about what went on, Rove has already proven he's a likely candidate.

It's unfortunate Fitzgerald didn't pursue criminal indictments against Rove. Few in this detestable administration of amoral politically obsessed power-mongers deserve to wind up as presented by the following picture more than he does.

Revisiting the Exxon Valdez

This week marks the 18th anniversary of the Exxon Valdez grounding (shown at left), which resulted in almost 11 million gallons of crude oil spilling into Prince William Sound. It remains as one of the largest environmental disasters at sea.

The NYT features each day in its email of headlines a "This Day in History" reprint of a previous front page. Here's the reprint of the front page covering the grounding and spill. Proving that the more things change, the more they stay the same is this quote from Exxon.

David Parish, a spokesman for Exxon, said the company did not expect major environmental damage as a result of the spill.

You can find more information about the spill, legal proceedings and settlements, and the ongoing environment cleanup and restoration efforts at The Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council's website.

Quote of the Day

There's only one success - to spend your life in your own way.
   - Christopher Morley

Quote of the Day

The American people have lost faith in the president’s conduct of this war. The American people see the reality of the war; the president does not.
    - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)

That Was Then

Glenn Greenwald has an interesting column on Salon.com about The Decider's threat to use a claim of executive privilege to prevent having his aids testify on the record and under oath. He points out that since Bush has already admitted that they haven't told the truth regarding the firing of eight U.S. attorneys, it would be foolhardy to think that they're finally going to start now.

What Greenwald has done that's of particular interest is to compile a collection of what those who are now defending Bush's claim to executive privilege had to say about such a claim when Bill Clinton was making it. Here's one such piece from the very manifestation of how this administration treats the American public with patronizing contempt.

Tony Snow - Op-Ed - St. Louis Post-Dispatch, March 29, 1998

(HEADLINE: "Executive Privilege is a Dodge")

Evidently, Mr. Clinton wants to shield virtually any communications that take place within the White House compound on the theory that all such talk contributes in some way, shape or form to the continuing success and harmony of an administration. Taken to its logical extreme, that position would make it impossible for citizens to hold a chief executive accountable for anything. He would have a constitutional right to cover up.

Chances are that the courts will hurl such a claim out, but it will take time.

One gets the impression that Team Clinton values its survival more than most people want justice and thus will delay without qualm. But as the clock ticks, the public's faith in Mr. Clinton will ebb away for a simple reason: Most of us want no part of a president who is cynical enough to use the majesty of his office to evade the one thing he is sworn to uphold -- the rule of law.

Where's that Tony Snow? He is, of course, now standing before the White House press corp on a daily basis (as pictured above), accusing Congress of choosing to create a public spectacle because it has the audacity to question this administration's veracity and reject its claim to executive privilege.

What's the difference between that Tony Snow and this one? Certainly not the issues involved, nor the principles behind them. Quite simply, it's the party in power and who signs his paycheck. While we sincerely wish him the best in his upcoming medical procedures, we regret the doctors won't be able to implant some integrity during the surgery.

Republican Porkers Get Religion

Most of the focus on Friday's House legislation concerning a $124 billion emergency war spending request to pay for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan for the next six months was on the provision to withdraw most American troops by September, 2008. What's been overlooked is the Republican outcry over the $24 billion of domestic spending that was added to the bill by Democrats, ostensibly to make it more attractive to Representatives on the fence.

In the NTY story about the bill there appears this huffing-and-puffing about pork barrel politics.

Two Republicans voted for the measure: Representative Wayne Gilchrest of Maryland, a former Marine Corps officer who was wounded in Vietnam, and Walter B. Jones of North Carolina, who called for a withdrawal nearly two years ago.

But the rest of the Republican caucus objected to the legislation on substance and principle. Several lawmakers derided the total of nearly $24 billion in domestic spending — benefiting spinach growers and shrimp fishermen and peanut storage, among others — that Democrats put into the bill to make it more palatable to its members.

“What does throwing money at Bubba Gump, Popeye the sailor man and Mr. Peanut have to do with winning a war? Nothing,” said Representative Sam Johnson, a Texas Republican. “The sweeteners in this bill are political bribery, and our troops deserve more than this.”

The answer, of course, is nothing. And Democrats shouldn't be padding the bill with unrelated spending measures regardless of their benefits, which are probably dubious at best. Legislation should be drafted and resolved on its own merits, not because Congressional whores get their pockets lined.

But isn't it the height of irony that Republican Congressmen have suddenly found religion on the issue of emptying the public treasury for pet projects? When Republicans controlled the government, they set records for such spending. Here's a graphic produced by the conservative Heritage Foundation documenting how pork barrel spending rocketed out of control under Republicans.




Perhaps now that Republicans no longer hold the purse strings they so generously opened for things like bridges to nowhere, they've discovered that there ought to be a genuine public need in order to approve spending Americans' tax dollars. Let's hope so. And let's hope the Democrats don't follow the Republican example of spending like they're Michael Jackson. There's already plenty of record debt to pay off from years of unchecked Republican looting, tax breaks for the rich, and a steadfast refusal to pay for their pork.

Quote of the Day

Character is like a tree and reputation a shadow. The shadow is what we think of it; the tree is the real thing.
   - Abraham Lincoln

Pinocchio Gonzales

Just when does Attorney General Alberto Gonzales think he should start telling the truth? When his nose is so long he can't enter a room without putting a hole in the opposite wall?

Gonzales' version of the firings of eight U.S. attorneys has, up to this point, consistently been that he wasn't a participant in the process. In fact, he's claimed that he didn't even know what his former Chief of Staff Kyle Sampson was really up to; that he's so busy taking responsibility for things like making sure the FBI isn't violating American citizens' Constitutional rights he's had to delegate the more mundane tasks of his office.

Documents released by the Bush administration late Friday - when they hoped no one would notice - reveal that Gonzales has been lying about his involvement as has the White House about its. The WaPo reports on the latest revelations of administration prevarications.

Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales met with senior aides on Nov. 27 to review a plan to fire a group of U.S. attorneys, according to documents released last night, a disclosure that contradicts Gonzales's previous statement that he was not involved in "any discussions" about the dismissals.

The hour-long November meeting in the attorney general's conference room included Gonzales, Deputy Attorney General Paul J. McNulty and four other senior Justice officials, including the Gonzales aide who coordinated the firings, then-Chief of Staff D. Kyle Sampson, records show.

Documents detailing the previously undisclosed meeting appear to conflict with remarks by Gonzales at a March 13 news conference in which he portrayed himself as a CEO who had delegated to Sampson responsibility for the particulars of firing eight U.S. attorneys.

"I was not involved in seeing any memos, was not involved in any discussions about what was going on," Gonzales said.

Not involved? How can the highest-ranking official in the DOJ spend an entire hour participating in the very meeting where the plan to fire the U.S. attorneys was reviewed and approved and then make such a statement? He can when the truth takes a backseat to attempting to manage the political fallout. He can when he's nothing but a political hack whose primary job qualification is being a hard-core loyal Bushie.

More evidence is also emerging about the level of White House involvement in the firings.

The documents released last night include more details about the extent of White House involvement in the firings. They show, for example, that a public affairs officer at the White House knew about the imminent dismissals before Scolinos, the Justice Department's chief public affairs officer, learned about them on Nov. 17.

Gonzales and other Justice Department officials have said that Sampson quit because he withheld information from other officials and Sampson's action may have led them to give misleading testimony before Congress. Sampson's attorney has disputed that characterization and has said that others in the Justice Department were fully aware of "several years" of discussions with the White House about dismissing the prosecutors.

The point is crucial because Justice officials said in previous statements and testimony that the White House was involved only tangentially, at the end of the process.

The White House only involved tangentially? There's a reason The Decider continues to pugnaciously support Gonzales: if he fires him, Gonzales will have no protection from testifying under oath about what really went on with the firings. No one in the White House wants to see Gonzales telling members of Congress how he was just following order from on high to use the DOJ as yet another Rovian political weapon. This is the very thing that makes Kyle Sampson's upcoming testimony so intriguing.

"The attorney general, more than any other Cabinet officer, must always tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth," said Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), the first lawmaker to call for Gonzales's resignation. "If the facts bear out that Attorney General Gonzales knew much more about the plan than he has previously admitted, then he can no longer serve as attorney general."

A fourth Republican lawmaker said yesterday that Gonzales should resign. Rep. Paul E. Gillmor (Ohio) said Gonzales has become a "lightning rod" for criticism. "It would be better for the president and the department if the attorney general were to step down," Gillmor said.

These latest revelations are the last straw. Alberto Gonzales is simply unfit to be the American People's legal representative and serve as the head of the Department of Justice. He must be removed from office, be summoned before Congress under oath and on the record, and for what is probably the first time, tell the truth about what's been going.

Why He Was Fired

Earlier this week, former U.S. Attorney for the District of New Mexico David C. Iglesias (pictured to the right) wrote an op-ed piece for the NYT that makes it clear he was fired not because of performance issues, as Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has claimed, but rather because he failed the Bush administration in its mission to use prosecutorial powers as a political weapon. Here's the editorial in its entirety.

With this week’s release of more than 3,000 Justice Department e-mail messages about the dismissal of eight federal prosecutors, it seems clear that politics played a role in the ousters.

Of course, as one of the eight, I’ve felt this way for some time. But now that the record is out there in black and white for the rest of the country to see, the argument that we were fired for “performance related” reasons (in the words of Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty) is starting to look more than a little wobbly.

United States attorneys have a long history of being insulated from politics. Although we receive our appointments through the political process (I am a Republican who was recommended by Senator Pete Domenici), we are expected to be apolitical once we are in office. I will never forget John Ashcroft, then the attorney general, telling me during the summer of 2001 that politics should play no role during my tenure. I took that message to heart. Little did I know that I could be fired for not being political.

Politics entered my life with two phone calls that I received last fall, just before the November election. One came from Representative Heather Wilson and the other from Senator Domenici, both Republicans from my state, New Mexico.

Ms. Wilson asked me about sealed indictments pertaining to a politically charged corruption case widely reported in the news media involving local Democrats. Her question instantly put me on guard. Prosecutors may not legally talk about indictments, so I was evasive. Shortly after speaking to Ms. Wilson, I received a call from Senator Domenici at my home. The senator wanted to know whether I was going to file corruption charges — the cases Ms. Wilson had been asking about — before November. When I told him that I didn’t think so, he said, “I am very sorry to hear that,” and the line went dead.

A few weeks after those phone calls, my name was added to a list of United States attorneys who would be asked to resign — even though I had excellent office evaluations, the biggest political corruption prosecutions in New Mexico history, a record number of overall prosecutions and a 95 percent conviction rate. (In one of the documents released this week, I was deemed a “diverse up and comer” in 2004. Two years later I was asked to resign with no reasons given.)

When some of my fired colleagues — Daniel Bogden of Las Vegas; Paul Charlton of Phoenix; H. E. Cummins III of Little Rock, Ark.; Carol Lam of San Diego; and John McKay of Seattle — and I testified before Congress on March 6, a disturbing pattern began to emerge. Not only had we not been insulated from politics, we had apparently been singled out for political reasons. (Among the Justice Department’s released documents is one describing the office of Senator Domenici as being “happy as a clam” that I was fired.)

As this story has unfolded these last few weeks, much has been made of my decision to not prosecute alleged voter fraud in New Mexico. Without the benefit of reviewing evidence gleaned from F.B.I. investigative reports, party officials in my state have said that I should have begun a prosecution. What the critics, who don’t have any experience as prosecutors, have asserted is reprehensible — namely that I should have proceeded without having proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The public has a right to believe that prosecution decisions are made on legal, not political, grounds.

What’s more, their narrative has largely ignored that I was one of just two United States attorneys in the country to create a voter-fraud task force in 2004. Mine was bipartisan, and it included state and local law enforcement and election officials.

After reviewing more than 100 complaints of voter fraud, I felt there was one possible case that should be prosecuted federally. I worked with the F.B.I. and the Justice Department’s public integrity section. As much as I wanted to prosecute the case, I could not overcome evidentiary problems. The Justice Department and the F.B.I. did not disagree with my decision in the end not to prosecute.

Good has already come from this scandal. Yesterday, the Senate voted to overturn a 2006 provision in the Patriot Act that allows the attorney general to appoint indefinite interim United States attorneys. The attorney general’s chief of staff has resigned and been replaced by a respected career federal prosecutor, Chuck Rosenberg. The president and attorney general have admitted that “mistakes were made,” and Mr. Domenici and Ms. Wilson have publicly acknowledged calling me.

President Bush addressed this scandal yesterday. I appreciate his gratitude for my service — this marks the first time I have been thanked. But only a written retraction by the Justice Department setting the record straight regarding my performance would settle the issue for me.

Both Senator Domenici's and Rep. Wilson's behavior was, at the very least, unethical, and they should both be reprimanded by their colleagues for it. Domenici's call was especially repugnant; it sounds like something out of Mario Puzo's typewriter. Kudo's to David Iglesias for publicly setting the record straight and revealing to what lengths Bush loyalists are willing to go in order to attack those who don't share their political/ideological agenda. Let's hope his wife is spared the same kind of treatment Valerie Plame received.

Another Scooter?

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' former Chief of Staff Kyle Sampson (pictured to the left) has agreed to testify before the Senate as it conducts hearings into the firing of eight U.S. Attorneys. While Gonzales claimed to take responsibility for the manner in which the firings took place, it was, in typical Bush fashion, left for an underling to actually suffer the consequences.

The interesting question will be whether Sampson provides illuminating insight into the politics of the firings or whether he pulls a Scooter and falls on his sword for the real players in The Decider's administration. Since he no longer works for the executive branch of the federal government, he has no claim to the executive privilege Bush is trying to use to protect those who orchestrated the firings. Thus, Sampson will be under oath and on the record.

The record as revealed by the thousands of documents and emails released by the DOJ - with even more to come - puts Sampson's version of what transpired at odds with the various stories the White House has tried to sell the American public about how it conducts the prosecutorial business of the federal government. The AP's story on Sampson's decision to testify points this out.

E-mails between the White House and the Justice Department, dating back to the weeks immediately after the 2004 presidential election, show Sampson was heavily engaged in deciding how many prosecutors would be replaced, and which ones. The Bush administration maintains the dismissals of the eight political appointees were proper.

Democrats, however, question whether the eight were selected because they were not seen as, in Sampson's words, "loyal Bushies."

"He was right at the center of things," Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., who is leading the inquiry into the firings, said of Sampson. "He has said publicly that what others have said is not how it happened. ... He contradicts DOJ."

Schumer said he hoped Sampson would provide more detail about who initiated the firings and whether they were politically motivated.

Schumer's not the only one interested in these questions. An American public, tired of being lied to and growing increasingly impatient with the chronic incompetence of the political hacks with which The Decider has surrounded himself, wants to know, too.

Here's hoping Kyle Sampson is forthcoming, open, and completely honest about why accomplished and successful prosecutors were targeted for removal. It could make for some very interesting political drama next week.

Quote of the Day

Life is not fair - get used to it.
   - Bill Gates

Another One Bites The Dust

Wondering why Congress must insist that any member of the Bush administration testifying before it must do so under oath and on the record? Look no further that the latest - but certainly not the last - conviction in the saga of how Jack Abramoff bought the Republican-controlled federal government. The AP reports

Ex-deputy pleads guilty in Abramoff case

WASHINGTON - Former Deputy Interior Secretary J. Steven Griles pleaded guilty Friday to obstruction of justice, becoming the ninth person and the highest-ranking Bush administration official convicted in the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal.

The former No. 2 official in the Interior Department admitted in federal court that he lied to Senate investigators about his relationship with convicted lobbyist Abramoff, who repeatedly sought Griles' intervention at the agency on behalf of Abramoff's Indian tribal clients.

In government papers, Griles acknowledged that he obstructed the Senate committee's investigation into Abramoff and his associates' dealings with Indian casino clients. Griles admits he testified falsely four times to the committee and once to the panel's investigators.

Abramoff persuaded his Indian clients to pay him tens of millions of dollars to influence decisions coming out of Congress and the Interior Department. Part of his pitch to clients was that he had serious pull at the department, especially with Griles.

Awaiting sentencing in the bribery scandal, Abramoff already is serving six years in prison for a bogus Florida casino deal. Others convicted so far in the wide-ranging, influence peddling investigation include former Rep. Bob Ney, R-Ohio, and former White House official David Safavian.

Abramoff's ties to at least three other current or former Republican lawmakers have come under scrutiny in the probe: Rep. John Doolittle of California, former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay of Texas and former Sen. Conrad Burns of Montana.

Even when under oath, whether to a grand jury or members of Congress, administration officials have repeatedly shown a propensity to think that they can lie and get away with it. Now that the reality has set in that there are consequences for perjury, they'd rather choose not taking an oath in the first place over simply telling the truth.

Quote of the Day

Genius may have its limitations, but stupidity is not thus handicapped.
   - Elbert Hubbard

The Pot Speaks

Tom Delay is on the talking heads circuit, hawking his book and telling everyone how he's been redeemed by finding Jesus Christ, his Lord and Saviour. That seems to be the standard play from his ilk: be a complete political whore whose only values are other people's money and raw, brute-force power; be exposed for what you really are (remember, this is the guy who once proclaimed, "I am the federal government!"); slink off to lick your wounds; and reappear saved by Christ.

How much chutzpah does Tom Delay have? Speaking with complete seriousness on CNN's The Situation Room, he called Bill Clinton "character-challenged". Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Tom Delay is the poster boy for what's so repugnant about the Republican Party. The last person with any standing to be criticizing others is the exterminator from Sugar Land, Texas, especially since he's also wrapping himself in the robes of piety while doing it. Character-challenged? That's Tom Delay on a good day.

Quote of the Day

Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so.
   - Douglas Adams

Bring It On

Even though President Decider no longer has a compliant Congress that does whatever the White House tells it to, he still seems to think that his administration is answerable to no one, and especially the representatives of the American people.

Congress is rightfully concerned that the integrity of the Justice Department has been damaged by presidential lapdog Alberto Gonzales. The firings of the eight U.S. Attorneys wasn't for cause, but rather because they wouldn't set aside their professional ethics and use their offices as political sledgehammers.

So what's The Shrub's response to reports that Congress intends to subpoena White House political and legal aides, including Harriet Miers and Karl Rove? It is, of course, the same response to every conflict he encounters, real or imagined: Bring it on!

The Smirking Chimp held a preemptive news conference yesterday afternoon to graciously offer to allow certain administration officials to speak to Congress, just as long as it wasn't on the record and under oath. And we've already seen what happens when oaths are taken by members of this administration. Fortunately, Congress immediately rejected his demands. From the AP wire is this story.

WASHINGTON - A defiant President Bush warned Democrats Tuesday to accept his offer to have top aides speak about the firings of federal prosecutors only privately and not under oath, or risk a constitutional showdown from which he would not back down.

Democrats' response was swift and firm: They said they would start authorizing subpoenas as soon as Wednesday for the White House aides.

"Testimony should be on the record and under oath. That's the formula for true accountability," said Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Today, the Congress moved to accept The Decider's challenge. The AP reports

WASHINGTON - A House panel on Wednesday approved subpoenas for President Bush's political adviser, Karl Rove and other top White House aides, setting up a constitutional showdown over the firings of eight federal prosecutors.

By voice vote, the House Judiciary subcommittee on commercial and administrative law decided to compel the president's top aides to testify publicly and under oath about their roles in the firings.

The Senate Judiciary Committee scheduled a vote Thursday on its own set of subpoenas, with Democrats complaining that the threat of force is the only way to get a straight answer from the White House.

"The White House is in a bunker mentality — won't listen, won't change," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. "I believe there is even more to come out, and I think it's our duty to bring it out."

Of course there's more to come out. Look at how many times the White House has already changed its story about the firings. Just like the myriad justifications for invading Iraq, the Bush spin machine keeps replacing its reasons as each one falls by the wayside. It's either that or have to admit the truth.

Having to admit the truth is precisely why The Decider's advisers have told him to put a fight. Not only do they believe in an all-powerful Unitary Executive that does whatever it wants and is answerable to no one, they also know that administration officials testifying publicly and under oath will be unable to avoid admitting that the Justice Department is being used as yet another political tool to reward the faithful and punish dissent.

On the record and under oath - that's the only way to deal with this administration. Isn't it both a shame and telling that The Decider's response to the American people is one that says he has something to hide? A shame and telling, yes. But surprising? Not in the slightest.

Quote of the Day

It's easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them.
   - Anonymous

Don't Confuse Me With The Facts

"Don't confuse me with the facts." That should be the motto of right-wing blathering head Sean Hannity as well as the Wall Street Journal, who both trotted out the lie that Bill Clinton fired a U.S. Attorney because he was investigating Whitewater. As Media Matter reports, Keith Olbermann awarded Hannity the bronze medal as his daily Worst Person In The World, with an honorable mention to the WSJ, for making this claim in spite of the facts to the contrary. The links below point to specific refutations of each entity's claim.

Olbermann awarded Fox News host Sean Hannity "the bronze" because, as Media Matters also documented, "He repeated the tale that President Clinton fired a U.S. attorney because the attorney was investigating Whitewater." Olbermann observed: "In fact, that U.S. attorney, Charles Banks, a Republican, investigated Whitewater, decided in October 1992 that there was no there there, resisted pressure from the first President Bush's attorney general to prosecute anyway." Olbermann acknowledged that "this could have gone to the Wall Street Journal editorial board," which made a similar accusation in a March 14 editorial, as Media Matters also documented.

So, even though it was a Republican-appointed U.S. Attorney who concluded, after conducting an investigation, that there was nothing to prosecute, and who refused political pressure to pursue it anyway heading into the 1992 presidential election, the right-wing propaganda machine continues to try to turns lies into something people might believe is the truth. And in doing so, it somehow tries to suggest that this would make it ok for President Decider to fire U.S. Attorneys because they were investigating people he wanted protected and not investigating people he wanted to suffer from the power of his completely politically oriented administration. Is this the standard to which the right-wing is now forced to stoop? Bill Clinton did it (although he really didn't), so it's ok for The Smirking Chimp to do it, too?

There is one difference, however. While Papi Bush pushed to put the screws to Clinton, he didn't fire the U.S. Attorney who followed his professional ethics rather than his party loyalty oath. It's just another example of dad not making the mistakes junior can't seem to avoid.

Quote of the Day

There ain't no rules around here. We're trying to accomplish something.
   - Thomas Edison

Hazy Memories

The White House spin machine is running full steam trying to find some explanation for the firings of the eight U.S. Attorneys who proved insufficiently politically loyal. Previous attempts by the administration to throw something against the wall and see what sticks has so far come up short. The AP reports

WASHINGTON - The White House dropped its contention Friday that former Counsel Harriet Miers first raised the idea of firing U.S. attorneys, blaming "hazy memories" as e-mails shed new light on Karl Rove's role. Support eroded further for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

Presidential press secretary Tony Snow previously had asserted Miers was the person who came up with the idea, but he said Friday, "I don't want to try to vouch for origination." He said, "At this juncture, people have hazy memories."

So it's the Scooter Libby defense now. And what's with the phrase 'at this juncture'? Does this mean they didn't have hazy memories before; they were just lying and became dismayed when no one believed them after all these years of repeatedly lying about pretty much everything? Does this mean that when they finally figure out a particular spin they think they can sell, their memories will suddenly become clear again and they'll tell us yet another version of what happened? Is there anyone more obviously pathological than Tony Snow?

And what do Harriet Miers (that illustrious former Supreme Court nominee who wears eye-liner like a junior high schooler) and Alberto Gonzales have in common? Here's the answer in a nutshell.

House Democratic Whip James Clyburn of South Carolina said the controversies reflected poorly on administration officials generally.

"They don't know anything about running government. They're just political hacks," Clyburn said at a news conference in Columbia, S.C. "Gonzales is just a political hack."

Yep. As is pretty much everyone in The Decider's administration, whether it's screwing up disaster relief, letting Halliburton empty the public treasury, or dumping wounded combat veterans when they get home. Incompetency reigns supreme wherever The Shrub casts his shadow.

Quote of the Day

Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things that you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover.
   - Mark Twain

Quote of the Day

One of the disadvantages of wine is that it makes a person mistake words for thoughts.
   - Samuel Johnson

Quote of the Day

Operate from an expectation of success rather than a fear of failure.
   - Anonymous

DZ Gets Dumped

There's an update on the story of the Delta Zeta sorority chapter at DePauw University. After kicking out most of its membership and retaining only the Paris Hiltons, they've been kicked out themselves. The AP reports the following.

GREENCASTLE, Ind. - DePauw University's president on Monday ordered a sorority off campus by fall after Delta Zeta kicked out nearly two dozen members and drew accusations that only attractive, popular students were asked to remain. School President Robert G. Bottoms said the values of the sorority did not fit with the 2,200-student private college in western Indiana.

Karma's a bitch, isn't it?

Quote of the Day

The pure and simple truth is rarely pure and never simple.
   - Oscar Wilde

Quote of the Day

The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read them.
   - Mark Twain

The Final Four

Even as the mid-major conferences get more ink and more hype each year, the highest echelon of the college game remains unchallenged by the upstarts and the wanna-bes. And so it goes this this year, where no team ranked less than a three-seed travels to Atlanta without a ticket.


Semi-Finals

Kansas over Florida. First, unless your name is John Wooden, it's extremely difficult to repeat. Florida's play has been, at best, unfocused as of late. It wasn't that long ago that you could count on Billy Donovan for an early exit when making your picks. Kansas is just the kind of team that can both out-shoot and out-muscle them. All they really need to overcome in this game is their head coach. Second, I'm not sure the country is ready for two major college championships from a state where education is considered optional. At least this isn't FSU or Miami football we're talking about. Sure, Kansas's idea of education is redeciding the Scopes Monkey Trial, but at least they're trying. With everyone heading to the NBA, none of this matters anyway. They're all playing pro ball, right?

Georgetown over Texas A&M. The Beast of the East is back and will dominate this match-up. They'd beat OSU, too. And I'm pretty sure Thompson, like his father, makes his players go to class. At Georgetown, that actually means something.


2007 NCAA Champions

Kansas over Georgetown. It's going to be a heavyweight brawl decided by no more than three points. After the traditional shaky start by both teams, they'll settle in and go punch-for-punch inside, outside, and up-and-down the court. When it's over, Kansas and Self will have their crown.

The South Bracket

Everyone's picking Ohio State to win it all. As a native Buckeye, I know I have an obligation to, too. But I'm sorry. If there's a team in this year's NCAA tournament that's overrated, it's OSU. Many a bracket will be busted when they bow out without making the Final Four.


First Round Picks

Ohio State over Central Connecticut State. Who?

BYU over Xavier. There's an Ainge at BYU again.

Tennessee over Long Beach State. LBS will play Tenacious-D, but they're too short to rebound UT's misses.

Albany over Virginia. Every region needs a true upset, and this one is it. Virginia has no business as a four-seed and is simply living off of the rep of the ACC.

Stanford over Louisville. Only a team as schizophrenic as Louisville could turn the gift of essentially playing at home into a liability. Stanford comes in and coolly dismembers them.

Texas A&M over Penn. Penn's always good for putting a first-round scare into someone.

Nevada over Creighton. It's kind of surprising Nevada's only a seven-seed, but they'll put Creighton away.

Memphis over North Texas. Unless North Texas plays the track team, this one's over at the jump.


Second Round Picks

Ohio State over BYU. Another yawner where OSU plays down to its competition.

Tennessee over Albany. Reality sets in before the weekend is over.

Texas A&M over Stanford. Too much offense for The Tree.

Memphis over Nevada. This game will be 40 minutes of run-and-gun. Play the over.


Third Round Picks

Ohio State over Tennessee. Yet another win that will be closer than the talent on the floor suggests.

Texas A&M over Memphis. Memphis didn't play anyone all year. This is where they get into trouble and don't know what to do about it.


Regional Champ

Texas A&M over Ohio State. OSU sure has won a lot, but it's never by as much as it ought to be. They simply don't have the killer instinct champions do. While Greg Oden's big enought to deny aircraft carriers in the paint, it's about all he can do. He'd get absolutely killed in the NBA at this point in his development. At some point during the tournament, the outside shot will stop falling and everyone will start looking at each other to fix things. In the meantime, Texas A&M is just the team that can score without having to go inside. And this is the team that beat Kansas on the road. Sorry Buckeyes. It's another premature exit.

The East Bracket

This is the best region in the tournament, hands-down. Many of the games will be great regardless of how the bracket shakes out.


First Round Picks

North Carolina over Eastern Kentucky. Hansbrough rests his nose.

Marquette over Michigan State. This will be an excellent first-round match-up. Even though Tom Izzo's a great coach, I just can't bring myself to pick a Big10 team.

USC over Arkansas. The last time we noticed Tim Floyd, he was trying to figure out how to win 10 games with the Bulls. The Razorbacks are pretenders. USC easily.

Texas over New Mexico State. This is just a warm-up for the Kevin Durant show.

George Washington over Vanderbilt. Vandy lives and dies by the three. GW can defend it.

Oral Roberts over Washington State. Here's the upset special pick of the tournament.

Texas Tech over Boston College. Not only did BC falter at the close of the regular season, the last coach you want to have to face in March is Bobby Knight. I like Knight. I don't think I could play for him, but I like the way he goes about his business. He doesn't cheat and he knows what a load of crap most of the hypocrisy of college 'student'-athletics is, and he isn't afraid to say so. So he doesn't make you feel all warm-and-fuzzy inside - get a dog if you need that. BC is in trouble.

Georgetown over Belmont. Georgetown is back.


Second Round Picks

UNC over Marquette. Just a tune-up for what's next.

Texas over USC. Likewise.

GW over Oral Roberts. While both are lower seeds, GW is a much better team.

Georgetown over Texas Tech. Knight will give them a good game, but Georgetown is simply too strong to be denied.


Third Round Picks

Texas over UNC. I originally had the Tar Heels, but considering Hansbrough will have to wear that mask, thanks to the Dookies response to losing a game, I think that's enough for Texas to run them down. This will be one to watch.

Georgetown over George Washington. Looks like George wins either way. At least that one knew he wasn't king.


Regional Champ

Georgetown over Texas. Even if UNC beats Texas, Georgetown wins this game. They are a force to be reckoned with.

The West Bracket

There are two legitimate teams in this region that could make the Final Four: Kansas and UCLA. The rest will need some divine intervention. The real question will be whether Bill Self can get out of his own way for a change.


First Round Picks

Kansas over Niagara. The only 16-seed to be able to say it won a game.

Villanova over Kentucky. There's trouble brewing at KU, and 'Nova sends them home to Ashley early.

Virginia Tech over Illinois. A pretty easy pick even without the Big10 rule.

Southern Illinois over Holy Cross. This would be a major upset. Ain't gonna happen.

Virginia Commonwealth over Duke. Had any other team played as poorly as Duke the past month or so, they might be in the NIT. At the very least, they should have been a 9 or 10 seed. But no, not the Dookies. So which VCU player is going to get mugged in this game? It's going to be fun watching them go one-and-done. Couldn't happen to a more deserving program.

Pittsburgh over Wright State. Where's Wilbur and Orville when you need them?

Gonzaga over Indiana. Even on psychedelics, the Zags will beat IU. Don't bet on the Big10.

UCLA over Weber State. No Griz in The Dance this year. Bummer.


Second Round Picks

Kansas over Villanova. Yes, we all expect KU to stumble. They escape down the stretch.

Virginia Tech over SIU. Here's where a real schedule pays off.

Pittsburgh over VCU. While Pitt should win, they have a habit of not playing up to their seeding in the tournament. I'll take them, but respect those that pick VCU.

UCLA over Gonzaga. Should be a pretty easy win for the Bruins.


Third Round Picks

Kansas over Virginia Tech. They got to the second week. KU's on a role.

UCLA over Pittsburgh. Pitt stumbles again more than UCLA wins the game.


Regional Champ

Kansas over UCLA. Tough call, but KU is bigger and stronger and this becomes a physical game to go to Atlanta that KU wins.

The Midwest Bracket

There really isn't much opposition for Florida in this region, although after watching Joakim Noah's boasting and strutting following their SEC tournament title, I wouldn't mind seeing them flop just like they did down the stretch of the regular season.


First Round Picks

Florida over Jackson State. Is the mercy rule in effect?

Arizona over Purdue. Arizona is a team with talent that's really underachieved. Purdue's a plodding team from the Big10. And if there's one lesson to be learned after all these years filling out the brackets, it's pick against the Big10.

Old Dominion over Butler. Many analysts/prognosticators say this wouldn't even be an upset if it weren't for the seeding.

Davidson over Maryland. Yeah, I know Maryland has the only team in the region that could seriously challenge Florida. They look ahead and get beat by a team that came to play this game.

Winthrop over Notre Dame. It's a great day when there's an opportunity to pick against The Domers, especially since so many of them probably have ND taking on Florida. Go Winthrop!

Oregon over Miami (OH). Don't get me started on how ridiculous the decision to give Akron extra time on the clock in the MAC tournament final was. What's next, going back and reviewing every play to check with exact precision when the clock starts and calculating the total difference? Ask Duke how time-keeping works. And then there's the little detail of the winning shot being taken with enough time left that even had the clock started at the exact proper instant, it still would have been good. It's time for the refs to stop making up the rules and get back to calling the game.

UNLV over Georgia Tech. Should be a good, close game, but GTech stumbles at the end.

Wisconsin over Texas A&M - Corpus Christi. Win a tournament and get beaten at The Dance.


Second Round Picks

Florida over Arizona. Arizona can hang with them, but I have to go with Florida.

Davidson over Old Dominion. Only one upset winner can advance.

Winthrop over Oregon. This Cinderella takes advantage of Oregon's reliance on the three going dry.

UNLV over Wisconsin. Wisconsin has trouble getting out of the 50's. UNLV lights them up.


Third Round Picks

Florida over Davidson. The clock strikes 12.

UNLV over Winthrop. Again.


Regional Champ

Florida over UNLV. If Noah and his boys start cutting down the nets too soon, this might be a closer game than expected. Still, Florida goes to Atlanta.

Quote of the Day

Talent does what it can; genius does what it must.
   - Edward George Bulwer-Lytton

Gonzales Admits Another Stumble

Just days after acknowledging that his FBI repeatedly violated the law regarding the collection of information about American citizens, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, better known as The Decider's legal lapdog, has now admitted that the firing of eight U.S Attorneys was mishandled. This comes after two weeks of a spinning the story as just a routine personnel decision political opponents were making too much fuss about. The AP reports

WASHINGTON - Attorney General Alberto Gonzales accepted responsibility Tuesday for mistakes in the way the Justice Department handled the dismissal of eight federal prosecutors but he rejected calls for his resignation.

Again, we have the standard Bush administration play of 'accepting responsibility', but actually refusing to do anything that would indicate such acceptance. Acceptance without consequence is no acceptance at all. If Gonzales had any integrity, or was British, his resignation would have been tendered long ago.

Justice Department officials, led by Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty, told lawmakers under oath that the decision to fire eight U.S. attorneys in December was made solely by the Justice Department and said the decision was based on performance, not politics.

E-mails released Tuesday, however, revealed that the firings were considered and discussed for two years by Justice Department and White House officials.

"Obviously I am concerned about the fact that information — incomplete information was communicated or may have been communicated to the Congress," Gonzales said. "I believe very strongly in our obligation to ensure that when we provide information to the Congress, it is accurate and it is complete. And I very dismayed that that may not have occurred here."

Yeah, yeah, yeah. We've heard this nonsense out of Gonzales so many times before we might as well be watching Tivo. Incomplete information communicated to Congress from the administration? I'm shocked! Gonzales claiming to feel dismay at yet another of his responsibilities neglected? I'm overwhelmed with empathy.

It's the same old story from President Decider's minions. Establish policy to serve not the nation's interests, but crass political ends - in this case, to head off investigations into Republican corruption and target Democrats. When word starts leaking out about what's going on, lie to Congress and attempt to spin it into something it's not. And when that fails, reluctantly admit what can no longer be denied, but don't do anything to change how it all started in the first place.

Take some responsibility, Alberto, and resign.

Quote of the Day

Be true to your work, your word, and your friend.
   - Henry David Thoreau

Gonzales Must Go

Sunday's NYT carried an editorial titled "The Failed Attorney General". It's an excellent summation of all the various wrongs Alberto Gonzales has inflicted on the United States and its people whom he is supposed to legally represent. Here are some excerpts.

During the hearing on his nomination as attorney general, Alberto Gonzales said he understood the difference between the job he held — President Bush’s in-house lawyer — and the job he wanted, which was to represent all Americans as their chief law enforcement officer and a key defender of the Constitution. Two years later, it is obvious Mr. Gonzales does not have a clue about the difference.

He has never stopped being consigliere to Mr. Bush’s imperial presidency. If anyone, outside Mr. Bush’s rapidly shrinking circle of enablers, still had doubts about that, the events of last week should have erased them.

First, there was Mr. Gonzales’s lame op-ed article in USA Today trying to defend the obviously politically motivated firing of eight United States attorneys, which he dismissed as an “overblown personnel matter.” Then his inspector general exposed the way the Federal Bureau of Investigation has been abusing yet another unnecessary new power that Mr. Gonzales helped wring out of the Republican-dominated Congress in the name of fighting terrorism.

We opposed Mr. Gonzales’s nomination as attorney general. His résumé was weak, centered around producing legal briefs for Mr. Bush that assured him that the law said what he wanted it to say. More than anyone in the administration, except perhaps Vice President Dick Cheney, Mr. Gonzales symbolizes Mr. Bush’s disdain for the separation of powers, civil liberties and the rule of law.

On Thursday, Senator Arlen Specter, the senior Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, hinted very obliquely that perhaps Mr. Gonzales’s time was up. We’re not going to be oblique. Mr. Bush should dismiss Mr. Gonzales and finally appoint an attorney general who will use the job to enforce the law and defend the Constitution.

Amen to that. Perhaps the most telling facet of Alberto Gonzales' tenure as Attorney General is that he has made John Ashcroft look like a reasonable, responsible centrist by comparison. It's time for Gonzales to go.

Quote of the Day

Anyone can hold the helm when the sea is calm.
   - Publilius Syrus

Quote of the Day

Be more concerned with your character than your reputation, because your character is what you really are, while your reputation is merely what others think you are.
   - John Wooden

On The Wrong Side Of The Law

This news should be of no surprise to anyone who understands that when government is given unchecked powers, those powers will abused. From the AP wires comes this story.

Gonzales, Mueller admit FBI broke law

WASHINGTON - The nation's top two law enforcement officials acknowledged Friday the FBI broke the law to secretly pry out personal information about Americans. They apologized and vowed to prevent further illegal intrusions.

Awww... Isn't that nice they apologized. That makes everything A-OK. The only way to prevent further illegal intrusions is to change the Patriot Act to require court approval instead of granting unchecked power to the FBI to collect personal information on American citizens, and to simply trust that this power won't be abused. Such power has been abused in the past and such power will be abused in the future. This is precisely the kind of behavior critics of the Patriot Act predicted would happen, and it was easy for any rational person not cheerleading for President Decider to anticipate this.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales left open the possibility of pursuing criminal charges against FBI agents or lawyers who improperly used the USA Patriot Act in pursuit of suspected terrorists and spies.

The possibility? If Average Joe American Citizen breaks the law, you can be sure the FBI will come knocking with a full SWAT team and enough firepower to overthrow most third-world countries. When anyone in law enforcement breaks the law he has sworn to uphold, he should be held to the same standard, if not a greater one. And these agents didn't break the law in pursuit of terrorists and spies, but rather abused the law to go on fishing expeditions against American citizens who, under normal circumstances, would otherwise never be suspected of wrongdoing.

The FBI's transgressions were spelled out in a damning 126-page audit by Justice Department Inspector General Glenn A. Fine. He found that agents sometimes demanded personal data on people without official authorization, and in other cases improperly obtained telephone records in non-emergency circumstances.

The audit also concluded that the FBI for three years underreported to Congress how often it used national security letters to ask businesses to turn over customer data. The letters are administrative subpoenas that do not require a judge's approval.

"People have to believe in what we say," Gonzales said.

I'm afraid that ship has long ago sailed. Alberto Gonzales has led the administration's efforts to gut the Constitution in pursuit of an all-power Unitary Executive who is answerable to no one. And it is in the area of civil liberties that his work has been especially damaging. When you repeatedly lie to the American public and its Congress about what you're doing, you shouldn't be surprised when they view you as liars.

FBI Director Robert S. Mueller said many of the problems were being fixed, including by building a better internal data collection system and training employees on the limits of their authority. The FBI has also scrapped the use of "exigent letters," which were used to gather information without the signed permission of an authorized official.

"But the question should and must be asked: How could this happen? Who is accountable?" Mueller said. "And the answer to that is, I am to be held accountable."

Mueller said he had not been asked to resign, nor had he discussed doing so with other officials. He said employees would probably face disciplinary actions, not criminal charges, following an internal investigation of how the violations occurred.

So now the FBI is going to start training agents about the limits of their authority? Better late than never I guess. But if Mueller is really going to walk the walk and hold himself accountable, he'd resign immediately. Of course, that's not going to happen, not in this administration. Over and over, people in the Bush/Cheney administration, including the Decider-In-Chief himself, bleat on about how they're responsible and how they're going to take responsibility for (on the rare occasions they admit them) their mistakes. But it's all talk. They never do anything to actually take responsilbity. And they never will.

The Patriot Act was, and continues to be, an all-out assault on the civil liberties that define America as a country founded on personal freedom. It has vested in the Executive branch a multitude of unchecked powers that have been, and will continue to be, abused. The only solution, clearly, is to revoke the Patriot Act and return to a system of checks-and-balances that, while a bit more cumbersome than power-hungry authoritarians would like, ensures our liberties aren't trampled in the rush catch the bogeyman. And such a return would have the trivial advantage of actually being Constitutional, too.

Quote of the Day

The bitterness of poor quality lingers long after the sweetness of cheap price is forgotten.
   - Anonymous

Quote of the Day

Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it.
   - George Bernard Shaw

Quote of the Day

Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet deprecate agitation, are men who want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the roar of its many waters.
   - Frederick Douglass

Scooter Takes A Fall

Here's more on the fallout from the Scooter Libby conviction. John Dickerson writes for Slate a column asking, "Is Libby Taking a Fall for the White House?".

...Denis Collins, the former Washington Post reporter on the jury, said the deliberating jurors often wondered about the role of the White House in general and Dick Cheney and Karl Rove in particular. Collins said that "a number of times" the jury asked themselves, "What is he doing here? Where is Rove and all these other guys? ... I'm not saying we didn't think Mr. Libby was guilty of the things we found him guilty of. It seemed like he was … the fall guy." Collins said the jury believed that Vice President Cheney did "task [Libby] to talk to reporters." He said, "Some jurors said at one point, 'We wish we weren't judging Libby. ... This sucks.' "

The jury has convicted Libby, but Collins has convicted the administration. Libby was being a good soldier, lying and obstructing justice to protect himself, the vice president, and the administration from political embarrassment or legal jeopardy.

That's exactly what Libby was doing. We'll see how long it takes President Decider to keep his end of the bargain.

Pardon Me?

It's been pretty hysterical watching the right-wing fall all over themselves trying to justify why Scooter Libby should be pardoned. This is the same out-for-blood lynch mob who demanded Bill Clinton be impeached for his perjury.

Of course, the underlying facts of the two cases are significantly different. Clinton was hit by a civil suit financed by the far-right for the express purpose of forcing him to answer questions about a consensual sexual relationship between two adults. Libby, on the other hand, participated in a criminal conspiracy to reveal the identity of a covert CIA agent, a conspiracy hatched as political punishment for Joe Wilson having the audacity to tell the truth about how the administration, and especially Darth Cheney's office, was lying to the American public about the rationale for invading Iraq.

As Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald explained when he brought the charges against Scooter, he couldn't fulfill the original purpose of his mission - to determine who leaked Valerie Plame's name - because at least one player - Scooter - had thrown sand in the umpire's eyes. Consequently, the best he could do was go after the sand-thrower for intentionally lying to make prosecuting the original crime next-to-impossible.

Scooter Libby was found guilty by a jury of his peers of perjury and obstruction of justice. But Kate O'Beirne, the Washington editor of the National Review (one of the right-wing rags calling for a pardon) thinks that he's really innocent because Scooter says he is. Her performance on this evening's edition of Hardball was truly pathetic, and only served to demonstrate clearly how much contempt right-wingers have for the integrity of process and the law, and how much they value ideological outcome at any cost. Bill Clinton = bad, so he must be impeached. Bush/Cheney = good, so perjury is ok.

The other interesting thing that Chris Matthews pointed out is that acceptance of a Presidential pardon means admission of guilt - it's not exoneration. When the pardon for Scooter finally comes down, as it eventually will, it will be interesting to see how the right-wing spins this part of it. It's crystal clear now that Cheney and Karl Rove orchestrated a vile and illegal attack against a person who told a truth they didn't want people to hear. It's crystal clear that Scooter Libby participated in this attack as Cheney's first lieutenant. And a jury - the finder of fact - has determined that Libby repeatedly lied about how this attack was carried out, and did so to prevent a criminal prosecution of it.

Scooter will eventually get his pardon, but in spite of what the right-wing noise machines pump out, he will always be guilty, and guilty of much more than the charges he faced and will be sentenced for. Yes, he's the fall guy, but for that, he has no one but himself to blame.

Quote of the Day

Never confuse motion with action.
   - Ben Franklin

Protecting Their Own

Questions have been asked and ignored about why Alberto Gonzales' Justice Department has fired seven U.S. Attorneys and replaced them with 'interim' appointments. These interim appointments don't have to be approved by the Senate, and thanks to language slipped into the renewal of the Orwellian-named Patriot Act, serve indefinitely. In other words, as long as they please the Bush cabal.

Now the reasons are beginning to leak out. It seems these prosecutors all shared the propensity to dare to look into Republican public corruption. An article in today's NYT tells the tale of how former U.S. Attorney for Maryland, Thomas M. DiBiagio, believes he was forced out because he was investigating corruption allegations concerning associates of former Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr., a Republican.

What's really interesting in this story is the following observation about what DiBiagio and other fired prosecutors have in common.

Like Mr. DiBiagio, several of the newly departing prosecutors were overseeing sensitive political corruption investigations when they left office.

The controversy over the dismissals continued to grow on Monday, as the head of the Justice Department office that oversees prosecutors stepped down, a watchdog group filed an ethics complaint, and House and Senate committees prepared for testimony on Tuesday from some of the ousted prosecutors.

Sadly, this makes complete sense. The Republicans have long been the party of rampant top-shelf public corruption, from Jack Abramoff to Conrad Burns to Tom DeLay to Duke Cunningham to George Ryan and on and on and on. All that money that flows in from the Pioneers and Rangers isn't being given gratis. And as the Bushies slowly come to terms with the fact that their absolute grip on power, and the dirty money behind it, is coming to an end, waterboy Alberto has once again done his master's bidding to try to hide another ugly truth about this administration. And done so in the administration's typically crude way of applying brute force and then denying there is anything political at all involved. Forthcoming Congressional testimony is sure to tell quite a different story.

Quote of the Day

Ann Coulter needs publicity the same way a tapeworm needs a large intestine.
   - Rachael Maddow

Are You A Tough Guy?

Are you a Tough Guy? If so, there's an event in England just for you. ESPN.com's Jim Caple recently participated in the semi-annual test of endurance and sanity and lived to tell the tale. Here's an excerpt.

Midway through the Tyre Torture, a seemingly endless obstacle of countless tires haphazardly and dangerously spread over a hundred yards of calf-deep mud, a tired, shivering runner coated with layers of filth pauses for a moment and turns back to the competitors behind him. With equal notes of exhaustion and exasperation, he says, "This seems a little unnecessary, doesn't it?"

Well, yeah. Of course it does. Unnecessary is the entire point of the Tough Guy competition, a semi-annual 8-mile race through mud, manure, water, fire, more mud, barbed wire, nets, electrical charges, still more mud, smoke grenades, sewer pipes, ice, even more mud, ropes, cables, tires — did I mention mud? — on a horse farm in England's West Midlands. To get an idea of what Tough Guy is all about, just drive up to the farmhouse where a large canvas banner depicting Jesus Christ's removal from the cross decorates a barn. Written next to Jesus: "The Original Tough Guy." To get a better idea, imagine the sort of marathon obstacle course the meanest drill sergeant in the Marines would design if ordered to send an undisciplined mob of gay, flag-burning, smart-ass college boys through an afternoon of agony.

It's a pretty wild story, and as Caple notes, about the only time it makes sense signing up is when your sitting in a pub pissed out of your mind. Read Caple's report and experience it vicariously.

Quote of the Day

Let me tell you the secret that has led me to my goal. My strength lies solely in my tenacity.
   - Louis Pasteur

Quote of the Day

It is vain to do with more what can be done with fewer.
   - William of Ockham

The Forgotten Alternative

Former Senator Lincoln Chafee (R-RI) recently published an editorial in the NYT reminding us that while it's easy to look at the vote to abdicate Congressional responsibility and give President Decider permission to chose for himself whether to wage war against Iraq in strictly 'for' or 'against' terms, there was an alternative offered and rejected, and those who rejected it should now have to answer why.

As the presidential primary campaigns begin in earnest, the Iraq war is overshadowing all other issues, as it did during the midterm elections. Presidential candidates who were in the Senate in October 2002 are particularly under the microscope, as they are being called upon to justify their votes for going to war.

As someone who was in the Senate at the time, I have been struck by the contours of the debate. The situation facing the candidates who cast war votes has, to my surprise, often been presented as a binary one — they could either vote for the war, or not. There was no middle ground.

On the contrary. There was indeed a third way, which Senator James Jeffords, independent of Vermont, hailed at the time as “one of the most important votes we will cast in this process.” And it was opposed by every single senator at the time who now seeks higher office.

A mere 10 hours before the roll was called on the administration-backed Iraq war resolution, the Senate had an opportunity to prevent the current catastrophe in Iraq and to salvage the United States’ international standing. Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan, offered a substitute to the war resolution, the Multilateral Use of Force Authorization Act of 2002.

Senator Levin’s amendment called for United Nations approval before force could be authorized. It was unambiguous and compatible with international law. Acutely cognizant of the dangers of the time, and the reality that diplomatic options could at some point be exhausted, Senator Levin wrote an amendment that was nimble: it affirmed that Congress would stand at the ready to reconsider the use of force if, in the judgment of the president, a United Nations resolution was not “promptly adopted” or enforced. Ceding no rights or sovereignty to an international body, the amendment explicitly avowed America’s right to defend itself if threatened.

An opponent of the Levin amendment said that the debate was not over objectives, but tactics. And he was right. To a senator, we all had as our objectives the safety of American citizens, the security of our country and the disarming of Saddam Hussein in compliance with United Nations resolutions. But there was a steadfast core of us who believed that the tactics should be diplomacy and multilateralism, not the “go it alone” approach of the Bush doctrine.

Those of us who supported the Levin amendment argued against a rush to war. We asserted that the Iraqi regime, though undeniably heinous, did not constitute an imminent threat to United States security, and that our campaign to renew weapons inspections in Iraq — whether by force or diplomacy — would succeed only if we enlisted a broad coalition that included Arab states.

We also urged our colleagues to take seriously the admonitions of our allies in the region — Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Turkey. As King Abdullah of Jordan warned, “A miscalculation in Iraq would throw the whole area into turmoil.”

Unfortunately, these arguments fell on deaf ears in that emotionally charged, hawkish, post-9/11 moment, less than four weeks before a midterm election. The Levin amendment was defeated by a 75 to 24 vote. Later that night, the Iraq War Resolution was approved, 77 to 23. It was clear that most senators were immune to persuasion because the two votes were almost mirror images of each other — no to the Levin amendment, aye to war. Their minds were made up.

It was incomprehensible to me at the time that the Levin amendment received only 24 votes. However, there were some heroes, like Paul Wellstone, Democrat of Minnesota, who even in the midst of a very difficult re-election campaign voted to slow the march to war. And then there was the moving statement by Robert Byrd, Democrat of West Virginia, in support of the Levin amendment and against the administration-backed resolution: “This is an unprecedented and unfounded interpretation of the president’s authority under the Constitution of the United States — not to mention the fact that it stands the charter of the United Nations on its head.”

Americans are gravely concerned about Iraq, and yearn for leadership to stabilize the situation there and gradually end United States involvement. Calling on presidential hopefuls to justify or recant their vote authorizing the president to take us to war almost misses the point.

The Senate had the opportunity to support a more deliberate, multilateral approach, one that still would have empowered the United States to respond to any imminent threat posed by Saddam Hussein. We must not sidestep the fact that a sensible alternative did exist, but it was rejected. Candidates — Democrat and Republican — should be called to account for their vote on the Levin amendment.

Most Democratic presidential candidates have now said their votes were a mistake. They, most likely, would also concede that voting for the Levin amendment would have been preferable to letting the neocons act out their fantasies. Lady Macbeth-Clinton, however, has tried to have it both ways and should be pinned down on this very question. If she was doing the best she could with the information available at the time, why didn't she vote for the Levin amendment? The answer, of course, lies in the poll numbers - Fox Noise and the other right-wing propaganda machines had whipped the deep thinkers than constitute common American opinion into a lather for blood - any blood - and there was no way she wasn't going to get out in front of that parade. If you voted against the Levin amendment and can't admit you were wrong, you have no place calling yourself a leader.

Quote of the Day

Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.
   - John F. Kennedy

Habeas Corpus, eh?

Once again, Canada has demonstrated it values personal liberty more than the United States government. Its Supreme Court recently struck down a law that allowed its government to detain foreign-born suspects indefinitely. An editorial in the NYT demonstrates precisely what's wrong with President Decider's Saddam-like approach to dealing with people it doesn't like.

Canada’s Supreme Court has struck down a law that the government used to detain foreign-born terrorism suspects indefinitely — employing secret evidence and not filing charges — while orders to deport them were reviewed. The law was actually passed in 1978, but was primarily employed to detain and deport foreign spies. After the 2001 attacks, the Canadian government began using it aggressively to hold terrorism suspects, claiming that it was an important tool for keeping Canada safe.

That is just the sort of argument the Bush administration used to ram the excesses of the Patriot Act and the 2006 Military Commissions Act through Congress, and offered as an excuse for other abusive policies, like President Bush’s illegal wiretapping of international calls and e-mail.

The Canadian justices rejected their government’s specious national security claim with a forceful 9-to-0 ruling that upheld every person’s right to fair treatment. “The overarching principle of fundamental justice that applies here is this: before the state can detain people for significant periods of time, it must accord them a fair judicial process,” Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin wrote.

The contrast with the United States could not be more disturbing. The Canadian court ruling came just days after a federal appeals court in Washington ruled that Congress could deny inmates of the Guantánamo Bay detention camp the ancient right to challenge their confinement in court. The 2006 military tribunals law revoked that right for a select group who had been designated “illegal enemy combatants” without a semblance of judicial process.

Like so many other things he's done, President Decider's behavior in jailing people he - and only he - has decided deserve it is unconstitutional. Not only does Article One, Section Nine prohibit the suspension of habeas corpus (challenging one's imprisonment) unless there's a rebellion or an invasion, conditions the United States clearly does not suffer from, the prohibition and its exceptions apply to Congress. Only Congress, and not some power-drunk chimp, gets to act. We can only hope that when the latest attempt by the now-terminated lapdog Republican Congressional majority to retroactively ok some illegal behavior by King Dubya is finally appealed to the SCOTUS, they will have have integrity so many have lacked and strike it down.

Actually, what I'd really like to see is the next President declare Bush an 'enemy combatant' of the United States for all the criminal things he's done (and the list is long and varied), throw him in Guantanamo without access to anyone including legal counsel, and let him stew indefinitely as the object of the very perspective he advocated. Now that would be justice.

Quote of the Day

The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
   - Bertrand Russell

He's Just A Man

Forget the Titanic. James Cameron's on to something much bigger, as the NYT reports.

A documentary by the Discovery Channel claims to provide evidence that a crypt unearthed 27 years ago in Jerusalem contained the bones of Jesus of Nazareth.

Two limestone boxes said to contain residue from the remains of Jesus and Mary Magdalene were unveiled yesterday at a news conference at the New York Public Library by the documentary’s producer, James Cameron, who made “Titanic” and “The Terminator.”

The documentary premiers on Sunday, March 4th @ 9:00 PM EST/PST. Here's the link to its webpage.

Of course, those with a vested interest in perpetuating mythology as truth weighed in.

New Testament scholars also criticized the documentary as theologically dangerous, historically inaccurate and irresponsible.

“A lot of conservative, orthodox and moderate Christians are going to be upset by the recklessness of this,” said Ben Witherington, a Bible scholar at Asbury Theological Seminary in Wilmore, Ky. “Of course, we want to know more about Jesus, but please don’t insult our intelligence by giving us this sort of stuff. It’s going to get a lot of Christians with their knickers in a knot unnecessarily.”

Aren't Christians' knickers always in a knot over something? Sure they want to know more about Jesus - just as long as it's not that he was just another man who, even with the charisma of 10 Bill Clintons, couldn't defy mortality and ascend into the heavens but wound up being buried just liked everybody else.

Better Late Than Never

Media Matters has a great reply to MoDo's most recent column in which she finally recognizes that Al Gore seems to know what he's talking about. It's titled "Dowd now believes Gore 'prescient' on several issues, despite previously belittling him" and notes the following.

In her February 28 column, titled "Ozone Man Sequel", New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd described former Vice President Al Gore as the "man who was prescient on climate change, the Internet, terrorism and Iraq,".... Dowd wondered who Gore must blame more for his defeat in the 2000 election.... Yet, as blogger Bob Somerby noted, Dowd omitted an obvious other potential target of blame: the media. Indeed, Dowd herself, while now praising Gore for being "prescient" on such issues, relentlessly mocked Gore during his 2000 presidential campaign and onward for what she described as Gore's "obsessions about global warming and the information highway." Dowd has also compared Gore to the "wackadoo wing of the Democratic Party" for his criticism of the Iraq war; and has repeatedly furthered numerous falsehoods about Gore, such as that Gore once claimed to have "invented the Internet;" and, as Somerby noted on his Daily Howler weblog, that feminist author Wolf advised Gore on his wardrobe and how to be an "alpha male."

The MM piece then goes on to detail a number of instances where Dowd attacked and belittled Gore for his positions and ideas on the environment, the Iraq war, and even the Internet. Clearly, she has a well-established track record of sinking her snarky teeth into the man the Supreme Court threw under the bus so the nation could enjoy the leadership of President Decider.

I guess that 20/20 hindsight Maureen Dowd is now enjoying might come in handy as the 2008 primary process unfolds. I've seen nothing to change my mind that the best ticket for the Democrats is Gore/Obama. And maybe this time around, MoDo will, too.

Quote of the Day

Education is the ability to listen to almost anything without losing your temper or your self-confidence.
   - Robert Frost