Is this how Google and a band of Internet mercenaries plan to shrink the Internet universe, forcing independent websites and blogs to submit to merger into a few small corporate bohemoths, or risk being "flagged" out of existence? Welcome to the new world order...
The boys over at RedState have come up with what might be the most bone-headed idea since that high school kid from South Florida took the credit cards his parents gave him and stole off to Iraq, hoping to commit some random acts of teeni-bopper journalism. In that case, the kids was criticized across the board for endangering not only his own life, but the lives of U.S. servicemen and women and embassy staffers who were forced to track him down and extract him before the kidnappers, insurgents, militias, and other goon squads running rampant through Baghdad got to him first.
Now, the boys from RedState -- a lovely blog, I'm sure, if you're a mindless Bush worshipper -- want to replicate his stupidity. Why, I wonder, should amateur journos who run a blog be capable of delivering more accurate news than, say, veteran correspondents like Michael Ware or Richard Engel? Oh, that's right, because journalists like Ware and Engel are "biased" against the war -- they see only the bombings and the carnage, and forget to notice the sunshine and sweet, tasty pita bread. Give me a break!
Earth to RedStaters: the reason the war seems to be going badly in the TV and print coverage, is because it IS going badly. That's not just the opinion of journalists. (I don't think Fox has a bureau in Iraq, and I'm not sure they would even if they WERE an actual news outlet, rather than a propaganda factory, and well, the whole Geraldo draws a map in the sand thing didn't work out so well, but even their man on such matters, Ollie North, has made it clear that the troops he talks to believe the war is going badly...) It's also the opinion of the Pentagon itself, if you choose to believe the latest intelligence assessment on the war, not to mention the assessments of the generals themselves.
Sending your inexperienced, chicken-hawk behinds to Baghdad will do only two things: first, it will allow you to brag to the quizzlings at LGF and that harpy Laura Ingraham chick that you, like Bill O'Reilly, have actually "been in combat," and thus you really "know what the troops are feeling..." and second, it will force those troops to waste precious time and resources protecting your sorry behinds and escorting you around the Green Zone (you don't dare leave the Green Zone, and if you don't know why, you might want to read up before your trip...) rather than prosecuting their mission -- however flawed.
In other words, if you want to play war, buy a video game. Leave the reporting to the reporters. Besides, since when do you need to feel the hot sand on your faces in order to propagandize for the president?
The Democrat turned Republican strategist goes public with his falling out of love with President Bush, and the doubts about his leadership, and about the war, that have been bubbling up since even before the 2004 election. So now he tells us.
Reflect on his not-so gentle past here, here and here.
To be fair, Dowd has shown a propensity for favoring "unifying" solutions to the nation's major problems, such as his push last year for Republicans to embrace "comprehensive immigration reform," and his warning to the president's people that they would need to increase their support among minorities. Still, it's interesting that those who have fallen away from the president couldn't manage to do so when it counted: before the 2004 election.
Still, I'll take Dowd at his word that his view has changed, and wish him the best trodding through the African plain...
America's Authoritarian Mayor, Rudy "Third Time's The Charm" Giuliani tells a softball tossing Barbwa Walters that if he's president, his husband stealing, three man marrying whore wife will make a darned fine advisor, who'll even be welcome at cabinet meetings! Maybe she could hire Angelina Jolie as her chief of staff...!
Update: Giuliani takes back Judy's cabinet post before she's even had time to shoot dirty looks at the perky, 30-something note-taker...
We're starting to see the Iranian Revolutionary Guard's end-game in the taking of those 15 British Royal Navy and Marine personnel, as Tehran releases not just more propaganda video of the sailors supposedly confessing to trespassing in Iranian waters, but also letters from one of the hostages -- I guess "detainees" is more politically correct, though I think both are accuarate descriptors -- supposedly calling on Tony Blair to withdraw British forces from Iraq.
But the latest gambit from the Iranians (which may or may not be under the direction of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad) is probably the bottom line: Iran is now seeking to exchange the Britons for five Iranian intelligence officers being detained by the Americans after the latter captured the former inside Iraq. That's already been rejected by the U.S., but it gives you a window into the Iranians' strategy, which likely included the premeditated seizure of the Brits.
So what is Tony Blair doing about all of this? Appealing to the E.U. for help, and reportedly, fuming. Well, that will help...
Meanwhile, some Britons are calling for a change in tactics, namely the ratcheting up of pressure on Tehran by the E.U., which is Iran's largest trading partner, and which enjoys greater respect by the Iranians than the British, given the war in Iraq. And speaking of Iraq, the editorialists at the Independent add insult to British injury:
...there is a bigger problem here than clumsy diplomacy. Quite simply, Iran is holding most of the cards. Because of the catastrophe in Iraq, the UK has no real diplomatic leverage in the region. Tony Blair calls the Iranian action illegal in international law and cites the United Nations mandate for the presence of British forces in Iraq. But the US and Britain invaded Iraq ignoring the will of the UN. The former UN secretary general, Kofi Annan, called the action illegal. Mr Blair has little moral authority when he cites international law now. It is notable that the UN statement stopped short of deploring the Iranian action, as requested by Britain. It also makes no mention of Security Council resolution 1723 that authorises the coalition presence in Iraq. The wounds opened by the foolish invasion of Iraq by the US and the UK have not healed.
The American sabre-rattling over Iran's nuclear programme has raised the stakes, too. It is increasingly clear from the preposterous letters that Ms Turney has been forced to write that hardline elements in Tehran want to use this incident as part of a wider propaganda war against Britain and America. But we also ignore Tehran's paranoia at our peril. British ministers never mention that US forces have Iranian territory more or less surrounded. America is in Iraq, Afghanistan and recently they have moved two aircraft carriers to the Gulf. ...
The Iranians are clearly paranoid, but also crafty. They likely know that the Brits don't have the wherewithal to attack them militarily, and the U.S. has been revealed to be far from invincible in Iraq (much the way Israel was exposed by the Lebanon conflict.) So Iran clearly feels it can take a calculated risk by trying to force the U.S. and the Brits into a diplomatic corner.
The trouble is, George W. Bush is not the most stable or thoughtful character out there, and it could be that he decides to use the U.K.-Iran crisis as a means to start his next project for a new American century... and to force a clearly reluctant and disappointed Britain to go along.
Institute for Policy Studies fellow and Middle East expert Phyllis Bennis has said the following on that prospect:
"The U.S. is continuing to ratchet up threats against Iran. The current standoff in the Gulf between Iran and Britain may well not have been a deliberate British provocation, beyond the 'normal' provocative nature of the U.S.-British strategy of boarding and 'inspecting' ships, etc., but that doesn't mean it isn't dangerous."
"Blair isn't so keen on an attack on Iran; his rhetoric even after the sailors were captured has been remarkably low-key, and a move against Iran could threaten his already-shaky political standing. The Shatt al-Arab waterway is always a difficult navigation point, even aside from political tensions, and this kind of move has happened before and blown over in a few days. However, it's likely the Cheney gang is pushing Britain to escalate, to make this Tonkin Gulf II (the false claim of a North Vietnamese attack used to justify the Vietnam war in 1964), though it doesn't appear Blair/Brown are biting yet. But, once again, having said all THAT, things are very tense and could easily spin out of control."
Related: Could show trials be on the way in Tehran?
...then why is he set to serve just nine months in prison back in his home country of Australia? Perhaps this is a clue:
As part of the plea bargain, Hicks also withdrew claims he was abused in US detention.
The Australian had previously alleged he was beaten by US forces after his capture in Afghanistan and that he had been sedated before learning of the charges against him.
Addressing the tribunal, he affirmed he had "never been illegally treated by any persons in the control or custody of the United States" before or after his transfer to Guantanamo in 2002.
But wait, there's more:
As part of his plea deal, Hicks has agreed not to speak to the media for a year, not to receive any money for his story and not to sue the US government.
At Friday's hearing, he had to convince the military judge that his guilty plea was genuine and not just a tactic to return home to Adelaide.
However his father, Terry, said that was the only reason he had agreed to make the plea.
And this:
The Australian government will be relieved that the David Hicks saga is coming to an end, says the BBC's Phil Mercer in Sydney.
While the conservative government is a supporter of the US military justice system, it has come under a great deal of pressure from Australians disturbed by Hicks' treatment, and will be glad to put the issue behind it with elections due later in the year, our correspondent says.
Two governments, one giant cover-up, but at the end of the day, at least David Hicks is out of Gitmo. Who can blame him for pleading out?
Alberto Gonzales just might be getting advice from counsel, as they say, since as of today, his operative phrase has gone from "I wasn't involved" in the purge of eight U.S. attorneys (and an apparent scheme to get rid of Patrick Fitzgerald too) to "I don't recall..."
At the same time, it's becoming clear that Gonzales cares more about himself, at the end of the day, and about preserving his position, than he does about either the credibility, mission and personnel of the Justice Department, or about the image and reputation of the White House and the President, all of which his continued presence is seriously harming. It's long past time for Gonzales to put an end to this drama by resigning, or being fired. I still maintain that he will be gone in a matter of weeks. Time will tell if I'm right. For now, Gonzales will have a couple of weeks to ponder his testimony before Congress, as the legislative branch takes a spring break recess until April 10th. He is scheduled to go before the Senate and/or House on April 17th, although apparently he's seeking a way to move things up, perhaps to spare himself and his political party the long drawn out waiting game ... but then again, it's probably mainly to spare himself.
The Bush administration has told so many lies, and twisted so much of government and military pursuit and well, everything, to cynical political ends, that it's almost hard to be shocked anymore. But the Pat Tillman cover up stands out, both because of its cynicism -- the administration used Tillman's service, and his death in Afghanistan, to promote the utterly corrupted war in Iraq -- and its brazenness. Now, it turns out President Bush was probably briefed about the true cause of the former NFL star's death, at least a month before the Pentagon admitted the truth about his friendly fire death to his family. Do these people have ANY shame? From the AP:
SAN JOSE, Calif. - Just seven days after Pat Tillman's death, a top general warned there were strong indications that it was friendly fire and President Bush might embarrass himself if he said the NFL star-turned-soldier died in an ambush, according to a memo obtained by The Associated Press. ...
...In a memo sent to a four-star general a week after Tillman's April 22, 2004, death, then-Maj. Gen. Stanley McChrystal warned that it was "highly possible" the Army Ranger was killed by friendly fire. McChrystal made it clear his warning should be conveyed to the president.
"I felt that it was essential that you received this information as soon as we detected it in order to preclude any unknowing statements by our country's leaders which might cause public embarrassment if the circumstances of Cpl. Tillman's death become public," McChrystal wrote on April 29, 2004, to Gen. John Abizaid, head of Central Command.
White House spokesman Blain Rethmeier said Friday that a review of records turned up no indication that the president had received McChrystal's warning. Bush made no reference to the way Tillman died in a speech delivered two days after the memo was written. But Rethmeier emphasized that the president often pays tribute to fallen soldiers without mentioning the exact circumstances of their deaths.
The family was not told until May 29, 2004, what really happened. In the intervening weeks, the military continued to say Tillman died under enemy fire, and even awarded him the Silver Star, which is given for heroic battlefield action.
Ultimately, Pat Tillman was valued by the Bush administration more for his propaganda value than for his service. The same could be said for Jessica Lynch, whose falsified tale of heroism was also used to bolster the war.
What a sad commentary on the party that supposedly cares so much for the men and women of the armed forces, but which apparently only really cares about exploiting and misusing them.
Republicans may want to run, screaming, from even the thought of the 2008 elections, but alas, they can't. To paraphrase Don Rumsfeld, you go to the election with the party you have. So let's take a look at what they have, shall we? John McCain -- Downright delusionalon Iraq, with the only other elected official willing to go along with his mad, mad view of the situation in Baghdad being Joe "Lieberman of Arabia" ...
Mitt Romney -- flip-flopper extraordinaire, who pisses off Cubans, raises taxes, and ponders the vicissitude of having the last name Bush. (On Jebbie: "I love him. If his name weren't Bush, he'd be running for president, I'm convinced...")
Rudy Giuliani -- thrice married (to a thrice married, man stealing hussy who, if God truly hates America and he is elected persident, could be running policy from an office in the West Wing), liberal on issues dear to the religious right and GOP gun nuts, and running on 9/11. But here's the problem: firefighters hate him, and the real story of his incompetence before and his callousness after the terror attacks on the Twin Towers is now coming to light, anecdotally today, in "Swift Boat" style TV and radio ads, inevitably. From this week's TIME:
"If Rudolph Giuliani was running on anything but 9/11, I would not speak out," said Sally Regenhard, whose firefighter son was among the 343 FDNY members killed in the terrorist attack. "If he ran on cleaning up Times Square, getting rid of squeegee men, lowering crime — that's indisputable.
"But when he runs on 9/11, I want the American people to know he was part of the problem."
Such comments contradict Giuliani's post-Sept. 11 profile as a hero and symbol of the city's resilience — the steadfast leader who calmed the nerves of a rattled nation. But as the presidential campaign intensifies, criticisms of his 2001 performance are resurfacing.
Giuliani, the leader in polls of Republican voters for his party's nomination, has been faulted on two major issues:
— His administration's failure to provide the World Trade Center's first responders with adequate radios, a long-standing complaint from relatives of the firefighters killed when the twin towers collapsed. The Sept. 11 Commission noted the firefighters at the World Trade Center were using the same ineffective radios employed by the first responders to the 1993 terrorist attack on the trade center.
Regenhard, at a 2004 commission hearing in Manhattan, screamed at Giuliani, "My son was murdered because of your incompetence!" The hearing was a perfect example of the 9/11 duality: Commission members universally praised Giuliani at the same event.
— A November 2001 decision to step up removal of the massive rubble pile at ground zero. The firefighters were angered when the then-mayor reduced their numbers among the group searching for remains of their lost "brothers," focusing instead on what they derided as a "scoop and dump" approach. Giuliani agreed to increase the number of firefighters at ground zero just days after ordering the cutback.
More than 5 1/2 years later, body parts are still turning up in the World Trade Center site.
"We want America to know what this guy meant to New York City firefighters," said Peter Gorman, head of the Uniformed Fire Officers Association. "In our experiences with this man, he disrespected us in the most horrific way."
The two-term mayor, in his appearance before the Sept. 11 Commission, said the blame for the death and destruction of Sept. 11 belonged solely with the terrorists. "There was not a problem of coordination on Sept. 11," he testified. ...
Sounds a bit like Baghdad Bob.
Newt Gingrich -- dumped his wife while she was in a hospital bed recovering from cancer, so he could marry his mistress, left Congress in disgrace, but hey, he's conservative!
And then there are the wee also-rans, Mike Huckabee, Duncan Hunter, Tom Tancredo, libertarian Ron Paul and such-like, but really, is it worth the blogspace to do more than mention their names?
So at this point, I'm thinking the GOPers had better lean hard on Fred Thompson to run. He may not have the "fire in the belly," but damnit, at least he's a celebrity. And to my knowledge, he never egregiously left a wife, botched the response to a terror attack, or pissed off the Cubans in Miami.
I was waaaay too busy yesterday, so I'm playing catch-up on the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings involving Kyle Sampson, the former chief of staff to Alberto Gonzales, who gave voluntary testimony yesterday. To sum up, Sampson went to the Senate to support the concept of firing federal prosecutors for political reasons, but not to get Albertcito (or Harriet Miers or anyone else for that matter,) off the hook. Short answer: this guy has no intention of being Scooter Libby.
Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales was more deeply involved in the firings of eight U.S. attorneys than he has sometimes acknowledged, and Gonzales and his aides have made a series of inaccurate claims about the issue in recent weeks, the attorney general's former chief of staff testified yesterday.
In dramatic testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee, D. Kyle Sampson also revealed that New Mexico U.S. Attorney David C. Iglesias was not added to the dismissal list until just before the Nov. 7 elections, after presidential adviser Karl Rove complained that Iglesias had not been aggressive enough in pursuing cases of voter fraud. Previously, Rove had not been tied so directly to the removal of the prosecutors.
These and other disclosures by Sampson, who abruptly resigned earlier this month, represent the latest challenge to Gonzales's version of events. The attorney general has been sharply criticized by lawmakers of both parties, by his own employees and even by President Bush for his handling of the U.S. attorneys' dismissals.
Sampson's testimony also shows that, along with Rove, other senior White House aides were more closely involved in the dismissals than has previously been disclosed. It adds to evidence that some of the firings were influenced by GOP political concerns and that the selection process was not based on hard data.
Sampson said he even suggested firing U.S. Attorney Patrick J. Fitzgerald of Chicago while Fitzgerald was prosecuting Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff for perjury. Sampson said he immediately dropped the idea, which he raised at a White House meeting last year, when he received negative reactions from then-White House Counsel Harriet E. Miers and her deputy, William Kelley.
Gonzales has sought to portray himself as detached from the details of the firings, saying on March 13 that Sampson was in charge. Gonzales also said he "was not involved in any discussions about what was going on" in the process. The attorney general sought to clarify that statement in a television interview Monday, acknowledging more frequent contact with Sampson.
But Sampson provided new detail of Gonzales's involvement, testifying in response to questioning that he had at least five discussions with his boss about the project after Gonzales first approved the idea in early 2005 and that the attorney general was aware which prosecutors were under consideration for dismissal.
"I don't think the attorney general's statement that he was not involved in any discussions of U.S. attorney removals was accurate," Sampson said. "I remember discussing with him this process of asking certain U.S. attorneys to resign."
Sampson added later that "the decision makers in this case were the attorney general and the counsel to the president" -- Miers. ...
The former Gonzo aide goes before the Senate Judiciary Committee today, amid new revelations about his role in the U.S. attorney firings. More to come...
“I want to share with you how two Iraqi bloggers — they have bloggers in Baghdad, just like we’ve got here,” Mr. Bush told an audience of ranchers and cattlemen, after remarking that Iraqis were beginning to see “positive changes.”
He went on to quote the bloggers directly: “Displaced families are returning home, marketplaces are seeing more activity, stores that were long shuttered are now reopening. We feel safer about moving in the city now. Our people want to see this effort succeed. We hope the governments in Baghdad and America do not lose their resolve.”
But just who were these anonymous bloggers? The deputy White House press secretary, Dana Perino, spent a good chunk of her regular briefing on Wednesday deflecting that question, and defending the propriety of the president’s use of anonymous quotes.
Ms. Perino called the bloggers “one input from many different inputs that are coming in regarding progress on the ground,” and said she herself had often responded to anonymous quotations. “Blogs are new for all of us,” she said, “and I know that you all look at them, because you call me and ask me what we think about the blogs.”
As for the writers’ identity, it remained a mystery — until the White House distributed a transcript of the briefing. In a footnote at the end, the administration disclosed that the bloggers were Omar and Mohammed Fadhil, two brothers who are both dentists and who write an English-language blog, IraqTheModel.com, from Baghdad. The White House said their writings had been cited in mainstream news outlets; on March 5, the Fadhil brothers wrote an opinion piece in The Wall Street Journal titled “Notes from Baghdad.”
Oh, yes, and on Dec. 9, 2004, they met in the Oval Office with Mr. Bush.
Now that the subject is old and tired, the Times has stumbled on the “news” that the blogosphere is more aptly termed the propaganda-sphere.
Boxer takes on the case of Iraq the Model, a website that captures in its very name the neocon vision of a democratized and properly domesticated Middle East. The pro-war bloggers have been touting the brothers Fadhil, as exemplars of the “good news” from Iraq. Their capstone of their triumphant American tour, sponsored by a “charitable” organization known as the “Spirit of America,” occurred when two of the brothers were received at the White House for face time with the Prezt. But there’s a fly in this ointment, as I pointed out at the time, and I?m glad to see that the MSM, in the person of Ms. Boxer, has fished it out: the disenchantment of the third brother, Ali, whose last post on Iraq the Model read as follows:
“This is the last time I write in this blog and I just want to say, goodbye. It’s not an easy thing to do for me, but I know I should do it. I haven’t told my brothers with my decision, as they are not here yet, but it won’t change anything and I just can’t keep doing this anymore.
“My stand regarding America has never changed. I still love America and feel grateful to all those who helped us get our freedom and are still helping us establishing democracy in our country. But it’s the act of some Americans that made me feel I’m on the wrong side here. I will expose these people in public very soon and I won’t lack the mean to do this, but I won’t do it here as this is not my blog.
“At any rate, it’s been a great experience and a pleasure to know all the regular readers of this blog, as I do feel I know you, and I owe you a lot.
“Best wishes to all of you, those who supported us and those who criticized us as well.”
Boxer got in touch with Ali, and her depiction of his ambiguity about the American occupation, and the tenuousness of his position in relation to the realities of Iraq, ruined the Potemkin Village rah-rah propaganda regularly emitted ? in English ? on ?Iraq the Model? and a slew of other pro-occupation Iraqi blogs:
?Why did he quit Iraq the Model? When was he going to expose the Americans who made him feel he was on the wrong side? He was surprisingly frank. The blog had changed him. When the blog began, he said, ?People surprised me with their warmth and how much they cared about us.? But as time passed, he said, ?I felt that this is not just goodwill, giving so much credit to Iraq the Model. We haven’t accomplished anything, really.?
“His views took a sharp turn when his two brothers met with the president. There wasn’t supposed to be any press coverage about their trip to the United States, he said. But the Washington Post wrote about the meeting, and the Arabic press ended up translating the story, which, Ali felt, put his family in real danger. Anyway, he said, he didn’t see any sense in his brothers’ meeting with President Bush. ?My brothers say it happened accidentally, that it was not planned.? But why, he asked, take such an ?unnecessary risk?? He explained his worries: ?Here some people would kill you for just writing to an American.??
Ali, in short, was tired of being used by the War Party to make propaganda in America. The pro-war bloggers are now getting up on their high horses, screeching that Boxer has put the Fadhil brothers in danger. But Ali is right: it is the propagandists in America, including the laptop bombardiers? brigade, who put them in danger the minute they started holding them up as model New Iraqis, the offspring of the “liberation.” But since Glenn Reynolds-Powerline-Little Green Footballs crowd is definitely not part of the reality-based community, the hard reality of Ali?s comment that ?Here some people would kill you for just writing to an American? is inadmissible, becasue “some people” means an awful lot of people.
Boxer takes up the suspicions first raised by Martini Republic that ?Iraq the Model? might have informal connections to the U.S. government, a suggestion that was greeted with outrage by pro-war bloggers, but Ali?s account doesn?t dispel the murky aura of intrigue that hangs over the whole affair:
“Ali never did expose the people who made him feel that he was on the wrong side, and in fact conceded that he couldn’t. As he confided on the phone, ‘I didn’t know who the people were.’”
Hmmmmmmmm?.
But Ali isn’t disenchanted with the idea of human freedom: it’s just that now he doesn?t identify this idea with the U.S. government:
“‘Me and my brothers,’ he said, “we generally agree on Iraq and the future.’ (He is helping his brother Mohammed, who is running on the Iraqi Pro-Democracy Party ticket in the Jan. 30 election.) But there is one important difference: ‘My brothers have confidence in the American administration. I have my questions.’”
So it's not that simple, Mr. Bush. Much of what you read in blogs is pure political propaganda (think Pajamas Media, LGF, Wizbang (sadly, because there are some good guys over there, but they're becoming subsumed by the Kim Priestaps of the world), Redstate, and on and on). But there are also some independent-minded writers, too, like Rick Moran, Mark in Mexico, Alex Nunez (who I wish had more time to blog) and others, and even some bloggers, even of the Iraq the Model variety, for whom the Kool-Aid eventually wears off.
On CNN's Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer yesterday, John McCain got the bitch slap of his life, from my favorite war correspondent EVER, Aussie sensation Michael Ware. You simply MUST watch it:
Did you hear that...? That's the sound of John McCain's credibility crumbling.
The Senate votes 50-48 to reject a Thad Cochran (Miss) attempt to stop Congress from setting a timeline for withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. Good looking out, Chuck Hagel and Gordon Smith. Lieberman: I literally cannot wait for your next reelection fight. Now, the House and Senate versions go to conference, and Bush will whip out his veto pen. But if the Dems play their cards right, they could back him into a corner where it's take it or leave the troops broke. Check.
Anyone who reads this blog knows I'm not too sweet on the GOP, let alone the partisan henchmen who labor for them. But some things are bigger than politics. Life, for one. My mother died of metastatic cancer that began as breast cancer and wound up in the liver, after recurring about ten years after a mastectomy. I know how deadly liver cancer can be. Once it's there, it's a very tough road for anyone afflicted with it. Tony Snow now has cancer in his liver that metastasized from his colon, which was removed some years ago. Whatever my opinions of his politics, or his tactics as press secretary, those things don't matter now. All I can do is wish him well, and hope that he, like Elizabeth Edwards and all other cancer victims, will keep his spirits up, and keep the fight on. Best wishes to you, man.
Congressional inquiries into conditions at Walter Reed Army Medical Center are taking a political turn as Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio), a member of the House defense appropriations subcommittee, investigates whether high-profile Republicans used their influence to help a firm win a private maintenance contract.
Former Vice President Dan Quayle, former Treasury Secretary John Snow and former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld all have some connection to the firm, IAP Worldwide Services. The company's board is also populated with former top military officials.
IAP won the maintenance contract after a protracted competition with a group of former federal civil service employees who also bid for the work that was targeted for privatization during the Clinton administration.
In an interview, Kaptur said IAP's corporate connections "look like a Republican parking lot. Was the outsourcing a matter of favoritism with people with the right connections?"
The Politico breaks down the why of the firing of eight U.S. attorneys.
Some of the political fireworks between President Bush and Congress over fired U.S. attorneys could well be explained by looking back at when the saga began: the 2004 election.
Back then, Democrats were trying to register enough new voters to beat Bush while Republicans were issuing dire warnings that the Democrats were out to steal the election by encouraging voter fraud.
It's an issue the White House had fixated on since the Supreme Court ended the 2000 Florida recount and settled the presidential campaign amid charges that if the ballots of the Sunshine State's black voters had been counted, Democrat Al Gore would have won.
Bush's allies were obsessed with ensuring that his reelection couldn't be questioned as well. So, in the fall of 2004, Republican operatives tucked thick folders of newspaper clippings and other fraud tips under their arms and pitched to reporters their claims that the Democrats' registration program would lead to rampant voter fraud. Their passion was clear, but their evidence was slim, consisting mostly of isolated incidents of voter registration irregularities that were handled by local police or election officials.
What wasn't mentioned in those conversations with reporters was a Republican National Committee strategy, already underway, to work with state parties to identify and challenge questionable voters at the polling precincts. Among those working at the RNC was Tim Griffin, the former Karl Rove aide who recently replaced fired U.S. attorney Bud Cummins. Then, with the vast federal law enforcement community acting as the new sheriff, Republicans hoped to pocket the evidence they longed for: a string of high-profile investigations and convictions.
Failure of some U.S. attorneys to pursue the final plank in that strategy now appears to have helped trigger an internal debate over whether to fire all or some of them, administration comments and e-mails suggest. ...
The firestorm over the fired U.S. attorneys was sparked last month when a top Justice Department official ignored guidance from the White House and rejected advice from senior administration lawyers over his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
The official, Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty, ignored White House Counsel Harriet Miers and senior lawyers in the Justice Department when he told the committee last month of specific reasons why the administration fired seven U.S. attorneys — and appeared to acknowledge for the first time that politics was behind one dismissal. McNulty's testimony directly conflicted with the approach Miers advised, according to an unreleased internal White House e-mail described to ABC News. According to that e-mail, sources said, Miers said the administration should take the firm position that it would not comment on personnel issues.
Until McNulty's testimony, administration officials had consistently refused to publicly say why specific attorneys were dismissed and insisted that the White House had complete authority to replace them. That was Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' approach when he testified before the committee in January.
But McNulty, who worked on Capitol Hill 12 years, believed he had little choice but to more fully discuss the circumstances of the attorneys' firings, according to a a senior Justice Department official familiar the circumstances. McNulty believed the senators would demand additional information, and he was confident he could draw on a long relationship with New York Sen. Chuck Schumer, a Democrat, in explaining in more detail, sources told ABC News.
In doing so, however, McNulty went well beyond the scope of what the White House cleared him to say when it approved his written testimony the week before the hearing, according to administration sources closely involved in the matter.
The Washington Post foreign desk provides in-depth explication of the way militants like Moqtada al-Sadr actually win the battle for hearts and minds in Iraq.
The U.S. gets a guilty plea from Australian Qaida suspect David Hicks, who will likely be returned to his home country to serve his sentence. Why the quick capitulation by Hicks, who had been prepping for a fight? Time, and perhaps the Red Cross, will tell. My guess is the Howard government, already teetering under the weight of the "global war on terror" and the unpopularity of the Iraq war, brokered a deal. Aussie media take: Hicks pleaded out to escape "hell..."
Mitch McConnell, come on down! You're the next contestant on, "voters: fire this Bush-bot!"
The New York Times continues to carry water for the Bush administration on the war in Iraq, this time back-stoking the "Iran is arming the terra-rists" meme in a front page story.
Meanwhile, Tony Blair continues to fulminate, and do little else, on the subject of those captured sailors in Iran. Blair says Iran must follow international law or face unnamed consequences (a good, stern talking-to, maybe?)
I've heard a lot of B.S. from Michael Savage, perhaps the craziest loon on right wing radio. But this ... THIS takes the cake:
SAVAGE: If we don't wake up in this country, to summarize, the Muslim extremists who are marching in the streets of Europe will be marching in the streets of America. And they will massacre you as sure as I'm standing here, unless you understand what's at stake. They will massacre you unless you understand how they see the world, and what's at stake.
They will never assimilate in America. Never, in a million years, will they assimilate and permit their son Ahmed to marry another man. Never in a million years will they permit their daughters to become prostitutes like the vermin on Sunset Boulevard who puke on themselves and are held up as role models by the media.
Never in a million years will they subjugate themselves to permit a shrike like Barbara Boxer to use a fishwife mouth on them. Never in a million years. Don't you understand how they see the world? I do, which is why most of them listen to the show and love me.
Wha??? Hang on ... Michael Savage, the right wing stalwart who considers himself more American than you, or me, or damned near everyone else, also considers himself to be THE go-to guy for Muslim extremists who like talk radio??? So, can we consider him the Islamofascits' anchor man?
Yeah, you don't know that. The enemy himself probably listens to this show and says, "My God, if more of America was like this guy, I probably wouldn't even want to overthrow the country. I'd have nothing to overthrow. I'd be proud to be part of it. But the country that he rails against, the things going on in this country that this man rails against, are the very things that disgust me."
Katie Couric gets tough! Channels El Rushbo in scorched earth interview with ... cancer ... victim...
So NOW Katie wants to be a tough minded journalist, asking the hard questions and holding the feet of the powerful to the fire. And the subject of her sharp journalistic lens? Cancer victim Elizabeth Edwards and her husband, former Senator John Edwards. And being the brilliant mind that she is, Katie even managed to include a littany of questions straight from Rush Limbaugh's radio show, without even calling the Fat Man by name! An astute IFilm poster has the medley of Katie-style grilling:
Wow, Katie. You're like ... Edward R. Murrow, only perkier! And don't let those critics get you down... they're just hating on you because you're in fourth place in the news race and they're not. Oh, sorry, is that third?
Three things you DON'T want said by people on your side when you're in the midst of a White House scandal ending in "gate":
#1: "I plead the Fifth" #2: "I plead the Fifth" #3: "I plead the ..." you get the idea.
So the chief counsel to the nation's chief law enforcement official says she will take the Fifth rather than testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee about the Gonzogate scandal. Her words are pretty chilling, if you're a Bushie:
"I have decided to follow my lawyer's advice and respectfully invoke my constitutional right," Monica Goodling, Gonzales' counsel and White House liaison, said in a statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
And the words from her attorney (who Keith Olbermann deftly points out tonight was also the guy who prosecuted Pete Rose for betting on baseball) are even worse:
"The potential for legal jeopardy for Ms. Goodling from even her most truthful and accurate testimony under these circumstances is very real," [attorny John Dowd] said. Goodling was key to the Justice Department's political response to the growing controversy. She took a leave of absence last week.
"One need look no further than the recent circumstances and proceedings involving Lewis Libby," Dowd said, a reference to the recent conviction of Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff in the CIA leak case.
To which Pat Leahy rightly replied:
"The American people are left to wonder what conduct is at the base of Ms. Goodling's concern that she may incriminate herself in connection with criminal charges if she appears before the committee under oath,"
So what now for Gonzlaes, who according to reports is only hanging onto his job ont he condition that he make things right with Congress? Well, if his NBC News interview today is any idication of his prowess as a witness (he's set to go before Congress on April 17) in the immortal words of Mother Klump in "The Nutty Professor" movie, "he doesn't look well..." Of course, Gonzo says that he may one day find out that the prosecutors were purged for political reasons, and if so, he's gonna be really, really mad... (LOL)
More on Ms. Goodling:
Goodling's announcement appeared to be an unforeseen piece of bad news for Gonzales' agency, which had no immediate comment.
Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., who is leading the Senate's investigation into the firings, said Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty told him he was misled by other Justice Department aides before he testified to Schumer's panel on Feb. 6.
A day earlier, Goodling was among those who helped McNulty prepare his testimony. Schumer has said McNulty may have given Congress incomplete or otherwise misleading information about the circumstances of the firings.
A little more than two weeks before that, Goodling helped organize the response to senators asking whether the firings were politically motivated, e-mails show. Specifically, she wanted to show that one of the fired prosecutors, Carol Lam of California, had been the subject of complaints by members of Congress.
On Jan. 18, 2007, Goodling sent an e-mail to three Justice staffers saying, "I hear there is a letter from (Sen. Dianne) Feinstein on Carol Lam a year or two ago."
"I need it ASAP," Goodling wrote.
She was later sent two letters, from Rep. Darrell Issa (news, bio, voting record), R-Calif., dated Oct. 13, 2005, and 19 House members, on Oct. 20, 2005, which both complained that Lam was too lax in prosecuting criminal illegal immigrants.
Additionally, Goodling was involved in an April 6, 2006, phone call between the Justice Department and Sen. Pete Domenici (news, bio, voting record), R-N.M., who had complained to the Bush administration and the president about David Iglesias, then the U.S. attorney in Albuquerque. Domenici had wanted Iglesias to push more aggressively on a corruption probe against Democrats before the 2006 elections.
Iglesias told Congress earlier this month that he rejected what he believed to be pressure from Domenici to rush indictments that would have hurt Democrats in the November elections.
Not a good look, Ms. Goodling.
Meanwhile, a new poll shows the American people strongly back the Congressional Gonzogate probes, including the issuing of subpoenas.
And of course, there's always another scandal waiting in the wings. Mr. Rove? You're up.
Hagel throws out the I-word again, this time, in an interview with Stephanopoulos (and he joins the growing number of GOP and Dem members of Congress saying that Gonzales is a lost cause. Said Hagel:
"Any president who says, I don't care, or I will not respond to what the people of this country are saying about Iraq or anything else, or I don't care what the Congress does, I am going to proceed — if a president really believes that, then there are — what I was pointing out, there are ways to deal with that," said Hagel, who is considering a 2008 presidential run. ...
...On Sunday, Hagel said he was bothered by Bush's apparent disregard of congressional sentiment on Iraq, such as his decision to send additional troops. He said lawmakers now stood ready to stand up to the president when necessary.
