Time To Wipe That Smile Off Yer Face, Fatboy

From Newsweek:

It was 11:07 on a Friday morning, July 11, 2003, and Time magazine correspondent Matt Cooper was tapping out an e-mail to his bureau chief, Michael Duffy. "Subject: Rove/P&C," (for personal and confidential), Cooper began. "Spoke to Rove on double super secret background for about two mins before he went on vacation ..." Cooper proceeded to spell out some guidance on a story that was beginning to roil Washington. He finished, "please don't source this to rove or even WH [White House]" and suggested another reporter check with the CIA...

For two years, a federal prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, has been investigating the leak of Plame's identity as an undercover CIA agent. The leak was first reported by columnist Robert Novak on July 14, 2003. Novak apparently made some arrangement with the prosecutor, but Fitzgerald continued to press other reporters for their sources, possibly to show a pattern (to prove intent) or to make a perjury case. (It is illegal to knowingly identify an undercover CIA officer.) Rove's words on the Plame case have always been carefully chosen. "I didn't know her name. I didn't leak her name," Rove told CNN last year when asked if he had anything to do with the Plame leak. Rove has never publicly acknowledged talking to any reporter about former ambassador Joseph Wilson and his wife. But last week, his lawyer, Robert Luskin, confirmed to NEWSWEEK that Rove did—and that Rove was the secret source who, at the request of both Cooper's lawyer and the prosecutor, gave Cooper permission to testify.

The controversy arose when Wilson wrote an op-ed column in The New York Times saying that he had been sent by the CIA in February 2002 to investigate charges that Iraq was trying to buy uranium from the African country of Niger. Wilson said he had found no evidence to support the claim. Wilson's column was an early attack on the evidence used by the Bush administration to justify going to war in Iraq. The White House wished to discredit Wilson and his attacks. The question for the prosecutor is whether someone in the administration, in an effort to undermine Wilson's credibility, intentionally revealed the covert identity of his wife.

In a brief conversation with Rove, Cooper asked what to make of the flap over Wilson's criticisms. NEWSWEEK obtained a copy of the e-mail that Cooper sent his bureau chief after speaking to Rove. (The e-mail was authenticated by a source intimately familiar with Time's editorial handling of the Wilson story, but who has asked not to be identified because of the magazine's corporate decision not to disclose its contents.) Cooper wrote that Rove offered him a "big warning" not to "get too far out on Wilson." Rove told Cooper that Wilson's trip had not been authorized by "DCIA"—CIA Director George Tenet—or Vice President Dick Cheney. Rather, "it was, KR said, wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on wmd [weapons of mass destruction] issues who authorized the trip." Wilson's wife is Plame, then an undercover agent working as an analyst in the CIA's Directorate of Operations counterproliferation division. (Cooper later included the essence of what Rove told him in an online story.) The e-mail characterizing the conversation continues: "not only the genesis of the trip is flawed an[d] suspect but so is the report. he [Rove] implied strongly there's still plenty to implicate iraqi interest in acquiring uranium fro[m] Niger ..."

In other words, per Digby:

"Karl Rove and others in the White House exposed an undercover CIA agent in order to cover up their lies about Iraq."

Ah, yes you say, but what about the rest of the Newsweek article which includes this:

A source close to Rove, who declined to be identified because he did not wish to run afoul of the prosecutor or government investigators, added that there was "absolutely no inconsistency" between Cooper's e-mail and what Rove has testified to during his three grand-jury appearances in the case. "A fair reading of the e-mail makes clear that the information conveyed was not part of an organized effort to disclose Plame's identity, but was an effort to discourage Time from publishing things that turned out to be false," the source said, referring to claims in circulation at the time that Cheney and high-level CIA officials arranged for Wilson's trip to Africa.

Take it away, Roger:

What the hell is this bullshit? The disclosure of Plame's identity (as the wife of Joseph Wilson) was the friggin' crime. It was disclosure of information to Cooper. Under the law, it doesn't friggin' matter (1) if there was an organized effort; (2) whether Rove intended for Cooper to publish; or (3) whether Rove's motive was to knock down a rumor. Repeat: None of those things friggin' matter. The only possible issue left is whether Rove knew Plame was a covert agent. The e-mail is silent on the matter -- although the fact that Rove didn't want his name connected to the leak strongly suggests his guilt in that regard.

This passage also illustrates the abuse of anonymous sources. If the source isn't Rove's attorney (who is quoted on the record elsewhere in the article), then there's no way he or she has first-hand knowledge of what Rove told the grand jury. So this jackass is simply providing uninformed spin - making an argument based on the language of the e-mail. Why should Newsweak give someone with no knowledge, but only spin, a promise of confidentiality?

Grrrrrrrrrr indeedy.

THE TRANSISTOR WIDOW (#007)

Untitled, Will McRobb (2005)

Many, many moons ago, I had the good fortune to guest DJ a couple of times for the best freeform radio station in, perhaps, the world: WFMU. I've decided to share my shows with you, my "online magazine" public. Click the radio for Show #1: "Here I Am, In My Room" (I'll let you know when Show #2: "Hello Out There America" is available). Enjoy...

Sully Still Can't Get His Head Out of His Ass

"The Economist makes a good point today:

What the attacks also show, however, is that well co-ordinated though the four explosions were, they were not terribly effective. Chance plays a big role in such attacks. The bombs in Madrid last year which killed 191 people might have killed many more had the station roof collapsed. The September 11th hijackings might have killed fewer than the eventual 2,752 had the twin towers of the World Trade Centre not melted down and collapsed. As The Economist went to press, the toll in the four London bombs was not clear, but the estimate of at least 33 deaths was thankfully far smaller than in Madrid. By the terrible calculus of terrorism, the attacks should thus be counted as a failure - sign of weakness, not strength.

And no WMDs. For that, relief."

Yeah Andy, I bet the people who were on this bus are relieved about this giant example of failure.








Tom Tomorrow kindly reminds us of Andy's past wankerness:

"If the terrorists leave us alone in Iraq, fine. But if they come and get us, even better. Far more advantageous to fight terror using trained soldiers in Iraq than trying to defend civilians in New York or London."

Free!

"...all who can are urged to copy it and put it on the internet and do whatever you can do with it. Please, please do not pay hard-earned money for it."
- Wayne Coyne, The Flaming Lips

(Click CD cover to download. Thanks Wayne!)

And Now For Something To Lighten Our Day

...'cause God knows we all could use a little levity:









TomCruiseIsNuts.com

Well, I guess we can forget hearing about the Wilson-Plame-Rove-Iraqgate story in the MSM. We've gone Code Orange and it's gonna be nothin' but terror, 9/11, Pataki, Bloomberg, Giuliani, Bush, Blair, so-called experts, wingnuts and neocons, 24/7. And, of course, those of us who have dared to doubt Dear Leader will be blamed for the latest attacks.

So it will be up to the lowly bloggers to continue to fan the flames of Iraqgate. Digby has a great post on how this complex story can be told simply and directly. In a nutshell:

"Karl Rove and others in the White House exposed an undercover CIA agent in order to cover up their lies about Iraq."

"This is not an attack against the rich and powerful. It is not an attack on the politicians, but on the common working people of London.

"We have seen that you are not afraid to take your own lives but what you did is just mass murder.






"I can tell you now that you will fail in your long-term objectives to destroy our free society." - London mayor Ken Livingstone

"The war on terror goes on."

- George W. Bush, President, Crusader, Bike Rider

Bad Journalist Walking

A federal judge today ordered Judith Miller of The New York Times to be jailed immediately after she again refused to cooperate with a grand jury investigating the disclosure of the identity of a covert C.I.A. operative.

But she should be going to jail for her irresponsible reporting:

When the full history of the Iraq war is written, one of its most scandalous chapters will be about how American journalists, in particular those at the New York Times, so easily allowed themselves to be manipulated by both dubious sources and untrustworthy White House officials into running stories that misled the nation about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. The Times finally acknowledged its grave errors in an extraordinary and lengthy editors note published Wednesday. The editors wrote:

"We have found ... instances of coverage that was not as rigorous as it should have been ... In some cases, the information that was controversial then, and seems questionable now, was insufficiently qualified or allowed to stand unchallenged. Looking back, we wish we had been more aggressive in re-examining the claims as new evidence emerged -- or failed to emerge ... We consider the story of Iraq's weapons, and of the pattern of misinformation, to be unfinished business. And we fully intend to continue aggressive reporting aimed at setting the record straight."

The editors conceded what intelligence sources had told me and numerous other reporters: that Pentagon favorite Ahmed Chalabi was feeding bad information to journalists and the White House and had set up a situation with Iraqi exiles where all of the influential institutions were shouting into the same garbage can, hearing the same echo. "Complicating matters for journalists, the accounts of these exiles were often eagerly confirmed by United States officials convinced of the need to intervene in Iraq. Administration officials now acknowledge that they sometimes fell for misinformation from these exile sources. So did many news organizations -- in particular, this one."

The reporter on many of the flawed stories at issue was Judith Miller, a Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter and authority on the Middle East. The Times, insisting that the problem did not lie with any individual journalist, did not mention her name. The paper was presumably trying to take the high road by defending its reporter, but the omission seems peculiar. While her editors must share a large portion of the blame, the pieces ran under Miller's byline. It was Miller who clearly placed far too much credence in unreliable sources, and then credulously used dubious administration officials to confirm what she was told.

(snip)

In its editors note, the Times admitted Miller's "informant also claimed that Iraq had sent unconventional weapons to Syria and had been cooperating with Al Qaeda -- two claims that were then, and remain, highly controversial. But the tone of the article suggested that this Iraqi 'scientist' -- who in a later article described himself as an official of military intelligence -- had provided the justification the Americans had been seeking for the invasion. The Times never followed up on the veracity of this source or the attempts to verify his claims."

Miller, who knew all of this already at the time I interviewed her, remained righteously indignant, unwilling to accept that she had goofed in the grandest of fashions.

"You know what," she offered angrily. "I was proved fucking right. That's what happened. People who disagreed with me were saying, 'There she goes again.' But I was proved fucking right."

I've always been curious about this last quote and often wondered how Miller, unless she was completely batshit insane, could make such a dubious claim. And then, through the magic of Google, I came across this:

Now, at first glance this makes no sense whatsoever, since nothing in her article has been proven right. In fact, very little in any of her reporting on this subject was accurate. But -- what if we are all misunderstanding Miller? What if by "fucking right" she meant "having sex correctly"?

With that in mind, let's look at the quote again, with minor changes:

"You know what," she offered angrily. "I was proved to be having sex correctly. That's what happened. People who disagreed with me were saying, 'There she goes again.' But I was proved to be having sex correctly."

You see? Now it makes perfect sense. Remember that Miller has come under intense criticism not just for her atrocious reporting; many people also claimed she was still, as of 2003, having sex incorrectly.

Of course, the whole world knows Miller had sex incorrectly during the eighties. That's never been in dispute. Indeed, thousands of people (mostly Iranian) were killed.

The question was whether she was still having sex incorrectly as of 2003. The US and UK intelligence agencies were certain she was, and claimed Miller was a threat not just to her neighbors but the entire world. However, their certainty now appears to have been based on "evidence" manufactured by Ahmad Chalabi.

Mystery solved.

Our President is Out of Control

(file)

The Big Turd Sandwich has gotten himself into yet another bicycle accident:

Scott confirmed that POTUS collided with a police officer during his bike ride. He was about 45 minutes into his ride, Scott said, when the accident occurred. The officer was in a security detail on the grounds of Gleneagles. The President slid on the paved surface, suffering scrapes on his hands and arms that later required treatment and bandaging by his White House physician. The officer was taken to a local hospital as a precaution, Scott said. The extent of his harm wasn't immediately clear, although he might have an ankle injury.

I'm so glad we sent Bush to Scotland to represent us. Makes you proud to be an American...

(Click for more album covers ruined by evil corporations)

We Are Were All Americans

Remember when the world liked us, they really, really liked us...for about 3 seconds?

(from Le Monde, Paris, France, Sept. 12, 2001)

In this tragic moment, when words seem so inadequate to express the shock people feel, the first thing that comes to mind is this: We are all Americans! We are all New Yorkers, just as surely as John F. Kennedy declared himself to be a Berliner in 1962 when he visited Berlin. Indeed, just as in the gravest moments of our own history, how can we not feel profound solidarity with those people, that country, the United States, to whom we are so close and to whom we owe our freedom, and therefore our solidarity? How can we not be struck at the same time by this observation: The new century has come a long way.

Sept. 11, 2001, marks the ushering in of a new age that seems so far from the promise of another historic day, Nov. 9, 1989 [the breaking of the Berlin Wall], and a somewhat euphoric year, 2000, which we thought might conclude with peace in the Middle East.

And so a new century moves ahead, with powerful technology, as shown by the sophistication of the war operation that struck America’s symbols: those of its enormous economic power in the heart of Manhattan [and] of its military might at the Pentagon. The beginnings of this century defy understanding unless you promptly and indiscriminately subscribe to the cliché that is already the most widespread: the triggering of a war of the South against the North.

But to say this would be to credit the perpetrators of this murderous madness with “good intentions,” or with some plan, whereby the oppressed peoples would be avenged against their sole oppressor, America. That would have allowed them to claim “poverty” as their authority, thus committing an affront to it! What monstrous hypocrisy! None of those who had a hand in this operation can claim they intend the good of humanity. Actually, they have no interest in a better world. They simply want to wipe ours off the face of the Earth.

The reality is more certainly that of a world with no counterbalance, physically destabilized, and thus more dangerous since there is no multipolar balance. And America, in the solitude of its power, in its status as the sole superpower, now in the absence of a Soviet counter-model, has ceased to draw other nations to itself; or more precisely, in certain parts of the globe, it seems to draw nothing but hate. In the regulated world of the Cold War, where the various kinds of terrorism were more or less aided by Moscow, a certain degree of control was still possible, and the dialogue between Moscow and Washington never stopped. In today’s monopolistic world, it is a new barbarism, apparently with no control, which seems to want to set itself up as a counter-power. Perhaps, even in Europe, from the Gulf War to the use of F-16s by the Israeli army against the Palestinians, we have underestimated the intensity of the hate, which, from the outskirts of Jakarta to those of Durban, among the rejoicing crowds in Nablus and Cairo, is focused against the United States.

But the reality is perhaps also that of an America whose own cynicism has caught up with. If Bin Laden, as the American authorities seem to think, really is the one who ordered the Sept. 11 attacks, how can we fail to recall that he was in fact trained by the CIA and that he was an element of a policy, directed against the Soviets, that the Americans considered to be wise? Might it not then have been America itself that created this demon?

Be that as it may, America is going to change. Profoundly. America is like a large ocean liner, sailing for a long time on the same course. When the course is changed, it is changed for a long time. And, even though the expression may be overworked, the United States has suffered an unprecedented shock. Pearl Harbor marked the end of isolationism, so deeply rooted that it was not even moved by Hitler’s barbarity. After Pearl Harbor, everything changed. And America accepted it all, from the Marshall Plan to sending GIs to every point of the globe. Then came the Vietnam debacle, which led to a new doctrine, that of the rare but massive use of force, accompanied by the dogma of “zero casualties” for the United States, as illustrated during the Gulf War. All of that has now been swept away. There is no doubt that every means will be employed against enemies who, up to now, have remained elusive.

The new hand that has begun to be dealt out in blood, at this stage, will bring with it at least two foreseeable consequences. Both have to do with alliances: It is certainly the end of an entire strategy conceived in opposition to Russia, the Soviet Union at the time. Russia, at least in its non-Islamic areas, is going to become the main ally of the United States. Perhaps it is also the end of an alliance that the United States had traced out in the 1930s and soundly established in the 1950s with Sunni Muslim fundamentalism, such as it is defended particularly in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. In the eyes of American public opinion and its leadership, Islamic fundamentalism, in all its forms, risks being designated as the new enemy. Indeed, the anti-Islamic reflex, immediately after the attack on a federal building in Oklahoma City, resulted in statements that were ridiculous, if not downright odious.

Beyond their obvious murderous madness, these latest attacks nonetheless follow a certain logic.

Obviously it is a barbarous logic, marked by a new nihilism that is repugnant to the great majority of those who believe in Islam, which, as a religion, does not condone suicide any more than Christianity does, and certainly not suicide coupled with the massacre of innocent people. But it is a political logic, which, by going to extremes, seeks to force Muslim opinion to “choose sides” against those who are currently designated as “the Great Satan.” By doing this, their objective might well be to spread and deepen an unprecedented crisis in the Arab world.

In the long term, this attitude is obviously suicidal, because it attracts lightning. And it might attract a bolt of lightning that does not discriminate. This situation requires our leaders to rise to the occasion. They must act so that the peoples whom these warmongers are seeking to win over and are counting on will not fall in step behind them in their suicidal logic. This we can say with some dread: Modern technology allows them to go even further. Madness, even under the pretext of despair, is never a force that can regenerate the world. That is why today we are all Americans.

Oh boy, did we change. Thanks to Bush & Co., we became crusaders. Oy to the world. This is how much they like us now:


(source: Pew Global Attitudes Project)

To be fair, we have gone up a wee bit in world opinion from 2004 to 2005 partly because of U.S. aid for tsunami victims in Asia. I guess Condi Rice was right when she said "the tsunami was a wonderful opportunity to show not just the U.S. government, but the heart of the American people. And I think it has paid great dividends for us."

"Always Take The Fish"

Ricky Gervais has some advice for ending both hunger and Phil Collins. Click his pic and make sure you watch all of the clips (you can skip the Madonna clip, however).

(Thanks to the ever vigilant freakgirl for the tip)

Connect the Dots, La, La, La, La

Let's review what we know, shall we?

• President Bush's statements on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction:

"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."

United Nations address, September 12, 2002

"Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons."

"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."

Radio address, October 5, 2002

"The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons."

"We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas."

"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States."

"The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" -- his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons."

Cincinnati, Ohio speech, October 7, 2002

"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent."

State of the Union Address, January 28, 2003

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

Address to the nation, March 17, 2003
(source: John W. Dean, CNN.com)

• Saddam Hussein did not possess stockpiles of illicit weapons at the time of the U.S. invasion in March 2003 and had not begun any program to produce them, a CIA report concludes.

In fact, the long-awaited report, authored by Charles Duelfer, who advises the director of central intelligence on Iraqi weapons, says Iraq's WMD program was essentially destroyed in 1991 and Saddam ended Iraq's nuclear program after the 1991 Gulf War.
(source: CNN.com)

• “The problem lay not with intelligence professionals, but with the Bush and Blair administrations. They wanted a war, so they demanded reports supporting their case, while dismissing contrary evidence. . .”

"The public was told that Saddam posed an imminent threat. If that claim was fraudulent, the selling of the war is arguably the worst scandal in American political history -- worse than Watergate, worse than Iran-contra."
(source: Paul Krugman, The NY Times)

• Did the Bush administration manipulate intelligence about Saddam Hussein's weapons programs to justify an invasion of Iraq?

Based on my experience with the administration in the months leading up to the war, I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat...

In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report. While I never saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake — a form of lightly processed ore — by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990's. The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office...

It did not take long to conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place...

(As for the actual memorandum, I never saw it. But news accounts have pointed out that the documents had glaring errors — they were signed, for example, by officials who were no longer in government — and were probably forged. And then there's the fact that Niger formally denied the charges.)...

Then, in January, President Bush, citing the British dossier, repeated the charges about Iraqi efforts to buy uranium from Africa.
(source: Joseph Wilson, The NY Times)

• A week later, Wilson received the payback. Conservative columnist Robert Novak, quoting two unnamed administration sources, reported that Wilson’s wife, Valerie Wilson (nee Plame), was a CIA operative working in the counterproliferation field. Novak revealed her identity to suggest that Wilson had been sent to Niger due to nepotism not his experience. The point of Novak’s column was to call Wilson’s trip and his findings into question.

The real story was that Novak’s sources–presumably White House officials–might have violated the law prohibiting government officials from identifying a covert officer of the United States government. Outing Valerie Wilson was a possible felony and–to boot–compromised national security. Two months later, the news broke that the CIA had asked the Justice Department to investigate the Wilson leak. And a US attorney named Patrick Fitzgerald has been on the case since the start of this year, leading an investigation that has included questioning Bush.
(source: David Corn, Bushlies.com)

• Now that Time Inc. has turned over documents to federal court, presumably revealing who its reporter, Matt Cooper, identified as his source in the Valerie Plame/CIA case, speculation runs rampant on the name of that source, and what might happen to him or her. Friday night, on the syndicated McLaughlin Group political talk show, Lawrence O'Donnell, senior MSNBC political analyst, claimed to know that name--and it is, according to him, top White House mastermind Karl Rove.

Today, O'Donnell went further, writing a brief entry at the Huffington Post blog:

"I revealed in yesterday's taping of the McLaughlin Group that Time magazine's e-mails will reveal that Karl Rove was Matt Cooper's source. I have known this for months but didn't want to say it at a time that would risk me getting dragged into the grand jury."
(source: Editor & Publisher)

• (Joseph) Wilson indicates that the work up on him beginning March, 2003, turned up the information on Valerie (Plame) -- which was then shared with Karl Rove who then circulated it through Administration and neo-Conservative circles. He cites conservative journalists who claimed to have had the information before the Novak column.

So the question is -- in the work-up process beginning about March 2003, who had the information re: Plame? I think it was John Bolton. At the time he was State Department Deputy Secretary with the portfolio in WMD and Nuclear Proliferation. Assuming that Valerie Plame's identity was that of a NOC (No Official Cover) the information about her would have been highly classified, compartmentalized, and only those with a need to know would know. Bolton's Job probably gave him that status. However to receive it he would have to sign off on the classification -- that is he would have to agree to retain the security the CIA had established.
(source: Hullabaloo)

• It is undisputed among all parties that Plame's covert work involved principally the gathering of intelligence related to weapons of mass destruction, which put her at an important nexus of operations in the runup to the Iraq War. At another nexus point across town, during the same period, was John Bolton.

While Plame and other covert operatives acted as the raw sources of WMD intelligence, Bolton was one of the significant administration officials guiding the acceptance and use of that intelligence.
(source: Daily Kos)

• Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security John Bolton, while offering no new evidence, assured Congress that WMDs would indeed be found. And he advised that a new unit called the Iraq Survey Group, composed of some 1400 experts and technicians from around the world, is being deployed to assist in the searching.
(source: John W. Dean, CNN.com, 6/6/03)

• It might not be putting too fine a point on it to say that news reports have painted Bolton as a counterintelligence agent for the White House; a figure charged not only gathering with the "correct" intelligence to support the administration position, but with retaliation against sources of information or analysis contrary to the Bush Administration's desired pre-Iraq-War interpretations in order to refute, stifle, or punish those sources. Some of these counterintelligence operations -- and given the targets of Bolton's wrath, that would appear to be an accurate, if inflammatory, term to use -- appear to have taken place on Bolton's own initiative, such as his efforts to remove State Department employees who advanced WMD analyses different from endorsed Bush Administration views.
(source: Daily Kos)

• White House officials declined yesterday to give senators the extra documents they are seeking regarding John R. Bolton, President Bush's choice to become ambassador to the United Nations, setting up a major standoff with Senate Democrats over the long-troubled nomination.

Democratic senators sidetracked a final vote on Bolton's nomination late Thursday, saying they will keep it from the Senate floor until the Bush administration hands over the information they have been seeking for two months.
(source: Boston Globe)

So, WHAT ARE THEY HIDING?

It appears the Bush administration is guilty of both the crime(s) and the cover-up(s).

• To put it bluntly, if Bush has taken Congress and the nation into war based on bogus information, he is cooked. Manipulation or deliberate misuse of national security intelligence data, if proven, could be "a high crime" under the Constitution's impeachment clause. It would also be a violation of federal criminal law, including the broad federal anti-conspiracy statute, which renders it a felony "to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose."

It's important to recall that when Richard Nixon resigned, he was about to be impeached by the House of Representatives for misusing the CIA and FBI. After Watergate, all presidents are on notice that manipulating or misusing any agency of the executive branch improperly is a serious abuse of presidential power.

Nixon claimed that his misuses of the federal agencies for his political purposes were in the interest of national security. The same kind of thinking might lead a President to manipulate and misuse national security agencies or their intelligence to create a phony reason to lead the nation into a politically desirable war. Let us hope that is not the case.
(source: John W. Dean, CNN.com)

Sorry Mr. Dean, but there are four words that prove that this is indeed the case: The Downing Street Memos:

• Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

Now, let's talk about what Bush has done "in the interest of national security." The 2004 election tipped toward Bush, not because of gays, guns and God, but because people thought he was the right man to protect our country. Yes, the same Commander in Chief who, with the help of his talented administration, screwed the pooch on 9/11:

Bush administration officials told former Sens. Gary Hart, D-Colo., and Warren Rudman, R-N.H., that they preferred instead to put aside the recommendations issued in the January report by the U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century. Instead, the White House announced in May that it would have Vice President Dick Cheney study the potential problem of domestic terrorism -- which the bipartisan group had already spent two and a half years studying -- while assigning responsibility for dealing with the issue to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, headed by former Bush campaign manager Joe Allbaugh.

The Hart-Rudman Commission had specifically recommended that the issue of terrorism was such a threat it needed far more than FEMA's attention.

And who could forget Condi Rice's big moment in the spotlight?

RICHARD BEN-VENISTE: Isn't it a fact, Dr. Rice, that the August 6 PDB warned against possible attacks in this country? And I ask you whether you recall the title of that PDB?

CONDOLEEZZA RICE: I believe the title was, "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States."
(source: CNN.com)

9/11, as our president is fond of saying, changed everything and enabled Bush to annoint himself our "War President":

I'm a war president.  I make decisions here in the Oval Office in foreign-policy matters with war on my mind.  Again, I wish it wasn't true, but it is true.  And the American people need to know they got a president who sees the world the way it is.  And I see dangers that exist, and it's important for us to deal with them.

Okay, so we'll of course grant him the war in Afghanistan. Right move. Right time. But then he had to drain our resources in Afghanistan, putting our soldiers and our mission there at risk, as well as all of us here at home, and go and invade Iraq because it was an "imminent threat." When the administration's lies about WMDs in Iraq became apparent, Bush & Co. changed the storyline and became fond of telling us that removing Saddam Hussein has made the world a safer:

Three years ago, (Bush said), Iraq was ruled by "a proven mass murderer who refused to account for weapons of mass murder." (Note: "weapons of mass murder," not "weapons of mass destruction"; and "refused to account for," not "refused to disarm.") Now, Bush went on, Iraq is "becoming an example of reform to the region." Because America "helped to end the violent regime of Saddam Hussein, and because we're helping to raise a peaceful democracy in its place, the American people are safer."

As the pundits say, that remains to be seen. Maybe Iraq will emerge from the chaos as an exemplar of reform; maybe it will slide further into chaos and only encourage neighboring tyrannies to intensify their clampdowns. Meanwhile, terrorists, who it turns out didn't enjoy safe haven in Iraq before the war, have carved out camps in its aftermath. Leading Shiites are forming unsettling alliances with Iran. The Kurds are balking at any incursions on their autonomy. And, in the first month of Iraqi sovereignty, the most cherished consumer item for many citizens—thousands line up for one—is a passport to get the hell out of there.

And doesn't this make you feel more secure?

The CIA believes the Iraq insurgency poses an international threat and may produce better-trained Islamic terrorists than the 1980s Afghanistan war that gave rise to Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, a U.S. counterterrorism official said on Wednesday.

A classified report from the U.S. spy agency says Iraqi and foreign fighters are developing a broad range of deadly skills, from car bombings and assassinations to tightly coordinated conventional attacks on police and military targets, the official said.

Once the insurgency ends, Islamic militants are likely to disperse as highly organized battle-hardened combatants capable of operating throughout the Arab-speaking world and in other regions including Europe.(source: Reuters)

Oh, America is safe I guess. Glad I don't live in "other regions." The fact that Iraq has become a training ground for terrorists was more or less reaffirmed by Bush in his speech to the nation from Fort Bragg in which he quoted the man he failed to capture in Afghanistan:

Some wonder whether Iraq is a central front in the war on terror. Among the terrorists, there is no debate.

Here are the words of Osama bin Laden: This third world war is raging in Iraq. The whole world is watching this war. He says it will end in victory and glory or misery and humiliation.

So, it's pretty clear to me and my fellow "elitists" that our President is a capital "F" failure in the very area (WAR) that made him so much more attractive than John Kerry to 51% of the American voters: He failed to protect us on 9/11; he's failing in Afghanistan; he failed us in Iraq; he's failed our veterans; a member of his administration "violated the law prohibiting government officials from identifying a covert officer of the United States government...and–to boot–compromised national security"; and, most importantly, Bush lied to Congress and the American people in order to start this sad, sad war in Iraq.

So what do we do? We can start with this:



And then, after Karl the Traitor is sent to Gitmo, we can connect all of the dots and impeach The Big Turd Sandwich and his entire corrupt adminstration.



(Click for Articles of Impeachment)

"Every generation needs a new revolution." - Thomas Jefferson

If this post involved too much reading and cross-referencing for some of you, may I politely suggest listening to this musical collage I made a couple of years ago which pretty neatly sums up many of the lies and failures of George W. Bush, War President.

(Pee Wee image stolen from i-mockery.com. Rove image stolen from Rising Hegemon.)

Sign the Declaration

BRING THEM HOME NOW! is a campaign of military families, veterans, active duty personnel, reservists and others opposed to the ongoing war in Iraq and galvanized to action by George W. Bush's inane and reckless challenge to armed Iraqis resisting occupation to "Bring 'em on."

Our mission is to mobilize military families, veterans, and GIs themselves to demand: an end to the occupation of Iraq and other misguided military adventures; and an immediate return of all US troops to their home duty stations.

The truth is coming out. The American public was deceived by the Bush administration about the motivation for and intent of the invasion of Iraq. It is equally apparent that the administration is stubbornly and incompetently adhering to a destructive course. Many Americans do not want our troops there. Many military families do not want our troops there. Many troops themselves do not want to be there. The overwhelming majority of Iraqis do not want US troops there...

As military veterans and families, we understand that hardship is sometimes part of the job. But there has to be an honest and compelling reason to impose these hardships and risks on our troops, our families, and our communities. The reasons given for the occupation of Iraq do not rise to this standard.

Without just cause for war, we say bring the troops home now!

Not one more troop killed in action. Not one more troop wounded in action. Not one more troop psychologically damaged by the act of terrifying, humiliating, injuring or killing innocent people. Not one more troop spending one more day inhaling depleted uranium. Not one more troop separated from spouse and children. This is the only way to truly support these troops, and the families who are just as much part of the military as they are.

Bush says "Bring 'em on." We say "BRING THEM HOME NOW!"

Click their banner to learn more.

Legacy

As you probably already know, Paul Winchell died this past Friday at the age of 82. While many of you younger folk knew him as the voice of Tigger, I remember him as the man behind Jerry Mahoney and Knucklehead Smiff, the "stars" of my favorite kids show, Winchell-Mahoney Time. He also invented an early version of the artificial heart. And he apparently was a terrible husband and father. However, he did leave us a pretty cool legacy: His daughter April, DJ, blogger and caretaker of the most amazing audio collection of fun crap I've ever seen/heard on the internets. Looking for a Gregorian chant version of "Smells Like Teen Spirit?" She's got it. Kentucky Fried Chicken Employee Training Tapes? Yep, you betcha. Abba covers in Hindi? Hanji! (Yes, sir!)

To destroy what little free time you have, click April's picture and get lost in her wonderful collection of oddities.





And a fond Scotty, waddy, doo-doo to all former members of the Winchell-Mahoney Club.

Is It Worth It?

(Click to Watch)

Images: ABC News
Song: "Shipbuilding" (Music: Clive Langer; Lyrics: Elvis Costello; Vocals: Robert Wyatt)

The Big Lie

"Click me, for I have no shame"

And speaking of shameless:

A Republican congressman from North Carolina told CNN on Wednesday that the "evidence is clear" that Iraq was involved in the terrorist attacks against the United States on September 11, 2001.

"Saddam Hussein and people like him were very much involved in 9/11," Rep. Robin Hayes said.

Told no investigation had ever found evidence to link Saddam and 9/11, Hayes responded, "I'm sorry, but you must have looked in the wrong places."

Hayes, the vice chairman of the House subcommittee on terrorism, said legislators have access to evidence others do not.

Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, said that Saddam was a dangerous man, but when asked about Hayes' statement, would not link the deposed Iraqi ruler to the terrorist attacks on New York, the Pentagon and Pennsylvania.

"I haven't seen compelling evidence of that," McCain, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, told CNN.

"Sometimes I wonder if the world is run by smart people who are putting us on, or imbeciles who really mean it."
-Mark Twain

THE TRANSISTOR WIDOW #006

Untitled, Will McRobb (2005)

Unlimited Power

I came across the following quote today while reading the most-excellent as I waiting to be called for jury duty:

"Unlimited power in the hands of limited people always leads to cruelty." - Alexander Solzhenitsyn

It seemed more than appropriate for the times we live in. I googled the quote to make sure it was accurate (sorry to doubt you David) and found some more "fun" quotes. Here are a few of my faves. Enjoy:

"Fear is the foundation of most governments."
-John Adams

"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence-it is force! Like fire it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master; never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action."
-George Washington

"The government consists of a gang of men exactly like you and me. They have, taking one with another, no special talent for the business of government, they have only a talent for getting and holding office. Their principal device to that end is to search out groups who pant and pine for something they can't get and promise to give it to them. Nine times out of ten, that promise is worth nothing. The tenth time it is made good by looting A to satisfy B. In other words, government is a broker in pillage, and every election is a sort of an advance auction of the sale of stolen goods."
-H.L. Mencken

"There are two governments in the United States today. One is visible. The other is invisible."
-Thomas B. Ross

"Did the mass of men know the actual selfishness and injustice of their rulers, not a government would stand a year. The world would formant with revolution."
-Theodore Parker

"Those who take the most from the table teach contentment. Those for whom the taxes are destined demand sacrifice. Those who eat their fill speak to the hungry of wonderful Times to come. Those who lead the country into the abyss call ruling difficult for ordinary folk."
-Bertolt Brecht

"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."
-Voltaire

"A popular Government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or Tragedy; or, perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance: And a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives."
-James Madison 1822

"It is not the function of our government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error."
-Robert H. Jackson, U.S. Supreme Court Justice 1950

"Sometimes I wonder if the world is run by smart people who are putting us on, or imbeciles who really mean it."
-Mark Twain

They're just sayin'...

The Bush Speech Drinking Game

truthout's William Rivers Pitt has some not so sobering thoughts about tonight's speech by The Big Turd Sandwich:

"Tonight should be interesting. If I were still in college, I'd propose creating a drinking game based on this speech. Drink a beer after every lie. Drink a beer every time Bush says "freedom," or talks about September 11 as if those attacks had anything to do with Iraq. Drink two beers after every wildly unrealistic assessment that has no basis in fact. Drink a beer and a shot every time he says "Nukular." Two beers, a shot and a kick to the head every time he thanks the troops around him for the sacrifices "we" know must be made. Anyone still standing after ten minutes wins a Kewpie doll.

It's probably a good thing I graduated."

Men Who Tableaux

I highly recommend Comedy Central's new series Stella which premieres this Tuesday night at 10:30. The brainchild of Michael Ian Black, David Wain and Michael Showalter (formerly of The State), Stella, thankfully, is not another sketch show -- rather it's format is more like the cartoons and Three Stooges one-reelers of yesteryear. Back in the day, it was no problem to see characters you knew acting in a completely different situation with each film. ("Calling Dr. Howard, Dr. Fine, Dr. Howard"...wait, weren't they plumbers the last time we saw them?!? Okay. No problem. As long as they still hit each other.) John Kricfalusi once told me how a Nickelodeon executive almost killed the classic Ren & Stimpy episode "Space Madness" because the exec couldn't understand how the dog and cat could live in a trailer in one episode and suddenly be space cadets flying around in a rocket ship the following week. He...couldn't...under...stand. He's probably since failed upwards to an SVP position somewhere.

Judging by the pilot for Stella, the former Nick guy does not appear to be running things at Comedy Central. The show I saw wonderfully made zero sense and felt very much like a human version of an old Ren & Stimpy cartoon, taking it's sweet time with preposterous gags and seemingly made with no audience in mind except for Michael Ian Black, David Wain, Michael Showalter and their (talented) friends (my favorite kind of self-indulgence). Some of the gags miss but there are plenty of hits (the tableau scene above was a personal fave). Black, Wain and Showalter have promised that their three characters will be in completely different situations each week, just like the Stooges and The Marx Brothers. I hope they make good on that promise. I remember back in the '80s telling anyone who would listen that this is exactly what Dan Ackroyd, Bill Murray and Harold Ramis should do instead of making Ghostbusters 2. Obviously, no one listened and we ended up with another dreadful, uninspired sequel. If only I had had this blog back then...

It's Good To Be The King

Stephen King bludgeons the media in the June 24/July 1 edition of Entertainment Weekly:

With the enthusiastic collaboration of the American news media, the sideshow (the Michael Jackson trial) has become the main attraction in American culture: The weirder the guy, the bigger the headlines. It's sickening that it takes a columnist in an entertainment magazine to point out that the number of newspeople who covered the Jackson trial (2000) is roughly equivalent to the number of American servicemen and women who have died in Iraq. On the same day that crowds gathered in Times Square (and around the world) to learn the fate of the Pale Peculiarity, another four suicide bombings took place in that tortured, bleeding country. And if you tell me that news doesn't belong in Entertainment Weekly, I respond by saying Michael Jackson under a black umbrella doesn't belong on the front page of The New York Times.

It's good to see something like this in the MSM for a change...

Sir Wanker

"Tell me why? I don't like Mondays" or Bob Geldof. Or Bono, for that matter.

Here's why:

(Sir) Bob Geldof has reportedly warned a top recording artist not to publicly criticise the White House during the worldwide television broadcast of the Live 8 concerts next month.

The warning came after Geldof insisted that President George W. Bush had done more for Africa than any other American leader.

The manager of the singer was quoted as having been told: "Please remember, absolutely no ranting and raving about Bush or Blair and the Iraq war. We want to bring Bush in, not run him away."

(snip)

Geldof, often the most trenchant critic of politicians, was sympathetic towards Mr Bush in an interview published by Time magazine. He sat with the U2 singer Bono, who recently publicly shook hands with the president.

Bono was exceedingly pro-Bush, calling him "the most important and toughest nut", a stance that has annoyed singers such as Billy Bragg and Sinead O'Connor, who think he is risking his credibility by getting too close to the leader.

(snip)

The musician who was reportedly warned by Geldof to "stay on message" was anxious not to be identified, possibly noting the backlash that followed a comment by Natalie Maines, of the Dixie Chicks, at a London concert, when she announced: "Just so you know, we're ashamed the president of the United States is from Texas."

Radio stations boycotted the band's music and their CDs were smashed by bulldozers before Maines publicly apologised to Mr Bush.

Geldof and Bono have obviously bought into the Bush Administration's bullshit which includes the old bait and switch when it comes to African aid as well as a strict policy of "you're either with us or against us so watch what you say."

Here's how that tough nut Bush has "helped" Africa:

When President Bush introduced his global AIDS initiative in January 2003 -- calling it "a work of mercy beyond all current international efforts" -- the plan certainly sounded promising. Bush pledged to spend $15 billion over five years to provide life-saving drugs to at least 2 million people with HIV, prevent 7 million new infections, and care for the sick and orphaned in fifteen countries. Most of the money, the president declared, would go to sub-Saharan Africa, home to the majority of the world's 40 million people living with HIV and AIDS. In the hardest-hit countries, nearly forty percent of the population is infected, and 12 million children across the region have lost at least one parent to the disease. "I believe God has called us into action," Bush declared during a trip to Uganda in 2003. "We are a great nation, we're a wealthy nation. We have a responsibility to help a neighbor in need, a brother and sister in crisis."

Dubbed the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), the ambitious agenda provided the administration with some much-needed PR at the very moment it was preparing to defy international will by invading Iraq. But from the start, Bush has failed to deliver on the funding he promised -- and what little money he has provided is being used to promote a right-wing agenda that undercuts international efforts and puts millions of people in AIDS-ravaged countries at greater risk of infection and death.

Thanks to the president's foot-dragging, his "emergency plan" took its sweet time getting going. Bush requested only $2 billion for PEPFAR in its first year -- a billion less than one would expect. Then, when Congress decided to approve $400 million more than the president asked for, Bush unsuccessfully fought to block the increase. By the time the first relief funds arrived in Africa, nearly a year and a half had passed since the president announced his plan -- a costly delay in fighting an epidemic that claims 8,500 lives every day.

The administration insists it will meet its goal by 2008, saying it planned all along to gradually "ramp up" the program. But public-health experts say it looks increasingly unlikely that Bush will fulfill his promise -- and that even if he does, the money will fall far short of what is needed. According to UNAIDS, a partnership involving the World Bank and nine other international aid groups, the world needs to spend $20 billion a year by 2007 to wage an effective war against AIDS. What Bush proposes to spend annually, if funding remains constant, is less than half the $6.6 billion that America would be expected to contribute based on the size of its economy. "The fact that the United States can spend $300 billion on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan but cannot find a relative pittance to rescue the human condition in Africa -- there is something profoundly out of whack about that," says Stephen Lewis, the secretary-general's special envoy for HIV/AIDS in Africa.

The president's AIDS initiative, like his invasion of Iraq, is a go-it-alone affair that ignores the clear global consensus on how to fight AIDS. In launching his own initiative, Bush has shifted the bulk of U.S. money away from the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, an international organization that has funded projects in 128 countries and is widely recognized as the best way to distribute AIDS funds. "Bush is starving the fund," says Dr. Paul Zeitz, executive director of the Global AIDS Alliance. "It's despicable, frankly."

In addition to shortchanging international relief efforts, Bush is using AIDS funds to place religion over science, promoting abstinence and monogamy over more effective measures such as condoms and sex education. Before overseas groups can receive U.S. funding, for example, the Bush administration requires them to take a "loyalty oath" to condemn prostitution -- a provision that AIDS workers say further stigmatizes a population in need of HIV education and treatment.

(snip)

Nowhere is the effort by conservative Republicans to turn back the clock on sex education more pronounced than in Uganda. By aggressively promoting condom use and sex education, Uganda has managed to cut its HIV rate from fifteen percent of the population to barely six percent during the past decade, making it Africa's biggest success story. But under pressure from the Bush administration, Uganda has taken a dangerous turn toward an abstinence-only approach. In April, the country's Ministry of Education banned the promotion and distribution of condoms in public schools. To make matters worse, the government has even engineered a nationwide shortage of condoms, issuing a recall of all state-supplied condoms and impounding boxes of condoms imported from other countries at the airport, claiming they need to be tested for quality control.

Soothsayer Bono "has a hunch" that Bush will step up his efforts:

"It's hard for (Bush) because of the expense of the war and the debts. But I have a hunch that he will step forward with something. And it'll take somebody like him."

And you know this because...? Man, what an incredibly stupid statement, Mr. Vox. America wouldn't have "the expense of the war and the debts" if your new hero hadn't decided to be such an arrogant ass. What makes you think he's going to stop being an ass?

And as far as "ranting and raving" against Bush is concerned, has Sir Bob forgotten this little comment from three months ago?

Rock star Bob Geldof urged Tony Blair yesterday to tell President George Bush it would cost the US "f***-all" to help to relieve African poverty.

I guess Bob has changed his tune and decided a little "thought control" is a good thing...

Should Congress investigate the Downing Street minutes?

Go here and let your voice be heard.

Rall's been on a roll lately. Click the comic for more Ted...

"The mission isn't easy and it will not be accomplished overnight."

- George W. Bush, in his weekly radio address, June 18, 2005

Hey, what the? Wait, um, but you said...oh, never mind.

(This latest gem from The Big Turd Sandwich would be freakin' hilarious -- if only 1,582 U.S. soldiers hadn't been killed since our mission was accomplished on May 1, 2003.)

"Coming" Soon

The Rude Pundit in The Year of Living Rudely
Starring: The Rude Pundit
Writer: Lee Papa
Director: Mark H. Creter
Based on the cult blog with thousands of fans worldwide, the Rude Pundit attacks assholes and pisses on the powerful. In this (very rude) one-man comedy, he gives a scatological skewering and a pornographic wedgie to preachers, politicians, and presidents.
Where: The New York International Fringe Festival
When: At least five performances in New York City between August 12 and August 28

For more information, leave me alone and bother The Rude Pundit
here.

43 is 42

...and sinking:

President George W. Bush's job approval rating is now just 42 percent, and most Americans think he does not share their priorities.

Iraq and the economy -- not the President's signature issue of Social Security -- are most important to Americans, and Americans' assessments of both remain mixed, with support for the decision to send troops to Iraq matching its lowest percent ever.

Perhaps it's time to find a new occupant for the White House...




(Click banner for more information)

THE TRANSISTOR WIDOW (#005)

Untitled, Will McRobb (2005)

I Love The Smell Of Impeachment In The Morning

Georgie Boy is in deep doo-doo. Here are the top four stories as of 12:05 a.m. on my Yahoo home page:

White House rejects call for Iraq pullout 
Iraq rebels kill 5 marines in blast 
Halliburton to build new $30 mln Guantanamo jail
U.S. Democrats cite British memo in Bolton fight 

Here are the top three political stories:

Democrats Urge Inquiry on Bush, Iraq
House Ready to Give Pentagon $45B for Wars
Bush Seeks to Calm Anxieties About Iraq

And in entertainment news,

Clinton, Letterman Talk Heart Surgery

I wonder what Conan's gonna talk about with "W" on The Tonight Show in the not-too-distant future. Binge drinking? If I was George, I'd currently be deep in the throes of a bender...especially if I saw the results of this MSNBC poll which asked the question: "Do you believe President Bush misled the nation in order to go to war with Iraq?"

I Heart My Town

Two nights ago, I joined 47,999 other New Yorkers to listen to members of the Met Opera perform Tosca in 90 degree heat. I'm guessing that many of the audience members, despite the presence of a few shooshers, were on Central Park's Great Lawn to be participants in a large, communal "event" involving food and wine rather than as opera lovers. I was there for a bit of both. Admittedly, I was never much of an opera fan: Before meeting my wife, I learned all I knew about the art form from The Marx Brothers, Bugs Bunny and the end credits of The Beatles' Help. Over the past 13 years, I've grown to like opera a lot. I haven't quite reached the love stage yet.



But I do love my town, which is what I said to my wife and dear friend L.J.T. as I settled in on the picnic blanket they had laid out. I had arrived late and was just starting to soak in the atmosphere (just as the humidity had soaked into me as I walked from the subway and through the park). I loved the fact that people who normally have some serious space issues had no problem hanging close together with thousands and thousands of strangers. And I loved how the strangers were from all walks of life (okay, I admit there was definitely a short supply of African-Americans but the crowd was still pretty diverse). After my unabashed gushing over NYC, my wife told me what had happened when a representative from Bank of America, one of the sponsors of the Met in the Parks series, introduced the evening's program. Allow me to paraphrase:

"Welcome to the opening night of the Met in the Parks concert series."

(tremendous applause)

"Featuring the greatest opera company in the world."

(tremendous applause)

"In the greatest park in the world."

(tremendous applause)

"In the greatest city in the world."

(tremendous applause)

"In the greatest country in the world."

(cue the crickets...)

Yet another reason to love my town. Now some of you (and you know who you are) might be thinking that this non-display of affection toward the U.S. of A. confirms your belief that New York is a bastion of commie-pinkos who hate their own country. Au contraire (perhaps using French is not the best way to convince you that we don't "hate" America). So, on the contrary: Most New Yorkers love America and we, rightly I believe, see New York City as representing the best of what America can be (open-minded, diverse, tolerant, liberal and fun). But not all of us love the direction our country is going in: You know, the bullying, torturing, war-mongering, global-warming denying, fundamentalist leaning, healthcare lacking, freedom curtailing direction.

For many of us, it's just kind of hard to cheer for the robotic "greatest blah, blah, blah in the blah, blah, blah" rhetoric these days. It is, of course, a phrase that has been drummed into all Americans for decades (briefly replaced by "Love it or leave it" during our last failed war). How many times, in the face of some atrocious act committed by a politician or company have you told yourself, "Yes, but we're still the greatest country in the world"? I know I have. But, over the years the phrase has become increasingly hollow for me. Seriously, could the greatest country in the world really have elected George W. Bush?

So, may I humbly suggest a replacement phrase until "we" somehow set things right? How 'bout: "America: Potentially The Greatest Country in the World." Sure it doesn't roll off the tongue but at least it's honest.

"A travesty of a mockery of a sham of a mockery of a travesty of two mockeries of a sham."

Okay, now that the latest Trial of the Century is over, can we move on to real news?

Who Loves Ya Baby?

"I've never been able to understand his appeal. Maybe his mother loved him, but I've never met anybody who does. He's never won anything, as best I can tell," Cheney said in an interview to be aired Monday on Fox News Channel's "Hannity & Colmes."

"My view is FOX News is a propaganda outlet for the Republican Party and I don't comment on FOX News," Dean said. That was in response to vice president Dick Cheney calling Howard Dean (who was elected governor of Vermont five times between 1992 and 2000) "over the top" on Fox News on Sunday.

No question who wins the love contest in the reality-based world. Keep givin' 'em hell Howard...

"Little Thought..."

Tiny brain:

A briefing paper prepared for British Prime Minister Tony Blair and his top advisers eight months before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq concluded that the U.S. military was not preparing adequately for what the British memo predicted would be a "protracted and costly" postwar occupation of that country.

The eight-page memo, written in advance of a July 23, 2002, Downing Street meeting on Iraq, provides new insights into how senior British officials saw a Bush administration decision to go to war as inevitable, and realized more clearly than their American counterparts the potential for the post-invasion instability that continues to plague Iraq.

In its introduction, the memo "Iraq: Conditions for Military Action" notes that U.S. "military planning for action against Iraq is proceeding apace," but adds that "little thought" has been given to, among other things, "the aftermath and how to shape it."

Gee, what a surprise.

By the way, you don't need brains to be a war criminal, you just need a willing ally:

Ministers were warned in July 2002 that Britain was committed to taking part in an American-led invasion of Iraq and they had no choice but to find a way of making it legal.

The warning, in a leaked Cabinet Office briefing paper, said Tony Blair had already agreed to back military action to get rid of Saddam Hussein at a summit at the Texas ranch of President George W Bush three months earlier.

The briefing paper, for participants at a meeting of Blair’s inner circle on July 23, 2002, said that since regime change was illegal it was “necessary to create the conditions” which would make it legal.

This was required because, even if ministers decided Britain should not take part in an invasion, the American military would be using British bases. This would automatically make Britain complicit in any illegal US action.

“US plans assume, as a minimum, the use of British bases in Cyprus and Diego Garcia,” the briefing paper warned. This meant that issues of legality “would arise virtually whatever option ministers choose with regard to UK participation”...

The document said the only way the allies could justify military action was to place Saddam Hussein in a position where he ignored or rejected a United Nations ultimatum ordering him to co-operate with the weapons inspectors. But it warned this would be difficult.

“It is just possible that an ultimatum could be cast in terms which Saddam would reject,” the document says. But if he accepted it and did not attack the allies, they would be “most unlikely” to obtain the legal justification they needed.

The suggestions that the allies use the UN to justify war contradicts claims by Blair and Bush, repeated during their Washington summit last week, that they turned to the UN in order to avoid having to go to war. The attack on Iraq finally began in March 2003.

The briefing paper is certain to add to the pressure, particularly on the American president, because of the damaging revelation that Bush and Blair agreed on regime change in April 2002 and then looked for a way to justify it...

(John Conyers) and other Democratic congressmen plan to hold their own inquiry this Thursday with witnesses including Joe Wilson, the American former ambassador who went to Niger to investigate claims that Iraq was seeking to buy uranium ore for its nuclear weapons programme.

Frustrated at the refusal by the White House to respond to their letter, the congressmen have set up a website — www.downingstreetmemo.com — to collect signatures on a petition demanding the same answers.

Conyers promised to deliver it to Bush once it reached 250,000 signatures. By Friday morning it already had more than 500,000 with as many as 1m expected to have been obtained when he delivers it to the White House on Thursday.

AfterDowningStreet.org, another website set up as a result of the memo, is calling for a congressional committee to consider whether Bush’s actions as depicted in the memo constitute grounds for impeachment.

Now we're talking...

Why Do Republicans HATE Democracy?

Check out this video at Dem Bloggers and watch as Rep. James "Tex" Sensenbrenner, the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, abruptly ends a committe hearing about the renewal of the Patriot Act because he's obviously a thin-skinned, fat-fuck fascist (the fireworks begin about 3:30-3:45 in). Champions of democracy, such as Jerrold Nadler of NY (my rep!) and James Zogby, president of the Arab American Institute, bravely forged ahead to defend, among other things, freedom of speech (with their microphones turned off...oh, the irony):

"We are not besmirching the honor of the United States, we are trying to uphold it." - Jerrold Nadler, D-NY

"I'm troubled about what kind of lesson this gives" to the rest of the world. - James Zogby

Well, as we know all too well, Republicans don't give a rat's ass what the rest of the world thinks.

Just a Reminder

I'm going to keep this near the top until the MSM pays attention...(link has been fixed; thanks to reader Tony for the heads-up)




Click to support John Conyers' efforts to save our country.


(Image courtesy of horkulated.com)

Update: Billmon, over at the new & improved This Modern World is skeptical the mainstream media will suddenly jump on this story

"unless (and this is a big unless) there are fresh developments in the story, or the editorial herd can be persuaded there are unexplored angles that can be developed into fresh stories. Big stories...

That's why the focus needs to be widened to include the entire policymaking process that led up to the invasion. The memo itself may be the smoking gun, but the story is the crime, or crimes rather -- particularly the cover up, which is still in progress...So in addition to flooding the corporate media with calls and letters demanding that they get on the ball, complaints also should be directed to the offices of Sen. Pat Roberts, R-KA, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee -- (202) 224-4774; 109 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington DC 20510 -- and Vice Chair Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D(alleged)-WV -- (202) 224-6472; 531 Hart Senate Office Building.

Or how about the chair of the House Intelligence Committee: Rep. Peter Hoekstra, R-MI: (202) 225-4401; 2234 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington DC 20515. Or ranking member Rep. Jane Harmon, D(alleged)-CA: (202) 225 8220; 2400 Rayburn House Office Building.

Of course, if the intelligence panels are actually part of the cover up, then asking them to investigate further is pretty pointless. But a closer look at their role in the scandal might at least give the story a fresh news hook, and some possible strings for reporters to follow."

For information on how to flood the coporate media, click on the MSM link up top or the "Awaken the Mainstream Media" logo on the lefthand column. I thank you and your country thanks you...

Like Shooting Fish In A Barrel

Comedian Dane Cook perfectly captures the insanity that is currently known as Tom Cruise. Click the pics to watch the videos.

Some Mashups Are Created More Equal Than Others

Click DJ Earworm's logo below and scroll down to "Stairway to Bootleg Heaven" featuring Dolly Parton: Stairway to Heaven vs. Eurythmics: This City Never Sleeps vs. Beatles: Because vs. Laurie Anderson: O Superman vs. Art Of Noise: Moments in Love vs. Beastie Boys: So Whatcha Want vs. Pat Benetar: Love is a Battlefield.





Thanks to

Traveler Radio for the tip. Click the tiny logo to listen to their most recent show which also features:

A track from the upcoming new release from the Real Tuesday Weld kicks off an extended set of psychedelic influenced pop/rock on this week's edition of Traveler. We delve into brain expanding tunes both old and new from XTC, Robyn Hitchcock, the Bryds, Elvis Costello, Adrian Belew and Procol Harum as well as brand new stuff from Brian Eno (a sneak peak at his upcoming new vocal CD!) and a track from the new remix project from 60's psychedelic cult faves, the Free Design.

There's also plenty of globalicious sounds including brand new music
from Mali's Amadou & Mariam (with special guest Manu Chao) and the
master of Indian slide guitar Debashish Bhattacharya.

THE TRANSISTOR WIDOW (No. 004)

Untitled, Will McRobb (2005)

The Chronic

Funny how The Right is always happy with our court system when rulings go their way:

The federal government has the power to prevent sick patients from smoking home-grown marijuana that a doctor recommended to relieve chronic pain, a divided U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Monday in a setback for the medical marijuana movement.

The 6-3 ruling means the federal government can enforce a federal law prohibiting the cultivation, possession and use of medical marijuana even where it is legal under state law. At least nine states allow medical use of marijuana...

John Walters, the White House drug czar, said in a statement, "Today's decision marks the end of medical marijuana as a political issue."

Now I'm no medical expert (although I'm fairly certain that you can't get AIDs through sweat or tears and that Terry Schiavo was, indeed, in a persistent vegetative state even after I looked at the home videos), however I can tell you this: Not only is marijuana extremely effective as a reliever of severe pain, it also is a helluva lot less dangerous then oxycotin, the drug of choice of America's favorite junkie, Rush Limbaugh.

Yes, folks, I myself had some serious back problems a couple of years ago and tried everything the doctors gave me, including Rush's hillbilly heroin. And, yes, I admit, the oxy helped relieve my chronic pain and enabled me to finally sleep through the night. Unfortunately, I also slept through most of the day and when I did finally wake up I felt as if my head had turned into a bowling ball. A few days later, I was at a party and by chance I was offered one of those marijuana cigerettes I've heard so much about. I tried a couple of "tokes" as the young people would say and that night, for the first time in months, I not only slept like an innocent little baby, but I woke up feeling remarkably refreshed. No hangover, no pain.

I'm just sayin'...

What? He seems like such a sweet guy...

Click the manly mustachioed man and see if he doesn't charm the pants off of you (or, scare the crap out of you if you're one of those latte-drinking "girly" Americans). America kicks ass!

(Video courtesy of metafilter)

Fortunately, Bolton just might be toast. And, as a result, he might ultimately provide the MSM with an opening to finally begin discussing The Downing Street Memo:

John R. Bolton flew to Europe in 2002 to confront the head of a global arms-control agency and demand he resign, then orchestrated the firing of the unwilling diplomat in a move a U.N. tribunal has since judged unlawful, according to officials involved.

A former Bolton deputy says the U.S. undersecretary of state felt Jose Bustani "had to go," particularly because the Brazilian was trying to send chemical weapons inspectors to Baghdad. That might have helped defuse the crisis over alleged Iraqi weapons and undermined a U.S. rationale for war...

The Iraq connection to the OPCW affair comes as fresh evidence surfaces that the Bush administration was intent from early on to pursue military and not diplomatic action against Saddam Hussein's regime.

An official British document, disclosed last month, said Prime Minister Tony Blair agreed in April 2002 to join in an eventual U.S. attack on Iraq. Two weeks later, Bustani was ousted, with British help.

My, my, how the plot thickens...

Headline Porn

Bush picks Cox to head SEC


Okay, I'm a 12 year old...

(source: Reuters)

The Song Is Over...Priced

Methinks one of my longtime musical heroes has finally completely lost his mind:

For Pete Townshend, the kids are all right. But a certain film about the kids isn't.

The Who mastermind is distancing himself from an in-the-works documentary about the legendary band by Oscar-winning filmmaker Murray Lerner and Spitfire Films, criticizing the project's creative direction...

Apparently worried the Who's history will play out like a soap opera-like production, Townshend threatened to withhold Lerner's access to the band's recordings unless the filmmaker focus more on the music.

"I am the one in the Who family who writes science fiction musicals and operas, and my music--Who music--is not a commodity I will make unconditionally available to filmmakers. My entire mission is to preserve the integrity of Who music, and I'd rather offer it to sell soap than have it turned into a 'soap' by Lerner," said the Rock and Roll Hall of Famer...

Yes, Pete, you have forever preserved the integrity of Who music. I remember as a teenager thinking that Who music would be perfect for selling cars and as a backdrop for Crime Scene Ivestigations. Urgh. Even sadder: Rumor has it that Pete refused to license "We Won't Get Fooled Again" to Michael Moore for the finale of Fahrenheit 9/11 (as a musical punctuation of Bush's infamous "Fool Me Twice" speech) because Townsend was a supporter of Blair and the Iraq war. Instead we got Neil Young's "Rockin' in the Free World" -- an appropriate counter-choice seeing how Neil is the man who wrote "This Note's For You":

Ain't singin' for Pepsi
Ain't singin' for Coke
I don't sing for nobody
Makes me look like a joke
This note's for you.

Ain't singin' for Miller
Don't sing for Bud
I won't sing for politicians
Ain't singin' for Spuds
This note's for you.

Genius

Click to watch. Drink milk at your own risk.


"It's funny 'cause it's true"...sort of.