Blogging My Way Into Jail?

Look who George W. Bush is holding hands with! (What, no video of them skipping and blowing dandelions at each other?) Yes, that's Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah interdigitating with our "macho" President. I wonder if Bush's hand-pal whispered into his ear about his plans to arrest a blogger and beat him until he answers their questions?

I've got no real problem with Bush holding hands and skipping with fellow rich pampered undeserving spawn of unearned wealth. Really. It's kind of cute. But I do have a problem with the President of the United States holding hands with a torturing monarchist with ties to bin Laden. That's not cute at all.

Blogger Background on Bhutto

Yesterday's sad insanity is completely out of context for the vast majority of Americans, and I am very much among the ignorant. I know very little about Pakistan's history, or current state. Hullabaloo provides a "Pakistan Crisis for Dummies" post and Juan Cole provides deeper analysis.

How Will the History be Written?

In 408 days, the Bush presidency will end. (That is, barring some wild Cheney/Rove spasm of historical exceptionalism, on a scale beyond even the Supreme Court appointment that marked the beginning of the regime.) And, we will blink in the dawn of a new era, wondering what in the hell that was about. And the Bush regime will begin to be placed into historical context.

Ironically, the proverb "History is written by the victors" has many attributions, reflecting the uncertainty and even falsity of much we accept as "history". A few more colossal military screw-ups, and our greatest President may have been recorded as the final and most inept President of the formerly United States. "What if" games can lead to all kinds of altered visions, with history's villains triumphant, and history's heroes vilified.

But the process of assessing presidents in the popular mind is far less binary. Nixon has become a paranoid, flawed master of foreign policy. Reagan is widely viewed as a dim-witted simpleton with a sunny smile who surrounded himself with corrupt thugs (though a few hold-outs still remember him as "morning in America"). Kennedy, well, heck, you can't even mention him in some circles without genuflecting, though serious study reveals a far less saintly Jack.

A common theme in presidential assessments is that truly negative views cannot hold. As Americans, we cannot stomach the thought that one of our leaders was actually a bad person. As noted above, even Nixon, who resigned when he hit the depths of disapproval to which Bush has sunk, has gained a more generous stature than anyone thought possible when he left office. At the time, he was a slimy, despicable crook, but now he has risen to a competent president with a flair for talking with the Chinese, whose fatal flaw was too much concern about being reelected.

The truth is that W needs an upgrade in reputation. The truth is, grade school students in 2050 aren't going to look at the large sheet of oval portraits, focus on Bush (he may attract attention for being the last in that consecutive string of white males) and learn what really happened. No teacher is going to stand there and say "At the turn of the Century, Democrats fell under the control of a bunch of incompetent, gutless party leaders, and the Republicans fell under the spell of the Christian right, and the voters elected Gore, but the Supreme Court preferred Bush, the war-criminal, who soon launched one understandable war and then one inexcusable, evil debacle that destroyed our country's standing in the world."

America in 2050 will not believe how bad Bush has been. We, as a country, need to believe that our path has been righteous, and always toward the light. We even gloss over the Spanish-American War these days, as a 6 month adventure in helping other countries gain their independence from Old Europe. In a few more years, the Bay of Pigs will either drop entirely out of mainstream history books, or be upgraded to a valiant effort that inspired the Cubans to hold on for another 50 years until Castro died.

My imagination fails me as to how we can remake W, though. He launched a brutal, bloody war against a country that had not attacked us and posed no threat to us, reprising the role of Hirohito. He gave us secret prisons and people "disappearing", ripping a page out of what we had thought was Stalin's playbook. He made us torturers, and rendered the Geneva Conventions "quaint", drawing from the Pol Pot genre. He accepted a presidency that wasn't his to accept, in the best tradition of tin-horn third-world "presidents". He played guitar while New Orleans drowned, like a modern-era Nero. How do we cobble together an acceptable portrait out of this historical Frankenstein of ill-chosen parts?

My suspicion and hope is that Bush will be remembered in the manner of Lyndon Johnson - a kind of forgotten war-time president whose focus was on a war he couldn't win or end. We'll have to forget that, unlike Johnson, Bush started his war, and chose it with an eagerness that led him to skew intelligence. We'll have to forget a whole lot about Bush.

It's going to be a slow, painful process to forget about Bush. Forgiveness of the person, of course, is going to be beyond the ability of many of us, but fixing what he has done to us will be difficult enough that it will provide plenty of distractions.

Some will read this and complain that it's not fair that Bush will get off lightly for his misdeeds. I agree - he's a war-criminal and an uncaring leader serving the interests of the wealthy. But history has never been a fair and just narrative. It's about creating a story we can live with. America will not be able to live with the truth of George W. Bush. In 400 days, we must begin to reinvent him.

Has Privacy Become Outdated?

One of the most frightening trends of government in general and the Bush Administration in particular has been the erosion of privacy. Privacy, in a post 9/11 world, is viewed by some as a frivolous and risky luxury with little legitimate use.

Indeed, unless you're a terrorist or some lesser criminal, why is privacy in your communication or personal space even necessary? If your most provocative statement of the day is a phone call to your spouse discussing what to microwave for dinner, who really cares if the NSA is listening in? And if they claim have to listen in on your grocery list conversations to prevent crazy people from flying into buildings, then a patriot will agree to speak clearly into the microphone, right? If the government needs to rummage through my boxer shorts to make sure my neighbor isn't hiding a nuclear device in in his underwear drawer, that's just the way it has to be.

Why do you need privacy, anyhow, unless you're doing something wrong?

Indeed, the freshly-sworn-in man who is second in command of National Security, Donald Kerr argues that in today's technological world, notions of privacy are somewhat outmoded, and we should not impose our "one size fits all" ideas on people who are willing to waive their privacy. Here's a transcipt of his entire speech (.pdf), and here's the part that has me upset:

And we’ve started to bring down those walls as we require information sharing between intelligence, Homeland Security, and Defense agencies, and law enforcement. Some have grown uneasy. People are asking, just what is it they’re sharing?

And that leads you directly into the concern for privacy. Too often, privacy has been equated with anonymity; and it’s an idea that is deeply rooted in American culture. The Long (sic, unless he's talking about some dirty movie) Ranger wore a mask but Tonto didn’t seem to need one even though he did the dirty work for free. You’d think he would probably need one even more. But in our interconnected and wireless world, anonymity – or the appearance of anonymity – is quickly becoming a thing of the past.

Anonymity results from a lack of identifying features. Nowadays, when so much correlated data is collected and available – and I’m just talking about profiles on MySpace, Facebook, YouTube here – the set of identifiable features has grown beyond where most of us can comprehend. We need to move beyond the construct that equates anonymity with privacy and focus more on how we can protect essential privacy in this interconnected environment.

Protecting anonymity isn’t a fight that can be won. Anyone that’s typed in their name on Google understands that. Instead, privacy, I would offer, is a system of laws, rules, and customs with an infrastructure of Inspectors General, oversight committees, and privacy boards on which our intelligence community commitment is based and measured. And it is that framework that we need to grow and nourish and adjust as our cultures change.

I think people here, at least people close to my age, recognize that those two generations younger than we are have a very different idea of what is essential privacy, what they would wish to protect about their lives and affairs. And so, it’s not for us to inflict one size fits all. It’s a need to have it be adjustable to the needs of local societies as they evolve in our country. Eventually, we can only hope that people’s perceptions – in Hollywood and elsewhere – will catch up.

Our job now is to engage in a productive debate, which focuses on privacy as a component of appropriate levels of security and public safety. This is work that the Office of the DNI has started to do, and must continue and make a high priority. This careful balance we need to strike, however, is nothing new. With the advent of telephones, we entered a new frontier that required careful balancing between safety and privacy. We faced this challenge again at the end of the ’70s in the aftermath of the Church-Pike Hearings. And now, in the era of new technologies, we have to work to continue to keep that balance, to earn that trust, and re-earn it every day through our actions. But we also have to be willing to reopen the laws and regulations that were based on technologies that existed 1978 and adjust them to the realities of 2007 and 2008.

Privacy, in this guy's view, is merely "a component of appropriate levels of security and public safety." Privacy "is a system of laws, rules, and customs with an infrastructure of Inspectors General, oversight committees, and privacy boards on which our intelligence community commitment is based and measured."

Those quotations are not my fevered reinterpretation of some right-wing whacko blogger - those are actual words from the Deputy Director of National Intelligence! In a nutshell, he's arguing that if you use a credit card to buy something from Amazon, you won't mind if the government examines your financial records. If you use the internet to google symptoms, you won't mind if the government checks out your medical records.

So, while we undervalue the right to privacy, and question its value to good people, the government is questioning whether it even exists any more. Please take a second, though, and remember three primary reasons we need the Fourth Amendment.

First, we know the government will ultimately abuse the power we grant it. Second, the police, FBI, NSA and other security agents are too stupid to get it right. Third, and most important, we don't want anybody messing with us. America has a deep-seated, defiant sense of independence from its government, and will not long suffer being treated like subjects of a superior power.

Speculation on Forsee

Gary Forsee was forced out of the CEO position at Sprint Nextel this week, and handed parting gifts of around $55 million. My question is "why now"? I mean, the stock's up over his four years, and they did it right before the opening of the Sprint Center - an occasion where they could have projected an image of strength and stability instead of having to scurry around to find someone to cut the ribbon. Even if they thought he wasn't doing a good job, the timing was poor and odd.

Could the answer be found in Washington?

This past week, the House Judiciary and Intelligence Committee approved some changes to the FISA, and one of the bones of contention is whether Congress will give telecom companies secrecy and immunity for their cooperation with the people who want to spy on Americans. Could it be that Forsee lost his job because he allowed the NSA to spy on Sprint customers? Could it be that in the boardrooms of Sprint, the "powers that be" canned him not because of mediocre performance (they should be accustomed to that), but because he violated the privacy of Sprint customers - a breach of faith that could expose the company to bankrupting lawsuits and a PR nightmare equivalent to Bhopal and tainted Tylenol?

Let's be clear here - I have zero evidence to support my theory, beyond the fact that Sprint chose an awkward time to fire its leader, and that time coincides with the possibility that the American public might find out who has been allowing the Bush administration to listen to its calls. And that $55 million would sure buy him a nice place in Costa Rica . . .

I Believe Bush this Time

Here's a little snippet about a random encounter between Bill Clinton and W:

The last time President Bush was in New York City to address the U.N., he ran into Bill Clinton in a corridor. As the book Dead Certain recalls, Bush’s aides speculated “uncharitably” about “another case of Clinton craving one more tanning session in the executive limelight.”

Bush was gracious and chatted for the cameras. But afterward he told an aide: “Six years from now, you’re not going to see me hanging around the lobby of the U.N.”

That's true on so many levels. It's certainly true that he doesn't have the intellectual or moral fiber to remain involved in world affairs. It's certainly true that nobody wants him around after his term is up. Finally, it's true that, even if they do try him for the war crimes of launching an unjustified war and condoning torture, that would be a harsh sentence and an unlikely place to carry it out.

Evo Morales on the Daily Show

Evo Morales is the President of Bolivia. He grew up poor, and wound up President of his country in a land which has been controlled by wealthy foreign interests since the time of Spain.

Last night, he was on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart. The interview, handled through an interpreter, was odd and fascinating. Stewart's quick humor doesn't really play all that well through an interpreter, but his sincere interest does.



At around 2:00, Evo responds to Stewart's claim (having apparently forgotten Bill "God I Wish He Were Still in Office" Clinton's biography) that the presidency in the United States is rigged to favor those born into the upper class. With unironic simpliciy, Evo says, "So if it's rigged, then something needs to be done to change that."

There's something about the way he says it that skewers me. Part of it is the lack of humor - he doesn't find it funny to joke about elections being rigged. If you don't like it, fix it. And part of it is the eloquent simplicity of the man. There's a world of difference between simplicity and simpleness, and Bolivia's president has the former . . .

Vick and Bush

I agree with the disgust people are directing toward Michael Vick.

My only question is whether he his treatment of his dogs is any less humane than Bush's treatment of uncharged prisoners. At least Vick isn't using our tax money to fund his sickness.

Dover Beach and Iraq

I don't know what's going on in Iraq. Neither do you. Each of us must rely on information that is gathered by others, condensed by others, and presented by others. Even if you're visiting this blog from a laptop in the Green Zone, you don't really know what's going on 20 miles away.

For months, though, we've been promised that we will be getting a status report from General Petraeus. While I didn't really have high hopes for the impartiality of a report that amounts to a self-evaluation, I was at least looking forward to a report that would be a military assessment instead of a political argument. After 4 plus years of rightwing cheerleaders telling us how wonderful things are, and 4 plus years of lists of dead American soldiers every week, it would be nice to have someone in command stating his view of where things stand militarily.

We learned earlier this week that the Petraeus Report will not happen. There will be no Petraeus Report. The White House will write the report. And it's even worse than that. The White House will write the report "with inputs from officials throughout the government," which means that we will get a thoroughly vetted and processed version with every spun nuance to be found within the Bush Regime.

This morning, I am as disgusted by our federal government as I've ever been. From Powell's bogus photos of chemical trucks during the marketing campaign to the embedded reporters at the beginning of the war to the suppressed photos of coffins and casualties all the way up to the White House Report (f/k/a Petraeus Report, and any news outlet that refers to the "Petraeus Report" after this news will be playing along with an Administration lie), the American public has consistently been denied access to the unvarnished truth.

I am not an informed citizen. You are not an informed citizen. When you vote, you do so based upon deeply flawed and biased presentation of controlled information. If you're a rightwinger, you might believe that the mainstream media are the source of misinformation. If you're a progressive, you believe that the Bush Administration is lying to us.

We're both correct, and Matthew Arnold comes to mind:

And we are here as on a darkling plain
Swept with confused alarms of struggle and flight,
Where ignorant armies clash by night.

Welcome to Dover Beach.

I Guess We Got Fooled Again

Claire McCaskill has done it again. On Saturday, when faced with one of the biggest issues to define what kind of country we will be, Claire McCaskill joined hands with the Republicans and voted against those of us who elected her. She was one of 16 democrats who cashed in liberty at the pawn shop of political expediency. In return, she received nothing more than an illusion of security wrapped around the threat of a police state.

If you want to read a full-throated roar of disappointment in our supposedly democratic senator, go read this post by the much-loved Blue Girl, Red State blog. A hint at her perspective on the matter may be gleaned by the labels she uses for her post: betrayal, cowardice, FISA, McCaskill (Claire).

Sadly, it's the second time she has had an opportunity to stand up for America, and chosen, instead, to cave to the Bush Administration. Back in May, she was one of the Democratic sell-outs who voted to support Bush's escalation in Iraq. We've seen how that has worked out, haven't we?

Defenders of McCaskill point to her support on the little things, like the largely symbolic minimum wage increase. Well, yes, she's not a perfect clone of Jim Talent, but she can be counted to vote exactly as he would when the big issues come up to the table.

I remember being incredibly proud of Missouri when we tossed out Jim Talent and embraced what we thought would be change. I remember listening to Claire's promises of changed courses and standing up to the Bush Regime, and I fell for it hook, line and sinker. Now, we are stuck with Jim Talent in a skirt, and I don't have any hope that a real Democrat will be able to defeat her in a primary and then go on to win a general election.

If the election were held again today, knowing what I know, I honestly don't know that I would vote for McCaskill again. Talent was a once-in-a-lifetime example of charisma-starved weakness, and I think I would rather have him in office doing the Bush Regime's dirty work, rather than being stabbed in the back by someone who told us she was one of our own. And we would have the opportunity to elect a Democrat with principles in 2012.

Paris Hilton and Scooter Libby

Anybody want to bet me that we won't be hearing near as big a furor about Scooter Libby as we did about Paris Hilton?

Anybody?

Just to put this in perspective, Paris actually spent time in jail before she was released.

Further perspective, she violated probation, but didn't help cover up a breach of national security.

Further perspective, at least the sheriff claimed she had medical reasons to get out - Bush didn't even show that much respect to our system of justice.

If you're surprised by Bush helping one of his cohorts dodge accountability for his misdeeds, you're not paying attention. Bush only says "bring 'em on" when he's putting soldiers at risk (happy 4th anniversary of that quotation today - but don't mention it to the thousands of family members of the thousands of soldiers who have died since Bush's schoolyard taunt). He doesn't say it when it means allowing a rich white Republican male to go to prison.

Remember the rule of law during this regime - IOKIYAAR.

Free Market Republicans?

Does anybody remember when Republicans stood for smaller, less intrusive government? Does anybody remember when they were thought to be the defenders of small business and free market capitalism?

Creekstone Farms is a beef producer. Creekstone wants to test each of its cattle so that it can sell them in Asia. It wants to bear the cost of that testing, because it is confident it can sell its beef at enough of a premium to make it worthwhile. Creekstone trusts the free market to reward it for the risk and expense it will be undertaking.

Not so fast, says the Bush regime. The Bush regime says that if Creekstone is allowed to sell tested beef, everyone would choose to purchase tested beef rather than playing Rump Roast Roulette with untested beef That might mean other beef producers would feel pressured to test their beef, too.

Big beef gives big money to politicians - Bush himself has sucked in over a million dollars from the industry.

So now the Bush administration is tying up the courts trying to prevent Creekstone from satisfying consumer demand. The Bush Regime filed an appeal of an order allowing Creekstone to conduct the tests, thus preventing us from having the option of paying a premium and buying tested beef.

Again I ask, does anybody remember when Republicans stood for smaller, less intrusive government? Does anybody remember when they were thought to be the defenders of small business and free market capitalism?

Some Look at Global Warming and Ask "Why?" I Look at Global Warming and Ask "Why Not?"

The Bush Regime continues to astound. Remember when NASA was a leader in science and technology - remember when it was THE dream job for high school kids who did well in physics?

Not surprisingly, the Bush Regime has dumbed things down a few notches.

Last week, NPR interviewed NASA administrator Michael Griffin - the man in charge of NASA. Here's what he has to say about the fact of global warming:

I'm aware that global warming exists. I understand that the bulk of scientific evidence accumulated supports the claim that we've had about a one degree centigrade rise in temperature over the last century to within an accuracy of 20 percent. I'm also aware of recent findings that appear to have nailed down — pretty well nailed down the conclusion that much of that is manmade.

So far, so good. Even a Bush appointee must face reality once in a while.

But what makes Griffin special is what he does with reality. To coin a phrase, while most of us look at anthropogenic global warming and ask "Why?", Bush appointee Michael Griffin looks at anthropogenic global warming and asks "Why not?".

When asked whether he has any doubt that this is a problem we need to wrestle with, Griffin envisions a world where Arkansas is on the Gulf Coast and Siberia grows pineapples:

And second of all, I guess I would ask which human beings — where and when — are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now is the best climate for all other human beings. I think that's a rather arrogant position for people to take.

Bravo, Mr. Griffin! Indeed, who are we to judge such things? If our activities cause Florida to flood, who are we to say that's a bad thing? If our activities cause Africa's drought and famine to spread, maybe that will all work out for the better.

In climate change, there will be winners and there will be losers. Conventional wisdom suggests that it is unwise to unleash forces we are able to neither control nor understand. Conventional wisdom says that starvation, flooding, and dislocation of millions of people will be a bad thing, but, really, isn't labelling them "bad" just an arrogant value judgment?

Blessed with Griffin's insight, I look back on other instances where man has sought to ameliorate man's impact on the world, and, released from my arrogance, I see things in a new light. Why did that arrogant bitch Rachel Carson assume we would want a world without DDT killing off our birds and fishes? Who was the arrogant ass who interfered with our pollution of Lake Erie, so that now we can't light it on fire anymore? Indeed, who are those arrogant anti-nuke wusses who prevent us from unleashing a nuclear winter on this warming planet?

It's time for the arrogant creeps who seek to minimize man's impact on the globe to step aside and let us play with the environment as much as we like. Why must we assume that catastrophic change will necessarily be a catastrophe?

Yesterday was MA Day

When I grew up, we celebrated May Day with May poles and an outdoor celebration. It waas kind of like a day-long recess . . .

Four years ago, Bush seized that bucolic day and made it into MA Day - Mission Accomplished Day - the day he stuffed a sock in a flight suit and acted like he could land a plane on an aircraft carrier without a few toots of coke to steady his nerve (while many people think he landed the plane, it's a lie - a real pilot landed the plane). The "liberal" press responded with fawning worship.

One can only wonder how the 25,000 American troops who have been wounded since May Day became MA Day viewed their future back when Bush told us we had been victorious. One can only wonder how the more than 3200 troops who have died since Bush declared our mission accomplished spent that day, or how they could have spent yesterday, if they were still alive.

MA Day was four years ago. May Day was in another era.

The US Attorney Scandal - From the Beltway to I-70

The KC Blue Blog is doing a great job of staying on the US Attorney scandal and how it played a role in Missouri. I haven't written about it before today, though the story has all the elements I seek in a story. Corrupt republicans playing slimy politics under the cover of National Security to oppress poor people. Classic stuff.

The problem I've had writing about it is that the bigger lesson I draw from it is difficult to articulate. The lesson is that the Republicans are fouling the nest of government - turning the very workings of government into corruption. And even though it's a matter of degree, it's a matter of degree to such an extent that it changes the very nature of things.

Brad Schlozman was not the first US Attorney for the Western District of Missouri to be appointed with an eye toward politics. Take, for example, Steve Hill. When he was appointed by Bill Clinton in 1993, he had been out of law school for all of 7 years (a year behind me at Mizzou) and had no significant prosecutorial experience. He had worked as a staff member for Ike Skelton. But everyone, on both sides of the aisle, knew that Steve was a solid lawyer with great judgment and a sincere desire to be the best US Attorney possible. Hill was hired because he would play it straight, and I've never heard anyone complain that he didn't do that.

So, no, Brad Schlozman was not the first US Attorney for Missouri's Western District chosen because of political connections. As far back as you care to look, you'll see the the office has been filled by lawyers with political connections - during both Republican and Democratic administrations.

But here's where it gets tough to explain. Schlozman was different. Never before have we had a political goon hired into the position. Where we've had lawyers with political connections appointed in the past, they have always been good lawyers with able intellects and a mission of doing their job as fairly and competently as possible. While I was no fan of Todd Graves, the republican appointee prior to Schlozman, my disagreement comes in the area of politics, not in the area of how he sought to do his job. But Schlozman was chosen partially because he was willing to back the unconstitutional Texas redistricting scheme. Better to be far-right than right.

I knew John McKay, the US Attorney who got fired in Seattle. John is one of the most conservative lawyers I know - he sincerely believes the government ought to be trimmed as much as humanly possible to defense and a court system - but he was so competent and effective that he was elected chair of the ABA Young Lawyers Division, a group which tends to be dominated by left-leaning folk (with some notable exceptions). Again, while I could disagree with John's politics, I respected his fairness and competence. He's the sort of person who has traditionally been appointed to the US Attorney's office. Bush/Gonzalez fired him.

That's the pattern I've seen in so many instances during this administration. Political ties have always been important, but it's new and different now. During the tenure of Bush I, and Reagan, the republican administrations were filled with what they thought were the best and brightest of the conservative ranks. Now, they seek the most thuggish and extreme.

During prior Republican administrations, the College Republicans at places like Dartmouth and Princeton would flow into the ranks of the staff. Bush/Gonzalez has hired 150 people from Regent University School of Law, an academically weak but far-right stronghold founded by nutcase televangelist Pat Robertson. 150. That's incredible.

Not only is it incredible, but it is a shift in the rules of the game. I can't adequately express how sad that is. The US Attorney of the Western District of Missouri has always been a politically-connected lawyer chosen for his or her competence. Now, we have an administration which is filling the ranks of the US Attorneys office with people whose competence is shaky, but whose loyalties are not. And that, my friends, is a very bad thing - a diminished US Attorneys office will hurt us all, Republicans and Democrats.

How to Appreciate Bush

One of the right-wing bloggers I visit fairly often is Stolen Thunder, because he works so hard to put a logical, reasonable face on his illogical, unreasonable love of Bush. He hit a new level the other day, though, when he sought to explain why Bush is "certainly one of the top ten presidents."

No, that is not the punchline.

To justify this extraordinary ranking of a sub-ordinary president, he had to define the rules of the game carefully. So, and I kid you not, he specified that popularity and accomplishment are not valid measures. He never really does define what in world should be considered.

But, I have to admit that he has a great point. If you ignore popularity and accomplishment, Bush takes his rightful place in the pantheon of giants like Chester Arthur and James Polk.

Indeed, if you are looking for lack of accomplishment and popularity, I think Bush may actually be the tops.

With Friends Like These, Who Needs Enemies?

The monarchical rulers of our bestest buddies, BFF Saudi Arabia, are closely connected to the Bush family and run the sort of repressive government that serves as inspiration for people like Alberto "Abu" Gonzalez.

So, what love note does our BFF send us this week?

King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia: "In beloved Iraq, blood is flowing between brothers, in the shadow of an illegitimate foreign occupation, and abhorrent sectarianism threatens a civil war."

If Arab leaders recover trust in each other and regain their credibility, “the winds of hope will blow on the nation, and then, we will not allow forces from outside the region to determine the future of the region, and only the flag of Arabism will be raised on Arab soil,” Abdullah said.

Sweet. Looks like the Bush administration is doing the same thing in the Middle East that it did in New Orleans.

Why No Oath?

I can only think of one reason for Bush to insist that his aides not be placed under oath when called to testify.

Lying is all they know how to do.

He says a constitutional showdown is in the offing. For the first time since he stole the presidency, I think Bush knows he's going to get impeached.

Maybe Shields was Right?

I've long been a bemused supporter of Katheryn Shields. She's a gutsy, fearless person who walks her own path and does what she thinks is right, even when the polls suggest she should do otherwise. Of course, she also does some foolish things (like that ridiculous, hideous mural) with the same bullheaded lack of concern for public opinion.

I remember way back in the early 90s when she did the grunt work to protect KC from a sloppy and homophobic ballot initiative - she didn't get many thanks, but she did get sued for her effort. She won, but she had to work hard to defend herself and her motives, when she was really doing the right thing.

A person like Katheryn is easy to ridicule and dislike. She doesn't always suffer fools patiently, and her willingness to eschew the popular approach doesn't earn her a ton of popular goodwill. She tends to work her political magic through skilled manipulation of the needs of different constituencies and interest groups rather than unifying everyone behind a common vision. As a result, for much of her career, Katheryn Shields has had many allies, but few friends.

Katheryn Shields has always been kind to me and my family, but I sat silent when the indictment came down. When she claimed the whole affair was politically motivated, I kind of rolled my eyes.

Now, a scandal is gathering around the politicization of the US Attorneys office, and Gonzalez is likely to wind up bounced from public life because he has, in fact, been a conduit for White House use of the US Attorney's Office for political vendettas and selective prosecution of Democrats. "Nearly 80% of all federal investigations undertaken by the Bush DoJ and targeting elected officials or candidates were aimed at Democrats, with under 18% targeting Republicans. Around the country, that's 298 investigations of Democrats versus just 67 investigations of Republicans."

Jason Kander, a Patriotic Progressive in Uniform, Signs Off on a High Note

I can't add anything - go read the whole thing. Here's one of my favorite paragraphs:

I'm a Progressive Democrat, so when I get into debates about the war with ill-informed, indoctrinated regressives who don't know me well, they generally throw Rush's talking points at me, insinuating that I love my country and support the troops just a bit less than them. Whether you've served or not, love of country isn't about blind faith. It is not about a piece of cloth that I wear on the shoulder of my uniform, but about an idea, about Americans themselves. I have little patience for those who claim to love America but clearly can't stand the majority of Americans. As a progressive, my beef with President Bush isn't that he's fighting a war, it's that he's doing it wrong. I want to win every bit as badly as he does, if not more, but I believe that means the symbol of America can't just be a soldier with an M-16.