More than one source reporting it now (including NPR via Reuters), but nobody's mentioned it here, so I will. George W. Bush stopped a plan to send US troops to a US town to arrest people on US soil.

Remember how the GOP, confronted on FISA or habeas corpus or constitutionality during the w/cheney years would claim they were keeping us safe and say, "your rights don't matter if you're dead?" They were lying: your rights don't matter if you're not dead, either. Vice President Cheney wanted to use US troops in US streets in 2002.

It's possible Bush kept us safer than Cheney wanted -- and apparently even Bush didn't always do as Cheney said although evidently their disagreement over whether or not I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby ought to get a Presidential pardon came nigher ending their relationship than Bush's decision not to send the Army after the Lackawanna Six, who were arrested by the FBI later.

It's the Libby fight that, apparently, let W figure out how to quit Dick, or maybe vice versa.   Read more…

I'm sure you all recall the early days of the NSA Hoovering up all domestic data warrantless wiretapping scandal, when they referred to it as the "Terrorist Surveillance Program" and assured us that they were only targeting Al-Qaeda operatives.

Naturally, this turned out to be a lie enhanced duplicity technique, because it turns out they were spying on all of us everyday American citizens. Nobody was off the target list, and we were all potential Al-Qaeda operatives.

Now, there's a big hubbub about some sketchy CIA assassination ring, apparently answering to Cheney himself. Nobody's willing to talk about the nitty-gritty details, but it's enough to have even Nancy "off the table" Pelosi spooked or pissed off enough to start publicly discussing how fucked-up it was, whatever "it" was.

The public justification for this shadowy, super-classified, apparently reprehensible death squad?

They were only targeting Al-Qaeda operatives.

Yeah, okay, I'm gonna go ahead and call bullshit. Does anyone seriously doubt that what we'll eventually learn is that they formed a group to assassinate American citizens in the National Interest? Consider this, via TPM:

Vince Cannistraro, a former CIA counterterrorism chief, told TPMmuckraker that because we've been in a state of war against al Qaeda since just after September 11, there would have been no need for a secret CIA program that received special legal authorization...

As for what the program did involve, Cannistraro suggested that it involved Americans as targets, and that it went beyond surveillance, but declined to elaborate. He added that, though Cheney may have directly ordered the CIA to keep Congress in the dark, the veep wasn't acting alone. "The approval was from the president," said Cannistraro.

Hmm, I wonder...

Interesting times:

(TPM link)

So, as far as I can tell, Rep. Jane Harman [D-Ca] was conspiring with the Israelis to drop some spy charges in exchange for some lobbying on her behalf, and Alberto Gonzales had an NSA warrantless wiretap™ (wait for it) on her phone and overheard the deal.

In exchange for not investigating, Gonzales asked her to attack the NYT's exposé on (wait for it) NSA warrantless wiretapping. The one she had personally requested be held back until before after the 2004 election (Department of With Democrats Like These, anyone?)

And so she goes free, although the Israelis didn't get her that committee chair she wanted in the first place.

One has to wonder just how much dirt Hoover Gonzales and Rove had on everyone in Washington, and more importantly, how many other favors they blackmailed out of people. And it certainly explains some of those bizarre, neo-Maoist ritual apologies.

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Yes, we have been immensely damaged, collectively and individually by the chimp that occupied the WH for the last eight years. And if the concept "national brain" means anything, we can safely assume that it has sustained horrendous damage.

Published: March 4, 2009Filed at 8:39 p.m. ET

NEW HAVEN, Conn. (AP) -- A Connecticut woman mauled by a chimpanzee two weeks ago lost her hands, nose, lips and eyelids and may be blind and suffering brain damage, and hospital officials say it's still unclear if her condition can improve at all..

(h/t State of Disbelief @ The Confluence)

The passing of Bush's Conscience Rule enables the implementation of laws written decades ago allowing caregivers to refuse services they consider morally objectionable. The laws followed the Supreme Court passage of laws allowing a woman's right to abortion but didn't have the connection to enable them.

The Bush administration announced its "conscience protection" rule for the health care industry yesterday, giving everyone including doctors, hospitals, receptionists and volunteers in medical experiments the right to refuse to participate in medical care they find morally objectionable.

 Read more…

Some of you know that I am an, er, critic of Israel, but I am a big fan of parts of its English media, especially the newspaper Ha'aretz, and not just on its Mideast coverage. Here's an intriguing column by Bradley Burston on the US election. He's basically written Obama off.

Take a long walk in this land of dreams and all you'll see is Obama. Obama lawn signs, Obama bumper stickers, window placards, lapel buttons, anklets. In souvenir stores, Obama t-shirts compete successfully with longtime best-sellers touting Bourbon Street and carousing alligators.

 Read more…

I wonder when George is going to get around to ordering the Flag to half-mast for Representative Tubbs-Jones?

Does he only do that for white male Republicans, now?

I know. I know. We don't have the "context" and "its from Politico", but if this is true, what do we have to look forward in an Obama presidency:

Rangel surrogates approached Obama staffers this week about the possibility of securing him a slot at the podium, making the case that it would showcase reconciliation between the nominee and Hillary Rodham Clinton’s African-American supporters.

 Read more…

On Wednesday, Joe Lieberman published a piece on the opinion pages of WSJ which essentially accused the entirety of foreign policy positions held by the current Democratic Party of being essentially a stab in the back to the entirety of foreign policy positions of the Democratic Party of FDR, Truman, and JFK. Interestingly, LBJ wasn't included in the litany of Democratic golden oldies. Joe may have succeeded in performing a lobotomy on himself, resulting in a weird sort of frontal stupidity, but that doesn't mean he isn't still wily.

Today, Joe Biden, has a superb answer to Lieberman, also in the pages of the WSJ, one in which Biden touches all the right bases, not more, not less, and then heads confidently for home plate, leaving that other Joe in the dust.

I'm sure this may come as a shock to you, but military is hiring bloggers to work as moles, "verbally attack[ing] specific person[s] or promot[ing] a specific message."

Wait, sorry, wrong link.

Here's the article.

Good job, CHS. This is well above and beyond 'golf clap' worthy, this is action, meaningful and real. I applaud you and those who've signed the list. Here's my take.

Background para:

Even so, FEC Chairman David Mason sent McCain's campaign a strongly worded letter (PDF), letting them know that even though McCain didn't consider his word on accepting public financing binding, that the FEC was not about to let him off the legal hook. What did McCain do? He ignored the letter, secured a loan based on representations of obtaining public financing and then blew past the public financing law spending limits...and he's still raising campaign cash, too.

Quelle suprise! This is the last chance to rescue the idea that we should have "the rule of law" in this country. Either McCain is held to this standard, or he is not. I believe he will not be. I believe the FEC will do nothing. I believe the SCLM will do nothing, and gloss over and/or bury this. I believe the Federal Government as presently constituted will enforce no truly damaging law upon any national-level, media-approved Republican. I believe no Democrat of similar station will speak critically of nor contribute to efforts like yours, because of a combination of ignorance, arrogance, the disease of Villagerism, and the desire to have these powers for themselves. But I still thank you for your efforts.

Speaking of the double-being known as Sen Lieberman-McCain: heh.

When The Day endorsed Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman for re-election in November 2006 it was supporting a candidate who demonstrated a history of pragmatic leadership and a willingness to seek bipartisan solutions.

We wonder what happened to that senator.

Sen. Lieberman's open-ended commitment to military involvement in Iraq comes as no surprise. The senator made it clear when running for re-election that was his position. Sen. Lieberman wants the United States military to remain in Iraq until the war is won, whatever that means. It conflicts with this newspaper's position that the time has come for a gradual withdrawal of U.S. forces.

Despite that difference of opinion, The Day editorially backed the senator because of his experience, his willingness to put principle above politics, as demonstrated by his condemnation of former President Clinton following the Monica Lewinsky scandal, and his even-handed political approach.

But while Sen. Lieberman remains experienced, he is no longer even-handedly principled.

 Read more…

Notice they don't tell you how much he got busted with...5K is a lot to cough up for a minor schedule drug bust in a not really urban area.

A former Crawford County Sheriff's deputy who served as a school DARE officer faces felony marijuana charges.

William John Bonkowski III, 45, was arrested Thursday as part of a series of 11 drug-related arrests around the county. The Grayling Township resident worked for the sheriff's department for more than a decade and for a time taught the school-based Drug Abuse Resistance Education program, officials said.

And pot is endemic up there, you'd have to be a pretty busy person to get attention leading to an arrest. Anyway, people always think I'm being rhetorical when I say "the government is the drug dealer." But I'm not. And you have to love the DARE angle- who wants to bet in addition to recruiting new street talent, there was also some Maf54 action going on? It's par for the course for these types.

What follows is a post I wrote some time ago, shortly after Bush's 2nd Inaugural. I thought it might be worth reposting on this particular day, since it includes a comparison of both Lincoln and Truman to Bush, and seeks to discuss political rhetoric and its discontents. I also thought it might be a pleasant respite from our current obsession with the Democratic Presidential primary, as well as offering a frame for contemplating the ruin Bush's second terms has wrecked not only on the country, but on his own likely historical reputation.

Dubya's Dubious Second Inaugural:The Bad Faith Of George W. Bush

Four years ago, at the time of Bush's 1st Inaugural Address, despite the bitterness left behind by the manner in which the 2000 presidential election was decided, despite the "winner's" inability to find a graceful way to acknowledge the extraordinary circumstances that had brought him to the Presidency, or even an ungraceful way, swept up in the grandeur of that peaceful transfer of power without which no democratic republic can long endure, I was able to acknowledge the surprising power of some of Bush's rhetoric, and to feel some hope that he actually meant some tiny fraction of what he was saying.

Nunca mas, as they have had occasion to say in Argentina.

Bush made it easy last Thursday; everything about his second inaugural address, its grandiosity, its simple-minded diction and biblical intimations, the insistent refusal to acknowledge complexity, its wildly overstated and pitifully under-defined ambitions, its ahistorical smugness, struck me as downright preposterous, which will explain my amazement at the credulity with which the speech was received; yes, there were some reservations expressed at the practical implications and applicability of such a pure statement of American idealism, but rather less comment willing to point out that the speech's efficacy as a statement of policy could be measured in inverse proportion to its almost demented insistence that ideas exist in some ethereal space untouched by anything as gritty and unpleasant as a fact.

Instead, once again we were asked to wonder at the poetic eloquence of Michael Gerson's prose, and if we happened to be liberals, admonished not to get too picky about the fathoms-deep divide between Bush's rhetoric and the reality of his policies, lest we peg ourselves, once again, as outside the great and grand ideas upon which our republic stands.

Chris Suellentrop, for instance, writing in Slate, parses the speech to bolster his own praise for it as a wonderful piece of oratory, credits it with announcing a second Bush doctrine, (the first, preemptive war, this second, the peaceful pursuit of democracy everywhere, and nary a hint the two doctrines might contradict one another), then proceeds to question the validity of the speech's central thesis, which strikes Chris as being as simple-minded as the formulation by "some" on the left, that 9/11 was caused by poverty, and then finishes by warning liberals -- well, unlike Mr. Suellentrop, I shall let him speak for himself:

Gotdaym Liberal Fascism! Because I can't make the oootuybbe work. Fuck em. Fuck video, fuck you.

Anyway, my viagra has worn off. As I wuz a saying: McLame is old, tired, and old. And tired. I've been saying this since 200whatever and beyond. Old. Tired. And: For more war! Wars that, incidentally- he can't fight. Because he's old, and tired. Anyway, war is for young men. Who pay taxes. Foggies? Democrats? Anyone willing to say $175m can be better spent against this? Bueller?

Southern Beale beats me to it:

Just to remind everyone about what’s at stake in November, we have these pearls of wisdom from Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia:

“Is it really so easy to determine that smacking someone in the face to determine where he has hidden the bomb that is about to blow up Los Angeles is prohibited in the constitution?" he asked.

“It would be absurd to say you couldn't do that. And once you acknowledge that, we're into a different game."

Oh wow! I saw that episode of “24,” too! Yeah, that was so cool how Jack Bauer saved Los Angeles by smacking that .... oh, wait. That was a TV show.

Never mind.

 Read more…

Via Digby:

Delahunt: You said if an opinion was rendered, that would insulate him from any consequences.

[Mike Mukasey, Attorney General of the United States, before the House Judiciary Committee today]: We could not investigate or prosecute somebody for acting in reliance on a justice department opinion.

...

Delahunt: If that opinion was inaccurate and in fact violated a section of US Criminal Code, that reliance is in effect an immunity from any criminal culpability.

MM: Immunity connoted culpability. [Well, is anyone culpable? -scar]

...

Delahunt: I find that a new legal doctrine. The law is the law.

 Read more…

Too Funny, via Skippy. Thanks for that one, bro. Hoo, hoo, my favorite:

"My neighbor had a really hot wife. Like, really hot. Then he went to Iraq and she divorced him. Now I'm worried he'll come back..."

From the Dept. of "Lambert Can't be Cynical Enough," comes this blood boiling reminder that Republicans are Scum of the very first order. There just isn't invective strong enough for this:

Retired Army Gen. Tommy Franks was paid $100,000 - out of donations made to wounded veterans - for allowing his name to be used on fundraising appeals by a charity that has come under increasing scrutiny for the way it handles its money.
Lawmakers questioned the ethics of the Coalition to Salute America’s Heroes Foundation not only for using donors’ money to pay Franks, but for failing to disclose to potential donors who received the mail solicitations that Franks was paid for his endorsement.
… ”If we disclose, we’d be out of business,” [president Roger] Chapin said.
“Your words are wonderful, because if the public knew, they wouldn’t donate,” said Rep. Christopher Shays, R-Conn.
Chapin acknowledged that his organization has used inflated numbers in its mailings when describing what percentage of donations actually helps veterans.
While some mailings have stated that 92 percent or even 100 percent of donations have gone to veterans, the real figure is closer to 25 percent, according to a congressional study.

I think that soon, we'll find ourselves needing to come up with a new word, one that describes "domestic post-battlefield fragging." Franks better not go into any VFW halls anytime soon. This was in "Military Times," so word is going to get out. Asshole.

My point: this is going on all over, from the Federal gov't to the MIC complex to diplomatic agencies. I'm posting these two pieces because it gives us a glimpse into a culture of corruption the SCLM rarely covers, but is everywhere. A str8 Republican! No, really!

ouston, Texas) The district attorney who defended the Texas law criminalizing homosexuality before the US Supreme Court is desperately trying to keep his job following the discovery of e-mails containing sexually explicit videos, racist jokes and what is described as torrid love notes to his executive secretary.

Harris County District Attorney Chuck Rosenthal (R) is facing a state investigation into the emails which were discovered on his office computer.

...

Rosenthal who argued before the US Supreme Court that the Texas law against sodomy was upholding the moral values of the state and was in place to protect families. The case was Lawrence v Texas.

 Read more…

CD updating the update to reflect the latest news: Reid has pulled the bill.

Well, we're into it - a full-throated Senate debate on many of the dearest, in all senses of that word, fundamentals of constitutional government,

The opening, as Lambert has suggested, was a bit confusing.

Dodd gave a passionate analysis of the many strands of this new FISA legislation, meant, mainly on the Democratic side, to correct the excesses of last August's Protect America Act, which more or less gutted the FISA court as a check on the power of the executive branch to secretly ignore the civil liberties of Americans not to be spied upon by their own government.

To talk process for a moment, the thrust of Dodd's first speech was in support of the many and profound reasons why the Senate should not proceed on the matter at hand as long as the Intelligence Committee's version is the basis of the debate and the subsequent voting on the entire issue. In other words, he was arguing against the imposition of cloture, so that the Senate might spend time debating the merits of substituting the Judiciary Bill as the basis for debate and amendment.

It didn't look or sound to me like this was Dodd's attempt to get a genuine filibuster going, and indeed, the vote was lopsided in favor of cloture, all Republicans voting yes, only ten Democrats voting no.

This is not the end of the debate by any means, though, and from what I've seen thus far, do not despair that passage of the Intelligence Committee's version of this new FISA bill is a done deal, including the extending of amnesty to those Telecoms which choose to go along with the administration. Here's why:

And you America doubters-in-chief thought it would stop the drumbeat to war.

Watch as Bush explains it all, nice and slow for all the haters in the house:

I think the NIE makes it clear that Iran needs to be taken seriously as a threat to peace.

[...] I believed before the NIE that Iran was dangerous and I believe after the NIE that Iran is dangerous.

And I have said Iran is dangerous. And the NIE doesn't do anything to change my opinion about the danger Iran poses to the world. Quite the contrary.

How could it be read any other way?

Get a load of this:

The head of the federal agency investigating Karl Rove's White House political operation is facing allegations that he improperly deleted computer files during another probe, using a private computer-help company, Geeks on Call.

Scott Bloch runs the Office of Special Counsel, an agency charged with protecting government whistleblowers and enforcing a ban on federal employees engaging in partisan political activity. Mr. Bloch's agency is looking into whether Mr. Rove and other White House officials used government agencies to help re-elect Republicans in 2006.

At the same time, Mr. Bloch has himself been under investigation since 2005. At the direction of the White House, the federal Office of Personnel Management's inspector general is looking into claims that Mr. Bloch improperly retaliated against employees and dismissed whistleblower cases without adequate examination.

Recently, investigators learned that Mr. Bloch erased all the files on his office personal computer late last year. They are now trying to determine whether the deletions were improper or part of a cover-up, lawyers close to the case said.

So, to recap: Karl Rove is accused of retaliating against employees and then illegally deleting the evidence. The man in charge of investigating him is accused of retaliating against employees and then deleting evidence.

Fuck. This. Shit.

Wait, though, it gets better!

Froomkin:

"I've committed our troops into harm's way twice, and it's not a pleasant experience because I understand the consequences firsthand.

What does Bush know "first hand" about consequences to the troops, except when he's using them for props in a photo-op, serving them fake turkey, or prancing around a flightdeck in a jumpsuit?

The farcical nature of the post-911 attack on 'terrorists' was brought out to me by Ibraham Warde, who appeared on "Foreign Exchange" this week. His account of the pursuit we tend to think of as "following the money" was so engaging, I looked up an account of the activity he had written earlier. It gives a really spectacular overview of our clownish cabal. It also points out that typically, small sums of clean money (not illegally obtained) are used to fund acts of terror