Monthly Archives: April 2006

As the Leaks Drip

Posted on by

All the news that’s fit to leak …

In today’s episode, we learn that CIA intelligence analyst Mary O. McCarthy is accused of being The Source for WaPo reporter Dana Priest’s Pulitzer-prize winning reporting on secret CIA prisons. Ms. McCarthy has been fired from her job. NBC News reports that she is under investigation by the Justice Department. At the very least, Ms. McCarthy would have violated a signed secrecy agreement by leaking information to Priest. The arrest action was part of a determined effort by CIA Director Porter Goss to crack down on leaks.

It also appears that someone at the Agency violated the Privacy Act by leaking Ms. McCarthy’s name and job description to news media, but we weren’t supposed to notice that.

Dafna Linzer of the Washington Post quotes her boss:

Post Executive Editor Leonard Downie Jr. said people who provide citizens the information they need to hold their government accountable should not “come to harm for that.”

“The reporting that Dana did was very important accountability reporting about how the CIA and the rest of the U.S. government have been conducting the war on terror,” Downie said. “Whether or not the actions of the CIA or other agencies have interfered with anyone’s civil liberties is important information for Americans to know and is an important part of our jobs.”

The Bush Bitter Enders are howling for McCarthy’s head on a pike, but seems to me people who live with leaky glass plumbing are advised not to throw rocks — Matthew Barakat reports for the Associated Press:

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice leaked national defense information to a pro-Israel lobbyist in the same manner that landed a lower-level Pentagon official a 12-year prison sentence, the lobbyist’s lawyer said Friday.

Prosecutors disputed the claim.

The allegations against Rice came as a federal judge granted a defense request to issue subpoenas sought by the defense for Rice and three other government officials in the trial of Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman. The two are former lobbyists with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee who are charged with receiving and disclosing national defense information.

Condi’s subpoena may well be just a grandstanding tactic on the part of the defense lawyer, so until we hear more I wouldn’t make too much out of this. Still, the Bushies might not want to make a big bad example out of the grandmotherly McCarthy while stories about their own leaks are dripping away in the background. Bad PR, you know. (See TalkLeft for more background on this case.)

Speaking of background drips, this is from a letter to the editor in yesterday’s Kansas City Star by concerned citizen David Langton of Shawnee, KS:

Where are all the Republican voices that were so loud when Bill Clinton stood before the camera and lied to the American people?

There seems to be a belief in moral relativism in the Republicans’ view of President Bush’s behavior.

Bush stood before the camera and told the American people that he would not stand for the leaking of classified information. He also said he would remove anyone from his administration who was involved in such behavior.

When it became clear people in the administration were involved in leaks, he softened his position on their removal.

Now we know the president himself was leaking classified information.

We are now given some tortured logic that it is not a leak of classified information if the president declassifies and leaks it.

Are we also supposed to believe it is not a lie if the president says it’s not a lie?

Yes. That is exactly what we’re supposed to believe. Next question?

Alan L. Light of Iowa City writes in the Quad City Times of Davenport, IA:

You have to wonder why President Bush has allowed millions of dollars to be spent investigating leaks that, he now admits, came from him.

Every time President Bush was asked about White House leaks he said that he knew nothing about it, he would get to the bottom of it, and would punish whoever did it. Does it mean nothing to him to waste millions of taxpayer dollars on a needless investigation? Why didn’t he come forward sooner and just say “Yes, I declassified it?”

What’s even more galling is that the information Bush leaked in order to supposedly “spread the truth” was in fact information that had already been proven wrong months before he authorized it to be leaked. In other words, Bush didn’t want people to see the truth so he intentionally leaked false information, information he knew had been disproved months before, in order to trick the American people into supporting the war in Iraq under false circumstances.

Bush has repeatedly abused power, lied to Congress, lied to the American people, lied to the military, started war on false pretenses, has demonstrated the most egregious incompetence and has placed the nation in a precarious economic and diplomatic condition.

But at least he didn’t lie about sex or we’d have to impeach him.

Snort. Too droll.

Regarding Mary McCarthy’s leak — in a coincidence too perfect to be a coincidence, it’s also reported today that a European Parliament probe into CIA “renditions” in Europe has not found any “illegal activities” on the part of the CIA:

Oddly, the investigator who issued this statement, Gijs de Vries, seems to have been investigating very selectively:

De Vries came under sharp criticism from the EU parliamentarians for refusing to consider earlier testimonies from a German and a Canadian who described to the committee how they were kidnapped and imprisoned by foreign agents, and from a former British ambassador to Uzbekistan who alleged that British intelligence services used information obtained under torture.

”There is so much circumstantial evidence, you can’t close your eyes from the fact that this is probably happening,” Dutch deputy and civil liberties activist Kathalijne Buitenweg said.

The US has never confirmed or denied the renditions. The committee plans to go to Washington to interview former and current CIA officials and Bush administration officials.

The parliament committee is seeking firsthand testimony from people who say they were kidnapped by US intelligence agents and from human rights activists and EU antiterrorism officials to get a better picture of the reported US ”extraordinary rendition” flights.

Rightie blogger Rick Moran puts together the McCarthy and de Vries stories and chuckles, “Interestingly, the leak was about the ‘Secret Prisons’ being run by the CIA overseas. You remember the ‘secret prisons’ don’t you? You know, the ones no one seems to be able to find … Can you say ‘sting?'”

Well yes, I can, and the theory that McCarthy and Priest were fed false information as part of a sting operation to find leakers is an interesting one. But the news story Moran links doesn’t say de Vries found no secret prisons (although other news stories did say that; see below). It says de Vries managed not to find evidence of illegal renditions. The EU Parliament is looking into allegations that the CIA is kidnapping people without due process of law and using European air bases as “rendering” transit points without the host countries’ permission. Their investigation into the existence of secret prisons is separate, the Associated Press story says:

The legislators also are investigating news reports of secret detention centers in Eastern Europe. They are expected to publish a final report on their findings in June.

Other news stories quote de Vries as saying he couldn’t find prisons, although it’s not clear he was looking for them. Dan Bilefsky reports for the International Herald Tribune:

The European Union’s antiterrorism chief told a hearing today that he has not been able to prove that secret C.I.A. prisons existed in Europe.

“We’ve heard all kinds of allegations,” the official, Gijs de Vries, said before a packed chamber of deputies. “It does not appear to be proven beyond reasonable doubt.”

But Mr. de Vries came under criticism from some legislators who called the hearing a whitewash. “The circumstantial evidence is stunning,” said Kathalijne Buitenweg, a Dutch member of Parliament from the Green Party, even if there is no smoking gun.

“I’m appalled that we keep calling to uphold human rights while pretending that these rendition centers don’t exist and doing nothing about it,” she said. ..

..A number of legislators challenged Mr. de Vries for not taking seriously earlier testimony before the committee by a German and a Canadian who gave accounts of being kidnapped and kept imprisoned by foreign agents.

Lisl Brunner of The Jurist reports:

De Vries’ comments to the committee investigating the CIA allegations [official website] were met with criticism from members of parliament, who cited 50 hours of testimony that it heard from alleged victims of rendition and human rights organizations.

Italian MEP Claudio Fava called de Vries’ testimony “completely useless,” while Dutch MEP Kathalijne Buitenweg noted “stunning” circumstantial evidence regarding the existence of the prisons. The former British ambassador to Uzbekistan also testified that he had witnessed rendition programs carried out in that country but could not confirm that they were linked with Europe.

A story in the March 31 Los Angeles Times says another investigator is convinced there are secret prisons.

The United Nations’ special investigator on torture says he is certain that there are secret U.S. prisons in Europe and he wants access to them.

Manfred Nowak said, “I am 100% sure. I have evidence.”

He cited a U.S. refusal to provide details or records of interrogations later used in terrorism trials in Germany. He did not explain how that was proof of the existence of the CIA-run prisons.

Bottom line, the question of whether there are or are not secret CIA prisons in eastern Europe remains open.

Finally, on last night’s Hardball there was a weird exchange among guest host Norah O’Donnell, former congressman and fugitive from justice Joe Scarborough, and Craig Crawford. They were discussing reports that someone close to new White House chief of staff Josh Bolten had leaked plans to redeploy Harriet Miers out of the White House.

Rightie blog NewsBusters (this is the same guy who was outraged that Eleanor Clift used an op ed to state an opinion) provides a partial transcript. Scarborough was certain Bolten would not have leaked that Miers was on her way out without Bush’s permission. Talk about poor Harriet getting stabbed in the back! But Craig Crawford (not quoted at NewsBusters) was dubious. He thought it more likely that Bolten was using a leak to pressure Bush into letting Miers go.

That does it for today’s episode of As the Leaks Drip, unless more stuff happens.

Update: See Glenn Greenwald.

First Amendment Confusion

Posted on by

Earlier this week a foreign-born college student was arrested for posting threats to kill President Bush. As I blogged here, a number of rightie bloggers immediately jumped to the conclusion that the student was a “liberal” (in fact, the news story didn’t identify the student’s political orientation) and predicted that liberals would jump to the defense of the accused student’s free speech rights, because that’s what liberals “always” do.

When the predicted liberal tide of outrage against the student’s arrest didn’t materialize, this guy wrote, “Well of course you’re not going to openly after we preemptively accuse you of it.” Well of course, he couldn’t possibly be mistaken about what “liberals” always do, huh? (Off topic, but this post by the same blogger reveals a certain, um, confusion about what liberals actually believe.)

In fact, long-established case law says that speech inciting violence — the “clear and present danger” test — is not protected by the First Amendment. If the student clearly was seriously attempting to incite presidential assassination and not just joking (I haven’t seen what he wrote), then he’s going to have a hard time defending himself on First Amendment grounds.

Also earlier this week, Glenn Greenwald commented on the First Amendment rights of journalists who report on something the government is doing secretly that appears to be illegal. In this case, a conservative ranted that publishing a news story “against the wishes of the president” amounted to treason.

This confusion could be resolved, I believe, by reassuring the ranter that this is still the United States of America and we have not, in fact, been annexed by North Korea. Not yet, anyway.

Different day, different story: Some not-liberal bloggers are complaining that the First Amendment rights of high school students were violated — Eugene Volokh wrote,

Tyler Harper wore an anti-homosexuality T-shirt to school, apparently responding to a pro-gay-rights event put on at the school by the Gay-Straight Alliance at the school. On the front, the T-shirt said, “Be Ashamed, Our School Embraced What God Has Condemned,” and on the back, it said “Homosexuality is Shameful.” The principal insisted that Harper take off the T-shirt. Harper sued, claiming this violated his First Amendment rights.

Harper’s speech is constitutionally unprotected, the Ninth Circuit just ruled today, in an opinion written by Judge Reinhardt and joined by Judge Thomas; Judge Kozinski dissented. According to the majority, “derogatory and injurious remarks directed at students’ minority status such as race, religion, and sexual orientation” — which essentially means expressions of viewpoints that are hostile to certain races, religions, and sexual orientations — are simply unprotected by the First Amendment in K-12 schools. Such speech, Judge Reinhardt said, violates “the rights of other students” by constituting a “verbal assault[] that may destroy the self-esteem of our most vulnerable teenagers and interfere with their educational development.”

You can read the majority decision in Harper v. Poway Unified School Dist. here. If you read it you might notice what Volokh left out — prior incidents of physical altercation in the school caused by gay-baiting. From the decision:

[Assistant Principal] Antrim believed that Harper’s shirt “was inflammatory under the circumstances and could cause disruption in the educational setting.” Like LeMaster, she also recalled the altercations that had arisen as a result of anti-homosexual speech one year prior. According to her affidavit, she “discussed [with Harper] ways that he and students of his faith could bring a positive light onto this issue without the condemnation that he displayed on his shirt.” Harper was informed that if he removed the shirt he could return to class.

When Harper again refused to remove his shirt, the Principal, Scott Fisher, spoke with him, explaining his concern that the shirt was “inflammatory” and that it was the School’s “intent to avoid physical conflict on campus.”

Harper actually demanded that he be suspended; the Principal refused to do that, and instead just detained the high schooler in his office the remainder of the day to keep him out of trouble.

Harper sued, and the district court concluded that “balancing the needs of the School to keep all their students safe coupled with the foreseeable vision that other students may feel free to exhibit these types of expressions that would interfere with the work of the school and violate the rights of others against [Harper’s] interests does not tip the scales sharply in [Harper’s] favor.”

The judges went on to cite prior case law, such as Tinker v. Des Moines School District 393 U.S. 503 (1969) and Bethel Sch. Dist. v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986). Both cases deal with speech that disrupted school discipline. The primary issue was not, as Volokh suggested, speech that hurt people’s self-esteem, but speech that was causing students to become unruly and engage in shoving matches in the hall. The title of Volokh’s post — “Sorry, Your Viewpoint is Excluded from First Amendment Protection” — is, IMO, fundamentally dishonest, as is this post by another blogger, which whines that the school only banned the T-shirt because it was anti-gay.

In the past schools have banned all sorts of “speech,” including tattoos and gang colors, because the “speech” was causing discipline problems. A couple of weeks ago Volokh commented on a California school district that banned flags and patriotic clothing, U.S. and Mexican, because the students were using the symbols to taunt each other. The school said the ban was temporary; I take it some discipline problems erupted after passions were inflamed by the immigration marches. Volokh complained that California law says “high school districts can’t restrict display of the American or Mexican flags just on the theory that it might be used in a threatening (or ‘harass[ing],’ whatever exactly that means) way — it can only restrict such display that is itself threatening or harassing.” But I infer the school district was able to demonstrate there was a clear and present danger of threatening and harassing going on, not just hypothetical threatening and harassing.

I’m old enough to remember some damnfool arbitrary school clothing rules; my public school district wouldn’t let girls wear pants, for example. My high school principal pronounced a ban on T-shirts that said anything, including “Have a Nice Day” or “Visit Miami Beach.” Some situations are hard to call, I’m sure. Some principals are more authoritarian than they need to be. But it’s fairly obvious Harper Tyler was trying to incite something that wasn’t in the curriculum. (See also Jill at Feministe.)

Here’s some more context that may or may not muddy the waters — Tyler wore his T-shirt the day after the school’s Gay-Straight Alliance held a “day of silence.” Participating students wore duct tape over their mouths to symbolize the silencing effects of intolerance. They “spoke” in class through a designated representative. With the permission of the school, the Alliance had put up posters to raise awareness of harassment. A series of “incidents and altercations” had occurred when the Alliance held a day of silence the year before. So, this rightie blogger asks, if the school is so worried about “disruption” why would it allow the Gay-Straight Alliance to hold its protest against intolerance if it had incited disruption the year before?

This is not a question to dismiss out of hand. I’d like to see the posters and observe the students to get a better sense of what went down before I formed a firm opinion. If in fact the posters were not inflammatory and only conveyed the message “please be tolerant of us,” should they be censored because they might incite a violent reaction in bigoted students? In other words, in the interest of discipline, should speech requesting tolerance, and that is not insulting to another group, be treated the same as speech that is hateful and derogatory? If so, is that not giving in to the bullies?

On the other hand, if I were a teacher I’m not sure I’d put up with the tape-over-the-mouth stunt in classrooms if it got in the way of teaching. Maybe real teachers would disagree.

Seems to me the school has three choices. It can ban all displays of opinion on clothing and posters, including “Have a Nice Day.” It can exercise no restrictions and only intervene after fistfights have started. Or it can exercise critical judgment and restrict speech that seems to be intended to start fights. And in the case of the latter, judgments will be subjective and some people will always disagree with the call.

Frankly, I’m glad I’m not a school principal.

Another Liberal Hoax

Posted on by

There’s a fascinating article on global warming by Mark Hertsgaard in Vanity Fair. Catch the blurb:

The Queen of England is afraid. International C.E.O.’s are nervous. And the scientific establishment is loud and clear. If global warming isn’t halted, rising sea levels could submerge coastal cities by 2100. So how did this virtual certainty get labeled a “liberal hoax”?

Apparently Queen Liz tried to sic the Poodle on Bush last year.

At the time of his meeting with the Queen, Blair was being attacked on climate change from all ideological sides, with even the Conservatives charging that he was not doing enough. …

… It was no secret that Bush opposed mandatory emissions limits, but Blair, who had risked his political future to back the deeply unpopular war in Iraq, was uniquely positioned to lobby the president. Bush owed him one. At the same time, Blair needed to show his domestic audience that he could stand up to Bush, that he wasn’t the presidential “poodle” his critics claimed.

Yet the Poodle proved to be toothless, partly because he was distracted by the July suicide bombers in London, and the G8 summit failed to get Bush to budge. So it was a terrible irony when Katrina struck the Gulf seven weeks later.

It cannot be known for certain if global warming caused Katrina.

The scientific rule of thumb is that one can never blame any one weather event on any single cause. The earth’s weather system is too complex for that. Most scientists agree, however, that global warming makes extra-strong hurricanes such as Katrina more likely because it encourages hot oceans, a precondition of hurricane formation.

“It’s a bit like saying, ‘My grandmother died of lung cancer, and she smoked for the last 20 years of her life—smoking killed her,'” explains Kerry Emanuel, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who has studied hurricanes for 20 years. “Well, the problem is, there are an awful lot of people who die of lung cancer who never smoked. There are a lot of people who smoked all their lives and die of something else. So all you can say, even [though] the evidence statistically is clear connecting lung cancer to smoking, is that [the grandmother] upped her probability.”

Just weeks before Katrina struck, Emanuel published a paper in the scientific journal Nature demonstrating that hurricanes had grown more powerful as global temperatures rose in the 20th century. Now, he says, by adding more greenhouse gases to the earth’s atmosphere, humans are “loading the climatic dice in favor of more powerful hurricanes in the future.”

Yet American news media didn’t say much about the global warming-Katrina connection.

The online article describes illustrations that can be viewed in the print issue showing the potential effects of global warming —

In New York, it would leave much of Lower Manhattan, including the Ground Zero memorial and the entire financial district, underwater. La Guardia and John F. Kennedy airports would meet the same fate. In Washington, D.C., the Potomac River would swell dramatically, stretching all the way to the Capitol lawn and to within two blocks of the White House.

A number of scientists are quoted who say that it’s too late to stop global warming. But there is still much that can be done to reduced its effects if we start working on it now. One scientist said “We still have a choice between pain and disaster.” However …

Unfortunately, we are getting a late start, which is something of a puzzle. The threat of global warming has been recognized at the highest levels of government for more than 25 years. Former president Jimmy Carter highlighted it in 1980, and Al Gore championed it in Congress throughout the 1980s. Margaret Thatcher, the arch-conservative prime minister of Britain from 1979 to 1990, delivered some of the hardest-hitting speeches ever given on climate change. But progress stalled in the 1990s, even as Gore was elected vice president and the scientific case grew definitive. It turned out there were powerful pockets of resistance to tackling this problem, and they put up a hell of a fight.

And you can guess who we’re talking about — the VRWC and Big Oil. Big Oil spends millions every year funding organizations that downplay the problem, and right-wing media parrots what the organizations say.

The public discussion about climate change in the U.S. is years behind that in Britain and the rest of Europe, and the deniers are a big reason why. “In the United States, the Chamber of Commerce and National Association of Manufacturers are deeply skeptical of climate-change science and the need to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions,” says Fiona Harvey, the environment correspondent for the Financial Times. “In Britain, the equivalent body, the Confederation of British Industry, is absolutely behind the science and agrees on the need to cut emissions. The only differences are over how to do that.”

America’s media coverage is also well behind the curve, says Harvey. “In the United States you have lots of news stories that, in the name of balance, give equal credence to the skeptics. We don’t do that here—not because we’re not balanced but because we think it’s unbalanced to give equal validity to a fringe few with no science behind them.”

Ah-HEM. As Paul Krugman has said, if the Right wants to believe the earth is flat, the headlines would declare “Shape of Earth–Views Differ.”

Toward the end of the article we learn that the rest of the world — plus many state and local governments in America — have pretty much decided to ignore the Bush Regime and charge ahead with greenhouse gas-reduction programs. At the same time, investors are pressuring Wall Street to take the problem seriously. In fact, Bushies seem to be the last holdouts on the planet.

“It is very clear that Congress will put mandatory greenhouse-gas-emission reductions in place, immediately after George W. Bush leaves office,” says Philip Clapp of N.E.T. “Even the Fortune 500 is positioning itself for the inevitable. There isn’t one credible 2008 Republican presidential candidate who hasn’t abandoned the president’s do-nothing approach. They have all adopted the approach the rest of the world took at the Montreal talks—we’re moving forward, you’re a lame duck, and we have to deal with it.”

U.S. presidents used to be regarded as “the leader of the free world.” Ol’ Dubya blew that one out of the water, didn’t he?

33 Months

Posted on by

Bush has 33 more months as President. That’s a long time. Consider that Bush had been president for only 26 months when we invaded Iraq. A lot can happen between now and January 2009.

The Sean Wilentz Rolling Stone article got me thinking. How are we going to get through the next 33 months?

Greg Mitchell writes in Editor & Publisher that we’re in a crisis almost without equal:

No matter which party they generally favor or political stripes they wear, newspapers and other media outlets need to confront the fact that America faces a crisis almost without equal in recent decades.

Our president, in a time of war, terrorism and nuclear intrigue, will likely remain in office for another 33 months, with crushingly low approval ratings that are still inching lower. Facing a similar problem, voters had a chance to quickly toss Jimmy Carter out of office, and did so. With a similar lengthy period left on his White House lease, Richard Nixon quit, facing impeachment. Neither outcome is at hand this time.

The alarm should be bi-partisan. Many Republicans fear their president’s image as a bumbler will hurt their party for years. The rest may fret about the almost certain paralysis within the administration, or a reversal of certain favorite policies. A Gallup poll this week revealed that 44% of Republicans want some or all troops brought home from Iraq. Do they really believe that their president will do that any time soon, if ever?

Democrats, meanwhile, cross their fingers that Bush doesn’t do something really stupid — i.e. nuke Iran — while they try to win control of at least one house in Congress by doing nothing yet somehow earning (they hope) the anti-Bush vote.

Meanwhile, a severely weakened president retains, and has shown he is willing to use, all of his commander-in-chief authority, and then some.

A crisis almost without equal? Where does Mitchell get the almost?

Certainly, the United States has limped along with ineffectual presidents before. If you look at the worst of the bumblers — IMO these were Pierce, Buchanan, and Andrew Johnson — you see three guys who had little control of their own administrations. This is not to say the three of them didn’t do a lot of damage — Pierce and Buchanan allowed extremist factions to run amok, setting the stage for the Civil War, and Johnson screwed up Reconstruction, setting the stage for the Jim Crow era. The three of them would have presided over the longest period of prolonged presidential incompetence in U.S. history had the Lincoln Administration not managed to sandwich itself into the mess.

(Note: Don’t nobody say nothin’ bad about Ulysses Grant, or I will smack you.)

Some other presidents may have been no more competent but managed to get elected during relatively unchallenging times — Chester Arthur and Benjamin Harrison come to mind. The Warren Harding administration was famously corrupt, but the extent of the corruption didn’t become public until after Harding had died of food poisoning. Herbert Hoover was stymied by the Great Depression. Hoover was an intelligent man — many would have done worse as president after 1929 — but he was also rigid and aloof during a crisis that required flexibility and good PR.

In my memory, the two administrations that crashed and burned hardest were LBJ’s and Nixon’s. LBJ realized he had screwed the pooch and announced he would not seek re-election. And Nixon resigned.

But I do believe George W. Bush is unprecedented in that he combines incompetence with a stubborn determination to pursue his agenda with all the power he can muster. And considering he inherited the Reagan coalition and the VRWC — which has worked mightily to polish the Bush Administration’s image so the public doesn’t notice the truth — that’s a lot of power.

When Franklin Pierce’s administration went south (pretty much literally), ol’ Frank crawled into a bottle while a few powerful figures in Congress duked it out over policy. Buchanan flapped about ineffectually and let the southern plantation class shove him around. Andrew Johnson ended his term hiding in the White House (probably in a bottle as well) while Congress governed without him. But not our George. While he vigorously digs the nation into a deeper hole he is surrounded by a protective bubble of secrecy, cockamamie theories of presidential omnipotence, and his own messianic delusions. No matter how unpopular he is, no one can touch him.

E&P’s Mitchell quotes yesterday’s Tom Friedman column:

If these are our only choices, which would you rather have: a nuclear-armed Iran or an attack on Iran’s nuclear sites that is carried out and sold to the world by the Bush national security team, with Don Rumsfeld at the Pentagon’s helm?

I’d rather live with a nuclear Iran.

While I know the right thing is to keep all our options open, I have zero confidence in this administration’s ability to manage a complex military strike against Iran, let alone the military and diplomatic aftershocks.

Friedman was an Iraq War hawk, remember.

I look at the Bush national security officials much the way I look at drunken drivers. I just want to take away their foreign policy driver’s licenses for the next three years. Sorry, boys and girls, you have to stay home now — or take a taxi. Dial 1-800-NATO-CHARGE-A-RIDE. You will not be driving alone. Not with my car.

If ours were a parliamentary democracy, the entire Bush team would be out of office by now, and deservedly so. In Iraq, the president was supposed to lead, manage and hold subordinates accountable, and he did not. Condoleezza Rice was supposed to coordinate, and she did not. Donald Rumsfeld was supposed to listen, and he did not. But ours is not a parliamentary system, and while some may feel as if this administration’s over, it isn’t. So what to do? We can’t just take a foreign policy timeout.

But Friedman doesn’t have a solution; nor does Mitchell. “My point here is simply to start the discussion,” he says.

What are we to do? Let’s think about this.

Although I support impeachment, I’m not sure that’s the way to go. We’d have to impeach Bush and Cheney — a tall order — and if they’re removed from office we’d end up with Dennis Hastert in the White House. I’m not sure the 33 months are lookin’ any smoother under that scenario, although perhaps Hastert will be enough of a wuss to not do much. That may be the best we can hope for. At least he would probably work with Congress to run the country.

Same thing if Bush and Cheney were forced to resign, as Nixon and Agnew were.

If Dems get control of at least one house of Congress next year the subpoenas can begin. Perhaps if Bush is under incessant investigation for his last two years he will be slowed down some. On the other hand, he might start another war just to wag the dog.

And if Republicans keep control of both houses of Congress I don’t see an alternative to limping along as we are.

Thoughts?

“Strength” as a Weakness

Posted on by

The White House is crumbling internally. President Bush seems bewildered, no longer in charge. He wanders around the country talking about health savings accounts and other small-bore projects that mean little to most people. Nobody is listening. — Marianne Means, syndicated columnist

I don’t think Bush realizes nobody is listening. On television he seems as swaggering as ever. He strides into the open and strikes a menacing if off-balance pose, like a listing gladiator who’s lost his gladius. Oh, yeah? Come ‘n’ get me his body language says.

Of late the business at hand has been White House staff changes, although pundits are noting that nobody with any real power or influence seems subject to change. Dan Balz of the Washington Post writes,

On that score, many people who know the administration best are privately dubious. Presidents, more than chiefs of staff, determine how White Houses operate, they said, noting that Bush has shown that he prefers a tight circle of advisers and does not welcome the advice of outsiders.

So the hapless Scott McClellan goes but Karl Rove stays, albeit with a shortened job description.

“Metaphors about deck chairs abound,” observes the New York Times, dryly.

The sudden exit of Scott McClellan, the press secretary, would be meaningless under normal circumstances. But in the current context, it really does send an important message. The president is like one of those people who pretend to apologize by saying they’re sorry if they were misunderstood. He doesn’t believe he’s done anything wrong. It’s our fault for not appreciating him.

Blame the victim.

Sidney Blumenthal writes at Salon (also True Blue Liberal)

While White House press secretary Scott McClellan resigns, Rumsfeld stays. Clinging to Rumsfeld as indispensable to his strength, Bush reveals his fragility.

Bush is a weak man pretending to be strong. Because he’s a weak man he clings frantically to his props, including those who stand by his side appearing strong and looking cool, even if they are real Dick Cheneys. Bush’s supposed “loyalty” is a big part of his mythos, but he’s less loyal than desperate. Bush can’t maintain the tough guy persona by himself.

No wonder Bush rewards his loyal bumblers with the Medal of Freedom. He decorates his props with medals to give them more legitimacy, thereby giving himself more legitimacy.

Some White House insider whispered to Tim Russert that Bush “won’t fire Rumsfeld because it would be the equivalent of firing himself.” Exactly.

But the props are no longer having the effect of making Bush look strong. H.D.S. Greenway writes in the Boston Globe,

President Bush’s loyalty to Rumsfeld may seem admirable, but it is politically foolish and dishonorable. After the spectacular failure of Iraq — not to mention the horrors of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo — it’s time for the old Republican virtues of personal responsibility and accountability. The continued presence of Rumsfeld in the administration decreases the chances that Bush can keep public support for the war. For the American people have lost faith in Bush’s judgment, and Rumsfeld is a prime example of the president’s lack of judgment.

Bush won’t let go of those were were the dressing of his salad days. This stubborn and pathetic denial of his changing circumstances is a sure sign of weakness. He’s like a vain but elderly woman who dresses like a 20-year-old and can’t see how ridiculous she looks.

Blumenthal continues,

The two men prefer not to understand that time and opportunity lost can never be regained. Their denial extends beyond the realities of Iraq and its history to the history of the United States. It is extremely peculiar that they have learned no lessons of nation building from the tragedy of failed political leadership during post-Civil War Reconstruction, whose collapse consigned African-Americans to second-class citizenship for a century. Bush & Co. disdain nation building as something soft and weak connected to the Clinton presidency, just as they belittled and neglected terrorism as a Clinton obsession before Sept. 11 and as the president dismissed history itself as weightless.

“History? We don’t know. We’ll all be dead,” Bush remarked in 2003. “We cannot escape history,” said Abraham Lincoln. The living president has already sealed his reputation in history.

Speaking of history, be sure to see the Sean Wilentz cover story at Rolling Stone, titled “The Worst President in History?” You’ll want to read the whole thing, but I’m only going to quote this little bit —

When William F. Buckley, the man whom many credit as the founder of the modern conservative movement, writes categorically, as he did in February, that “one can’t doubt that the American objective in Iraq has failed,” then something terrible has happened. Even as a brash young iconoclast, Buckley always took the long view. The Bush White House seems incapable of doing so, except insofar as a tiny trusted circle around the president constantly reassures him that he is a messianic liberator and profound freedom fighter, on a par with FDR and Lincoln, and that history will vindicate his every act and utterance.

Some pundits still think that if Bush could just replace people in that tiny trusted circle with some new faces, he could salvage his second term. What they fail to understand is that if Bush were deprived of his props he’d spend the rest of his administration hiding under a bed, whimpering.

Thanks for Nothing

Posted on by

Bonnie Erbe writes in today’s Seattle Post-Intelligencer:

A new poll of leaders of Iraqi women’s-rights groups finds that women were treated better and their civil rights were more secure under deposed President Saddam Hussein than under the faltering and increasingly sectarian U.S.-installed government.

It’s sacrilege to say that anything was better under Saddam than it is now. Erbe better be careful the rightie Thought Police don’t catch her.

This is doubly troubling. It’s troubling first because the Bush administration used the issue of women to justify its now widely criticized invasion of Iraq in part by promising to improve the situation of women.

It’s troubling second because the administration has issued news releases, held public meetings and tried to gain media attention (as well as U.S. public support) for all the “good” it’s supposedly doing the women of Iraq via this invasion.

Even though their rights are supposed to be protected by the Iraqi constitution, women are finding that the constitution doesn’t mean squat. Sharia law rules. Women are being forced to veil themselves, and “fewer women are working in professional jobs than when Saddam was in power,” writes Erbe.

Last week Reuters reported on this same poll

According to the findings of a recent survey by local rights NGOs, women were treated better during the Saddam Hussein era – and their rights were more respected – than they are now.

“We interviewed women in the country and met with local NGOs dealing with gender issues to develop this survey, which asked questions about the quality of women’s life and respect for their rights,” said Senar Muhammad, president of Baghdad-based NGO Woman Freedom Organisation. “The results show that women are less respected now than they were under the previous regime, while their freedom has been curtailed.”

There have been numerous reports that say Iraqi women generally are more subject to rape and assault now than they were before the invasion; for example, this, this, and this.

And in that other nation we “liberated,” Afghanistan, the New York Times reported in March 2004 that increasing numbers of Afghan women were setting themselves on fire to escape the horror of their lives. Way to go, neocons.

Demons

Posted on by

A student is arrested for threatening to kill the President. Some meathead rightie responds:

Just the sort of everyday stuff that the Left puts out. Like detailed threats to kill President Bush, Laura Bush, Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld. Oh, and a plea for anyone reading the messages to bomb the United States, rape and mutilate British and American women, and kill all Republicans.

I’ve never seen any such thing on any of the leftie blogs I read or blogroll, but never mind. People who list Michelle Malkin on their blogrolls are hardly in a position to point fingers.

I’m not going to defend the guy who was arrested without seeing what it was he wrote, because the last thing any of us needs is a presidential assassination. I want Bush to live a long and healthy life. Preferably in a maximum-security facility, but long and healthy, nonetheless.

This idiot conflates what the student’s lawyer said with what “liberals everywhere” must think. (It’s called a defense, dummy. They’re payin’ the lawyer to come up with an excuse. For all we know the lawyer is a Republican.)

And just this morning this troll complained to me that I was being too nasty to Michelle Malkin just because she’s dangerously close to inciting manslaughter — “I dont think that disliking someones politics means you have to demonise everything they say or do.” Hell, if the righties weren’t demonizing us, they wouldn’t have anything to blog about.

Who says righties aren’t as hateful as we are? They beat us in the hate department, hands down, every time they breathe.

Update: Please do not post Michelle Malkin’s home address or phone number in the comments. It will be deleted.

Update update: Another gentle soul heard from.

Is this what it means to be a liberal? Threatening violence and/or death to those who disagree with you?

    A Purdue University graduate student was arrested and charged with threatening to kill President George W. Bush, Laura Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

    Vikram Buddhi allegedly posted the detailed and threatening messages on an online message board.

What happen to tolerance, diversity, and anti-violence? And, no, I’m not using this story to generalize liberals.

Um, yes you are.

The news story doesn’t say squat about what Buddhi’s politics are; the blogger just assumes he’s a “liberal” and then proceeds to make vicious and unfounded generalizations about all “liberals.”

After Malkin’s recent “let’s send death threats to those who disagree with us” episode you’d think any rightie with a conscience (or a brain) would be a little more humble about who’s more tolerant of whom.

The blogger goes on to say he’s received threats because of his views. Hey, buddy, welcome to my world! Do you really think “your” side doesn’t send threats and obscenities to us?

Clue: They do.

Update: I did another technorati search this morning and still haven’t found any liberals rushing to the defense of Vikram Buddhi. Will Randy correct his error? Will pigs fly?

Malkin Watch

Posted on by

The rightie excuse for Malkin’s publishing of names and phone numbers (see previous post for background) is that the names and phone numbers were on a press release (see Joe Gandelman, who is a nice guy, for an explanation). If they hadn’t wanted their names and phone numbers made public, why were they on a press release?

And the answer is, press releases always come with the name and contact information of someone responsible for the press release, either above or below the text of the news release. This is so journalists can call that individual for more information or to confirm the relase is legitimate. Without such contact information most news desk editors would pitch the release into the famous round file. But anyone who has worked in a newsroom for more than ten minutes understands that the contact information itself is not “released” unless it appears in the text of the release.

The other excuse: “Lefties do it too.” As I’ve said many times, the foundation of all rightie moral standards is Billy hit me first and variations thereof. I regret that there are some people who lack the common sense and impulse control to not stoop to the level of sending Malkin obscene email. However, that doesn’t excuse what Malkin did.

The outrage over Michelle Malkin’s unethical and un-American behavior is growing. From around the blogosphere:

The Peking Duck: “The Badness of Michelle Malkin”

Not that there was ever any doubt, but the fire-breathing Ms. Maglalang once again proves that she’s purely bad news, a reckless bullying demagogue who has abandoned even the pretense of human decency. And I mean it. She represents the worst of the worst of the right-wing Wurlitzer.

Roxanne: “Send her a pair of toenail clippers.” OK.

TBogg: “Mickey & Mallory Malkin Go To College”

Really now. Did anyone expect any less of Michelle and Jesse Malkin than to use her C-level fame to launch her chromosomally damaged readers after some college students at UC Santa Cruz? C’mon, it’s not like she wants to limit her career options to three minute appearances on Fox with O’Reilly (did you know Bill never wears pants when she’s on? You can look it up) and book signings at Young Fleshy Slightly Damp College Republican conventions. Not when a horse-faced Ann Coulter is pulling down $30K an appearance to blurt out post-9/11 Andrew Dice Clay-isms in a voice that is about two octaves lower than Clays. Michelle is cute (and crazy)! And perky (and crazy)! And her soul is deader than Bob Dole’s dick (…and she’s crazy!). She deserves the big bucks and if she has to write like a tweaker with a raging yeast infection to get some attention, well, deal with it. She’s not going to be ignored! No slight to America is too small for Michelle not to fake a back-arching ragegasm guaranteed to engorge her loyal one-handed readers as they alt-tab back and forth between her site and bukakebitches.com.

PZ Myers, Pharyngula: “I’ll Take Anger Over Sleaze Any Day”

I don’t quite understand this etiquette thing. So Maryscott O’Connor is angry about war and corruption and our incompetent administration, and that’s bad. Naughty leftist, she should be better mannered and respectful to our president, no matter how badly he screws up.

Meanwhile, Michelle Malkin sics her mouth-breathing minions on some college-aged peace activists, and they get swamped with death threats from right wingers. And she does it twice, even after learning what kind of sewage her pals are spewing.

Hmmm. Decisions, decisions. Angry denunciations of political actions vs. vicious but infantile threats. Unstinting demands that our leaders do right vs. outrageous extortion. Which side do I want to be on?

I’ll pick the door on the left, Bob. Without hesitation.

Phoenix Democrat at Kos: “Michelle Malkin Is a Nazi”

She posted the phone numbers and E-mail addresses of activists who belong to Students Against War (SAW) in response to their campaign to have military recruiters removed off the University of California – Santa Cruz campus. She did this with every intent to have her fans contact and bombard them with hate, intolerance to free speech and death threats.

Yet, the fascist hypocrite cries that she gets hateful E-mail sent to her. I’m willing to bet that all the “hate mail” she cuts and pastes on her stupid site was typed by none other than HER, so she could say “look at what the liberals sent me, waaaaahhhhhh …” [UPDATE: Let’s assume Malkin really did get the nasty email she posted. I don’t doubt she does get some nasty email from lefties. I know I get plenty of it from righties, although I usually don’t whine about it.]

This is the tactic that ALL conservatives employ in an attempt to stifle free speech and turn the United States of America into a fascist dictatorship. More recently, Democratic congressional candidate Nick Lampson, running for Tom DeLay’s congressional seat, had his press conference disrupted by DeLay’s goon squad. There was pushing and shoving, a member of Lampson’s campaign was physically assaulted by a DeLay supporter and the police just stood there and made no arrests.

Chris Bowers, MyDD: “A Modest Proposal: The ‘No Death Threat’ Litmus Test For Bloggers.” Tongue in cheek, this:

Since I know that the WaPo is hot in search of a new conservative blogger in order to balance out original commentary and / or reporting with plagiarism, I would like to propose a simple “no death threat” litmus test for them as they conduct their search. For starters, don’t hire any blogger who posts private phone numbers of college students. Perhaps more importantly, don’t hire any blogger whose readers call said phone numbers and issue death threats to said college students. I would take this a step further, and suggest that the Post doesn’t hire anyone who blogrolls the death threat issuing blog, but that would exclude around 90% of the conservative blogosphere from consideration. Malkin, is the second most blogrolled conservative blog in the country, with 4,947 conservative blogs giving her a permanent link.

I, for one, can proudly say that the MyDD community has never posted private phone numbers and then had our readers call those numbers and issue death threats via said phone numbers. I plan to continue our no death threat policy, even though I realize that we now live in an era when issuing death threats to legal protesters has become commonplace. I know that there is debate about this in some circles, but I believe that issuing death threats to private citizens is, generally speaking, opposed to the principles of democratic discourse. I know that some say death threats help create balance in our contemporary political discourse, in order to counter those commentators who do not issue death threats. After all, how else can we make certain that those people who issue death threats are properly represented in our non-death threat issuing liberal media?

Peeking Under the Rock: “Michelle Malkin v. the Central Coast” (blogging from Santa Cruz):

She’s not the first person to disparage us: Ronald Reagan called my alma mater a “cross between a hippie craash pad and a whorehouse,” while I was there (or maybe the year before I got there,I forget). And don’t forget, the Homeland Security folks, whoi can’t be bothered to investigate or prosecute the right-wing militia types who actually murder people, have called these kids a “credible threat.”

Brad R., Sadly, No: “Michelle Malkin Does Not Live by the Same Code of Ethics as Normal Human Beings”

Yep, Another Goddamned Blog:

Apparently, Malkin herself is becoming even more unhinged as last night wore on. Now she’s posting her hate mail in an update of her own, resorting to the usual name-calling, blah blah blah and posting the very few comments from Kos that don’t outright condemn her.

Feel the love, Little Lulu. You earned it.

Updates —

Upper Left:

My beliefs about the assault on free speech by the UC Santa Cruz Students Against War are a matter of record. Even if you thought my crack about brown shirts and peace symbols was over the line perhaps you’ll share my observation that Ms. Malkin and her minions have added the colorful arm band and lightning bolt collar tabs to the ensemble.

Malkin’s inciting to a virtual riot, and the risk of the entire episode resulting in potentially tragic consequences in meat world is very real. Ezra is too kind, extending pity to a pundit whose only effective rhetorical tool is hatred. No, her act was informed, deliberate and viscious. As misbegotten as their behavior may have been, I don’t doubt that the students were acting from a misguided idealism. They thought suppression of speech was a reasonable trade off against stopping the war. They were wrong.

Malkin has no such idealism to claim. Her motive is calculated malice.

Carla, Preemptive Karma:

Malkin’s inability to muster up even basic scruples here is astounding–especially for a woman of her age. Anyone with even a rudimentary set of life experiences and maturity would know better than to put other people’s lives in danger this way.

Those who are threatening these students may be little more than keyboard cowards, hiding behind their pixels in an effort to compensate for a case of shriveled dick syndrome. But it only takes one whacko to do serious damage.

Steve Gilliard:

You would think Malkin wouldn’t have to stoop to encouraging the stalking of college kids to make her point.

Here’s a woman with a marriage, a child and a good job. Why would she think this was OK? I don’t know anyone who would post her personal information online. It just isn’t done. Does she think she wouldn’t bear any legal responsiblity if someone is harmed. Even if a case is tossed, that’s one ruined reputation and a large legal bill, at a minimum.

Another update: Ms. Shakes —

The heir-apparent to the heinous little niche of unhinged hatemongering which Ann Coulter has carved out for herself, Michelle Malkin, is really making moves to unseat the queen these days.


Georgia10 —

Malkin’s sustenance is hate–without it, she wouldn’t have anything to write about. She thrives on the misery and pain of others as she peddles in racism and inflammatory rhetoric. And her readers eat it up.

Dr. Atrios:

If Malkin had pulled down their phone numbers after being asked it wouldn’t be a big deal. They did put it on their press release. When I post press releases I usually try to remember to pull out the contact information, though I probably haven’t always remembered to do so. But if someone asked me to pull it down I would. The fact that a number has been made public somewhere on the internets does not mean that number should be posted on this blog as an encouragement for my readers to call it.

Taylor Marsh:

But phone numbers on the web reach a lot of people. It’s an invasion of personal privacy that could put people in further danger. For that act she received some pretty testy and profanity-laced emails, which she also shows on her blog.

Sticks and stones, baby, words are not going to hurt you. Yes, phone numbers can always be changed. One wonders how fast Malkin’s lawyer would whip into action if someone put her private number on the web.