you just can't make this stuff up

"Crook" over at Crooks and Liars asks a good question:

"A right-wing news anchor intentionally and unarguably lies about what FDR said about social security.  A right-wing journalist turns out to be a gay prostitute.  A right-wing president appoints a criminal to be the chief of US intelligence.  The RNC chair accuses Howard Dean of being a racist.  The NY State GOP chair associates Howard Dean with a traitor.  A right-wing blog accuses a former president of being a traitor.  Then they do it again.  Another right-wing blogger accuses a US Senator of being a traitor. 


Is it just me or does it seem like the right-wing is really losing its collective mind these days?"

Every time I really think they've gone as far as they can go, they just go further. And further. Jeebus.

Update: Is this Russia?

The plot is thickening in the case of the American who was detained without charge or evidence in Saudi Arabia.

Seems he's turned up on U.S. soil in the hands of the Justice Department, which is charging him with conspiracy to assassinate Dubya. At least they've charged him with something this time.

Holden breaks it down at First Draft.

NOTE: Should this guy be proven guilty, I hope he goes away for a long, long time. The trouble I have with this situation is that he was held for 20 months without being charged, on foreign soil. That's illegal. And it's wrong. And, as I said in my previous post, it sets a dangerous precedent. That is, it paves the way for the government of the United States to circumvent constitutionality by using a foreign government as an agent in detaining American Citizens. If you think about that and it doesn't scare you, I don't know what will.

Oh yeah, and he's claiming he's been tortured, and has the scars on his back to prove it, which is just another indication that we're outsourcing more than jobs these days.

Update to the Update: And because it wouldn't be a story without one, there's also a great, and revealing, diary at Kos that fleshes this stuff out even more.

If You Read One Thing This Week...

... take the time to read this Kos Diary by Stirling Newbury.

In the diary, entitled "The Rise of Rove's Republic", Newbury attempts to tie together the threads of the current neo-conservative agenda, and in doing so, take a broad, historical perspective. He is trying to show us the forest for the trees, and knit together the various despicable policy moves of the right wing into a coherent picture of their strategy:

"The Bash part is the one that people who follow media consolidation and reporting failure, voting irregularities, the loss of civil rights, the "torturization" of the Justice Department, the demonization of gays, the freeping of the Democratic Party - or anyone else that stands in Bush's way - are following. Bash is the strategy of making discourse more vicious, more polarized and more partisan. It is also a key part of the popularity of Governor, now DNC Chair, Howard Dean. He was the first major politician to stand up on the Democratic side and state, bluntly and honestly, that the Bash strategy was working and that the Democratic Party could not simply act like an abused spouse. It is why he is now the most visible politician in the Democratic Party, because the Bash strategy is the most visible political effect. It alters every constitutional arrangement - from making impeachment in the eye of the beholder, to how budgets are passed."

[snip]

"The Break part is the part that riles the attention of people like Paul Krugman - it is the disintegration of the way of doing business of the old liberal order. Are you worried about the budget deficit? The disintegration of the dollar? The politicization of government agencies? The intelligent design movement? The bizarre economic projections used to rationalize tax breaks and social security abolition? Then congratulations, you are worried about how the Republicans are breaking the economy and the social order that keeps the economy running."

[snip]

"The key change in the economy that has pushed the rise of the Republican party since 1969 is a change of the money system away from being based on assets - which is under the control of the people in their day to day economic, community and social activity, a truly grass roots money system in that the basic supply of money is governed by the value that people create - to one being based on oil. Oil is not something that people can create. Nor does conservation at the grass roots level help - because someone else will simply use the oil or energy you save to compete against you. Oil comes from a few places, and the money system is then under control of those places. The President became, in effect, the minister of oil."

[snip]

"We must tell Americans that the Republicans are trying to create a top-down economy, and that the social security schemes that Bush is pushing are the crucial step. We must tell Americans that the nastiness and bashing come from the Republicans, and are the result of America not having a national project, a great vision to pursue. And we must tell Americans that history and circumstances have forced us to make great decisions which will determine the course of the next two generations, and that such moments are not to be backed into, nor decided by default."

Read the rest here. I would write more on it, but I'm still trying to digest all of this.

"I would do anything for Freedom, but I won't do that..."

...but then again, maybe I will.

Speaking of attacking Iran...the President did his best to ease concerns about US intentions.

BRUSSELS, Belgium (AP) -- U.S. President George W. Bush said Tuesday that it is "simply ridiculous" to assume that the United States has plans to attack Iran over its alleged nuclear weapons program after discussing the issue with European allies.

"This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous. Having said that, all options are on the table," Bush said.

So, essentially, what the President has said is that it's not ridiculous to assume the US plans to attack Iran, since that would be an option. Maybe not the best option, but an option. And he clearly stated that "all options are on the table."

I think he went on to explain that it would be ridiculous to say he was going to eat lunch, but having said that, he was keeping his lunch options open.

Gannon-arama

Keith Olbermann comments nicely on Guckert's ridiculous claims of invasion of privacy and points to the fake reporters own lack of understanding the basic nature of the real media - it's all fair game. If you're gonna play the game, you better know the rules. Once you've made yourself a public figure (even one hiding behind a made-up name), everything you say and do in public (which includes posting naked pics of yourself on the internet, genius) is fair game.

But Olbermann's conclusion is what's most telling, I think:

“I can’t speak to the White House vetting process,” Guckert/Gannon told CNN in the only answer he gave that even bordered on being substantive. “I suppose that they don’t - they aren’t interested in reporters’ sexual history either.” This would come as a surprise to the ABC producer/reporter in Iraq who was outed by the infamous Matt Drudge (because, as Drudge told The Washington Post, “Someone in the White House communications shop tipped me to it”) as being not only gay, but Canadian.

Again...it all goes back to the White House. With Dubya trying his darndest to charm the knickers off of "old" Europe, the media should be pressing the issue as to who in the White House allowed Guckert in to the press briefings in the first place, who leaked him info, and who put him up to it. Do not let up on this story - Guckert is only one degree of separation away from someone high up on the food chain, and the dangling threads are crying out to be pulled together.

Reflecting on 9/11, Bush Administration

A good editorial in the LA Times today re-raises some issues about the events surrounding 9/11 that we should not soon forget.

The most important of these is that the action (or rather, inaction) of the Bush Administration leading up to 9/11 directly impacted the eventual level of devastation that occured on that September morning.

"The terrible fact is that the administration took none of the steps that would have put the protection of human life ahead of a diverse set of economic and political interests, which included not offending our friends the Saudis and not hurting the share prices of airline corporations."

From ignoring the warnings of dozens of security briefings regarding Al Qaeda to the grounding of a portion of our air marshalls out of deference to airline industry profits, our government failed in its primary responsibility to do everything it could to protect its citizens.

It's true what the right wing loves to say, that everything changed on 9/11.

What changed was the Bush Administration's ability to spend us recklessly into debt, wage bloody wars under false pretenses, revoke our civil liberties while promoting intolerance, and systematically roll back and dismantle the social programs of The New Deal. And they've been able to do all of this nearly unchecked by a press and mainstream media that has become so lazy that they can't even raise a cry over the fact that a male hooker has been posing as a press gaggle journo for the last two years. Even their territory has been invaded, and, so far, they have overwhelmingly looked the other way.

What They Want You to Think... And the Truth

The same douchebags who brought you the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth have launched the first salvo to try to discredit the AARP for not supporting Social Security privatization. They're running this ad at the American Spectator:





But here's the REAL agenda of the Bush Administration.

It's not just DOMESTIC lawsuits the President hates...

...it's apparently lawsuits of any kind. Even lawsuits by former American POWs who have successfully sued - and won their case against - Saddam Hussein. I guess we're extending the term "junk lawsuits" to encompass lawsuits against the deposed dictator's regime now. That wacky President - he must really hate lawyers. Or America. I'll report - you decide.

The next time the President or anyone from this administration says they support the troops, ask them why they don't support American POWs. We already know the disdain they have for actual war heroes based on their treatment of John McCain, Max Cleland, and John Kerry. But the Administration has sunk to an all new level of slime with this latest episode.

The Bush administration is fighting the former prisoners of war in court, trying to prevent them from collecting nearly $1 billion from Iraq that a federal judge awarded them as compensation for their torture at the hands of Saddam Hussein's regime.

The rationale: Today's Iraqis are good guys, and they need the money.

On the one side, you have the Bush Administration and Hussein's regime of torture. And on the other, American POWs and the Geneva Convention. Hmmmmm. Which side should the Bush Administration be on?

Sayeth Scott McClellan:

"No amount of money can truly compensate these brave men and women for the suffering that they went through at the hands of this very brutal regime and at the hands of Saddam Hussein," White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan told reporters when asked about the case in November 2003.

And apparently, the current Administration has taken that to heart, trying to deny AMERICAN SERVICE MEMBERS any compensation.


But Iraq needs that money more, whines Scotty on behalf of his masters.

"These resources are required for the urgent national security needs of rebuilding Iraq," McClellan said.

Well, then, how about this: ignoring Iraq's abuse against our troops violates the Geneva Convention.

The case also tests a key provision of the Geneva Convention, the international law that governs the treatment of prisoners of war. The United States and other signers pledged never to "absolve" a state of "any liability" for the torture of POWs.

Oh, but wait. This Administration hates the Geneva Convention. It's "quaint" and "obsolete."

Former Army lawyer Jeffrey Addicott sums it up best:

"Our government is on the wrong side of this issue," said Jeffrey F. Addicott, a former Army lawyer and director of the Center for Terrorism Law at St. Mary's University in San Antonio. "A lot of Americans would scratch their heads and ask why is our government taking the side of Iraq against our POWs."

And that's the bottom line: WHY?

The answer is simple: This Administration does not support our troops. They may talk a good game, but they don't support our troops in deed, nor do they support our troops in spirit. I could go through the horrific torture that these truly brave men endured, but you can read all about it in the article. Because the more I write about this, the more outraged I am that the only thing standing between them and justice is George. W. Bush. He's just plain wrong. And all the Tobey Keith songs in the world can't make Bush right on this issue.

File Under: Is this Russia?

I direct you to an editorial in the Washington Post this morning (via Kos, with more at Talk Left) regarding the imprisonment of Ahmed Abu Ali, a U.S. citizen arrested in Saudi Arabia in 2003. Apparently, attorneys from the Justice Department don't want to tell anyone, including the judge involved, why they're holding Ali, nor show any evidence that should require his continued imprisonment:

"Attorneys for the Justice Department appeared before a federal judge in Washington this month and asked him to dismiss a lawsuit over the detention of a U.S. citizen, basing their request not merely on secret evidence but also on secret legal arguments. The government contends that the legal theory by which it would defend its behavior should be immune from debate in court. This position is alien to the history and premise of Anglo-American jurisprudence, which assumes that opposing lawyers will challenge one another's arguments."

Now, I have no problem detaining suspected terrorists, holding them, questioning them, and extracting from them what we can if it's helpful in tracking down more terrorists. But this kind of situation is really beyond the pale. We have an American citizen who is being denied the rights allowed him by not only the Constitution, but also the historical legacy of western legal theory. The fact that attorneys for the government are both citing "secret evidence" for holding a citizen without charges and the judge in the matter is actually seriously considering the case (rather than throwing it out and releasing the man, unless the evidence is brought to light) strikes me as quite dangerous and potentially devastating to the standards of due process.

There are many prisoners still being held by the U.S. government in places all over the world. These individuals very well may be guilty of terrorism, or even terrorism-related-activities, but the lack of convictions (forget the lack of trials, even), implies that our government doesn't really have anything to pin them with in the first place. Arguments that they may possess vital information fade now that they've been held for years. Afterall, how up to date could this info be if they've been locked up in Gitmo for the last 2-3 years without so much as a visit with an attorney?

In this case, the prisoner has an attorney, but the government won't disclose any evidence against him because it has deemed this information "secret". So the Justice attorneys are citing a legal argument they won't divulge in order to convince the judge to dismiss the case brought against them for holding the defendant.

"Judge Bates is cautious and generally deferential to government concerns. Yet he was evidently disturbed by this argument, at one point asking whether the government could identify "any case in which . . . even the legal theory for dismissal is not known to the other side?" The government could not.

This kind of argument is historically unprecedented and incredibly alarming. A core tenet of jurisprudence in the United States rests in the concept that a defendant has the right to face his accusers in court and challenge their evidence against him. In this case, a U.S. citizen has spent the last 20 months in a Saudi prison without even being charged with a crime. He is suing not for his release, but for the right to understand the reasons for his detention, and examine the evidence against him. He is asking for the basic right to confront his accuser and answer any charges brought against him (which are yet forthcoming). To set a precedent of detention without charge and the witholding of evidence as we have in this case is to betray the core philosophy of western law itself.

Under no circumstances should we ever fool ourselves into thinking that we have to become more like our enemies in order to defeat them. The more we turn towards the gestapo tactics seen in Guantanamo and Abu Graihb, the more our enemies are winning. If we give up our democratic traditions for the cause of fighting terrorism, we have already lost the war, because we will have become what we are fighting.

The pressure to remove any semblance of judicial review from executive action, and also indict the attorneys who choose to defend suspected terrorists points towards a move away from traditional western legal precedent, and towards an environment of uncertainty and fear when it comes to receiving a fair trial, free of intimidation and the kind of witch-hunting that characterized the McCarthy era. But it seems that that's what the right wing in this country wants. It also means we have to fight back as hard as ever. I don't want to lose the country I love to hate-mongers, fear peddlers, and "patriots" who smear as traitors those who choose to stand up and question their government.

Do not misunderestimate him

There's going to be a lot said about these secret Gee Dubya tapes, but one thing is certain - the man is no fool. In fact, I think some of the excerpts actually make him seem to be quite a sympathetic character - a guy who's screwed up and wants others to learn from his mistakes. The tapes also paint a picture of a shrewd politician, certain of what he wants and in complete control of crafting his public image and his political strategy...contrary to very popular belief.


Now. The question of how "real" these tapes are still lingers. It almost seems too good to be true for Dubya. Sure, he admits to drug use on the tapes - but we all kind of knew that anyway. For the first time, we get what seems to be an honest and earnest answer to the controversial issue.

"I don't want any kid doing what I tried to do 30 years ago," Bush said in recordings made when he was governor of Texas and aired Monday on ABC's "Good Morning America." "And I mean that. It doesn't matter if it's LSD, cocaine, pot, any of those things, because if I answer one, then there will be another one. And I just am not going to answer those questions. And it may cost me the election."

Sounds like a responsible, reasonably thought-out, and carefully calculated decision on Dubya's part. The tapes also reveal an interesting tidbit where he refuses to overtly discriminate against gays because of Evangelical pressure, saying that he won't discriminate against anyone. Spoken like a true "uniter."

The tapes were recorded by Doug Wead, a former aide to President George Herbert Walker Bush and, as he stated on CNN this morning, he still remains friends with the President. The tapes humanize the President, while simultaneously revealing a political savvy that we seldom see in public.

My feeling is that these tapes will ultimately firmly cement Dubya's political legacy as a man who made mistakes but tried to correct them. A man who refused to give in to political pressure from the far right and managed to navigate through the rocky terrain of political life. A man of strong conviction and a captain of his own destiny.

In short, more propaganda from the Ministry of Truth.

You say tomato...

...and I say you're lying!

From Ari Fleischer's February 17th (2005) interview with Editor and Publisher:

"I found out that he worked for a GOP site, and I didn't think it was my place to call on him because he worked for something that was related to the party," Fleischer said in a phone interview. "He had the editor call me and made the case that they were not related to the Republican Party. He said they used the GOP name for marketing purposes only."

He said he resumed calling on Guckert, who used the alias Jeff Gannon, after Bobby Eberle, owner of both GOPUSA and Talon News, "assured me that they were not part of the Republican Party." Eberle is a Texas Republican activist and served as a delegate to the 2000 Republican National Convention.

Fleischer has not previously commented on the Gannon/Guckert affair. (emphasis mine)

He continues:

But he said he did not know at the time that Guckert had been using a false name and did not know if Scott McClellan, now press secretary but then Fleischer's aide, had known then either. "It came as a surprise to me, because I always knew him as Jeff Gannon," he said. Fleischer said he did not know of any other White House reporters using aliases.

From Bobby Eberle's February 20th (2005) interview with the New York Times:

Mr. Eberle, breaking his silence about details of the events, which have been portrayed by Democrats as a Republican effort to manipulate news, said it took him by surprise in early 2003 when the freelancer he had taken on as Jeff Gannon said he was gaining White House accreditation under the name James D. Guckert. "He said Gannon was his professional name; he didn't like the sound of his other name," Mr. Eberle recounted.

Mr. Eberle, 36, an aerospace engineer with a penchant for conservative politics, said the disclosure raised no red flags about Mr. Guckert's journalistic credentials or professionalism.

Mr. Eberle said that in the two years that Mr. Guckert worked for him, he had not kept track of his volunteer reporter.

And then there's this little gem:

Mr. Eberle, who once worked for Lockheed Martin and says he prefers to keep his current employer unidentified, said that he was not bankrolled by any backers and that he and his wife had made few Republican contributions. Texas Republicans said he was not well known in the party.

So which one is it? Was he being admitted to the White House as James Guckert? In which case, he would have been identified as such and his giant security badge would clearly read James Guckert. Or was he admitted as Jeff Gannon? Because Ari says he only knew him as Gannon, but Eberle says the White House admitted him as Guckert. You'd think, in their little phone conversation, the subject would've come up. You know. Since Eberle was vouching for the male gigolo and all. You'd think the fact that James/Jeff had an alias would be discussed.

Which then brings up another question. If, as the NYT reports, he was "not well known in the party," how the hell did he get Ari friggin' Fleischer - then White House Press Secretary - on the PHONE?! Don't tell me that as an editor, he'd have been given easy access to Fleischer himself. GOPUSA was barely a blip on the radar. Supposedly. It's not like the editor of Newsweek was calling. According to Eberle, and for all intents and purposes, it was just some guy from Texas who ran a conservative website calling up the White House.

But let's test out a theory. Go start a website. Post a few press releases. Then try to get the White House Press Secretary on the phone so that you can assign a reporter to cover White House press briefings. See how far you get. Post your results. Get cracking on it now, and let me know how it turns out.

And how does someone who is "unknown in the party" get elected as a delegate to the 2000 Convention? Please don't tell me that lots of people are national delegates. I know how it works. My father's been elected as a delegate to Democratic National Conventions - on and off - since 1980. I've been elected as a delegate to the MA Democratic State Conventions on a few occasions myself. I'm very familiar with the process. I imagine that the Republican process is pretty much the same (maybe a few more secret rituals and crooked business deals, but pretty much the same). If you're elected as a delegate, you're known - at some level - in the party. At the very least, Eberle had to have been known enough on the State level to be elected as a delegate. And what state is he from? Oh, yes. Texas. So - Eberle's trying to say that when the Texas-Governor was the GOP nominee for President, he just happened to luck out and become a national delegate from the Republican Presidential candidate's home State?! In a crucial election year? Absurd. Anyone who was a national delegate from Texas that year had to have been some high-level Texas partisan.

This is insulting to our intelligence now. The lies, the inconsistencies, the absurdity - it's clear. They think we're so stupid that we'll buy this junk. And they have such contempt for the mainstream media, that they planted a gay hooker posing as a journalist in the White House press briefings - a literal media whore. And it took the media TWO YEARS to figure it out. The bloggers have done all the heavy lifting and difficult legwork. Now it's time for the Mainstream Media to do their jobs and nail these guys.

The stories are full of holes and unanswered questions, all of which NEED to be answered.

Gannuckert is no longer the meat of the story - so to speak. The story is now about how Republican operatives - from the President's home state of Texas - managed to gain unfettered access to the White House, authorized at the highest levels of government. The trail keeps leading us right back to TEXAS. How many roads must a man walk down before we figure out they all take us to Texas?* It's time we finally just admit that Texas Republicans have been wagging the dog for years.

*The geeky answer - for all you Douglas Adams fans - would, of course, be 42.