Interesting denial on the origin of the "Schiavo Memo" in the Senate from  Robert Traynham, spokesman for Republican Conference Chairman Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania.

In a nutshell, I can just simply tell you that no, we have nothing to do with that memo; no we have not seen that memo; we have nothing to do with circulating that memo. . . Senator Santorum had nothing to do with it. Neither did any member of his staff at the personal level or the leadership level.

Lots of detail about those levels there, hmmm.....  Of course, the Washington Times thinks that just because all Republican's deny giving out the memo, it must be a Republican Plant, despite the fact that passages were lifted from the website of Sen. Mel Martinez of Florida.  Under that set of logic, Nixon didn't do a damn thing.  Imagine that, Watergate with the Washington Times around.  Would have been different, I must say.

Front Page:  Washington Post: DeLay's 1997 Travel Questioned

Front Page:  New York Times: Political Groups Paid Two Relatives Of House Leader

Oh, Bugman, come out and plaaaaaaaay!

The mission of the District Attorney's Office is to see that justice is done by providing the highest quality legal representation for the public . . . A state-funded division of the office investigates and prosecutes crimes related to the operation of state government . . .

Go slow, Ronnie, go slow.

April 4, 2005

Hon. John Cornyn
517 Hart Senate Office Bldg.
Washington, DC 20510

     Re: Comments on Senate Floor, April 4, 2005

By Fax and Mail

Dear Senator Cornyn:

It is with great disappointment that I read in news accounts this evening that you, on the floor of the United States Senate, have suggested that a recent spate of courtroom violence is the result of justifiable public anger at judicial decisions.  Your statement implied that the murderers of a state judge in Atlanta and the family of federal judge in Chicago were somehow justified in their actions.  Such remarks can serve only to undermine the respect for justice which is essential to a nation of laws and show a profound lack of respect for the victims of these senseless tragedies.  I ask that you retract your words on the floor of the United States Senate, and in a televised press conference so that the damage you have wrought may be undone.  I also respectfully suggest that a public apology to the families harmed by the recent violence is in order.

A close look at the words you spoke on the floor of the United States Senate this evening makes clear that the remarks were wholly inappropriate:

I don't know if there is a cause-and-effect connection but we have seen some recent episodes of courthouse violence in this country. Certainly nothing new, but we seem to have run through a spate of courthouse violence recently that's been on the news and I wonder whether there may be some connection between the perception in some quarters on some occasions where judges are making political decisions yet are unaccountable to the public, that it builds up and builds up and builds up to the point where some people engage in - engage in violence.  Certainly without any justification but a concern that I have that I wanted to share.

This statement implies that the murderers of Judge Rowland Barnes in Atlanta, Georgia and the family of U.S. District Court Judge Joan Lefkow in Chicago were somehow justified in assaulting officers of the court because they were rightly angry about decisions made by those jurists.  Although you sought to qualify your remark, the meaning of the first two sentences is clear—the current spate of judicial violence is the result of citizens’ justifiable anger at decisions made by judges. 

This statement implies that the murderers of Judge Rowland Barnes in Atlanta, Georgia and the family of U.S. District Court Judge Joan Lefkow in Chicago were somehow justified in assaulting officers of the court because they were rightly angry about decisions made by those jurists.  Although you sought to qualify your remark, the meaning of the first two sentences is clear—the current spate of judicial violence may be the result of citizens’ justifiable anger at decisions made by judges. 

The speculative nature of your statement does not excuse the error.  The mere suggestion that these acts of cold-blooded murder were the result of anything other than evil intent on the part of the killers gravely undermines the respect for law and order which is this country’s strength and demeans the memory of the jurists who gave their lives in the service of the community.

It is my understanding that these statements were made in the midst of a political debate about the use of filibusters during votes on federal judicial nominees.  While I understand that you are personally opposed to the practice, no political gain is worth the damage done to the institution of the judiciary and the families of those who have lost loved ones at the hands of these killers.

I therefore ask that you publicly retract your statements, not only on the floor of the United States Senate, but also in a televised press conference, where the effect of your retraction will work to undo some of the harm that they have done.  I also respectfully suggest that a public apology to the families of those brutally murdered in these tragedies is in order.

                                      Sincerely yours,

                                      RW

cc:    Hon. Willam Frist
        Pres. George W. Bush
        file

From one of J. Scott Barnard's Comments below:

Bush didn't put a big 'ol footprint in the middle of Iraq because of WMD, haven't you folks realized this by now? It was simply ONE of the excuses he used among many for intervention.

You heard it right: WMD was one of the "excuses" Bush used.  Sounds like our 43rd President wasn't being honest with the people of the United States of America, and made up an "excuse" for invading Iraq.  Remember, he started talking about regime change and it polled horribly.  So out came the WMD story, which caught on like wildfire with a good chunk of the folks at home.

I think it is a President's duty to be honest with people for the reasons behind his policy decisions, especially decisions as momentous as going forth to war against another nation.  Bush failed to be honest with us.  His failure to be honest then is exactly the reason he has continued to fall in the eyes of ordinary Americans.

Not surprisingly his fall has accelerated because he continues to fail to tell the truth today.  Remember the beginnings of the Social Security debate?  Bush started out talking about a Social Security "crisis."  When sober, non-partisan analyses from both the OMB and the Social Security Trustees showed the benefit crunch in conservative scenarios coming decades in the future, the White House backed off from that claim.  Bush's people also dropped their claim that the accounts would solve the now non-existent "crisis" when called on that one as well.

Bush wants to get rid of Social Security for one reason and one reason only: he has turned a record surplus into a deficit which drags down our economy and binds each and every young person in America to pay off his debts to Asian central banks--and the Social Security Trust fund.  By getting rid of Social Security a large proportion of IOU's lent by the Trust Fund can be written off--in other words, he wants us to pay for his folly.

Trust me Scott, us folks "realized" Bush wasn't invading Iraq because of WMD the minute he started talking about it.  We also "realize" that he cares not a whit for the solvency of Social Security.

More of J. Scott Barnard at Burton Terrace.

The huge news footprint of the Shiavo story has left news from Iraq on the back pages.  However, the Iraqi war is entering a new phase--a phase where both failure and success are on the table in a new way.  In short, the "Insurgency" that U.S. forces have been engaging for the last two years cannot succeed on its own--conditions in the country must change for any serious anti-U.S. political regime to arise in Iraq.  However, the ethnic, religious and tribal difficulties that have sharpened recently could provide the catalyst for a wholesale change for the worse in Iraq.  Should these difficulties be overcome, the first steps towards an establishment of a stable, democratic Iraq can be taken.  Should these difficulties prove intractable, the result could be fatal for the U.S. mission for Iraq.

The "Insurgency" as it is known, is really made up of two insurgencies.  One was designed by Saddam Hussein and his loyalists along traditional lines as an asymmetrical counterweight to overwhelming U.S. firepower.  The second is a much smaller group of foreign terrorists whose media savvy has created an image that is much larger than its actual strength on the ground.  Neither has the power alone to win political power in Iraq without a major change in the course of the Iraqi nation.  Unfortunately for the U.S., such a change in the political course of the nation is more likely to occur now than at any other time.

The Sunni Insurgents

The Sunni Insurgents appear to be paid for and armed by a loose group of former Baathist/tribal leaders who have much to lose in the new Iraq.  They are certainly responsible for the majority of attacks in Iraq.  They may collaborate with the foreign terrorists from time to time, but are not led by them.  Their strength is their weakness.  As a decentralized force apparently designed to inflict damage on American occupation forces, they are able to avoid wholesale destruction through cell structure.  However, they appear to lack any real political leadership.  Some links with the Association of Muslim Scholars exist, however, there is no Sunni insurgent leader who can move masses--a necessary ingredient to a successful insurgency.

The Foreign Fighters   

These groups are more terroristic in nature.  The best known is Tanzim Qa'idat Al-Jihad in Bilad al-Rafidayn, or Al-Qaeda in Iraq, led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.  The group is much smaller than the Sunni insurgency groups, but cuts a larger media profile through its combination of video executions with internet-savvy.  Furthermore, the Bush Administration in the lead up to the 2004 elections placed a heavy emphasis on al-Zarqawi as an insurgent leader because his existence made it easier to link the September 11 attacks to the invasion of Iraq.  Of late, the foreign fighters, have focused their attacks on Shia in order to provoke ethnic strife in the country.

The Threat to Iraq's Future

The attacks on Shia have intensified because the real threats to a unified Iraq come from two potential sources: (1) generalized ethnic strife and (2) Shia alienation from a democratic, Western-backed Iraq.  Generalized ethnic strife could create the type of chaos that an anti-U.S. leader could exploit to rise to power in Iraq.  Should such a leader emerge in these conditions and gain mass adherence of Iraqis, it is doubtful the U.S. could remain in the country.  Similarly, if the Shia population became alienated and coalesced around a leader such as al-Sadr, the difficulties for the U.S. could become unbearable.

Whither Iraq?

The question is, therefore, whither Iraq?  The last two months have seen a decrease in U.S. casualties--but the current wrangling over the Iraqi power structure could prove the undoing of the relative stability of recent weeks.  Another unknown is Iran.  It is thought that Iranian state actors play a large role in supporting Shia leaders in Iraq--with various Iranian factions supporting differing brands of Iraqi Shia political groupings and styles.  This support has played an unknown role in shoring up the Shia and the Iraqi regime as a result.  Should the U.S. launch an attack on Iran, the Mullahs in Tehran could counter by fomenting trouble in Iraq. 

The cost of the Iraq adventure has been high for the U.S.  The nation has taken its eye off of the ball in the fight against global terrorism and instead finds itself fighting homegrown terrorists in Iraq.   Currently the state of Iraq is hopeful, but should the political solution fail, America has a long way to fall in Baghdad.

Earlier, I called Fox News' Josh Gibson's suggestion out for what it was--a fascist call to action to replace the government of laws which this nation has enjoyed for centuries with a naked appeal to power without regard for law. 

It seems Jeb took him up on it.  From the Miami Herald (Registration Required):

Hours after a judge ordered that Terri Schiavo was not to be removed from her hospice, a team of state agents were en route to seize her and have her feeding tube reinserted -- but they stopped short when local police told them they would enforce the judge's order, The Herald has learned.

Agents of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement told police in Pinellas Park, the small town where Schiavo lies at Hospice Woodside, on Thursday that they were on the way to take her to a hospital to resume her feeding.

For a brief period, local police, who have officers at the hospice to keep protesters out, prepared for what sources called "a showdown."

In the end, the squad from the FDLE and the Department of Children & Families backed down, apparently concerned about confronting local police outside the hospice.

"We told them that unless they had the judge with them when they came, they were not going to get in," said a source with the local police.

"The FDLE called to say they were en route to the scene," said an official with the city police who requested anonymity. "When the sheriff's department and our department told them they could not enforce their order, they backed off."

We are a nation of laws.  We must remain a nation of laws.

Hat tip: Talking Points Memo.

Update: 4:53 PM, Sat. March 26: Knight-Ridder Report on same incident.

Josh Marshall has it right:

From the relatively little I know of this case, there has been a truly unconscionable years-long campaign of slander and defamation against the husband -- accusing him of everything under the sun including attempted murder. But immediate families in such cases must always be judged by very different standards than the ones we rightly apply to the political sharks and outrage-addicts who swarm around these people to feed off their tragedy.

Yep.

America does not agree with George W. Bush on the Schiavo matter.  In a short period his approval rating has tanked.  Even Gallup has him down seven points to his lowest rating ever, 45%.  In the Gallup survey, for the first time, his disapproval rating exceeds his approval rating.  That number now stands at 49%.

This comes at a critical time for the President--the beginning of his second term when he is trying to push forward the most ambitious change in American social policy in 70 years, the dismantling of Social Security.  His political capital should be at an all time high.

Yet his Social Security plan is dead in the water.  He cannot fight new wars--the recruiting numbers alone guarantee that.

Meanwhile, the rivals for the Republican 2008 nomination must be taking a look at these developments.  If his approval rate continues at this dismal level, they will consider triangulating against him to win support against a weakened President.

But even more is at stake here--his legacy.  The soaring moments of his first term are memories clouded by the reality that much of what he has done has left America in a worse place it was before.  A now-meaningless war in Iraq and rising oil and gas prices have hurt the nation.  Even worse is the enormous deficit that he and his party have presided over these last four years. 

Bush needs help.  Now.  Here's hoping he doesn't get any.

Jeb, call out the troops, storm the Bastille and tell 'em I sent you. 
John Gibson of Fox News advising the executive of the State of Florida to break the law.

Hat Tip: Atrios.

Ouch.

This guy is an idiot.  When Richard Clarke testified in front of the 9/11 Commission, Frist got up and accused him of perjury because he had allegedly testified under oath differently in front of the Joint House-Senate Committee on September 11.  The next day I had a National Security Law and Policy class taught by the Chief Investigative Counsel of the Joint Committee.  He told us that Clarke had given the same testimony the first time and that it was not under oath.  Frist is an idiot.

Apparently, British Prime Minister Tony Blair is in a bit of a sticky wicket.  It is widely assumed he will ask for a dissolution of Parliament next week for an election to be scheduled May 5.  However, allegations that the invasion of Iraq lacked a legal basis under international law have surfaced--a big problem for the Prime Minister on the eve of the election.  Apparently his Attorney General concluded that there was no legal basis for the war, and was then asked to hire "outside counsel" to find a justification.  Magically, two weeks later, justification was found where earlier there was none before. 

Where will it go?  Stay tuned.

The Republican strategy memo--allegedly put out by Rick Santorum's office--was giddy in its anticipation of polticial gain--Republicans were going to capitalize on the Schiavo tragedy.

"This is an important moral issue, and the pro-life base will be excited that the Senate is debating this important issue," said the memo, reported by ABC News and later given to The Washington Post. "This is a great political issue, because Senator Nelson of Florida has already refused to become a co-sponsor and this is a tough issue for Democrats."

Yet here we are a week later and it is the Republican Party that has self-inflicted its own wedge.  The American people, millions of whom experienced the same agony faced by the actors in the Schiavo saga thoroughly repudiated the attempt by the GOP-dominated Congress and President Bush to interfere in the decision of a state court in Florida. 

Polls show an enormous 82% of Americans opposing the intervention of Tom DeLay and the President into the case.  These are numbers not normally seen in political polls.  When asked why the Congress became involved in the case, only 13% (THIS IS NOT A TYPO) of Americans felt it was for the benefit of Terri Schiavo.  A whopping 74% saw the political grandstanding for what it was, the ghoulish exploitation of the final act of a tragedy which has been going on for fifteen years.

The intervention, which came to naught today, played a role in the sudden down turn in both Congress' and Bush's approval numbers.  Currently, only 43% of Americans approve of the job that President Bush is doing.  For the GOP-dominated Congress, the numbers are even worse.  Only 34% of Americans approve of the job that Congress is doing right now.  These are the worst numbers since the ill-fated Clinton impeachment fiasco hit the Republicans in 1997.  Amazingly, the poll heavily oversampled Republicans.  All of this despite the 24-hour exploitation fest going on on the cable networks.

It is clear that the Republican party has lost its touch in the weeks since the Presidential election.  On to 2006.

Mayor Tony Williams--now unstoppable.  His new budget has it all, tax relief, help for the poor, you name it.  No wonder every single councilmember is singing his praises.  The man with the plan.  Look for a third term.

With robust tax revenue and a record $1.2 billion in reserve, Williams proposes to spend more than $500 million on new programs and services. He would fund day care for 1,200 children on a city waiting list, job training for 800 chronically unemployed residents and a campaign to lure businesses to the District's historic boulevards, such as Georgia Avenue NW and the eastern reaches of Pennsylvania Avenue.

For the first time in his six-year tenure, the mayor's budget calls for "significant broad and progressive tax relief" with specific benefits for poor and disabled homeowners burdened by skyrocketing property taxes.

"This budget funds ground-breaking initiatives that will reshape the physical landscape of the District of Columbia and strengthen our social fabric in a fiscally responsible and balanced manner,"

Competent leadership.  Its what its all about.