Powerline on Abramoff:

In a spirit of honesty, however, I admit that I'd like to see Abramoff left alone in large part because, instead of spending the millions of dollars he raked in on Ferraris and yachts, he lavishly spent it on causes that I think are good and important.

. . . Yes, I have a conflict of interest — and such conflicts, arising from one's political or moral value system, can be more powerful than conflicts that arise from the scent of money. I wish Abramoff's tormentors would be similarly honest. Let them admit their own wish to see the political consequences of the Abramoff affair that they, simulating disinterest, now predict.

Corruption in Congress needs to be punished, whomever does it.  I guess the argument is that if Democrats oppose naked corruption, they should be stopped from ending it because Mammon is serving God now.  And the Republicans wonder how they got here.

As for me wishing poltical consequences--you bet.  Because the party in power is a party of power walking wrapped in the stolen robes of saints.  As corrupt as some Democrats have been, they knew what they were.  That doesn't justify what they did, it just makes the sins of the current rulers so much worse.

We'll be seeing more of this bitter invective as the Republican machine heads for its inevitable crash.  What we won't see is an admission of truth:  that these Republicans never let a moral belief get in the way of the means.

Finally, an Iraqi party gets it:

The meeting noted that the stalemate in forming the government has significant meanings, as it continues under two contradictions: with the occupation forces, on one hand, and with the anti-people and anti-democratic forces, on the other hand. Two years after the fall of Saddam's regime, our country is still in a state of seeking an alternative.  It is an alternative that our party, along with all the forces that truly aspire to liberation and a free dignified life, strive to be the national democratic alternative: a democratic, federal, pluralistic alternative, and state institutions  based on justice and the rule of law".

"The struggle is currently taking place between competing forces and groups, against a background of the negative dimension of elections, manifested in sectarian-nationalist polarization and lack of political and election awareness. This struggle is about visions for Iraq's political future. This is taking place under an unstable balance of forces caused by the lack of participation of broad sections of the population in elections due to the deteriorating security situation in some areas and the refusal by some forces to take part. This indicates a potential re-alignment of forces in the forthcoming phase of the political process".

"Increasing numbers of the electorate now realize, amid feelings of frustration and bitterness, that the bickering between the winners is over the distribution of positions and cabinet posts, in accordance with the infamous rule of dividing up these positions along sectarian-nationalist lines. This rule should have been brought to an end by the elections, rather than being reinforced, in a stark sign of utter disregard for the people's interests, their needs and aspirations.

Too bad they are the Iraqi Communist Party.  Man, when the Communists have a clearer view of what's going on than the U.S. of A., you know we are screwed.

President Clinton let big donors sleep in the White House.

Correction:  President George W. Bush let big donors sleep in the White House and Camp David.  The Iron Mouth regrets the error.

Lutheran Executive Officer in charge of the chaplain squadron at the Air Force Academy complains about the oppressive religious atmosphere at the Academy and the failure of a program to teach tolerance of other religions.  The result?  She's fired.

Chan Chandler, pastor of East Waynesville Baptist Church, who forced out 40 Democrats from his congregation, has resigned. 

While reading this article yesterday about how White House officials repeatedly pushed for elevated threat level warnings using only the flimsiest of evidence, it occurred to me that we really haven't had such warnings since Mr. Bush was reelected.  Seems to me this was almost a monthly occurrence throughout 2004, so my question of the day for our loyal IRONMOUTH readers is this:

Why haven't there been the same level of terrorist alerts this year as we saw last?

a.  Tom Ridge no longer heading the Department of Homeland Security.

b.  Terror alerts an integral part of the President's re-election campaign and no longer needed.

c.  Terrorists no longer hate our freedoms and seek to destroy them.

We encourage you to come up with your own explanation, if you can.....

If I can't have it, nobody can.

If it comes to civil war, the disintegration of Iraq will be extremely bloody. "The breakup of Iraq would be nearly as bad as the breakup of India in 1947," says David Mack, a former U.S. assistant secretary of state with wide experience in the Arab world. "The Kurds can't count on us to come in and save their bacon. Do they think we are going to mount an air bridge on their behalf?" Israel might support the Kurds, but Iran would intervene heavily in support of the Shiites with men, arms and money, while Arab countries would back their fellow Sunnis. "You'd see Jordan, Saudi Arabia, even Egypt intervening with everything they've got -- tanks, heavy weapons, lots of money, even troops," says White, the former State Department official.

 "If they see the Sunnis getting beaten up by the Shiites, there will be extensive Arab support," agrees a U.S. Army officer. "There will be no holds barred."

Before I get a million comments about how this is the last gasp--take a look at what the bad guys did--they laid low for months and unleashed the attacks right when the new Iraqi government was at its weakest--during sectarian haggling over cabinet positions.  They're not stupid.  We're going to have to stop being stupid really fast. 

Not a single problem created by Bush or made worse by his creation has gotten better since the election, folks.  Ever notice how while Bush is on a foreign trip North Korea makes noises like its going to test a bomb and Iran announces its going to reprocess uranium. 

Bush ate international crow today. 

President Bush took a place of honor on Red Square amid symbols of Soviet power Monday and saluted the greatest military victory of an empire formerly regarded as America's most-threatening enemy.

Tanks rumbled on the streets and warplanes screeched overhead as Bush and his wife, Laura, joined a long list of presidents, prime ministers and dignitaries at a grand parade celebrating the 60th anniversary of the Allied victory over Nazi Germany. The Soviet Union paid the heaviest price of all the triumphant allies - nearly 27 million soldiers and citizens killed in what is remembered here as the Great Patriotic War.

Ten years ago, President Clinton boycotted Moscow's military parade on the 50th anniversary of V-E day to protest Russia's brutal military campaign in Chechnya. Clinton waited in his hotel, emerging later for talks with Boris Yeltsin. But Bush showed no reluctance, eager for Vladimir Putin's help in the war on terror and problems in the Middle East, Iran and North Korea.

Bush watched goose-stepping soldiers and flags emblazoned with the Soviet hammer and sickle that recalled the days of communist rule.

Putin paraded the Red Army in front of him.  As I watched the Russian TV on our public access cable, I saw huge CCCP flags and banners, complete with pictures of Lenin himself on the flags.  All right in front of Bush.  If you don't think that didn't win Putin big points amongst Russian voters, think again.

We are not in a good position strategically.  That's right, Bush has made us weaker.  Threats abound, none are gone.

Rush, splitting his own party.  Aaaah I love it:

The deal would do this. It would involve having a half dozen members of each party sign a memo of understanding that would bind all of them to certain actions on judicial nominations. The six Republicans would agree to block Majority Leader Bill Frist's plan to invoke the nuclear option and to give up trying to seek confirmation of three of the seven federal appeals court nominees who were filibustered in the last Congress. For their part the six Democrats would pledge to allow votes on the other four nominees, and vote to cut off filibusters on all other judicial nominees named by President Bush for the next year and a half, except in 'extreme circumstances,'" quote, unquote.

He doesn't like the deal:

After all, one senator's definition of "extreme circumstances" may differ from another's.

Indeed it could Rush, indeed it could.

So he goes after his own boys

I am told that Senator Specter is ready to go for this. I'm told that Specter is ready to go for this. These guys on our side, folks, I just don't understand it. They are so afraid of upsetting long-standing Senate tradition. I'm having trouble keeping up with this. We want the Senate Republicans to defend the prerogatives of this president as in every past president and we want a vote. We want a vote on changing the filibuster so we know where each of these senators stands on such an important issue. This isn't another pork bill or spending bill that you can just punt down the road and deal with later. This is a constitutional matter. You know, I'm getting blue in the face, but it seems necessary to warn Republican senators: This issue is extremely important to the grassroots out there. This is something that matters to the base, and they voted on this, and they'll vote on it again in the future however it turns out, and what we're all concerned about here is the power the judiciary exercises in this country today -- and we're concerned that not enough is being done about it by elected branches. And if a Republican majority in the Senate can't even -- or worse, even, won't -- step to the plate to reinstitute what was the status quo for 214 years and push back the Chuck Schumers and Ted Kennedys and the Joe Bidens, then what principles do they stand for?

Ooops, now we see something very, very, rare--Rush Limbaugh trying to play defense in explaining why it was Republican's actions against Clinton's nominees that started this fight in the first place:

Now, in this case the filibuster was not used. There was no violation of Senate rules in what the Republicans did. They didn't pass some of these nominees out of committee. Some of Bush's nominees haven't come out of committee. But none of the senators that came out of the judiciary committee when Clinton was president and the Republicans are running the committee, none of them were filibustered. Those that got out of committee got votes on the floor.

It ain't hard to tell right from wrong folks.  You just gotta look.

Let's look at these quotes today from several institutions victimised by Finnish 16 year old hacker,  Stakkato-

A Navy spokesman at Patuxent River, James Darcy, said Monday said that "if there was some sort of attempted breach on those addresses, it was not significant enough of an action to have generated a report."

Monte Marlin, a spokeswoman for the White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico, whose computers Stakkato also claimed to have breached, confirmed Monday that there had been "unauthorized access" but said, "The only information obtained was weather forecast information."

Why are they telling us that the data stolen was weather reports?  You know its worse, otherwise they would have said there was no intrusion at all or classed it as minor.  Nope they got burned.

And look at the other spokesperson--who the hell says "if there was some sort of attempted breach on those addresses, it was not significant enough of an action to have generated a report."?  Then he indicates that no report is generated when they get attacked if its "minor."  Not exactly reassuring stuff now is it?  They got burned big time.  This is what we call a CYA coverup.  I don't blame them, its the job they have to do, but they could do it a little bit better, don't you think?

I just wanted to note the passing of a great American; Colonel David Hackworth, the most decorated soldier in US military history died the other day of bladder cancer at age 74.  To me Hackworth was a breath of fresh air when it came to discussing military matters.  Besides an extraordinary career brought to an end by his criticism of the Vietnam war, Hack wrote widely and often about the needs of the ordinary soldier and the perversity of the Pentagon bureacracy.  In a world where the cable channels bring on their retired generals to support the Pentagon's version of events, Hackworth was rarely afraid to call something bullshit when it was.  You may not always agree with his opinions, but you respected the man and where they came from.  Here is a little memorial posted to his website if anyone wishes to pay their respects to his family. 

I was shocked to see this on DailyKos this morning.  I live in Tennessee and although North Carolina was Helms country for a lot of years, it still has a much more progressive reputation among Southerners than most other states in the southeast. I guess its all relative.  The kicker is this local news clip where the minister refuses to appear but says it wasn't politically motivated after which the anchor suggests its not clear if the Church's bylaws were followed.  Probably couldn't find a more obvious or bland thing to say to wrap up the report? 

If you're pissed off about this too, then you might want to contact the organizations listed by georgia10 on his update post here.  Its not up to one minister or one church or one political party to decide who is and who isn't a Christian and its about time concerned citizens step up and let their voices be heard!

   

You'd think that if the knowledge of how to make the IEDs killing and maiming Americans and Iraqis alike came from a 1965 US Army manual that we'd have a better idea how to take care of the problem?

I could care less about American Idol.  I've never seen the show.  But I'd like to point out something about how lawyers and P.R. people work.  During the Watergate era, Woodward and Bernstein coined a term for a special denial of press reports that did not actually deny anything.  Case in point comes from some sort of scandal for American Idol, where one of the judges, former singer Paula Abdul is accused of having an affair with a contestant.  The gentleman in question is gave an interview to ABC News in which he said he had an affair with Ms. Abdul.  Paula's response? she:

    "will not dignify the false statements made by Corey Clark with a response."

A non-denial denial is essentially a denial in which both the allegation and the denial can both be true at the same time, giving the appearence that the charge is being denied, without the denial actually denying the substance of the change.

Let's break this one down, shall we?  First, she does not say: Corey Clark is lying about the alleged affair.  Nor is she saying I never coached him.  This leads one to ask: which statements is she referring to?  When taken literally, Ms. Abdul's denial could apply to anything Mr. Clark said in the interview.  Thus if he had said in the interview that he met her on a Tuesday and it was actually Thursday, both Clark and Abdul's statements could be true.

The point is this:  Look at every statement you see in the press closely--it could be that it isn't what it appears.

The Pentagon was recently embarrassed when it put out a pdf. version of the Sgrena report over the weekend not realizing that someone might be able to get around the electronic redactions.  Needless to say they did and the world is now privy to not only what we know about the insurgents, but also our organization and tactical responses to the insurgents.  Althought this story is getting big play, there is something larger that is being overlooked.

Why did the Pentagon release the report via pdf.?  Well according to an NPR story this morning, Pentagon spokesman Larry DiRita said over the weekend that the report would normally have been released as a paper copy but Baghdad is so dangerous for reporters to move around in that sending it electronically made sense.

Baghdad is so dangerous that journalist can't physically get a Pentagon report?  Funny how that never quite makes it into the nightly news?

With a new Federal bank fraud investigation starting up, the gaping maw that is the Jack Abramoff scandal opens wider.  Who will fall in next?  GOP Congressman Bob Ney, perhaps?

"Mr. Speaker, how SunCruz Casinos and Gus Boulis conduct themselves with regard to Florida laws is very unnerving," Ney said in the March 30 Congressional Record. "I don't want to see the actions of one bad apple in Florida, or anywhere else . . . affect the business aspect of this industry or hurt any innocent casino patron in our country."

"I have come to learn that SunCruz Casino now finds itself under new ownership," Ney stated in the record. Kidan's "track record as a businessman and a citizen lead me to believe that he will easily transform SunCruz from a questionable enterprise to an upstanding establishment."

One thing is for sure, Gus Boulis has already fallen in:

A man in a BMW was driving down a quiet side street after an evening meeting at his Fort Lauderdale office when a car slowed to a stop in front of him. A second car boxed the BMW in from behind, then a dark Mustang appeared from the opposite direction. The Mustang's driver pulled alongside and pumped three hollow-point bullets into the BMW driver's chest.