When you read this NYT piece about our buddy Prof. Yoo, do you get the feeling that the Bush people too often look to political appointees or troll around for anyone (ie. junior Justice Department lawyer) who's willing to give them some sort of ideological justification for their actions?  

Now, is it a coincidence this is more likely to happen after a number of other more senior lawyers from other parts of the executive branch tell them they're nuts?

"Great Day for Freedom" leads to large demonstrations and charges of fraud; U.S. sees great progress and will begin withdrawing troops.

Update (12/23/05): Or, "Conditions-based Withdrawal" @Think Progress.

Breaking news that a new front has been opened in the War on Christmas....kids, cover you ears!

Update:(12/23/05): Scandal envelopes White House as Karl Rove linked to anti-Santa leaks. (Thanks Fitz!)

I look at this picture and see a man thinking, "I wish the Americans had put me in charge of things when they had the chance."  Wow, less than 1% of the vote, not even enough for a seat in the new parliament.  Whoof!  Frankly, I have no sympathy for Chalabi and think its pretty sad that his continued presence in the Iraqi government can probably be attributed to his high profile ties to the US government, the same people he occasionally attacks when he thinks it will garner him even minimal political support from Iraqis. 

Well the man has played the game and lost, now what?  I suspect he'll stick around in Iraq but it would be just as easy to move back to DC and see if Congress might keep financing his Iraqi National Congress organization or something.  Maybe his many Neo-Con patrons or the PNAC crowd will give him a job--lord knows the Iraqi people sure as hell won't!

Laura Rozen does a much better job exploring something I noted the other day which was the issue of why our new surveillance scheme hasn't led to more arrests.  Her conclusion is either the government knows there are thousands of Al-Qaeda terrorists or sympathizers in this country and somehow still hasn't bothered to pick any of them up after four years of monitoring, or they're casting such a wide net that most of what they're picking up is probably not really Al-Qaeda related at all, thus explaining their reluctance to go to a FISA court. 

 No word on whether she feels safer either way? 

Why haven't we had any terror alerts since the 2004 election?  Hmmm...

Is the Bush administration blowing smoke when it insists that counterterrorism is the main organizing principle behind U.S. foreign policy or do they just not want to debate other pressing foreign policy issues?  Hmmm....

Can we better understand the controversy over the Washington Post's "White House Briefing" blog as an inspired Brad DeLong penned Greek dialogue?  Hmmm...

Is it a coincidence that the Washington Post runs a series of articles about how the Department of Homeland Security is a big mess on the same day DHS allows us to bring nail clippers onto airplanes once again?  Hmmm...

If the initial speculation is true, I want to join with others in wishing Ted Stevens, (R-AK) a quiet and restful retirement, hopefully as far away from Washington DC as possible.

Matt Stoller at MyDD in a jab at the Washington Post polling director notes we currently live in a world where the front page of the Washington Post declares broad support for the Alito nomination while Fox News declares support for Alito has dropped dramatically.

The "All or Nothing Gang" in the Senate finally realized that they could pass an extension to the Patriot Act after all.  Seems they needed a week to make dire predictions about the collapse of the Republic before they actually got serious about the issue at hand.  Truth be told I was actually beginning to think that Senate Republicans would let it expire because they seem to love political posturing but legislating...ah, not so much.  Ask a Senior how they're coping with the new Medicare drug plan and you know what I'm talking about.

In the meantime I'm sure they're trying to figure out how to reach the four Republican Senators (yes, members of their own party) who provided the votes that prevented the Patriot Act's reauthorization. 

Both the NYTimes story and this story about Tom Delay's high-flying lobbyist supported lifestyle make me wonder about the ground rules for political reporting.  A number of years ago when I lived in Washington DC, I knew a young woman who worked for a Congressional Republican who informed me that it was common knowledge on the Hill that Newt Gingrich was having an affair with a congressional committee aide.  She told me this at a time when Mr. Gingrich had a high-profile role in leading the Republican charge against Bill Clinton over the Lewinsky scandal, thus confirming to me the man had absolutely no shame whatsoever.  Well, Newt was undone by the 98' midterm elections but I couldn't help wondering why something that was common knowledge to anyone who worked on Capitol Hill somehow didn't make it into the news until the reports of Gingrich's second divorce.  You'd think that if the President is being hounded for lying about an adulterous affair by a blowhard who at the same time is known to be having an adulterous affair that you'd have the kind of juicy hypocritical politician story that any reporter could run with, but no.  Somehow off limits, I guess?

My question is why is it that these types of stories only come out after people like Gingrich and Delay finally get in trouble and their power and influence are on the wane?  Tom Delay's a man who has been in Congress for over twenty years much of which he's shown an utter contempt for the institution of Congress and a proclivity for unethical, possibly even criminal, behavior in pursuit of political power-- he is a known entity and a slimy one at that.  Do you think that most Capital Hill reporters were not aware of the lengths Delay went to to shakedown lobbyists and pad his pockets while creating a Republican political machine in DC?  Did they not know about the junkets until the Abramoff scandal?  Was it suddenly common knowledge after he stepped down from his leadership post that Delay is a mean son-of-a bitch who stops at absolutely nothing to maintain Republican dominance in the Congress and isn't beyond using money from his own children's charity to do it?  I know this is like everyone knowing that Richard Nixon had a well-established history of lying, scapegoating and paranoid delusion and wondering why Watergate happened but come on!

Hindsight's bitch but it ain't hindsight if somebody reports this stuff when they know about it instead of waiting for these people to do some real damage. 

For those suggesting that the President's actions have put in place a system that has become a useful tool in the "war on terror" how is it that the last four years have seen amazingly few convictions of terrorist suspects?  

Sorry,forgot about rendition and being able to send "enemy combatants" to Guantanamo without trial.  Man, its hard to keep track of whether we're winning or not when everything's so hush,hush!

If I read this Editor & Publisher story correctly, it suggests that the NY Times might have tabled the NSA story for a much longer period of time if it wasn't for the fact that that information would soon be revealed in a book coming out in January, 2006. 

What the hell is going on here?  Editors at the Times knew about this before the 2004 elections but were afraid of being run out of town like Dan Rather, then hold off afterwards because of some sort of "good faith" concern about national security but then a book is coming out so finally they release it???  Could we have found out about this ten years from now at some sort of Congressional hearing because Bill Keller was too chickenshit to publish it when it was most relevant?  No wonder the Times (especially under the leadership of Bill Keller) gets so much crap for its incompetence. 

President doesn't believe Tom Delay is innocent, he was just expressing confidence in the justice system--same justice system he chose to ignore in the name of national security.

It will be interesting to hear Jack Abramoff's story if he does decide to plead and testify especially after so many of his underlings and associates have already decided to do so.  Most news reports have rightly noted that this could be a big blow to the Republican establishment in D.C. although I'm sure at some point any Democratic lawmaker that happened to stand next to Mr. Abramoff at a Capitol Hill urinal will probably be implicated as well.   

Although the media will ultimately abdicate its watchdog title and opt for a safe but distorted "pox on both houses" type of story, Josh Marshall, who has done an amazing job of covering this over the last year, directs our attention to the fact that every single person indicted in relation to Jack Abramoff's activities has been a Republican, and almost all have strong ties to Tom Delay's political machine.  If you were to look at a chart of those with direct connections to Jack Abramoff's Indian Casino scam it is virtually all Delay or Norquist associates, and that's just the Indian Casino scam.  What is so scary about pointing out the obvious?  

Man, this was pretty predictable.  You mean purely domestic calls were also intercepted by the NSA?  I know that's hard to believe because the President, Vice-President, Attorney General, Secretary of State, assorted US Senators, as well as various pundits and commentators have all said that no such thing could ever happen, and moreover we were assured that there are definite limits being imposed on this secret surveillance program....even though we don't know by whom. 

I guess we're gonna need some new NSA shift supervisors or something to deal with the so-called technical glitches.  Of course that would never be a problem if the American people had been kept in the dark about this as the President intended.

I guess I'd expect this from the former Attorney General of the State of Texas.

I'm sure Mr.Bush had to go out of his way to lie like this to protect the American people.  After all, no American would get upset if you told him or her that the President gave the go-ahead to a secretive government agency like the NSA to possibly listen in on their phone calls or read their e-mails.  Stuff like that doesn't ever happen, right?

(via Atrios)

Update (12/20/05):  Hey, let's check out some video of one such event.

 "An open debate would say to the enemy, `Here is what we're going to do.' And this is an enemy which adjusts."

Some basic thoughts:

• I assume that an organization like Al-Qaeda has shown that it is sophisticated enough to know that we will try to monitor their activities and we have a lot of amazing technology that allows us to do just that.  Frankly they will also continue to try to find new ways to evade our surveillance whether they are aware of the extent of our capabilities or not.  They will adjust regardless of what we do because they want to survive and continue to hurt us.
• I suggest that the PATRIOT act was passed after a certain amount of open democratic debate but somehow that debate or the fact that anyone can currently purchase a copy of the act didn't explain to our enemies, "Here is what we're going to do."  As evidence that it did not signal our intentions to our enemies the Executive Branch and the Republican Congressional leadership are pushing hard to get its many provisions renewed.  Presumably if recent disclosures are true, the President wasted a lot of time asking Congress to write and pass the PATRIOT act because he already had the power to make it so through secret executive order.
• To my knowledge the US Congress has yet to have extensive open floor debates over specific methods for gathering intelligence for if I'm not mistaken most such discussion happens behind closed doors within the intelligence committees, usually in consultation with the Executive Branch.  However, I do know that Congress gets a little riled up when it finds out after the fact the President single-handedly ordered a secret program of domestic surveillance and calls for investigations and hearings naturally occur when that happens!  The "Keep Congress Out of the Loop" or "Democracy be Damned" national security crowd never seems to learn this and tend to pay for their arrogance regardless of the merits of what they propose.
• The law is pretty clear and the FISA courts almost never turned down an eavesdropping warrant so we actually need something more than well-worn platitudes that begin with "9/11" or "I did what I did to protect the American people". 

Enter the President.  Why would anyone entrust their government to a man so disinterested in or ignorant of the basic operations of democratic governance?  A man whose grasp of the situation is so simple that he is absolutely unaware he has basically admitted to criminal impeachable activity.  A man who is arrogant enough to basically not only say that he alone knows what's right for the American people, but that criticism of his inherent magnificence is clearly an attack on the will of the American people and thus illegitimate and dangerous. 

How did we get to this point and what do the next few years hold?  Seriously!

Kevin Drum offers the suggestion that since just about everyone involved in this fiasco has mentioned some sort of technical or technological imperative in defense of their actions that maybe the NSA has some sort of new data-mining capability that goes beyond our notion of wiretapping.  As Kevin notes, however, the key question is this:

"What kind of program is so intrusive that even Republicans, even with 9/11 still freshly in mind, wouldn't have supported it?"

Better yet, another question might be:

"Since the Bush Administration can count on Congressional Republicans to neither criticize nor investigate its actions, what threshold of illegality does that same Administration have to pass for Congressional Republicans to actually do something about it?"

Okay which one is right?  Bounce or no bounce?

How about a list of recent approval polls?  See any particular patterns that give a definitive answer?  Could we call this inconclusive at this point?

First the Pentagon admits they've been monitoring anti-war groups.  Then it comes out the President illegally authorized secret wiretaps using an agency that is not suppose to do domestic spying.  Now it comes out that the FBI was tasked with watching Greenpeace, PETA, Catholic Workers and some unknown vegan group?   Why???  What's next?  Who's next?

Question for the Attorney General:  Alright, who are these "certain members of Congress" you talked to and if they told you your plan would never be approved by Congress, why did you go ahead and continue with it anyway?

I read through the transcript kinda quickly but did General Hayden say that in effect an NSA shift supervisor has more power over this surveillance policy than any member of Congress or the courts?  And they think that that's legal and above board?  Man, if I hear him say "efficiency" one more time I think I'm gonna break something.

I'm at the point at which I'm not sure why anyone asks Mr. Cheney anything and expects anything less than a load of horseshit.  In an Administration that prides itself on its deceit and secrecy, this man stands head and shoulders above everyone in the level of mendacity he's willing to stoop to. 

Tonight he's at it again trying out the Administrations new line of defense: 9/11 wouldn't have happened if only the President had been secretly wiretapping the phones of American citizens before September 2001.  Besides the fact that this Administration already had the power to order wiretaps with the rubberstamp approval of the FISA court before 9/11, me thinks that the Vice-President had a number of other opportunities to do something that he, the President and everyone else in the Administration casually ignored.  For example, if the FBI and CIA are concerned about all manner of terrorist chatter over the summer of 2001 what's the first thing you do?  That's right, take the entire month of August off on vacation at the ranch.  Clinton administration officials give you briefing books and other plans emphasizing the need for going after Al-Qaeda, well why not just ignore them wholesale and say you'll convene a task-force on terrorism that never meets.  Get a PDB report with the title, "Bin Laden determined to strike in US" why interrupt your vacation or look into the matter further.  Better yet, don't mention that any of these things happened in the months leading up to that terrible day because its so hard to rally the country when they know just how incompetent you are. 

Okay, I don't expect the Vice-President to mention any of this and I'll be absolutely shocked if anyone on Nightline asks about it but their use of September 11th to justify just about anything they do is at this point absolutely criminal.

John Aravois over at AmericaBlog offers an interesting take on the Bush wiretapping fiasco and suggests the intentional avoidance of FISA regulations may have happened because American journalists were possible targets. 

Here's Chris Allbritton, an American journalist in Iraq who wants to know if he's on the list...

Mark Kleiman asks a couple good questions.

Its quite amazing to watch Administration officials flop around on the question of where the President derived the authority to secretly authorize wiretaps on American citizens.  On Sunday it was Condi's turn and she proved that indeed she isn't a lawyer.  Unfortunately, I'm not sure if the Attorney General will be able to clear things up seeing as several people have already noted that he either lied or obfuscated at his confirmation hearings when asked directly if the President could ignore statutes and authorize violations of the criminal law. 

Trust me, l'etat c'est moi!

President has yet to consult dictionary on meaning of the word "credibility".

Support for staying in Iraq dwindling.

Bush beats the bejesus out of a dead horse.

Kudos to northwoods1 over at Daily Kos for pointing out that among the many charges listed in count two of the articles of impeachment drawn up for Richard Nixon was illegally wiretapping the phones of American citizens without obtaining a court order.  I could be wrong but seems like we were fighting a war when that whole Watergate mess happened and lo and behold claims of protecting national security were thrown about in the name of covering up all manner of domestic abuses by the Nixon administration.  Maybe tonight we'll hear George Bush say, "When the President does it, that means its not illegal.", too.

Man, I'm screwed if Mao's "On Guerilla Warfare" is also on the list....

The US has so much respect for the sovereignty of Iraq that Vice President Cheney came to visit and no one bothered to tell the country's president about it.  Seems US officials can naturally come and go in that country without any formal visas or making it known to the elected leaders of the Iraqi government.  I'm sure we'll do a better job of recognizing Iraqi sovereignty after all the votes are counted and a new government is formed, right?

I was originally kinda amused by this exchange between Bob Barr and Dana Rohrabacher on CNN but the more of the transcript I read the angrier I got.  I think the thing that riled me the most was Mr. Rohrabacher's constant refrain of "this president" as in this controversy is not about the office of the President and the powers held therein, but about the "majesty" of one George W. Bush.  Frankly, I couldn't think of a more unconservative notion then to trust so much in the goodwill and benevolence of one human being, especially when we're talking about American democracy and governing the country.  Our government was founded on the notion that no one man should have the kind of powers our President essentially assumes he is entitled to but for Rohrabacher and others of his ilk they couldn't be happier because they never really gave a shit about the Constitution or democracy to begin with.  They're the people who used to sit back and admire how efficiently the Soviet Union was able to pursue its interest by squashing all dissent and used to say as much when people questioned the likes of Nixon or Reagan.  They're the people who like to foment fears of war and terrorism because it justifies their disregard for what they perceive as the weakness of democracy; respect for the laws that check the powers of our elected leaders. 

On the other hand, Mr. Rohrabacher is quite the partisan Republican.   I suspect that if a President Clinton had secretly done what Mr. Bush did he would be beating his chest with his copy of the Constitution arguing the President dangerously violated the rights of American and raising questions about whether or not enemies of the White House were being targeted by these illegal wiretaps.  Good question, really.  If Mr. Rohrabacher had any principles he wouldn't be taking the President at his word he would be asking to see the list of those targeted.  He wouldn't be singing the President's praises, he'd be looking into why the President needs to secretly bypass all current legal regulations on domestic surveillance when as Josh Marshall points out the Attorney General can currently order immediate wiretaps and get FISA court approval as many as three days later.  That fact alone suggests maybe this Administration didn't want to go to the FISA court because they didn't want any scrutiny of wiretaps targeting more than just terrorist suspects.  I'm sorry, but in the America I grew up in it was never enough for the President to say "trust me I have your best interests at heart", but then again principled conservatives like Mr. Rohrabacher who should stand up and check such arrogance obviously could care less.

If you've ever wondered why the President is so self-assured when it comes to flaunting the Constitution and all manner of international treaties he swore to uphold in his oath of office then you need look no further than this man: John Yoo, constitutional revisionist and in-demand conservative legal hack.  Take a long look at Prof. Yoo's greatest hits and it doesnt' take much to figure out why he continues to be the most influential legal mind in White House circles.

Ever wonder what its like to be the guy or gal who writes the newspaper headlines?  Well I have, and as a salute to their efforts I thought I'd look at their work and offer my own headlines.  Here goes...

President flip-flops on Torture Ban.

White House and House Republican gamesmanship on Patriot Act fails horribly. 

After forgetting to put together a plan for rebuilding, President opts to throw money at New Orleans.

Bush takes a page out of the East German secret police playbook.

President once again admits the obvious.

Man, this is fun!

Another weird turn in the Abramoff case comes to us courtesy of Businessweek via Laura Rozen and Jim Romensko.  It appears Doug Bandow, a fellow at the CATO institute, who also has a syndicated column, took money from Abramoff to write columns favorable to his many clients.  Yes, evidently the practice is more widespread than acknowledged in the world of conservative think tanks.  

Odder still was Bandow choosing to resign instead of sticking by his libertarian principles and arguing for the sanctity of the freedom of contract in the manufacture and sale of his intellectual property.  What kinda wimps are the Cato people employing?

Kudos to Paul Waldman over at the Gadflyer for bringing us this poem from John Dingell which was read on the House floor last night:

'Twas the week before Christmas and all through the House,
no bills were passed `bout which Fox News could grouse.
Tax cuts for the wealthy were passed with great cheer,
so vacations in St. Barts soon should be near.
Katrina kids were all nestled snug in motel beds,
while visions of school and home danced in their heads.
In Iraq, our soldiers need supplies and a plan,
and nuclear weapons are being built in Iran.
Gas prices shot up, consumer confidence fell.
Americans feared we were in a fast track to ..... well.
Wait, we need a distraction, something divisive and wily,
a fabrication straight from the mouth of O'Reilly.
We will pretend Christmas is under attack,
hold a vote to save it, then pat ourselves on the back.
Silent Night, First Noel, Away in the Manger,
Wake up Congress, they're in no danger.
This time of year, we see Christmas everywhere we go,
From churches to homes to schools and, yes, even Costco.
What we have is an attempt to divide and destroy
when this is the season to unite us with joy.
At Christmastime, we're taught to unite.
We don't need a made-up reason to fight.
So on O'Reilly, on Hannity, on Coulter and those right-wing blogs.
You should sit back and relax, have a few egg nogs.
'Tis the holiday season; enjoy it a pinch.
With all our real problems, do we really need another Grinch?
So to my friends and my colleagues, I say with delight,
a Merry Christmas to all, and to Bill O'Reilly, happy holidays.
Ho, ho, ho. Merry Christmas!

 

The "war" is joined indeed...have a Happy Holidays!  Whoops!

 

Update (12/16/05):  Crooks and Liars has the video.  Enjoy!

Did anyone notice this?  Think Progress is reporting that the President has once again announced that Condi Rice will be in charge of the reconstruction and stabilization of Iraq.  They also note that this is the third time in as many years that the President has entrusted Ms. Rice with that mission and so far she's been a no show every time.  If only the man knew a few other qualified people he could trust?

For those hoping that Tom Delay's legal and ethical problems will just go away I can only say that you'll be waiting an awfully long time.  With the extent of Mr. Delay's good friend Jack Abramoff's legal liabilities becoming clearer and clearer, it appears that Ronnie Earle's case might be the least of Tom's worries.  Today Atrios gives us this Austin-American Statesman article about an Abramoff run charity that collected a lot of money and then neglected to give it to the groups listed on its financial statements.  Whoops!   Seems at the same time the charity was taking in this money, Mr. Delay was seeking to use said charity to raise several hundred thousands of dollars for some unknown purpose...anyone remember those stories from the summer leading up to the Republican National Convention?  Josh Marshall's political slush fund theory is looking pretty good these days.

A lot of hand-wringing has been going on about Joe Lieberman's amazing knack for self-promotion while undercutting his own Party's political message.  This was on display a week ago when he suggested Democrats had to get with the Bush program and not undercut the Presidents "credibility" while we're at war.  Someone forgot to tell Joe that the President ran out of credibility on the subject quite some time ago without the help of the Democrats but you get what I'm saying.  Now I'm not going to jump up and down, declare Lieberman a DINO (Democrat in Name Only) and advocate pushing him out of the Party as some bloggers have done, but I do think that Mr. Lieberman has garnered a great deal of praise and attention as a statesman and man of principle that is wholly undeserved. 

That reputation for high-mindedness was developed at a time when the media put a premium on that ill-defined concept known as "bipartisanship".  Washington's being poisoned by "partisan" attacks the story went and more needed to be done to get the parties to work together despite themselves.  Enter Joe Lieberman.  Lieberman, who up to that point had only distinguished himself by being devoutly religious and railing against offensive rap lyrics, clothed himself in the flag of "bipartisanship" and woe to anyone who didn't subscribe to his same high sense of virtue.  In fact, Lieberman got so caught up in this vaguely defined term "bipartisanship" that his standard response to any question was, "My party needs to drop its partisan attacks today and we need to work with Republicans.  Tomorrow we will look at the problem and people will be held accountable."  This lead someone to describe him as the "man for whom tomorrow never comes" as in it sounded good and the pundits love holding up Democrats who attack there own party as realists and honest statemen but Joe was always a no-show on the follow through.  Before you knew it the man was his party's Vice-Presidential nominee and proceeded to show why he lacked the charisma, gravitas or political support to win at the national level.  Better to stick to the Sunday morning talk-shows where you always have an open invitation, especially if you'll attack members of your own party.

Which brings me to Marshall Wittman's defense of Lieberman.  Wittman wants the story to be that liberals in the Democratic party are pushing someone with a more principled view on Iraq (ie. Bipartisan Joe) out and sending the message to like-minded Democrats and Independents around the country that they are not welcome...but me thinks he overreaches.  No one has quite explained to me why leaders of the Party need to agree with Joe Lieberman's view on anything yet alone that everything is going well in Iraq and the President knows what he's doing.  Was Harry Reid being dishonest when he said that few Americans yet alone Democrats believe that the President knows what he'd doing in Iraq?  For some reason when your dealing with a centrist DLC Democrat (Harry Reid is one too if I'm not mistaken?) the issue is always about how the liberals are persecuting us and destroying the Democratic Party yet the only one who benefits is Mr. Lieberman who gets to forego any sort of real scrutiny of his ideas and garner positive publicity in the process. 

Well let's look at the Lieberman plan for Iraq.  Lieberman calls for a Bipartisan War Cabinet...huh?  That is his big new strategy informed by his sterling foreign policy and political credentials... a "war cabinet"?    Better yet does he even realize that this follows another pattern of being an enabler of bad policies and politics?  After all Gore didn't pick him for his political or legislative abilities, but because he had criticized Bill Clinton and Al was looking to distance himself from the impeachment saga.  Now when more answers should be coming from the Bush administration about their lack of a strategy for Iraq, Mr. Lieberman says Democrats should be members of his executive cabinet so they too can share in the blame for Mr. Bush's ongoing disaster of a non-strategy.  Worse yet he does it at a time when the Bush people are desperate for someone dumb enough to give them the semblance of bipartisan support.  Christ, give me a break!  Who is this guy and why do people take him seriously?  

By a 65%-19% margin, Americans age 65 and above disapprove of the performance of Congress; those under 65 are also negative but less lopsidedly, 58%-27%. Moreover, senior citizens say by 47%-37% that they want Democrats rather than Republicans to win control of Capitol Hill. Those under 65 prefer a Democratic victory by a narrower 45%-39% margin.