Hannity calls for Craig to resign
August 28

This was interesting. At the top of the local news home page of the Idaho Statesman was a story about Sean Hannity calling for Sen Larry Craig to resign. I find it interesting that it's a story at all the Hannity said that, which suggests perhaps just how conservative Idaho is, or perhaps how conservative the Statesman is. The suggestion itself is interesting, especially because Hannity is quotes saying, "I'm trying to understand, you know, this is not about gay or straight." It's not? Funny, as Hannity and other conservatives have been calling for Craig to resign, I can't recall hearing calls for Sen. David Vitter to resign when he admitted using the services of the DC madam. Vitter was hiring girls, while Craig is pursuing men. Really, this doesn't matter? Then where are the calls for Vitter to resign? At least Craig was convicted only of a misdemeanor. Vitter's actions, which oddly enough aren't being prosecuted, would constitute a felony if I understand correctly. Perhaps the governor's party is an issue, since the governor of Idaho is Republican while the governor of Louisiana is Democratic, so Vitter's resignation would mean the loss of his seat. If Craig resigns, not only will his replacement be another Republican, but the worst that happens if the interim senator doesn't run next year is an open seat in a Republican state, whereas if Craig stays and runs, he might be vulnerable. Vitter remains popular, but, after all, Craig got caught being gay. I guess consensual sex with a stranger is worse than hiring a prostitute, provided the prostitute is a heterosexual relationship (albeit only of an hour's duration).

Obviously for purely partisan reasons I rather the Democratic candidate had Craig to run against, but in fight I don't insist on his resignation. Yes, I'm creeped out at the thought of using the airport toilets, but he was convicted only of a misdemeanor. What I want him to do is stop screwing up other people's lives. He opposes gay rights, including not just marriage but even protection against hate crimes. Instead of resigning, it would be better if he would admit he's gay or bisexual, change the way he votes, and stop making other people's lives miserable over their sexual morality. If conservatives can't live with that, then at least be consistent and call for Vitter to resign too.

Gonzogate isn't over
August 27

Gonzogate isn't over with Gonzales' resignation, and not merely because I have a whole quotes archive dedicated to the scandal. First, just concerning Gonzo, the one cabinet member who was impeached had already resigned, but that Congress wanted to stop him coming back into public office, and I never want to see Gonzo in public office again. However, there aren't just some minor unanswered questions. We still don't know if the fired attorneys were stopped from completing investigations, which is obstruction of justice. There are indications some retained attorneys engaged in political prosecutions of defendants who were innocent, and those need to be followed up. We've barely begun to investigate the results of the politicization of the DOJ, including what cases the civil rights division and voting rights section took on or dropped for purely partisan motives. We also have violations of the Hatch Act through the use of RNC domains for official e-mail, and in what I think is the real mother lode of this scandal, we don't know what other illegal activity remains to be revealed in those RNC e-mails. In the course of investigating Gonzogate, we also learned there might be more illegal domestic spying programs and the ones we knew of entailed more than we knew.

So no, it isn't over, even if Republicans try to distract us by getting caught in yet another sex scandal. By the way, why did Larry Craig have to do that in the mens room at the nearby airport? The one close to me, where I see planes landing. Going to the airport now sounds like a creepy enterprise, and if I have to go, I might try to hold it until I get home. Meanwhile, Craig hasn't said if he'll run for reelection next year. Hey jobseekers, Idaho might be hiring! Seriously though, like with David Vitter, Craig is one of these religious conservative family values guys who votes to make other people's lives miserable over matters of sexual morality. I might not care much about these tawdry scandals otherwise, but this is hypocrisy that goes beyond embarrassing and into harming others.

The culture of corruption goes back at least to 1981 and Reagan
August 27

"But the White House's worries were quickly set to rest by the man the Senate had chosen to get to the bottom of the matter, Fred D. Thompson. In July 1981, just one day into his job as special counsel to the Senate Intelligence Committee, Mr. Thompson assured the White House that there was no 'smoking gun,' documents show. He had yet to interview a single witness."

That quote comes from this story about how Fred Thompson started his job as special prosecutor investigating CIA director William Casey. I'm adding that quote in the quotes column on the right, and when it comes time to move it to the quotes archive, I'm putting it in the culture of corruption, even though it's from 1981. Though 26 years have passed, this is the same culture of corruption that has infected the Republican Party today, as evidenced by the fact Thompson is still around, and even regarded as a serious presidential candidate. The status of the Bush administration as the most corrupt administration ever, coinciding with perhaps the most corrupt Congress ever, has obscured how the administration of the lionized Ronald Reagan was previously in the running for most corrupt administration ever, along with Grant, Harding, and Nixon (sorry Clinton-haters, "most investigated" is not the same as "most corrupt"). We forget that William Casey was this Cheney-like figure, lurking in the background pulling off all sorts of schemes, but never getting caught, at least not by anyone who could do anything about it. Death saved him from being brought down by the Iran-Contra scandal, and it appears Thompson saved him from being brought down by questionable business practices he covered up at the time of his confirmation. Casey might be dead, but Thompson could be the next president. What, did you think the culture of corruption would end with Bush?

Apparently it was Oberstar's fault the bridge collapsed
August 26

I get the impression conservatives have stopped saying "let's not assign blame for the bridge collapse" because they think they've picked out someone to blame who isn't one of them. Point those fingers at Rep. Jim Oberstar, D-MN. Though I suspect there are GOP talking points out there somewhere telling the faithful to blame Oberstar, the first I heard of it was a column by Katherine Kersten, who blames Oberstar for using his position on the House Transportation Committee, of which he was ranking minority member and is now chairman, for funding bike trails and mass transit, but not roads. Aside from the obvious retort, that bikes and trains reduce the numbers of people using the roads, --- and the other obvious retort, that at least Oberstar is trying to do something about it which is more than can be said for Kersten or or any of her fellow travelers --- some fact-checking is called for --- especially since this is Kersten, who somehow gets to forego fact checking from anyone at her newspaper. From an editorial in her own paper, Oberstar got Minnesota transportation funding which required a state match to get free money, and Gov. Pawlenty vetoed it. The GOP members of the legislature supported the veto. Pawlenty screwed up again in 2005, when Oberstar's constituents complained about safety issues on Hwy. 53 in Oberstar's district. He got money for it, which required a state match, and again Pawlenty refused it. A state senator, Tom Bakk, quoted Pawlenty saying, "We told Jim Oberstar not to earmark money that was not in our transportation plan. We'll show him a lesson and send the money back to Washington." Yes, sticking it to a Democrat was more important than fixing a dangerous road.

A similar attack was made by Tony Blankley of the Washington Times on this morning's McLaughlin Group (the transcript isn't posted yet at this time). I think he accused Oberstar of not sending money to his state, I could be wrong on that, since the transcript isn't up yet, but he definitely accused him of not sending money for roads and bridges. He probably didn't know Oberstar tried, but shouldn't he have checked before making that statement? He just pulled it out of nowhere or, as I suspect, he followed a talking point while showing the normal conservative skepticism of the crap they're fed: none.

All wars are WW II and Vietnam
August 23

Anyone else noticed that Americans think all wars are either World War II or Vietnam? This comes up because the acting president gave a speech to the VFW where he used Vietnam as an analogy for Iraq. Previously he has always denied there was any comparison, though war opponents have used it, while Bush and war supporters have always claimed Iraq War II was World War II over again. Not just Iraq War II, but with all wars, those who support them compare them to WW II, while opponents denounce the particular war as Vietnam. It's like only two wars ever happened. In a way it's easy to explain in that these are the most familiar wars to Americans, and we use analogies as shorthand to explain whatever war we're dealing with at the moment. The problem of course is that using the wrong analogy can cause severe misunderstandings, and in fact I believe the WW II analogy not only was important in selling Bush's invasion of Iraq to Americans, but is a reason conservatives just can't wrap their heads around it. After all, if it's like WW II and Saddam is like Hitler, then there is no basis for any policy other than total victory, however they understand that, and it makes no sense that anyone could oppose it. Due to the historical ignorance of most people (most people, not most Americans --- I've seen no evidence Americans are more ignorant than anyone else), pretty much everybody missed the most obvious analogy, the British occupation of Iraq after World War I and the resulting insurgency, complete with sectarian fighting. Think that might have given anyone a hint?

Another danger of using a bad analogy is that it opens you up to your opponent using it against you. I wouldn't admit the relevance of an argument used by my side of the war debates, that Iraq War II has gone on longer than WW II, if war supporters hadn't relied on WW II to make their case. How long this war has gone on compared to some other war seems immaterial. It's also longer than the War of 1812. So what? Well, if you want to claim a situation is analogous when it supports you, you have to accept when it doesn't. Roosevelt defeated the Axis in less time than Bush has been stuck in Iraq, which is an indication Bush screwed up big time. Obviously for war opponents to compare Iraq to Vietnam means supporters can pick what helps them too, and Bush, in talking about how life sucked in Vietnam and Cambodia after we left has picked up on a theme conservatives have used to argue against pulling out of Iraq, that the withdrawal will cause worse problems than we see now. The fact Bush's speech was sent to the press the day before suggests this is a new theme, timed for the debate next month over the surge. Look for conservative media to parrot the new talking point. Look for historians to debunk the analogy the way Bush uses it, and for Bush to avoid the argument that the problem wasn't getting out but getting in. Well, maybe if you ignore all the details, Bush's argument might make some sense. So forget that Pol Pot got going when Nixon overthrew the Cambodian government in favor of a puppet dictator, that most Vietnamese supported the North Vietnamese government, that South Korea was a dictatorship when we set it up and it remained one most of the way into the 1980's. Forget above all that we started drawing down troops in Vietnam after the Tet offensive, and we finished in 1975, a seven year withdrawal, not the sudden withdrawal implied by the film of helicopters fleeing Saigon.

I do however want to inform the anti-war side that the argument that withdrawal will mean a bloodbath like Indochina is going to carry some weight, and we don't know for sure withdrawal won't be followed by mass killing. We have to enter into debate over how to prevent that. One thing that jumps to mind is the puny number of visas we allow to Iraqis who worked for us, and who are good as dead if we leave. We should push for the visas necessary to allow them to take refuge here. Yes I know, that looks like an admission of failure. That's the Republicans' problem. Their war, their image problem. I'm far more concerned with protecting Iraqi lives than in protecting Republican pride.