January 31
The good news is the recent sale of Air America means that it will survive a while longer and it's probably in the best financial shape of its brief existence. I'm a regular listener and I've linked to the Air America site a few times -- like just there. The bad news is my favorite show, the Al Franken Show, is going away. It's broadcast live from 11-2:00 central time (my time zone, and I have no idea where you are) and Air America Minnesota carries it delayed from 2-5:00, plus both the network and local affliate stream it, and Air America has commercial-free podcasts available for what I consider a really good price (I have the annual SuperPass). The speculation is he'll run for the US Senate in 2008, and the Pioneer Press claims to have confirmation of that, though no announcement will be made until Franken's last show on February 14th.
Franken's possible senate run was discussed at the last DFL Links I attended, as we veered from the presidential campaign onto our own senate race. I've also attended events where Franken was one of the draws. My sense, and this is a sense, not a poll, is that he has extensive support among the grassroots activists who do things like donate money and volunteer for campaigns. The other candidates we talked about haven't indicated an interest in running, not that Franken is likely to go unchallenged, but right now I'll call Franken a prohibitive favorite for the endorsement. The primary --- who knows. For now though, he has shown an ability to raise money, and he has collected a lot of good will and political IOUs.
January 30
Bulls***. I actually said that aloud, albeit in an empty room because I don't talk that normally. I'm pretty sure I said it twice. This was in reaction to a story presented as a breaking story at the start of Scarborough Country tonight. The transcript link isn't up yet. It sounded like a classic example of a story being played up to make us angry and supportive of a war on false premises. The story was that Iranians had killed several US soldiers in Iraq. It turned out the story was really an allegation that Iranian agents had planned the recent attack in which US soldiers were abducted from a base at Karbala and found executed. The evidence for Iranian involvement? None, other than speculation that the insurgents couldn't have pulled this off themselves. Then again, hundreds of militiamen calling themselves "Soldiers of Heaven" surprised the Iraqi army near Najaf. Speculation has of course been reported as fact, even though the Bush administration is not a source to be believed. Maybe Iran is involved --- we don't know --- but this is the sort of story Bush told to sell the Iraq invasion. It certainly seems that he wants to start yet another war, stretched resources or no. My best guess is that we're just months away from an attack on Iran, presumably by air since our army is busy. Maybe we can stop this nutcase this time, though I doubt it. Bush has shown no regard for the Constitution, the will of Congress, popular opinion, or any law foreign or domestic. Given that statement, it might not be a surprise that I suspect he intends to launch his third war without congressional approval. The silver lining is that maybe even Speaker Pelosi will realize we have to impeach him before he does anymore harm.
By the way, since Bush has said it's OK to start killing Iranian agents in Iraq, should it be a surprise if Iranians have permission to kill Americans? We act like the Iranians are the interlopers, but it isn't our country either. If we had rational governments, though would step back, rescind the authority to kill, and try to find a way to stabilize the situation. Instead we have President Enron and the holocaust denier. Great.
One update. The story has appeared on the CNN home page. CNN gives the sources as "two officials from separate U.S. government agencies". Haven't we learned by now that when government officials want to be anonymous about statements that support the administration, they're lying?
OK, another update. I just saw where Bush said, "If Iran escalates its military action in Iraq to the detriment of our troops and/or innocent Iraqi people, we will respond firmly. It makes common sense for the commander in chief to say to our troops and the Iraqi people and the Iraqi government that we will help you defend yourself from people that want to sow discord and harm. And so we will do what it takes to protect our troops." Note that he said, "escalates its military action," "starts military action." He's trying to build in the assumption that Iran is active in Iraq, so that the debate becomes what to do about Iran, not whether Iran is doing anything. It's exactly the same way he got credulous reporters to pass on administration statements as fact about Iraq, so the debate wasn't over whether there was a threat from Iraq, but what to do about it. Of course, we now know the "debate" was really a sales campaign, and the decision had already been made. See the Downing Street memos and Donald Rumsfeld's remark about Afghanistan lacking good targets after 911 if you don't recall what I'm talking about. So yes, I suspect the decision to attack Iran has already been made, and he's just getting the country ready for it.
January 26
I would have thought the story about the felony conviction of poll workers in Cuyahoga County, Ohio, for fraudulently carrying out the recount in 2004 would have been a bigger story. No, it wasn't the same bombshell it would have been as if the defendants had suddenly stood up and said, "We confess! We covered up the theft of the 2004 election!". They didn't even admit guilt, and they were acquitted of most counts. Despite all suspicions that this was exactly what they were attempting to do, it's quite possible that they merely thought the theft of the election was impossible and they wanted to be sure to avoid a manual recount of all the ballots.
Specifically what they did was select the precincts to be recounted manually according to whether the manual recount would match the machine count. A discrepancy would have required the manual recount of all the county's ballots, whereas no discrepancy meant only running through the machines again. The law required that the precincts to be recounted be selected randomly on the day of the recount, and that's the law they broke.
The reason it seems odd the story has gotten so little coverage is that one of the charges made by those who believe the 2004 presidential election in Ohio was stolen is that some counties selected the precincts deliberately in advance instead of randomly as required by law, and there's the proof. The convictions for doing just that is about as proven as it gets. It sounds procedural, but in effect it's no different than picking precincts to knowingly cover up theft. Because of their actions, the recount was thwarted and there's no way to know if a recount would have revealed fraud. The recount itself was fraudulent, and on this one point the case for claiming the election was stolen is proven right. Isn't that a big story, even if the election is more than two years ago? The beneficiary of the alleged fraud still holds his ill-gotten office, which is the definition of an unresolved crime.
The linked Cleveland Plain Dealer article is fairly complete, as is this article from a Cleveland TV station from before the jury deliberated and which explains how they got caught, but otherwise there has been minimal coverage. Even Countdown hasn't picked up on this one so far, and they covered the story better than anyone in 2004-2005. It's been picked up by Salon, and Air America linked to a story on the LA Times site that was much briefer than the Cleveland media, but the Star Tribune put a paragraph in the brief news stories on page A-10. The Pioneer Press hasn't picked it up at all. A search in Topix.net shows that mostly blogs have picked it up, and newspapers have stuck it in briefings sections like the Star Tribune.
Hey folks, an election was stolen, the thieves are still in power, and they're getting away with it. Doesn't this make it more likely to happen again? Doesn't anybody care?
Want to see an example of a blatant lie? Of course you do. It has to do with another cover up, more deliberate most likely. The new Senate Intelligence Committee chairman, Jay Rockefeller, says the acting vice president pressured the former chairman, Pat Roberts, to stall the investigation into how the Bush administration used the intelligence about Iraqi WMD while selling the war. Roberts' chief of staff, Jackie Cottrell, tried to cover for Roberts and Cheney by saying, "Senator Rockefeller's allegations are patently untrue. The delays came from the Democrats' insistence that they expand the scope of the inquiry to make it a more political document going into the 2006 elections. Chairman Roberts did everything he could to accommodate their requests for further information without allowing them to distort the facts."
The problem here is that the first part of the investigation, into what the intelligence services produced, was completed in mid 2004, and Roberts declined to finish the second part, how the intelligence was used, because the election was so close and he wanted to wait until after. The Roberts refused again because it was irrelevant with the election over. The Democrats have been trying for two more years to get the report finished and released. That's why they pulled that maneuver where they forced the Senate into closed session in 2005, which isn't the act of people trying to time it for the 2006 election. And hey, here's a thought: if the Democrats would want it to come out close to the election, doesn't that give an indication of what's in it? Is this the proof of the charges of cherrypicking the intelligence to make the case for war? Could there be proof the administration knowingly deceived the Congress and public into supporting the war?
Here's a new one: between the revelations in this report and the revelations in the Libby trial about Cheney's efforts to smear Joseph Wilson, could Cheney be about done? Dead liar walking?
January 23
Sometimes it's hard to put numbers in proportion to see what they really tell us. So to put the disaster wrought upon Iraq in proportion, let's first notice that Iraq's population is variously estimated in a range from 21-27 million. Let's round that at 25, because that makes it an even 1/12 of the estimated US population of 300 million, so we can take figures form Iraq and multiply by 12 to put them in US proportions.
For example, experts on refugees estimate that currently the number of Iraqis who have fled their country is two million. Multiply by 12, and that's like 24 million Americans leaving their country to seek safety elsewhere. By far, that would be the biggest disaster in American history. By what right do we deny the implication of how great the disaster our acting president brought up on Iraq? But we're not done with the numbers.
In that same San Francisco article linked above, those same experts estimate 1.7 million Iraqis are internally displaced, which means they're refugees but haven't left the country. So in addition to the 24 million Americans who left the country, imagine 20.4 million displaced within the country. And we thought Katrina was a disaster. Imagine 15% of the population displaced. We may get that anyway if the worst case scenarios for global waring are realized, but let's imagine it came from foreign invasion and occupation.
Those numbers are just the refugees. If you accept the numbers of that Lancet article, where the mortality survey of Iraq found the most likely number in their range of deaths is 650,000, that is like 7.8 million Americans dead. That would be like wiping out New York City, or everybody in Minnesota and Iowa combined. There is actually controversy over those numbers, so let's assume only 100,000 have died. That's still like 1.2 million Americans. In terms of the moral culpability of whoever brought the invasion upon us, that's not any better.
Think we would wonder why no one reported the good news stories?
January 22
There's been a kerfuffle on this side of the political spectrum over remarks by Alberto "Torture Boy" Gonzales before the Senate Judiciary Committee in regards to the existence of Habeas Corpus. The exchange was transcribed by a poster on Daily Kos. The transcript isn't yet on the committee web site. A clip was played on the Colbert Report tonight. This is the exchange:
Specter: Now wait a minute, wait a minute. The Constitution says you can't take it away except in the case of invasion or rebellion. Doesn't that mean you have the right of habeas corpus?The commentary is correctly pointing out that Gonzales is using tortured (yes, I chose that word deliberately) logic to say that the prohibition on suspending the right doesn't mean it was there. How do you suspend something that isn't there? Like some people who posted comments, I suspect Gonzales knows he and the Bush administration have been breaking the law and those remarks were setting up a legal defense.Gonzales: I meant by that comment that the Constitution doesn't say that every individual in the United States or every citizen has or is assured the right of habeas corpus. It doesn't say that. It simply says that the right of habeas corpus shall not be suspended.
What I think everyone is missing is that there is a certain logic to his remarks once you figure out where he's coming from ideologically. Start with the proposition the the government decides whether or not to grant rights. I realize that contradicts the founding fathers' idea that rights are inherent and limited power is granted to the government, but assume you accept that idea. It then makes sense to say that even if the suspension of habeas corpus is prohibited, the government might not have granted that right, therefore the denial of habeas corpus is not a suspension. Likewise with the rights of the accused guaranteed in the sixth amendment. That amendment specifies what rights an accused person has when on trial, but it doesn't say there's a right to a trial, so it isn't violated when the government skips the trial and goes right to imprisonment.
Lousy logic I know, but if you start with accepting the initial proposition that the government has the power to grant rights, then the constitutionally controversial actions of the Bush administration start to make sense --- searches without warrants, use of torture, denial of access to family and lawyers --- as does the support of Bush's actions from authoritarian minded people. Basically, the government has the power to grant or not grant rights, so when they appear to violate rights, they actually just haven't granted them, or else they have the power to retract them. I suggest this mentality also explains things like that lack of transparency since Bush stole office, signing statements the contract the law they're attached to, and the willingness to lie about a matter as serious as war.
Maybe something even scarier than thinking they just want to grab power and enrich themselves is the thought that they really believe this stuff.
January 21
Some Democrats haven't figured out that the corruption issue that got them elected is easily undone. They forget that it takes much less than an equal amount of corruption to give the impression one party is as bad as the other. Some apparently didn't figure out the potency of this issue, even though it established a Democratic majority last year (especially if you view Iraq as part of the corruption story as I do) at least as much as it established a Republican majority in the 1994 election. Yes, I'm referring to you Sen. Menendez.
Sen. Robert Menendez of New Jersey seems to have missed that he was the only Democratic incumbent senator in a tight race last year, that he might not have won without the Democratic wave, and it was ethics allegations that got him in trouble. He had a reception with some well-heeled special interest lobbyists and didn't include it on his calendar, perhaps thinking it would be missed. It wasn't missed by columnist Mike Kelly of the Bergen Record, a New Jersey daily. The residents of New Jersey happen to include Air America host Mark Riley, who mentioned it on Tuesday's show which is where I heard it. There's no allegation of illegality, just that hanging out with special interest lobbyists looks funny, and the appearance that there was an attempt to hide it makes it appear Menendez knows it looks bad, and chose to keep it quiet rather than not take the money.
Democrats, please remember that corporate lobbyists are what you might call hated by your base. They don't have much respect among independents, and I'd wager even many Republican voters don't like them. Even though lobbyists still give the bulk of their money to the GOP, the part they give you gives the appearance that Democrats are just as beholden --- an appearance that played no small role in the support for Nader in 2000. Stay away from these guys, and let the lobbyist stories be like this one about Norm Coleman, who Rollcall reports got a pile of money from big retailers including Target and Walmart (the Rollcall story requires a subscription, so here's the reprint on the Al Franken Show site). Want to bet Coleman will be supporting the positions of big retailers? Let the Republicans be the subjects of those stories, and they'll hand this marvelous issue to you next election and maybe as long as you can be smart enough not to take lobbyist money.
Sticking to the corruption theme, tell me these stories aren't related:
What, you thought the culture of corruption was just a congressional thing, that it ended with Bob Ney and Duke Cunningham? No my naive one, the executive branch is at least as thoroughly infected, and part of it is filling government posts with people who came from the businesses they will do business with and likely go back to. If you don't smell a rat, can you smell anything at all?
