My wife high-fived my congressman
May 31

My wife and I attended a fundraiser for Rep. Keith Ellison tonight. She managed to walk over to him, give him some words of encouragement, and he high-fived her. More substantively, and with the room including Sen Amy Klobuchar, who voted for the Iraq supplemental that Ellison and most House Democrats voted against, Ellison admonished the room not to engage in a liberal Democratic circular firing squad. I think that was a quote. Though he voted no, he supported those who yes by saying we're all on the same team, even though we sometimes disagree on means and strategy. He didn't use those exact words but that's the gist. Considering the crap he's taken, I think he deserves to be listened to when he tries to make peace between supporters and opponents of the bill. He's not the only credible war opponent who says so. Al Gore agrees (he wasn't there --- I read the interview, though there were other dropable names there), saying congressional leaders are in tough spot and deserve the benefit of the doubt. I'm willing to do that. I still think they were wrong, but I'll say "wrong" in a tactical sense, not in terms of principle.

Heffelfinger fingered for supporting Indian voting rights
May 31

What do you know, Heffelfinger guessed right: it was indeed his support of Indians that got him on early lists of USAs those to be fired. It had nothing to do though with investigating crime however. He was nearly fired because he declined to support the attempt by former State Secretary of State Mary Kiffmeyer to prevent the use of tribal IDs for voter registration. Her move was illegal and courts upheld the use of these IDs in the wee hours of election day. Prior to election day, Heffelfinger supported the Indians. An assistant attorney, Rob Lewis, drafted the memo to the voting rights section of the civil rights division. Two names that have already popped up as villains in this voter fraud scandal, Bradley Schlozman and Hans Von Spakovsky, blocked any investigation. When Heffelfinger was replaced by Goodling-crony Rachel Paulose, who removed Lewis. Paulose claims, implausibly it seems, that she knows nothing about it.

The GOP has been trying to suppress Indian votes because Indians vote heavily Democratic, and commit the great crime of doing so in purple states like Minnesota. Republicans remain mystified why they don't get more Indian votes. I don't know either. Maybe the slogan, "vote GOP, and we'll stop brown skinned people from voting" has only limited appeal in non-white areas.

Culture of corruption sings North to Alaska
May 31

While busy with other topics and believe it or not, some non-blog aspects of life, I have some stuff I've been saving up. This is one. It looks like the Republican culture of corruption is including Alaska. The VECO scandal has been under the radar because it's been a state scandal until the last couple. That just changed. The short of it is VECO is on oil services company which invests money in Alaska state legislators and maybe the congressional delegation as well. Two company officers and one of their lobbyists have already pleaded guilty to bribery of state legislators. One of these legislators is the son of Sen. Ted Stevens, the "It's a series of tubes" guy. The first smell that this was going national was one it turned out VECO was a big donor to the elder Stevens, Alaska's other senator Lisa Murkowski, and at-large Rep. Don Young, plus a bunch of other national figures, all but one of whom are Republicans (and one of whom is Norm Coleman -- something to note next time he complains Franken got contributions from Hollywood), plus the state legislators are almost all Republican, as are the legislators caught up in the bribery scandal.

The suspicious part about Ted Stevens involvement so far is that when he had major renovations done to a house, the bills were sent not to him but to VECO. This has the FBI sniffing around.

The fun part is this isn't just a new permutation to an existing scandal. It's a whole new one. Say. any chance this could open an opportunity for Democrats in an overwhelmingly red state? Probably it just means some different Republicans, but no harm in trying. It's not a 48 state strategy after all.

Why is it news Valerie Wilson was covert?
May 31

This is proof of something that was definitely settled before so I'm not sure why it's news, but apparently so. An unclassified summary of Valerie Wilson's job at the CIA says she was covert. So there's proof for those of you who didn't believe it when Patrick Fitzgerald stated this at the time of the indictment of Libby, or when Wilson said so under oath in her congressional testimony, or when the director of the CIA affirmed it to the same House committee, or when her husband stated it, or when the CIA referred the leak of her identity for criminal investigation because a covert agent's identity had been revealed. Probably if you didn't believe it until now, you still don't. Indeed, Glen Greenwald had a long blog entry today not only reciting many instances over these last four years where conservatives asserted she was not covert, either without evidence or against all evidence. In fact, since only her covert status meant there was anything to leak or that a crime occurred at all, there was never a reasonable doubt. Nonetheless, conservatives are still twisting things to create doubt where there is none, which I guess means Plamegate is in the same category as global warming and evolution. I won't repeat what Greenwald wrote and let you see what he documented. The one thing I'll explain for those who haven't followed the story is "Plame" is Valerie Wilson's maiden name and she used it as a cover name, thus why she's frequently referred to a Valerie Plame. OK, I'll explain another thing, the objection that perjury can't be a crime if no one is charged with an underlying crime. Fitzgerald is quite clear that he Libby's lies prevented the investigation of the actual leak from going further. Apparently he either didn't feel he could be sure of conviction of the others involved in the leak. Also, the law requires that the leaker know the exposed person was covert, which explains why Richard Armitage is free, and the leaker has to have security clearance, which is why Robert Novak wasn't charged.

The big story is the public wasn't warned
May 30

The coverage of the new Senate Intelligence Committee report on pre-Iraq War II intelligence showing that intelligence agencies gave warnings that were correct focused on Bush's ignoring of the warnings, but I think that's the lesser story. In fact, it's human nature to ignore warnings when we're sure we're right. Sometimes we're right to ignore warnings, sometimes not. Given the risks of war, that those who start them are rarely right about how they'll go, and that roughly a third of Americans figured out without the intelligence warnings that this was a bad idea, this very clearly fell into the "sometime not" category to anyone who wasn't a delusional neocon. That "without the intelligence warnings" part is what should gall you. Bush had these warnigns at the same time he was selling the war to the public, and somehow he neglected to mention the risks. You've seen warnings of risks before: in mutual fund prospectuses, in corporate quarterly reports, on drug packaging, on cigarette packets --- you know, things much less serious than wars.

So let me spell this out, and feel free to borrow this if you're ever asked for the quick pitch on impeachment. Bush gained public support for war by lying about the risks, thereby deliberately reventing citizens from making an informed decision. To me, that's as damning as connecting 911 and Iraq when he knew there was no reason to believe there was such a connection.

Tim Walz votes yes on the Iraq supplemental
May 29

I wrote recently about why I'm backing Kucinich for president, and mentioned that one reason was his opposition to the Iraq supplemental bill. It would go too far to say I changed my mind on it since I still think it was a mistake, a whopper in fact, but I moderated my thoughts of "What the @#$% were they thinking?", starting when I saw that Rep. Tim Walz, D-MN, voted yes. I've met Walz, heard him speak a few times, donated money, and I have no doubt he is still in touch with the grassroots. The respect I have for him caused me, once I got over my shock, to wonder if I was wrong on this. I concluded I was right all along, but I'll concede there's a case to be made the other way. THough I think they're wrong, Democrats who voted yes bought into the idea that somehow the troops in Iraq would be deprived of funds. The yes votes apparently thought, though they wouldn't say it this way, that they had to be the adults since the acting president will veto anything with restrictions. Walz explained h! is thinking in an op-ed piece in the Winona Daily News, and I received a reply from Sen. Amy Klobuchar to my constituent letter saying essentially the same thing.

I understand their thinking enough to not be hopping mad like so many on this side of the political spectrum. I'm not characterizing their action as "surrender" or "caving in". A better phrase is "out-thought themselves", because they got too clever with their strategizing and failed to think a move or two ahead. Yes, they got more money for veterans benefits and an increase in the minimum wage, but they stumbled over the fear they could be blamed for cutting off the troops, even if not true, because it sounds good and they would be back in their usual position versus the GOP where they have to explain a complex position in opposition to a bumper sticker. Yes, Republicans would argue this bumper sticker and it would work with the Republican base, but the argument that they were elected to change course in Iraq and Bush was blocking that with his veto was working with the public at large. Forget the GOP base. Facts don't penetrate right now, but the fear of what the conservative propaganda machine would say is still present.

What I thought I saw implied in Walz's column, though he would never say it that way I'm sure, was concern that the acting president might contrive a supply shortage in Iraq so Democrats could be blamed: "My fear is that if we had not provided the funding the president requested, he would have kept our soldiers in Iraq regardless of whether they had the resources they need to complete their mission. I spent 24 years serving in our armed forces and I cannot allow that to happen. The only way I can moderate the president's recklessness is to ensure he does not leave our soldiers in Iraq without the funding and equipment they need." Maybe he wasn't implying that Bush would deliberately let the troops in Iraq go short, but I'll say it. I wouldn't put that past Bush at all, not when he uses troops for stage props routinely, underfunds their services, and oh yeah, gets loads of them killed in his delusional war. So sure, he would have his lackeys announce a supply shortage.

The correct strategy for this however wasn't to give Bush whatever he wanted. The problem was how to avoid the charge the Democrats abandoned the troops while still making Bush change strategy. The downside of getting tricky with the strategy is probably obvious --- there's no reason for Bush to give in next time either. It's unlikely his stubborn character will change in a few months, even if he has to veto the defense bill. The Democratic base is rebellious, and the congressional Democrats just gained some responsibility for an occupation that was all Republican. It would have been far better to prepare to rebut the 'abandoned the troops" charge, greater complexity and all, and strike preemptively against the charge that supply shortages were the Democrats' fault. Tell Bush not to do that. If congressmen are shy about making the warning, there must be others who share my suspicion but a prominent enough platform to give the warning. If some spokesman for the Bush administration denies any such intention, accept the denial. Accept it loudly and repeatedly so that if Bush does try pulling such a maneuver, the public will already understand the real cause of any shortages. Also keep on eye on the supply situations in other overseas postings, especially Afghanistan, in case the supply shortages just by happenstance are only in Iraq. There, a strategy that takes into account the next move, and is much simpler than trying to get Bush to compromise or trying to strategize the election a year and a half away.

Sure, for the supplemental, it's after the fact, but the same issue is coming up in a few months for the regular defense appropriation bill, this time with Iraq and Afghanistan costs included. And for crying out loud, trust the public to see which side is refusing to compromise. It's not likely Bush has the credibility to make the case he's being reasonable.

Why I'm backing Kucinich
May 24

The passage of the "sacrifice the troops" bill, as Laura Flanders last night described the benchmarks-optional Iraq supplemental bill passed today, is part of why I decided to back Dennis Kucinich for president. I actually decided a few weeks ago and I've been meaning to bring it up, if for not other reason than to be honest about any bias I might have in regards to the presidential race. I decided to decide now because the race has started so insanely early, that waiting means maybe having nothing to say about it. In fact, I fully expect the nomination to be settled by the time Minnesota holds its caucuses, so I made my admittedly small financial contribution now to maximize the effect.

Kucinich jumped ahead of the pack as I started my own decision process because while he isn't the only candidate to say the invasion of Iraq was a mistake, he showed sound judgement in opposing the invasion when it was authorized. Obama did too, and maybe it was unfair to give Kucinich extra credit for having to vote on it. I was willing to give credit to other candidates if they would admit authorizing the invasion was a mistake, though any who supported the bill just passed dropped out of my personal second tier down to the level where I'll support them only after they definitely have the nomination, and my enthusiasm is likely to be dampened, and my support based on opposing another Republican, not on liking the Democrat. For now though, I can still say "I want that guy" instead of saying "I want to beat that guy," like I supported Keith Ellison for my US Representative regardless of his opponents, and I'm supporting Al Franken for US Senate because I like Franken, not because of Norm Coleman or Franken's opponent for the nomination, Mike Ciresi, who I have nothing against. Kucinich is a presidential candidate I can feel that way about.

Iraq isn't the only issue of course. I chose Kucinich after a candidates forum on health care where he was the only candidate to back single payer. I haven't spent time on that issue here because I try to concentrate on just a few issues, but in brief, the US medical system can only generously be described as a "system" and basically needs to be chucked. Single payer seems screamingly obvious to me, and the only reasonable argument against I've heard is Franken's argument that the public won't trust a big government program like that after so much trust in the government has been destroyed by the acting president.

I donated to Kucinich's campaign after the last debate, when none of the other candidates supported his effort to impeach Cheney. I think Bush or Gonzales should be the first impeachment target, but that's nitpicking. I admire his willingness to stand alone if need be to do the right thing. I assume he was one of the no votes today, since he was staunch in his opposition when interviewed last night by Laura Flanders and Mark Riley.

Take the Red Pill Award for Funeral Bomber
May 23

Here's a Take the Red Pill Award to certain attendees of Jerry Falwell's funeral, specifically, those who think the funeral procession needs to include some bombs. Liberty University student Mark D. Uhl decided to bring his bombs as a counter-protest in case there were any protesters. Much louder than a sign and a shout I suppose. Not to excuse the protestors --- I think people should be allowed to have their funerals in peace --- but they were non-violent at least. There are three more suspects thought to have helped with the bomb plot. Being Christians rather than Muslims, they'll probably get the rights guaranteed under the Bill of Rights, as they should, as Muslim suspects should get too, and they also get this Take the Red Pill Award.

Dead Polar Bear Award for ExxonMobil
May 23

The reason for this Dead Polar Bear Award is simple. ExxonMobil, which has been funding disinformation by global warming skeptics, said it would stop. It didn't.

Monica Goodling won't provide documents
May 22

It's a theme today of problems at the DOJ (Department of Justice) Doesn't this violate her immunity agreement? Monica Goodling's attorney, John Dowd, says she won't give the House Judiciary Committee all the documents they subpoenaed. He says on her behalf that DOJ employees can't release documents the DOJ hasn't cleared for release. She wants her immunity and her secrecy too.

Goodling testifies tomorrow morning. C-SPAN will probably carry it, and NPR sometimes carries high profile hearings.

Gonzo lied to the DOJ after hospital incident
May 22

Turns out there's more to the Comey story about Gonzales and Andrew Card crashing the party at Ashcroft's sickbed. When DOJ staff complained to the White House, Card and Gonzo lied about not knowing Comey was acting AG. Yes, they even lie within the Bush administration, not just to the Congress, press, and public. Michael Isikoff and Daniel Klaidman of Newsweek reported that an anonymous DOJ official said, "People were disgusted as much as livid. It was just the dishonesty of it." A question that comes to my mind is why would you expect people who behave dishonorably to the rest of the world to be honest with you?

Biskupic Pressured Thompson
May 22

It was reasonable to ask if USA in Milwaukee Stephen Biskupic crossed the line in terms of prosecutorial misconduct in the Georgia Thompson case just from the amazingly fast overturning by the appeals court, but now there is more reason to ask. Biskupic pressured Thompson hard to implicate Gov. Jim Doyle, even though she never had anything. Squeezing a suspect to implicate someone more important isn't unusual, but it looks like he continued pressuring her after it was plain she knew nothing. It's highly unusual she had to go to prison immediately instead of waiting the outcome of her appeal, and also unusual for the prosecutor to offer a deal after the suspect has gone to prison.

Erase this message from your computer now!
May 18

I've been putting off this one due to Gonzogate and the non-blog parts of life, but I can't wait anymore. I laughed when I read this. Some e-mails, if genuine, show that Nevada governor and former US representative Jim Gibbons received bribes from a defense contractor.

Dennis Montgomery, a former partner of defense contractor Warren Trepp and now engaged in a lawsuit with him, claims Trepp took Gibbons and family on a very expensive free cruise, and handed him cash besides. This is the funny part of the story:

In addition, Montgomery provided NBC with hundreds of e-mails, he says, from Trepp's computer.

Days before the cruise, Trepp's wife e-mails her husband: "Please don't forget to bring the money you promised Jim and Dawn on the trip."

Hours later, Trepp e-mails back: "Don't ever send this kind of message to me! Erase this message from your computer now!"

Gibbons had been under investigation for doing favors for Trepp already, allegedly in return for hiring Gibbons' wife. The investigation of Gibbons that might have been behind the firing of Daniel Bogden, US Attorney for Nevada.

If you like your scandals with some Flash, capitalized because this uses Flash animation, Slate has a visual guide to Republican scandals. A map of Washington includes faces and icons which when clicked on give some information about the related scandal. It isn't exhaustive of course. That would be impossible or least require the invention of whole new graphics cards. It's pretty good though.

VA bonuses scandal gets bigger
May 18

The bonuses given to top VA administrators might be turning into a real scandal, and not just that big bonuses (for the public sector anyway) were given to administrators responsible for budgeting problems including backlogs of benefits applications. It turns out the recipients of the bonuses sat on the boards that decided who got bonuses.

World Bank caves on Wolfowitz
May 17

That headline might overstate things, but late this afternoon the World Bank and Paul Wolfowitz put out statements, the gist of which is Wolfowitz gets some exoneration as the board pretends to believe he acted in good faith, and Wolfowtiz quits work now but formally resigns at the end of June, so he'll get his nice big bonus. Essentially, they bribed him to go. I'd like to know what he or Bush did to get such a good deal. Maybe they threatened to have the US withdraw from the bank, like unilateralist and isolationist conservatives want anyway. I'd like to know, but doubt the public will ever learn the truth.

McClatchy indicates Heffelfinger was fired after all
May 16

This McClatchy story has this sentence towards the bottom: "A U.S. attorney in Minnesota, who disagreed with the Justice Department on a case involving voting rolls, was asked to resign early last year." That would be Tom Heffelfinger, who has steadfastly denied being pushed out, but maintained he left on his own and knew nothing of being on a list of targeted USAs. He even convinced Sen. Amy Klobuchar, who knew him in her capacity as Hennepin County Attorney, and said on a recent Minnesota Matters that Heffelfinger said he left entirely for personal reasons. Heffelfinger has been completely consistent in his story. Maybe he just denies really well. Trying to read tea leaves, the fact the sentence is tossed in at the bottom suggests the possibility the reporters didn't know Heffelfinger still denies being asked to resign. However, McClatchy's record of being on top of this story suggests they got their facts right. So we don't know. It would suggest Paulose was a good bushie and not necessarily the best nominee available.

The crux of the article is that it turns out two more USAs were targeted for firing, Gregory Miller in Tallahassee, FL, and Bill Leone, the former acting U.S. attorney for Colorado. Miller is still there, but Leone got passed over. An interesting bit is who he got passed over for. Quoting another sentence, "His replacement was Troy Eid, a former lawyer with the Washington-based lobbying firm Greenberg Traurig, which at one time had employed convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff." Wow, that Abramoff guy is everywhere, though I hardly need remind Republicans of why so many of them are trying to look stylish in horizontal stripes. That would just be too funny if the Abramoff scandal gets connected to Gonzogate.

The spin to defend Wolfowitz: it's the World Bank that's damaged
May 16

There was something bizarre I noticed in this AP story, White House: World Bank Bruised by Fight. There was this paragraph:

"This has certainly been a bruising episode for the bank, and what you have to do is figure out a way forward to maintain the integrity of the institution," White House press secretary Tony Snow said. "And, therefore, when you do it, you're going to discuss everything. That's what you would normally do," he added.

Clearly they're trying to spin this as the bank has had something go seriously wrong, and it's the bank that has suffered damage. It seems to me that succeeding in clearing out the corruption that came in with Wolfowitz shows the bank has some strength and integrity as an institution, and it's sure to come out of this stronger since the Bush administration's ability to dictate to it will be greatly weakened. Maybe if it can't gain some freedom from US supply-side nonsense, it can change its policies and start doing a lot more good.

And yes, that was me posting this as a comment on a Salon blog.