“War Czar” Simply the Administration's Way of Making The "Bush War” Permanent!

For years, conservatives have talked about the importance of “making the Bush Tax Cuts permanent.” With their recent call for a “War Czar,” they seem to have similar hopes about George W. Bush’s war in Iraq.

While it makes some kind of sense to have a “Drug Czar,” or a “Terrorism Czar,” because drugs and terrorism are insidious problems that will always be present at some level, war has always been a temporary response to a world crisis. A war is something that most of us expect to occur only as a last resort. If conducted well, a war should end as soon as a desired de-escalation of the crisis is achieved.

Naming a “War Czar” gives the psychological impact of permanence, in the same way that the “Drug Czar” and the so-called “War on Drugs” have been woven into the fabric of American society.

However, it makes about as much sense as naming a “Flood Relief Czar” during a flood, or a “Power Outage Czar" during a power outage!

If we really want to look for an insidious, long-term, problem requiring its own Czar, how about naming Patrick Fitzgerald as our nation's “Corruption Czar?”

Who Will Be The First To Go - Sanjaya or Alberto?

With the the controversy surrounding Alberto Gonzales and his Department of Justice - I can't help but see the parallels surrounding this years American Idol situation.

Gonzo has proven to be unable to coherently explain his role in the firing of eight US attorneys.

Sanjaya continues to prove week after week that he cannot sing.

Gonzo with seemingly very little talent as a lawyer somehow rose to be Attorney General of the United States.

Sanjaya with very little singing talent - week after week gets enough votes to remain on American Idol.

So I ask the question - who will be the first to go - Sanjaya or Alberto?

For that matter - who would be a better Attorney General?

Left-Over Presents: You Make the Call!

Although most of the commentary on Tuesday’s press conference has been about Bush’s stubborn unwillingness to consider leaving Iraq (or even to consider that the American people want to leave Iraq), I’d like to highlight a couple of exchanges that relate to a more trivial topic.

And then I will leave you with a question for your consideration.

First, this brief exchange:

Q: Since General Pace made his comments — they got a lot of attention — about homosexuality, we haven't heard from you on that issue. Do you, sir, believe that homosexuality is immoral?

BUSH: I — I — I will not be rendering judgment about individual orientation. I do believe the don't ask/don't tell policy is good policy. Sammon, yes.

Interesting that, aside from the mention of comments by General Pace, the question had nothing to do with homosexuals serving in the military but was about morality. Still, the only response the stuttering Bush could muster was to say he believes in “don’t ask, don’t tell.” And then he quickly moved to another reporter, and preferably another line of questioning.

But consider that the question came after the following exchange had occurred just moments earlier:

BUSH: Bill?

Q: Mr. President, a lot of the disagreement...

BUSH: Wrong Bill.

Q: Which one, him?

BUSH: No, you. The cute looking one.

Q: Thanks so much.

Or this one:

BUSH: Dancer. Dancing man. That would be David Gregory. For those of you not aware, Gregory put on a show the other...

Q: Everybody's aware, Mr. President. Thank you.

BUSH: Well, maybe the listeners aren't.

Q: Yes, that's all right.

BUSH: That was a beautiful performance, seriously.

Q: Thank you. Thank you very much.

And so the question on which I’d like you, the reader, to make the call, is this:

Are all of the people on this list ranked at least one slot too high?

This is What He’s Done For His "Friends!"

As if there aren’t enough opportunities to be reminded of the disaster that has been the presidency of George W. Bush, I had another glaring reminder this week.

While attending a Symposium on Enterprise Risk Management, I was present for a discussion panel consisting of a number of corporate executives who also serve on the Boards of other publicly traded corporations. The audience was made up mostly of Risk Managers and Quantitative Analysts for major banks, insurance companies and energy companies. There were probably 800 to 1000 people in the room, as members of the panel were presented a series of questions on the role of the Board in assessing and managing risk for a large firm.

One of the questions was a pretty basic one: What are your main concerns today regarding risk assessment?

The most striking answer to this question came from a man who has spent 35 years as a private equity investor and valuation expert, who also serves on the Board of three other companies, and who specializes in purchasing and turning around failing companies, often after leveraged buyouts. He is clearly a very wealthy and successful man – one of those who might be considered by our President to be among “the haves and the have-mores.”

His answer was quite telling about the impact of the last six years under the current administration. He prefaced it by recounting a lunch that he had with five business acquaintances, all of whom happen to be chairpersons of one of different Federal Reserve Banks across the country. He noted the surprise he felt at hearing of their shared fear over the possibility of a financial meltdown in the US economy.

His answer to the question can be paraphrased as follows:

“I worry that America is more vulnerable and more disliked than at any time in our history!”

Hearing the bluntness of this statement, and the ease with which the audience seemed to nod its collective head at the response, I could not help but think that this is going to be the Bush legacy – leaving the country with a precarious economy in a world without friends!

And this is going to be the Bush legacy for Bush’s proclaimed friends, not just his political enemies and detractors!

And all but a small, and shrinking, group of Bush’s proclaimed friends already know it!

Meet the New Conservative Michael Moore!

Some people never learn! As if it wasn’t enough that Fox proved with The Half-Hour Comedy Hour that “conservative political humor” is about as hard to find as a mermaid, Rick Santorum now says he wants to provide entertainment through conservative political documentaries.

According to Santorum:

"Politics and political dialogue has some impact on America but changing the culture has a much bigger impact," Santorum said about his new role outside the public sector and his push to make documentaries. "That is what the left is doing and doing it in a big way, producing a lot of left content for Hollywood, and even not just out of Hollywood. Even independent films are now more and more left-wing driven, whether it is Michael Moore or Al Gore."

He added: "Someone has to go out there and tell them the other side of the story."

First, we were given the new conservative John Stewart, in a show so profoundly lame that even the Right Wing News could only come up with this description:

This show was not timely at all and at times you felt like their first priority was getting across a message, not making people laugh. Perhaps more importantly, this may be the least edgy show made since Leave it to Beaver.

Now, Santorum wants to show us he can be the new conservative Michael Moore! Say what you want about Michael Moore’s politics, he is clearly a talented filmmaker and a very entertaining and engaging fellow.

And based on what I’ve seen of Santorum’s competence as a legislator, and of his personality and speaking style, I’m willing to predict that Little Ricky will turn out to be no Michael Moore. In fact, I seriously doubt that he will have the filmmaking talent of a manatee!

(Note: Rick Santorum's hat and logo from: The Cranky Princess)

Gonzo Says - Move Along Nothing to See Here!

In an interview with Pete Williams of NBC News - Alberto Gonzales today attempted to quiet the call for his resignation. His performance in the interview wasn't any better than his supervision of his own justice department. Here is my favorite exchange:

(Emphasis mine)

Williams: Given that, then how can you be certain that none of these U.S. attorneys were put on that list for improper reasons?

Gonzales: What I can say is this: I know the reasons why I asked you — these United States attorneys to leave. And it — it was not for improper reasons. It was not to interfere with the public corruption case. It was not for partisan reasons.

I also — we also know that there's nothing in the documents that indicates that they were asked to leave for improper reasons. But all — but lastly, just to be sure, I have asked for an internal — review by the Office of Professional Responsibility, working with the Office of Inspector General. And, of course, the Congress is going to be doing its own review because I want to know as well if, in fact, there were improper reasons, we — we should know about it. And there will be accountability.

Williams: To put this question another way — if you didn't review their performance during this process, then how can you be certain that they were fired for performance reasons?

Gonzales: I — I've given — I've given the answer to the question, Pete. I know — I know the reasons why I made the decision. Again, there's nothing in the documents to support the allegation that there was anything improper here.

OK So Gonzo has good reasons that were not at all improper, he just can't tell anyone about them. He knows them, he really does. He just can't tell anyone about those really good non-partisan, non-corruption interfering reasons. But he knows them - he really really does!

I can't believe that this guy is our Attorney General. What kind of lawyer makes this lame of an argument. I see why George keeps him around. It must be the only time he feels smart.

How to Lie With Statistics!

This classic book, first published in 1954, was instrumental in a decision, over 20 years ago, to expand my college study from strictly business finance and statistics to include philosophy - particularly logic and critical thinking.

From the description at Amazon:

"There is terror in numbers," writes Darrell Huff in How to Lie with Statistics. And nowhere does this terror translate to blind acceptance of authority more than in the slippery world of averages, correlations, graphs, and trends” . . . The book remains relevant as a wake-up call for people unaccustomed to examining the endless flow of numbers pouring from Wall Street, Madison Avenue, and everywhere else someone has an axe to grind, a point to prove, or a product to sell. "The secret language of statistics, so appealing in a fact-minded culture, is employed to sensationalize, inflate, confuse, and oversimplify," warns Huff.

Here’s a good example – an article by Steven Thomma of McClatchy News Services, citing a statistical analysis of lifetime voting records and concluding that Barack Obama is “the most liberal” of the Congressional Democrats currently running for President in 2008.

“More liberal than Dennis Kucinich,” Thomma warns, going on to cite a bunch of percentages from past votes that serve to rank the candidates as follows, according to frequency of liberal votes:

Obama 84.3 %
Kucinich 79.4%
Dodd 79.2%
Clinton 78.8%
Biden 76.8%

To understand how this is absolute crap, consider that Obama was sworn in as a Senator on January 4, 2005. His entire congressional career has been spent voting only on the bills allowed to be brought to the floor by an extremist right-wing majority! So naturally he would be forced to take the more liberal side of those issues. Legislators with experience extending back to a time when Democrats could actually propose legislation have had opportunities to occasionally consider and make some more conservative votes (without threatening democracy as we know it!)

Clearly this article is intended to scare anyone who might be worried about "excessive liberalism" into writing off Obama. How sad to be Steven Thomma, working hard to build a career in journalism that finds him writing for a large and influential news organization like McClatchy, carefully crafting articles to be distributed under his byline so that his own mother can be proud of her son’s accomplishments – but to have an intended audience made up of people like this guy!

And I guess what this article really shows is that, based on the fact that Hillary Clinton was sworn in as a Senator on January 3, 2001, during the same period of Republican rule in the Senate, a lifetime voting record of 78.8% liberal votes suggests that she may actually be a conservative!

Pop Goes the Weasel

So now we we have definitive proof that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales lied under oath about his involvement in the US Attorney firings. It is time for Alberto to go - resign in shame - adios amigo. Gee I wonder what else he has lied about during his tenure.

I really just wanted to post this picture again!

Bush Administration Grappling with US Attorney Scandal

When I was a kid, about 9 years old, I spent a lot of time at the local high school gym -watching my older brother compete in wrestling matches. I bring this up because the current Bush Administration scandal du jour has brought back specific memories from that time.

As George Bush and Tony Snow posture, spin and obfuscate the administration's role in the US Attorney firings and the Democrats in the legislature threaten - but have yet to issue subpoena’s – I can’t help but picture the beginning of those wrestling matchs, where the combatants circle, reach, slap and lunge at each other – neither willing to attempt an actual take down.

The matches would progress in different ways. Some of my brother’s teammates would win on points. Some of them would lose on points. Some of them pinned their opponents while others were pinned themselves.

My brother’s matches however always seemed to go pretty much the same. As a freshman he was wrestling on the varsity team – a fine honor - but he was always up against older more experienced and frankly better wrestlers. The matches would start out promising with my brother holding his own, but inevitably his matches would end with him on his back – bridging (see photo above) - determined not to be pinned - but with no real chance to win. But man could he bridge with the best of ‘em. He could bridge for what seemed like forever.

And, that is exactly what the Bush Administration is doing with this scandal. They are stalling hoping to run out the clock before the referee slaps the matt. Bush is going to have to do this for the rest his disastrous tenure - all 21 months of it.

This is what the Bush Presidency has come to - anything to avoid being pinned.

Good luck George. Even my big brother can’t bridge that long.

Unraveling the Common Thread

It turns out Scooter Libby’s efforts at obstructing justice were rather pedestrian by White House standards!

Its funny how the Republicans used to accuse Democrats of being “obstructionist” any time they didn’t go along with the President’s agenda, while it now appears that the President’s agenda has been propped up by all kinds of White House “plots and plans” to obstruct justice.

The latest example:

Fired San Diego U.S. attorney Carol Lam notified the Justice Department that she intended to execute search warrants on a high-ranking CIA official as part of a corruption probe the day before a Justice Department official sent an e-mail that said Lam needed to be fired.

The e-mail clearly suggests that Lam’s firing was more urgent than a routine personnel matter:

The May 11 e-mail was from D. Kyle Sampson, chief of staff to Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales, to White House Deputy Counsel William Kelley. "The real problem we have right now with Carol Lam … leads me to conclude that we should have someone ready to be nominated on 11/18, the day her four-year term expires," it said.

In fact, it seems highly possible that the firing of eight U.S. attorneys was orchestrated as cover to specifically thwart an ongoing investigation by Lam. As the NYT suggests, this could be yet another instance of lawbreaking by White House officials.

I’m just speculating here, but by the time all the facts are unraveled, I wouldn’t be surprised if the genesis of the whole scheme was a plot to end the investigation by Lam. However, for political cover, it was first proposed to fire all 93 U.S. attorneys, and then limited to a smaller group who could be justified with talking points.

That group, apparently compiled by Kyle Sampson under the guidance of Karl Rove, was made up of attorney’s who made the list for a variety of reasons, including merely being in a job desired by a Rove protege!

Beyond that, it sure sounds like the word was out among Republican legislators that nominations for the short list were being accepted!

It’s My Party . . . and I’ll Cry If I Want To!

I’m sure at least a few regular readers will relate to be frightened by this article.

Apparently, Rahm Emanuel (D-Cave) is using his experience and influence to impart key bits of wisdom to the incoming freshmen class of Democratic House members.

One of Rahm’s suggestions is to decline interviews with Stephen Colbert. Apparently, reputedly brilliant strategist Emanuel is worried about the negative political implications of The Colbert Report's viewers thinking his white male colleagues are really black females, or that Democrats actually put kittens in a wood-chipper! It’s hard to believe that this is the guy who is in charge of campaign strategy for the Democrats!

But wait, it gets worse. When asked to describe Emanuel’s impact on the rookie House Democrats, one new member gave him an endorsement that is almost as frightening as the thought of a third Presidential term for George W. Bush:

He’s the Al Davis of Congress,” said Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-Pa.), referring to the legendary owner of the Oakland Raiders who coined the phrase, “Just win, baby.”

Great, now I’ve got the image stuck in my head of having to hold my nose in 2008 while casting my vote for a Hillary Clinton–Randy Moss ticket!

Just shoot me now!

Gonzales Accepts Deniable Responsibilty

Here is basically what the AG said today:

Mistakes were made...........I accept full responsibility...........I stand by those mistakes..........I intend to find and hold someone else responsible.

This is one Giant snowball picking up speed!

[Note by seenos: I noticed the image was messed up, so I grabbed this old one I had made for an earlier post. Somehow, it is even more fitting today!]

Where Have I Heard That Before?

So Karl Rove is right in the middle of the U.S. attorney purge! As Gomer Pyle would say, “Well surr-priise, surr-priise, surr-priiiissse!!!!!” As consistent as he is at being involved in political scandals, Rove seems equally consistent at making sorry explanations about his involvement:

In an interview Saturday with McClatchy Newspapers, Weh said he complained in 2005 about Iglesias to a White House liaison who worked for Rove and asked that he be removed. Weh said he followed up with Rove personally in late 2006 during a visit to the White House, but Rove told him Iglesias had already been fired.

"He's gone," Rove said, according to Weh (my emphasis).

Despite the tough sounding talk from Rove, he later relied on a White House lackey to try to get him off the hook:

(White House Spokesperson Dana) Perino said Rove might have mentioned the complaints about Iglesias "in passing" to Gonzales.

"He doesn't exactly recall, but he may have had a casual conversation with the A.G. to say he had passed those complaints to Harriet Miers," Perino said, relaying Rove's hazy recollection.

Sound familiar? Here’s Newsweek’s description of Rove’s involvement in the CIA Leak scandal:

In early October 2003, . . . immediately after Novak's column appeared in July, Rove called MSNBC "Hardball" host Chris Matthews and told him that Wilson's wife was "fair game." But White House spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters at the time that any suggestion that Rove had played a role in outing Plame was "totally ridiculous." On Oct. 10, McClellan was asked directly if Rove and two other White House aides had ever discussed Valerie Plame with any reporters. McClellan said he had spoken with all three, and "those individuals assured me they were not involved in this."

Substitute “gone” for “fair game,” Perino for McClellan, and “might have mentioned in a casual conversation” for “was not involved” and you’ve got the same damned playbook in action. Except now Rove is running the play usually called for Scooter Libby!

Does Character Still Matter, Mr. President?

Anyone who coaches youth sports, and most parents of young children, will tell you that one of the best ways to build character in young people is to make sure that they have to experience the negative consequences of their own poor decisions. To let a kid completely off the hook for doing something wrong is to ignore an opportunity to teach a lesson that can help form an honorable, respectful, and in some communities, a God-fearing, adult. It’s often called “tough love,” and it’s practiced in various forms by liberals and conservatives alike.

George W. Bush came into the White House after campaigning under the banner “Character Matters.” While criticizing the misdeeds of his Democratic predecessor, he promised “to restore honor and integrity” to the White House. And his supporters believed him!

Aside from a small number of hypocritical neocon politicians, lobbyists, and pundits, Bush’s supporters are mostly those who see the world in black and white, right and wrong, crime and punishment, terms that are, when considering a family member who has done something wrong, consistent with the idea of “tough love.”

So, if Scooter Libby is such a nice guy, why not practice a little “tough love” and use his conviction as an opportunity to teach him a valuable lesson and build some character? After all, character matters in a Bush White House, right? A few years in prison won’t kill Scooter Libby. As the saying goes, it will probably make him stronger!

Or George W. Bush can issue a Presidential pardon. He can let Libby completely off the hook without building any character at all! He can be like the Little League coach who lets a player cheat, or lie about his age, without any attempt to teach good sportsmanship and fair play.

And what kind of character would the President be modeling as a leader? To pardon Libby, Bush would have to break his own Justice Department’s rules to pardon his own advisor, for actions taken at the behest of his own Vice President, and likely with his own approval. After all, according to Cheney, “this Pres” is the one who asked Libby to put his neck in the meatgrinder!

Of course we know that character isn't expressed through campaign slogans, and this President hasn't displayed much in the way of character since taking office. Still, at every opportunity, between now and the time George W. Bush leaves office, as long as Scooter Libby is in line to be held accountable for his own poor decisions, the President should be asked the followng question, over and over:

“Does Character Still Matter, Mr. President?”

My Dumbest Investment!

In a syndicated feature published periodically by The Motley Fool, readers contribute stories describing the stupidest investments they have ever made. Sometimes it’s a failed business venture, or a stockpile of some not-so-rare collectible items. Sometimes it’s a questionable real estate deal, or an unexpectedly complicated commodity like a herd of livestock.

I wonder how long before we start seeing stories from some of the members of the Scooter Libby Legal Defense Fund - like, perhaps, actors Ron Silver or Fred Thompson, or Tucker Carlson’s dad, Richard!

After contributing something near $5 million to fund Scooter’s defense, these “investors” watched Libby’s lawyers fold their hand after only two days of mostly pointless testimony that “climaxed” with John Hannah, a witness who was described by one juror as having been the least credible of everyone they heard during the trial! The defense failed to call any witnesses who could validate some of the assertions made in their opening statement, such as the “scapegoat to protect Karl Rove” theory. After huffing and puffing about testimony from Libby and Cheney for months, neither man was put on the stand, leading even the Judge to question the effectiveness of the defense.

No wonder Ted Wells ended his closing argument with a tearful plea, followed by burying his head in his hands throughout the Prosecution’s rebuttal!

I guess Libby’s supporters can always look at the bright side: at least Scooter still has lots of money left in the fund to keep him well stocked in cigarettes and soap-on-a-rope!

The Limits of Human Possibility

Last week’s jury deliberation in the Libby trial ended with the following question being posed to the judge:

Is it necessary for the government to present evidence that it is not humanly possible for someone not to recall an event in order to find guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?

Immediately, observers noted the likelihood of a holdout threatening to prevent the jury from reaching a verdict. Surely, they suggested, one of the jury members is confusing “reasonable doubt” with questions of “human possibility.”

And, although an appropriate answer to their question was a simple and straightforward “NO,” Judge Walton this morning decided to ask them to clarify their question, stating:

I do not fully understand what you mean by "humanly possible." If you can rephrase the question considering the language I gave you in the reasonable doubt instruction, I will assess whether I can provide further guidance to you.

The reasonable doubt language is presented below:

Reasonable doubt … is doubt based on reason. … Reasonable doubt is the kind of doubt that would cause a reasonable person, after careful and thoughtful reflection, to hesitate to act in the graver or more important matters in life. However, it is not an imaginary doubt, nor a doubt based on speculation or guesswork; it is a doubt based on reason. The government is not required to prove guilt beyond all doubt, or to a mathematical or scientific certainty.

So what do we have here, and why was the judge confused by such a seemingly silly and unnecessary question? How did the discussion of what is “humanly possible” even get introduced in the first place?

My guess is that it really had nothing to do with Libby’s memory, but that one of the jurors is clinging to the idea that it is not humanly possible to know that Libby lied, hence there will always be reasonable doubt!

In trying to get clarification that would shake this idea, the rest of the jury posed the wrong question, and the judge may have tried to get them to rephrase the question in such a way that makes the answer more obvious, even to a stubborn juror!

In my view, the more appropriate question is: Is it humanly possible for a juror to have reasonable doubt that Libby lied? That is - to have doubt based on reason, rather than doubt based on imagination or speculation?

Well, based on imagination, I have no problem speculating about the unlikely confluence of an extremely small-headed yoga master with a very relaxed sphincter. So, in that sense, it is "humanly possible" for one of the jurors to have his or her head up his or her own ass!

But, based on reason, I don’t think so!

Dick Cheney, Supervillain!

Yesterday’s New York Observer contained a great one-two punch straight to the heart of the secretive, self-appointed and stolen, shadow presidency of Dick Cheney.

As we learn more and more about his secret goal of expanding U.S. Military operations in the Middle East, including the possibility of nuclear war in Iran, it is becoming pretty clear that Dick Cheney has become a real-life version of some of the great fictional supervillains. His image now seems to belong right alongside of such notables as Lex Luthor, The Penguin, and Ernst Stavro Blofeld (pictured above).

With new evidence that the devious Cheney may be certifiably insane, as suggested by recent news accounts that went something like this:

Speaking on a condition of anonymity, a “senior administration official” said, of Dick Cheney’s recent trip to Afghanistan and Pakistan, “I’m the Vice President, and you’re not!”

Frankly, I’m surprised he didn’t try to further conceal his identity by adding: "So go f**k yourself, before I shoot you in the face!"

Cheney’s underhanded and megalomaniacal schemes have brought the country, and the World, to the brink of self-destruction, and something dramatic may have to be done to stop him.

Unfortunately, it seems all we can hope for now is that some mild-mannered congressman (or woman) is secretly able to transform into a superhero in time to stop Dick Cheney from carrying out his dastardly and fiendish plans!

Somebody? Anybody? So far, all I’m seein’ are birds and planes up there!

Question!

Doesn't Cheney quickly leaving the base where he was a target embolden the enemy and at the same time hurt troop morale for all those soldiers who can't just pack up a get the hell out of harms way?

Shouldn't Dick just stay put - fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here?

Great Gore Op-Ed

Richard Cohen has a must read Op-ed in today's Washington Post about Al Gore.

Here is how it begins:

Now, somebody ought to make a movie about Al Gore. I would call it "An Uncomplaining Life."
The movie would be about a man who did not quit, who came off the canvas after a painfully close election -- he won the popular vote, after all -- who accepted defeat graciously and tried to unite the nation, who returned to the consuming passion of his earlier days, the environment, and spoke endlessly on the topic, almost always for free, who starred in a documentary based on his speech and who Sunday night, before a billion or so people, won an Academy Award for his effort. This may or may not be a stepping stone to the presidency, but Gore gives us all a lesson on how to live one's life.

Libby Trial: Defense Counts on Jurors’ Imagination

Here’s my favorite line of the Defense closing argument, as blogged by Emptywheel, from lead Libby attorney, Ted Wells, when he began to whine about not getting to have the last word (with my emphasis):

Fitzgerald goes last. But I will tell you, and say to you now, there's an extreme disadvantage to Defense, because you're not able to respond to something that will come up. I don't get to respond, but this is an important trial, and I represent an important person, so I want you to think about how I would respond. I want you to be critical thinkers. If you hear something that is new, I want you think, what would Wells and Jeffress say that is new.

I don’t believe that “critical thinking” is the skill Wells is really lobbying for here. He might as well have said:

“If Fitzgerald makes an argument that is better reasoned and more compelling than the one we have given you, I want you to hallucinate the image of Wells and Jeffress giving an even better argument!”

There also seemed to be quite a bit of ego stroking in the Defense argument yesterday. In addition to reminding the jury that he represents “an important person,” Wells made a strange point of complimenting his partner:

We saw what was in essence a Perry Mason moment when my partner Bill Jeffress, one of the best lawyers in the country . . .

Frankly, if I’m a juror, this line feels a bit like watching a Broadway play and having one of the actors suddenly tell the audience that his co-star deserves a Tony Award for being one of the best actors in the country.

Let’s just say that I would be very reluctant to give a glowing review of that play, no matter what else I heard during the performance!

Libby Trial: Defense Covers the Pass, While Fitz Runs Up the Middle!

The first day of Scooter Libby’s defense seemed kind of odd. After nearly two weeks of hearing a nice clean prosecution case that basically ran the “Libby lied” theme down the defenses throat, Libby’s team blew through 7 witnesses on the first day while trying to show that Libby wasn’t leaking to every reporter he talked to. It was as if they were trying to defend all over the field, when the offense had not even bothered to throw a pass!

Fitzgerald, sensing that the defense was playing against a phantom game plan, simply let the defense witnesses pass through with only token cross-examination. One witness wasn’t asked any questions at all, while another got only one question. Even Bob Novak, whose defense testimony seemed ripe for shredding, was let off the hook with only about six or seven questions.

Basically, Fitzgerald didn’t seem to care if the defense proved Libby wasn’t leaking to everyone, or even that he wasn’t the primary leaker! Libby was indicted for lying! He was indicted because he was the one who “made up a story” to hide the connection between the leaking (regardless of who was doing it) and Dick Cheney - presumably at the behest of Cheney.

Any other defense witnesses besides the two men who were directly involved in the decision to lie about this connection - Libby and Cheney - are mere distractions to be moved in and out as fast as possible, in order to keep the government’s case fresh in the mind of the jurors.

The second day of defense started much like the first day, as the leadoff witness was in and out in a flash with only one question during cross examination.

But then, John Hannah, Cheney’s current National Security Advisor, was brought in essentially as a “surrogate” for both Libby and Cheney, as he was asked to describe both Libby’s pattern of forgetfulness and his intense, all-consuming involvement and in critical national security issues (the ones he could remember anyway) that made the issue of "Wilson's wife" unimportant. Finally, here was a chance for Fitzgerald to tear into a key defense witness!

But even here, Fitzgerald’s response was swift and precise (as blogged by emptywheel, with my comments in brackets):

Fitz: Scope of [Chief Of Staff] as you understood it. Part of it was to protect OVP and VP from public criticism.

Hannah: It's not the formulation I would use, Need to go out and truthfully defend office from unfair criticism.

Fitz: Especially important if it was directed at integrity of VP or OVP, and integrity of Admin, OVP, VP, in terms of Iraq.

Hannah: It would be important pushback, yes.

Fitz: Best time to see Libby was evening, particularly if you focus July 6. Fair to say during that week, if you said tomorrow morning take an hour or two to go out for coffee, he wouldn't take that time.

Hannah: It would be harder.

Fitz: If he gave someone [cough, Judy Miller, cough!] an hour or two, it was something Libby thought important.

Hannah: WRT me, yes.

Game over! After that, the Libby team decided to pack it in, announcing that neither Libby or Cheney would testify, and that the defense would rest its case after only a few minor pieces of supplemental evidence were admitted.

It didn’t seem like much of a defense, and it wasn’t – if the goal were to get Libby acquitted. But with the possibility of a pardon down the road, most experts see appeals dragging until the very end of Bush’s current term. And expect even more White House comments like “I'm not going to comment on the process of an ongoing investigation trial appeal.”

How Dick Cheney’s Dreams Differ From Other Peoples' Dreams!

Note: The "Sleeping Cheney" image was created about 10 months ago, while the "Sleeping Man" was created today - using a "Cheney in Prison" inset respectfully swiped from the brilliant Dood Abides.

Libby Trial: The Adventures of Scooter the Squirrel!

Looking back at my (seemingly ancient) times as a high school debater, I remember a term for a strategy occasionally used by lazy or overmatched competitors when they had to debate the “affirmative” side of a policy issue. It was called a “Squirrel Case.” Very roughly described, it consists of taking a position so obscure and unexpected that even a meticulously prepared opponent would have done no research that would help rebut any element of the proposal.

My debating partner and I often happened to fall into the “lazy or overmatched” camp, but we were quite successful on the affirmative side with a “squirrel case” related to Prison Reform (the official debate topic for my junior year). In our proposal, we argued for a treatment regimen for convicted violent offenders based on the combined use of chemicals (such as sodium pentathol) and intense hypnosis, a la “A Clockwork Orange,” in order to completely eliminate the need for incarceration.

Because we didn’t do any substantial research into potential arguments for the “negative” side, we routinely got our rear-ends handed to us by scrawny, bespectacled geeks with enormous filing cabinets full of material, but their files didn’t help them much when we were lucky enough to draw the affirmative!

One week into the Scooter Libby trial, I am starting to suspect that the Libby team may be trying the equivalent of a “squirrel case,” instead of the vaunted “faulty memory defense” that has been their more public strategy, and the one that Fitz has clearly built his case to overcome.

During a lengthy argument before Judge Walton on Thursday, Fitz lobbied to be able to show video of Scott McClellan press conferences about Libby, and he repeatedly referred back to one of the big surprises of Wells’ opening statement. From Emptywheel’s play-by-play:

Fitz. For Wells to argue that this is about Libby being thrown under the bus, when that's not in the GJ, and this is, then why can't I do that.

And

Fitz. Mr Libby never testified to this "throwing under the bus concept." That's not in GJ.

And Wells spelled out, in more detail, an argument that seemed to come out of the blue during his opening statement:

Wells. Let me explain purpose of it. Fitz repeatedly argued that Bush made statement that anyone involved would be fired. My response to that, in terms of Libby, he was not concerned about job, he was concerned they were scapegoating him. What we're going to argue in response to govt's argument, he was concerned about scapegoating. He acted like an innocent person, went to VP and asked to be exonerated. That's what VP will say if he testifies. It goes to motive. They want this transcript in to go to motive. They want to say he was afraid of losing job. Only an innocent person, I would argue, would go to VPUS, to say that he was worried about scapegoating.

In a case where the primary focus has been whether or not Libby knew about Valerie Plame before he said he learned about it from Tim Russert, Fitzgerald has methodically set out to establish, through a parade of witnesses describing conversation after conversation, that Libby was preoccupied with Wilson and Plame before he talked to Russert. For Libby to be able to testify credibly that he mistakenly thought he learned about Plame from Russert after all of these conversations seems nearly impossible.

Frankly, I think the Libby team has known it would be impossible from the beginning, even as they were floating the “faulty memory” defense and filing motions foreshadowing this defense, all the while intending to stake their chances on the argument that he was “completely innocent” of any wrongdoing, had no motive to lie, and that everything that he did was out of a desire to avoid being “scapegoated!”

I don’t think Libby is going to testify. According to Judge Walton, that would be “suicide” to his “faulty memory” defense, but I don’t think that’s his defense. I don’t think there was ever any intention of Libby testifying, which is why Wells’ opening statement began with the line: “My name is Ted Wells and I speak for Scooter Libby.”

All of the government witnesses have been grilled by Libby lawyers about their own memory shortfalls, as if to set the stage for Libby to claim he has similar shortfalls. That won’t work, because there are too many witnesses, and too many conversations, about Wilson and Plame.

Emptywheel thinks that Cheney won’t testify despite claims by Ted Wells of what Cheney will say - because by testifying, Cheney would have to perjure himself or end up confirming the prosecution’s narrative of the case. Frankly, I don’t think Libby can afford to have anyone even remotely involved in the so-called “War on Wilson” testify, because Fitzgerald knows enough to make any of them have to commit perjury or further incriminate Libby!

From the beginning, Libby’s real goal was to try to get at least one juror to sympathize with him and his stated desire to avoid being “scapegoated.” At least one juror would have to see everything else as either due to:

1) misunderstandings from poor note-taking by forgetful reporters,

2) a grudge between the CIA and the Office of the VP, or

3) deals made with the prosecution by people who were trying to save their butts.

But from the beginning, Libby's defense would have to be done only with "character" witnesses who weren’t actually involved in the Wilson matter.

And from the beginning, Libby's defense would have to be done with an argument that was not foreshadowed in the Grand Jury testimony or the pre-trial posturing, so that Fitzgerald’s case would have left the door open just a crack - at least one large enough for a squirrel to squeeze through!

Libby Trial: The Credibility Gap

This post by Pachacutec from a couple of days ago is a really fascinating take on the personalities of Judge Reggie Walton, Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, and Lead Defense Attorney Ted Wells, as they are revealing themselves in the courtroom during the Libby Trial.

The points I’d like to highlight are a couple of early interactions between Walton, Fitzgerald, and Wells that sum up what I think is happening:

Outside of the presence of the jury, it seems Wells may have lost a minor credibility point or two with the judge, and Walton's opinion matters.

(snip)

late this week, Walton more or less called bullshit on Wells over a matter of the defense team's ability to review what turned out to be a rather small stack of documents in time to cross examine Cathie Martin. From emptywheel's notes: "Walton: I thought we were talking about reams and reams of documents. With all the lawyer power you got over there I don't think you'll have a problem." D'oh!

Moreover, with even greater animation, Walton declared it would be "suicide" for Libby not to testify in his own defense if he wants to make a case about his faulty memory. That, after all, was the point and the presumption behind all those months of painstaking CIPA hearings.

(snip)

Let's start with what Reggie Walton said of (Fitzgerald) on the record, outside of the presence of the jury, calling him one of the most scrupulous prosecutors he's ever had before him.

The Libby team went through many months of trying to set up a defense, based on faulty memory, which would allow them to tell a story that is consistent with testimony of the prosecution witnesses – but that still leaves room for reasonable doubt that Libby intentionally lied to the Grand Jury.

Unfortunately for Libby, after the first few witnesses’ testimony – mostly about the intensity of Libby’s interest in Joe Wilson’s trip to Niger - it is clear that Libby will not be able to offer such a story. And it is clear that there is considerable risk in having Libby try to tell it!

Thus, Wells has had to resort to “Plan B,” which is to try to impugn the credibility of ALL of the prosecution witnesses. He is trying to say that Ari Fleischer has an immunity deal and is going to lie to save himself. He is trying to say that everyone at the CIA has a grudge against the OVP and is going to lie to get revenge. Basically, he is trying to say that everyone else is committing perjury in order to wrongfully convict Libby of perjury! And he is trying to find ways of introducing the issue of faulty memory, which he wants to be able to apply to all of the reporters or journalists who may testify for the prosecution (particularly Tim Russert), without Libby’s testimony!

But it seems clear that Judge Walton will have none of it.

By referring to Fitzgerald as “one of the most scrupulous prosecutors he’s ever had before him,” Walton is putting Wells on notice that he does not believe that Fitzgerald would manipulate witnesses just to get a conviction. He is basically saying that he believes Fitzgerald’s witnesses are credible, or Fitzgerald would not rely on them.

By stating the view that it would be “suicide” for Libby not to testify, Walton is sending a message to Wells that Libby is going to have to sleep in the same bed that he has been making for the last few years.

Libby Trial: You Can’t Be Sure Where Lightning Will Strike!

The two biggest bombshells of the opening day of the Scooter Libby trial were Libby’s signals of intention to “throw Karl Rove under the bus,” and his admission that his boss, Dick Cheney, directed him to “put his neck in the meat grinder.”

In one of the earliest posts I ever wrote on this blog, I speculated that Libby seemed to have chosen to make himself a “lightning rod,” in order to deflect attention from higher profile conspirators like Rove and Cheney.

At the time, this made a lot of sense (to me, at least), because with Fitzgerald’s intense investigation, someone had to be the firewall to prevent Fitz from moving up the chain of command where the political damage would be more widespread. And Libby’s actions were so blatant and obvious that they could only be intentional!

Libby was a perfect candidate because he was high enough in the chain to be trusted to play his role, but not well known enough to be permanently identified with Bush/Cheney/Rove era. Eventually, I posited, Libby would be pardoned and remembered by most of the general public only vaguely, in questions like, “ G. Scooter Liddy - wasn’t he one of those Watergate guys?”

But much has changed since Libby agreed to be the firewall between Fitzgerald and Cheney and Rove. Among those changes are:

• The President is now in freefall, and desperately trying to salvage some kind of positive legacy. Dick Cheney is the guy who was pulling the strings that led Bush to the brink of going down in history as the Worst President Ever, so he may no longer have the juice to influence Bush into giving Libby, Cheney’s henchman, a pardon.

• A civil lawsuit filed by Joe and Valerie Wilson creates additional legal peril that Libby might have to bear alone, if found guilty of criminal charges. Unlike a criminal conviction, the President can’t pardon an award for civil damages.

• Karl Rove is no longer the untouchable architect of a permanent Republican dynasty! In fact, with a party desperately trying to rid itself of the stench of the last six years, Turdblossom seems a likely candidate to be made to embody all of the negative Republican stereotypes, as he is flushed away in order to try to get a clean start with the American public.

So now we know that Libby no longer wants to be the fall guy! After he set himself up to be a lightning rod to protect the others, Fitzgerald said “OK, I’ll bite. Let’s see how many jolts you’re willing to take for Cheney and Rove?” Apparently, it’s not that many!

Libby now wants to cast himself as a pawn, albeit a hard working, highly influential and important - but extremely forgetful - pawn! For Fitzgerald, who undoubtedly recognized Libby’s initial willingness to sacrifice himself to shield the truth, Libby’s change of heart is a victory in itself.

Fitzgerald was the umpire trying to see what was going on, and Libby threw dust in his eyes. Fitzgerald could see, but not prove, what was going on through the dust, so he indicted Libby for throwing it. Now, Libby seems willing to reveal at least some of what was going on, particularly regarding Cheney and Rove, in order to save himself.

But here is where the baseball analogy falls short! In baseball, there is no instant replay, and the umpire’s initial judgment must stand. However, in a criminal investigation, Fitzgerald can still go back and make the correct call. Hopefully that will mean eventually hearing him say the magic words:

Cheney and Rove, You’re Ooouuuuttttt!!!!!

Damn I Lost the Pool!

I always look forward to Seenos' posts wondering - who will be the last "American Idiot" to stand by GWB and his disastrous administration. Well my favorite has just dropped out of the race. And honestly George - when you lose Toby Keith - it's time to resign.

Can I hear one last FUTK!!!!

Photos of the Day

"I'm the decision maker and I have decided that you are going to give me a sponge bath."

"I know its in there somewhere." George Bush examines X-Rays in hopes of locating his heart.

Libby Trial: Opening Statements

Before opening statements on Tuesday, there had been some questions about the fact that Prosecutor Fitzgerald was given one hour, while Libby’s lead attorney, Ted Wells, got two hours.

The reason was probably pretty basic: Fitzgerald has a simple case. Remember his baseball analogy during the indictment press conference. Fitzgerald was the umpire trying to see what was happening in the game, and Libby threw dust in his eyes. Thus, his case is simple. Here is the dust. Here is the evidence that Libby threw it.

Wells’ task, on the other hand, is much broader and more complicated. He is trying to say a number of things that will confuse the situation for the jury.

a) Scooter doesn’t remember having dust in his hand.

b) Scooter is an honest, hard working guy who was pushed into a dust cloud to protect someone else.

c) Scooter was so preoccupied with all the complicated things going on in the dugout and in the clubhouse that he didn’t have time to worry about what the umpire was seeing, so why would he throw dust?

All of those arguments take time to set up. Fitzgerald can show the jury a crystal clear glass of water, while Wells has to bring out a bag of dirt, dump it in the water, stir vigorously, and then keep stirring throughout the trial in order to make sure nothing settles.

But this all plays into Fitzgerald’s hands, for a number of reasons:

• Throughout the trial, Fitzgerald will be seen by the jury as the guy who is trying to help them see things clearly, while Wells will always be the guy trying to confuse them.

• Fitzgerald’s simple case, based solely on Libby’s lies, has seemed to cause Libby to grow more resentful of feeling like a scapegoat, making him more likely to point fingers and incriminate others as a part of his defense.

• Fitzgerald has every reason to know what was really going on in the dugout and in the clubhouse, so as Wells trots out all the other “players,” along with the “Manager” (Dick Cheney), to establish what Scooter was so preoccupied with, Fitzgerald will have the opportunity to grill them about what else Scooter, and they, may have been preoccupied with.

When the dust settles, I suspect that Fitzgerald will have more than just enough evidence to show that Scooter threw dust in his eyes. He will be able to show who was doing steroids in the clubhouse, and whether the Manager was coaching his team to slide into home plate with cleats up in order to hurt any opponents of the Bush Administration!

Emptywheel’s summary of Fitzgerald’s opening statement
Emptywheel’s summary of Wells’ opening statement - Part 1, Part 2
MSNBC’s Wrap up.

Libby Trial: Selecting a Jury

As jury selection continues in the case of U.S. vs Libby, I thought I’d highlight a couple of good sources for anyone who wants to review.

Firedoglake has some amazing live blogging by Pachacutec, who is with the press corps, watching the proceedings on live video monitors. The comments are fascinating, with many notable experts such as Marcy Wheeler (Emptywheel), and even Joe Wilson himself, weighing in.

Pach’s daily recaps are a good overview, as are similar ones by David Corn at The Nation

Another interesting read is the official list of questions being asked of potential jurors. Two notable themes in the list are a set of questions about jurors’ feelings about the Bush Administration and Dick Cheney in particular, and a set of questions about their feelings regarding the nature of memory.

Apparently, the Libby team is either hoping that jurors will accept Cheney’s credibility over anyone who testifies against Libby, or they are hoping to use Cheney’s lack of popularity to keep anyone with half a brain off of the jury!

This headline seemed to capture it all:

Libby Seeks Jurors Who Trust Cheney

That's quite a task! From the looks of most polls on approval ratings, they might as well be seeking monkeys who can write computer code, or jockeys who can dunk a basketball, or WMD in Iraq – but hey, they are entitled to their strategery, such as it is!

As for memory, it sounds like the Libby team wants jurors who would believe that it is transient, and that Libby could reasonably “remember” things that are inaccurate.

To me, this question from the official list says the most about the Libby strategy:

Is there anyone who feels that a person could not honestly say something about a matter he or she truly believes to be true when that person several months earlier actually said something totally different about that same matter?

Paraphrased, this question could be shortened to “Can a person honestly believe his own lies?”

An interesting bit of information from Firedoglake had to do with the fact that reporters in the courtroom (there are only two at a time) have said that Libby has been taking copious notes throughout the proceedings. I guess this could either be seen as his meticulous nature, which is at odds with the defense that he carelessly forgot what he told people . . . or he could be trying to set himself up for what I will refer to as “The Memento Defense.”


Image from Wonkette

Maaarrrrrttttyyyy!!!!!

Sometimes karma is a beautiful thing!

Turns out that with a Marty Schottenheimer team, all you have to do is stay with them until the playoffs . . . and then you can count on them to self destruct!

I guess the Chargers shouldn’t have put so much emphasis on peaking during "Raider Week!"

For those who don’t know and haven’t guessed, Marty Schottenheimer hates the Raiders - a team that he says “will always self destruct in the fourth quarter.” Admittedly, in recent years he’s been right - although most opponents haven’t even had to wait until the fourth quarter!

But consider this:

With 200 regular season wins as an NFL coach of 3 different teams, Schottenheimer is the winningest coach ever not to take a team to the Super Bowl.

And the least winning coach ever to take a team to the Super Bowl?

That would be Bill Callahan, with only 15 regular season wins as an NFL Coach (and now out of the league), who took the Raiders to Super Bowl XXXVII.

That’s Bill Callahan – 1, Marty Schottenheimer – 0.

Choke on that, Marty!

Hey Arnold – STFU!

There’s an old saying in football that even when you are way behind and there is no realistic chance of winning the game, you still want to “give it everything you’ve got.” As a matter of pride, you need to “leave it all on the field.”

Well someone needs to tell Arnold Schwarzenegger that war is not a f--king football game!

In a recent interview with George Stephanopoulos, Arnold showed his command of world politics.

"I think we should give it everything," Schwarzenegger responded when asked in a pre-taped television interview whether he supported Bush's plan to send an additional 21,000 troops. "We should give it everything in order to be victorious."

In the interview, . . . Schwarzenegger said he does not want the U.S. to "pull out of this war as losers."

Great! Arnold wants to “give it everything we’ve got!” 140,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, and Arnold wants to send another 21,000 and “leave them all on the (battle) field” - in order to avoid having to pull out as a loser.

I’ve got an idea! If we are going to give it everything we’ve got, how about giving Arnold? He’s supposed to be the God-Damned Terminator! Let’s “give” Arnold, and let him haul his brittle-boned, narcissistic, bad acting, steroid ridden, flabby ass to Iraq to show us how not to pull out as a loser!

And while were giving it everything we’ve got, let’s give Chuck Norris to Iraq too!

The Bush Surge – In a Nutshell!

That is - the Bush/McCain/Lieberman Surge Escalation – in a nutshell!

And if he doesn’t actually have enough troops for a “Surge,” will he have to downgrade his strategy to a "Trickle?"

Or a "Leak?"

Let’s just go all the way, and call it what it what it undoubtedly will be, a "Piss" strategy, as in:

Pissing away more American lives!

Who’s Pointing the Finger Now?

Why is it that the people who often find their way into positions that allow them to loudly and publicly condemn others are often secretly involved in the activities they are condemning?



Take Mark Foley, the head of the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children, who gave fiery speeches calling for tougher laws to protect children from internet predators, but who was actually using instant messaging to set up dates with underage congressional pages.



Or Ted Haggard, the preacher of the New Life Church in Colorado Springs, who frequently proclaimed the evils of a homosexual lifestyle from the pulpit, while carrying on a series of methamphetamine-fueled trysts with a gay prostitute.

Both of these men worked very hard to achieve highly successful careers that allowed them to talk about, think about, and obsess about something in themselves that they were trying to keep hidden from public view. Their public scorn for their own secret behavior allowed them each to live out a hypocritical lie, until each was eventually discovered.



So what does this suggest about NBC Dateline’s Chris Hansen? As a correspondent for NBC for 14 years, Hansen has recently become a household name as host of the popular “To Catch a Predator” series, where he moves from town to town luring potential sexual predators to houses where they are arrested - but not before he can shame them in front of his camera crew!

Now let me be clear - I have no problem with a carefully run police sting operation designed to arrest these people.

But why does it have to be done with the sanctimonious Hansen and his camera crew crouching behind the drapes, and then running out to show everyone in America how much these alleged predators look like their friends and neighbors?

It’s bad enough that we are being conditioned to suspect anyone who looks different from us, or doesn’t share our religious beliefs, of being a potential terrorist. Do we need to fear that our co-workers, schoolmates, neighbors, and even relatives, are sexual predators too?

Of course we don’t want our children exposed to real predators! So, by all means, catch those individuals and prosecute them to the full extent of the law!

But don’t turn the process into a TV reality show, so that the same people who secretly dream of becoming an “American Idol,” or of “Dancing With the Stars,” can secretly dream of watching their neighbor being frog-marched to jail!

And please give Chris Hansen something else to obsess over for a while! I’m really starting to wonder about that guy!

Bush's New Plan - Different From His Old Plan - But Probably Not His Last Plan!

The BBC is reporting that President Bush is nearly ready to announce his new strategy in Iraq. According to an administration source Bush is planning a speech to the nation centered around the theme - "Sacrifice".

You know what that means - despite our collective weariness after the holidays ........................

IT'S TIME TO GO SHOPPING!!!!

Bush Finally Attends a Funeral With a Flag Draped Coffin!

He should have had to attend 3000 of these.

What I Was Going to Say About Saddam’s Execution . . .

. . . was something to the effect of captioning this photo, “One down, one to go!”

But after reading Hunter’s brilliant “Requiem for a Bastard,” I’ve changed my mind.

Terminator 4: Ski Pole Versus Femur (The Real Story)

Left-Over’s last post got me thinking more and more about this whole “Arnold broke his femur” story. Here is the most descriptive explanation I can find of the injury, from the man who witnessed the accident.

Adi Erber, a ski instructor who often skis with the governor when he visits Sun Valley, told the biweekly Idaho Mountain Express that Schwarzenegger's pole got caught underneath his ski and the governor tripped over it while standing near the half-pipe on the Lower Warm Springs trail.

"He fell on his ski pole, and the impact broke his femur," Erber told the Express.

Having done a fair amount of skiing myself, I decided to break it down:

This is a ski pole:



And this is a femur:



If the two come together with opposing force, it doesn’t take a structural engineer to guess which one is more likely to break. I’ve broken a ski pole, and it snapped like a twig! I still have the handle in my garage as a souvenir of the experience. It wasn’t pleasant, but only the pole was broken.

For reference, I weigh 155 lbs and have 17.5 inch thighs surrounding each femur!

These are Arnold’s approximate measurements (from a page of one of his archived websites).

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER
Nickname: The Austrian Oak
Born: July 30, 1947
Birthplace: Tahl, Graz, AUSTRIA
Residence: California, USA
Height: 6' 2"
Arms: 22"
Chest: 57"
Waist: 34"
Thighs: 28.5"
Calves: 20"
Off Season Weight: 260 lbs
Competition Weight: 235 lbs

The numbers are probably somewhat different today than from his competition days, but you get the picture – someone nicknamed “The Austrian Oak” having thighs more than 2 feet in circumference, should not, even at age 59, have a femur that is more brittle than a ski pole!

Published reports of his surgery also include an additional hint as to what really happened:

The procedure was performed by orthopedic surgeon Dr. Kevin Ehrhart, who also. . . repaired President Ronald Reagan's broken hip in 2001.

So Arnold’s operation was performed by the same guy tapped to repair the 90-year-old Reagan’s broken hip? A specialty, perhaps?

My guess as to what really happened? Arnold tripped over his ski pole and fell – probably onto an icy slope where his hip hit the ice and shattered like a wine glass - much like my grandmother’s hip shattered when she tripped over her walker (like Reagan, she was also approaching 90 at the time!)

But Arnold, the man once known for proclaiming his desire “to be the best-built man in the world," could not admit to an injury more common in 90-year olds, so he says he “broke his femur!”

At least he could have gotten his instructor to say he was injured "while ripping a sick 540 Reverse Tail Grab on the half pipe while moshin' to Green Day on his I-Pod!"

No! Although numerous articles pointed out that the Sun Valley trail named after Arnold is a black diamond “expert” run, Arnold’s injury happened while he was standing on the Lower Warm Springs Trail, which is listed on Sun Valley’s interactive trail map as a green circle “bunny” slope!

Can you say "fragile?"

Arnold's Broken Hip???

Has anyone else wondered if Arnold actually broke his hip instead of his femur? After scanning several articles about the incident and subsequent surgery - I have my suspicions about what actually happened.

The ski instructor who was with Govenator at the time is on record stating that:

"He was trying to take off again and he tripped," Adi Erber, a ski instructor who was with the governor, told the Los Angeles Times. Erber described the fall as a "freak accident."

The femur is the largest and strongest bone in the human body. It would be pretty difficult to break just by falling over. However, many elderly people break their hips when they loose their balance and land awkwardly. Despite Arnold's strange tan, and even stranger orangey hair color - he is 59 years old. He's no spring chicken.

The Governors press office seems to be keeping a tight reign the details of the incident. I can only guess that they decided a "broken leg" sounded much better to the incredibly vain Schwartzenegger than a "Broken hip".

George Explain Your New "Surge" Strategy to this Little Girl!

Heather Martin - When Are You Coming

Whammo Speaks For Me!

This has been flying around the internets lately, and for good reason! I’ve had the opportunity to see Austin's Asylum Street Spankers perform this song live on a couple of occasions, so I’m glad that they are getting wider attention for this gem.

Enjoy!



By the way, Whammo is the guy with the cowboy hat and the ponytail!

Photo of the Day

Vice President Dick Cheney - Out enjoying a day of fishing . . .



. . . with his friend, Dick Whittington!

Is the Argument Over Global Warming Misdirected?

Noted intellectual giant, James Inhofe was at it again, with Wednesday’s hearing entitled "Climate Change and the Media."

(Inhofe) convened a hearing with witnesses who share his view that the media has hyped coverage of climate change. "Hysteria sells," the chairman grumbled at one point. "Scare tactics should not drive public policy," he said at another, pressing his view that rising Earth temperatures are mainly a natural, cyclical phenomenon.

One of the benefits of living with a scientist is that I am often called to challenge my initial (sometimes emotional) reactions in favor of a careful weighing of the available evidence.

In our discussions of “global warming,” my partner has frequently made an argument that, in light of Senator Inhofe’s repeated denials of the presence of global warming, makes a lot of sense.

The argument is that the focus should not be on "the presence of global warming,” but on “the increase of greenhouse gases.” The rationale is that the scientific evidence for global warming is inconclusive enough to continue allowing people like Inhofe to make arguments against it. Because we are talking about millions of years of history and cyclical weather patterns, it is not possible for either side to definitively “win” the debate.

On the other hand, there is clear scientific evidence that greenhouse gases are being produced at skyrocketing rates (click here for source). There is clear evidence that such gases trap infrared rays that could heat up the earth like the sun heats up the inside of a car. This makes it a debate about chemistry and physics, rather than a debate about history!

One way of looking at the issue is in relation to the decision on whether to eat trans fats – a topical comparison considering the City of New York’s recent ban on their use in restaurant food preparation. If you want to convince someone to restrict the intake of trans fats in their diet, you would not try to argue that scientific evidence proves they will have a heart attack in the future. That would be silly, and easily ignored by anyone who is determined to use history (I haven’t had one yet! Other people have eaten trans fats and not had them!) to maintain their current diet.

On the other hand, a scientific factual presentation of the existence of trans fats, and how the body processes them, leaves little room to argue that they should not be eliminated from the diet whenever possible.

People like Senator Inhofe are always going to be able to find historians to present a feasible-sounding (to him anyway) argument to maintain our current diet of greenhouse gas production.

But let’s see him produce some scientists who would argue that increased production of greenhouse gases doesn’t increase the risk factors for a global climate heart attack!

The Real Iraq Policy

Looks like Josh Marshall agrees with my earlier assessment on Bush’s real goal regarding Iraq:

One other point we shouldn't go too long without restating. With his policy of no troop increases and no troop decreases, let's all understand that President Bush's real policy is stasis -- no 'winning' or 'losing' or escalating or withdrawing. It's about fighting any fight, carrying any burden to keep kicking this can down the alley until January 2009 so he can say the disaster he created is someone else's fault. That's not hyperbole or trash talk. That's really the policy.

Or, as I put it:

Bush has already gone on record as saying he believes we will be in Iraq beyond the end of his presidency. His recent call for “one last big push to win in Iraq” is yet another indication of his “run out the clock” strategy. He is going to make sure that when it comes to leaving the chaos created by his war, he’s not going to be the decider!

How We Should "Go" in Iraq!

On the Eve of the official release of the Iraq Study Group report, I’d like to return briefly to the recent Pentagon review that came up with a set of possibilities that have been dubbed “Go Big,” “Go Long,” or “Go Home.”

“Go Big” refers to the option of dramatically increasing troop levels – an unfeasible proposition considering current troop availability and the additional cost that would have to be absorbed by a rapidly increasing national debt.

“Go Long” refers to the option of basically continuing to string things along with the current, or slightly reduced, troop levels - in the hope that some sort of miracle will result in something we can eventually claim as “victory." It is an option perhaps more appropriately named “Go Fish,” except that the card we would be hoping to draw has probably already been removed from the deck!

“Go Home” refers to complete troop withdrawal, and would undoubtedly leave years of continued violence and chaos before there would be any hope of improvement - solidifying a legacy of failure in Iraq for Bush/Cheney and, unfortunately, the American people who put them in power.

A fourth option, which I call alternately “Go Wide” and “Go Real,” is the one I hope the American people will eventually choose, although it seems a remote possibility. Both elements would need to be present for it to work, and it goes like this:

“Go Wide” refers to expanding involvement in Iraq peacekeeping efforts to include a true international coalition that would work in partnership, using military, financial and diplomatic means to clean up the mess. It is basically the option that should have been used in the first place, if it had been considered necessary by a real coalition to remove Saddam from power and enforce peace long enough for a democracy to take hold.

Unfortunately, “Go Wide,” on its own, is no longer feasible, since no other country would be willing to help clean up the mess made by Bush/Cheney as long as these arrogant pricks are at the helm! That’s why we would need to include another element.

“Go Real” (a variation of “Get Real”) refers to the act of accepting 1) that we (the American people) have a problem, 2) that we created the problem, and 3) we will do what is necessary to rectify the problem in order to be worthy of accepting help from the international community.

It is very simple. We need help from the rest of the world in order to clean up a mess we made for ourselves, but that also affects them. In order to redeem ourselves, we must admit that we made a mistake by allowing Bush/Cheney to pursue an unnecessary war, using unnecessary and probably illegal means. We must remove them from power and turn them over to the International Criminal Court, where their deeds can be judged according to international standards. We must apologize, and then hope we can form a real coalition to enforce peace in Iraq, more along the model of what was accomplished in the Balkans.

I’ve written before about the possibility of Bush and Cheney taking over the cells once inhabited by Milosovic, Etc. Rumsfeld and others have already been charged with war crimes (PDF) in a German court. Ultimately, although discussion of war crimes and the tactics underway in Germany may seem pointless to some in this country, it may be the case that embracing them will be the only way for the American people to recover from the disaster of Iraq!

No Traveler Left Behind: A Guide to Passing the ATS Exam

As an American who has traveled abroad 5 times in the last 26 months, this recently revealed program got my attention.

Without their knowledge, millions of Americans and foreigners crossing U.S. borders in the past four years have been assigned scores generated by U.S. government computers rating the risk that the travelers are terrorists or criminals.

(snip)

Virtually every person entering and leaving the United States by air, sea or land is scored by the Homeland Security Department's Automated Targeting System, or ATS. The scores are based on ATS' analysis of their travel records and other data, including items such as where they are from, how they paid for tickets, their motor vehicle records, past one-way travel, seating preference and what kind of meal they ordered.

I’m not sure how I scored during my recent trips, but using careful investigative techniques and some common sense, I’ve been able to put together the following list of tips that might help improve your ATS score:

Where You are From: Good: Provo, Colorado Springs, anywhere in Texas; Bad: San Francisco, New York, Boston.

How You Paid for Tickets: Good: American Express Corporate Card, Gift of Jack Abramoff, Sale of stock options; Bad: Rolled up wad of dinar, barrels of oil, gay sex (not applicable if you are from Colorado Springs.)

Motor Vehicle Records: Good: Hummer H2, Ford Escalade with gun rack, 69 Chevy Impala with Jeff Gordon decal; Bad: Volvo Bio-Diesel, No registered auto (just a bicycle.)

One Way Travel: Good: Never left U.S. without returning immediately after 7-14 day luxury cruise; Bad: Multiple “one way” flights out of the country while returning, presumably, via open-water swim.

Seating Preference: Good: Two adjoining - to fit extra large derriere; Bad: In cockpit, next to pilot.

Meal Ordered: Good: McDonalds’ Big Mac and "Freedom" Fries (supersized), 40 oz. Steak (extra rare), Gefilte Fish (farmed with dolphins); Bad: Vegetarian, Puppy steak, Chicken with extra bones, preferably sharpened.

Happy Traveling and good luck with your scores!