Mitt Romney’s (Likable) Twin?

This piece from Matt Taibbi at Rolling Stone completely nails the characterization of Rudy Giuliani that I think has led me to develop such a strong dislike for him. Although there isn’t a physical resemblance, Giuliani has mastered George W. Bush’s ability to appeal to the stupid, macho bully portion of the electorate, while giving the impression that he genuinely feels that the sun rises and sets from his own ass!

I find myself with a similar dislike for Mitt Romney, and I’ve been struggling to pinpoint the exact reason. From his choice to run early campaign ads on Countdown with Keith Olbermann, to his ridiculous boasts about “hunting varmints,” to his bumbling descriptions of his then-15-year-old wife as “hot,” to just about every foot-in-mouth comment he’s made during the debates, Romney has reminded me of someone familiar. Someone particularly annoying! But I haven’t been able to put my finger on who it is.

And then it hit me:



Mitt Romney is Sam Malone, but without the benefit of an endearingly clever script writer, and a cast of lovable misfits like Norm Peterson and Cliff Clavin for entertainment value. And, of course, without actually being the likable Ted Danson, playing a role.

This, unfortunately for him, leaves Mitt Romney as nothing but an “empty suit” . . . who thinks he’s charming the pants off of the very people who find him to be an idiot!

Bush On Global Warming!

This would be even funnier if it weren't so close to reality.

What Kind of Parent IS Scooter Libby?

Throughout the 160 support letters [large PDF warning] sent to the court on Scooter Libby’s behalf, one of the recurring themes was Libby’s exceptional parenting instincts, and his ability to connect with children in general. There were numerous references to Scooter’s children, and their need to have their father at home with them, instead of serving a prison sentence typical of the crimes for which he was convicted.

Mary Matalin and James Carville offered a description of how their children always asked about the beloved “Mr. Scooter,” and offered the following glowing (though slightly inane) characterization:

One of my many enduring and endearing memories of Scooter is of his universal love of families.

There were other examples:

“This is one reason I’m asking you to be lenient in your sentencing – this is a good father . . . any more hardship on the family would leave an undeserving permanent mark on the family and most of all the children.” (Emily Ashman)

“Now more than ever, at this critical time in his children’s lives, they need their father to provide the kind of support, love and guidance that they have always relied on. They need him home.” (Donna Doll)

"I personally have some grave concerns for his children in the event that he is sentenced to any length of time in prison as his two children are quite dependent on him at a most important time in their life.” (Jose Fuentes)

As a focal point for the current P.R. campaign for a Libby pardon, these comments are quite valuable, and I think it’s no coincidence that the first statement from the White House, after hearing of Libby’s 2 ½ year sentence, was focused on Libby’s family, and not on Libby himself.

"The president said he felt terrible for the family, especially for his wife and kids" (Dana Perino)

Bush is in a bind regarding a Libby pardon, and his way out of that bind is to attribute the need for a pardon to Libby’s kids! I think that’s why so many supporters were enlisted chose to focus on his undying love for his (and everyone else’s) children - despite a defense in court based on being so preoccupied with doing the work of six mere mortals that he could barely remember to zip his pants in the morning!

Which leads me to the question that everyone should be asking right about now:

What kind of parent IS Scooter Libby?

Or, more specifically:

What kind of parent would risk denying his children the presence of a father during their formative years, while serving prison time to protect someone like Dick Cheney?

I suspect that Scooter didn’t think the risk was so great at the beginning of the whole Plame affair. But nevertheless, at some point, Scooter had to make a decision: Do I do what is best for my children and come clean, or do I follow the recommendation of these people, who are offering to pay the monetary cost of sticking to my phony story?

Libby, the parent, had to ask himself: Who is more important to me - my growing children, who have their entire futures ahead of them; or Dick Cheney, who has led a full (albeit evil and deceitful) life, and whose heart is already ticking on borrowed time?

Libby’s choices, when faced with questions like these, say as much or more about the kind of parent he is, than any comments offered by those lobbying for Libby’s freedom with talk of his “universal love of puppies families!”

Also at ePluribus Media.

Pondering the Mysteries of the Libby Case! (Part 3)

In Part 1, I described four unexplained mysteries that remain from the Libby trial. In Part 2, I offered some speculation on the first two of them. Here’s how I think they may fit with the other two:

Dan Froomkin had a great roundup many weeks ago that included analysis of a possible deal behind the decision of Libby’s attorneys to pack it in after only a feeble effort at getting their client acquitted. His speculation was that Bush had already promised Libby a pardon, so there was no reason to risk revealing more details of the conspiracy to attack Wilson by outing Plame, or of having to sink deeper in lies to conceal those details.

This would explain why a supposedly brilliant, and extremely high priced, legal defense team closed up shop after using Hannah as a poor surrogate for the testimony they had promised from both Libby and Cheney. At that point, it was all over but the crying (by Ted Wells, I mean!)

Surprising no one, the jury returned a guilty verdict on 4 of the 5 counts. With the odds stacked against a successful appeal, a (promised?) pardon now seemed like the only way out for Libby. But this administration is littered with broken promises . . . .

So what of the F-bomb from Libby’s wife? Who was she proposing to f**k?

With little opportunity to do anything to the jury (short of starting a nuclear war in the world they inhabit!), it seems unlikely that they were the target of her wrath. The prosecutors might be frustrated by a successful appeal, but they were just doing their jobs. A setback like having to go through a new trial, would hardly be considered a “f**king” to them. Prosecutors get paid for their work either way, and a new trial would actually give them an opportunity to bring out even more details of the underlying conspiracy!

To me, it sounds like the wife’s emotions probably only caused her to raise her voice at the end of a conversation that was overheard by reporters. I can easily imagine her saying something like “If they don’t pardon him, we’re going to f**k them!” In this case, “they” being Rove, Bush, Cheney, et al. as they were all still the ones being protected by Libby’s predicament.

This clearly makes the most sense, because Libby was now essentially down to only one last chance at a “get out of jail free” card, after being the only one to “put his neck in the meatgrinder!” If Bush doesn’t come through with a pardon, as purportedly promised to quash the politically dangerous spillover from a vigorous defense, then Libby could f**k them all by spilling his guts!

And Libby’s wife wanted “them” to know it!

Pondering the Mysteries of the Libby Case! (Part 2)

In Part 1, I described four unexplained mysteries that remain from the Libby trial. While we don’t know the answers to these questions, here‘s my speculation:

I’ve suggested several times in the past that Libby set himself up as a lightning rod. Fitzgerald showed during the trial how Libby’s cover story about learning of Valerie Plame from Tim Russert would serve to break the chain of information from an official source (Cheney) to Libby and others, thus taking it out of the realm of an IIPA violation.

My view is that Libby was chosen, or volunteered, because someone had to be the one to lie in order to break the chain. At the time, I suspect there was little concern that the reporters, particularly Russert, would end up talking about their sources and conversations, so it seemed like a safe and effective cover story that would protect Cheney, Rove and everyone else involved.

Once Fitzgerald’s investigation had picked apart the cover story, and as he was preparing to indict Libby - and probably Rove - I suspect that Rove went to Fitzgerald and offered an explanation that left Libby as the only person to be indicted.

If Rove had claimed that he learned of Valerie Plame from Libby, and that Libby had said (to Rove) that he learned it from Russert, this would effectively make Libby the bottleneck for the flow of information, and cut off Rove from culpability. The only person who could refute Rove’s story was Libby himself, and Libby had to stick to his story in order to save himself. This would also make Rove a meaningless witness for the prosecution while remaining a dangerous one for the defense, and thus leave him out of the trial entirely.

It would also have left Libby all alone on an island. Since he was the one who was selected (or volunteered) to lie to the Grand Jury, he was effectively sacrificed to protect Rove and others. Now he was facing five felony counts, and he wanted everyone to know that the big guns would turn out to support him, or else!

This would explain why his attorneys telegraphed an argument based on revealing how Libby was made into the “fall guy” and with authoritative testimony from the Vice President to back him up.

However, with all of the ammunition Fitzgerald had at his disposal – beyond just what he needed to make the perjury and obstruction cases against Libby – there was no way that Cheney could actually testify without having to lie himself. That’s likely why he made himself scarce, planning a trip out of the country during the period when he would supposedly have to testify. Clearly, Cheney wasn’t interested in taking a personal risk to support his former Chief of Staff.

More to come in Part 3.

I’ve Been Nice to People My Whole Life. Can I Commit Some Felonies Now?

I’ve just finished reading the Libby Defense Team’s glowing depiction of Saint Scooter, in which they try to argue that he should get absolutely no prison time. What a nice guy – not just your average, ordinary nice guy, but 160 support letters and 33 pages of nice guy! Of course, they could have saved me the trouble of such a long read by including the following brief summary:

He was a good student who was active in a local church and a boy scout. He was awarded a college scholarship and excelled in law school, becoming an honor student who was well liked by all of his professors. He volunteered his time doing public service, while also working hard to develop a successful professional career, even though it took time away from his devoted partner who loved him deeply.

He was extremely charismatic and personable, and many people naturally gravitated to him, and genuinely found him to be a nice, warm, generous guy. Many were shocked at his arrest, but even after his conviction, hundreds of fans and admirers continued to write letters of support.

Oh wait, that’s not Scooter Libby. That was Ted Bundy!

Sure, the analogy is a bit tortured, but keep in mind that I haven’t even mentioned Scooter’s apparent preoccupation with such things as children “coupling” with bears that have been aroused with a stick!

I’m guessing that none of the 160 support letters mention it either!

Pondering the Mysteries of the Libby Case! (Part 1)

With the Scooter Libby sentencing hearing scheduled for next week, I thought I’d ponder a few lingering aspects of the Libby case that remain unresolved and seem somehow connected. The following is pure speculation, but if you are looking for a plausible theory to explain some of the remaining mysteries about the case, this may (or may not) be one of them.

I should also note that this was mostly written several months ago, and then moved to the back burner as other issues heated up. After re-reading it and making a few minor edits, I still think it holds up pretty well. Because of the length I’m going to chop it into several easier to digest segments. First, here are the unexplained aspects that I’m going to speculate about:

Why wasn’t Rove indicted? This has been a mystery since he was singled out as “Official A” in the Libby indictment. We know Rove was a serious target, but we don’t know what Rove told Fitzgerald at the last minute that caused Fitz to reconsider charging him at the same time he charged Libby. Even one of the jurors said the jury was asking the question, “Where’s Rove?”

Why did Libby’s attorneys’ suggest he was “sacrificed” to protect Rove? Inexplicably, this was a prominent part of the opening statement, but almost no evidence was presented to back it up. There was only a handwritten memo from Dick Cheney suggesting that Libby was asked “to put his neck in the meat grinder over the incompetence of others.”

Why did the defense place their hope for acquittal on the lame testimony of John Hannah? After spending close to a year setting up a defense based on Libby’s testimony regarding a faulty memory, and foreshadowing powerful testimony by Dick Cheney to support that defense, neither Libby nor Cheney took the stand, and Hannah was a complete disaster!

What’s with the post verdict F-bomb from Libby’s wife? According to courtroom observers, shortly after the verdict was read, Libby’s wife was heard angrily stating something that ended with an emphatic “We’re gonna f**k em!” No one was able to determine which “they” she was referring to.

Wild speculation to follow in Part 2.

Were Attorney Firings Driven by Supply or Demand?

While it was overshadowed by her admission of playing politics with hiring practices at DOJ, her implication of the AG for witness tampering, and her implication of the DAG for perjury, there was another brief moment during Monica Goodling’s House testimony that deserves a bit more attention.

As she was being questioned by Keith Ellison of Minnesota, Goodling revealed that Rachel Paulose, the bible spouting, self aggrandizing, US Attorney from Minnesota who drove out her entire senior staff after being appointed to an interim USA position with no management experience (and who then tried to blame the defection on sour grapes by older lawyers who "had difficulty dealing with a young, aggressive woman”), is considered a candidate for presidential nomination!

Heres the direct quote from the WAPO transcript:

GOODLING:Rachel Paulose was selected based on her qualifications overall.And we did include the fact that she might be able to be a candidate for the presidential nomination.We sometimes thought if we had somebody that we could put in to be an interim U.S. attorney who also had the opportunity to be considered for the presidential nomination, then that was a factor.

A bit premature, don’t you think? That is, unless the DOJ was simply being used to pad the resumes of young, up-and-coming, “loyal Bushies” for future political placement. Much like Regent University was set up to provide an army of young, Christian conservatives with law degrees (if not the ability to know that “crossing the line of the law” and “doing something illegal” are the same damned thing), it seems that the Bush Administration decided to use the DOJ to arm those same individuals with the “experience” necessary to achieve greater political power and influence in the future.

Is it possible that the reason everyone involved in the scandal talks about “collaborative effort” on the firings but none can explain the actual reasons for them, is that they were driven more by the list of “loyal Bushies” they wanted to appoint, than by the list of “poor performing” prosecutors they wanted to replace?

Tim Griffin in Arkansas certainly seems to fit that mold. Paulose too, although placing her did not necessitate a firing, as her predecessor retired suddenly on his own volition. In fact, the firing list seems to have been revised so frequently, quickly and carelessly that the revisions could have been prompted more from who was available on deck for each position than from the actual attorneys on the job.

At this point, I would be quite interested to know if there is a list of “loyal Bushies” waiting in the wings to be placed in positions like federal prosecutor, where they could be “groomed” for future higher profile roles such as judges, legislators, or President of the United States!

(note: the image represents the author's conception of the supply of "loyal Bushies.")

A Rare Opportunity!

Andrew Card getting an honorary degree at the University of Massachusetts.

It must have felt great for these real, ordinary Americans to have an opportunity to express how they feel about the Bush Administration, publicly and directly!

If George Bush is content to sit back and wait for history to determine his Presidential legacy, I hope he realizes that this is probably the generation who are going to be writing those history books!

OK, I’ll Bite: What If Monica Goodling Were a Muslim?

This is really lame! On the conservative blog, Newsbusters, one writer speculates about what would happen if Republicans “interrogated” a Muslim like Steve Cohen (D-Tenn) grilled Monica Goodling about her attendance at Pat Robertson’s Regent University.

You can read it if you've got the stomach, but I'll give you the gist: He changes their exact conversation by substituting Islamic references for Christian ones, and then wonders how the media would react. Ooh, how clever! Based on the Republican MO, I’m guessing the grilling of a Muslim Monica Goodling by a Republican Congressman would go something like this:

Republican Congressman: Did you attend a Muslim college?

Muslim Goodling: Huh?

Republican Congressman: I’m over here, Ms. Goodling – the good looking old, fat white guy! Did you or did you not attend a Muslim college?

Muslim Goodling: Yes, I did.

Republican Congressman: Why do you hate America?

Muslim Goodling: I don’t.

Republican Congressman: Did you break the law by allowing your religious and political views to affect hiring decisions?

Muslim Goodling: Well, I . . . I . . . I, um, I crossed the line, but I didn’t mean to.

Republican Congressman: Oh, yeah?

Muslim Goodling: Hey, why are you putting that bag over my head?

Republican Congressman: Tell us what we want to know, you evildoer!

Muslim Goodling: Glug glug, gasp, glug glug!

Republican Congressman: Hey Cannon, hand me those fingernail pliers, will ya?

Muslim Goodling: I’ve already told you everything I know!

Republican Congressman: Why are you plotting to harm David Gregory’s children? Tell us! TELL US!!!!

Muslim Goodling: My hair, watch the hair! I worked really hard on this. I want to talk to my attorney!

Republican Congressman: You’ll see your attorney as soon as the State Department authorizes him to visit you . . . in your new spiderhole in Kazakhstan!!!

Muslim Goodling: But I’m a kind person who just wants to serve Allah! I was class president at my madrassa, you know.

Republican Congressman: Shut up and answer my questions! You think I’m good looking, don’t you? Did you know that I was the Attorney General of my State? Have you heard about the horrible things Murtha did?

Muslim Goodling: Sigh!

Also at Daily Kos.

[F**king Hypocritical] Losers!

I find it particularly ironic that the MSM has been so helpful in spreading the Republican narrative that wanting to bring home the troops before “completing the mission” makes the Democrats into "quitters" and "losers." Yet, when the Democrats appear willing to give Bush exactly what he wants – war funding with no accountability – they are labeled by the MSM as quitters and losers for backing down!

Note to the Democratic leadership: If you are going to be called quitters and losers no matter what you do, then at least let it be for the thing you say that you believe in!

[F**king Update] By the way, these are the 9 Democratic and 1 Independent Senators who voted for the thing they say they believe in:

Boxer
Clinton
Dodd
Feingold
Kennedy
Kerry
Leahy
Obama
Sanders
Whitehouse
Wyden

And Lieberman too, I guess, since he comes out and says that he believes in the death and destruction of endless war!

Oh, and for my one Senator who is missing from this list, Ms. Feinstein. Know this:

I will run against you myself before I vote for you again!

Hitchens and His Little Toad - Falwell

If you haven't seen this clip - Hitchens puts Falwell in his rightful place. Enjoy!

Increasing Irrelevancy? Now There’s Something Bush Can Actually Achieve!

(Hat tip to Left-Over for inspiring this post through his earlier comments. I would have preferred to read his thoughts on the topic, but after recent statements from the administration, I just can’t hold it in.)

You’ve got to love it when the Bush White House is willing to engage in a pissing match with an ex-President over "relevancy!"

If you want to see how fast an ex-President can become irrelevant, just wait until January of 2009. The average horse race is over in less time than it will take for George W. Bush to become irrelevant, once he is no longer the President Decider Commander Guy!

What exactly is Bush going to do when he leaves office that will allow him to remain relevant? Certainly not taking on an important role in the Republican party? Hell, he’s still the President, and he’s already radioactive to every GOP candidate for any public office higher than dogcatcher! Once he’s out of office, he’ll be about as welcome at Republican party functions as a leper with the Ebola virus!

I rather doubt that he’ll be hitting the speaking engagement circuit. I don’t think there are a lot of people who are going to care what he has to say, once he no longer has the benefit of a team of presidential speechwriters telling him what hand gestures to make and which syllables to emphasize for dramatic effect!

He certainly won’t be sent out as an ambassador of good will, like his father and President Clinton were for tsunami relief. As reviled as he has made himself, if he were to go out into the real world without an impenetrable gauntlet of security personnel, he’d likely be ripped apart quicker than an animal carcass floating in a school of piranhas.

I’m guessing he won’t be writing any bestselling books about his life and philosophy either (although I suppose there’s still room for the first edition of “Brush Cutting for Dummies!”) Even if he were able to peck out a children’s storybook, like, say, “Barney Rides his Bike,” its audience would not exactly constitute cultural relevance, and the first volume would certainly exhaust his creative capacity, if not his vocabulary.

He has, in the past, mentioned the desire to eventually establish his own “think tank.” Now there’s an idea! I’ll bet there are scores of young scholars who will want to build their professional credentials and analytical reputations - while basking in the glow of George W. Bush’s intellectual accomplishments!

No, George W. Bush will likely fade into irrelevance in record time, giving him at least one measure by which he can claim a mark that past Presidents have failed to match, and that future Presidents can be judged. It will be his Legacy! (Well, that and the death, destruction and shredding of the Constitution!)

Then again, there is one way that he can remain in the public eye - quite visible to his small but loyal group of remaining followers and even successful at raising funds from a broad cross-section of Americans who may not appreciate his record during two terms in the White House. It was my suggestion when he first began talking about creating his own think tank, and it remains my suggestion today as the best way for George W. Bush to remain relevant after he leaves the White House.

He could barnstorm the country, appearing at County Fairs, civic festivals, and church fundraisers – as a part of the George W. Bush Presidential Dunk Tank!



If he keeps at it long enough, he might even raise enough money to pay for as many houses for the poor as Jimmy Carter has built with his own hands!

Also posted at Daily Kos

Time to Reset the Table, Madam Speaker!

Nancy Pelosi has said that impeachment is off the table, suggesting that it would be a distraction from the important tasks facing the current Congress.

But that is before Tuesday’s stunning testimony by James Comey that provides clear evidence (from a guy with an actual memory and no talking points, no less) that the President was directly involved in an end run around his own Justice Dept.

According to Comey’s testimony (shown in the video below), Bush directly called John Ashcroft’s wife to plead for permission for his two goons, Gonzales and Card, to see Ashcroft in the hospital – something she was denying to anyone else – so they could coax him into signing off on a program deemed illegal by his acting Attorney General, Mr Comey.



Even in a heavily sedated state, Ashcroft refused to approve the NSA surveillance program, but Bush renewed it anyway, before later revising it to prevent the resignation of the entire leadership of the Justice Dept, including Ashcroft!

Then, as we learned from Murray Waas, Bush himself obstructed, by denying security clearances normally granted without question, a Justice Department investigation that was targeting, in part, Alberto Gonzales’ conduct in the very incident Bush facilitated.

So, Madam Speaker, aside from ending the war in Iraq and bringing our troops home safely, there is no other more important task that restoring honor and respect for the law to the Justice Department and the White House.

At this point, I don’t care what else you have on the table! Until the people who elected you know its not poisoned by the current Administration, we can’t sit down to eat it anyway!

And The 2007 “Weasel of the Year” Award Goes To . . . .

Talk about shameless! Alberto Gonzales spends two whole days testifying before the Senate and the House without remembering a lick about who was responsible for firing eight USAs . . . and then he remembers that it was all Paul McNulty’s fault on the day after McNulty resigns! Think Progress has the video, if you have the stomach to see and hear Gonzo’s finger pointing and blame-gaming.

Of course, Gonzo’s timing could not be worse, since McNulty’s resignation might lead him to be even more forthcoming in any future testimony before Congress - since he now has nothing to lose and everything to gain by batting the responsibility ball back into Gonzales’ court!

If only Gonzales had waited just a few more hours, he could have found a way to blame it all on Jerry Falwell, and his secrets could have burned in hell for all eternity!

But that’s not all folks! Gonzo appears well on his way to locking up a Lifetime Achievement Award in Weaseldom. Earlier in the day, McNulty’s predecessor, James Comey, slammed Gonzo with this charge:

Former deputy attorney general James B. Comey testified under oath that Alberto R. Gonzales and Andrew H. Card Jr., at the time President Bush's White House counsel and chief of staff respectively, went to see Ashcroft in intensive care at George Washington University Hospital in March 2004 in an effort to "do an end run" around Comey, who was then acting attorney general, and obtain recertification of the highly sensitive program.

It gets even worse in this WAPO account:

Comey, who had assumed Ashcroft’s powers on an acting basis and was in Ashcroft’s hospital room at the time, said he believed he “had just witnessed an effort to take advantage of a very seriously sick man, who did not have the powers of the attorney general because they had been transferred to me.”

But Ashcroft backed up Comey and other top aides, and refused to sign off on re-authorizing the program, which required a review by the administration every 90 days.

Even so, President Bush okayed the so-called Terrorist Surveillance Program, and Comey decided to resign in protest.

Not only was Gonzo “weasely” enough to try to coerce an incapacitated man into being responsible for continuing an illegal program, he was given an ethical spanking . . . by John Ashcroft!

And yet, in his role as White House Counsel, he allowed the President to continue the program anyway!

All I can say is that Alberto Gonzales is actually beginning to make the rest of the Bush Administration look competent by comparison!

Cheney’s Mission

Here’s Dick Cheney’s take on the state of the Bush presidency. I think I know what he means . . . and my slight editorial modifications make it a little more obvious!

We didn't get elected to be popular. We didn't get elected to worry just about the fate of the Republican Party American people. Our mission is to do everything we can to prevail on what is now, we believe, a global conflict, a fundamental test of the character of the American people Republican Party, whether or not we're going to be able to prevail against one of the most evil opponents we've ever faced. And on our watch, we're going to do absolutely everything we can to see to it that we do succeed and that we do prevail in that conflict, and sometimes that means that we don't do well in the polls or people want to be critical. That's their prerogative . . . We know how committed our adversaries are to try to get at us the country. And we've done what we thought was right for the country us.

The bottom line is clear: The Bush Administration doesn’t ever back down from its enemies!

So ordinary Americans (and legislators willing to represent them) better be prepared to fight back!

Impeachment anyone?

My Newest Letter to George Bush

Dear George,

Several months ago I wrote to you with my suggestion to save your presidency and perhaps keep you from going down in history as the worst president ever. I realize now that you may not have read my letter. It was kind of long. And I used a few big words. So, in this letter I will use a lot of pictures to try to keep you interested.

I am writing you this time to point out something that I think you have overlooked.

I realize that I have criticized you often in the past – but this time I am going to try and stay positive - point out a strength.

George you are without a doubt the best President ever ........................................ at staging military photo ops.

Let’s sample your body of work shall we.

Who can forget this one?

Or this one? Nice Jacket! This one may not have been the best choice?

But then you really out did yourself? Now to the main reason for this letter. George you have overlooked the best military photo op possible. And you are running out of time.

All the polls show that this country remains extremely divided (although you are doing your best to unite us in our dislike for you). The one thing that every American agrees on is our support for the Men and Women of the United States Military. Even while many disagree with the War in Iraq - we unanamously support the troops.

So I ask you – wouldn’t the best military photo op possible – be you leading the parade of soldiers returning to the hero’s welcome they would undoubtedly receive? Think of it George – millions of citizens lining the streets of every small town in America welcoming home the troops. And, you could travel the country and lead every parade.

Now that would be history George. Think about it - do you really want Hillary’s photos gracing those pages of the history books? No - that is your destiny - you have earned it.

Bring the troops home George – they have earned it even more!

Sincerely,

Left-over

The Administrations' New Shiny Object?

I’ve only seen it mentioned in the blogs jokingly, as an ironic aside, but I was interested in Alberto Gonzales’ response to the question of whether he would resign over the attorney purge scandal. His conclusion:

I’m not going to resign. I’m going to stay focused on protecting our kids.

For some reason, the way he said it sounded like he thought it would make him immune from further criticism - like even his harshest critics would agree that protecting kids is a noble goal and back off. I wondered – how long has Gonzo been so focused on protecting kids?

While hardly the product of an exhaustive search, I did find a couple of curious pieces of information that have led to a theory worth watching as further scandals unfold. It is the idea that the current administration has latched on to the issue of "protecting kids from internet predators" as a publicly acceptable diversion from anything related to corruption and scandal in its political dealings.

After Gonzales’ comment, I did some research into the Justice Department’s focus on this issue. It turns out that a major initiative, Project Safe Childhood, was announced on February 15th, 2006, right in the middle of efforts to “aggregate” the names of US Attorneys who would be replaced by “loyal Bushies.”

The press release announcing this program opened with the following quote from the President:

“Our nation has made this commitment: Anyone who targets a child for harm will be a primary target of law enforcement. That's our commitment.” -President George W. Bush

Of course, the date of Bush’s quote was October 12, 2002, so apparently the “commitment” didn’t manifest itself until four years later, when Gonzales happened to need a popular program to talk about instead of having to deal with nagging questions about impropriety in his department, when many of the “primary targets” of law enforcement were Republican officials, and when “interim” USA’s were being placed in accordance with a Patriot Act provision that bypassed Senate confirmation.

I also found it interesting that one of the most controversial of these interim USA appointments was Rachel Paulose, who was appointed only two days after the announcement of Project Safe Childhood, and who was, according to this article, one of the “authors” of that initiative. While fending off criticism that she caused three key members of her staff to resign rather than deal with a dictatorial management style and her quoting of bible verses in the office, Paulose has indicated that her primary focus is on getting “righteous sentencing” for predators who target children on the internet.

Clearly, no one will argue that the basic idea behind the stated focus of Paulose and Gonzales is an important one, but the emphasis on such a narrow issue (and one that has been sensationalized greatly in recent years for dramatic effect) as a way of deflecting criticism, seems, well, a bit “Rovian” to me!

Perhaps it’s just a coincidence, and I should remove the tin foil from my cranium, but I will be interested to see how many times Gonzales tries to rely on “protecting children” as a shield; and on how many other embattled “loyal Bushie” prosecutors trot out the same story!

My Letter to Congress

The video is John Edwards latest ad, which essentially says the same thing as the following letter that I just sent to my two senators, and my representative:

As one of your constituents, I am writing to implore you not to give in to the President's demand for a modified Iraq spending bill that gives him unlimited ability to continue his failed policies in the Middle East.

Prematurely withdrawing your efforts to bring an end to the U.S. occupation of Iraq - before Congress has completed the mission to which it was tasked during the 2006 midterm elections - will only embolden the President!

Allowing funding for an unlimited "war" will do nothing but offer aid and comfort to the President, as he will know that all he has to do is wait out the will of the American people, and then he can continue his efforts to overthrow the Constitution and terrorize those whose beliefs differ from his radical fundamentalist agenda!

Please do not change your course before accomplishing the mission that is backed by a majority of the country and the rest of the world, including the Iraqi people.

The President and his supporters have called the Democrats quitters, losers and of having a defeatist attitude toward following through with their stated intentions.

On behalf of myself and the majority of your constituents who want this war to end as soon as possible, please don't prove them right!

seenos

George Bush and "The Cauldron of Chaos"

Apparently George is going to take to the airwaves tonight at 6:10PM EST just after vetoing the War Appropriations bill to once again slam the Democrats. Four years to the day after the most ridiculous photo op in presidential history - Bush is going do it again. I wonder if he will be wearing the flight suit. It has been leaked that he is going say that if we pull out of Iraq it will become a "Cauldron of Chaos". What is it now Mr. Bush a "Tub of Tranquility"?

Here is a great thread from Daily Kos. Its laugh out loud funny.

Arianna Nails Tenet

After watching George Tenet's interview hawking his new book last night on 60 minutes - I've been too angry to formulate an articulate response. Then I read Arianna Huffington's post today - and she says everything I wanted to say. Here is a snip:

Tenet seems to believe there's a major distinction between lying and standing by silently while others lie, and then proudly receiving a Medal of Freedom from the liars.

He could have simply resigned and freed himself to "tell the truth." Tenet acts as if resignation were not an option. But it was. And the passion and anger he displays now in the service of book sales could have been used then in the service of his country.

Bush’s Veto and the Next War Funding Bill!

For the record, I’m with John Edwards, who is unequivocal about the need to keep sending the President bills requiring him to get the troops out of Iraq until his veto pen runs dry!

In fact, any candidate who backs down to Bush’s latest bluster will not get my vote in the primary (and that means you, Senator Obama!)

Bush was trying to channel a young Clint Eastwood yesterday, with this remark:

If the Congress wants to test my will as to whether or not I'll accept a timetable for withdrawal, I won't accept one.

And a young village idiot with this one:

I'm just envisioning what it would be like to be a young soldier in the middle of Iraq and realizing that politicians have all of the sudden made military determinations.

Um, you’ve got a point there. Just wish you could have envisioned it four years ago! He continued with his other big rationale for his veto of the current bill:

The idea of putting all kinds of extraneous spending on a bill, the purpose of which is to fund our troops, I just don't accept that. So if they want to try again, that which I have said was unacceptable, then of course I'll veto it.

After hearing everything the President has to say about his intention to veto any bill that doesn’t give him exactly what he wants, I can’t help but think back to his speech on April 10, when he claimed to give us his bottom line:

The bottom line is this: Congress's failure to fund our troops will mean that some of our military families could wait longer for their loved ones to return from the front lines. Others could see their loved ones headed back to war sooner than anticipated. This is unacceptable. It's unacceptable to me, it's unacceptable to our veterans, it's unacceptable to our military families, and it's unacceptable to many in this country.

Another good point. It's unacceptable! That’s why I think Congress should respond to his veto by immediately passing another funding bill that is stripped of everything but the funding for another six to eight months in Iraq, along with a binding resolution to have the troops returned home to their loved ones within that time frame. End of story!

If Bush is going to veto a funding bill because it forces him to bring the troops home to their families, he should have to come out and say so. Clearly, he has no intention of trying to reunite our military families. In fact, he seems willing to use the troops as hostages in order to get what he wants! Earlier, in the same speech, he trotted out this quote from a member of his war cabinet:

In a letter to Congress, the Army Chief of Staff, Pete Shoemaker, recently warned, "Without approval of the supplemental funds in April, we will be forced to take increasingly draconian measures, which will impact Army readiness and impose hardships on our soldiers and their families."

It all sounds pretty clear. Failure to give Bush everything he wants is a “failure to support the troops” because if Congress doesn’t give him everything he wants, he is going to punish the troops with “increasingly draconian measures!” Sounds like blackmail to me! So who, exactly, are the terrorists again?

So far, his other main arguments talking points in support of the veto are that he can’t accept an “artificial timetable,” and that leaving Iraq is “accepting defeat.”

But complaining about “artificial timetables” is like whining about an artificial limit on the amount of money in your checking account! No, Mr. President, it’s a real timetable, and nearly 70% of the American people want you to follow it!

Many of today’s conservatives like to talk tough about how early withdrawal would be accepting defeat and behaving like a loser, but they might as well be saying that a decision to stop beating our heads against a brick wall is a defeatist admission that we can’t knock the wall down! If only you would use your own head, Mr. Bush, we might give the argument a bit more time, but by now your war has given us nothing but a raging headache and we want you to stop!

As others have noted, the President’s current aversion to timetables is at odds with another famous statement he made in 2003:

Saddam Hussein and his sons must leave Iraq within 48 hours. Their refusal to do so will result in military conflict, commenced at a time of our choosing.

At this point, Congress should tell the President that he can have the necessary funding but that he must get the troops out of Iraq within 6 to 8 months, or his refusal to do so will result in impeachment and removal from office, commenced at the time of their choosing.

Yeah, I can dream!

Need a Good Laugh?

In case you are feeling deprived from a lack of funny video clips from the recent White House Correspondents' Dinner - as last year’s hilarious performance by Stephen Colbert was followed up this year by the dreadfully dull (and I would have guessed already embalmed) Rich Little - here’s something to fill the void:

John “The Next Domino” Doolittle has posted this lengthy list of “unprecedented attacks on his character,” along with “the facts that dispute them.”

Here’s my personal favorite:

ATTACK: Congressman Doolittle won’t return campaign contributions from Mr. Abramoff, his clients or associates.

FACT: John refuses to give even the slightest appearance that he may have done something wrong by returning money that was accepted legally and ethically. He won’t give credence to claims that he has taken tainted money, no matter how much the media tries to pressure him to do so.

Brilliant, Einstein! You won’t give credence to the appearance that you may have done something wrong by giving back tainted money, but you’ll give credence to it by posting a 2300 word manifesto restating everything bad that has ever been said about you or your wife, along with petulant, defensive responses to each of them!

Like this one:

ATTACK: A former staff member named Kevin Ring left Congressman Doolittle’s office to go work for Mr. Abramoff and then turned around and lobbied the congressman.

FACT: Kevin Ring worked for John as a legislative aide and then legislative director for about three years starting around 1994. When he left the office, he held two other jobs before going to work for Jack Abramoff, including working for former Senator John Ashcroft. Years passed between the time he left Doolittle’s staff and when he worked for Mr. Abramoff.

Years passed? That's your defense? So Ring had a couple of other jobs before he began lobbying you on behalf of Abramoff? I don't think the speed at which he "turned around" is your problem, Mr Congressman!

Read the whole thing. It’s a riot!

Hey Congress – It’s Time to Administer a Spanking!

After listening to the President’s response to Gonzo’s testimony, I can’t help but think of him as the bratty kid who is willing to wait out a lecture by his parents for some offensive behavior, because he knows the parents won’t follow through with any actual punishment if he continues the same behavior.

After Gonzo spent nearly a full day of shucking and jiving with a defense based on little more than managerial incompetence, here’s Bush’s assessment of his little buddy:

"This is an honest, honorable man, in whom I have confidence"

In other words, “I don’t care what you say Dad, Mikey the Dealer is a good guy and you can’t pick my friends!”

Bush continued:

"As the hearings went forward, it was clear the attorney general broke no law, there's no wrongdoing"

Translation: “You can’t prove he did anything wrong, so get off my back old man!”

I just hope the Congress eventually responds by taking away the President’s allowance if and when he continues to find ways to say:

“Leave me alone, you f**ker! You’re not the boss of me!”

[Update] Looks like Congress may be listening. They just pulled off the belt!

Gonzo, In a Nutshell!

“I don’t recall what I did.”

“I’d do it again.”

“I know it wasn’t improper.”

“The burden of proof is on those who are accusing me of doing something improper.”

What I Hope Someone Asks Alberto Tomorrow Thursday.

On the eve of Alberto Gonzales’ testimony before Congress about his involvement in the federal attorney purge, I just want to make one point that I really wish someone would throw at him when he starts to blather about “his best recollection,“ about “an overblown personnel matter.”

If this were really about “job performance,” he would have purged the loyal Bushies . . . . and then resigned himself!

I’m not going to recount all of the evidence of poor job performance available to support what has become obvious to all but the few remaining cretins who support this President – that Bushies are incompetent!

Just look at the poll to the right and note how difficult it is to pick the one most shamefully inept Bushie from the list! And those are just the ones we’ve seen in high profile public roles. Just think about all the pathetically incompetent, but loyal, Bushies behind the scenes, f**king up the future of the country in a million little ways!

So when Alberto weasels around behind statements like “I’ve made mistakes, but nothing improper,” I sure hope someone has the balls to point out the simple equation:

Mistakes in your job = Poor job performance!

So if the fired attorneys aren’t going to be re-hired, then why isn’t Gonzales included in the purge?

“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!