TMW chronicles stupidity in the USA

[Click the image to go to full comic]

The latest TMW takes a not-so-pleasant walk down memory lane in regard to how people were willing, weak-kneed robots since 9-11.

Tom Tomorrow offers up another save, implicit criticism of our Democratically controlled Congress, which for reasons I cannot comprehend, is unwilling to hold Bush and Cheney accountable for all they have wrought on America. I will go to my grave believing that were it not for the polarization and politicization of impeachment during the Clinton years, when we tried to kick a president out of office for getting a blowjob, Bush would have been kicked out of office years ago. But, since Republicans made impeachment a political tool for trying to get rid of a president they merely didn't like, Democrats are scared of being accused of doing the same thing. Meanwhile, impeachable crimes have been willfully committed at the highest levels of this administration since the first days Bush took office. It's a national disgrace. Speaking of which, Ron Suskind's new book offers some stark revelations about the Iraq War and selling the case to the American people. More on that in a bit.

Gingrich at his demagogic worst, as usual

In case you missed it a few days ago, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich was on Face the Nation at his demagogic best following the Supreme Court decision last week that detainees at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, have rights under our Constitution.

For a quick refresher, here's a brief report on the Supreme Court ruling, via MSNBC...

Anyway, Gingrich really drank the Kool-Aid with his comments on FTN, specifically this passage:

GINGRICH: I will say, I think the recent Supreme Court decision to turn over to a local district judge decisions of national security and life and death that should be made by the President and the Congress is the most extraordinarily arrogant and destructive decision the Supreme Court has made in it's history.

REID: In it's history?

GINGRICH: In it's history. Worse than Dred Scott, for the following reason: The court has now knowingly stepped in, this morning's newspaper say, smugglers had actually gotten the design of a nuclear weapon, that we now have the evidence that people out there had a nuclear weapon design. And this court is saying that any random district judge, based on whatever their personal caprice is, whatever their personal ideological bias, can intervene with a terrorist in such a way.

Pretty amusing to hear Newt Gingrich talking about ideological bias.

Two things: 1. To say that this decision was worse than the Dred Scott case is quite possibly the dumbest thing to ever come out of this man's mouth. And that's saying something, because there's quite a bonehead buffet to choose from - Gingrich once publicly stated that the US ought to re-institute orphanages for unwanted children.

To compare this decision to arguably the worst decision in the Supreme Court's history - that Congress had no authority to outlaw slavery, is the height of stupidity and ignorance. But, these sorts of statements are the norm with Gingrich. No wonder the man's been married three times - he has the morals of a promiscuous rabbit, and the ethics of a corrupt politician. Oops.

There's lots of fear mongering going around surrounding the Supreme Court decision, but again the question is worth asking, What's so wrong with allowing these criminals a trial by jury?

And 2. I'd much rather have a court decide the merits of a charge against a terrorist than an ideological president with political ulterior motives, be it Democrat or Republican.

It's amazing to me that people like Gingrich think that our judicial system isn't the answer to dealing with terrorists. I much prefer these trials than the secret military tribunals that the Bush administration favors, which includes torture, trials without representation, and a suppression of basic human rights in some cases (and that's just what we know about).

As with so many political issues, Gingrich is on the wrong side of public opinion. But, that's nothing new to him. This guy's more often wrong than right. (Clinton Impeachment, drilling in ANWR, etc.) Even when he's right, he ends up being wrong. I remember the laughable Contract with America in 1994 - term limits were a provision in that contract, and the public wanted it. However, that was conveniently left behind when politicians realized it would end their feeding at the public trough.

The '08 Libertarian Nominee meets Borat

This is a pretty funny video I found on Fark today, and I got a bit of a laugh out of it. Bob Barr, the former Republican Congressman and current Libertarian candidate for president, could play a pretty big factor in the November election. The theory goes that he could siphon off votes from Republicans who are unhappy about some of McCain's more moderate political views. Gee, that would be too bad - it would be nice for the GOP to suffer from a third-party candidate for once.

Barr is a complex character, but I mostly dislike him. I'm over it, for sure, but I'll never forget the Clinton Impeachment and what those on the right are capable of if given control. Actually, it's too bad that Democrats don't have the backbone that the GOP-controlled Congress did in the late 1990s, because Congressional Democrats actually now have an extremely strong and compelling case for impeaching a president (for a laundry list of reasons). Sigh. Oh well, President Bush has about as much of a chance being impeached as I do of hitting the Powerball. It's like the last 16 years in presidential politics has been some sort of a bad dream. Here's hoping that November exorcises a bunch of demons.

Michelle Obama is un-American! Riiight.

Did anyone catch the latest useless media sensationalization of the '08 campaign? In case you didn't, it was Barack Obama's wife, Michelle, had this to say this past week:

For the first time in my adult life, I'm proud of my country, and not just because Barack is doing well, but because America is crying out for change.

Not surprisingly, her entire quotation wasn't played on every network that I saw. What was replayed was simply, "For the first time in my adult life, I'm proud of my country." I guess playing the whole thing wouldn't have fit the profile of Obama's wife being "un-American" or worse, depending on where you get your commentary.

I don't happen to agree with Michelle Obama - in my adult life, I've been plenty proud of my country on a number of occasions - 1992, when Bill Clinton defeated who was thought to be an unbeatable incumbent president - George H.W. Bush; how America pulled together in the wake of the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing; when America played a key role in toppling Slobodan Milošević; American resolve following the 9-11 attacks; and many others. But, quite frankly, I haven't felt this disenchanted with our government in my lifetime, so I can totally relate to what Michelle Obama said. In 1992, I couldn't wait to vote against President Bush, because I felt he was so out of touch, but that was it - I didn't revile and despise Bush Sr. nearly as much as I do his son.

Of course, the hysterical right, including John McCain and his wife, Cindy, jumped all over the Obamas as if they had just spit on, burned and shredded the American flag. With glee.

I don’t know if you’ve heard those words, but I’m proud of my country!" intoned Cindy McCain a short time later.

Well, good for you, Cindy - not all of us feel that way.

Going back to the ridiculous, disgraceful spectacle that was the Clinton Impeachment in 1998-1999, I haven't felt all that wonderful about our government. In fact, since President Bush ascended the throne courtesy of the Supreme Court in '00, the only time or incident I can point to with pride is our nation's resolve following 9-11.

Does that make me un-American? I surly don't think so. What it makes me is angry, very angry, and I'm ready to do something about it during the '08 election, just as I did in '04.

Self-righteous GOPers who attacked Clinton are now mimes

I saw this on Bob Geiger's blog and I had to repost and comment. It seems that the following 25 self-righteous senators who saw fit to flog President Clinton like he was going to bring down the country haven't had much to say in the wake of Scooter Libby's pardon. Not one of these senators thus far have made a public statement:

Wayne Allard (R-CO)
Robert Bennett (R-UT)
Kit Bond (R-MO)
Sam Brownback (R-KS)
Jim Bunning (R-KY)
Thad Cochran (R-MS)
Larry Craig (R-ID)
Mike Crapo (R-ID)
Pete Domenici (R-NM)
Mike Enzi (R-WY)
Chuck Grassley (R-IA)
Judd Gregg (R-NH)
Chuck Hagel (R-NE)
Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX)
Jim Inhofe (R-OK)
Jon Kyl (R-AZ)
Trent Lott (R-MS)
Dick Lugar (R-IN)
John McCain (R-AZ)
Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
Pat Roberts (R-KS)
Jeff Sessions (R-AL)
Gordon Smith (R-OR)
George Voinovich (R-OH)

Not one. Like that's a surprise. But, they had plenty to say about Clinton. A trip down memory lane (again, from Geiger's Website)...

Kansas Republican Senator Sam Brownback (who's running for president):

By his words and deeds he chose to place himself above the law. By his words and deeds he has undermined the rule of law in America to the great harm of this nation," Brownback said. "By his own words and deeds, he has undermined the truth-finding function of the judiciary, at great harm to that branch of our government. By his words and deeds, he had done great harm to the notions of honesty and integrity that form the underpinnings of this great republic.

"We have lost many things over the past few months: trust in public officials, respect for the rule of law, confidence in the truth of the White House's public statements. But perhaps the most tragic loss has been the steady erosion of our societal standards."

As Geiger sagely opines, it's too bad that Brownback said this about President Clinton and not Scooter Libby. His silence on Libby is deafening. In fact, during the last Republican debate, I got a huge kick out of most of the candidates defending the decision on stage, but they largely sidestepped the question of whether they supported Bush's commutation of Libby's sentence. More Clinton flashbacks...

Senator Wayne Allard (R-CO):

"The Constitution is what preserves the rule of law, and guarantees that we remain a nation of laws, not of men.

"I hold the President to a higher standard because he is the chief law enforcement official of the nation [Editor's Note: I thought the attorney general is the highest law enforcement official in the United States, but maybe I'm wrong - PECAD]. If he is above the law, then we have a double standard; one for the powerful, and one for the rest.

"The sworn oath is central not only to our Constitution, but also to the administration of justice. Our legal system would not function without it."

One could easily substitute Scooter Libby in the above statement where you see "the president." It's not a stretch to call Libby "powerful" - he was Dick Cheney's chief of staff.

Judas John McCain seemed to think that truthfulness and the rule of law were both pretty important in 1999. What a difference eight years makes:

"All of my life, I have been instructed never to swear an oath to my country in vain. In my former profession, those who violated their sworn oath were punished severely and considered outcasts from our society. I do not hold the President to the same standard that I hold military officers to. I hold him to a higher standard."

I've nothing more to say about the soon-to-be-ex presidential candidate. He hitched his wagon to a falling star long ago. Maybe it's time for another stroll through a Baghdad Market.

Self-righteous Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) gave a statement about how "we should hope that history looks back kindly at how we observed the rule of law":

"I was reminded as well, however, that the laws of our country are applicable to us all, including the president, and they must be obeyed. The concept of equal justice under law and the importance of absolute truth in legal proceedings is the foundation of our justice system in the courts.

"A hundred years from now, when history looks back to this moment, we can hope for a conclusion that our Constitution has been applied fairly and survives, that we have come to principled judgments about matters of national importance, and that the rule of law in American has been sustained."

When I read this piece by Geiger, all I could do was shake my head and say out loud, "Hypocrites."

Hypocrites.

I know, I know - Bush has the power to pardon or commute sentences under the Constitution, and no one is disputing that, including me. What I do have a problem with is Bush pardoning someone who worked so closely to him and his vice president. I can't believe more people don't have a problem with it, but as with many important political debates in the U.S. today, it's not the right thing that's important, it's the right thing for someone's party. There are very few instances of a Republican standing up for a Democrat and a Democrat standing up for a Republican on anything more important than trivial matters.

Ideology over ethics is now the norm, not the exception.

Gonzo gets a stay

The Senate Judiciary Committee has wisely postponed Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' testimony, which was originally scheduled to begin today, until Thursday. Gonzo is now scheduled to begin giving testimony on Thursday at 9:30 a.m.

It was the obvious and smart thing to do, in light of yesterday's Virginia Tech Massacre. From what I've been reading, Gonzales needs all of the practice he can get. Word out of Washington a little over a week ago had him doing so bad in his rehearsals that an appearance on "a Sunday morning talk show" had to be cancelled.

I'm quite annoyed that the attorney general of the United States is taking up weeks at a time to "rehearse" for his appearance on Capitol Hill. Seriously, if you are planning on telling the truth, do you need weeks of preparation? I think not.

According to Newsweek's Michael Isikoff, Gonzo hasn't just be preparing, he's been cramming:

At a recent "prep" for a prospective Sunday talk-show interview, Gonzales’s performance was so poor that top aides scrapped any live appearances. During the March 23 session in the A.G.'s conference room, Gonzales was grilled by a team of top aides and advisers — including former Republican National Committee chair Ed Gillespie and former White House lawyer Tim Flanigan — about what he knew about the plan to fire seven U.S. attorneys last fall. But Gonzales kept contradicting himself and "getting his time line confused," said one participant who asked not to be identified talking about a private meeting. His advisers finally got "exasperated" with him, the source added. "He's not ready," Tasia Scolinos, Gonzales's public-affairs chief, told the A.G.'s top aides after the session was over, said the source.

Gonzo's testimony on the Hill is going to be huge. It's not a reach to conclude that his testimony will probably determine whether this investigation goes any higher up the ladder, and whether he keeps his job.

My predictions: barring a miracle by Gonzo, he's gone, and this investigation is going to go deeper and deeper. Whatever happens, I do hope that it doesn't turn into a Ken Starr-style witch hunt. I just want the truth to come out, whatever it is.

Gonzo is already probably fatally wounded as attorney general - I don't see how his Congressional testimony is going to clear up and make everyone forget his many examples of wild inconsistency.

Ed Gillespie is a name that some may remember - he was chairman of the Republican National Committee for a few years, and he also was an aggressive member of Bush's 2000 election team. He coached Bush's lawyers who appeared before the Supreme Court to argue Bush's side in Bush v. Gore, the disastrous decision that gave us the wonderful president that we've had to weather these past 6+ years. I'd argue that Bush v. Gore is one of the worst Supreme Court decisions in American history.

Picture from TMW

New Jib Jab vid worth a peek

This isn't Jib Jab's best work, but it's still pretty good. I'm constantly complaining about what the media gatekeepers in our country consider news, and this video takes a bit of a pot shot at that, so I like it.

As a society, we are getting closer and closer to pre-9-11 levels of obsession with idiotic, inane things. It seems like a time long, long ago when we were obsessed with an Oval Office BJ, Gary Condit, shark attacks and reality television.

Yay! We're just about back! American Idol routinely makes bigger headlines than the War in Iraq, the War on Terrorism, or President Bush's war on our Constitution.

Good job, Jib Jab. Now get started on your 2008 presidential primary videos - I'm looking forward to them.

Chuck Hagel - a GOPer I like

This is a pretty strong, powerful appearance by Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel on ABC's This Week yesterday morning.

Hagel answers to no one but the people who put him where he is - the people of Nebraska. He's a man I could and would honestly consider voting for if he were to get the Republican nomination for president next year. He hasn't declared that he will run, yet, but all indications are that he will.

I read the Esquire Magazine article that George Stephanopoulos refers to in this piece. In it, Hagel takes a pretty courageous stand against the president. And Hagel's right - he doesn't call for the impeachment of President Bush, but he openly says that it's an option, just as he did yesterday.

I think impeachment should be the last option for any president, including Bush, but the more this administration openly defies Congress, as well as the reality of the situation in Iraq, it could become a more viable option in the months ahead.

I just hope that members of Congress don't say to themselves, "he'll be gone soon, anyway, so let's just let him slide," if impeachable offenses are uncovered, which is looking more and more likely as the days go by. NO. As of today, Bush has 665 days left in office, and that's a long time for America to endure him, if for every single one of those days he plans on thumbing his nose at Congress and the American people.

The Alberto Gonzales situation is clearly the most troubling, but there are plenty of other things that need looking into as well. This is why America sent Democrats to Congress - to bring oversight to an out-of-control Republican-dominated federal government.

And that's precisely what Democrats are doing. Keep it up, ladies and gentlemen. Put the Check back in Check and Balances.Wherever the truth leads, so be it, and that includes any Democrats who are implicated in these scandals.

I just want answers and explanations as to how we got in the mess in the first place.

My Libby crystal ball

It's been a pretty memorable week in the world of Washington politics. But, the more I think about it, we can add "sad" and "injustice" to the never ending list of adjectives that should be applied to the Scooter Libby trial.

I won't hold the suspense - my prediction is that Libby never spends a day in jail. It's already obvious that his attorneys are planning to drag this out as long as possible. I'm not begrudging Libby that - it's his constitutional right to an appeal. But, I've read on some sites that Libby's final fate may not be determined until October 2008. Like that would be a surprise. Just like it was a huge surprise that the reading of the verdict in the Saddam Hussein trial was moved up to the Sunday before the election in November 2006.

Following the November 2008 election, President Bush has nothing to lose, and neither will has party, regardless of election results. Much like the president's father did on his way out of office with six Iran-Contra figures, Dubya may simply pardon Libby.

More on a potential pardon in a bit.

There are several tragedies in this case. First and foremost is Valerie Plame (right, with her husband, former Iraq Ambassador Joseph Wilson), who did her duty as a civil servant for 20 years for the Central Intelligence Agency. She was outed by senior members of the Bush administration including Libby, Dick Cheney and Karl Rove, in retaliation for her husband's op-ed column in The New York Times. Wilson's column blasted the Bush administration for its wanton desire to go to war in Iraq.

[Quick aside: Wilson was sent by the Bush administration to Niger to investigate whether Iraq had sought Uranium yellowcake there for its alleged nuclear weapons program. It took Wilson about five minutes to discover that the allegations were based on forged documents and were unequivocally inaccurate. Despite Wilson's findings, Bush used the now infamous 16 words in his January 2003 State of the Union Address: The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.

Bush said these words against the advice of Wilson, the CIA, the State Department and numerous other agencies and individuals. When Wilson's column appeared in the New York Times, the Bush administration was determined to not let him get away with it. So, revenge was taken on Wilson by conservative columnist Robert Novak's public revelation of Plame as a CIA agent. We now know that Novak was fed this information by Rove and Libby. Revealing the identity of a CIA agent is a felony. For more reading on the Plame Affair, go Here.]

Testimony in this case revealed in intricate detail that Rove and Cheney were behind Plame's outing. However, the prosecutor in the case, Patrick Fitzgerald (above), has announced that he doesn't plan to pursue any other charges in the case, despite the revelations that Cheney and Rove were right in the heart of the decision to smear Wilson and Plame.

I only have one word for Fitzgerald's decision to not pursue the matter further: Why?

Fitzgerald is a colossal disappointment, to say the least. I won't call him a failure, because he did win a conviction of Libby (above, with his wife, Harriet Grant).

I have a hard time believing that Fitzgerald is not taking marching orders from someone, somewhere. How else can one explain his failure to pursue chargers against Cheney and Rove? I'm not hoping for a political witch hunt here, (c. 1998), but what I do hope for is justice. Cheney and Rove broke the law. So, why aren't charges being filed?

There's now a big movement afoot on the 'Net, most notably on right-wing blogs and even some nationally respected publications, such as the National Review, to pardon Libby. The people who are hoping for a Libby pardon are short on memory and long on hypocrisy.

I'm not without sympathy for Libby on some levels, but he still deserves to be punished. I have no doubt that Libby is being hung out to dry and is being used as a scapegoat for this incident.

Libby should be punished because he was a willing participant in outing Plame, period. It should be noted that Libby wasn't convicted of outing Plame, he was convicted of obstruction of justice and lying to a grand jury. Without the testimony from various witnesses that revealed the activities of Cheney and Rove, Libby would never have been convicted. This isn't nuclear astrophysics, people.

Didn't we impeach a president for perjury once? Many Republicans thought that trying to politically lynch President Clinton was a grand idea in 1998. And Clinton's perjury was only over a blowjob, a private matter. Now, when national security and the lives of CIA agents are at the heart of a perjury conviction, a pardon is a terrific idea?!? Clinton may not have inhaled, but it's pretty obvious that some Libby supporters have.

The only hope that cases may be brought against Rove and Cheney will be at Libby's sentencing. If the judge throws the book at him, then perhaps Libby might have some very interesting things to say to federal prosecutors.

But, even that may not happen, if there's been a sweetheart deal between Libby and his former superiors. [Read: Someone from the administration blowing in Libby's ear: "Hey Scooter! If you are found guilty and are sentenced to prison, you'll be pardoned. Now keep your mouth shut."]

If Bush pardons Libby, there may not be any legal recourse, other than voters doing something about it by making the Republican Party suffer... in 2010! The president has the Constitutional right to pardon whomever he likes, and every president has done it. But, there are questions - can he or should he pardon someone who was a senior administration official? Of course, that didn't stop President George H.W. Bush from pardoning Iran-Contra figures Caspar Weinberger, John Poindexter and Elliot Abrams. So, who knows how a pardon or potential pardon could play out?

My favorite part about a pardon for Libby is this - right-wingers who work for Fox State TV like Sean Hannity won't be able to spin a Libby pardon by getting on TV and blabbering something along the lines of, "I don't mean to bring up Clinton, but Marc Rich..."

Why? Because Libby was an attorney for Rich, and he worked for a time behind the scenes to get Rich exonerated following his conviction in 1983 on income tax evasion. (Incidentally, I'm sick to death of hearing about the Marc Rich pardon. Yes, Clinton pardoned him, but it was for tax evasion. A serious crime, but many presidents have pardoned many people for far worse. See the paragraph above, or read about the Nixon pardon. And Clinton did make a condition of the pardon that Rich pay a $100 million fine, and it's not like he doesn't have the money. I've read he's worth well over $1 billion. Oh, and all of those Clinton pardons? Of course, the Republican-controlled Congress appointed Federal Prosecutor Mary Jo White to investigate. Just like Kenneth W. Starr before her, she found nothing amiss about the Clintons.)

There's also a strong possibility that there's some PR at work here, too. It's one of the oldest PR and political tricks in the book, and it goes something like this: Leak a controversial idea to the media, let the outrage come forth, and it will die down by the time we actually do what's being proposed.

The media is dropping the ball on this one - everyone is already acting like a Libby pardon is a inevitability. It cannot be, should not be, and if it does happen, the American public shouldn't take it sitting down. But, only time will tell.

Circle November, 5, 2008, on your '08 calendar when you get one. That's the day after the election, and if the election is decided by the next morning (!), the countdown will be on until the end of the Bush Presidency. (Wait, we already are counting down - 683 days left in this administration!) The countdown will also then be on until the Bush pardons, too.

Fitzgerald photo and one beneath it - AP
Bottom Image "The Counts" - Wonkette