Maher interviews Garry Kasparov

Bill Maher is a bomb thrower - this is not news. But, what his opponents are loathe to acknowledge is that Maher flat-out gets the great guests, and he conducts excellent interviews. One of the best I've seen Maher conduct in quite some time was on Friday night with former world chess champion Garry Kasparov, who is a candidate for Russian president in 2008.

As Former KGB General Oleg Kalugin said about Putin (via Crooks and Liars)

Putin? Well, I was always outspoken about him. I know this man's background better than many others. I do not talk in details—people who knew them are all dead now because they were vocal, they were open. I am quiet. There is only one man who is vocal, and he may be in trouble: [former] world chess champion [Garry] Kasparov. He has been very outspoken in his attacks on Putin, and I believe that he is probably next on the list.

That would be the very definition of political courage. Kasparov is one courageous activist, and this situation bears watching.

Kasparov spoke about the risk of his outspokenness during his interview with Maher on Friday (also via Crooks and Liars):

Bill Maher: Do you think your fame protects you? Do you think you are such an icon in Russia because of your past chess history that Putin would not kill you?

Garry Kasparov: No I don't think my name affords me an ultimate protection but unlike many other activists in Russia I can rely on my name and my fame, but still I take some measures to minimize the risk. I have bodyguards in Russia, I do not fly Aeroflot, (laughter) I do not consume any food or liquid in places that I'm not fully aware of, but again it's just minimizing the risk. I know that it may not offer me any ultimate protection if the worst comes to worst.

Maher: But when you look at what's going on in Russia, Putin has a very high approval rating. I mean there is something in the...

Kasparov: How do you know? (laughter) I mean are you sure? Are you relying on the polling results of the police state? I think that with the same type of media and pervasive security force, I believe Bush and Cheney could enjoy the same approval rating here. (Applause)

Maher: Checkmate to me.

What an interview. Click on the video above to watch the 7+ minute interview - quite fascinating.

Bush wishes USA Happy Fourth of July, torches Constitution

Politics can be an unpredictable circus in Washington, but it can also be highly predictable. Sadly, this administration is about as predictable as it gets. I find it a little ironic that as we celebrate the birth of our nation on Independence Day, that President Bush continues to take a torch to our Constitution. Happy Birthday, USA!

Even the most passive followers of Washington politics probably concluded that President Bush, Our National Embarrassment, was going to pardon I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby though - it was only a question of when. Of course, the White House isn't spinning it that way. It's a commutation of Libby's sentence, not a pardon - he still has two whole years probation and a $250,000 fine (which will no doubt be paid by Republican fat cats).

The timing of the announcement could not have been more deliberate, either. Well, I suppose Bush could have waited until the Fourth of July, or Christmas morning. Instead, he announced it as Russian President Vladimir Putin is visiting the U.S. at President Bush Sr's Kennebunkport summer home. Once again, it's PR 101, which is also a bit too predictable; Bush thinks that most of us are too stupid to see through his amateurish PR diversions. Some of us are paying attention, Mr. President.

This is just the latest example of an administration that believes it's above the law, and considering the Democratic "response" to yesterday's announcement, it's virtually impossible to conclude otherwise.

Before I get to the Democratic response, a bit from Bush's statement about Libby's sentence commutation:

Mr. Libby was sentenced to thirty months of prison, two years of probation, and a $250,000 fine. In making the sentencing decision, the district court rejected the advice of the probation office, which recommended a lesser sentence and the consideration of factors that could have led to a sentence of home confinement or probation.

I respect the jury's verdict. But I have concluded that the prison sentence given to Mr. Libby is excessive. Therefore, I am commuting the portion of Mr. Libby's sentence that required him to spend thirty months in prison.

My decision to commute his prison sentence leaves in place a harsh punishment for Mr. Libby. The reputation he gained through his years of public service and professional work in the legal community is forever damaged. His wife and young children have also suffered immensely. He will remain on probation. The significant fines imposed by the judge will remain in effect. The consequences of his felony conviction on his former life as a lawyer, public servant, and private citizen will be long-lasting.

Wow, that's pretty touching. I wonder - what about Valerie Plame's damage to her career? Or Joe Wilson's? Many people, especially Republicans, forget that this entire matter began when Joe Wilson, Valerie Plame's husband, was asked by this administration to serve his country by traveling to Africa to investigate trumped up claims that Saddam Hussein attempted to purchase Uranium Yellowcake from Niger. It took Wilson about 15 minutes to conclude that the allegations were based on forged documents, which had more errors in them than a George Bush grammar test.

When Wilson returned to the U.S. and briefed the CIA and the administration on his findings, he was ignored. After all, this was an administration that had made up its collective mind, even before 9-11, that it was going to war with Iraq. Wilson's inconvenient findings weren't going to get in the way of the Bush War Machine that was already picking up speed.

When it became painfully evident to Wilson that his findings were being ignored, he went public with his findings in an Op-Ed piece in The New York Times on July 6, 2003, entitled What I Didn't Find In Africa. After taking readers through the process of his involvement in investigating Hussein's alleged purchase of yellowcake from Niger, and reasons why he thought these allegations were false, he wound up his piece with this:

The question now is how that answer was or was not used by our political leadership. If my information was deemed inaccurate, I understand (though I would be very interested to know why). If, however, the information was ignored because it did not fit certain preconceptions about Iraq, then a legitimate argument can be made that we went to war under false pretenses. (It's worth remembering that in his March Meet the Press appearance, Mr. Cheney said that Saddam Hussein was "trying once again to produce nuclear weapons.") At a minimum, Congress, which authorized the use of military force at the president's behest, should want to know if the assertions about Iraq were warranted.

I was convinced before the war that the threat of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Saddam Hussein required a vigorous and sustained international response to disarm him. Iraq possessed and had used chemical weapons; it had an active biological weapons program and quite possibly a nuclear research program - all of which were in violation of United Nations resolutions. Having encountered Mr. Hussein and his thugs in the run-up to the Persian Gulf war of 1991, I was only too aware of the dangers he posed.

But were these dangers the same ones the administration told us about? We have to find out. America's foreign policy depends on the sanctity of its information. For this reason, questioning the selective use of intelligence to justify the war in Iraq is neither idle sniping nor "revisionist history," as Mr. Bush has suggested. The act of war is the last option of a democracy, taken when there is a grave threat to our national security. More than 200 American soldiers have lost their lives in Iraq already. We have a duty to ensure that their sacrifice came for the right reasons.

Well, Bush, Rove and Cheney weren't going to stand for that. So, they outed Wilson's wife, an undercover agent in the CIA, who had given over 20 years of her life to the agency. Not to put too fine a point on it, but they destroyed her career, AND, odds are, put people's lives in danger. Everyone Plame ever dealt with (including other agents) while undercover were compromised. Some people may have even died as a result of her cover being blown, but we'll never know; count that as yet another chapter to this sad story that the American public will never know the full truth about. There's a reason that exposing an covert agent is illegal - people's lives and careers are at stake. But, like so many other laws, this doesn't apply to Libby or this administration.

A quick sidebar - in the immediate aftermath of the scandal going public, Fox News and its bumbling cabal, led by Sean Hannity, desperately tried to portray Plame as a CIA agent who was NOT undercover. Arrrrrrnt. Wrong again, Sean. A CIA report revealed that she was covert at the time of Robert Novak's disgraceful column that started this whole scandal in the first place. Read about that Here.

Most curious of all were the responses from leading political figures in the aftermath of Bush's announcement.

Senator Harry Reid, the Senate Majority "Leader," had this to say:

The President's decision to commute Mr. Libby's sentence is disgraceful. Libby's conviction was the one faint glimmer of accountability for White House efforts to manipulate intelligence and silence critics of the Iraq War. Now, even that small bit of justice has been undone. Judge Walton correctly determined that Libby deserved to be imprisoned for lying about a matter of national security. The Constitution gives President Bush the power to commute sentences, but history will judge him harshly for using that power to benefit his own Vice President’s Chief of Staff who was convicted of such a serious violation of law.

Well, I'm sure glad that history will judge him harshly, because this Congress sure isn't going to do it. As if Congress has no power to do anything. Sure senator, let's just leave it up to history to weigh in against the president. Astonishing.

Of course, predictably, Republican presidential candidates were quick to give Bush kudos for his decision to let Libby off the hook.

Fred Thompson, who has emerged as a vocal advocate for Mr. Libby, said, "This will allow a good American, who has done a lot for his country, to resume his life." Hey Fred, just because you play a district attorney on TV doesn't make you an expert about this case. It's just absurd.

And, of course, America's Mayor, a former federal prosecutor, had to weigh in as well. Bush "came to a reasonable decision, and I believe the decision was correct," said Rudy Giuliani.

I wonder, if Libby was someone that Giuliani had prosecuted, how he would feel about the president's decision? Or if Libby were a Democrat, how Thompson would feel? Pretty amazing that Congress can impeach President Clinton for lying about a private, consensual (yet admittedly sleazy) affair with Monica Lewinsky, yet Scooter Libby and Dick Cheney will get away with outing a CIA agent's identity because her husband dared disagree with this war-mongering administration.

It also amusing to look back at then-candidate Bush's statements during the 2000 campaign about abiding by "the rule of law," a not-so-subtle jab at President Clinton.

So much for restoring "honor and integrity" to the Oval Office, Dubya.

Some Sunday comics, a bit late

So, Toyota is now the global king. The only amazing thing is that it took so long. I sure hope GM can turn it around, but the company is hamstrung by the astronomical costs of its pension and medical care costs.

I'll discuss the Pat Tillman fiasco in a separate post, but in short, it's one of the most disgraceful chapters in U.S. military history. At this point, I can't say I'm surprised, though - nothing from this administration surprises me anymore. Aside from Tillman's death, the most tragic thing about the whole incident is that no one will be held responsible for it. I'm not even talking so much about the friendly fire, which is a tragedy, but the cover-up and the lying by the U.S. government to the Tillman family. However, like Abu Ghraib and Haditha, it's unlikely that anyone within the highest reaches of the Pentagon or the Bush administration will be held responsible.

The $400 John Edwards haircut is an embarrassment to him and his campaign, but the press coverage about this whole thing has been nothing short of amazing.

I'm not defending it - it's inexcusable. Anyone who was going to donate money to his campaign will probably be thinking twice. Had he paid for it himself, it would not have been disclosed. What was Edwards thinking? The answer is, he wasn't, because if he was, he would not have put this on the campaign books. You know what, though? Each and every campaign, and candidate, has these skeletons in his or her closet.

Anyone catch the stories about Rudy Giuliani and all of this rock-star like demands when he makes a campaign appearance? You probably didn't, because it got virtually no mainstream media coverage.

In addition to his $100,000 speaking fee, during his private speaking tours, he requires to be shuttled to and from speaking events in a Gulfstream IV private jet. You can read more about his demands Here and at the Smoking Gun, which obtained a copy of a Giuliani contract. Evidently, Oklahoma State released one of his contracts, sick of his unusually high demands.

Anyone want to argue that he's not using any campaign cash improperly? C'mon, they all are, without question. I have a hard time believing that a guy like Rudy, who's used to first-class treatment in every way, is all of a sudden going to be flying commercial.

During the 2000 campaign, it was revealed that then-candidate George W. Bush spent over $100 a minute.

Or, how about John McCain's all-expenses-paid trip to Iraq, so he could try and end his embarrassment stemming from his disastrous appearance on CNN just days before, where he blithely chided Wolf Blitzer for not knowing the facts on Iraq.

Again, I'm not saying that Edwards' behavior should be excused. It shouldn't. He won't get a dime out of me, even if he becomes the nominee. But, my point is all of the presidential candidates undoubtedly have lavish expenses. That doesn't make it right, either, but to single out Edwards is laughable.

You have to be able to read Spanish to know where this cartoon is coming from, and this one is right on. (It reads, "Why all the violence?")

I'm happy that finally, someone is actually going to take the time to examine all of this actions in a legal way. (Of course we know his work isn't always respectful, but that doesn't make it illegal. But, the likelihood that he did something illegal is all but certain, in my mind.)

Boris Yeltsin will be remembered as the first democratically elected president in Russian history. He probably was the right man at the right time. Like all leaders, he had his flaws, but, unlike Mikhail Gorbachev, who wanted to reform the communist party, Yeltsin wanted it abolished. Yeltsin took Russia toward democracy, and Vladimir Putin is taking Russia away from it.

Speaks for itself.

Speaks for itself, Part II.

How many people thought that Sheryl Crow was actually serious in suggesting we should all wipe with one sheet of toilet paper? Many in the mainstream media did. I don't know I'd want to shake her hand without a latex glove on, but I took it as the joke it was when it first starting making the rounds of the MSM.

Yep, this is about right. I find it absurd and preposterous that five Catholic men on the Supreme Court are imposing their beliefs on every woman in America. What's more, if my wife's life is in danger if she were to become pregnant, she can't have an abortion after a certain amount of time has elapsed. Or, if the baby is afflicted with a certain fatal birth defect or disorder, the pregnancy can't be ended. That's how I interpret it, and it sickens me.

Oh, and Partial-Birth Abortion is a euphemism coined by the Pro-Life movement - it's a non-medical term for Intact Dilation and Extraction.

The Supreme Court's decision sickens me and the pic at right illustrates exactly how I feel about the Supreme Court and its horrific decision. I can't think of a better reason to vote Democrat in 2008 - Roe v. Wade has never been more in jeopardy than it is right now, along with many other civil liberties and rights with the George W. Bush-stocked Supreme Court.

What's more, people should look into exactly what the procedure is, and more importantly, how often it is (was) used. According to the Guttenmacher Institute, the procedure has had a very low rate of usage, representing 0.17 percent (2,232 of 1,313,000 abortions) of all abortions performed in the U.S. in 2000.