Good reason to oppose I-912

Goldy points at one.

Joke=>Rumor=>Smear

French, Latin, and wrestling? Must be gay, right? :-)

Schmidt, OH-2 candidate

Hey, why bother answering questions when you have talking points to regurgitate?

Judge gives millennium bomber 22 years

After more than 4 years, Ahmed Ressam has been sentenced to 22 years in prison for plotting to blow up the Los Angeles airport, LAX, on the eve of the millennium.

Full story here

Most interesting is Judge Coughenour's statement:

"The message I would hope to convey in today's sentencing is twofold:

First, that we have the resolve in this country to deal with the subject of terrorism and people who engage in it should be prepared to sacrifice a major portion of their life in confinement.

Secondly, though, I would like to convey the message that our system works. We did not need to use a secret military tribunal, or detain the defendant indefinitely as an enemy combatant, or deny him the right to counsel, or invoke any proceedings beyond those guaranteed by or contrary to the United States Constitution.

I would suggest that the message to the world from today's sentencing is that our courts have not abandoned our commitment to the ideals that set our nation apart. We can deal with the threats to our national security without denying the accused fundamental constitutional protections.

Despite the fact that Mr. Ressam is not an American citizen and despite the fact that he entered this country intent upon killing American citizens, he received an effective, vigorous defense, and the opportunity to have his guilt or innocence determined by a jury of 12 ordinary citizens.

Most importantly, all of this occurred in the sunlight of a public trial. There were no secret proceedings, no indefinite detention, no denial of counsel.

The tragedy of September 11th shook our sense of security and made us realize that we, too, are vulnerable to acts of terrorism.

Unfortunately, some believe that this threat renders our Constitution obsolete. This is a Constitution for which men and women have died and continue to die and which has made us a model among nations. If that view is allowed to prevail, the terrorists will have won.

It is my sworn duty, and as long as there is breath in my body I'll perform it, to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. We will be in recess."

What the heck was Novak thinking?

Or is "thinking" too strong a word?

Harlow, the former CIA spokesman, said in an interview yesterday that he testified last year before a grand jury about conversations he had with Novak at least three days before the column was published. He said he warned Novak, in the strongest terms he was permitted to use without revealing classified information, that Wilson's wife had not authorized the mission and that if he did write about it, her name should not be revealed.

Harlow said that after Novak's call, he checked Plame's status and confirmed that she was an undercover operative. He said he called Novak back to repeat that the story Novak had related to him was wrong and that Plame's name should not be used. But he did not tell Novak directly that she was undercover because that was classified.

In a column published Oct. 1, 2003, Novak wrote that the CIA official he spoke to "asked me not to use her name, saying she probably never again will be given a foreign assignment but that exposure of her name might cause 'difficulties' if she travels abroad. He never suggested to me that Wilson's wife or anybody else would be endangered. If he had, I would not have used her name."

Dear Red States....

We get Elliot Spitzer. You get Ken Lay.

Federal courts on whether Wilson was covert or not.

Instructive reading.

On the record before us, there is at least sufficient allegation to warrant grand jury inquiry that one or both journalists received information concerning the identity of a covert operative of the United States from government employees acting in violation of the law by making the disclosure.

Valerie who?

BTW, does it tick anyone else off that she's consistently called "Valerie Plame", when she actually goes by "Valerie Wilson"?

"...but she wasn't covert enough!"

Apparently, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence doesn't have enough time to look into WMD intel, but it has plenty of time to see if the CIA does a good enough job protecting the cover of its agents.

"When you wake the Black Man from Boston...

...Nicholas Scratch will surely come to call."

Thanks to Teresa@MakingLight for the link.

David Brin on Neocons and the Pax Americana

Interesting article.

My kind of passionate centrism is devoutly loyal to the Enlightenment and -- yes -- patriotic toward a version of Pax Americana representing our best and smartest virtues. Passionate centrism can be roused by events to express vigorous partisanship in a particular election. Not because I prefer simpleminded "left" or "right" -handed solutions, but because overwhelming evidence leads me to conclude that civilization is in danger from a particular gang of manipulative rascals.

Bush chooses appeals judge John Roberts Jr. for Supreme Court

SignOnSanDiego.com > News > Nation --
Bush chooses appeals judge John Roberts Jr. for Supreme Court:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/nation/20050719-1644-scotus-bush.html

America's Truth Deficit

OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR

America's Truth Deficit
By WILLIAM GREIDER

The possibility that the United States can no longer afford globalization is what opinion leaders do not wish to discuss.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/18/opinion/18greider.html?th&emc=th

July 18, 2005

America's Truth Deficit
By WILLIAM GREIDER
Washington

DURING the cold war, as the Soviet economic system slowly unraveled, internal reform was impossible because highly placed officials who recognized the systemic disorders could not talk about them honestly. The United States is now in an equivalent predicament. Its weakening position in the global trading system is obvious and ominous, yet leaders in politics, business, finance and the news media are not willing to discuss candidly what is happening and why. Instead, they recycle the usual bromides about the benefits of free trade and assurances that everything will work out for the best.

Much like Soviet leaders, the American establishment is enthralled by utopian convictions - the market orthodoxy of free trade globalization. The United States is heading for yet another record trade deficit in 2005, possibly 25 percent larger than last year's. Our economy's international debt position - accumulated from many years of tolerating larger and larger trade deficits - began compounding ferociously in the last five years. Our net foreign indebtedness is now more than 25 percent of gross domestic product and at the current pace will reach 50 percent in four or five years .

For years, elite opinion dismissed the buildup of foreign indebtedness as a trivial issue. Now that it is too large to deny, they concede the trend is "unsustainable." That's an economist's euphemism which means: things cannot go on like this, not without ugly consequences for American living standards. But why alarm the public? The authorities assure us timely policy adjustments will fix the matter.

Reporters and editors typically take cues from the same influential sources and learned experts in business, finance and government. If the news media decided to cast these facts as the story of the world's only superpower losing ground in global competition and becoming financially dependent on strategic rivals like China, the public would take greater notice. But governing elites would regard such clarity as inflammatory. America's awesome trade problem is instead portrayed as something else - an esoteric technical dispute about currency values, the dollar versus the Chinese yuan. The context is guaranteed to baffle and benumb citizens.

The possibility that the United States can no longer afford globalization, at least not as it now functions, is what opinion leaders do not wish to discuss. A few brave dissenters have stated the matter plainly and called for significant policy shifts to stop the hemorrhaging. Warren Buffett, the legendary investor, says the United States is destined to become not an "ownership society," but a "sharecropper society." But his analysis, and others like it, are brushed aside.

An authentic debate might start by asking heretical questions: Why is the United States one of the few advanced economies that suffers from perennial trade deficits? Why do new trade agreements, despite official promises, always leave the United States with a deeper deficit hole, with another wave of jobs moving overseas? How do the authorities explain the 30-year stagnation of working-class wages that is peculiar to America? Are we supposed to believe that everyone else is simply more competitive or slyly breaking the rules? In the last three decades, American policymakers have succeeded in closing the trade gap with only one event - a recession.

The American predicament is shaped by operating dynamics grounded in the global system, singularly embraced by Washington because Washington originated most of them. At the outset, these practices were both virtuous and self-interested for the United States - encouraging industrialization in poor countries, binding cold war allies together with trade and investment, furthering the global advance of American business and finance. With its wide-open market, America played - and still plays - buyer of last resort for world exports. Its leading companies and banks gained access to developing new markets, often by sharing jobs, production and technology with others. American policymakers also got to run the world.

The utopian expectations behind this arrangement turned out to be wrong, judging by empirical evidence rather than theory. But why wrong? American political debate is enveloped by the ideology of free trade, but "free trade" does not actually describe the global economic system. A more accurate description would be "managed trade" - a dense web of bargaining and deal-making among governments and multinational corporations, all with self-interested objectives that the marketplace doesn't determine or deliver. Every sovereign nation, the United States included, uses its vast arsenal of policies to pursue its national interest.

But on the crucial question of how policy makers define "national interest," Washington stands alone. Western Europe, whatever its problems, manages economic policy to maintain modest trade surpluses. Japan manages to insure far larger surpluses in recessions (its export income subsidizes inefficient domestic employers). China strives to acquire a larger, more advanced industrial base at the expense of worker incomes and bank profits. Germany and Japan, despite vast differences, both manage to keep advanced manufacturing sectors anchored at home and to defend domestic wage levels and social guarantees. When they do disperse production and jobs overseas, as they must, they do so strategically.

By contrast, Washington defines "national interest" primarily in terms of advancing the global reach of our multinational enterprises. Elites are persuaded by the reigning orthodoxy that subsidiary domestic interests will ultimately benefit too. The distinctive power of America's globalized companies is reflected in trade patterns. Nearly half of American exports and imports are not traded in open markets - the price auction idealized by neoclassical economics - but within the companies themselves, moving materials and components back and forth among their far-flung factories. A trade deficit does not show on the company's balance sheet, only on the nation's. In recent years, much of the trade deficit has reflected the value-added production and jobs that companies moved elsewhere.

The United States is thus especially vulnerable to the downward pressures on working-class wages that exist on both ends of the global system. American producers are generally free - and even encouraged by Washington - to shift production to low-wage locations. Companies regularly use this cost-cutting technique as a competitive weapon without regard to the domestic consequences. The practice works for companies and investors, but not so well for a nation.

INDEED, the cumulative effects of retarding labor incomes worldwide repeatedly threatens stagnation or worse for the entire system. Workers, to put it crudely, cannot buy what the world can make. Too much capital leads to the speculative "bubbles" that bounce around the world, visiting financial crisis on rich and poor alike.

At a different moment in history, American leadership might have stepped up to these disorders and led the way to solutions. If globalization is to continue without encountering more crisis and random destruction, governments must together shift the balance of power so labor incomes can rise in step with rising productivity and profits. If the United States is to avert its own reckoning, it must take decisive action to draw firm limits on its exposure to trade deficits, that is, resign its position as the open-armed buyer of last resort. In effect, Washington would also reform its own national interest imperatives so that they more closely resemble what other nations already embrace. Ultimately, American remedial action may protect the global system from its own crisis - the moment when trading partners discover they have just lost their best customer.

But to describe plausible remedies is to explain why none are likely. The webs of mutual interests connecting government, corporate boardrooms and Wall Street are too deeply woven, as are habits of thought among policy makers and politicians. So I do not expect anything fundamental will be altered in time. We are going to find out if the dissenters are right.
William Greider, the national affairs columnist of The Nation, is the author of "One World, Ready or Not."

Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company

Why Wilson had to be destroyed

From the Washington Monthly:

In Karl Rove's world, the base is sacred, and nukes were the key to their support. Joe Wilson threatened to open a crack in that support, and that's why he had to be destroyed.

Knifing Rove, whitewashing Wilson-Plame

http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20050718-092253-3802r.htm

Who Exposed Secret Agent Plame?

The answer appears to be David Corn of The Nation who appears to have received the information from Joe Wilson himself.
http://www.nationalreview.com/may/may200507150827.asp

Ouch.

Too true.

"What Mr. Rove understood, long before the rest of us, is that we're not living in the America of the past, where even partisans sometimes changed their views when faced with the facts.

Title 50 : Section 421

"Defy [me] to quote a law to the contrary"? Ok...

Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

Valerie Wilson's memo

http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2005/07/14/plame/print.html

[The CIA subsequently issued a statement, as reported by New York Newsday and CNN, that the Republican senators' conclusion about Plame's role was wholly inaccurate. But the Washington Post's Susan Schmidt reported only the Republican senators' version, writing that Wilson was "specifically recommended for the mission by his wife, a CIA employee, contrary to what he has said publicly," in a memo she wrote. Schmidt quoted a CIA official in the senators' account saying that Plame had "offered up" Wilson's name. Plame's memo, in fact, was written at the express directive of her superiors two days before Wilson was to come to Langley for his meeting to describe his qualifications in a standard protocol to receive "country clearance." Unfortunately, Schmidt's article did not reflect this understanding of routine CIA procedure. The CIA officer who wrote the memo that originally recommended Wilson for the mission -- who was cited anonymously by the senators as the only source who said that Plame was responsible -- was deeply upset at the twisting of his testimony, which was not public, and told Plame he had said no such thing.]

Oh, gotta love this...

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2005_07_10.php#006114

"...any federal officeholder that makes a statement based on a FBI agent's comments which is used as propaganda by terrorist organizations thereby putting our servicemen and women at risk, shall not be permitted access to such information or to hold a security clearance for access to such information."

An FBI agent's comments??????????

Update: Somehow, I have a sneaking suspicion this one isn't passing.

"But what's funny is that, according to one top Democrat's office, the amendment also strips Orin Hatch of his security clearance because he has in the past referenced judicial nominees' FBI files.

In fact, every Senator who participated in an Armed Services Committee hearing on Gitmo yesterday might lose their clearance because the FBI agents comments were discussed. Those Republicans who participated in that hearing were Sens. John Warner (R-VA), John McCain (R-AZ), Pat Roberts (R-KS), Jeff Sessions (R-AL), Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), Elizabeth Dole (R-NC), and John Cornyn (R-TX). Will they vote to strip themselves of their own security clearance?"

Josh Marshal on Repuglican talking points

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2005_07_10.php#006117

There's a point that's probably worth raising with our scofflaw Republican friends. All of their arguments now amount to excuses, like those of a small child caught stealing cookies: Joe Wilson's a liar. Plame's covert status wasn't protected well by the CIA. It was just a short phone call. Rove really wanted to speak about welfare reform. Wilson said Cheney sent him to Africa. Plame sent Wilson to Africa. Rove leaked Plame's identity in the interests of good journalism. Wilson went on too many TV shows. On and on and on.

The salient point is not that each of these claims is false. The point is that they're irrelevant. It's the mid-life version of 'He hit me first!' or 'He called me a name!' or other such foolery.

No presidential advisor should ever disclose the identity of a covert agent at the CIA. That doesn't require elaboration.

If it's done knowingly, it's a felony. Joe Wilson could be the biggest hack in the world. Plame could have cooked the whole trip idea up to damage the president -- as some GOP loopsters are now claiming -- and it wouldn't matter.

Rove (and, though we're not supposed to say it yet, several of his colleagues) did something obviously wrong and reckless. And they probably broke several laws by the time it was all done.

Pretty much every Republican in Washington today works for Karl Rove. So they can't deal with that fact. But fact it is.

And nothing was done amiss? If Rove et al. didn't do anything wrong, why have they spent two years lying about what they did? No law was broken? Then what is Fitzgerald looking at? Why is a grand jury investigating Rove? A prosecutor like Fitzgerald, a Republican appointee, wouldn't be throwing journalists in jail unless he thought he was investigating a serious crime.

What's their answer to that? They have none. Rove runs the Washington Republican party, owns it. So it's anything but hold him accountable.

Kennedy on Santorum

Santorum is an embarrassment.

Three years ago, Senator Santorum said "While it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at the center of the storm." When given an opportunity to apologize yesterday, he refused and instead restated these outrageous statements....More than a dozen current U.S. Senators were educated in Boston. Senator Frist was trained as a heart surgeon at Harvard Medical School. Senator Dole went to Harvard Law. Senator Alexander went to Harvard's School of Government. Surely, my honorable colleagues wouldn't go to a school that is somehow contributing to the downfall of America?

Faux News comes out in opposition to national security

Vid clip of the day:

FOX News anchor John Gibson just said onair that he thought Karl Rove deserves a medal if he outed Valerie Plame. Let me repeat: John Gibson, anchor at the FOX News Channel, says he believes that we ought to expose our covert government agents and harm national security… as long as it benefits Republicans.

7/11 White House Press Briefing

Oh, this is a thing of beauty. :-)

MCCLELLAN: And so that’s why we are not going to get into commenting on it while it is an ongoing investigation — or questions related to it.

QUESTION: Scott, if I could point out: Contradictory to that statement, on September 29th of 2003, while the investigation was ongoing, you clearly commented on it. You were the first one to have said that if anybody from the White House was involved, they would be fired.
And then, on June 10th of 2004, at Sea Island Plantation, in the midst of this investigation, when the president made his comments that, yes, he would fire anybody from the White House who was involved, so why have you commented on this during the process of the investigation in the past, but now you’ve suddenly drawn a curtain around it under the statement of, We’re not going to comment on an ongoing investigation?

MCCLELLAN: Again, John, I appreciate the question. I know you want to get to the bottom of this. No one wants to get to the bottom of it more than the president of the United States.
And I think the way to be most helpful is to not get into commenting on it while it is an ongoing investigation. And that’s something that the people overseeing the investigation have expressed a preference that we follow.
And that’s why we’re continuing to follow that approach and that policy.
Now, I remember very well what was previously said. And, at some point, I will be glad to talk about it, but not until after the investigation is complete.

QUESTION: So could I just ask: When did you change your mind to say that it was OK to comment during the course of an investigation before, but now it’s not?

Rove Resigns Over Ignorance of Plame's Name

Rove Resigns Over Ignorance of Plame's Name
http://www.scrappleface.com/MT/archives/002249.html

Sunny days ahead for GOP as population shifts south

Sunny days ahead for GOP as population shifts south
http://insider.washingtontimes.com/articles/normal.php?StoryID=20050711-122338-7499r

Jailed Journalist Reports NY Times Desecration

Jailed Journalist Reports NY Times Desecration
http://www.scrappleface.com/MT/archives/002248.html

You like video links?

If you have such a rough time with a Fox News unintentional remark, then why aren't you up in arms over....

(Jay Leno distinguishes between regular and "fat-ass" people)

The Tonight Show With Jay Leno
Jay Leno interviews celebrities and hosts musical performances.
... this thing on the news. Seats 800 average-sized people or 126 fat-ass Americans. [ Laughter ] one way or the other. You got 800 regular people. [ Applause ] well, that's a good trend, pilots -- I mean Planes getting bigger, pilots getting drunker. Yeah, that's a good idea. [ Light laughter ] it happened...

(Witches aren't 'regular' people either)
Top Ten Spooky Places
Scary sites include a dungeon and monster-filled waters.
... of us convert. I was raised irish catholic and came to it. And I've been a witch for 20 years. Are we different than regular people? Only in the way that we -- through spells, through incantations -- we work the magic. Well, this is the charcoal you're gonna need, and we...
Travel Channel - Fri May 13 2005 at 2:00 PM PDT - 1 hour

(Regular people are not Paul Newman and not disabled)
The Jane Pauley Show
Actor Paul Newman.
... other people going through my Pain and suffering, and I didn't feel alone anymore. >> It's hard when you have disability, because when you're around regular people that don't have any other problems, you feel embarrassed. But here, it doesn't matter. >> Whenever I'm in the dumps, I come up here, and...
KNTV - NBC Network - Wed Apr 20 2005 at 3:00 PM PDT - 1 hour

...and there's more and more....

Gotta love FauxNews...

Google Video link

"That these people are, If necessary, prepared to spill Arab blood in addition to the blood of regular -- of nonarab people living in London."

Dueling comments

It'll be interesting to see how these comments play out in the confirmation hearings. Guess the political affiliation of the commenters before following the link.

Quote 1:

[T]he Senate should resist, if not refuse to confirm Supreme Court nominees who refuse to answer questions on fundamental issues. In voting on whether or not to confirm a nominee, senators should not have to gamble or guess about a candidate’s philosophy, but should be able to judge on the basis of the candidate’s expressed views.

Quote 2:

[T]he public is best served by questions that initiate a dialog with the nominee, not about how she will decide any specific case that may come before her, but about the spirit and the method she will bring to the task of judging. There is a real difference … between questions that focus on specific results or outcomes, the answers to which would risk compromising a nominee’s independence and impartiality, and questions on judicial methods and philosophy. The former can undermine the dispassionate and unprejudiced judgment we expect the nominee to exercise as a Justice. But the latter are essential and contribute critically to our public dialog.

Thanks to Laura for the pointer.

Bush Sr.'s doctor speaks against torture

Still think everything's just fine down at Gitmo?