Day: November 7, 2005
“The power of the Executive to cast a man into prison without formulating any charge known to the law, and particularly to deny him the judgment of his peers, is in the highest degree odious and is the foundation of all totalitarian government whether Nazi or Communist.”Torture Scooter
Here’s an idea, and I can’t believe I’m the first to come up with this modest proposal, but why doesn’t the U.S. government just go ahead and torture Lewis “Scooter” Libby? And not just for that ridiculous name.
Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald has laid five charges against Libby related to the investigation into how an undercover CIA operative’s identity was leaked to the press. One can only imagine how long it’s going to take for Fitzgerald to lay out the evidence, to put witnesses on the stand, to build a case against Libby, and find out whether he lied to cover up for his actions or those of others at the White House.
New Intel Doc Proves That Bush Knew Saddam-al Qaeda Link Was False from the Start
Smoking gun? A newly declassified report indicates that President Bush, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfled and others were informed very early on – February 2002 – that there was likely no connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. Nonetheless, Bush and his senior officials cited the claim repeatedly as they made their case for war in Iraq one year later.
This latest revelation means that at the time Bush justified the commencement of war against Iraq consistent with what was required under Public Law 107-243, he certified things not in evidence.
The New York Times broke the story:
A high Qaeda official in American custody was identified as a likely fabricator months before the Bush administration began to use his statements as the foundation for its claims that Iraq trained Al Qaeda members to use biological and chemical weapons, according to newly declassified portions of a Defense Intelligence Agency document.
The document, an intelligence report from February 2002, said it was probable that the prisoner, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, “was intentionally misleading the debriefers” in making claims about Iraqi support for Al Qaeda’s work with illicit weapons.
The text from Bush’s official certifying his causus belli to Congress:
March 18, 2003
Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)
Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
Sincerely,
GEORGE W. BUSH
This could be very significant. Here’s how The Left Coaster lays it out:
This latest revelation means that at the time Bush justified the commencement of war against Iraq consistent with what was required under Public Law 107-243, he certified things not in evidence, and made claims to Congress (Saddam’s active operation of a WMD program and Saddam’s assistance to Al Qaeda) that he, Cheney, and Rummy already knew were false.
He lied to Congress to start the war. And now 53% of the American public says that if it is clear that Bush lied, they would support Congress considering impeachment proceedings against the president.
That may be why the Democrats just now made their stand this week. They have new evidence that Bush lied to Congress, and that the March 18, 2003 determination was faulty, and that Bush knew it was based on fabricators, faked documents, and doctored intelligence.
Poll: Redistricting, Power Grab Props Failing, Others Marginal
Results of SurveyUSA (SUSA) Election Poll:
Prop 73 — Parental Notification
Proposition 73 requires that physicians notify the parent of a pregnant minor at least 48 hours before performing an abortion. If the special election were today, and you were standing in the voting booth right now, would you vote Yes on Proposition 73? Or would you vote No?
Yes 51 (55)
No 47 (44)Prop 74 — Micromanaging Teachers
Proposition 74 extends the probationary period for new teachers from 2 years to 5 years, and makes it easier to dismiss teachers with unsatisfactory performance evaluations. If the special election were today, would you vote Yes on Proposition 74? Or would you vote No?
Yes 48 (49)
No 51 (50)Prop 75 — Union Dues
Proposition 75 prohibits public employee unions from using union dues for political purposes without the written consent of union members. If the special election were today, would you vote Yes on Proposition 75? Or would you vote no?
Yes 45 (50)
No 54 (49)Prop 76 — Arnold’s Power Grab
Proposition 76 limits growth in state spending so that it does not exceed recent growth in state revenues. The Governor would be granted new authority to reduce state spending, [including school funding,] during certain fiscal situations. If the special election were today, would you vote Yes on Proposition 76? Or would you vote no?
Yes 39 (49)
No 59 (49)Prop 77 — Redistricting
Proposition 77 changes the way California draws boundaries for Congressional and legislative districts. District boundaries would be drawn by a panel of retired judges and approved by voters in a s, Potatewide election. If the special election were today, would you vote Yes on 77? Or would you vote no?
Yes 41 (42)
No 56 (56)
Bushspeak: We Don’t Torture. Now, Anyone Got a Cattle Prod We Can Borrow?
Here’s how to tell if an “interrogation technique” rises to the level of torture. It’s so simple you’ll kick yourself once you hear it (which is good because then we won’t have to kick you ourselves – not that we would):
If WE do it, it’s not torture. If anyone else does it, it is. Clear? AP:
Over White House opposition, the Senate has passed legislation banning torture. With Vice President Dick Cheney as the point man, the administration is seeking an exemption for the CIA. It was recently reported that the spy agency maintains a network of prisons in eastern Europe and Asia, where it holds terrorist suspects.
The European Union is investigating the reports, which have not been confirmed by the White House…
“Our country is at war and our government has the obligation to protect the American people,” Bush said. “Any activity we conduct is within the law. We do not torture.”
See? Any activity WE conduct is within the law. “We” pay real close attention to the law, as you kids all know. After all, if anyone violated the absolute letter (as opposed to the intent) of the law in exposing CIA agents (who do NOT torture, BTW), “we” would can their asses. But we don’t leak and we don’t torture. Other folks do that. That’s how you know. Got it?
The Mood in California One Day before the Special Election
Make him go away: When Arnold Schwarzenegger entered politics he cast himself as a latter day Ronald Reagan, the actor turned politician who went from governor of California to president of the United States. The flaw in this scenario is that while Arnold may be Reagan’s intellectual equal, he lacks even one-tenth of Ronnie’s political instincts.
California has a high concentration of media-savvy voters, and one gripe pollsters often hear is that Arnold’s stage managed “fake news” events have worn well past thin.
A closer model for the Schwarzenegger governorship would be the Jesse Ventura administration in Minnesota. The former wrestler won the governorship in an upset, only to watch his popularity among voters decline until it all but ceased to exist.
A poll published last week showed that Schwarzenegger’s approval rating is 33 percent (which is three percentage points lower than President Bush). The remnants of Arnold’s credibility hang on the election tomorrow. But even if all four of his initiatives were to win, all it would buy him is another chance to win back a few Independents – the rest of us are lost to him forever.
It is also very unlikely to happen:
Schwarzenegger is backing four out of eight initiatives on the ballot Tuesday in a state that since 1911 has used initiatives as an end-run around its legislature. If approved, the measures would give Schwarzenegger an enormous boost, granting him the power to cut the state’s budget unilaterally and hobbling his biggest foe, organized labor.
But three recent polls, by the Public Policy Institute of California, the Field Research Corporation and the Los Angeles Times, seem to suggest that the governor is headed for a political Judgment Day. Of the four ballot measures Schwarzenegger is backing, only one — [Proposition 74, which seeks to micromanage teacher tenure,] is the weakest in terms of policy consequences — seems primed to pass, according to the polls.
Among those trailing is a measure that would strip the authority from the Democratic-controlled legislature to draw lines for legislative and congressional districts, and shift it to a panel of retired judges…
In California, Democratic Party and union activists — who have outspent Schwarzenegger by tens of millions of dollars in the campaign to defeat his measures — are almost giddy when discussing Tuesday’s vote. “I’m cautiously optimistic,” quipped Gale Kaufman, one of the lead strategists. And then she cackled loudly.
It may be too soon for giddiness – and if just one of the propositions passes we should be prepared for Arnold to take a victory lap around the state.
Not that it will help him much. California has a high concentration of media-savvy voters, and one gripe pollsters hear from them is that Schwarzenegger’s stage managed “fake news” events have worn well past thin.
Reagan, as dim as he was, had a true trouper’s sense of when to reign in the schmaltz. Schwarzenegger cut his teeth as a body builder, which is entertainment mostly played out in front of a mirror. His connection with the public is all show and no heart. He can’t stop preening and flexing his muscles even after the crowd has moved on.
IRS Targets Liberal Church over Antiwar Sermon
A whiff of fascism: In an era when the IRS looks the other way as Republican operatives hand out voter guides at services held in rightwing Christian megachurches, it is shocking to read that the IRS is targetting the taxt-exempt status of a liberal church over a single, apparently benign sermon last year:
The IRS cited a description of the sermon as a “searing indictment of the Bush administration’s policies in Iraq” and that it described “tax cuts as inimical to the values of Jesus.”
The Internal Revenue Service has warned one of Southern California’s largest and most liberal churches that it is at risk of losing its tax-exempt status because of an antiwar sermon two days before the 2004 presidential election.
Rector J. Edwin Bacon of All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena told many congregants during morning services Sunday that a guest sermon by the church’s former rector, the Rev. George F. Regas, on Oct. 31, 2004, had prompted a letter from the IRS.
In his sermon, Regas, who from the pulpit opposed both the Vietnam War and 1991’s Gulf War, imagined Jesus participating in a political debate with then-candidates George W. Bush and John Kerry. Regas said that “good people of profound faith” could vote for either man, and did not tell parishioners whom to support.
But he criticized the war in Iraq, saying that Jesus would have told Bush, “Mr. President, your doctrine of preemptive war is a failed doctrine. Forcibly changing the regime of an enemy that posed no imminent threat has led to disaster.”
On June 9, the church received a letter from the IRS stating that “a reasonable belief exists that you may not be tax-exempt as a church … ” The federal tax code prohibits tax-exempt organizations, including churches, from intervening in political campaigns and elections.
The letter went on to say that “our concerns are based on a Nov. 1, 2004, newspaper article in the Los Angeles Times and a sermon presented at the All Saints Church discussed in the article.”
The IRS cited The Times story’s description of the sermon as a “searing indictment of the Bush administration’s policies in Iraq” and noted that the sermon described “tax cuts as inimical to the values of Jesus.”
Fans of HBO’s “Six Feet Under” will note that this is the gay-friendly church that David Fisher attended.
