BN-Politics' administrators respect, but do not necessarily endorse, views expressed by our contributors. Our goal is to get the ideas out there. After that, they're on their own.
Did administration officials actually meet to work out how they could go about provoking a war with Iran? Pulitzer prize winning journalist Seymour Hersh says that they did.
In Hersh’s most recent article, he reports that this meeting occurred in the wake of the overblown incident in the Strait of Hormuz, when a U.S. carrier almost shot at a few small Iranian speedboats. The “meeting took place in the Vice-President’s office. ‘The subject was how to create a casus belli between Tehran and Washington,’” according to one of Hersh’s sources. (Think Progress)
H/t Jesus's General ' (MDC: From Harry's new record Songs of the Bushmen. Releasing via digital download only, Songs of The Bushmen can be purchased from the iTunes store here.)
by Damozel | Legal expert Marty Lederman thinks the 93-page opinion--- an extraordinarily thorough, scholarly and
thoughtful opinion -- surely one of the best opinions ever written on
questions relating to executive/congressional disputes---will be a 'landmark decision.' District Judge John Bates (a George W. Bush appointee, who Lederman points out, 'worked on the Starr Whitewater team'):
Posted by Damozel | I found this comment at the end of Larissa Alexandrovna's post (cited in my previous note). To quote Jeeves, it touches the matter with a needle:
Posted by Damozel | On May 17, 2005, the White House sent a letter to agencies throughout the executive branch instructing them to find jobs for certain 'Bush loyalists.' The passage shows that even if Goodling and Sampson weren't working under direct orders from the White House, they were acting in line with its policies. (NYT) And Larissa Alexandrovna asks the question that is troubling inquiring minds everywhere.
The White House is a building. Who actually sent the memos instructing these activities?
Alexandrovna argues that the trail seems to lead back to Karl Rove...i.e.,the Political Affairs Office.
by Teh Nutroots | The House Judiciary Committee voted along party lines to hold him in contempt. (NYT) I find it extraordinary that everyone, including all Republicans, doesn't hold him in contempt. Why do Republicans insist on shielding wrongdoers within the Bush administration?(NYT) Lying to Congress got Bill Clinton impeached in the House.
But defying Congress? That's apparently fine, even for people who aren't the president. 'The White House has invoked executive privilege in asserting that
current and former top officials cannot be forced to testify before
Congress, because the president’s right to confidential advice from his
trusted aides would then be compromised.' (NYT)
The White House's silence on the Justice Department report should
indicate, perhaps, at least a tacit endorsement of Goodling's tactics,
Turley says.
"The question really is why isn't the president coming forward and
saying there's a shame factor here at what occurred at the Justice
Department," he said. "Alberto Gonzales picked this person, not because
of the merits -- she lacked anything on the merits. She was picked
because she was an extremist, and this is the result." ( The Raw Story discusses the segment in depth.)
by Damozel | Joe Windish has provided some background, some blogger reactions, and some other useful links.
JI spent a couple of hours this afternoon browsing the report (h/t to Sadly No! where I found the link to the report (actually entitled 'Investigation of Allegations of Politicized Hiring by Monica Goodling and Other Staff in the Office of the Attorney General') (pdf.file) I've set out relevant quotes below. I felt angry while I was reading it---which probably shows in my commentary; I don't know---but now that I'm done I just feel sad. I certainly don't feel disposed to rejoice, but I do want to see these people held accountable.
by Damozel | It seems that Petraeus doesn’t accept the idea of a timeline. You can read his reasons here.
Right-wingers, who have nothing else but the war to pin their hopes on,
will tell you that this ‘proves’ that McCain knows more about war than
Obama. I don’t think it proves anything at all.
My question remains: what specific conditions, according to the candidates,
must be met in order for us to start to withdraw? In sober reality,
both McCain and Obama are disputing about semantics (timelines,
horizons, etc.) and will be subject to the same ‘conditions’ of which
Petraeus speaks.At least, unlike McCain (and recently, the media), he’s
not framing his statements in terms of ‘winning.’ It isn’t the sort of
engagement that will have a clear end and a settled outcome. And in
playing it, we’ve gambled away more than we’ve yet had the chance to
assess.
by Teh Nutroots | Via Sadly No: See Frumget very cross indeed with Stephen Colbert for twisting facts to further his own [comedic] purposes and to manipulate people's emotions. Huh. Here's David Rose, quoting Frum a couple of years ago.
"I always believed as a speechwriter that if you could
persuade the president to commit himself to certain words, he would
feel himself committed to the ideas that underlay those words. And the
big shock to me has been that although the president said the words, he
just did not absorb the ideas. And that is the root of, maybe,
everything."
by Damozel | As you know, Congress is finally sitting down to consider the many offenses of the Bush Administration. H/T to Crooks and Liars for bringing these speeches (and a related discussion in the mainstream media) together for me..
Because of his track record suing defense contractors, Grayson is
completely uninterested and unintimidated by ridiculous arguments about
secrecy and national security. He thinks that war crimes have been
committed, that people need to be put in prison, and that we absolutely
cannot let bygones be bygones with the 2000-2008 era. He's also
running a good campaign with one of the best commercials I've ever seen., and doing it without any help from the DC establishment.
Posted by Damozel | CAVEAT: The underlying facts are still in the process of development. At present, file it away under 'Interesting allegations' against Karl Rove. There have been plenty of others.
According to Brad Friedman at The
Brad Blog, Ohio Attorney Cliff Arnebeck (lead plaintiffs' attorney in the
long-standing Ohio elections fraud case King
Lincoln Bronzwell v. Blackwell has accused Karl Rove of
attempting to intimidate a potential witness, cyber-expert Mike Connell.
That case challeges the results the 2004 presidential election in Ohio. Last week,
Arnebeck announced he was filing a motion to lift a stay in that case as a
result of new evidence( The
Raw Story; also BN-Politics). In connection with the case, he said he planned to depose
Karl Rove and 'other GOP operatives' he believes had participated. (The Brad Blog). One of these
'operatives' is Mike Connell.
According to Arnebeck, Rove threatened cyber-expert Connell (and with his
wife) with prosecution for lobbying violations if Connell failed 'to take the
fall.' (The Brad Blog).
by Damozel | The ACLU has released some crucial memoranda which reveal the tortuous path by which the Bush Administration's Department of 'Justice' taught the CIA to rationalize its way to a distinction between 'enhanced interrogation' and plain old-fashioned 'torture.' The Justice Department told the CIA that agents would be safe from prosecution if they they believed 'in good faith' that flies don't have feelings so it doesn't matter if they pull the wings off them, according to the AP. I may have paraphrased a bit. I know they don't like being quoted.
Put it another way, you could say that the standard articulated in the memos works something like this: 'Use only those enhanced interrogation techniques that wouldn't shock the conscience of a sociopath.' At that, it's hard to believe that they drew the line at waterboarding. Evidently the CIA doesn't have as many agents who think like sociopaths as television and films would lead you to believe. One effect of all this information is to make me feel a little better about them. They might have done so much more.
by Damozel | Yesterday, Elrod commented at TMV on misstatements by John McCain
which he made during his interview with Katie Couric. ‘Mysteriously,’ these were not aired.
This misstatement isn’t another amusing gaffe by a crusty old maverick; this one matters. As to what
it tells you about him, take your pick. More than one interpretation is
possible, as Elrod and others have pointed out. Which do you like best?
He’s either (1) deliberately distorting facts he knows perfectly well
because he’s desperate to discredit Obama; (2) has forgotten the facts
because his recollection has become blurred; or (3) —’the Bush
option’—he is indifferent to the facts (because he thinks the
end—deflating Obama—justifies the means).
Posted by Damozel | Shaun Mullen discusses the ramifications for McCain’s of McCain’s argument here. Michael Stickings rounds up commentary by bloggers here;
This piece rounds up related quotes and commentary, including a couple
of fairly lame counterjabs from the McCain-supporting (or
Obama-dissing) side which prove to be fairly easily seen off. After
all, McCain’s whole argument against Obama’s position is founded on a
pile of yesterday’s news clippings.
Initially, the Iraqi government denied that Maliki had intended to endorse Obama’s plan. Now it seems that Maliki is endorsing Obama’s plan.
by Damozel | I am supporting Obama for president now, so don't start on me if you're one of his supporters, but I'm nevertheless filled with pride that Hillary---my choice for the nomination---is justifying my faith in her. She has (in her words) 'sound[ed] the alarm' regarding the Department of Health and Human Service's pending regulations that will redefine common forms of contraception as 'abortion.' What's in a name?:
These proposed regulations set to be released next week will allow
healthcare providers to refuse to provide contraception to women who
need it. (HuffPost)
That's bad. That's very, very bad. The ramifications are serious, both for those who think it’s not the
government’s business to impose its current ideology on health care
issues such as availability of contraception to the poor or who are already grumbling about all the women on welfare who expect taxpayers to pay for their children’s basic necessities.
by Deb Cupples| A willing accomplice or someone who just doesn't care about wasted tax dollars likely thinks it's better to appear incompetent than unconcerned or knowingly complicit in waste, fraud or abuse. Idon't believe for an instant that the folks handling the FBI's private contracts are too stupid to anticipate problems or learn from mistakes. Some of it is just sooo elementary.
In May 2001, DynCorp got (what was supposed to be) a $132 million contract for the FBI's Trilogy project, aimed at upgrading the FBI's computer networks worldwide. DynCorp's contract bid beat out bids from other companies including Lockheed Martin. (Washington Technology).
Fast forward to 2004, when the GAO audited the Trilogy project (after cost overruns and performance problems). The GAO found the actual costs tush far to be about $537 million and that a major part of the project was unfeasible despite the (tax) money so far spent.
by Damozel | Legal expert Marty Lederman thinks the 93-page opinion--- 
Posted by Damozel | I found this comment at the end of Larissa Alexandrovna's post (
Posted by Damozel | On May 17, 2005, the White House sent a letter to agencies throughout the executive branch instructing them to find jobs for certain 'Bush loyalists.' The passage shows that even if Goodling and Sampson weren't working under direct orders from the White House, they were acting in line with its policies. (
by Teh Nutroots | The House Judiciary Committee voted along party lines to hold him in contempt. (
by Damozel | Yesterday, 
by Damozel | 
by Damozel | It seems that Petraeus doesn’t accept the idea of a timeline. 
by Teh Nutroots | 
by Damozel | As you know, Congress is finally sitting down to consider the many offenses of the Bush Administration. H/T to 
Posted by Damozel | Here at BN-Politics, we much admire Alan Grayson, now running for our 8th District here in Florida (see 
Posted by Damozel | CAVEAT: The underlying facts are still in the process of development. At present, file it away under 'Interesting allegations' against Karl Rove. There have been plenty of others. 
by Damozel | The ACLU has released 
by Damozel | Yesterday, Elrod commented at TMV on misstatements by John McCain
which he made during his interview with Katie Couric. ‘Mysteriously,’
Posted by Damozel | Shaun Mullen discusses the ramifications for McCain’s of McCain’s argument
by Damozel | I am supporting Obama for president now, so don't start on me if you're one of his supporters, but I'm nevertheless filled with pride that Hillary---my choice for the nomination---is justifying my faith in her. She has (in her words) 'sound[ed] the alarm' regarding the Department of Health and Human Service's pending regulations that will redefine common forms of contraception as 'abortion.' What's in a name?:
by 
