Spying

The question over the warrantless wiretaps comes down to this:

In wartime, does the Presidency have powers that supersede Congress's laws?

Many people haven't focused on this yet - bogged down in either this one specific question of the wiretaps while ignoring the several other instances of Bush claiming this right (see the McCain amendment signing), or arguing the minutiae of that particular Congressional act, or arguing that other people did other things like that (see Lincoln, FDR).

For the record, yes, other Presidents have done acts that were illegal at the time. Lincoln did suspend habeas corpus, when the Constitution says only Congress can do this. FDR rounded up people of Japanese ancestry and had them imprisoned in violation of several laws, and declared what could be called rigged military tribunals would be the court of choice in one case as well. Was there a difference between those acts and Bush's? As of now, one - both acts happened in an actual, declared war. Also, Congress approved Lincoln's appropriation of their power in 1863, and one of FDR's powers (military tribunals) in one particular case was affirmed by the Supreme Court in Ex Parte Quirin (which has been called badly decided by some judges and commentators), so the President's act in questions were given kind of ex post facto justification. Of course, this may happen in the current wiretap case as well.

In this case, the Congressional Research Service has found that Bush's justifications for the wiretaps don't match with current law, and that Bush didn't fully inform Congress as required. In other words, there seems to be no questions that barring any new findings, Bush did violate the law in the wiretapping, regardless of what other Presidents did or what they claim the Congressional act allowed or etc. - and we can safely ignore the Justice Department's findings, unless "conflict of interest" has been redefined.

So the question now is: Can the President assert supra-legal powers in wartime?

The past has shown he can. In both most often mentioned cases, the Presidents did trample the Constitution, and were not impeached for it. In both cases, they received after-the-fact approval and power (for FDR, in that one case only as far as I know). However, the past is not the straitjacket of the present.

If Bush were to decide that every American should be wiretapped on the chance they would come in contact with a terrorist, that would possibly be within his power during wartime and possibly would be less egregious than some of Lincoln's acts. Yet that wouldn't make it justified. There is a dividing line between the necessary and the overreach.

In this particular case, Bush went around a historically loose court, the FISA, to allow warrants with a less stringent standard. In the words of General Hayden recently, a "reasonable basis to believe" vs. "probable cause". Probable cause is roughly defined to be "good reason to believe that the search will turn up evidence of crime." And FISA gives much leeway to the agent requesting the warrant, not to mention the 72 hour allowance before even applying for a warrant. This doesn't seem to be a very tough case to make.

But let's say it is. For whatever reason, these standards are too onerous in the undeclared war on terrorism. Will this allow the warrantless wiretaps?

At first, maybe. Given the complaints from the FBI that the tips gained were worthless, and taking into consideration that the pre-9/11 problem was not too little information but too little comprehension of too much information, I will not grant an absolute yes here. But let's say maybe it was enough - at first. But going on five years since?

At some point, you have to ask if this was such a problem, why was there no effort to change the requirements needed for a FISA warrant? There have been some debates that Congress can't pass a law allowing a lower standard than "probable cause" as per the 4th Amendment, but there could have been allowances for, say, longer notification times or more deference to the requesting agent. There were workarounds. Yet the Bush Admin. made no effort to make any workarounds.

So Bush found the already loose requirements of the FISA too strict and authorized warrantless taps, never tried to fix the supposed underlying problems with the requirements, never authorized Congress as required by law, and even when they knew the New York Times had the story for over a year before printing it made no effort to change the law even then. These are not the actions of a President who feels that some law as written isn't sufficient for needed protection and can be amended later; these are the actions of a President who feels that some law as written simply doesn't apply to him at all and therefore needs no amending or changing.

The same could be said of FDR and Lincoln, but they eventually did receive some allowances from the courts or Congress in their action. I do not know if the current Congress will be so understanding, and I am not sure I would want them to be. In my case, it comes down to trust, and I don't trust Bush with this power, given his signing amendment in the McCain anti-torture act and others. I also include in my thinking the recent ACLU lawsuit alleging that Christopher Hitchens, among many others, were targeted by warrantless wiretaps.

And my final reason to deny this power to Bush - to allow him to skip warrants - is this:

We are in a war where almost any means could be justified for the amorphous idea of "protection". Camps for people following Islam, taps on all international calls, taps on all calls domestically that may include trigger words, data sieves on all Internet accounts...you can think of many things that could help. This does not mean they should be done, or need to be done. There is a balance, and I don't feel the Bush Admin - nor any future ones - can place this act on the seesaw without overbalancing away from privacy rights and into a police state. After all, a reasonable basis to believe depends on some person's reason, and in an era of fear, reason can be very unbalanced.

Recommendations

My wonderful wife got me the first two seasons of The West Wing for Christmas, and it was quite a revelation to go back and see how good it was then. I remembered watching the premiere and telling my wife that it was too good to last, but it did. Later on, after Sorkin and Schlamme left, I thought it was too bad to last, but it did. But going back and seeing the first ones I'm amazed at how many things they did - hints, characters neatly introduced to come back and play roles later, lots of stuff I missed the first time around. It's not quite as good as Babylon 5 was at introducing things to play a role later (the kind of stuff you remember and go, "Wow! That's what that meant!") but it certainly was better than most shows.

Speaking of Babylon 5, I finally got the whole set and the movies as well on DVD. This is one of the best TV series ever, in my opinion, and the DVDs give you some extras as well - but I probably would have gotten the set even without the extras.

I know most people already know about this graphic novel - I never claim to be cutting edge - but Watchmen is a classic. If you've never read it, go and do so. It's got a great story, some of the images are unforgettable, and when you go back and read it again you'll find so many things you missed the first time around.

Spies Like Us

I think one question that needs to be asked about all the defenders of Bush's recently revealed warrantless taps is a simple one:

If Clinton had done it under the exact same circumstances, would they have complained?

Call me cynical, but I can see many of them short-circuiting their microphones from all the spittle they would have emitted. They would have whipped up enough froth to furnish all of Starbucks's cappuchinos worldwide for six months. Special Reports with titles like "Democratic Nixon" and "Traitor or Madman?" would have been splashed across the TV screens with near orgasmic frenzy and enjoyment. And in the midst of this all, Bill Bennet would have stated "Well, if you bugged all the black people, you could really get a lot of drug arrests."

Dispensing with the near certain hypocrisy shown by many talking mouths and empty brains, let's ask some other questions.

Was it neccesary to circumvent the law? For how long? Once you knew there was a problem, why was there never an attempt to fix the problem instead of dodging the issue? Did Bush have that little confidence that the Republican controlled Congress would agree with him? Does this mean they're off his Christmas card list?

If, as claimed, Bush did brief Congress, why has no Republicans come forward and confirmed this? I've seen many Democrats say it was a fiat accompli at best and little information was given anyway, but I can't recall any Republicans coming forward and stating that they were told fully and completely what was going on. Was there a super-duper double pinky swear of silence?

DID it help? Or was it something that may help someday? Or was it just something really cool to do?

Is this act and others from the President (i.e. stating he doesn't feel he needs to follow the McCain Amendment) a statement that he feels the Presidency is above the law? And has he gotten fitted for a crown yet if so? Do we need to exorcise the ghost of Nixon from the White House?

Was he within his right to do this? Why doesn't the Congressional Research Service think so? Does the CRS matter to Bush? Would it have mattered had they agreed with him?

Wishing for the right hoarse throats

The only good thing about Pat Robertson speaking is the constant affirmation about his mental state - Terri Schaivo all the way. I assume you've all heard Patsie claim God gave the thumbs-up for Ariel Sharon's stroke and was also apparently in favor of Rabin's assassination as well. The good news is that God apparently zoned Israel for recreation parks, though, so we got Dominionist Disney Land coming. I can't wait for the mascot Bible-Thumping Boaz, and the ride of The Passion of the Christ (you must be THIS HIGH to be crucified). The product tie-ins should be wonderful as well - I can see T-shirts saying "The Holy Land Cafeteria - try our fish and bread!" or "I helped bring about the second Coming and all I got was this lousy T-shirt". I hope they don't put up a temple though..."Den of Thieves 2 - This Time It's Personal! Starring James Calavizel as Jesus and Rob Schiender as Judas."

Let's be frank here - Pat's nuts. He calls for assassinating Hugo Chavez and then frantically tries to backtrack out of it, saying a lot about his convictions to tell the truth; tells Dover they voted God out when they rejected IDiocy; called a hurricane to hit Florida in response to "Gay Day"; claimed Bush would win in a landslide in 2004, a claim that the Bush people themselves seemed to believe they DID given the claims of "mandate" tossed around; and now says that God gave Ariel Sharon a stroke and let Yitzhak Rabin be killed as well since they "divided his land" (although the verse I read from the KJV says "[2] I will also gather all nations, and will bring them down into the valley of Jehoshaphat, and will plead with them there for my people and for my heritage Israel, whom they have scattered among the nations, and parted my land." A stroke is a PLEA? Damn, what's a demand, fire and brimstone? Read Chapter 3 of Joel as well and see if any of the other claims came true when we weren't looking - mountains dripping wine (we have a lovely Mount Ebal rose, or would you prefer the Mount of Olives retsina?), hills flowing with milk (dad! we got a skimalanche!), rivers flowing with water...okay, maybe one of three)...if you had Pat for a family member around Thanksgiving, there'd be some serious debating about whether to lose his card in the mail.

So, given the fact that Pat's insane...where's the condemnation? Where are the other evangelists coming out and saying, "Um, Pat? Not so much." Where's the Republican politicians coming out and saying, "We disagree with the Good Patsie that God struck down Sharon out of anger." Has Bush come forward and said, "Pat can have his opinion - it isn't mine."

Hasn't happened yet. May not happen.

This is a big problem for evangelicals - one of the major voices for them is as appropriate as Bill Clinton for a Fidelity program, or Bill Bennet for gambling reform. A bigger problem is that few of them step forward and SAY so. Sojourners and Christian Alliance have done so in the past, and been roundly condemned by Patsie and his ilk for being un-Christian and the like. (Because people who oppose a lunatic in charge are tools of the devil, of course, because the voices in the lunatic's head said so.)

So, why is it the voices that NEED to speak up have suddenly gone silent, and the ones that should shut up are still yapping? I think that question needs to be answered, and soon.

Militantly Moderate

From The Moderate Voice, I found this website and its call for Militant Moderates. I agree wholeheartedly. It is the job, the responsibility and possible even the sacred duty (and I don't exaggerate much) in these times for moderates to point out that the other side of the debate DOES have points and DOES have reason in some of their arguments, even if you don't agree with their reasoning. This doesn't mean, of course, that you have to say both sides are right, or that neither side is. Nor does this mean that every argument from the other side must be admitted to have points in every case. However, the ongoing demonization by the conservatives/liberals of the liberals/conservatives is inimical to a democratic way of thinking - it doesn't offer solutions, it offers ultimatums, and any admission of fact or reason for the other side is seen as a traitorous act by many. It's also appealing because it appeals to the people who don't want to think about things - much easier to decide that where an idea comes from determines its rightness. Call it thought racism - instead of the color of skin being the deciding factor, it's the political leaning.

Report From the Field

(With apologies to Bull Moose, who uses this kind of format)

WAR ON CHRISTMAS FIELD REPORT

The following tape was brought to the home offices of Satire News Services and dropped off. We have no information about the man who left it, other than he was tall, dressed in a dark coat, and had horns and a tail.

The tape transcription follows:

"Allies, infidels, and enemies of Christianity! Fellow brethren, I bring you the end of year report on the War on Christmas!"

(loud cheering)

"Before I begin, let us start with the traditional chant to our Gods."

(thirty minutes of chanting follows)

"...and all worship Eris, hail Discordia, and may the Flying Spaghetti Monster's tendrils wrap us in his noodly goodness. And now for the end of year report!

"It was a good year for the war on Christmas and, in extension, the war on Christianity. Several of our agent provocateurs succeeded brilliantly in our agitprop. We must thank Bill O'Reilly and John Gibson especially for their lies and disproven gossip, which led to much suspicion about the motives of the so-called protectors of Christmas and set back Christmas to the point of near expiration in many communities across the nation." (Loud applause, cheers, and chants of Gib-son, Gib-son, Gib-son)

"We must also mention the stellar cooperation we received from many megachurches, who elected to shut down on Christmas Day. This one act of placing convenience and attendance figures over the birth of their Savior did more to cast cynicism and doubt over churches than all our previous attempts such as The DaVinci Code, South Park and even The Book of Daniel. Sometimes you just get lucky in this line of work, I guess." (laughter)

"Hollywood also continues to be our ally, with movies like Brokeback Mountain doubtlessly causing many children across the nation to turn gay - and you will notice Christmas was never mentioned in it either in a subtle attack not mentioned. While there were some regrettable lapses - The Passion of the Christ and The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe come to mind - the movie arena is still ours. We expect Hollywood to convert everyone to an anti-Christian by the year 2010." (cheers)

"We must single out one member for his idea of stirring a war over the greetings 'Merry Christmas' and 'Happy Holidays'. While people starved, froze and died in need of charity and help, Christians of all stripes chose to focus their attention over the difference between syllables uttered at Wal-Mart and Target by someone paid less than minimum wage. I cannot think of another case of missing the forest for the trees since Pope Benedict elected to blame gay priests for the sexual abuse scandals - kudos!

"We have some existing hopes for the new year as well. With polarizing figures such as Roy Moore announcing a run for governor of Alabama, the upcoming debate about whether Easter Eggs are really a tool to kill Christians by high cholesterol, and the old stalwarts Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson ready to make a laughing stock of religion, we are confident that we will close even more churches, temples and mosques next year than we did this year, even without the help of the IRS. Onward, colleagues - we will destroy religion soon!"

Have Ladle, Will Travel

RUMSFELD SERVES TROOPS CHRISTMAS EVE DINNER

Trays were best item on menu

by Satire News Service

Today, in a surprise visit to Iraq, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld appeared in a dining hall and served dinner to soldiers, making his total number of days in Iraq close to double digits. According to the soldiers present, Mr. Rumsfeld was an excellent server and very cordial. "In fact, I think that should be his new job," stated one soldier who asked to remain anonymous.

However, there were some problems during the days. The first one, a major faux pas, was when Mr. Rumsfeld wished "Happy Holidays" to several soldiers at the beginning of his ladle duties, thereby incurring the wrath of Bill O'Reilly and many others. Luckily, he was alerted to this error, and spent the rest of his time wishing people Merry Christmas instead. "I didn't notice," said Private James Leibowitz. "Seemed okay to me," stated Corporal Omar Duballah.

The next problem happened when the soldiers started to eat the meal. There were several complaints about the quality of the food, ranging from raw meat to watery gravy. Mr. Rumsfeld was visibly upset by all the complaints, and said heatedly, "Hey, you don't go to dinner with the menu you want. You go to dinner with the menu you have. And besides, if the food is so bad, why has everyone come back for seconds?"

"These trays are great!" responded Harold Cumin, banging on one for emphasis. "Me and my buds, we're gonna get as many as we can and solder it unto our Humvee. We're calling it the 'Lunch Wagon', ha! As soon as we get the better armor we were promised, we'll give the trays back."

The final, and most embarrassing incident, happened when one soldier realized that they were in an area around Tikrit, where Mr. Rumsfeld had claimed chemical weapons had been stored during the war with Iraq. He began making jokes about how people better watch what was in the salt shakers, saying the powdered sugar was really anthrax, and others jokes like that. Thankfully, Mr. Rumsfeld chuckled and even laughed out loud during the man's routine.

"Of course I'm laughing," he said. "I can laugh at myself, can't I? And besides, I control where that man goes next."

Democrats were quick to decry Mr. Rumsfeld's trip as a photo op and staged, even holding a press conference to claim they had at least three people in Congress who were much more proficient at wielding a ladle. When asked for names, they promised to get back to us later.

I'm Back - Did You Miss Me?

Well, after a break, I feel ready to start blogging again.

It's been a hectic Christmas season. My son's preschools all let out, so I had him all day, which cuts down on the time I can have to myself. He's gotten really good at opening the fridge and turning on water faucets, so leaving him alone for long lengths of time isn't the best idea. Add to that a fairly long bout with stomach viruses, and a trip to the emergency room for a crack on the head, and there's some of the reasons.

Also, my brilliant wife passed a business certification test which had required much study time on the computer, and also got accepted into an online MBA program as well. A late congrats to her, and I love you babe.

But I'm back now - and to whatever readers I still have, I thank you for your patience, and ask that you start leaving a few comments. I'll answer them as often as I can.

Priorities?

SECOND COMING HAS HAPPENED

"...this whole 'Happy Holidays' thing made me," says Jesus.

by Satire News Service

In a burst of incense-smelling smoke and accompanied by a Heavenly choir singing hymns, Jesus Christ came back to Earth today, which was quite a surprise for the Jews and many other religions. He agreed to be interviewed by our news service immediately.

SNS: "So...wow."

Jesus Christ: "Please. I put on my shirt the same way you do - after I get it over my halo! Ha!"

SNS: "Well, first off, I gotta say, you look nothing like James Calavizel."

JC: "Eh, I would have preferred Leonardo DiCaprio, but you know Hollywood - I couldn't even get a cowriter credit on the film."

SNS: "Well, I guess I better ask this question right off: Are we in the End Times? Do we need to be on the lookout for an evil Romanian?"

JC : "What, that tale? Nah, the people you need to watch out for are the Sumerians. Them guys are tricky."

SNS: "I don't think there are any Sumerians left, though."

JC: "That won't stop them."

SNS: "So, why did you come back? Is it a statement about gay marriage? Or the treatment of the poor? Is it to show the world the true way, or to redeem people?"

JC: "No, I came for a more important reason, the most critical need the world faces."

SNS: "Yes?"

JC: "The removal of Merry Christmas greetings - the whole 'Happy Holidays' thing made me come back."

SNS: (stunned silence)

JC: "Well, come on, can YOU think of anything else I should pay attention to beside two words?"

SNS: "Well..."

JC: "I mean, if known Christians like Jerry Falwell and Bill O'Reilly are upset about it, I have to be as well! Can you think of two more important, moral, saintlike beings than these two?"

SNS: "Um..."

JC: "So I've decided to come back to Earth and spread the word - by God, you better say Merry Christmas around this time of the year. Forget good works, forget helping the poor, forget charity, forget everything else. You don't say Merry Christmas, by gum, you're going to Hell."

SNS: "Um, I don't mean to sound doubting..."

JC: "That's okay, some of my best apostles doubted."

SNS: "I guess it sounds very, well, superficial. I mean, Happy Holidays is all inclusive, yes, but the sentiment of well wishing is there. Merry Christmas is the same thing but only targeted at one religion - Christians. Not to mention distilling your views of Christianity down to how you greet someone seems quite shallow."

JC: "Duh!"

SNS: "Um. Even ignoring that, it seems very shallow and selfish to demand a particular greeting to correspond to your own beliefs. I mean, if the Jews demanded Happy Hanukkah, wouldn't that seem a little selfish?"

JC: "Of course it would. But this is different - it's Christians doing the demanding."

SNS: "So Christians should be allowed preference here?"

JC: "It's all to the good here, which is why I support all those people who demand stores say Merry Christmas. I mean, where else can you find the spirit of Christmas but in stores?"

SNS: "Wasn't there something you said about "Render unto Caesar that which is chasers, and unto God's what is God's"?"

JC: "Well, yes, but I didn't say Wal-Mart, did I? And besides, Caesar was a Republican anyway."

SNS: "Why does that matter?"

JC: "Well, I guess I'll go ahead and spill the beans - the Republican Party and I have worked out a deal. I now formally support all their goals and actions. I mean, they've been claiming Me for so long I figured I'd go ahead and make it official. Don't want to embarrass them.

SNS: "So you and the Republican party agree on everything?"

JC: "Damn right! If you read between the lines of the New Testament, it clearly states I'm for tax cuts, invading Iraq, and the Ten Commandments on every wall space across the country! I don't know how people have gotten this whole 'help the poor, turn the other cheek, don't be a show off about your religion' idea. Strange.

SNS: "Well, once you've gotten the whole Merry Christmas deal taken care of, what will you do next?"

JC: "Well, I intend to follow the Republican path to success. I'm starting up the INRI Lobbying Agency on K street soon."

Bible Study?

Alabama Democrats will soon call for Bible Literacy to be offered as an elective high school class. The idea is that knowing about the Bible will make understanding much literature easier.

Well, you can't argue about that. Several pieces of literature directly reference the Bible and allude to it. On the other hand, in all my literature classes, the few times I didn't recognize a reference the teacher pointed it out. A separate class wasn't called for.

I do have my suspicions about the motives of the Democrats. I would be willing to lay money that should some teacher start, I dunno, preaching instead of teaching, that would be okay to many of the people calling for this. On the other hand, if it was JUST teaching, that wouldn't be wrong. At least one religious right group doesn't like the textbook, which seems to imply it's not a religious tool disguised as education, a la IDiocy. Of course, it could always just be that the book doesn't go far enough for these people.

It's an interesting idea though, with me having leeriness about how it's to be implemented. From some of the sample pages given in the above site, the book does seem to encourage questions about the Bible, which if it's being taught as a source (and not THE Source) it should. I am open to see where it goes, while nervous about the central idea of this course being hijacked by true believers.

The press

Now that the press has printed another negative story about Iraq - the paid propaganda - how long will it be before some people say the press wants us to lose, is in a vendetta against Bush, is liberal, anti-military, all of that? And is it true?

My answer to the first question - I would guess not too long at all.

The second question goes to the basic idea about the press - does it print any and all stories, or only ones that further a political position? If only certain stories can be printed, then it's not a free press, by choice or by edict. If it's a free press, it will end up printing stories that hurt the current party in power. (That, to me, would be its main job as a matter of fact - showing the grit and grime of the powerful.) If a certain story hurts a certain power, or the military, them's the breaks.

Another question that should be asked is: SHOULD the press not print certain stories if it would hurt the party in power or the military in a war? I would hope we can rule out stories that are badly sourced and questionable (Koran abuse), i.e. stories that shouldn't be printed anyway, but we've seen these stories out there. They shouldn't have been. But other stories, more fully sourced and, shall we say, TRUER ones that hurt the military or a party in power during a war, such as this propaganda one, the abuse stories...should they be printed?

Of course.

The fact the story isn't printed doesn't make it disappear. Especially nowadays, a story will get out through several sources. Would it be of any help for the American public to be kept in the dark over Abu Gharib or propaganda, when the story is out elsewhere? We all know some fruitcakes who insist that Jews were behind 9/11 or something equally as insane, and we all view these people with at best mockery and at worst contempt, since they choose not to believe the facts. You can't believe the facts unless you know the facts, though, and we'd look just as stupid by claiming Abu Gharib didn't happen or that there is no propaganda in Iraq.

Perhaps instead of blaming the press for revealing these things, we should blame the people DOING these things. Just a thought.

Propaganda

Yes, more propaganda from the Bush Admin, but this time not in the United States, surprisingly.

Is it a big deal? As Andrew Sullivan says, perhaps the simple fact we're using it isn't. It's war, and propaganda has been used in all wars, ranging from the chest-thumping accounts of heroic stands that embellish some facts (see Jessica Lynch), to lies told to keep a good image going (see Pat Tillman), to stats mangled and twisted (see body counts in Vietnam) to outright lies (see Baghdad Bob). So perhaps the mere use of it isn't, and all it's doing is telling the story from one side (you know, just like that damned LIBERAL media does).

What does hurt us is now that this story is out, people can look at good news from Iraq papers and wonder if it's real. (I just know that someone is going to say this proves the press is anti-American since they revealed it, more on this later.) The mirror image of Abu Gharib abuse cases making the false Koran stories more believable, here the tilted stories will make real stories more doubted. The fact that the stories had been labeled as written by independent journalists and that we paid the Iraqi papers to run these stories add some more layers as well - not only was the news slanted, it was slanted by intention and acts - this isn't accidental bias, it was meant this way. It also certainly taints the idea of a honest press in Iraq, which can't help at all.

This tactic may have been used in all wars, but nowadays I question whether or not it can work. It's a tactic that, especially nowadays, is more risky, given the worldwide nature of news and easier access to it, as Sullivan points out, and also specifically given that the Bush Admin. has been caught with its hands in the tilting public opinion cookie jar many times now. Once bitten, twice shy; once lied to, always doubted. We don't seem to have a good handle on how to use propaganda well, and you have to ask can propaganda like this work now, excepting countries like China and North Korea? Or is it more likely to backfire and sow doubts, both about any future stories and about how the U.S. is handling Iraq?

Is this another example of the Bush people not knowing how to handle the post-war phase? I have to say yes. Also, notice the fairly incestuous route taken to get the propaganda out - the good ol'boy network ain't doing a good ol' job.

True Believers Need No Logic

One of the things that scare me the most about fanatical believers of ALL stripes is the way any contradictions in their actions are excused offhand. See religious people who believe it's okay to kill abortion providers, Muslims who kill women and children as prohibited in Hadeeth, and sports fans who scream about fouls against their team but call the other team crybabies when THEY complain about fouls.

I've also written that the Republican party seems to be falling into this abyss, what with the redefinition of perjury, sliding standards for outrage, and things like that. And Brendan Nyhan brings up another excellent example:

Early in his speech, Johnson offered the standard line:
America, and the Congress, must stand behind our men and women in uniform because they stand up for us every minute of every day.
Any talk, even so much as a murmur, of leaving now just emboldens the enemy and weakens the resolve of our troops in the field. That is dangerous. If you do not believe me, check out al Jazeera. The withdrawal story is on the front page. We cannot do that to our fellow Americans over there.
It takes incredible chutzpah to say that "even so much as a murmur" about withdrawal "emboldens the enemy" after Johnson's own party introduced a resolution designed to forced a debate over withdrawal.

Rules and logic are different for true believers. They only exist for the other side. Also note the argument that the withdrawal story being carried by al Jazeera is "dangerous". Does that mean now that there are indications that the Bush people want to draw down troops, if al Jazeera carries THIS news, it's dangerous? Or will that be different?

I see the next press secretary!

Brendan Nyhan, an invaluable blogger, destroys yet some more misleading claims.

Given the source, should we be shocked? Perhaps a better question to be asked is: When people have to stretch the facts this much to justify some claim, how weak are the real facts?

Careful what you wish for

So, Kansas wants IDiocy taught? No problem!

For all those wanting a cheat sheet to this course, here it is:

If there is a gap in knowledge, God did it. No need to look further.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster should sue for equal time.

Follow-up

Back before my son got sick, I posted that now I believe Bush and co. did lie about WMD intelligence. So, the next question is - do we impeach?

There are two ways Bush and co. could have lied. The first is to the public, and I don't think anyone who is honest can say they didn't. Information that was sketchy and incomplete and badly sourced and weak was presented in speeches and claims in public as solid, undenied fact. See nuclear capability, aluminum tubes, Atta meeting in Prague, links to al-Qaeda, and many more. In their P.R. campaign for war, the truth was rarely to be found. They did lie often - an exaggeration is still a lie.

The second way is a combination of pressure on intelligence agencies to come up with the "right facts" and selectively giving information out to Congress - the ultimate deciders of war declarations - to make their case more presentable. As of now, and contrary to the claims of both sides, we don't know if this was done. Bob Graham, in his editorial, says that the information had to be demanded from Tenet and when presented, revealed much more ambiguity and unsureness than admitted before. But the information was there - just unasked for by the White House for whatever reasons. (Graham also gives fairly convincing proof of the lies to the public, showing a vast disconnect between what he saw and what was shown to the public.)

The first lie is P.R., and it's especially reprehensible when used to justify a war. However, all Presidents lie when they're selling something they want done, and they lie the same way Bush and co. did - they minimize the problems, maximize the benefits, shrink the time needed for success and distort the cost. Bush and co. should be held accountable for this, and all their attempts to slither out of responsibility for their pre-war claims should be nailed. But I don't think it's an impeachable offense. The fact it was used for something so huge as the Iraqi war should always be remembered, but I don't think this can be used to impeach.

The second case could, though. If the Bush Admin. was forcing analysts to come up with information it wanted, or if they willingly lied to Congress about the intelligence, that would count. There's a vast difference between selling the points, and making up the points. This would, in my opinion, be an impeachable offense.

Now, did the Bush Admin. either force analysts or lie to Congress? Again, no one knows. The Silbermann-Robb Commission didn't look at this question at all - it wasn't in their charter. Claiming that since they found no evidence of intelligence manipulation Bush is innocent, as some on the right are, is like saying since Starr didn't find evidence of Clinton selling arms to China, Clinton's innocent there. Not quite. Simply put, this question hasn't even been looked at yet. And the way the Republicans and the White House are dragging their feet over it, it's a question whether or not it ever will be.

So as of now, I don't think there should be impeachment charges. I do think they should pay a price, but not before Congress.

(*) - from Andrew Sullivan, I found this piece, which may make impeachement charges more possible, given the fact that these PDB's refuting links between Iraq and al-Qaeda were never shown to Congress. I don't recall if that claim was made before Congress in justifaction of the war. If it was, here's some evidence of a lie.

Back!

Well, after a horrific stomach bug hitting my son that caused four trips to the doctor in a two week period, it seems like the stomach sturm und drang is finally over. It's been three days plus now that the l'il guy hasn't thrown up or had major accidents, and he's eating and being his usual hyper self. He was so sick that I willingly gave up the Alabama-Auburn game so he could watch TV instead - and down here, that game is the equivalent of Holy Mass on Easter Sunday or Jimi Hendrix coming back from the dead. (Of course, my team got stomped anyway...) Hopefully, I'll be able to gear back up the blogging now.

To everyone that checked in here, thanks, and I know you understand that real life trumps cyberlife.

Sick Leave

The blogging has been less than prolific recently, and as those of you with kids can guess, it's due to illness. My apologies. When we all feel better I'll vent more.

Bush Lied?

Regarding the Iraqi war, I've always said Bush and company didn't lie; they fell prey to groupthink - a case in which the "answer" to a problem is already decided, consciously or unconsciously, far ahead of any evidence shown. This results in any positive evidence for the wanted conclusion being inflated and any negative evidence being minimized.

I think I need to restate this conclusion in a few ways. It's a good time to do so, given the President's recent speech where he says, "It is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began," and ""These baseless attacks send the wrong signal to our troops and to an enemy that is questioning America's will."

Firstly, some of what the President said was, well, rewriting history. Once again, it was indirectly claimed the Silbermann-Robb Commission found there was no political manipulation of intelligence, so any claims of "misleading" is wrong, to wit:

"Bush, in Pennsylvania yesterday, was more precise, but he still implied that it had been proved that the administration did not manipulate intelligence, saying that those who suggest the administration "manipulated the intelligence" are "fully aware that a bipartisan Senate investigation found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community's judgments."

This is, at best, deeply irresponsible to say and at worst a lie. Once again:

And Judge Laurence H. Silberman, chairman of Bush's commission on weapons of mass destruction, said in releasing his report on March 31, 2005: "Our executive order did not direct us to deal with the use of intelligence by policymakers, and all of us were agreed that that was not part of our inquiry." (italics added)

One of my favorite authors is Harlan Ellison. You probably know him best for writing "City on the Edge of Forever", a classic Star Trek episode. It led to a huge, public feud between him and Gene Roddenberry, because Gene continually claimed the original script was badly written and had to be saved. (There happens to be a book about this from Harlan, and if you like well written rage, check it out - but buy it through the side link please!) Now, Gene once made a claim that the episode was, as originally written, far too expensive to shoot (not true) and that Harlan had Scotty dealing drugs (also not true). Harlan, at the time attempting to make peace, contacted Gene and mentioned those facts were wrong. Gene said oops, and promised he'd not make those claims again.

He did so for the next twenty years or so.

There comes a time when a mistake morphs into a lie. Bush and the Republicans are there in the claims of vindication from the Silberman-Robb Commission. I can allow one or two errors, but continual ones means they don't want to tell the truth here. You also have to ask why they're so desperate to claim they've been cleared.

The President also claimed that Congress saw the exact same intelligence he did, and therefore any claims he and others twisted intelligence can't be true:

In the same speech, Bush asserted that "more than 100 Democrats in the House and the Senate, who had access to the same intelligence, voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power."

Except once again, reality tells a different story:

But Bush does not share his most sensitive intelligence, such as the President's Daily Brief, with lawmakers.

...

In addition, there were doubts within the intelligence community not included in the NIE.

(italics added)

That last point is the most important. As we've seen, there were a lot of people saying the intelligence was iffy, badly sourced, and plain wrong - such as the claims of Iraq training al-Qaeda in chemical weapons, to name just one. But those doubts were not reported to Congress. So, if the person telling you information leaves out doubts about said information, he can't claim you saw the same stuff he did. When you cherry-pick what you tell people, you can fairly easily get them to vote how you want them to.

Taking this into account, and remembering how frantically people of the Administration tried to link al-Qaeda and Iraq, and how Cheney and Rice drastically overstated the nuclear reach of Iraq against the intelligence estimates, and how 9/11 was always somehow close to Iraq in all pre-war speeches, and how they are desperate to claim they've been exonerated...

I've come to the it probably started out as groupthink, and perhaps for a good defense reason overall - change in the Middle East, taking out a possible danger, what have you - but at some point it seems the people in charge decided to make sure everyone thought they way they did through misdirection, selective presentation of intelligence, falsely dramatic claims, and using intelligence they knew was weak. The mistakes, possibly innocently, made at the beginning have now evolved into a lie to justify the mistakes. They chose to present intelligence to the American people in a deceptive way, painting iffy information as rock solid. They chose to leave off doubts and questions in the information supplied to Congress. They chose to link al-Qaeda and 9/11 in all speeches about Iraq.

The groupthink turned into a lie to justify the groupthink. They've become Gene Roddenberry, misstating stuff over and over to make themselves look good.

From the Mouths of Morons

Well, Pat Robertson certainly helps the IDiot's case that IDiocy isn't about religion:

Religious broadcaster Pat Robertson warned residents of a rural Pennsylvania town Thursday that disaster may strike there because they "voted God out of your city" by ousting school board members who favored teaching intelligent design.

...

"I'd like to say to the good citizens of Dover: If there is a disaster in your area, don't turn to God. You just rejected him from your city," Robertson said on the Christian Broadcasting Network's "700 Club."

...

"God is tolerant and loving, but we can't keep sticking our finger in his eye forever," Robertson said. "If they have future problems in Dover, I recommend they call on Charles Darwin. Maybe he can help them."

Okay, so we have Behe stretching the definition of science so much it includes astrology to fit ID in, we've got Pat "Throw the first stone" Robertson saying a vote against IDiocy is a rejection of God, we've got the Dover school board calling the sane people who argued against the IDiocy "atheist"...

...is it pretty obvious now that IDiocy isn't a science, but a thinly veiled (tissue thin in Patsie's case) attempt to get creationism in education?

Let's also keep in mind that Patsie, for all his stupidity and calls for assassinations, was someone reached out to by Karl Rove for opinions on Supreme Court judges. Yes, Karl thought Patsie's opinion was one to be sought out. For bonus points, which person is more stupid?

(renamed to morons b/c I saw a bunch of links looking for "boobs". I bet there are some disappointed linkers out there.)