New Wash Post story on Rove, Fitzgerald is up

Here Read More......

"There's a direct link between Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib"

Here's some news from tomorrow's papers John. This will run tomorrow on page A14, it should have been on A1. From the Washington Post

Military interrogators at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq learned about the use of military working dogs to intimidate detainees from a team of interrogators dispatched from the U.S. detention facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, according to court testimony yesterday.

One interrogation analyst also testified that sleep deprivation and forced nudity -- which were used in Cuba on high-value detainees -- later were approved tactics at Abu Ghraib. Another soldier said that interrogators would regularly pass instructions to have dog handlers and military police "scare up" detainees as part of interrogation plans, part of an approved approach that relied on exploiting the fear of dogs.
...
The preliminary hearing at Fort Meade, Md., for two Army dog handlers accused of mistreating detainees provided more evidence that severe tactics approved for suspected terrorists at Guantanamo migrated to Iraq and spiraled into the notorious abuse at Abu Ghraib in the late summer and early fall of 2003. The testimony came days after an internal military investigation showed the similarity between techniques used on the suspected "20th hijacker" in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, and tactics seen in photographs at the prison that shocked the world.

Several Republican senators are pushing legislation -- opposed by the White House -- that would regulate the treatment of detainees at Guantanamo and other military prisons. One of them, Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), released recently declassified internal memos written in 2003 by the military's top lawyers in which they warned the Pentagon about developing severe tactics, arguing that they would heighten danger for U.S. troops caught by the enemy, among other problems.

"We have taken the legal and moral 'high-road' in the conduct of our military operations regardless of how others may operate," Air Force Maj. Gen. Jack L. Rives wrote in a Feb. 5, 2003, memo. "We need to consider the overall impact of approving extreme interrogation techniques as giving official approval and legal sanction to the application of interrogation techniques that U.S. forces have consistently been trained are unlawful."
...
That staff sergeant, James Vincent Lucas, told Army investigators that he traveled from Cuba to Iraq from October to December 2003 as part of a six-person team to bring his "lessons learned" and to "provide guidelines" to interrogators at Abu Ghraib who were setting up their operation, according to investigative documents obtained by The Washington Post.

There is a lot more in the article - read it. It talks about how far up the chain of command this now is going on the Military Intelligence side - Colonel - as well civilian contractors deciding on who should be interrogated.

-- Rob in Baltimore

Read More......

Late night open thread

Waiting to see what news the morning papers have. Read More......

Did Senate GOP just threaten special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald?

Sure sounds like it. GOP Senator Pat Roberts, R-KS, had his staff let it be known today that he's going have a hearing that will include probing the special prosecutor himself, apparently. Isn't that special? I guess obstruction of justice isnt just limited to the executive branch. Now we have GOP senators dabbling in trying to intimidate a federal prosecutor.

Note to Senator Roberts: Don't screw with Irish guys from Chicago, because you will regret it (okay, he's from NYC, but works in Chicago - same rule applies). Read More......

Protesters mar fundraiser for MD Lt. Gov and Karl Rove

I hate when that happens.

Why does GOP Lt. Gov. of Maryland Michael Steele hate our national security? Read More......

Since when did you need a PhD in mathematics to understand Nigerian spam-mail?

My guess is, if you're smart enough to actually understand what the hell he's talking about, then you're smart enough to know he's a con artist.

Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 04:36:33 +0300
From: freddie ed
X-Originating-IP: [192.116.126.132]
Subject: Donations

Dear Preacher,

I am Dr. Ed Freddie, an Expatriate with Exxon-mobil Exploration here in fair-fax. I just gave my life to God after watching you preach on the Trinity Broadcasting Network.

I had always wanted to do something about my giving, I had never had the altitude of giving. Since I listened to your message on giving, my entire life had changed, and I am so eager to give my last dime to support the work of God. I am sending you a check of five thousand dollars. $ 5000.

Please when the check is cashed, you will need to send the sum of $3000 to a widow and her two children in Africa. This money is to support her and her children.

$2000 will be for the support of the church.

If you can do this for me, I will give the particulars of the widow so you can send the $3000 to her through money gram, please do get back to me as soon as possible so I can go ahead and send the check.

I will also like you to give me an address and the name of the receiver whom I can address the check to.

Regards,

Dr. Ed Freddie,
Exxon mobil Exploration Inc.U.S.A
Email: edwaldin_freddie1@yahoo.ca

Read More......

New episode of DemsTV.com is up

Read More......

More from Markos on Rove's lady friend

Scroll down to the end of the post. Read More......

Why does America hate America?

More bad poll news for the leaker in chief.

Most Americans don't believe the United States will succeed in winning the war in Iraq or establishing a stable democracy there, according to a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll.

But an ambivalent public also says sending troops to Iraq wasn't a mistake, a sign that most people aren't yet ready to give up on the war.

Fine, if they're going to be conflicted idiots about it, then let them send their own children to fight. It's time the American public grew a set of balls and took a real position on this war. They didn't vote for John Kerry because he basically enunciated the same position they all hold today - they're against the war and they think it's a failure but they're glad we tried. Uh huh. Read More......

Drop by Santorum's book-signing in DC on Wednesday

Wednesday, July 27th
12:30 at Trover Shop bookstore
221 Pennsylvania Ave, SE
Washington, DC

Ask him about dog rape. I hear he's into that topic. Read More......

Early evening open thread

Ooh, it's already down to 90F, I might need to put on a sweater. Read More......

The American Family Association thinks Harry Potter is "dangerous"

Well, you can ask any dementor or he-who-must-not-be-named, and they'll tell you that dangerous is his middle name.

What a bunch of freaks. Read More......

MSM -- Is Rovegate Just Politics?

Sure, this quote is from the Wall Street Journal on Monday July 25, but it's indicative of the wording that is slipping into some coverage by the MSM.

"But Democrats are sure to try to use the time to sow doubts about the president's team and erode his public support, already damaged by the conflict in Iraq and high gasoline prices."

Since when did upholding national security and condemning politically motivated leaks and the outing of covert CIA agents (which weakens our country in the war on terror) become cheap politics? What the MSM should be stressing is that Bush and Rove placed politics above national security -- not pretending that Dems who catch them at it are playing games to score points and win votes. Call them on it when they use this language -- these stories should be holding Bush's feet to the fire, not belittling the work of those who think our country's defense is too important to be a political football. Read More......

Techie question re my cell phone

Guys, I think I asked about this a few weeks ago but didn't really get a conclusive answer. As you know, I travel a good deal abroad for work and fun. I went to the local phone shop and they said for 30 bucks they could "unblock" my Motoral V600 phone and thus make it so that I can use the phone in Europe as a "local" telephone simply by buying a phone card with service in Europe. My phone is GSM, it does work in Europe, blah blah blah. My only question is whether this will work, and whether I can somehow screw up my phone by unblocking it? (Also, do I void my warranty, or can I "reblock" it later?).

As I said, my phone works in Europe, to the tune of $1.50 a minute. I don't want to know about plans, I want to know what happens when I unblock this phone with the guy down the street - can I then simply buy a card in Europe, insert it into this phone, and it will work as a local phone, then when I come home I slip my American SIM card back in and everything is honky-dorey?

Thank you for our geek minute of the day. Read More......

House Judiciary Committee Dems ask for investigation of RoveGate

Here Read More......

Hillary Watch

The latest coup for Hillary Clinton -- the Democratic Leadership Council chose Hillary to define what the agenda for Dems should be in 2006 and 2008. Think of it as a rough draft for her campaign.

The appointment solidified the identification of Clinton — once considered a champion of the party's left — with the centrist movement that helped propel her husband to the White House in 1992. It also continued her effort, which has accelerated in recent months, to present herself as a moderate on issues such as national security, immigration and abortion.

I don't think it would be wise, but the idea of ticket with Clinton and Obama is so tempting -- it would send the Deep South into a frenzy. Read More......

Open thread

Sup? Read More......

Is John Roberts' Faith Off Limits?

New, conflicting reports about what Roberts said to Durbin about his Catholic faith. But the far right wants to pretend that simply asking a candidate about their faith and how it might conflict with their role as a public servant is wrong. Ridiculous. As a Supreme Court justice and a Catholic, Roberts will be faced with issues where voting one way could expose him to refusal of Communion and even excommunication from his Church. That is extraordinary and NEW pressure that Catholics have never faced before. In the past, the Church went out of its way to dismiss as absurd any idea that Catholic politicians would be puppets of Rome. Now the Church says very explicitly that politicians MUST do as Rome says or suffer the consequences. This is a BRAND NEW situation that has never been in effect. Roberts is the FIRST Supreme Court nominee who will be put into his lifetime position with this added pressure weighing down on him.

As a Catholic myself, I could state publicly that I see my duty to the American people first and my faith second and that the bishops are wrong to insist faith must trump the Constitution. We live in a democracy, not a theocracy, and I see a great danger in placing any one faith above any other in the public sphere. I would also challenge those bishops publicly on their inconsistency -- threatening to refuse communion over abortion but not over capital punishment; having the Pope condemn a war as unjust but insisting it would be a sin to NOT vote for the president that began it and so on.

Finally, no one is objecting to anyone's faith. We are objecting to anyone who says they would place their personal beliefs -- whether in Catholicism or Judaism or Scientology or Smurfs or any New Age philosophy -- ahead of the law. If you're an Orthodox Jew, fine. But if that means you're going to rule against any business that wants to do business on Saturdays, you don't belong on the Supreme Court. It's as simple as that. Do you place your faith above the Constitution? If not, can you give us ONE example where you've gone against your faith? If you can't, why should we believe you? Read More......

Questions For John Roberts

It seems Sen. Durbin beat me to the punch about questioning John Roberts over Catholicism and his ability to faithfully uphold the Constitution. We don't know what Roberts' position really is -- would he recuse himself right away from any case (Roe v Wade, contraception, gay rights, stem cell testing, etc?) where the Church has taken a firm position? Or would he only recuse himself if he had decided the proper way to vote conflicted with Church teachings? In either case, such a stance would make Roberts unacceptable. In the first case, Roberts would be unavailable for countless important Court decisions -- how'd you like to lose a vote on Roe v Wade, Radical Right? In the second case, Roberts would be refusing to uphold the Constitution and vote accordingly because it would conflict with Church teachings.

Here's how I was going to start tackling this:

Judge Roberts, can you describe to us in detail any time in your career when you've written or signed onto a brief or argued one side of a case or made a judgment that conflicts with the teachings of the Catholic Church on a major issue? In other words, tell us about any time you have worked as a lawyer or advocate or judge or public official on ANY issue that the Church has strongly condemned or opposed. Obviously, this would include issues such as reproductive rights, availability of contraception, equal rights for all Americans to include gays and lesbians, stem cell research and so on.

Judge Roberts, the Catholic Church used to bend over backwards to make clear that Catholic public officials like John F. Kennedy Jr. served their people and their country first and did not answer to Rome. That has changed dramatically in the past five years. Now the Church is making it clear that it believes Catholic politicians and public servants and even citizens MUST answer to Rome. If you do not vote the way the Church tells you to vote -- for example in Presidential elections -- a growing number of bishops around the country with the approval of the Pope may deny you Holy Communion. The Church has said if you do not vote the way the Church tells you to vote that you are committing a mortal sin. Catholics who commit mortal sins and don't repent of them and promise to avoid them in the future are condemned to hell. The very real possibility looms in the future that Catholic public officials who don't vote the way the Church tells them to vote may be threatened with excommunication. There is no question that upholding the Constitution and doing your duty as a public servant would mean going against Church teachings -- for example, every Catholic politician who voted to support the invasion of Iraq went against the beliefs of Pope John Paul II who condemned that invasion as unjust. Judge Roberts, have you ever in your life taken a stance on a public issue or a law for which the Church would now threaten to withhold Holy Communion from you? Are you willing to uphold the Constitution, even if it means being denied Holy Communion, committing a mortal sin and possibly being excommunicated from the Church? (And when he says capital punishment, ask for another one -- the Church has made clear it doesn't place capital punishment on the same level as abortion, gay rights, contraception, etc.)

What questions would you ask? Read More......

Funny, Bush had no problem pulling the security clearance of 92 Senators after a leak in 2001

Today, the White House refuses to consider revoking the security clearances of Rove or Libby until the conclusion of a criminal investigation. But in October 2001, Bush summarily revoked security clearances from 92 Senators on the slightest indication there was a leak. (The information rumored to be leaked was – gasp! – that if the U.S. retaliated for 9/11, al Qaeda would try to launch another terrorist attack.)

Ok media, go get 'em. If this isn't hypocrisy, then what is? Yanking the clearances of members of Congress is FAR BEYOND yanking the clearance of a mere staffer. That's a big deal. And the fact that Bush was willing to yank the members, even though he didn't know WHICH member had leaked, puts him in an untenable spot with regards to Rove, since he KNOWS Rove leaked, and in any case, he can't say let's wait until the investigation is over - he didn't wait for the investigation before yanking Congress' clearances.

More from ThinkProgress Read More......

So John Kerry was right about the war on terror, and Bush was wrong.

I hate to laud John Kerry on anything, because he was a lousy candidate - nice wife, though - but it seems that he turned out right on the war on terror.

Remember last year when Kerry said that the war on terror needed to be fought just as much with intelligence and diplomacy as with the military? Remember when Bush et. al. eviscerated Kerry for being a big girlie-man for suggesting this wasn't a real man's war where we'd just send Rambo in to kill all the bad guys? Well, guess what. Now the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Rummy both agree with Kerry.

From Blogoland:

In recent speeches and news conferences, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and the nation's senior military officer have spoken of "a global struggle against violent extremism" rather than "the global war on terror," which had been the catchphrase of choice. Administration officials say that phrase may have outlived its usefulness, because it focused attention solely, and incorrectly, on the military campaign.

Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the National Press Club on Monday that he had "objected to the use of the term 'war on terrorism' before, because if you call it a war, then you think of people in uniform as being the solution." He said the threat instead should be defined as violent extremists, with the recognition that "terror is the method they use."

Although the military is heavily engaged in the mission now, he said, future efforts require "all instruments of our national power, all instruments of the international communities' national power." The solution is "more diplomatic, more economic, more political than it is military," he concluded.

Diplomatic? So General Myers doesn't even think it's an intelligence matter. Rather, it's for those Frenchified US diplomats, the biggest girlie-men of all - (NUANCE ALERT: this is the Bush administration's perception of the State Department, not ours) - THEY'RE the guys the Bushies now want to rely on. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but remember how only a year ago they went bat-shit crazy when John Kerry pretty much suggested the same, namely, that this wasn't going to be won with overwhelming military force?

To wit, the Washington Times last year, quoting Kerry and then the head of the RNC:

"In order to know who they are, where they are, what they're planning and be able to go get them before they get us, you need the best intelligence, best law-enforcement cooperation in the world," the Massachusetts senator said in an interview on NBC's "Meet the Press."

"I will use our military when necessary, but it is not primarily a military operation. It's an intelligence-gathering, law-enforcement, public-diplomacy effort," he said. "And we're putting far more money into the war on the battlefield than we are into the war of ideas. We need to get it straight."

Marc Racicot, chairman of President Bush's re-election campaign, said Mr. Kerry's formula won't work. "Serving terrorists with legal papers will not win this war. This is a pre-9/11 attitude that turns a blind eye to the threats that face our country," he said.

Read More......

More on Jon Stewart's interview with Santorum

As I said last night, I was really disappointed. Stewart, whom I adore, eviscerates people like Tucker "who?" Carlson, then lets incredibly powerful arch assholes like Santorum off the hook. If anyone needed to be called a dick on national TV, it's Santorum.

More from TowleRoad, including some transcript.

And of course, Crooks and Liars has the video from last night. Read More......

Karl and Karen sitting in a tree?

RADAR has an interesting tidbit about the very-married Karl Rove's close friendship with another woman. Not that there's anything wrong with that. Read More......

Very hot open thread

It's already 90F here and it's only 10am. Ugh. High today of 100F. Why do I feel like Bush is to blame.... Read More......

More "Progress" in Iraq - New Constitution Looks Back to 1959

Why did we go to war in Iraq?

1) Iraq linked to 9/11
2) Weapons of Mass Destruction
3) Democracy -- whoops Democracy

From AP:

A chapter of Iraq's draft constitution obtained by The Associated Press gives Islam a major role in Iraqi civil law, raising concerns that women could lose rights in marriage, divorce and inheritance.
...
Most worrying for women's groups has been the section on civil rights in the draft constitution, which some feel would significantly roll back women's rights under a 1959 civil law enacted by a secular regime.

In the copy obtained by AP on Monday, Article 19 of the second chapter says "the followers of any religion or sect are free to choose their civil status according to their religious or sectarian beliefs."

Shiite Muslim leaders have pushed for a stronger role for Islam in civil law but women's groups argue that could base legal interpretations on stricter religious lines that are less favorable toward women.

Who would have thought that women would have had MORE rights under Saddam than under the US sponsored new government?

So tell me again Mr. President, why did we go to war in Iraq? Read More......

Progress in Iraq? You decide.

From Knight Ridder:

Talib Abu Younes put his lips to a glass of tap water recently and watched worms swimming in the bottom.

Electricity flickers on and off for two hours in Muthana Naim's south Baghdad home then shuts off for four in boiling July heat that shoots above 120 degrees.

Fadhel Hussein boils buckets of sewage-contaminated water from the Tigris River to wash the family's clothes.

Much of the US has been under a heat wave that doesn't approach 120 degrees -- any wonder people are angry?

Electricity production is up to 16 hours a day in Iraqi homes according to U.S. military documents, but most Iraqis say they get eight hours of power a day on average, sometimes as many as 12. In poor areas such as New Baghdad, in the east of the capital, people go days without power, they said.

With about $2 billion already invested, Baghdad should be sparkling, said its mayor, Alaa Mahmoud al Timimi. He hasn't been consulted on American projects, besides signatures for completed developments, and has threatened to resign if he doesn't get a larger budget to solve his city's problems. The $85 million he was allocated can't keep up with the city of 6.5 million, he said.

Read the whole article on Yahoo and at the bottom give it as many stars as you think it deserves -- we're "investing" billions in Iraq, and the public should know what we're getting for it. Read More......

Kofi Annan to visit destroyed slums in Zimbabwe

This is a very good development to keep the spotlight on the disgusting destruction that the Mugabe regime has brought to the poor of Zimbabwe. I'm still hoping that South Africa manages to include political reform in their loan to Zim that they will surely be providing soon but so far "quiet diplomacy" has not shown many results and the ANC has been very reluctant to criticize Mugabe and his brutal policies. Read More......

No Santorum for President in 2008

What a shame. I'm crushed. Apparently my favorite Senator from PA who is going to be moving into the wingnut lobbyist business after he gets crushed in 2006 announced yesterday that he will not run in 2008. Damn. I was really looking forward to watching him fizzle in that campaign but I suppose a guy can only take so much defeat in a two year span. Read More......