Wednesday, June 29, 2005

Why is Novak off the hook? Inquiring minds do want to know


The press is finally focusing on the guy who endangered all of our lives by outing a spy:
Robert D. Novak, the columnist whose unmasking of a C.I.A. operative prompted an investigation of who had given her name to him and others, expressed disappointment yesterday that two other reporters faced going to jail for not cooperating in the case.

But Mr. Novak, in an appearance on "Inside Politics" on CNN and in a subsequent telephone interview, once again refused to answer questions about what contact, if any, he had had with the federal prosecutor conducting the investigation or about what extent he might have cooperated in the case.
Other press folks want him to fess up:
Gina Lubrano, reader representative for The San Diego Union-Tribune, which publishes Mr. Novak's columns on Sundays, said she found it baffling that someone who demanded answers to tough questions as part of his job could be so reticent when the spotlight turned on him.

"As a journalist, he would find that response unacceptable from others," Ms. Lubrano said.

In a column published yesterday on the Op-Ed page of The New York Times, William Safire, a former columnist for the paper, urged Mr. Novak to "finally write the column he owes readers and colleagues, perhaps explaining how two sources - who may have truthfully revealed themselves to investigators - managed to get the prosecutor off his back."
Basically, Novak is a nasty guy -- he's proud of what he did, even though it undermined American security. He should be prosecuted and jailed. And actually, you know if he was in prison, he'd make someone a great bitch. Read More......

I'm with Atrios


Welcome to AMERICAonlinemagazine Read More......

Open thread


Off to bed for me. Read More......

The White House's tall tales


Seems they're claiming an awfully large number of people tried to access that pro-military site last night. Suspicious. Read More......

It's time for Bolton to withdraw his name


From the Washington Note. Read More......

President Urges Patience on War, but it's LBJ, and it's 1965


When LBJ made this speech, only 400 American soldiers had died in Vietnam.

From Editor & Publisher
(this is an excerpt, read the whole thing)
Why must we take this painful road? Why must this nation hazard its ease, its interest, and its power for the sake of a people so far away?

We fight because we must fight if we are to live in a world where every country can shape its own destiny, and only in such a world will our own freedom be finally secure....

Of course, some of the people of South Viet-Nam are participating in attack on their own government. But trained men and supplies, orders and arms, flow in a constant stream from North to South. This support is the heartbeat of the war.

And it is a war of unparalleled brutality. Simple farmers are the targets of assassination and kidnapping. Women and children are strangled in the night because their men are loyal to the government. And helpless villagers are ravaged by sneak attacks. Large-scale raids are conducted on towns, and terror strikes in the heart of cities.

The confused nature of this conflict cannot mask the fact that it is the new face of an old enemy. The contest in Viet-Nam is part of a wider pattern of aggressive purposes....

We hope that peace will come swiftly. But that is in the hands of others besides ourselves. And we must be prepared for a long continued conflict. It will require patience as well as bravery, the will to endure as well as the will to resist....
Read More......

Maine to vote on gay rights


Again...looks like there will be a referendum this fall to repeal Maine's new gay rights law. The law, which would prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation, passed the legislature and was signed by the Governor this year. So, this wasn't court ordered anything. This was legislative, but that's not good enough for the hate groups. The haters circulated petitions to get the repeal effort on the ballot -- under the banner of "The Coalition for Marriage."

Funny thing, Maine's law has nothing to do with marriage the Advocate reports:
The pending measure was written to amend the Maine Human Rights Act by making discrimination illegal in employment, housing, credit, public accommodations, and education based on sexual orientation or gender. Maine law now prohibits discrimination based on race, color, sex, disability, religion, ancestry, and national origin. The new law would exempt religious organizations that do not receive public funds. The enacted legislation includes language declaring that the measure is not meant to address a right to marry.
So, the hate groups are so desperate to allow discrimination in Maine, that they have to lie about the issue right from the start.

I'm from Maine originally so this is personal. The campaign to defeat the hate groups is www.mainewontdiscriminate.org. And, while gay bashing may be acceptable in many states, Maine won't discriminate. Read More......

Army abandons 20 year old soldier in need


I guess that "We Support the Troops" crap is only when Bush goes on TV to con more young Americans into fighting this hopeless quagmire of a lie. Really nasty story.
He could barely remember the excitement he carried to Iraq in early 2004. He was an excellent soldier, by most accounts, even though he was only 18 when he left. On one memorable night, his quick thinking helped his platoon defeat a group of insurgents in Baghdad.

Today, the same soldier, now 20, is wanted for desertion, a particularly loathsome act during wartime and one that could bring a prison sentence.

Hounshell's problems began after he returned to Texas in late February. He couldn't sleep, often wandering through Killeen's all-night Wal-Mart. He had panic attacks and sometimes exploded in anger at the slightest change in plans. He played chicken with other drivers on Central Texas highways.

When he asked the Army for help, he said, he was greeted mostly with indifference.

"I told them numerous times, 'I'm having problems here. I'm seeing ... [things] at night.' They didn't take it seriously," he said. "They did the minimum thing they had to do."

Finally, in May, at the end of an emergency leave, he vowed never to go back to Fort Hood.

It was May 15 when he wrote the suicide note. His mother found it before he could leave the driveway. She jumped in the pickup and wouldn't let him leave.

His family is desperate to get him help, but they have no idea where to turn.

"We're not trying to hurt our soldiers overseas, and we didn't want this fight with the Army," said his mother, Bobbie Hounshell. "But my son had problems when he came home, and all he was told was, 'Drive on.' "

An Army spokesman said Hounshell got help and should have taken the initiative if he needed more.
Read More......

Is White House covering up Cheney's poor health?


Now the WH is denying, on the record, that Cheney had an EKG in Vail a few days ago. The thing is, hospital sources say he sure did. What is the White House trying to cover up, and why? I still think they're going to find a way to move Giuliani in as the new VP to save Bush's poll numbers. Then what the fundies crap. Read More......

Senator Reid eviscerates Santorum on Senate floor


This is a big deal for the Senate, this kind of excitement just doesn't happen on the floor. This exchange happened earlier today - this is not an official transcript, so may have some small typos, etc.
Mr. Reid: Mr. president, I will not be lectured about civility by the junior senator from Pennsylvania who has repeatedly disrespected veterans. Three times he opposed funding for veterans, votes in committee and here on the senate floor. I ask consent that his voting record be submitted in the record. On those issues.

The presiding officer: Without objection.

Mr. Reid: Mr. President, now with an election cycle upon us, he supports, under pressure, voting for veterans. Talk about crass politics. The junior senator from Pennsylvania can't run from his record. He owes the veterans more.
The background is during Sen. Reid's speech on the veterans funding
Amendment Reid made the following statement:
Reid: Funding, VA. Secretary nymphlyon son: by the way, his qualifications are he was chairman of the national republican party. He's head of veterans benefits now. And he said -- and i quote -- "I can assure you that the VA Does not need emergency supplemental funds in fiscal year 2005 to continue to provide the timely, quality service that's always our goal. I do not foresee any challenges"
To which Santorum responded (then Reid came to the floor 30 minutes later to Deliver the rebuttal above.
Mr. Santorum) { not an official transcript }:
The congress has always had to come and add more money. This is nothing new. What is new in this case is that we have had to come here at a late time and -- and add additional resources. And i think it's -- it's unfortunate, as i said earlier, i was very, very critical of this administration for not being more forthright and felt, as the senator from idaho suggested, that when we cast our votes saying that there was -- against the Murray amendment, that we did so with -- with not the information we needed. And -- and i think the administration justifiably should be criticized for that. I think, unfortunately, the tone that the senator from Nevada took, the democrat leader, was not one of frustration at all

I think given the nature and tenor of what we've been work on here was very unfortunate. I think one of the most unfortunate comments which i hope the senator from Nevada will think better of and come back and -- and correct the record, the to suggest that -- quote -- "the only qualifications of the secretary of veterans affairs is that he was chairman of the republican national committee." is an insult to the secretary of veterans affairs and his service to this country. This is a man who is a west point graduate. This is a man who served eight years in the active military, and he spent tours in Vietnam, he earned the bronze star, he earned the combat infantry xxxxx he earned the meritorious service medal and two air medals. This is not a man whose only qualifications was he was chairman of the RNC. He went on and got -- served in the reserves for 20 years, earned additional degrees, ran a business and was ambassador to the holy see. This man has a lot more qualifications as secretary of veterans affairs than many prior secretaries. And i would hope that the senator from Nevada would reconsider his shot at this secretary. Do i have concerns about the information that was provided? Absolutely./ does the secretary have to come and have an accounting for what he said and what he did -- in his short term as secretary?

Absolutely. Has he been called on the carpet in both the house and senate?

Absolutely. Will he be over the next few months?

Absolutely. But to take a shot at him personally in such a partisan fashion is beneath the leader of the democratic party. I would hope the leader of the democratic party would show some leadership in civility when it comes to people who have served this country honorably and continued to do their best. Mr. President -- i yield back my time and ask that the votes on the Santorum and Murray amendments be stacked at a time designated by the leaders.
Then that's what lead to Reid making the response at the top of this post.

Man, I'll bet Ricky santorumed his pants after that exchange :-) Read More......

Bush: Lame Duck And Lame Commander In Chief


Why are Bush's numbers falling? Why do the American people grow increasingly concerned about Iraq?

It isn't about people who supported the war but now have their doubts. It isn't about people who never supported the war and have seen their fears realized. It isn't about people who weren't sure about the war and still don't know what they think. It isn't about the people who get confused every time Bush's rationalization for why we invaded Iraq changes.

Ultimately, it's about George Bush.

The American people have lost confidence in George Bush as our Commander in Chief. The American people are reluctant to admit it, but they realize George Bush is a weak military leader.

Last night, Bush had a chance to restore our confidence. He failed. Bush gave the same tired speech he's been giving for the past few years. His idea of confronting cold, hard facts is to say that war is "tough" and "hard," as if this were news to the American people. Bush could have acknowledged mistakes, but he is incapable of that. Bush might have given a realistic picture of where we stand in Iraq and offered concrete proposals for making it better, but he only offered blithe happy talk that everything is great and we're going to prevail.

A real military leader faces the facts on the ground. Problems arise -- they always do -- and have to be dealt with. A real leader recognizes problems, attacks them and solves them. But Bush refuses to acknowledge any problems.

For example, the training of Iraqis to take over their own security -- the single most important task in that country -- is proceeding at a punishingly slow rate. Bush threw out the number of 160,000 troops and then casually mentioned they fall into three categories: trained and ready to fight on their own, trained and capable of fighting with our help and not ready to fight at all.

How many of those Iraqis are trained and ready to fight on their own? Half? A third? A tenth? After the speech, we're told the truth. According to Sen. Joe Biden, only 2,500are fully trained -- less than two percent. How many can fight with our help? About 8,900. In total, only about 8 percent can fight in any way. Of that 160,000 number he threw out, almost 150,000 are not trained in any meaningful way. Bush refuses to say what's going wrong, how he'll speed up the training or explain why he is refusing the offers of Germany and Italy and others to train soldiers in their own countries. But let's say he doubles the rate of training to 2,500 a year. Heck, let's say he quadruples the rate of training to 5,000 a year. How long will it take for Bush to actually reach the level of 160,000 troops he implies we have today? More than three decades.

Bush insists that the second the generals say they need more soldiers in Iraq, he'll send them. But then he turns around and says why he believes sending more troops would be a terrible mistake. What general will risk a request for more soldiers when he knows that Bush doesn't want to send them? Bush's claim he's ready to send soldiers on a moment's notice also ignores the cold hard fact that there may not be any more soldiers to send. Our troops are spread dangerously thin around the world, recruitment is down, retention is down and we've abused the National Guard and Reserve so thoroughly they may not recover for decades. Bush ignored all of this, other than to say young people should volunteer.

Bush says we can't set a deadline for when our troops will leave. Fine. But if he wanted to level with the American people, he could make clear how long he knows we're going to be there. In other words, it's obvious all our troops won't be home next week or next month. In fact, we know our troops won't all be home next year. The American people need to be thinking in terms of years. So how long does the President say he knows it's going to take, at a minimum? Two years? Three years? Four years? Ten? This isn't a deadline. This is a realistic appraisal of the task ahead of us. If everything goes great, we will still have forces in Iraq during the next Presidential election in 2008. When is Bush going to admit that?

Most Americans believe Bush lied to us about why he wanted to invade Iraq. We now know our closest ally, Great Britain, also believed he was lying to the the American people about why he wanted to invade Iraq.

Most Americans believe Bush doesn't have a clear plan in Iraq. That's because Bush hasn't laid out a plan or faced the problems that have arisen and explained how he'll solve them.

Most Americans are unnerved when Bush and his top officials insist the insurgency is in its last throes when the facts are obvious: according to the military, the insurgency was about 5,000 strong in NOvember of 2003. Today the military says the insurgency is anywhere from 16,000 to 20,000 strong; that's three to four times bigger today than it was 18 months ago. And they're killing more people this year than they were last year and they were killing more people last year than they did the year before. That's an insurgency that is bigger and more lethal. Even Rumsfeld admits the insurgency will likely be around for years, maybe a decade or longer. Bush's solution? He stops calling them insurgents and starts calling them "terrorists."

Our troops remain poorly equipped. New recruits joining the Marines are reportedly told to spend some $600 of their own money on equipment they need to survive because Bush won't be getting it to them. Bush hasn't said a word about this.

Five out of six Humvees in Iraq are still not fully armored. Bush doesn't seem to care because surely if he cared he would talk about it and get the problem solved.

And now hurt soldiers that return home find out that Bush somehow didn't realize a war would cause a big influx of wounded troops into the VA system and so they're dramatically underfunded.

The American people are not afraid of hard tasks. Tell them what needs to be done and they'll do it. But lie to them and they will get angry. Ignore the facts and they will lose confidence in you. Claim victory before the work is done and they will worry about your steadfastness.

Mission Accomplished? The mission is accomplished when every soldier is home and safe with their families and not one day before. A real Commander in Chief would know that in his bones.

The American people aren't worried about losing the war in Iraq. They're worried that George Bush is incapable of winning it. Read More......

Open Thread


Anything exciting going on...besides John's trip to Scotland? Read More......

Is Big Brother censoring the AmericaSupportYou.mil Web site


Gee, that would be such a surprise.

From a Wash Post chat:
State College, Pa.: I posted a message of support at America Supports You that basically said "I support the troops, but I don't agree with the leadership" in very simple terms. Guess what, it didn't show up in the search results... I am not holding my breath. But it begs a larger question... is this a free speech violation?

Dan Froomkin: Well, try a more positive one, and see if it shows up, and then e-mail me at froomkin@washingtonpost.com with the results!
Silly, silly, State College, PA. Remember, the only Americans who actually "care" about our troops are the ones sending them to their senseless deaths without even giving it a second thought. Freedom is Slavery, babe - get with the program.

(PS This is that Web site that Bush et al set up to help his PR war in support of the quagmire war.) Read More......

DeLay ethics inquiry set to move


Uh oh :-) Read More......

Another GOP governor in trouble, now in KY


The governor's administration reportedly created a "hit list" of Democratic state workers to get rid of. Unfortunately, that's illegal. Read More......

TIME may reveal source of Valerie Plame leak


Please let it be Karl, please let it be Karl, please let it be Karl... Read More......

I'm going to Scotland to cover Live 8 and the G-8 summit


Wow. I just got picked to be one of the bloggers covering the Live 8 related events at the G-8 Summit in Scotland next week, and to cover the Summit itself. Wow. I'm still a bit blown away by all of this.

Joe Trippi, of Dean campaign fame, has been working with David Sifry of Technorati.com and John Hinderaker over at Powerline on a non-partisan effort to help Live 8's mission of "Making Poverty History." They recently solicited bloggers from the left and right interested in covering the events next week live in Scotland, so I put my name in, not exactly on a lark, but not exactly expecting to get it. Well, I got.

We'll be leaving for Scotland on Sunday from New York on the Live 8 plane, flight covered and hopefully accommodations too, then coming back on Thursday. I have to pay my transportation back and forth from DC to NYC, but hey, I'm not complaining.

I'm waiting for more details now, but wow. Now I need to go find me a digital voice recorder... :-) Read More......

GOP vice chair of House Subcommittee on Terrorism outright lies about Saddam/Al Qaeda link to CNN


This is a big deal. The man knows better, or he should resign. He's the vice chair of the TERRORISM subcomitte in the House. Good God. And he's this much of an idiot? Or is this how Bush and the Republicans plan to get support for the war - outright lie AGAIN to the American people? This is a perfect opportunity to call Bush and the GOP on their repeated lies - this congressman needs to step forward and admit that he's wrong. Kudos to CNN for catching this.

From CNN.com
A Republican congressman from North Carolina told CNN on Wednesday that the "evidence is clear" that Iraq was involved in the terrorist attacks against the United States on September 11, 2001.

"Saddam Hussein and people like him were very much involved in 9/11," Rep. Robin Hayes said.

Told no investigation had ever found evidence to link Saddam and 9/11, Hayes responded, "I'm sorry, but you must have looked in the wrong places."

Hayes, the vice chairman of the House subcommittee on terrorism, said legislators have access to evidence others do not.

Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, said that Saddam was a dangerous man, but when asked about Hayes' statement, would not link the deposed Iraqi ruler to the terrorist attacks on New York, the Pentagon and Pennsylvania.

"I haven't seen compelling evidence of that," McCain, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, told CNN.
Will Bunch has the text of the interview, it's CHOICE! The CNN reporter totally calls the congressman on the lies. A snippet:
CONG. HAYES: I don't think it's changed at all. It's very clear that terrorists are connected to what Saddam Hussein was all about. And that again faces up to the most severe threat going forward...

CNN'S COSTELLO: But there is no...

HAYES: We have to do a good job explaining...

COSTELLO: ... evidence that Saddam Hussein was connected in any way to al Qaeda.

HAYES: Ma'am, I'm sorry, but you're mistaken. There's evidence everywhere. We get access to it, unfortunately others don't. But the evidence is very clear.

COSTELLO: What evidence is there?

HAYES: The connection between individuals who were connected to Saddam Hussein, folks who worked for him, we've seen it time and time again. But the issue is where are we now. Nobody disputes 9/11. They would do that again if not prevented. Preventing 9/11 wherever it might happen in America, winning the war overseas, not bringing it here to our shores, is the issue in that regard.

COSTELLO: Well, are you saying that Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11?

HAYES: I'm saying that Saddam Hussein -- and I think you're losing track of what we're trying to talk about here -- Saddam Hussein and people like him were very much involved in 9/11. Did he make the phone call and say...
Read More......

How Can The "Worst of the Worst" Be Average Soldiers?


Pakistan -- a corrupt military dictatorship not known for its softness -- released 17 former prisoners of Gunatanamo Bay and said they had absolutely nothing to do with terrorism. Yes, hundreds of Pakistanis went to Afghanistan to fight alongside the Taliban. That certainly makes them enemy combatants (and therefore appropriate to be held under the Geneva Convention). But that doesn't make them terrorists. But Bush insisted that ONLY the "worst of the worst" would go to Guantanamo Bay -- do foot soldiers with no connection to terrorism and with no reasonable expectation of having any useful evidence count as the worst of the worst? Of course not. Are they are buddies or purely innocent? No, they are soldiers who fought on the other side in a war. They were on the wrong side, the losing side and they were supporting a nasty government. But they and countless others who weren't even soldiers -- just innocent villagers handed over by tribal chiefs looking to score a bounty from the US -- make a mockery of Bush's claims about Guantanamo Bay. You can never ignore the rule of law and expect decency and fairness to prevail. It undermines everything the US stands for and everything we are supposedly fighting in the war on terror. Read More......

Senator Cornyn (R-TX) feeling heat on Lynching too


Tell me again how this issue wasn't worth pursuing :-) Read More......

UN to investigate US prison ship rumors


So what is Team GOP going to say about this? I suppose we're going to hear about luxury cruise ships and pampered service that American soldiers in Iraq only wish they had. Either that or somehow it's going to be the fault of somebody else, just as it always seems to be.
"There are very, very serious accusations that the United States is maintaining secret camps, notably on ships," the Austrian UN official told AFP, adding that the vessels were believed to be in the Indian Ocean region.

The use of prison ships would allow investigators to interrogate people secretly and in international waters out of the reach of US law, British security expert Francis Tusa said.

"This opens the door to very tough interrogations on key prisoners before it even has been revealed that they have been captured," said Tusa, an editor for the British magazine Jane's Intelligence Review.
Read More......

Senator Kyl criticized over lynching resolution


It's the energizer bunny of issues :-)

From the AZ Republic (hat tip to Desert Rat Democrat). Read More......

Bush and Rove: All 9/11, All the time.


NBC's First Read:
Now raise your hand if you still think Karl Rove’s 9/11 remarks last week were unintentional.

Facing mounting U.S. casualties, an increasingly skeptical public, and a growing chorus of criticism (even within his own party), a confident and resolute President Bush last night directly tied the situation in Iraq to 9/11 and the war on terrorism. To illustrate this renewed focus, he made five direct references to 9/11 and two references to Osama bin Laden.
Read More......

GOP Busted Trying to Screw Health Care for Vets


Washington Post has the story:
The Bush administration disclosed yesterday that it had vastly underestimated the number of service personnel returning from Iraq and Afghanistan seeking medical treatment from the Department of Veterans Affairs, and warned that the health care programs will be short at least $2.6 billion next year unless Congress approves additional funds.

Veterans Affairs budget documents projected that 23,553 veterans would return this year from Iraq and Afghanistan and seek medical treatment. However, Veterans Affairs Secretary Jim Nicholson told a Senate committee that the number has been revised upward to 103,000 for the fiscal year that ends Sept. 30. He said the original estimates were based on outdated assumptions from 2002.

"The bottom line is there is a surge in demand in VA [health] services across the board," Nicholson told the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee.
A surge in demand? Now why would that be.

So, last night, Bush was telling us to honor the troops. Meanwhile, he's trying to cut the deficit by cutting their health care:
As GOP House and Senate leaders scrambled to deal with the politically damaging shortfall and quell criticism from veterans' advocacy groups, Democrats intensified charges that the Bush administration and the Republican congressional majorities are failing to care for those who put their lives on the line for the country.
Nice. So don't give the troops armored vehicles or the right vests, then screw them on health care.

What a bunch of hypocrites. Read More......

Open Thread


What's the buzz today so far? Read More......

The anti-Drudge


Interesting (new?) site. I already found some articles I hadn't seen. Worth a look. Read More......