Does John McCain think that British soldiers in Iraq pose "an intolerable risk" to US troops?

The Brits have openly gay troops. And McCain said that openly gay troops pose "an intolerable risk" to our troops. So does he still feel that way about America's number one ally? Read the rest of this post...

Gonzales proposing new Orwellian thought crimes law

At what point do these so-called conservatives out there plan to speak up against this crap?

From CNet, then my analysis:

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is pressing the U.S. Congress to enact a sweeping intellectual-property bill that would increase criminal penalties for copyright infringement, including "attempts" to commit piracy.... The Bush administration is throwing its support behind a proposal called the Intellectual Property Protection Act of 2007, which is likely to receive the enthusiastic support of the movie and music industries, and would represent the most dramatic rewrite of copyright law since a 2005 measure dealing with prerelease piracy....

The IPPA would, for instance:

* Criminalize "attempting" to infringe copyright. Federal law currently punishes not-for-profit copyright infringement with between 1 and 10 years in prison, but there has to be actual infringement that takes place....

* Permit more wiretaps for piracy investigations. Wiretaps would be authorized for investigations of Americans who are "attempting" to infringe copyrights....

* Allow computers to be seized more readily. Specifically, property such as a PC "intended to be used in any manner" to commit a copyright crime would be subject to forfeiture, including civil asset forfeiture....

* Require Homeland Security to alert the Recording Industry Association of America. That would happen when CDs with "unauthorized fixations of the sounds, or sounds and images, of a live musical performance" are attempted to be imported.

Oh where to begin?

First off, what this legislation is really about: The Homeland Security department getting carte blanche authorization to fish through your computer and tap your phones with impunity, whenever they want, so long as they argue that they think you might have ever tried to download even a single song via Limewire or some of other music-sharing software, or have ever copied a photo off the Internet, or even watched a single clip from any TV show on YouTube. They're going to use this legislation to hunt for terrorists, and won't need search warrants, etc. That's what this is about.

Now to the specifics.

1. Why change the law to an "attempt" to infringe? Copyright law has been fine until now, why change it?

2. As mentioned above, they can wiretap anyone who may be "attempting" to infringe on copyright. That means if they suspect that you may have saved a copy on your computer of one of my orchid photos they can tap your phones, without a warrant I suspect. They can also tap your phone if they think your teenage daughter may be "attempting" to download a song online. They could also tap the phones of every YouTube user who has ever posted a clip from any TV show. Think about that.

3. They can seize your computer, forever, if you "intend" to copy even one song or one photo from the Internet. Not if you DO copy it. Just if you even just plan on it in your mind. And the religious right has a problem with hate crime laws? At least with hate crime laws you actually have to have committed a violent crime like murder or aggravated assault. And Bush is threatening a veto of that bill. But he has no problem with a bill that throws you in jail for just thinking of maybe downloading music or a photo or posting a copy of a Washington Post article to your blog or putting a clip from the Daily Show or South Park on YouTube (that too would permit Bush to tap your phones).

And finally, if Homeland Security doesn't have enough work to do already, and has the time to set up a hotline to the Record Industry Association every time little Suzie downloads a Christina Aguilera song, well, then we might as well just pack it in and put up a big welcome sign for Osama to hit us again. Read the rest of this post...

The Dems need to hold firm on Iraq

There's a troubling new AP story out about the Iraq supplemental. It suggests that the Democrats are considering sending Bush a bill with no timelines, though the bill may include provisions that threaten Iraq reconstruction money if the Iraqis don't meet certain benchmarks for success.

I just talked to Joe about this. He thinks this may be a Democratic trial balloon in order to see how we're all going to react. Well, then let this be our reaction: No.

I understand that we may not be able to get a bill passed that requires our withdrawal from Iraq now or even next year. And I understand that Bush is freaking out about any kind of timeline at all, and we are walking a fine line here in which no one wants to be to blame for not funding the troops. Fine, I get all of that and accept it as a given. But, first, I have a problem with threatening Iraq's reconstruction money. Cutting that money will only worsen the situation in Iraq. That hardly helps our troops on the ground, or the Iraq government to solidify its power or democracy. Cutting our money and pulling out, maybe. But cutting our money and staying in, that sounds awfully counterproductive - it will only make matters worse while our guys are still there. (And as an aside, pulling aid under any scenario does seem a bit calloused as we are to blame for screwing up their entire country.)

What should the Dems do? Murtha's proposal. Give Bush half the money now, and half the money in July (or whenever) after he briefs the nation on his progress. It's what any good corporate CEO would do, and after all, isn't Bush the MBA President? Not to mention, you've been saying for weeks that there would be no blank checks. It's important that your word mean something, and be seen to mean something.

And when Bush starts whining about how only getting half the money will hurt the troops, it's time for the Democrats to respond with the following:

"He's lying. Everybody knows it. He just makes stuff up and says it, knowing the media will never question him on it. Well, we are questioning him on it: He's lying."

It's one thing for him not to want benchmarks or not to want us to pull out, but he won't be able to justify to the American people why he shouldn't show us some progress before he gets the entire enchilada.

And another thing. If Bush thinks only getting half the money puts our troops at risk, then he should have thought about that the previous six years that he's been running all of his little wars off budget, requesting money here and there every few months because he didn't want the American people to know how truly costly his folly has become. He has the gall to come to us with another of his piecemeal funding bills and then complain that if he gets a piecemeal funding bill in return it will hurt the troops.

He's lying.

PS The man is at 28%, after all. Stop treating him otherwise. Read the rest of this post...

Gingrich says Falwell's followers are victims of the discrimination they promote against others

Because there is never a shortage of hypocrisy among GOP leaders, Newt spoke about values this weekend at Falwell's college. Gingrich accused those who disagree with the theocrats of doing just what the theocrats are doing. Gingrich claimed that religious people were discriminated against in America. He said that at an institution whose leader, Jerry Falwell, took the lead in discriminating against other Americans. That's a strategic device used by the right wingers. They accuse others of doing exactly what they do. In reality, the theocrats are among the worst haters in America:

"In hostility to American history, the radical secularists insist that religious belief is inherently divisive," Gingrich said, deriding what he called the "contorted logic" and "false principles" of advocates of secularism in American society.

"Basic fairness demands that religious beliefs deserve a chance to be heard," he said during his 26-minute speech. "It is wrong to single out those who believe in God for discrimination. Yet, today, it is impossible to miss the discrimination against religious believers."

Basic fairness demands that religion not be used as a weapon against other Americans. And, it is wrong to single out anyone for discrimination. But that's what Falwell, Pat Robertson, James Dobson and Newt all do. Frank Rich summed up Falwell's legacy of hate in one well-written sentence:

Mr. Falwell was always on the wrong, intolerant side of history. He fought against the civil rights movement and ridiculed Desmond Tutu’s battle against apartheid years before calling AIDS the “wrath of a just God against homosexuals” and, in 1999, fingering the Antichrist as an unidentified contemporary Jew.

But, Falwell and his followers are the victims according to Gingrich. Newt's not just a notorious adulterer, he's a notorious panderer. Read the rest of this post...

Bush: Americans concerned about Gonzales' ethics are engaging in "pure political theater"

Hey, so where are the GOP presidential candidates on the Gonzales mess? Do they support Alberto? If this were their administration, would they keep him as Attorney General?

More from AP:

"He has done nothing wrong," Bush said in an impassioned defense of his longtime friend and adviser during a news conference at his Texas ranch.

Despite Bush's comments, support for Gonzales is eroding, even in the president's own party. The Senate is prepared to hold a no-confidence vote, possibly by week's end, and five Republican senators have joined many Democrats in calling for Gonzales' resignation.

The attorney general is under investigation by Congress in last year's firing of eight federal prosecutors.

The president told the Democrats to get back to more pressing matters.

"I stand by Al Gonzales, and I would hope that people would be more sober in how they address these important issues," Bush said. "And they ought to get the job done of passing legislation, as opposed to figuring out how to be actors on the political theater stage."

...."I frankly view what's taking place in Washington today as pure political theater," Bush said, sounding exasperated with the furor swirling around his longtime friend.

Of course you do. But then again, you're an idiot, incompetent, a liar, and the WORST PRESIDENT EVER. So it's no great surprise that under the Bush standard of excellence, Gonzales excels. Read the rest of this post...

US military talking to Brits about how long gay-ban should be continued

Putting aside the incredibly homophobic photo accompanying this article in the New York Times (more on that later), this news will likely not sit well with America's Taliban. More from the NYT (via Signorile), quoting a British Defense Ministry official:

“There are some sensitivities over the timing of this. We have had communications from our counterparts in the United States, and they have asked us questions about how we’ve handled it and how it’s gone on the ground. There does seem to be some debate going on over how long the current policy will be sustainable.”

Now back to the Times' ill-advised choice of a photo of some drag queens to illustrate how "normal" British gay soldiers are.



This was something the American press did like clockwork in the 1990s and before. If they covered a gay event or gay issue, they simply had to accompany the article with a flamboyant photo of a drag queen. I love a good drag queen, and the photo in the Times is adorable. But I like that photo because I'm gay (and/or gay-friendly). I wonder how many straight people who find themselves in the middle on gay issues, or even those slightly (or majorly) predisposed against us (especially on the gay-ban), will have their subtle prejudices reinforced by a photo that pretty much makes gay people look like effete fools. Because, you know, nudge nudge wink wink, the women are butch and everything, so maybe they're okay in the military, but the guys are all men who just yearn to put up on women's make-up and wigs - hardly the manly men you'd want fighting the terrorists, let alone sleeping in the cot next to you. That's the stereotype, and that's why there was such an outcry against the previous media bias about publishing such photos every time a gay issue arose. The media got over their bias a long time ago. And now, it seems, we've had a relapse. Read the rest of this post...

Information often is not what it seems

This article makes a simple but frequently overlooked point: in a situation like Iraq, information -- even regarding straightforward metrics and benchmarks -- varies widely depending on who is providing and/or interpreting it.

As Congress and the American public begin to ask for tangible and quantitative measures of whether the troop increase in Iraq is creating improvement or presiding over failure, it would be wise to remember the kind of place where the United States is dispatching — metaphorically, at least — its statisticians.

Iraq is the place where there are still wildly conflicting estimates of something as fundamental as how many civilians have died as a result of the war. It is a place where some government officials will swear that there are 348,000 wonderfully trained, motivated and equipped Iraqis in the security forces and other officials will tell you that most of those troops and police either have questionable loyalties, lack equipment or simply do not always report for duty. The precision is very important: 348,000, according to Wednesday’s update from the Pentagon. Or, perhaps, hundreds of thousands less.

With so little access to the ground truth, it is extraordinarily difficult to evaluate the current situation, let alone what the trends are. Many observers, especially within the administration, desperately want their positions to be right and their programs to be successful, which biases their view -- often to the detriment of Americans' understanding of the facts. Further, another significant problems is that people become adept at telling U.S. officials what they want to hear, rather than reality.

How can a single country look so kaleidoscopically different depending on the point of view? Part of the answer is clearly that competing political entities strain with all their might to see a reality that fits their convictions — and that includes official entities that are determined to show progress . . .

Another difficulty for the United States is the remarkable weakness American officials seem to have for people who say what Americans want to believe about whatever country they happen to be in. The effect has been obvious at least since “The Quiet American” by Graham Greene, set in 1950s Vietnam, and Iraq has been fertile ground for this particular brand of bad information.

It is increasingly difficult to get good intelligence, reliable information on macro-level metrics, or even updates on the political process. The obfuscation will only increase as the administration comes under more criticism about the war; attempts to show progress will become the most important part of keeping the war going. If you think the administration will ever admit that progress simply isn't happening, you're crazy. And with the situation so messy and confused, it will be hard to sort fact from fiction. Read the rest of this post...

The Godfather IV: (Al)Fredo's Revenge

The story of Alberto Gonzales, as told through the eyes of the Godfather. Brilliant.

Read the rest of this post...

Romney, Edwards lead in latest Iowa poll

National polls on the presidential race are fun and interesting, but they don't really matter right now. What does matter is what's happening on the ground in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina.

Over the weekend, the Des Moines Register released its latest polls. Romney is up on the GOP side -- by 12 points over McCain. For the Democrats, Edwards is in the lead followed by Obama and Clinton. Read the rest of this post...

It should go without saying that the U.S. Attorneys scandals matter

Today's NY Times has an editorial titled, "Why This Scandal Matters," which is another scathing indictment of Alberto Gonzales. They nail the problem, but it's outrageous that some still don't understand why this scandal matters:

It is now clear that United States attorneys were pressured to act in the interests of the Republican Party, and lost their job if they failed to do so. The firing offenses of the nine prosecutors who were purged last year were that they would not indict Democrats, they investigated important Republicans, or they would not try to suppress the votes of Democratic-leaning groups with baseless election fraud cases.

The degree of partisanship in the department is shocking.

It is shocking. In some ways, it's too shocking for many in the Washington punditry to grasp. I really think some reporters and columnists just can't bring themselves to believe what Bush and his lackeys have been doing. Last week, because the Bush spinmeisters told them the scandal was over, the consensus among the D.C. brain trust was the Gonzales had survived. Wrong.

For too long, Bush and his crew have manipulated the media. Rove relied on the idea that the reporters would never think them capable of all the lies, law breaking and deception. He knows the media will never call any of them liars, which has allowed the Bush team to lie without ramifications.

This scandal matters. Gonzales has to go. Some of his staffers and former staffers should be in jail.

The Bush administration really is a bad -- even worse -- than we thought. We couldn't make up some of the stuff they've done. Read the rest of this post...

Jimmy Carter's comments about Bush provoke attack from Bush staff

Some flunky for the Bush administration said he thinks Jimmy Carter is "increasingly irrelevant." Typical response from a loyal Bushie. One more time, instead of dealing with the underlying Iraq crisis, the Bush staff attack their enemies. If they put as much time and energy into the policy of Iraq as they do the politics, they might make some progress.

All Carter said what most Americans are thinking:

In the newspaper interview, Carter said Bush had taken a "radical departure from all previous administration policies" with the Iraq war.

"We now have endorsed the concept of pre-emptive war where we go to war with another nation militarily, even though our own security is not directly threatened, if we want to change the regime there or if we fear that some time in the future our security might be endangered," Carter said.

The Bushies don't want a discussion of the substance of what Carter said. They want to turn this into a political war of words. And, the media dutifully follows suit. CNN's GOP apologist Candy Crowley said this morning that the White House was "emboldened" and "figured, hey, this is a guy we can take on." It would be way too much work for Crowley and her colleagues to discuss the substance of what Carter said. But even if the pundits want to discuss politics, they could look at the polls showing Americans think Bush's main foreign policy initiative, the Iraq war, is a disaster. Crowley could even read CNN's latest poll for some insight.

Also, got an email from a friend who said, "Here's how the gop is still better than the dems: Jimmy Carter is getting blasted for his comments -- and no one from the dems is defending him." That seems true, even though Carter is absolutely right. On this morning's Today Show, Carter, ever the statesman, tried to de-escalate the situation. In any event, we'll defend Carter, because he's right. Read the rest of this post...

Monday Morning Open Thread

What's on the agenda this week?

Arlen Specter thinks Alberto Gonzales will quit before the Senate no-confidence vote because the Attorney General "would prefer to avoid that kind of an historical black mark." That assumes Gonzales cares about something like that. He doesn't. Bush doesn't.

Start threading the news. Read the rest of this post...

US embassy in Baghdad to cost $592m and is size of Vatican

When will this kind of insane spending come to an end? With the increasingly regular and effective attacks on the Green Zone, this beast will be a magnet for problems. There are just too many important items that could be addressed with $600m back home in the US to keep throwing money around like this in Iraq. If the government wants to invest overseas there are also plenty of better places to spend our money to build for the future.

Rising from the dust of the city's Green Zone it is destined, at $592m (£300m), to become the biggest and most expensive US embassy on earth when it opens in September.

It will cover 104 acres (42 hectares) of land, about the size of the Vatican. It will include 27 separate buildings and house about 615 people behind bomb-proof walls. Most of the embassy staff will live in simple, if not quite monastic, accommodation in one-bedroom apartments.

The US ambassador, however, will enjoy a little more elbow room in a high-security home on the compound reported to fill 16,000 square feet (1,500 sq metres). His deputy will have to make do with a more modest 9,500 sq ft.

They will have a pool, gym and communal living areas, and the embassy will have its own power and water supplies.

Read the rest of this post...

7 US soldiers killed on Sunday, 71 in May

But at least the Iraqi government is getting a summer holiday and Americans are no doubt funding that as well. This fiasco is disgusting. The daily average for US troops killed in May is very close to the terrible numbers from April. Read the rest of this post...