Wow. Dershowitz is a liberal, but still a rather big legal scholar. He says Bush broke the law. GW law professor Jonathan Turley, who strikes me as more moderate than Dershowitz, says it's not even close - "I believe the president committed a federal crime.... the president cannot order crimes."
And actually, O'Reilly kind of made this Georgetown Law professor, Rothstein, look like an idiot. O'Reilly kept asking why Bush didn't go the court during the 72 hours AFTER they surveilled the American citizens, and Rothstein just couldn't answer the question. Sounds like O'Reilly hasn't totally drunk the Kool-Aid on this one.
Read the rest of this post...
Elections | Economic Crisis | Jobs | TSA | Limbaugh | Fun Stuff
Follow @americablog
Monday, December 19, 2005
Ah, the media is back to its old love affair with the criminal in chief
From today's press conference:
BUSH: [Calls on CBS correspondent] John [Roberts].Yes, what a remarkable few weeks it's been. Bush launches yet another PR offensive to prove to the country that everything is going great in Iraq, when it isn't, and that the Democrats hate America - that's when he's not admitting on national TV to being a criminal. For a moment there, I thought I heard Lisa Simpson:
ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. President. So many questions, so little time.
BUSH: Well, keep your question short, then. (Laughter.)
ROBERTS: I'll do my best, sir. But, sir, you've shown a remarkable spirit of candor in the last couple of weeks in your conversation and speeches about Iraq...
"Mr. Burns, your campaign seems to have the momentum of a runaway frieght train. Why are you so popular?"Read the rest of this post...
Early returns on Iraq election results, not so good
From the NYT
Early voting results announced by Iraqi electoral officials today, with nearly two-thirds of the ballots counted, indicated that religious groups, particularly the main Shiite coalition, had taken a commanding lead.Then there's my favorite line:
The secular coalition led by Ayad Allawi, the former prime minister, had won only meager support in crucial provinces where it had expected to do well, including Baghdad.
The front-runner among Sunni Arab voters was a religious coalition whose leaders have advocated resistance to the American military and have demanded that President Bush set a timetable for withdrawing the American military from Iraq.
Officials warned that the results could still change.Yeah, I bet. Read the rest of this post...
Bush is freeing "Dr. Germ" and "Mrs. Anthrax" in Iraq
Wait a minute? Weren't these two pretty far up there in that deck of cards? What the hell is going on?
U.S. forces in Iraq are freeing "Dr Germ and "Mrs. Anthrax," two of Saddam Hussein's leading biological warfare experts, following the failure to find weapons of mass destruction, lawyers said on Monday....Uh huh. Because Al Qaeda couldn't use some germ warfare expert. Right? What kind of botched job did they do arresting this woman and/or letting her go? We were told she was Attila the Hun. Dr. Germ. Now we're just letting her go? Read the rest of this post...
Baghdad lawyer Badia Aref said Taha and Ammash were among 26 senior detainees in the process of being released. U.S. military spokesman Lieutenant Colonel Barry Johnson said eight "high-value detainees" had been freed on Saturday, and were among 27 senior prisoners judged to be eligible for release.
Senator Barbara Boxer asks four presidential scholars whether Bush committed an impeachable offense
The following press release was just issued by Barbara Boxer:
December 19, 2005
BOXER ASKS PRESIDENTIAL SCHOLARS ABOUT FORMER WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL’S STATEMENT THAT BUSH ADMITTED TO AN ‘IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE’
Washington, D.C.– U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) today asked four presidential scholars for their opinion on former White House Counsel John Dean’s statement that President Bush admitted to an “impeachable offense” when he said he authorized the National Security Agency to spy on Americans without getting a warrant from a judge.
Boxer said, “I take very seriously Mr. Dean’s comments, as I view him to be an expert on Presidential abuse of power. I am expecting a full airing of this matter by the Senate in the very near future.”
Boxer’s letter is as follows:
December 19, 2005
BOXER ASKS PRESIDENTIAL SCHOLARS ABOUT FORMER WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL’S STATEMENT THAT BUSH ADMITTED TO AN ‘IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE’
Washington, D.C.– U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) today asked four presidential scholars for their opinion on former White House Counsel John Dean’s statement that President Bush admitted to an “impeachable offense” when he said he authorized the National Security Agency to spy on Americans without getting a warrant from a judge.
Boxer said, “I take very seriously Mr. Dean’s comments, as I view him to be an expert on Presidential abuse of power. I am expecting a full airing of this matter by the Senate in the very near future.”
Boxer’s letter is as follows:
On December 16, along with the rest of America, I learned that President Bush authorized the National Security Agency to spy on Americans without getting a warrant from a judge. President Bush underscored his support for this action in his press conference today.Read the rest of this post...
On Sunday, December 18, former White House Counsel John Dean and I participated in a public discussion that covered many issues, including this surveillance. Mr. Dean, who was President Nixon’s counsel at the time of Watergate, said that President Bush is “the first President to admit to an impeachable offense.” Today, Mr. Dean confirmed his statement.
This startling assertion by Mr. Dean is especially poignant because he experienced first hand the executive abuse of power and a presidential scandal arising from the surveillance of American citizens.
Given your constitutional expertise, particularly in the area of presidential impeachment, I am writing to ask for your comments and thoughts on Mr. Dean’s statement.
Unchecked surveillance of American citizens is troubling to both me and many of my constituents. I would appreciate your thoughts on this matter as soon as possible.
Sincerely,
Barbara Boxer
United States Senator
Bush lied during his press conference when he said Congress had approved his domestic spying program
Senator Rockefeller sent a handwritten letter to VP Dick Cheney expressing his concern about the secret domestic spying program. The Senator kept a copy in order to prove he'd raised these concerns. Today, after President Bush told the nation at a press conference that members of Congressw were briefed on the spy plan and had approved it, Rockefeller released the letter to Cheney.
You can read it here. The Senator's office also released the following statement.
You can read it here. The Senator's office also released the following statement.
Senator John D. (Jay) Rockefeller IV, Vice Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, today released the following statement regarding the President’s decision to publicly confirm the existence of a highly-sensitive National Security Agency (NSA) program for intercepting communications within the United States.Read the rest of this post...
Additionally, Senator Rockefeller released his correspondence to the White House on July 17, 2003 -- the day he first learned of thhe program -- expressing serious concerns about the nature of the program as well as Congress’ inability to provide oversight given the limited nature of the briefings.“For the last few days, I have witnessed the President, the Vice President, the Secretary of State, and the Attorney General repeatedly misrepresent the facts.
“The record needs to be set clear that the Administration never afforded members briefed on the program an opportunity to either approve or disapprove the NSA program. The limited members who were told of the program were prohibited by the Administration from sharing any information about it with our colleagues, including other members of the Intelligence Committees.
“At the time, I expressed my concerns to Vice President Cheney that the limited information provided to Congress was so overly restricted that it prevented members of Congress from conducting meaningful oversight of the legal and operational aspects of the program.
“These concerns were never addressed, and I was prohibited from sharing my views with my colleagues.
“Now that this issue has been brought out into the open, I strongly urge the Senate Intelligence Committee to immediately undertake a full investigation into the legal and operational aspects of the program, including the lack of sufficient congressional oversight.”
The very conservative pro-Bush Chicago Tribune is not happy with Bush's domestic spying
This is a sign of rather big trouble for the administration when one of their own newspapers, in the nation's 3d largest city, is going after them:
This may also be a violation of American law, which requires that a special court issue warrants for wiretaps on communications originating in the United States. Some officials familiar with the program said it is illegal. But a Justice Department memo took the radical position that the congressional resolution authorizing the president to act against Al Qaeda enabled him to use methods that were previously forbidden.Read the rest of this post...
On Saturday, President Bush strongly defended the program, saying it has "helped detect and prevent possible terrorist attacks" here and abroad. Had the administration really believed it had congressional consent for spying on Americans at home, it could have asked for legislation to affirm that. It didn't, for the obvious reason that Congress would not have agreed.
This disclosure had the regrettable effect of helping to at least temporarily derail reauthorization of the USA Patriot Act, which for the most part represented a careful and prudent response to the new challenges posed by Al Qaeda. On Friday, Senate opponents managed to prevent a vote on the bill, leaving in limbo some provisions scheduled to expire Dec. 31.
While fear produced some abuses, it has not prevented the onset of complacency in the face of an ongoing threat. Earlier this month, former members of the Sept. 11 commission issued a dismal "report card" giving Congress and the president 5 F's and 12 D's in their handling of such matters as airline cargo screening, communications among first responders and allocation of homeland security funds.
Excesses of enforcement violate civil liberties. Lapses of vigilance can lead to mass carnage. Our leaders have an urgent duty to correct both mistakes, without delay.
Open thread
I've just posted a massive update to my article below about the 2nd Amendment being repealed. It's long, but I think necessarily so. I wanted to address a number of the questions raised in the comments following the original article, and have now done so. See what you think.
Read the rest of this post...
The 2nd Amendment has been repealed
(UPDATE: I've updated this essay to respond to some of the questions raised in the comments.)
Gun lovers take note. The Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights guaranteeing the right to bear arms has just been repealed by the Bush Administration.
You may not have seen it coming. You may not have even realized it was gone. But it is. And any right you had to own a gun is gone with it.
Now, no one has "officially" repealed the 2nd Amendment. As you know, that would take a two-thirds majority vote in the US House and US Senate, followed by ratification in three-fourths of the state legislatures. That has not happened because it would be too obvious, and you would object. What the Bush administration has done is much slicker than that, and much more telling.
Real despots, real dictatorships, real tyrannies don't ask for permission before they take your rights away. When jack-booted thugs want to steal your most basic rights as free citizens, they come in the dark of night, you won't even know they've been there, and by the time you find out what they've done, it will be too late.
What exactly am I talking about? Read on.
Your right to bear arms is protected by the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution. It is one of ten amendments to the Constitution that we call the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights were adopted in 1791 to protect your basic rights and freedoms as Americans from an overzealous government. Among those rights and liberties, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, the right to bear arms, and the right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures. What Bush has done to justify his recent domestic spying is to say that the Constitution in general, and the Bill of Rights in particular, are no longer either absolute or the law of the land. Instead, Bush, as commander in chief during war time, can overrule the Bill of Rights with a secret executive order whenever he wants. Not only is this absurd, but it's an incredibly dangerous precedent for our democracy and everyone living under it.
What Bush has just done is to say that the Constitution no longer dictates what he can and can't do as president. That means your rights under the Bill of Rights are no longer absolute or guaranteed, they're no longer the law of the law, they're now just simple "suggestions" without teeth, that can be brushed away by the federal government whenever it sees fit. If the Bill of Rights no longer give us absolute protection against our government, and can be overruled at a whim by that government, then the protections they afford no longer exist - they no longer exist.
The same logic that Bush applies to the 4th amendment applies to 1st or the 2d or any of the others. Bush has now established the precedent that his power as commander in chief overrules ANY protections you have in the Bill of Rights, and that would include the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms. And as Bush has been doing all of this in secret - we only found out because the story apparently leaked to the New York Times THREE YEARS after Bush brushed the Constitution aside - how do YOU know that Bush hasn't already begun secretly violating the constitutional and legislative rights of gun owners, to further the war on terror, of course? And even if he hasn't, yet, who's to say he, or any future president, won't sometime down the line?
1. Now, you may say you know Bush hasn't taken away your rights as gunowners because you'd know if he had.
Really?
You mean if the Department of Homeland Security (one of the largest, if not the largest, government agency to exist in the history of the world), the CIA, the NSA, the Department of Defense, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, INR at State, DIA at DOD, or any other government spy agency decided to do a little research on you and every registered gun owner in America, you'd know about it?
And how exactly would you know if the federal government secretly broke the law in order to spy on every gunowner in America?
2. But, you might be saying, the law prohibits all of those agencies from snooping on America's gunowners.
Yeah. And the law also prohibits the president from using the military or any other government agency to spy on American citizens without a court order. We now know he does it anyway, quite proudly in fact, and has been doing it for years to spy on hundreds if not thousands of American citizens in direct violation of the law.
3. But my congressman is pro-gunowners' rights, you say, he'd never let the federal government do this to gunowners.
In fact, the White House says both Democratic and Republican leaders in Congress have been briefed on the program (and as it turns out, it sounds like more Republicans than Democrats were actually told about it). But in any case, guess what happened? Your pro-gun buddies in the congressional leadership - Senator Frist and Congressman Hastert - were told that Bush was breaking the law in order to spy on American citizens and no one lifted a finger. What makes you think they did anything different if and when Bush notified them that he was investigating gunowners as well?
4. But, you say, owning guns is different than being involved in the war on terror, the president would never come after us.
Really? Tell me exactly how owning a machine gun won't put you on the radar screen of a federal machine hell-bent on trying to stop, by any means necessary, legal or illegal, a terrorist from walking into a suburban shopping mall and gunning down innocent men, women and children? Yeah, Bush would have no incentive to look at records of who's been buying guns of late, not at all.
5. But you'd tell me, there's no way the federal government could get their hands on gun-purchase databases run by the various states.
Well, let me quote a pro-gun defender of yours:
For example, read the following from the Brady Campaign Web site:
The 2nd Amendment is gone. The entire Bill of Rights is gone. The federal government has declared that anything they do is legal, and everything you do is suspect. No law will stand in their way, no man will stand in their way. This isn't just conjecture. They've now admitted it.
7. Finally, you may say, this is only a temporary threat because the government is only taking these extraordinary measures while we're at war.
And that's right. So long as we're at war with terrorism these extraordinary measures will be in place. Of course, President Bush told us during his re-election campaign that the war on terror will NEVER END:
Once the government has the unfettered right to take away any and all of your rights at whim, those right are already gone and rendered meaningless. If the government has the right to obliterate the protections in the Bill of Rights by presidential fiat, with no judicial oversight and in clear disregard of the law of the land and the will of our elected representatives, then those rights no longer exist. Period.
The Bill of Rights is gone. It no longer has any power to protect the absolute rights of citizens against an overzealous government. Yes, you may still have your guns, you may still assemble peacefully in the town square, you may still run a newspaper, but you no longer are guaranteed THE RIGHT to have a gun, the right to assemble, or the right to a free press because President Bush just told us that any and all rights under the Constitution exist at his will. Thus those rights, as enumerated in the Constitution, are no longer absolute checks on government power as the government has decided it can overrule those "rights" in secret, unchecked, and at a whim. They are no longer rights at all.
But Bush hasn't taken on the gun owners, that we know of, and you all still have your guns (though you have no idea if your gun registrations have been illegally kept beyond the 48 hour period and whether those records have now been given to federal anti-terror officials in secret). But still, you have your guns, you might say.
Well, there is a big difference between saying you still have a gun and saying that you still have THE ABSOLUTE RIGHT under the Constitution to have a gun.
You may still have the former, but George Bush just made it clear that the latter no longer exists. Your rights are gone, your mechanism to enforce your rights is gone, and if that's fine with you as a gun owner, then click your mouse and move on. But if that's the case, if you don't see a massive threat to your constitutional rights as a result of the president determining that the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to decisions made by the executive branch, then don't tell me that attempts by the anti-gun lobby to repeal the 2nd Amendment is any big deal, because it's just been de facto repealed by President Bush and you don't seem to care. The Bill of Rights are not suggestions for action, they are absolute rights of the citizens vis-a-vis our government. When the government is permitted to say otherwise with impunity, those rights are per se gone.
In the end, the time to get worried about your rights isn't when they come for your guns, your megaphone, or your printing press. It's when your government establishes the precedent that permits it to ignore the protections already in place - protections that guarantee you your guns, your speech and your press. The precedent has now been set, those protections have now been dismantled. But hey, like I said, even an actual repeal of the 2nd Amendment doesn't NECESSARILY mean the government would come knocking on your door to take away your guns, so I'm sure none of you pro-gun folks object to an actual repeal. All that a repeal would do is take away the absolute protection for your right to bear arms, it wouldn't necessarily immediately take away your arms.
Well, the same thing is happening here: George Bush just took away the absolute protection of your rights enunciated in the Bill of Rights. It doesn't necessarily mean he's going to act on the new power he's suddenly seized. But are you really willing to sit back and wait to see if he does? Read the rest of this post...
Gun lovers take note. The Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights guaranteeing the right to bear arms has just been repealed by the Bush Administration.
You may not have seen it coming. You may not have even realized it was gone. But it is. And any right you had to own a gun is gone with it.
Now, no one has "officially" repealed the 2nd Amendment. As you know, that would take a two-thirds majority vote in the US House and US Senate, followed by ratification in three-fourths of the state legislatures. That has not happened because it would be too obvious, and you would object. What the Bush administration has done is much slicker than that, and much more telling.
Real despots, real dictatorships, real tyrannies don't ask for permission before they take your rights away. When jack-booted thugs want to steal your most basic rights as free citizens, they come in the dark of night, you won't even know they've been there, and by the time you find out what they've done, it will be too late.
What exactly am I talking about? Read on.
Your right to bear arms is protected by the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution. It is one of ten amendments to the Constitution that we call the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights were adopted in 1791 to protect your basic rights and freedoms as Americans from an overzealous government. Among those rights and liberties, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, the right to bear arms, and the right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures. What Bush has done to justify his recent domestic spying is to say that the Constitution in general, and the Bill of Rights in particular, are no longer either absolute or the law of the land. Instead, Bush, as commander in chief during war time, can overrule the Bill of Rights with a secret executive order whenever he wants. Not only is this absurd, but it's an incredibly dangerous precedent for our democracy and everyone living under it.
What Bush has just done is to say that the Constitution no longer dictates what he can and can't do as president. That means your rights under the Bill of Rights are no longer absolute or guaranteed, they're no longer the law of the law, they're now just simple "suggestions" without teeth, that can be brushed away by the federal government whenever it sees fit. If the Bill of Rights no longer give us absolute protection against our government, and can be overruled at a whim by that government, then the protections they afford no longer exist - they no longer exist.
The same logic that Bush applies to the 4th amendment applies to 1st or the 2d or any of the others. Bush has now established the precedent that his power as commander in chief overrules ANY protections you have in the Bill of Rights, and that would include the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms. And as Bush has been doing all of this in secret - we only found out because the story apparently leaked to the New York Times THREE YEARS after Bush brushed the Constitution aside - how do YOU know that Bush hasn't already begun secretly violating the constitutional and legislative rights of gun owners, to further the war on terror, of course? And even if he hasn't, yet, who's to say he, or any future president, won't sometime down the line?
1. Now, you may say you know Bush hasn't taken away your rights as gunowners because you'd know if he had.
Really?
You mean if the Department of Homeland Security (one of the largest, if not the largest, government agency to exist in the history of the world), the CIA, the NSA, the Department of Defense, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, INR at State, DIA at DOD, or any other government spy agency decided to do a little research on you and every registered gun owner in America, you'd know about it?
And how exactly would you know if the federal government secretly broke the law in order to spy on every gunowner in America?
2. But, you might be saying, the law prohibits all of those agencies from snooping on America's gunowners.
Yeah. And the law also prohibits the president from using the military or any other government agency to spy on American citizens without a court order. We now know he does it anyway, quite proudly in fact, and has been doing it for years to spy on hundreds if not thousands of American citizens in direct violation of the law.
3. But my congressman is pro-gunowners' rights, you say, he'd never let the federal government do this to gunowners.
In fact, the White House says both Democratic and Republican leaders in Congress have been briefed on the program (and as it turns out, it sounds like more Republicans than Democrats were actually told about it). But in any case, guess what happened? Your pro-gun buddies in the congressional leadership - Senator Frist and Congressman Hastert - were told that Bush was breaking the law in order to spy on American citizens and no one lifted a finger. What makes you think they did anything different if and when Bush notified them that he was investigating gunowners as well?
4. But, you say, owning guns is different than being involved in the war on terror, the president would never come after us.
Really? Tell me exactly how owning a machine gun won't put you on the radar screen of a federal machine hell-bent on trying to stop, by any means necessary, legal or illegal, a terrorist from walking into a suburban shopping mall and gunning down innocent men, women and children? Yeah, Bush would have no incentive to look at records of who's been buying guns of late, not at all.
5. But you'd tell me, there's no way the federal government could get their hands on gun-purchase databases run by the various states.
Well, let me quote a pro-gun defender of yours:
The federal government has every gun registered. The registration is at the state level. Question: Whom do the states report to? The government that's who. If the government perceives a potential danger on any scale, who do you think they will contact first. They will contact the state government for the gun registration list or the FOID list. Also, do you really think that your state governor will refuse to turn over that list? Think again. That list will be in the hands of the federal agents and the military in no time flat. They will be knocking on the doors of the law-abiding citizens informing them of the surrender of all arms to the government. They will also have the list of any and all arms that are registered to that household in hand. Heaven forbid you cannot find one. I am sure the agents will be empowered to search your residence to locate said firearm. It happened in Europe. The tactic was sound so why not use it again. Sounds good to me.6. Then you'd say, that's impossible because many states, like Florida, must destroy records on gun sales within 48 hours of the purchase.
For example, read the following from the Brady Campaign Web site:
In Florida for example, "State law generally forbids police from keeping any record of gun sales. Police must destroy records on gun sales within 48 hours and are prohibited from maintaining gun sale records that could be used for gun tracing and criminal investigations."Well, yes, that is what the law says. That would be the same law that says the federal government can't spy on American citizens without a court order - the law that President Bush just admitted breaking over 30 times in the past three years in order spy on at least 500 American citizens, if not thousands of them. Tell me again how "the law" is going to stop the government from investigating every gun owner in this country in order to further the war on terror? As President Bush said himself this morning at his White House press conference, the Constitution gives him the right to break the law in furtherance of the war on terror, even if the law he's breaking is the Constitution itself (whether it's the 4th Amendment prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure, or the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms).
The 2nd Amendment is gone. The entire Bill of Rights is gone. The federal government has declared that anything they do is legal, and everything you do is suspect. No law will stand in their way, no man will stand in their way. This isn't just conjecture. They've now admitted it.
7. Finally, you may say, this is only a temporary threat because the government is only taking these extraordinary measures while we're at war.
And that's right. So long as we're at war with terrorism these extraordinary measures will be in place. Of course, President Bush told us during his re-election campaign that the war on terror will NEVER END:
Do you really think we can win this war on terror in the next four years?So if Bush is allowed to ignore the Constitution and federal law so long as we're at war with terror, that pretty much means forever.
President Bush: I have never said we can win it in four years.
Lauer: So I'm just saying can we win it? Do you see that?
President Bush: I don't think you can win it.
Once the government has the unfettered right to take away any and all of your rights at whim, those right are already gone and rendered meaningless. If the government has the right to obliterate the protections in the Bill of Rights by presidential fiat, with no judicial oversight and in clear disregard of the law of the land and the will of our elected representatives, then those rights no longer exist. Period.
The Bill of Rights is gone. It no longer has any power to protect the absolute rights of citizens against an overzealous government. Yes, you may still have your guns, you may still assemble peacefully in the town square, you may still run a newspaper, but you no longer are guaranteed THE RIGHT to have a gun, the right to assemble, or the right to a free press because President Bush just told us that any and all rights under the Constitution exist at his will. Thus those rights, as enumerated in the Constitution, are no longer absolute checks on government power as the government has decided it can overrule those "rights" in secret, unchecked, and at a whim. They are no longer rights at all.
But Bush hasn't taken on the gun owners, that we know of, and you all still have your guns (though you have no idea if your gun registrations have been illegally kept beyond the 48 hour period and whether those records have now been given to federal anti-terror officials in secret). But still, you have your guns, you might say.
Well, there is a big difference between saying you still have a gun and saying that you still have THE ABSOLUTE RIGHT under the Constitution to have a gun.
You may still have the former, but George Bush just made it clear that the latter no longer exists. Your rights are gone, your mechanism to enforce your rights is gone, and if that's fine with you as a gun owner, then click your mouse and move on. But if that's the case, if you don't see a massive threat to your constitutional rights as a result of the president determining that the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to decisions made by the executive branch, then don't tell me that attempts by the anti-gun lobby to repeal the 2nd Amendment is any big deal, because it's just been de facto repealed by President Bush and you don't seem to care. The Bill of Rights are not suggestions for action, they are absolute rights of the citizens vis-a-vis our government. When the government is permitted to say otherwise with impunity, those rights are per se gone.
In the end, the time to get worried about your rights isn't when they come for your guns, your megaphone, or your printing press. It's when your government establishes the precedent that permits it to ignore the protections already in place - protections that guarantee you your guns, your speech and your press. The precedent has now been set, those protections have now been dismantled. But hey, like I said, even an actual repeal of the 2nd Amendment doesn't NECESSARILY mean the government would come knocking on your door to take away your guns, so I'm sure none of you pro-gun folks object to an actual repeal. All that a repeal would do is take away the absolute protection for your right to bear arms, it wouldn't necessarily immediately take away your arms.
Well, the same thing is happening here: George Bush just took away the absolute protection of your rights enunciated in the Bill of Rights. It doesn't necessarily mean he's going to act on the new power he's suddenly seized. But are you really willing to sit back and wait to see if he does? Read the rest of this post...
Another open thread
Sorry about that. I was off at a meeting of the vast left-wing conspiracy in the US Capitol Building. Probably shouldn't report on the details, as that sort of defeats the point of having a vast conpsiracy doesn't it. Suffice is to say that every day there's more and more folks on the left working together, and that's a good thing.
Read the rest of this post...
I'm off to a meeting at the Capitol, more later
Consider this an open thread.
Read the rest of this post...
Did Bush domestic spy program eavesdrop on American journalists?
I had an interesting discussion this morning with DC political consultant Marc Laitin. We both came to the conclusion that it sounds like Bush's super-secret illegal domestic spying program may be targeting US journalists and that may be why Bush never got it cleared by the court and is worried about it coming forward now.
Think about it.
1. Bush had the authority to go the court AFTER THE SURVEILLANCE and RETROACTIVELY get the warrant to do surveillance he'd already done. He didn't. The only reason I can come up with for why Bush would NOT go to the court after the fact is because he thought the court would slap him down. The court's greatest concern would likely be spying on US citizens, and an even greater concern would be spying on either members or Congress or the American media. If Bush were spying on American media, he might just lose this retroactive warrant.
2. Bush says that these were only Americans making phone calls to people with known Al Qaeda ties. That probably knocks out members of Congress, but it very much sounds like US journalists. Who else, other than terror cells, would be talking on a regular basis with people who might have ties to terrorism? American journalists working on stories.
It could even include US journalists talking to their bureaus abroad. Read again who Bush said the program is targeting (if you believe him):
3. Bush says that revealing the details of his spy program would tell Al Qaeda what we were doing and stop the program from being effective. Again, journalists. Al Qaeda already knows we're monitoring phone calls and emails, we've been doing that for years. They also know that the Patriot Act lets Bush spy on Americans (with the appropriate court orders). So what about the revelation of this domestic spying program could possibly tip off Al Qaeda to something they already know we're doing? There has to be a new wrinkle to the program, something Al Qaeda never thought we'd do. Spy on US journalists.
If terrorists knew that Bush was monitoring every communication US journalists were having a lot of their foreign sources would dry up. As much as "the terrorists" think that the US is monitoring everything, they'd be more willing to trust a US journalist since they know we don't spy on our journalists in this country. Until now.
Remember the case of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearle. The terrorists were happy to meet with Pearle, and kill him, a few years back. They clearly weren't that worried about Pearle being surveilled by the US government. And just look at all of Al Jazeera's interviews with people tied to Al Qaeda, how Al Jazeera gets its Al Qaeda videos etc. It's clear the terrorists trust their reporters, and it's hard to believe the Bush administration isn't spying on Al Jazeera. Sure, Al Jazeera are foreigners, but don't you think it's possible the success of such spying on Al Jazeera, if it's true, would make someone high up in the administration say "hey, what about following the NYT too?"
And here's another possibility. We outsource torture to foreign governmments, why wouldn't the Bush administration outsource surveillance of American citizens, including American journalists? It would be just the kind of too-cute-by-half move the Bush administration would come up with to obey the law against spying on US citizens while at the same time doing it. Ask your foreign government friends to do the spying on Americans for you.
I don't have proof yet, but Bush spying on US journalists would explain everything UNEXPLAINED about this entire story. Bush refusing to follow the law, Bush refusing to go to court, Bush refusing to tell more members of Congress, Bush's concern that the terrorists, if they knew we were doing this, would be tipped off, and Bush's desire to keep this from the public. It all makes sense that the target of the domestic spying could be US journalists.
Perhaps some enterprising journalist will ask the White House directly, has the Bush administration or its allies ever spied on American journalists? Read the rest of this post...
Think about it.
1. Bush had the authority to go the court AFTER THE SURVEILLANCE and RETROACTIVELY get the warrant to do surveillance he'd already done. He didn't. The only reason I can come up with for why Bush would NOT go to the court after the fact is because he thought the court would slap him down. The court's greatest concern would likely be spying on US citizens, and an even greater concern would be spying on either members or Congress or the American media. If Bush were spying on American media, he might just lose this retroactive warrant.
2. Bush says that these were only Americans making phone calls to people with known Al Qaeda ties. That probably knocks out members of Congress, but it very much sounds like US journalists. Who else, other than terror cells, would be talking on a regular basis with people who might have ties to terrorism? American journalists working on stories.
It could even include US journalists talking to their bureaus abroad. Read again who Bush said the program is targeting (if you believe him):
"intercept the international communications of people with known links to Al-Qaida and related terrorist organizations."What's a "known link"? Does a journalist who has contacts inside Al Qaeda have a "known link" to Al Qaeda? Well sure he does, he absolutely has links/contacts with Al Qaeda.
3. Bush says that revealing the details of his spy program would tell Al Qaeda what we were doing and stop the program from being effective. Again, journalists. Al Qaeda already knows we're monitoring phone calls and emails, we've been doing that for years. They also know that the Patriot Act lets Bush spy on Americans (with the appropriate court orders). So what about the revelation of this domestic spying program could possibly tip off Al Qaeda to something they already know we're doing? There has to be a new wrinkle to the program, something Al Qaeda never thought we'd do. Spy on US journalists.
If terrorists knew that Bush was monitoring every communication US journalists were having a lot of their foreign sources would dry up. As much as "the terrorists" think that the US is monitoring everything, they'd be more willing to trust a US journalist since they know we don't spy on our journalists in this country. Until now.
Remember the case of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearle. The terrorists were happy to meet with Pearle, and kill him, a few years back. They clearly weren't that worried about Pearle being surveilled by the US government. And just look at all of Al Jazeera's interviews with people tied to Al Qaeda, how Al Jazeera gets its Al Qaeda videos etc. It's clear the terrorists trust their reporters, and it's hard to believe the Bush administration isn't spying on Al Jazeera. Sure, Al Jazeera are foreigners, but don't you think it's possible the success of such spying on Al Jazeera, if it's true, would make someone high up in the administration say "hey, what about following the NYT too?"
And here's another possibility. We outsource torture to foreign governmments, why wouldn't the Bush administration outsource surveillance of American citizens, including American journalists? It would be just the kind of too-cute-by-half move the Bush administration would come up with to obey the law against spying on US citizens while at the same time doing it. Ask your foreign government friends to do the spying on Americans for you.
I don't have proof yet, but Bush spying on US journalists would explain everything UNEXPLAINED about this entire story. Bush refusing to follow the law, Bush refusing to go to court, Bush refusing to tell more members of Congress, Bush's concern that the terrorists, if they knew we were doing this, would be tipped off, and Bush's desire to keep this from the public. It all makes sense that the target of the domestic spying could be US journalists.
Perhaps some enterprising journalist will ask the White House directly, has the Bush administration or its allies ever spied on American journalists? Read the rest of this post...
Live blog Bush's press conference, on in moments
I'd say do a shot for every criminal act he admits to, but then we'd be drunk by noon.
LIVING BLOGGING
He dressed the nation?
The Iraqi people enjoy constitutionally protected freedoms? Unless they're at war, then their new president becomes a dictator and all of their rights go out the window. Oh yeah, they are at war, so that means Iraqi has the same rule of law it had under Saddam Hussein. Nice.
Ah September 11! It took Bush 3 minutes to bring it up.
Al Qaeda isn't a conventional enemy. This new threat required us to think and act differently. So Bush chose to break the law repeatedly for 3 years. Oh, and now he's using the 9/11 Commission to buttress his crime? Funny, would that be the same commission that has repeatedly come out and said you've totally dropped the ball in not doing most of what they recommended?
People with known links to Al Qaeda. Like that German guy you holed up for, what, a year or more in Guantanamo Bay until you realized you made a mistake? People like him?
The Patriot Act? Why does he need the Patriot Act? He can do anything we want. We're at war. He said it himself. What the hell does he need the Patriot Act for?
Oh NOW IT'S THE DEMOCRATS WHO KILLED THE PATRIOT ACT. You lying mother fucker. It was a coalition of Democrats and conservative Republicans who killed the Patriot Act. What a fucking liar.
The man needs to be impeached. Congress better not dare reauthorize the Patriot Act until this man admits every single thing he did and Congress corrects his abuses in the new law. He has got to be kidding. Reauthorize the Patriot Act because I need to it stop the terrorists, even though I really don't because I'll violate the Patriot Act anyway.
Oh, and now we're into la-la-land. We need tax cuts, immigration reform, blah blah blah.
QUESTIONS (paraphrase)
Leak investigation into NSA disclosure? Why did you skip asking courts for permission?
A: It was a shameful act... during a time of war. Helping the enemy. [OH COME ON PEOPLE, KARL ROVE, HELLO, CONNECT THE DOTS]. It was a shameful act by somebody who has got secrets of the United States government and feels they need to disclose them. We're at war and we must protect America's secrets.
Q: Why didn't you ask the courts for permission?
A: I uh, I uh, right after Sept 11, I asked people in my administration to analyze how best to do the job... blah blah blah. Came up with the current program, enables us to move faster and quicker. We have to be fast on our feet. [HE'S A LIAR, THEY CAN DO THE SURVEILLANCE AND THEN GET THE COURT ORDER AFTER THE FACT - HE'S LYING NOW.] Is it legal to do so. I swore to uphold the laws. Absolutely I have the legal authority to do this. The legal authority is derived from the Constitution. [IN OTHER WORDS, HE CAN DO WHATEVER HE WANTS TO BREAK THE LAW PER THE CONSTITUTION.]
Now we have Bush making lots of jokes.
Q: Biggest mistake made during your presidency and what have you learned from it?
A: Wasn't a mistake made to go into Iraq. [HUH?] We had enough troops. A mistake was trying to train a civilian defense force and the Iraqi army at the same time [HUH?] HE'S NOT ANSWERING THE QUESTION
A: This program is limited in nature to those with known Al Qaeda ties or affiliates. [OH WHATEVER, RIGHT]
A: An open debate about law would say to the enemey "here's what we're going to do." [WOW, SO NOW WE CAN'T CALL BUSH ON HIS CRIMES BECAUSE IT'S AIDING AND ABETING THE ENEMY.]
Q: Why not monitor calls within the US if you need to?
A: We will.
Q: But you said the courts don't work, not enough speed.
A: Sometimes we have to move very very quickly. [COME ON MARTHA, ASK HIM ABOUT BEING ABLE TO APPROVE THE SEARCH RETROACTIVELY.]
Q: Dems have said you broke the law, some Republicans are calling for hearings and an investigation. Are you willing to go before Congress to explain this?
A: [laughs] We have gone before members of Congress. I want to assure the American people that I am doing what you expect me to do.
[TOTAL SOFTBALL PRESS CONFERENCE, WE HAVE NO MEDIA]
[Oh, now he's saying we want to condemn the Iraqis to tyranny by criticizing Bush.]
Q: FISA has only rejected 19 of 19,000 requests for wire taps, so why did you sidetrack that process?
A: We used the process, to monitor. This is a different era, a different war. They're moving quick. It requires quick action. [HE'S NOT ANSWERING THE QUESTION]
Q: Are there any limits on the power of a president during war time. And if the war on terror will last for decades does that mean we're going to see a permanent expansion of the unchecked power of the executive during wartime.
A: I disagree with the phrase unchecked power. blah blah blah. I am not a dictator. [paraphrase]
[THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES JUST HAD TO DENY BEING A DICTATOR]
[HEY THE NEW JEFF GANNON JUST ASKED A QUESITON - HOW EXCITING - DO YOU EXPECT CONGRESSIONAL DEMOCRATS TO STOP THEIR PARTISAN POLITICS ON THE WAR ON TERROR? GIMME A BREAK]
A: We can't withdraw from Iraq because it would upset the Iraqis and despirit our troops. [UH HUH, BECAUSE THAT'S WHY YOU FIGHT A WAR, SO THE TROOPS WILL BE HAPPY AND SOME FOREIGNERS WILL BE HAPPY.]
A: They were dangerous before we went into Iraq [YES, EXCEPT THEY WEREN'T IN IRAQ UNTIL YOU INVADED.]
A: [AGAIN BUSH IS BLAMING THE DEMOCRATS FOR STOPPING THE PATRIOT ACT REAUTHORIZATION - ANY JOURNALISTS GOING TO REMIND HIM ON NATIONAL TV THAT IT WAS A BIPARTISAN COALITION THAT PULLED THE PLUG?] Read the rest of this post...
LIVING BLOGGING
He dressed the nation?
The Iraqi people enjoy constitutionally protected freedoms? Unless they're at war, then their new president becomes a dictator and all of their rights go out the window. Oh yeah, they are at war, so that means Iraqi has the same rule of law it had under Saddam Hussein. Nice.
Ah September 11! It took Bush 3 minutes to bring it up.
Al Qaeda isn't a conventional enemy. This new threat required us to think and act differently. So Bush chose to break the law repeatedly for 3 years. Oh, and now he's using the 9/11 Commission to buttress his crime? Funny, would that be the same commission that has repeatedly come out and said you've totally dropped the ball in not doing most of what they recommended?
People with known links to Al Qaeda. Like that German guy you holed up for, what, a year or more in Guantanamo Bay until you realized you made a mistake? People like him?
The Patriot Act? Why does he need the Patriot Act? He can do anything we want. We're at war. He said it himself. What the hell does he need the Patriot Act for?
Oh NOW IT'S THE DEMOCRATS WHO KILLED THE PATRIOT ACT. You lying mother fucker. It was a coalition of Democrats and conservative Republicans who killed the Patriot Act. What a fucking liar.
The man needs to be impeached. Congress better not dare reauthorize the Patriot Act until this man admits every single thing he did and Congress corrects his abuses in the new law. He has got to be kidding. Reauthorize the Patriot Act because I need to it stop the terrorists, even though I really don't because I'll violate the Patriot Act anyway.
Oh, and now we're into la-la-land. We need tax cuts, immigration reform, blah blah blah.
QUESTIONS (paraphrase)
Leak investigation into NSA disclosure? Why did you skip asking courts for permission?
A: It was a shameful act... during a time of war. Helping the enemy. [OH COME ON PEOPLE, KARL ROVE, HELLO, CONNECT THE DOTS]. It was a shameful act by somebody who has got secrets of the United States government and feels they need to disclose them. We're at war and we must protect America's secrets.
Q: Why didn't you ask the courts for permission?
A: I uh, I uh, right after Sept 11, I asked people in my administration to analyze how best to do the job... blah blah blah. Came up with the current program, enables us to move faster and quicker. We have to be fast on our feet. [HE'S A LIAR, THEY CAN DO THE SURVEILLANCE AND THEN GET THE COURT ORDER AFTER THE FACT - HE'S LYING NOW.] Is it legal to do so. I swore to uphold the laws. Absolutely I have the legal authority to do this. The legal authority is derived from the Constitution. [IN OTHER WORDS, HE CAN DO WHATEVER HE WANTS TO BREAK THE LAW PER THE CONSTITUTION.]
Now we have Bush making lots of jokes.
Q: Biggest mistake made during your presidency and what have you learned from it?
A: Wasn't a mistake made to go into Iraq. [HUH?] We had enough troops. A mistake was trying to train a civilian defense force and the Iraqi army at the same time [HUH?] HE'S NOT ANSWERING THE QUESTION
A: This program is limited in nature to those with known Al Qaeda ties or affiliates. [OH WHATEVER, RIGHT]
A: An open debate about law would say to the enemey "here's what we're going to do." [WOW, SO NOW WE CAN'T CALL BUSH ON HIS CRIMES BECAUSE IT'S AIDING AND ABETING THE ENEMY.]
Q: Why not monitor calls within the US if you need to?
A: We will.
Q: But you said the courts don't work, not enough speed.
A: Sometimes we have to move very very quickly. [COME ON MARTHA, ASK HIM ABOUT BEING ABLE TO APPROVE THE SEARCH RETROACTIVELY.]
Q: Dems have said you broke the law, some Republicans are calling for hearings and an investigation. Are you willing to go before Congress to explain this?
A: [laughs] We have gone before members of Congress. I want to assure the American people that I am doing what you expect me to do.
[TOTAL SOFTBALL PRESS CONFERENCE, WE HAVE NO MEDIA]
[Oh, now he's saying we want to condemn the Iraqis to tyranny by criticizing Bush.]
Q: FISA has only rejected 19 of 19,000 requests for wire taps, so why did you sidetrack that process?
A: We used the process, to monitor. This is a different era, a different war. They're moving quick. It requires quick action. [HE'S NOT ANSWERING THE QUESTION]
Q: Are there any limits on the power of a president during war time. And if the war on terror will last for decades does that mean we're going to see a permanent expansion of the unchecked power of the executive during wartime.
A: I disagree with the phrase unchecked power. blah blah blah. I am not a dictator. [paraphrase]
[THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES JUST HAD TO DENY BEING A DICTATOR]
[HEY THE NEW JEFF GANNON JUST ASKED A QUESITON - HOW EXCITING - DO YOU EXPECT CONGRESSIONAL DEMOCRATS TO STOP THEIR PARTISAN POLITICS ON THE WAR ON TERROR? GIMME A BREAK]
A: We can't withdraw from Iraq because it would upset the Iraqis and despirit our troops. [UH HUH, BECAUSE THAT'S WHY YOU FIGHT A WAR, SO THE TROOPS WILL BE HAPPY AND SOME FOREIGNERS WILL BE HAPPY.]
A: They were dangerous before we went into Iraq [YES, EXCEPT THEY WEREN'T IN IRAQ UNTIL YOU INVADED.]
A: [AGAIN BUSH IS BLAMING THE DEMOCRATS FOR STOPPING THE PATRIOT ACT REAUTHORIZATION - ANY JOURNALISTS GOING TO REMIND HIM ON NATIONAL TV THAT IT WAS A BIPARTISAN COALITION THAT PULLED THE PLUG?] Read the rest of this post...
ACTION ALERT: Help the media keep Bush's feet to the fire
As Joe mentioned below, Bush is holding a very rare press conference at 10:30. I'm always convinced that Bush gives limited notice on these availabilities so that the press doesn't have enough time to prepare.
Help the media: If you could ask Bush the perfect question this morning, what would it be? (Members of the media should feel free to use any of these questions.) Read the rest of this post...
Help the media: If you could ask Bush the perfect question this morning, what would it be? (Members of the media should feel free to use any of these questions.) Read the rest of this post...
Next stop in the Bush P.R. offensive
A press conference this morning:
Bush's 10:30 a.m. EST news conference to be held in the East Room is expected to address questions about the Iraq war, a secret eavesdropping program in the United States and the administration's stalled effort to renew the terrorism-fighting Patriot Act.Getting the sense that this is all a last ditch effort to save his approval rating -- and his presidency. Read the rest of this post...
Monday Morning Open Thread
Very slow start today...did I miss anything yet?
Read the rest of this post...
Cheney on the internal spying - more lies
Just what you would expect him to say.
So who where they spying on and why were they afraid to run it through FISA? Read the rest of this post...
It's been briefed to the Congress over a dozen times, and, in fact, it is a program that is, by every effort we've been able to make, consistent with the statutes and with the law," Vice President Dick Cheney said Sunday in an interview with ABC News "Nightline" to be broadcast Monday evening: "It's the kind of capability if we'd had before 9/11 might have led us to be able to prevent 9/11."OK, since the PDB on August 6, 2001 made it quite clear that "Bin Laden determined to attack inside the U.S." what precisely did the administration do at that time to prevent 9/11? Last time I checked Bush went on vacation for a month and they did nothing at all. They did not need this capability because FISA OK'd everything they requested until 2003 and even since then, the overwhelming majority have been approved.
So who where they spying on and why were they afraid to run it through FISA? Read the rest of this post...
Fox rips on GOP Mexico-wall plan
This truly has to go down as one of the worst ideas, not to mention expensive ideas, that the GOP has rolled out recently. The the fear-mongers in the GOP talk about immigrants taking jobs are they talking about those high paying migrant worker jobs that harvest fruits and vegetables? Those high paying slaughterhouse jobs that pay $10 hour? If the GOP would bother to open its eyes they could see that most American citizens are not interested in these jobs. What kind of work do they think their families took when they arrived in America a hundred years ago?
Why does the GOP want to spend a few billion dollars that we don't have to block out people who want to take jobs that citizens do not want anyway? Vincente Fox is completely correct.
Why does the GOP want to spend a few billion dollars that we don't have to block out people who want to take jobs that citizens do not want anyway? Vincente Fox is completely correct.
Fox said the measures were hypocritical for a country made up of immigrants.Read the rest of this post...
"When we look at their roots, the immense majority are migrants, migrants that have arrived from all over the world," he said.
Bush's Big Lie: Actually, the Intelligence Was RIGHT Mr. President. You Ignored It.
Bush made a very clever lie in his umpteenth speech on Iraq last night. Bush said, "But much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong." Actually, the intelligence was RIGHT. Bush just ignored it.
The lie that Hussein was trying to get uranium in Africa? That rumour was looked into on three separate occasions. Everyone said it didn't hold water. The cheap forgery that provided the only evidence? Dismissed as fake by everyone who examined it. Bush ignored all that and insisted it was true anyway.
Those tubes that could presumably be used only for enriching uranium? We now know the intelligence was right on that, too. Every scientist, yes EVERY scientist and EVERY scientific body that examined them said not only could those tubes be used for other purposes but that they were useless for enriching uranium. Every ally we showed them to said the same thing. Only one lone mid-level CIA analyst said different. Bush ignored the overwhelming judgment of the scientific and intelligence community and embraced the weakest argument as if it were gospel.
Saddam's links to Al-Quaeda and 9-11? Again, the vast majority of the intelligence (not to mention common sense) argued this was absurd and untrue. But Bush and Cheney cynically kept making that link again and again until most Americans believed right before the invasion that Hussein was involved in attacking America. Bush knew it simply wasn't true.
So don't let Bush pretend he's being wonderfully candid by saying the intelligence was wrong. The intelligence was right and he ignored it and misled the American people. Read the rest of this post...
The lie that Hussein was trying to get uranium in Africa? That rumour was looked into on three separate occasions. Everyone said it didn't hold water. The cheap forgery that provided the only evidence? Dismissed as fake by everyone who examined it. Bush ignored all that and insisted it was true anyway.
Those tubes that could presumably be used only for enriching uranium? We now know the intelligence was right on that, too. Every scientist, yes EVERY scientist and EVERY scientific body that examined them said not only could those tubes be used for other purposes but that they were useless for enriching uranium. Every ally we showed them to said the same thing. Only one lone mid-level CIA analyst said different. Bush ignored the overwhelming judgment of the scientific and intelligence community and embraced the weakest argument as if it were gospel.
Saddam's links to Al-Quaeda and 9-11? Again, the vast majority of the intelligence (not to mention common sense) argued this was absurd and untrue. But Bush and Cheney cynically kept making that link again and again until most Americans believed right before the invasion that Hussein was involved in attacking America. Bush knew it simply wasn't true.
So don't let Bush pretend he's being wonderfully candid by saying the intelligence was wrong. The intelligence was right and he ignored it and misled the American people. Read the rest of this post...
"Brokeback" Update -- Vaults Into Box Office Top Ten
Americablog's favorite gay cowboy movie of the year went wider this weekend, playing on 69 screens. (No jokes, please; too easy.) It grossed $2.4 million (for about $3.3 mil total), vaulting it into the Top Ten, which is a terrific accomplishment given how few screens it's playing on. Don't despair if you don't live in a major market -- they're going to be expanding the release even faster than expected because of the extraordinary critical acclaim and red-hot box office. It will certainly gross $30 mil, making it very profitable. If it hits $50 mil, consider that blockbuster territory for a movie that cost only $13 mil to make.
Frank Rich of the NYT has a nice piece on why "Brokeback Mountain" is a landmark and its success so disheartening to the bigoted religious right. (You need that TimesSelect access to read it.)
And happy birthday to Jake Gyllenhaal, who turns 25 today. Heath Ledger has the flashier acting role (he gets to mumble and lash out violently, etc.) but Jake is terrific, too, and I think part of the reason he's been overlooked is because Jake plays the bottom. I'm not kidding. Any thoughts? Read the rest of this post...
Frank Rich of the NYT has a nice piece on why "Brokeback Mountain" is a landmark and its success so disheartening to the bigoted religious right. (You need that TimesSelect access to read it.)
And happy birthday to Jake Gyllenhaal, who turns 25 today. Heath Ledger has the flashier acting role (he gets to mumble and lash out violently, etc.) but Jake is terrific, too, and I think part of the reason he's been overlooked is because Jake plays the bottom. I'm not kidding. Any thoughts? Read the rest of this post...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
