Kautilyan: Treasury Used to Attack Kerry

The Bush administration keeps having civil servants violate the law by having them work on explicitly political projects. I hate these people.

Senate passes the Unborn Victims of Violence Bill

Make no mistake, this is a direct assault on a woman's right to choose, and if there's a second term for Bush, I can guarantee you that you'll have seen the end of Roe v. Wade.

You can't turn your backs on these assholes for a second.

Just When You Think Bush Can't Get Any Lower

He goes and makes fun of the missing WMDs. You know, those things we were supposed to be finding? Those things that formed the foundation for the entire justification of the war on Iraq? Those things that have led to the deaths of 585 US soldiers and over 10,000 Iraqis (not to mention the wounded and other casualties)?

This is supposed to be presidential?

And to think, Dean was excoriated in the press for giving a pep rally cry.

Oh, THAT Burn!

I'd compartmentalized the humilation, shame, and other negative aspects to working my current job. Then I got put on a new assignment this week. In sum, the task goes something like this: you know that job that solely through our own incompetence you didn't get considered for? yeah, that job that solely through our own sloth and disdain we would not accomodate an interview for you, even though you notified us immediately and acted vigorously to further your candidacy after we had totally screwed you through our own incompetence? Yeah, that job that hired three other people who are all less qualified than you in every way imaginable? Well, guess what?! You get to do exactly what they are doing - and what you would have been doing if you had been hired - for approximately half the money, 1/3rd the office, and an infinte amount less of respect.

Aren't you excited? Aren't you just so happy to be given this opportunity? Aren't you just looking forward to really helping the team out?

I fucking hate this job.

Condi Rice's Negligence Finally an Open Issue

By Richard Clarke, of course. We already knew she didn't read her daily briefings or any of the policy pieces prepared for her, as evidenced by the Nigerian yellowcake deception in the State of the Union address. She refuses to openly testify and she refuses to testify under oath to the 9/11 Commission, yet she hurls slanderous insults and disinformation from behind the protection of her adminstration (what a coward!).

Last night on Larry King, Clarke said:

Clarke said the Clinton administration's approach to a similar threat before the turn of the millennium -- on which top officials held daily interagency meetings and actively sought information from within their own agencies -- shows that a similar approach might have worked to prevent the September 11 terrorist attacks.

He said that prior to 9/11, people within the FBI knew that two of the 19 hijackers were in the country, but that information never made its way up to the highest levels of power.

If Condi Rice had been doing her job and holding those daily meetings the way Sandy Berger did, if she had a hands-on attitude to being national security adviser when she had information that there was a threat against the United States ... [the information] would have been shaken out in the summer of 2001.

No wonder she's looking so pissed.

Her named-by-the-media-but-not-actual "rebuttals" so far have been 1) she did so tell people to be on the lookout for more terrorist activity. Once, on 5 July 2001; and 2) Clarke didn't attend enough meetings.

Tom Delay About to Be Indicted

For tax and finance wrongs. He'll also have to relinquish his post as Speaker. It couldn't happen to a nicer guy. Why isn't the so-called liberal media discussing this?

Apparently Nixon-esque Tapes Available

As reported on counterspin, there's an interesting revelation that every CSG meeting was taped and transcribed.

Which means we could have perfect knowledge of who said what, when.

Which means that it's going to take years and some court action, but the truth will be known. I'd rather it be sooner than later.

Why are the Bushies so afraid of an open government? Oh yeah, they've got lots to hide.

So, Which is It?

Are we supposed to believe Condi's version:

Ms. Rice painted a distinctly different picture of the involvement of Mr. Clarke, who has prompted furious responses since he asserted in a new book and in testimony on Capitol Hill that President Bush did not heed warnings before the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

"He was in every meeting that was held on terrorism," Ms. Rice said. "All the deputies' meetings, the principals' meeting that was held and so forth, the early meetings after Sept. 11."

or Scott McClellan's version:

"Dr. Rice, early on in the administration," McClellan said yesterday, "started holding daily briefings with the senior directors of the National Security Council, of which he was one. But he refused to attend those meetings, and he was later asked to attend those meetings and he continued to refuse to attend those meetings." Apparently, some meetings are more important than others.

?

I'm so confused.

Watch Condi Lie, Lie, Lie

and then lie some more. Is their any question that this is the most dishonest administration ever? I think they've surpassed even Nixon at this point.

Bring a Dumptruck

Because the explosion of the Bush-strong-on-terror myth just keeps ballooning:

President Bush's national security leadership met formally nearly 100 times in the months prior to the Sept. 11 attacks yet terrorism was the topic during only two of those sessions, officials say.

Transcript of the Clarke Session

Is now online. Good stuff.

Help Air an Ad About the Truth

MoveOn.org has a great ad cooked up that they want to air nationally, but they need $300,000 to do it.

Here's one way to exert your influence with a more direct control over the outcome of those funds than is typical in donation situations.

Read the story board and tell me that doesn't kick major ass. I hope they have one in spanish as well.

Clarke == Impressive

So I listened to the testimony today. Let me say this: Clarke impressed the hell out of me. This is what will probably get the most coverage tonight and in the papers:

Your government failed you. Those entrusted with protecting you failed you. I failed you. We tried hard, but we failed you...I ask for your understanding, and your forgiveness.

Have we just seen the second defining moment of the Bush presidency?

He has got to be the Bush administration's worst nightmare. High-level insider, competent, career public servant, non-partisan, uncowed, responsible, and the recipient of enormous respect. Too bad only 0.001% of the population will hear this, but for me this naked display of competency is exceedingly impressive.

If you get a chance to read the transcript of today's interviews later, check out Jim Thompson's (former IL gov) questions to Clarke. They're obviously partisan RNC/Bush-fed (UPDATE: it looks to be FOX-fed from the White House, or co-released to FOX, which Bob Kerry later criticized in the open session as reprehensible). The questions (repeated on Thompson's 2nd go round as well, but he got his ass handed to him as the 9-11 families openly applauded Clarke. Thompson's an ass. A partisan ass, at that). Anyway, the questions were designed to a) try to impugn Clarke; and b) blame Clinton. I'm finding it hard to express how impressed I am by Clarke, who handled all the questions ably and with obvious knowledge and attention to detail.

Competency. Who'da thunk it? Just the sheer novelty of it is explosive in the current environment.

Bombshell Answer: after another attack on Clarke's "credibility," he distinguished previous testimony ably (difference: he'd never been asked about Iraq in his previous testimony). He closed with:

[President Bush's invasion of Iraq] has greatly undermined the war on terror.

Bravo!

If you pay attention, the White House can't attack any of the facts, so they're attacking the person (this cartoon captures it quite well). They are rolling out ad hominems left and right, but what's most enlightening, contradictory ad hominems. They can't get their story straight and they can't stop the bloodflow. The one issue on which the nation still gives Bush high numbers for some reason is under direct assault from a guy who was more hawkish than this administration and centrally placed to make an informed criticism. Bush has got to be totally panicking.

Speaking as an agnostic, Clarke is a godsend.

Clarke's a Total Bulldog

Whom the administration is not going to scare or attack into silence. He worked for over 30 years for the government, under Reagan, Bush41, Clinton, and Bush43. I'd probably hate him if I met him, but I still absolutely respect the bastard.

You said on "60 Minutes" that you expected "their dogs" to be set on you when your book was published, but did you think that the attacks would be so personal?

Oh yeah, absolutely, for two reasons. For one, the Bush White House assumes that everyone who works for them is part of a personal loyalty network, rather than part of the government. And that their first loyalty is to Bush rather than to the people. When you cross that line or violate that trust, they get very upset. That's the first reason. But the second reason is that I think they're trying to bait me -- and people who agree with me -- into talking about all the trivial little things that they are raising, rather than talking about the big issues in the book.
...
In the first chapter of your book, which I must say is gripping, you give your account of your actions on 9/11, when great authority was turned over to you [by Cheney and Rice]. Is there an issue of disloyalty or ingratitude there? To be honest, it seemed to me that you saved their asses that day.

Well, that's for other people to say. As regards my loyalty to President Bush, I was a career civil servant. I wasn't loyal to any particular political machine. When the president makes a big mistake -- like he has in the way that he has fought the war on terrorism by going into Iraq -- I think personal loyalty or party loyalty has got to be put aside.
...
Were you concerned about your friendship with Rand Beers being used, as it is now, to suggest that you did this in order to help John Kerry in his presidential campaign?

This is the most interesting charge against me -- that I am a friend of Rand Beers, as if that's some terrible thing. Who is Rand Beers? Until a year ago, he was someone who was working for George Bush in the White House. He worked for George Bush's father in the White House. He worked for Ronald Reagan in the White House. But now it's a terrible thing to be a friend of Rand Beers? He and I have been friends for 25 years. I'm not going to disown him because he's working for John Kerry. He's my friend, he's going to stay my friend, we teach a course together [at Harvard]. He works for John Kerry. I don't.

Remind me not to piss off that guy.

Bob Edwards to Leave Morning Edition

YES!!!!!! This is the best news I've heard in months! Bob Edwards is the worst radio host EVER. I still think he's a robot. Probably just going in to get a lube job and his nuclear reactor cleaned out so he can go on with the speak and spell routine for another 120 years.

Sometimes the Jokes Write Themselves

Oh. My. (this is in re: Jersey Girl and the role that Michael Jackson wanted to play in it)

Kick the Bum Out!

Zell Miller is a GOPper in all but name. Today, after promising to campaign for Bush and "help him in any way that he can," Miller slammed Kerry. Why is he still allowed in the party?

When You Think About It

It's pretty revealing that the Bushies want to fine every radio station $500,000 for every utterance of "fuck" but they want to limit non-economic tort damages to $250,000.

I hate these people.

Zelikow Needs to Resign from the 9/11 Commission

Because he's a direct party at interest, as the Clarke book shows and upcoming testimony will show. Yet another group called for his resignation today.

That Israel Thing

With the assassination of the Hamas leader, I think Israel has shown that it really has no bounds when it comes to its aggression. The settlers? Bad and wrong. The fence? Naked land grab plus segregation plus control of the water supplies. Assassination of anti-Israel/"terrorist"/terrorist groups? Beyond the pale, particularly when they violated another state's sovereignty to do so.

The Israelis have systematically and purposefully done everything in their power to disenfranchise, segregate, kill, and eliminate the Palestinian people. It's a multi-pronged attack, from bloodshed to jobs to food and water.

The point is, they've gone too far.

Killing Sheik Ahmed Yassin (a quadriplegic, in case you didn't know) is just the most blatant example of their arrogance. It may be justifiable, but I don't think it is wise. To my eyes, the Israeli arrogance and foolhardy, pennywise, offensive action is clear proof that they have a blank check from the US government to do whatever they feel needs to be done. Therefore we, the United States, should bear some responsibility for the increase in deaths that are sure to follow this assassination. A simple, easy word here or there, the withholding of money or military support, or a little backbone encouraging restraint could have saved innumerable lives. Clinton almost had everything right until that shitheel Arafat and Arafat's ego walked away from the deal. Bush walked, no, ran away from the middle ground and into the arms of the pro-Israeli hardliners and in fact uses Israel as a proving ground for doctrines the chickenhawks want to implement.

Israel is to blame, and should take responsibility for their actions, but we helped create this situation and deserve some responsibility - and blame - for the bloodshed that will continue unabated. As the Israelis increasingly become barricaded behind their walls sending missile-laden drones to do their scut work and the Palestinians become more impoverished and think of new ways to turn their children into bombs, I really don't see how anyone wins.

UPDATE: It is now official policy of Israel to assassinate Hamas leadership. Boy, that's heartening to hear.