Free the Pentagon Video

Is there any facility in the world that you can imagine having more closed circuit TV cameras than the Pentagon? Yet, the world has still yet to see moving images of United Airlines Flight 77 allegedly hitting the Pentagon on 9/11/01. Why is that?

Since then, about a million theories have sprung up in opposition to the official story of the U.S. Government. In books and web sites, skeptics say a missile or a smaller military plane impacted the Pentagon. And, just by looking at the hole left behind, the small amount of damage done and the lack of any identifiable Boeing 757 parts or wreckage, these claims do not seem incredible or insane.

It would be quite simple for the government to release some CCTV video clearly showing the impact of that plane. But the Bush Administration has not done so, and has resisted Freedom of Information Act requests for the footage, claiming lamely the video is part of an ongoing Moussaoui investigation.

Now, in the past few days, the conservative group Judicial Watch has filed a lawsuit to get a release of the 9/11 Pentagon strike tapes:

Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit against the Department of Defense for withholding a video(s) that allegedly shows United Flight 77 striking the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. The Pentagon claims it cannot release the video because it is “part of an ongoing investigation involving Zacarias Moussaoui,” but this is a specious argument. Moussaoui already pled guilty in April 2005 for conspiring with al Qaida to fly planes into U.S. buildings. The death penalty phase of his trial is underway with jury selection nearly complete. What’s left to investigate? Moreover, while the Freedom of Information Act does allow an exemption for ongoing law enforcement investigations, the Defense Department does not even have law enforcement authority over Moussaoui. That belongs to the Department of Justice or the FBI. One reason we’re seeking the information to help put to rest conspiracy theories that a government drone or missile hit the Pentagon rather than the hijacked United airplane. Stay tuned…

Somehow, I doubt we’ll ever see the video. But we should support Judicial Watch on this one.

A Salute to Alberto J. Mora

Until the end of 2005, the Navy’s top lawyer, Alberto J. Mora, waged a behind-the-scenes battle with Pentagon brass and civilian leaders in an attempt to keep the U.S. military from committing torture and abuse.

He deserves every American’s gratitude. He was one of many uniformed lawyers in the military who objected to the highly aggressive interrogation practices and harsh, degrading prisoner treatment championed by Donald Rumsfeld.

Okay, this guy Mora is a Republican, a military guy and a supporter of the overall Bush agenda. But he stood up for what is right, dammit. In one July 2004 memo, Mora wrote:

"Even if one wanted to authorize the U.S. military to conduct coercive interrogations, as was the case in Guantánamo, how could one do so without profoundly altering its core values and character?" Mr. Mora asked the Pentagon's chief lawyer, William J. Haynes II

Mora’s a classic example of an insider who spoke truth to power at key moments, subtly trying to shame the neocons into at least giving torture in the name of freedom a second thought.

"In my view, some of the authorized interrogation techniques could rise to the level of torture, although the intent surely had not been to do so," Mr. Mora wrote.

Mora was effective enough that he briefly brought about a change in the Bush/Rummy/neocon pro-torture policy.

According to the N.Y. Times:

Mr. Mora took up the issue after Mr. Brandt came to him on Dec. 17, 2002, to relay the concerns of Navy criminal agents at Guantánamo that some detainees there were being subjected to "physical abuse and degrading treatment" by interrogators.

Acting with the support of Gordon R. England, who was then secretary of the Navy and is now Mr. Rumsfeld's deputy, Mr. Mora took his concerns to Mr. Haynes, the Defense Department's general counsel.

[snip]

After trying to rally other senior officials to his position, Mr. Mora met again with Mr. Haynes on Jan. 10, 2003. He argued his case even more forcefully, raising the possibility that senior officials could be prosecuted for authorizing abusive conduct, and asking: "Had we jettisoned our human rights policies?"

Still, Mr. Mora wrote, it was only when he warned Mr. Haynes on Jan. 15 that he was planning to issue a formal memorandum on his opposition to the methods — delivering a draft to Mr. Haynes's office — that Mr. Rumsfeld suddenly retracted the techniques.

By then, however, it was too late. The Abu Ghraib story was about to break, and the world would see the pain and degredation the U.S. was inflicting upon its detainees in its “War on Terror.”

Mr. Mora, thanks for trying to stop it.

Ports of Terror

I don’t want the government of the United Arab Emirates managing ports in New York City where I live and have a baby daughter. It’s crazy. Isn’t Usama supposed to be the one who attacked us on 9/11?

This isn't racism. One reason I'm against it is this Brookings Institution poll. Only ten percent of those in the United Arab Emirates had a “favorable” impression of the United States, and that was before the catastrophe of Bush’s Iraq War. Unfavorable views of the U.S. were held by 86 percent. Can you imagine the heartfelt attitude of Dubai Port World’s owners, managers and workers today?

Furthermore, According to CIA director George “Slam Dunk” Tenant’s testimony to the 9/11 commission, the UAE’s princes like to hunt and go falconing with Usama bin Laden:

MR. FIELDING: Yeah. Well, I would appreciate that on behalf of the Commission if you could do that because it seemed that this -- when the intelligence was so good, and that by the time the camp was dismantled days and days had passed.

So I would appreciate --

MR. TENET: There's also a question, I believe, as to whether bin Ladin was inside or outside the camp --

MR. FIELDING: Of course.

MR. TENET: -- it was a complicating issue in this whole thing -- and whether he was there or not. So there's a second complicating factor here.

The third complicating factor here is, you might have wiped out half the royal family in the UAE in the process, which I'm sure entered into everybody's calculation in all this.

But in any event, I would like -- I will try and reconstruct the data as best I can, in terms of what I had in my possession at the time.

And according to the New York Times today:

[Dubai] was also the main transshipment point for Abdul Qadeer Khan, a Pakistani nuclear engineer who ran the world's largest nuclear proliferation ring from warehouses near the port, met Iranian officials there, and shipped centrifuge equipment, which can be used to enrich uranium, from there to Libya.

So, hmmm, let’s CONNECT SOME DOTS!

The Classified Constitution

We the [CLASSIFIED] of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish [CLASSIFIED], insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the [CLASSIFIED], and secure the Blessings of [CLASSIFIED] to ourselves and [CLASSIFIED], do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The lead story in today's New York Times is chilling indeed. The Bushies are trying to cleanse our history through aggressive reclassification of documents already unclassified and stored in the National Archives.

The restoration of classified status to more than 55,000 previously declassified pages began in 1999, when the Central Intelligence Agency and five other agencies objected to what they saw as a hasty release of sensitive information after a 1995 declassification order signed by President Bill Clinton. It accelerated after the Bush administration took office and especially after the 2001 terrorist attacks, according to archives records.

You know the United States Constitution is likewise stored at the National Archives. What's to prevent its classification by King George Dubya?

Bill of Rights -- Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of [CLASSIFIED], or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the [CLASSIFIED], or of the [CLASSIFIED]; or the right of the [CLASSIFIED], and to petition the Government for a [CLASSIFIED].

The Bush Administration shows such monarchical destain for our founding documents. Can you imagine how Bush & Co. would rework the Fourth Amendment? Or maybe just classify its details . . .

Hey, you think this is too fantastical? Think again.

"It means the potential of a weapon of mass destruction and a terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event somewhere in the Western world -- it may be in the United States of America -- that causes our population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass, casualty-producing event. Which in fact, then begins to unravel the fabric of our Constitution. Two steps, very, very important."
--Gen. Tommy Franks in Cigar Aficionado, 12/1/2003

Bird Flu Poorhouse

As the H5N1 virus spreads inexorably across the planet, governments must prepare not only for a possible (probable? inevitable?) public health catastrophe but also for the economic devastation a pandemic would surely inflict. The World Health Organization has estimated the likely economic cost at $800 billion, but that may be on the conservative side.

In the United States, federal and state legislation must be enacted to protect American families from financial ruin. This will be necessary because most Americans will follow the “social distancing” advice of public health officials to stay home in order to avoid exposure to the virus. Inevitably, those weeks or even months of self-quarantine will result in massive loss of personal assets as jobs and savings disappear.

Having escaped the super flu and survived at home, most of the U.S. population could find itself at least temporarily unemployed, with mountains of unpaid bills and at risk of becoming homeless through eviction or foreclosure. There is also the possibility of civil unrest arising from shortages of food, fuel, medicine and vital services. To make matters worse, infectious disease experts say the pandemic will come in two waves over the course of a year or more.

This is the looming crisis Congress and the states must address in advance, by establishing a debt moratorium for the duration of the crisis.

Federal legislation is required now to prevent banks, credit card issuers and all other federally chartered lenders from undertaking collection or foreclosure measures once a national pandemic emergency has been declared and extending for a reasonable period of time after the emergency has passed. The same repayment hiatus should apply to income tax payments, student loans and other direct payments to the federal government.

States and localities should urgently adopt similar legislation covering lenders not subject to federal rules as well as state and local tax obligations, insurance companies, landlords, utilities, etc. Because public and private schools at all levels may be forced to close, tuitions must be refundable or creditable. States must also be vigilant in protecting citizens from unscrupulous interests who will surely seek to profit from their misery.

Government at all levels will suffer huge losses of revenue and will be hard-pressed to provide vital services, cover entitlement obligations and meet payrolls. It may be necessary to institute scrip payment schemes and consider rationing of scarce commodities.

Not unlike the consequences of a thermonuclear war, the flu pandemic many experts say is inevitable will create huge challenges to the nation’s survival and will demand strong leadership. Our political leaders must put aside partisanship and rise to this existential task. They can’t begin soon enough.

Bush's U.N. Plane Hoax

When not shooting each other in the face for weekend relaxation, the Bush neocons have been doing hard work to deceive Ameicans and the world at large. According to Lawless World by Philippe Sands, Bush was so worried that the fake intelligence (like those lame cartoon chemical lab trucks) hyped by Colin Powell at the U.N. wouldn’t sufficiently rile up Americans and the U.N. Security Council for an Iraq war, he decided to paint up a U.S. spy plane as a U.N. plane and fly it over Iraq, in hopes that Saddam would shoot it down.

In fact, Democrats.com is now offering $1,000 to any reporter who will directly ask Bush this question:

"How can you claim you were trying to avoid war through the UN, when you told Prime Minister Blair on Jan. 31, 2003, that if you failed to get a resolution from the UN authorizing war, 'military action would follow anyway' - including a scheme to paint a U.S. spy plane in U.N. colors to provoke an Iraqi attack on the U.N. itself?

It’s a great idea, offering to pay the media to ask tough questions, since reporters are evidently being paid not to ask them by their “mainstream” corporate overlords at GE or Disney or Viacom.

USA PATRIOT Act & Nerve Gas Alarms

Are there really just three U.S. Senators willing to stand up for our civil liberties and the Bill of Rights? Have we really come down to three?

Only Sens. Jim Jeffords, I-Vt., and Robert C. Byrd, R-W.Va., supported Feingold on Thursday's vote to stop what Frist had characterized as a filibuster preventing the Senate from acting on the legislation [USA PATRIOT act renewal]. Sen. David Vitter, R-La., did not vote.

Where the heck were the remaining Democrats? Where were the GOP members concerned about big government intrusion?

I can't help but feel that this sellout of our constitutional protections is related to the Feb 8 false nerve gas attack alarm at the Senate's Russell Office Building. That must have been pretty frightening for the 200 Senators and staff members who were held in a parking garage while the nerve gas scare was checked out. Perhaps such terrifying experiences make Senators more likely to vote to strip our rights in exchange for the promise of more security.

Certainly, there was a stiffer resistance to renewing the onerous USA PATRIOT act before that false alarm than afterwards. The Capitol Police should really fix those sensors in the Senate, because those false alarms are affecting our civil rights.

Reminds one of the last time the USA PATRIOT act was up for debate in the Senate, in 2001. That's when prominant Democrats were sent letters containing anthrax later traced to U.S. government labs. Oh yeah, three of Feingold's staffers were exposed too.

Anthrax in the mail certainly influenced the debate and added to the climate of fear in the Capitol building itself. Now, at least it's just a false alarm. Or maybe it's just a warning.

Dick with Gun

Dick Cheney’s shooting of a pal while hunting defenseless cage-raised quail is one of those wonderful moments that crystallize and forever set the public’s perception. It’s like when Quayle couldn’t spell “potato,” or when Bush said, “Brownie, you’re doing a heck of a job,” as New Orleans drowned.

What it indeliby sets in the public mind is an image of Cheney (and by default the whole Bush syndicate) as reckless, incompetent and violent law-breakers who can’t shoot straight and blame victims. Yay!

If only there was an opposition party in this country up to the task of removing the sick Bush/Cheney GOP power structure from office, there might be a glimmer of hope for this nation. A hope to get out of Iraq with a shred of national honor. A hope of avoiding economic disaster. A hope of addressing looming environmental and energy catastrophes. And a hope of securing this country from terrorists and hostile regimes.

Unfortunately, the Democratic Party is incapable of endorsing or promoting agents of real change, or even capitalizing on the worst military, diplomatic and social policy blunders of the last 100 years of American history. When the Democratic Party is given the chance to field candidates that would tap the patriotic, anti-Bush passions of the majority of Americans, the party leadership instead promotes Republican-lite insiders that are safe bets to 1) lose, 2) or win and change nothing.

Case in point: Paul Hackett, candidate for Senate from Ohio. This guy served the county in Iraq, regularly calls Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld “chickenhawks” for their avoidance of military service, and basically speaks truth to power. Hackett almost won a heavily Republican district by taking straight and calling Bush’s War a failure and a disgrace, based on his own experience in combat there.

You think this guy would be the Dem’s dream candidate? Think again.

The New York Times
February 14, 2006

Popular Ohio Democrat Drops Out of Race, and Perhaps Politics
By IAN URBINA

Paul Hackett, an Iraq war veteran and popular Democratic candidate in Ohio's closely watched Senate contest, said yesterday that he was dropping out of the race and leaving politics altogether as a result of pressure from party leaders.

Mr. Hackett said Senators Charles E. Schumer of New York and Harry Reid of Nevada, the same party leaders who he said persuaded him last August to enter the Senate race, had pushed him to step aside so that Representative Sherrod Brown, a longtime member of Congress, could take on Senator Mike DeWine, the Republican incumbent.

Mr. Hackett staged a surprisingly strong Congressional run last year in an overwhelmingly Republican district and gained national prominence for his scathing criticism of the Bush administration's handling of the Iraq War. It was his performance in the Congressional race that led party leaders to recruit him for the Senate race.

But for the last two weeks, he said, state and national Democratic Party leaders have urged him to drop his Senate campaign and again run for Congress.

"This is an extremely disappointing decision that I feel has been forced on me," said Mr. Hackett, whose announcement comes two days before the state's filing deadline for candidates. He said he was outraged to learn that party leaders were calling his donors and asking them to stop giving and said he would not enter the Second District Congressional race.

"For me, this is a second betrayal," Mr. Hackett said. "First, my government misused and mismanaged the military in Iraq, and now my own party is afraid to support candidates like me."

Mr. Hackett was the first Iraq war veteran to seek national office, and the decision to steer him away from the Senate race has surprised those who see him as a symbol for Democrats who oppose the war but want to appear strong on national security.

"Alienating Hackett is not just a bad idea for the party, but it also sends a chill through the rest of the 56 or so veterans that we've worked to run for Congress," said Mike Lyon, executive director for the Band of Brothers, a group dedicated to electing Democratic veterans to national office. "Now is a time for Democrats to be courting, not blocking, veterans who want to run."

But Democratic leaders say Representative Brown, a seven-term incumbent from Avon, has a far better chance of toppling Senator DeWine.

"It boils down to who we think can pull the most votes in November against DeWine," said Chris Redfern, chairman of the Ohio Democratic Party. "And in Ohio, Brown's name is golden. It's just that simple."

Mr. Fern added that Mr. Brown's fund-raising abilities made him the better Senate candidate. By the end of last year, Mr. Brown had already amassed $2.37 million, 10 times what Mr. Hackett had raised.

Senator Reid did not reply to repeated requests for comment.

Asked about Mr. Hackett's contention that he had been pressed to leave the Senate race, a spokesman for Mr. Schumer, Phil Singer, said, "We've told both Sherrod Brown and Paul Hackett that avoiding a primary will make it easier to win the Ohio Senate seat, " but he added, "Obviously, the decision to run is Mr. Hackett's and Mr. Hackett's alone."

Mr. Brown declined to comment on Mr. Hackett's candidacy, saying that he was strictly focused on building his own campaign.

Democrats wanted to avoid a drawn-out primary, especially one that could get bruising with a tough-talking outsider like Mr. Hackett.

The Ohio Senate race is regarded as critical to Democratic aspirations to take back Congress in the fall. Aside from focusing on Senator DeWine, the Democrats also hope to win as many as eight House seats in Ohio and the governorship from the Republicans.

Ohio Democrats are hoping to exploit the larger problems plaguing the Republicans. State Republicans have struggled to distance themselves from Gov. Bob Taft, a Republican who cannot run again because of term limits and who was found guilty last summer of four misdemeanor ethics violations. Representative Bob Ney's still-unfolding role in the scandal over the lobbyist Jack Abramoff also looms over the state's Republicans.

Mr. Hackett said he was unwilling to run for the Congressional seat because he had given his word to three Democratic candidates that he would not enter that race.

"The party keeps saying for me not to worry about those promises because in politics they are broken all the time," said Mr. Hackett, who plans to return to his practice as a lawyer in the Cincinnati area. "I don't work that way. My word is my bond."

Jennifer Duffy, who analyzes Senate races for the Cook Political Report, said that part of what made Democratic leaders nervous about Mr. Hackett was what had also made him so popular with voters.

"Hackett is seen by many as a straight talker, and he became an icon to the liberal bloggers because he says exactly what they have wished they would hear from a politician," Ms. Duffy said. "On the other hand, the Senate is still an exclusive club, and the party expects a certain level of decorum that Hackett has not always shown."

Mr. Hackett was widely criticized last year for using indecent language to describe President Bush. Last month, state Republicans attacked Mr. Hackett for saying their party had been hijacked by religious extremists who he said "aren't a whole lot different than Osama bin Laden."

Though Republicans called for an apology, Mr. Hackett repeated the mantra of his early campaign: "I said it. I meant it. I stand behind it."

Again, I think it is time for the replacement of Harry Reid as the leader of the Democrats in the Senate. They guy voted for the awful bankruptcy bill, supports renewal of the un-American USA PATRIOT Act, and apologizes for saying mean things about Republicans.

As for Chuck Schumer, he’s useless.

Notice, Hackett refuses to apologize to the Republicans. He’s my kind of Democrat. I wish he hadn’t been stabbed in the back by our Democratic losers … I mean leaders.

F*cked Justice

At the same time that super-corrupt GOP wunderkind John G. Rowland is set free after serving a mere 10 months for selling favors and access as Governor of Connecticut, a man in Kansas is going to jail for life for supposedly planning to sell crack cocaine.

Now, I'm not pro-crack or anything, but this life sentence seems completely out of whack when measured against the crime. It deserves national attention.

Man caught with crack cocaine near KU faces life in prison

By Eric Weslander

For the Lawrence (Kan.) Journal-World

Thursday, February 9, 2006

A Leavenworth man caught with crack cocaine during a traffic stop on the Kansas University campus is facing life in prison.

Jurors in U.S. District Court in Kansas City, Kan., on Wednesday convicted Theogen E. Garner, 42, of one count of possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine within 1,000 feet of a public university.

KU police stopped Garner's pickup truck about 1:12 a.m. July 21, 2005, near 15th and Iowa streets after seeing it weaving within its lane and driving at nearly half the speed limit. The officer saw Garner's eyes were bloodshot and his hands were shaking, and a computerized record check showed Garner was on parole, according to court records.

Another officer arrived and spotted what appeared to be a marijuana cigar behind Garner's ear, according to records. Garner admitted it was marijuana, and while an officer was patting him down, he pulled a plastic bag out of his pocket and said: "I got some drugs in here. I'm just gonna go ahead and lay down on the ground."

Police eventually found 82 grams of crack cocaine in the truck in addition to the 13 grams in his pocket.

Garner told officers he had bought 3.25 ounces of crack cocaine in Lawrence and planned to sell it and double his money.

According to U.S. Atty. Eric Melgren, Garner faces a mandatory life sentence because of the amount of cocaine combined with his past convictions in Leavenworth County for sale of cocaine and sale of marijuana.

The case was the first one prosecuted in federal court by Douglas County Assistant Dist. Atty. Brandon Jones, who recently received a special designation allowing him to try federal cases.

Dist. Atty. Charles Branson said involving Jones with federal cases would allow more drug dealers caught in Lawrence to be charged in federal court, where penalties are stiffer.

"If you're a drug dealer, we're going to get you off the street one way or the other," Branson said. "If we've got to take you on up to federal court to do so, we're going to do that."

Call or write Douglas County (Kan.) District Attorney Charles Branson at (785) 841-0211 or districtattorney@douglas-county.com and tell him that this kind of draconian sentence is a discredit to his office and to the justice system in Kansas.

Al Gore for President 2008

To follow up on yesterday's post, I encourage readers of redglare to sign the Al Gore for President Draft Petition. If I could find a Russ Feingold for Vice President petition, I would direct to that too!

Dear Vice-President Gore,

We petition you as concerned citizens.

This nation needs a leader with vision, experience and passion. Americans of every political persuasion are tired of the neglect, greed, cronyism, corruption, and gross incompetence of the current administration. Our next President faces the daunting task of putting the country back on track on many domestic and international fronts.

Our nation's economy, which stands at the brink of financial bankruptcy, requires significant course-correction to return to the strong and robust state that you helped build during your tenure as Vice-President. Special interest-driven policies of the current administration imperil the environment; your extensive knowledge and lifelong commitment are sorely needed in crafting forward-thinking, sustainable, and balanced environmental policies. The provisions of our social safety net originally designed to offer a helping hand to the neediest among us were severely undermined during the long winter of Republican Congressional domination, and they await revitalization.

On the international front, the unwarranted, ill-advised, and ill-waged war in Iraq (that you firmly opposed in unequivocal terms from the beginning) continues to burn financial resources, diminish our international credibility and, most important, take the lives of Americans, their allies and countless Iraqi citizens. And yet the outcome remains uncertain. Our next President faces the task of resolving the Iraq quagmire and mending our weakened international relationships.

Mr. Gore, as a man of stature, intelligence, experience, visionary leadership, and deep, well-deserved respect at home and abroad, you are uniquely qualified to meet and master the many challenges facing the next leader of the United States of America.

The idea of your candidacy appeals to a broad cross-section of the electorate, and promises to energize scores of progressive grassroots volunteers who will stand with you every step of the way.

We ask you to take on the mantle of leadership, and accept the myriad calls for you to seek the Presidency of the United States.

Thank You.

No Flip-Flops

I knew John Kerry was going to lose the 2004 presidential election. I knew because I attended the Republican convention at Madison Square Garden in New York on a press pass. It was so obvious that the GOP had Kerry’s number. It wasn’t just those “Terrorists [HEART] John Kerry” signs. It was those goddamned flip-flops.

The flip-flops, which were nowhere to be seen the first night of the Republican convention, were everywhere by the end of the festivities. People were clapping flip-flops together instead of using their hands.

And the problem wasn’t simply that Kerry had changed positions on issues, like saying he’d voted against funding the Iraq War before he’d voted for it. That was an explainable, if damaging, gaffe.

The problem was the flip-flops had a deep metaphorical power. John Kerry had not only “flip-flopped,” as the Repugs repeated mercilessly, on issues of war and peace. But John Kerry, with his elongated visage and patrician chin, had a face shaped somewhat like a flip-flop.

Kerry’s windsurfing photo-op, which was one of the worst photo-op ideas since “Mission Accomplished,” re-enforced the well-founded impression that Kerry pursued a namby-pamby, elite, flip-flop lifestyle: toes in the sand, shades on, New York Times and iced cappuccinos.

The Bushes clear brush on the ranch.

Meantime, the Bushies were scaring the bejesus out of America with terror alerts and images of mushroom clouds and dirty bombs. They were swiftboating Kerry, who looked weak when he couldn’t defend himself from GOP lies and deceit. And America thought, “Jeez, if this Kerry can’t defend himself from that nice good ol’ boy George Bush, how the hell is going to keep my family safe from Usama bin Laden?”

I was disappointed Kerry didn’t defend himself more vigorously, and that disappointment was magnified when Kerry did nothing to challenge the weird Ohio voting anomalies, leaving it to Barbara Boxer to do the fighting when it came time to challenge the election results in the Senate.

So, in 2006 and 2008, let’s get behind Democrats that will fight for themselves, their party and their country. The Democratic presidential candidates from the last two cycles, Gore and Kerry, could both be candidates in 2008.

From what I’ve seen of both, I favor Al Gore. Gore’s new fire and sense of righteous indignation makes him almost unrecognizable as that wooden, robotic candidate from 2000. Being robbed of the presidency has deepened Gore and made him seem more human. Gore has been a forceful and passionate advocate of civil liberties and a common sense foreign policy. He has the experience and the name recognition to win in primaries and, after all, we’ve already elected him vice president twice and president once.

I’m not trying to put down John Kerry. He’s served his country well and is an honorable man. But Al Gore makes a better candidate and should be our next president.

No Reason to Smile

Anytime I’m feeling down or uninspired or hopeless about the affairs of our country and the state of our democracy, I find that revisiting this photo of Norm Coleman (R-Minn.) from his pre-Senate days makes me happy again. What an amazing grin!

Coleman’s dentist put this “before” shot on his web site a couple of years ago. I can’t believe this Coleman doofus beat Walter Mondale at anything! I wish a true American patriot, Paul Wellstone, were still in that Senate seat!

Anyway, with Alberto “we don’t need no stinkin’ warrants” Gonzales today defending the illegal wiretapping of Americans, refusing to tell Senators if U.S. Mail is being opened (it is), and basically laying down a fantastical argument for tyranny, I needed a lift. Thanks, Norm.

Is Jon Stewart Going Right Wing?

Strange to say I am highly annoyed with my longtime favorite TV show, The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. I am afraid Stewart may be going over to the dark side, perhaps because he has become so successful and popular.

He will host this year’s Oscars, after all. How much more establishment can you get than that?

On the Feb. 2 show, Stewart derided grieving mom Cindy Sheehan for her ejection from the State of the Union address, comparing her to King Kong in a ridiculous graphic. Next, he fixed his attention upon her support of Hugo Chavez, who he accused of jailing journalists, saying they’re “currently serving the four year prison term you get in Venezuela for criticizing Chavez in the press.”

Does this sound like Rush Limbaugh, or what?

STEWART: Cindy Sheehan. The antiwar activist was invited to attend the speech by a democratic congresswoman but was arrested just beforehand.

REPORTER (VIDEO): Can you tell us why you were arrested?

SHEEHAN (VIDEO): Because I was wearing a shirt.

STEWART: Arrested for wearing a shirt! My god, it’s the opposite of COPS! Seriously, that’s the worst thing to tell your cell mate. ‘What are you in for?’ ‘Wearing a shirt.’ Anyway the offending shirt read, ‘2,242 dead. How many more?’ Sadly she has already had to modify it.

SHEEHAN (VIDEO): I was surprised by just the overwhelming use of I think excessive force against me last night

STEWART: The arrest was shocking. I saw the footage and honestly I thought it was a little harsh.

[Graphic of Sheehan looking absurd as King Kong atop the Empire State Building]

STEWART: I knew the shackles were okay, but to bring in the planes I thought that was too much. So a grieving war mother arrested in the People’s House for a somber antiwar statement. Is there any way this poor woman could squander our sympathy?

[VIDEO OF SHEEHAN AND HUGO CHAVEZ w/ graphic underneath reading “The Antiwar Movement” that stays up under Chavez alone for about five seconds]

STEWART: Ugh! She’s hugging Hugo Chavez! Well played ma’am. Yes that’s Venezuelan pres Hugo Chavez, well known for his strong anti-U.S. rhetoric, suppression of political opposition and support for Cuban dictator Fidel Castro.

SHEEHAN (VIDEO): I appreciate your courage and your stance against the empire of George Bush and my government

STEWART: Great. So now Hugo Chavez has his Christmas card this year. I guess he can send it to everyone currently serving the four-year prison term you get in Venezuela for criticizing Chavez in the press.

There are problems with press freedoms in Venezuela, but not of the sort or extreme Jon Stewart alleges in his show. This is from the International Press Institute, which has places Venezuela on its watchlist:

Venezuela
Placed on the list on 29 October 2000, the original press release on Venezuela stated, “President Chávez, who swept to power in February 1999, on a left of centre platform, has alienated important sectors of society and has frequently criticised local and foreign media for ‘distorting’ his proposals for reform.”

The decision was reaffirmed on 26 January 2001, 20 October 2001, 10 May 2002 and 23 November 2002. On 13 September 2003, the Executive Board of IPI voted to keep Venezuela on the list. The decision came after the report from an IPI mission to the country that said, “[the] deterioration of press freedom was the result of President Hugo Chávez’s frequent verbal attacks on the press, which are an incitement to physical violence against the media, and the inefficiency of the authorities in investigating and punishing those responsible for crimes against journalists.” The decision to keep the country on the IPI Watch List was reaffirmed at a board meeting on 15 May 2004.

And this is from the Committee to Protect Journalists’ 2004 country-by-county report “Attacks on the Press:”

Several worrying legal developments in Venezuela curtailed press freedom in 2004. In particular, a new broadcast media law could be used to restrict news coverage critical of the government.

Conflict between President Hugo Chávez Frías and the private media continued in 2004. Soon after Chávez was elected in 1998 on promises of a "democratic revolution" and radical reform, the press aligned itself with the opposition, whose vision for the future of Venezuela severely conflicted with Chávez's. Because many opposition parties were disorganized or discredited, the media helped fill the void and became one of the most powerful sources of government opposition. Chávez has often blasted the private press and accused media owners of being "coup-plotters," "fascists," and "terrorists." He has also threatened to shut down private TV channels' broadcasts, and his government has used state-owned media as a counterweight to private media. Private media, meanwhile, have often openly promoted the agenda of opposition parties.

Government intolerance of both international and domestic criticism persisted. Officials accused the Washington, D.C.–based Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), its Executive Secretary Santiago A. Canton, and the IACHR's Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression Eduardo Bertoni of bias and prejudice against the Venezuelan government. In his radio and TV call-in program, "Aló, Presidente" (Hello, President), Chávez accused Venezuelan human rights organizations of receiving U.S. government funds to conspire against his government.

Journalists were attacked throughout 2004, but the most serious incidents occurred in early June, while Venezuelans waited for the Electoral National Council to verify signatures that eventually triggered a referendum on Chávez's rule, which the president won. Government supporters attacked two media outlets in Caracas.

The attackers threw stones and other objects at the offices of Radio Caracas Televisión and crashed a stolen truck into its entrance and set it on fire. When National Guard troops arrived minutes later, the attackers left. Two hours later, about 20 people threw bottles and stones at the building housing the daily El Nacional (The National) and burned a newspaper truck. They then rammed a truck into the gates of the building's parking lot and ransacked the adjacent administrative offices of the tabloid Así es la Noticia (That Is the News), which is owned by El Nacional's publishing company, damaging computers, furniture, and windows. They dispersed at around 5 p.m., when National Guard troops came and restored order.

Claiming that the Venezuelan government had failed to protect the safety and the right to freedom of expression of the two newspapers' employees, in June the IACHR requested that the Inter-American Court of Human Rights intervene. In July, the Inter-American Court issued a resolution asking Venezuelan authorities to guarantee the safety of the newspapers' staff and their right to freedom of expression.

On December 7, the National Assembly formally approved the Law of Social Responsibility in Radio and Television, which was immediately signed into law by Chávez and went into effect two days later. A controversial law drafted by the National Telecommunications Commission (Conatel), it was introduced in January 2003 before the National Assembly by pro-government legislators who said the legislation was needed to "establish the social responsibility" of TV and radio broadcasters.

Although legislators stripped the law of some of its most onerous provisions in 2003, it contains vaguely worded restrictions that could hamper freedom of expression. Under Article 29, for instance, television and radio stations that disseminate messages that "promote, defend, or incite breaches of public order" or "are contrary to the security of the Nation" may be suspended for up to 72 hours. If a media outlet repeats the infractions within the next five years, its broadcasting concession may be suspended for up to five years.

Article 7 of the law allows broadcasting "graphic descriptions or images of real
violence" from 5 a.m. to 11 p.m. only if the broadcast is live and the content is "indispensable" for understanding the information or is aired as a consequence of unforeseen events. Local TV channels refrained from airing footage of violent riots that occurred in Caracas in early December for fear of violating the law.

Also in December, pro-government legislators approved reforms to more than
30 articles in the Penal Code. The amended articles broadened the categories of government officials who may invoke so-called desacato (disrespect) provisions, which criminalize expressions that are offensive to public officials and state institutions, and drastically increased criminal penalties for defamation and slander. CPJ believes that the reforms are intended to punish dissent and were approved hastily, ignoring other efforts to reform the Penal Code that were already under discussion in the National Assembly.

In early September, Mauro Marcano, a radio host and columnist, was shot dead by unidentified attackers in the city of Maturín, the capital of eastern Monagas State. At the time of his murder, he was also a municipal councilman and had long been involved in politics. According to journalists, Marcano aggressively denounced drug trafficking and police corruption, and in the past police had captured drug traffickers based on his reporting. In late September, the National Assembly established a special legislative committee to investigate Marcano's murder. CPJ continues to monitor the case to determine if Marcano was killed for his journalistic work.

In March, military prosecutors charged journalist Patricia Poleo with inciting rebellion and defaming the Venezuelan armed forces after she showed a video that allegedly revealed the presence of Cubans at a Venezuelan military base. The opposition has alleged that the Cuban government helps indoctrinate Venezuelans, which Venezuelan officials have repeatedly denied. In November, Poleo announced that prosecutors had dropped the case against her.

Also in November, military prosecutors charged columnist Manuel Isidro Molina with defaming the armed forces for writing that a retired air force colonel who disappeared had been beaten and killed at military intelligence facilities. When it turned out that the retired officer was alive, Molina acknowledged his error and published a correction. His lawyers have requested that his case be transferred to a civilian court.

And from Reporters Without Borders 2004 Press Freedom Index:

Bombings, physical attacks and threats to journalists and media hostile to President Hugo Chávez were fewer than last year in Venezuela but remained frequent and partly explain the country’s low place (90th) on the list. However tension has eased a little since Chávez won a 15 August referendum confirming him in office.

Again, serious problems but nothing like the “four-year prison term you get in Venezuela for criticizing Chavez in the press,” Jon Stewart claims.

My wife says maybe the Daily Show just got some bad information, and I hope she’s right. The reason I care is because the show has been so consistently great for so long.

Has anybody else detected right wing talking points in the Daily Show’s comedy lately?

Jimmy Carter: My Favorite President

I have a nasty, evil cold right now (it’s not avian flu, right?). I’m taking it easy and getting bed rest and plenty of liquids. Until I’m 100 percent better, I plan to lay off heavy-duty redglare writing duties, and let some smarter people do the talking for once.

I saw former President Jimmy Carter on Larry King Live on Wednesday night, and thought he had a bunch of great things to say.

Of U.S. presidents in power during my lifetime (I was born in 1970) Carter is my favorite, despite the “malaise” stuff. He is the one American president who acted morally, and serves an example of what I consider to be a true Christian, as opposed to the bloodthirsty, hateful brand of “Christianity” lately on display by America’s leaders.

Here are some of Carter’s best quotes....

On Bush’s ‘illegal wiretapping....

KING: What do you make of -- what do you make of warrantless wiretapping? The president defends it almost daily. In a major speech in Nashville today he did a long defense of it as he did in the State of the Union.

CARTER: I think it's illegal and improper and unnecessary. There's no reason at all why this president, as have all presidents in history, if they want to get or wiretap American citizens then all they have to do is go to a court that's set up for that purpose and let judges agree with the president that this American citizen needs to have his or her telephone tapped because it's a matter of security. That's all that has to be done.

So, there's a legal way to do it and an illegal way to do it and I think in the last two or three years we've been seeing it done and just found out that it has been done illegally. That's not necessary.

On the government’s bungled Katrina response....

KING: What's your overall view of Katrina and the very short amount of time paid by the president to it in the State of the Union?

CARTER: Well, all of us know the extreme disaster that afflicted not only New Orleans but major parts of Alabama and Mississippi. It was one of the greatest natural catastrophes in the history of our country and there were major promises made that New Orleans would be built back the way it was.

I think now after all these months the attention being given to it has been minimal and the amount of actual reconstruction has been extremely disappointing and the degree of priority that it has at the top level of our government, that is in the White House, I think was indicated by the very casual mention of it during the president's speech.

So, I hope this is not an indication of the federal agencies, all of them, state agencies as well and private organizations abandoning many of the people who have suffered in New Orleans and now are very doubtful about whether they'll ever have a home to go back to in those regions that were damaged.

KING: Why on earth would we give minimal attention to this devastation? I mean what would be the -- how could we reason that?

CARTER: I don't know. I think it's an unreasonable aftermath of this horrible catastrophe and I don't think any American, if there was a poll done, I think it would be 99 percent of all Americans would say let's give the Katrina victims top priority.

Let's make sure that they can have their lives restored. Let's build the dike to protect them from future flooding and let's give them adequate facilities to rebuild homes even better than they were. I think that's what Americans would like to see.

And, I'm very distressed not only at the lack of attention given when the catastrophe first occurred, which brought discredit on our government and on FEMA, an organization that I established earlier, but it also now is bringing additional and sustained discredit on the attention that our government is giving to these poor people.

And, finally, on Bush’s failed Iraq War....

CARTER: No, I haven't supported it from the very beginning. In fact, I wrote a major, I thought it was a major editorial in "The New York Times" a few months before we invaded Iraq pointing out that it was an unnecessary and unjust war and the editorial was repeated on full page ads in a lot of other newspapers.

So, I've always been against the war. But once we got there, obviously we need to give our young men and women our absolute and full support, so I'm not in favor of an immediate withdrawal. I think we ought to decide as a nation that we will turn over as quickly as possible not only the military responsibilities to the Iraqi people but also let them manage their own economic affairs.

I don't think we have any idea now of turning over their oil supplies and let them handle who gets to manage the oil, like even France and Russia and I hope we'll back off and let them run their own political affairs.

But, what I believe is that there are people in Washington now, some of our top leaders, who never intend to withdraw military forces from Iraq and they're looking for ten, 20, 50 years in the future...

KING: Why?

CARTER: ...having major American military board -- well, because that was the reason that we went into Iraq was to establish a permanent military base in the Gulf region and I have never heard any of our leaders say that they would commit themselves to the Iraqi people that ten years from now there will be no military bases of the United States in Iraq.

I would like to hear that. But that's one of the things that concerns Iraqi people. And when I meet with Arab leaders around the world they all have noticed this. They're the ones that have brought it to my attention and I think it's an accurate statement.

KING: Do you believe that's the intent of the administration to keep the -- when you say high officials do you mean the Bush administration wants to keep troops in Iraq ad infinitum?

CARTER: Yes, I do and I hope I'm wrong. I don't think there's any doubt that we did not need to go into Iraq. We went in there under false pretenses, either inadvertent misunderstanding of intelligence or maybe deliberate. I'm not saying it was deliberate. I don't think President Bush was deliberately misleading us, maybe some of his subordinates.

But, I think it was a mistake to go in and I think that the United States has got to make sure that the Iraqi people know and the surrounding neighbors know we're willing to get our troops out of Iraq when and if a government is established and I hope that will be soon and the Iraqis are able to maintain order.

And, I think a lot of the violence that takes place now in the streets of Iraq are caused by the fact that American troops are still there. I think that will in itself that change will automatically reduce the terrorism considerably.

State of the Union

Watching last night’s speech, I can’t understand how the Democrats sit there in the chamber, listening to King George the Incompetent spout unrepentant fantasies about America, freedom and democracy, without walking out en masse while together humming “The Star Spangled Banner.”

I mean, I know we’re supposed to have a “loyal opposition” in this country, but things have gone too far in this direction. Look, Democrat Henry Cuellar, pictured above, is in kissy-face mode!

If the Democrats dutifully sit there out of respect for the office of the Presidency, I wish they wouldn’t. Bush has showed no respect to the Congress or the Constitution, so why should Democrats in Congress play props for his SOTU propaganda?

Rather, call in sick. Don’t show up. If you do, boo the guy. Chant “Stop Spying on Us!” Leave when they arrest Cindy Sheehan for her free speech tee shirt. Walk out when Bush smirks “freedom is on the march.” Refuse to shake Rumsfeld’s hand. Stop smooching Condi Rice. Get out of there.

Bush, in his speech, actually evoked a “system of two parties” as if the Republican/Democratic monopoly on power was enshrined in the U.S. Constitution rather than a sign of our calcified, stagnant system of politics. And, watching the Dems and Repugs backslapping and chuckling over who gives standing O’s for which lines, its easy to see why Bush mistakenly thinks we have a “system of two parties.”

This week, a couple of dozen Senate Dems found enough spine to vote against cloture in the Alito confirmation process. That is, I guess, considered a victory by some progressives. But last night, there was Alito in his SCOTUS robes nonetheless. In reality, it was never even close.

Enough of the collegiality, dammit. Until the end of the Bush monarchy, all Democrats, indeed all lovers of democracy, need to be in scorched earth, bare-knuckles, take-no-prisoners fighting mode.