Office of the Independent Blogger

There are some issues I’ve failed to address and musings I missed. In the case of the FBI, I sent, I believe, mixed messages while in other cases I’ve been painfully absent. That changes with this post.

I never took an explicit stance on the FBI raid of Jefferson’s offices, although I did link to Hastert’s arguments (before promptly ridiculing him for his inconsistency although I do believe I implied agreement with his stance that the search was unwarranted). Bruce Reed’s lampooning of the Congress is an excellent read — “Not so long ago, conservatives went into politics because they believed there was no such thing as unreasonable search and seizure. In their world view, only a criminal-coddling liberal would cower behind trumped-up constitutional concerns, rather than stand with honest law enforcement officials who were just doing their job.” And not so long ago, Conservatives believed in balanced budgets and prudent foreign policies.

Truthfully, after reviewing the situation with Jefferson, I think the bipartisan brouhaha over the search is silly. There’s no reason to label a Congressman’s offices off-limit from a search simply because it’s a Congressman’s office. Sure, there can be an argument that there needs to be a “balance” and “separation of powers” so as to “avoid a police state” by keeping the executive from searching offices in an effort to intimidate Congressman, but that’s quite a stretch of an argument. The truth is, there’s sufficient check and balance in the current process: if the FBI wants to search Jefferson’s office, they have to go through the Judicial branch to do it. I can’t believe that Democrats — although I’m specifically looking at the the inimitably hopeless Nancy Pelosi — have missed this opportunity to stand up for the law and stand against the culture of corruption. Instead of taking that, they’ve decided to stand for special priveleges for Congressman. That’s a shame, and I’m sorry to see so many in Congress protecting the worst amongst them and refusing to accept the fact that they are not above the Law.

There are two things that I’ve missed — big things, in my view — that much of the media has missed as well. The first involves Puerto Rico, which has been bankrupted. I find it such a shame that a nation’s public schools and government offices would have to be shut down without the assistance of Newt Gingrich. I think the Federal Government should do something to assist these people — we’ve held onto them as a colony, after all, and they’ve voted as recently as the 1990s so as to remain our colony. If we can bail out crooked industries in the United States, we can bail out one of our territories. Puerto Rico needs help, and I urge you to write your Congressman and Senators as I’ve mine.

My second missed story today is the death of Lloyd Bentsen. First, I’d like to say that Bentsen was Conservative with fiscal policy, to be sure, but he was no more a “supply side Economist” than I am, and second, to dispute the idea that “Lloyd Bentsen” and Bentson-types could not be elected or even nominated by the Democratic Party, I refer you to Pennsylvania, where Bob Casey is ripping Rick Santorum apart. Who says that the Big Tent is dead — that moderation is done with? “The Republicans do” you say? What credibility have they?

Colin Powell isn’t a hero, in my eyes. I’ve never liked Colin Powell, and I never will. Hell, I can’t even claim to grudgingly respect him because I don’t. Powell appalls me for his role in covering up the My Lai Massacre and for his inability to stop being a “good soldier” even though he’s been retired for ages. This isn’t unnecessary background information, as it’s very important considering another news story that I missed: the massacre in Hadith, Iraq. The story goes that some Americans slaughtered Iraqi civilians, and if that’s true, it’s a shame. There’s nothing I find more dishonorable than that, and a cover up of it. The whole situation is awful, but let me end there. I hope that those responsible are brought to justice and court martialed, and I hope that there isn’t another man waiting to Powell the investigation.

Fred Kaplan yesterday showed me yet again why his column is so dear to me, writing about “Condi Rice’s Lame Advice”, which he leads into with this:

A couple of weeks ago, according to the New York Observer, Sen. John McCain stood in a small back room of Manhattan’s Regency Hotel and told a group of wealthy political donors, “One of the things I would do if I were president would be to sit the Shiites and the Sunnis down and say, ‘Stop the bullshit.’” Someone in the room should have told McCain to do the same thing. Then again, McCain isn’t so different from Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who made a special trip to Baghdad last month with Britain’s then-Foreign Secretary Jack Straw for the purpose of telling the members of Iraq’s fractured leadership, “Start governing.” She made a similar plea on a second trip, a few weeks later, this time with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld: “The key now is to get the government up and running … and then go about the work of dealing with the security situation, dealing with the economic situation.”

It’s reminiscent of Ross Perot’s loopy run for the White House in 1992, when he told eager voters that he’d “just take a look under the hood and fix the problem”—as if politics were like making an engine run, when it’s more like deciding where the car should go. Does McCain really think that the disputes between Iraq’s Shiites and Sunnis—a complex of historical, social, tribal, cultural, religious, and economic fissures—amount to nothing deeper than “bullshit” that can be swept away by a session of sit-down and straight-talking?

It goes on to discuss the complexities of the situation, and I urge you to read it. I will add my own two cents and take this opportunity to say that this is why I detest John McCain like I do. He’s just like any other Republican — as simple as George Bush, as likeable as Bill Frist, as sophisticated as Newt Gingrich, and that’s not a compliment.

If you need proof that environmentally sound is the way to go, come to Chicago. There’s a lot to see, from Navy Pier to a White Sox game, from the Loop to that Gregory Pratt fellow to the greenery. People don’t realize it, and a lot of Chicagoans don’t appreciate it, but our town’s probably the greenest city in America, and I’d recommend the path it’s taken to most Mayors, for its economic purposes and because it’s pleasant. So come to town and we’ll make a show of the greenery, and then you can badger your Mayors.

Secretary Tony Snow, the Bush Treasury Secretary, has resigned to be replaced by Henry Paulson, a man from Goldman Sachs. It was a matter of time before Tony Snow resigned, as Tony Snow was to the Treasury Secretary what green snow is to nature — not good, and unnatural to boot. Unfortunately, Paulson is destined to be worse.

Paulson is an environmentalist, and a supporter of the Kyoto Protocol. By all means, he’s an intelligent, logical man. And that’s why he won’t fit in the Bush White House. Paul O’Neill was run out of town for having fact-based beliefs, as you can read in The Price of Loyalty, and there’s nothing to suggest that Paulson’s ideas will be taken any more seriously. At the end of the day, Bush knows what his gut tells him, and that’s that Global Warming is not to be taken serious, tax cuts are always good, and Karl Rove has the right ideas about everything.

Paulson is a pawn in their political game, a cheap tribute to the Republicans who wanted a new Treasurer and an appeal to Democrats who they are counting on to be blind to history. Don’t get your hopes up for him to make any sort of major impact on a positive level, or even a negative impact. This is George Bush’s White House, I predict, and I doubt that anything will change. I’d like to add a caveat, however: if Josh Bolten is as excellent as I feel he is, and Bush has really turned the corner in regard to seeking good government, Paulson will be listened to.

I don’t expect that, however. I expect Paulson to leave Washington in a couple of years deeply disillusioned, and it won’t be a surprise to me.

In Conservative circles, there’s a mantra that fifty cents of every dollar spent by the government is wasted. Clearly that’s an overstatement — although I’ll bet there’s no shortage of charts meant to prove that hyperbolic assertion — but there are, very often, ridiculous errors in government. The entire Bush Administration is one, but this is another. The current Governor of Indiana — who is, for background’s sake, the hack who used to head Bush’s Budget Department and was an important figure in drawing up deficits — writes about toll roads, and how, before, it cost twice as much to operate toll booths as what was charged, so that the government lost money in collecting it.

Daniels sought to correct that, and his program was an excellent example of good government. That is, however, about the only example of government done well that I’ve got today as my next story involves Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who threatened to quit as Attorney General if Bush ordered the FBI to give up the documents it found while searching a Congressman’s office for corruption. It’s a testament to Gonzales’ reign as AG that his threatened resignation would occur over something like this, when he should be threatening to resign because of the abuses of power by the Bush White House (NSA), or because he’s being given such shoddy assignments by the Bush White House.

What do I mean? Perhaps he doesn’t see them as shoddy. Bush has given Gonzales the instruction to go after pornographic search records on Google, amongst other X-Rated assignments. Now if I were the Attorney General, I’d be offended that an assignment such as this would be given me. But then again, I’m not the Attorney General, and Republicans have a history of nominating perverts. Perhaps a penchant for the obscene explains Gonzales refusal to threaten resignation up until now?

On this Memorial Day, let me take a brief break from satire to wish all servicemen, alive and dead, the best, and note that the men and women of our armed forces are in my thoughts. Now, with that said, I’d like to say that President Truman is in my thoughts, as he is in George W. Bush’s, who has compared himself to Truman in recent days. I’ve always been a staunch critic of Republicans who want to exploit Truman — he is not their long lost father — and today is no exception. If Republicans want to compare themselves to Truman, they’ve got to give us the complete package, and that means Universal Health Care.

Earlier, I mentioned Mitch’s tollways as an example of good government, and here’s bad government, courtesy of the Bush Administration. I’ll tell you, Republicans have a reputation for being greedy, but they sure do like giving us bad government by the truckful! Today’s stories? First, that they want to kill elks with sharpshooters to thin a Colorado elk herd. Brilliant.

The second? They continue refusing to talk to Iran, although they are debating amongst themselves over it. I won’t get my hopes up, simply because the Republicans don’t like high hopes.

To close, there’s this story, which is simply ugly government.

Doctors said sexually transmitted diseases among senior citizens are running rampant at a popular Central Florida retirement community, according to a Local 6 News report. A gynecologist at The Villages community near Orlando, Fla., said she treats more cases of herpes and the human papilloma virus in the retirement community than she did in the city of Miami. “Yeah, they are very shocked (to hear the diagnosis),” gynecologist Dr. Colleen McQuade said. “I had a patient in her 80s.”

There’s no other way to describe it.

You remember the Danish cartoon saga, where a newspaper published a couple of pictures only to be met with furious Muslims through Europe and the Arab world? That publisher is speaking publicly and denouncing “multiculturalism” in Europe. To be sure, Europeans have a lot of social problems, but I think the Danish cartoons don’t illustrate that Europeans have to rethink their laws on immigration, as the author suggests, or other issues: I think it shows us that Europe needs to grow a pair of testicles. When something like this occurs, the answer is to defend Freedom of Speech and enforce the Rule of Law. It isn’t to bend over backwards because a couple of kooks burnt a couple of cars. It isn’t the time, either, to take such an event and say, “We need to rethink immigration!” because that’s not the problem. Europe’s problem, so clearly demonstrated in Denmark, is a refusal to stand up to a violent minority.

This, of course, may sound similar to what he’s arguing, but it shouldn’t be as there’s a distinct difference: I believe that all minorities, political and otherwise, have to abide by the rule of law, and that nobody — not the majority or the minority — has a right to take to the streets in violence to censor someone else. Salman Rushdie deserves to live, and a backlash shouldn’t be had against immigration because of crackpots. A backlash should be held against the leaders of Europe — Jacques Chirac comes to mind — who deal in appeasement, and stronger leaders ought to be elected. The reaction to violence in the streets shouldn’t be modeled after Hitler’s but Nixon’s — minus the wiretaps or burglaries. Know what I’m saying?

Victor Hanson is out calling Iraq “a War to Be Proud Of” and I think he’s about right. We all know that I’m a supporter of the Iraq War, its principles and its goals. We all know, additionally, that I am not a Bush-type supporter of the War, and that my reasons to support the War range from supplemental, similar and independent of the Administration’s . But at the end of the day, I come down on the Right about Iraq. And while I don’t agree with all of the article — it is far too sympathetic to Rumsfeld and Bush, in my view — I do think it’s worth a read. Much like Tony Blair’s latest speech on the subject is worth listening to.

I don’t want to reopen past arguments. I want to advocate a new concord to displace the old contention. It is three years since Saddam fell. It has been three years of strife and bloodshed. But it has also seen something remarkable. Despite it all, despite terror, sectarian violence, kidnapping and the exhibition of every ugly aspect of human nature, a democratic political process has grown. Last week, a new Government was formed. This Monday I visited it in Baghdad, I sat and talked with the leaders, chosen by the people, Sunni, Shia, Kurds, non-aligned, and heard from them not the jarring messages of warring factions but one simple, clear and united discourse. They want Iraq to be democratic. They want its people to be free. They want to tolerate difference and celebrate diversity. They want the rule of law not violence to determine their fate.

They were quite different from the Interim Government of 2004 or the Iraqi Transitional Government after the elections of January 2005. This is a child of democracy struggling to be born. They and we, the international community, are the midwives. You may not agree with original decision. You may believe mistakes have been made. You may even think how can it be worth the sacrifice. But surely we must all accept this is a genuine attempt to run the race of liberty. These are not stooges. Or placemen. They believe in their country. They believe in its capacity to be democratic. They are fighting a struggle against the odds but they are fighting it. And in their struggle is a symbol of a wider struggle. Listen to what the new Prime Minister says and the new Government’s programme. Tell me where their vision differs from ours except that ours is based in experience and theirs in hope. I came back from Iraq not less daunted by the responsibility on our shoulders to help them succeed. But I did come back inspired by their determination that they do indeed succeed. This should be a moment of reconciliation not only in Iraq but in the international community. The war split the world. The struggle of Iraqis for democracy should unite it.

If the reaction of European politicians to Iraq and Denmark cast a shameful shadow over Europe — which I believe they did, and I don’t think it’s yet to lift — then Tony Blair is a ray of sunshine cracking through, and I do hope that men like him can take over in countries all across Europe. I love Tony Blair, and I find him the most capable leader on the global scene. Can’t you tell?

I’ve very much been a critic of China and Russia on these pages, criticizing these two nations for their refusal to respect human rights and Democracy, as well as for their increasing militarism. While I do consider them a threat to us, I’ve always thought of the threat as more political than anything else. Russia and China have votes on the Security Council and can sabotage just about any multilateral attempt the United States makes at accomplishing something. I have never, however, discounted the possibility of armed confrontation with these two nations. Indeed, I’ve always been a proponent of defending Taiwan against invasion, but I’ve never bought the hype that China is going to replace the United States as the world’s superpower.

Why? There is no way it can sustain the Economic growth it has sustained for a decade, and, being completely honest, I wouldn’t be too terribly surprised if the Chinese had a civil war in future years, as that has been a recurring scene in Chinese history. As far as war with America goes, it is very well possible, but I can’t see the Chinese deciding to destroy their own country.

I came across this Fred Kaplan piece about China, and he’s gone through all the reasons that the Chinese threat is overhyped by Conservatives. He dissects the annual Pentagon report on China to do this, and after he’s done, he concludes that the Chinese merely serve as a boogeyman for Conservatives to use when they want to build a million different weapon systems. To make his point, he recounts a story involving Defense Secretary McNamara:

It’s an old, recurring story, this business of latching on to China as a rationale for big weapons or budgets that would otherwise be baseless. Back in 1967, President Lyndon B. Johnson ordered his Secretary of Defense, Robert McNamara, to build some kind of anti-ballistic-missile system. McNamara was opposed to an ABM system. He’d recently ordered a study that concluded an ABM would be futile because the Soviets could counter our defensive missiles by just slightly increasing the number of their offensive missiles. But an order was an order, so McNamara gave a speech in which he outlined all the reasons an ABM was a bad idea—then concluded that we needed to build one anyway to defend against an attack by Red China.

Paul Warnke, at the time an assistant secretary of defense, walked into McNamara’s office later that day and asked, “China bomb, Bob?” Warnke told me, many years later, that McNamara looked down at his desk, shuffled some papers, and muttered, “What else am I going to blame it on?”

I think Kaplan is about right, although I wouldn’t be as dismissive of Chinese ambitions as him. The People’s Republic is worth keeping an eye on, to be sure.

Off of the People’s Republic, I’d like to discuss The New Republic; specifically, this article on “a New Conservatism,” Night Conservatism. It’s quite the chronicle of Conservatism’s many iterations, and it correctly points out that the mood amongst Conservatives, that their rhetoric — that it’s all changing.

I’m not sure if I completely buy its premise, as there is far more to Conservatism than what it suggests, and there are many more periods of Thought in their history that go unmentioned. But, all things considered, it’s a good piece to read. Very informative.

If you had told me two years ago that I’d find humor in a story about a Congressman’s office being searched by the FBI due to the rumblings of corruption, I’d have thought you daffy. Last weekend, however, the FBI searched Congressman William Jefferson’s office, and it led to Nancy Pelosi and Dennis Hastert coming together to speak out against the search. Jefferson is, all signs indicate, a crooked politician who belongs in prison. Regardless, there’s “a right way and a wrong way to conduct searches within the boundary of the Constitution, argues Dennis Hastert, and he’s right — he’s absolutely right. The FBI doesn’t have the right to do what it did, and the integrity of the government would be tarnished even further if the Speaker assented to these types of searches on Congressman.

It’s a shame the Speaker only finds it appropriate to exercise Constitutional Caution when the situation concerns himself and his peers rather than millions of Americans. Self interest precedes ideology in today’s Republican Party. The humorous thing about this lies with the rich irony that Hastert would be opposed to searches of Congressional offices but not the invasion of tens of millions of phone lines. Surprisingly, President Bush has done the right thing and ordered the records sealed that were gained in the weekend’s search for awhile.

Today, the Senate confirmed Hayden to be the Director of the CIA, and they’ve condoned the Honor Killing the Bush Administration is intent upon. What an incredibly ironic moment — the Republican Leadership of the Senate supported Hayden. The GOP House didn’t. Hastert is up in arms over a nasty search. Republicans confirm a man who loves those. My my, Republicans. What biting irony you’ve got there!

The media is ironic, here, too. How ironic it is that the media has fallen in love with Al Gore? And how ironic is this? Iraq is backing Iran in their pursuit of nuclear materials.

If modern Republican diction isn’t enough to make an English Major chuckle at the absurdity of it all, then their ironies are enough to flatten a reader’s lungs from laughter. Until you take the time to realize that Truth is Stranger than Fiction.

It appears to me that, wherever the Republicans and media go, negativity will follow, taking you from bad to worse.

The situation with Iran has gone from being a diplomatic nightmare to a show of aggression, as Iran test-fired a long-range nuclear missile. The missile’s range would reach any point in Europe and strike anyplace in Israel.

While the Iranians have not, to my knowledge, commented upon the test yet, I’m going to go out on a limb and say that they’ll claim it was purely for transportation purposes. They need their missiles because someday, they’ll be using them to fly across continents. It’s purely peaceful, for sure, and any allegation to the contrary is a bigoted attempt to keep the Iranians on camels instead of missiles.

This is a faulty move on the part of the Iranians, of course. Presumably, they believe that shows of force and power will enable them to have higher leverage in negotiations. This isn’t so, of course, as what they’re doing is more likely to incite Israel into a frenzy and push George W. Bush — a man who already shudders to think of peaceful solutions — into half-hearting the discussions even more than he has already.

The world’s confrontation with Iran isn’t the only one going from bad to worse: the President’s White House is, as well, as he’s appointed his newest Chief Domestic Policy Advisor and it is a man from a Conservative magazine who writes about social issues, mainly. The man’s name is Karl Zinsmeister. If that doesn’t inspire confidence in the stomach of every American, I don’t know what will. I do know that Zinsmeister is no Bruce Reed. (A plug for The Has-Been!)

Congressional Republicans, too, have seen their situation go from bad to worse. Dennis Hastert is, says ABC, under investigation for corruption. To be fair, the Justice Department denies this, but to be even more fair, it is the Bush Justice Department. This is a Bush-League Government, pure and simple, and little that they say should be taken at face value.

Like this. Bush has given the Intelligence Czar the authority to exempt corporations from corporate laws. They can claim this justified in the name of National Security all they’d like, but this is, clearly, not.

Since I teased it by mentioning the media at first, the New York Times has this piece about the Clinton’s marriage, an article whose public purpose is minimal. I’m touched by the anecdote at the end, but I can’t quite grasp just what relevance it has to the public — what interest it is of the Times — what the Clinton marriage is like.

A teacher directed me today to an article I missed in the Journal yesterday, and I’m glad he pointed it out to me. The Journal’s latest piece is a criticism of Al Gore’s new film mixed with a dissection of environmentalists, and it’s worth a look, if nothing else. Essentially, it argues that there’s little reason to be worried over the environment, and certainly not about global warming. It seems to me that the only time the Wall Street Journal Opinion Page has worry in its pages is when the subject is Vince Foster or immigration, but that’s another story for another time. Just know that Vince Foster was a more probable threat to Americans (before the Journal chased him into suicide) than “Global warming” ever will be!

As mentioned, the article deals with “climate change” and is entitled, “Don’t Be Very Worried.” “The truth about “global warming” is much less dire than Al Gore wants you to think.” Notice, as you look through the article, that it begins with a dissection of other environmental standards, and not global warming before it finally reaches its stated subject. When it gets to climate change, the article rings the bell of “ALARMISTS!” and then makes note of a few little things that global warming ISN’T doing to the world (harming it, in their view). Yes, the article makes the point several times that global warming, if happening, is helping the world. There’s a list here to the contrary. But the thing that really stood out to me was this paragraph, which the author believed to bolster his point but that, I think, really knocks the wind out of it:

If it all sounds familiar, think back to the 1970s. After the first Earth Day the New York Times predicted “intolerable deterioration and possible extinction” for the human race as the result of pollution. Harvard biologist George Wald predicted that unless we took immediate action “civilization will end within 15 to 30 years,” and environmental doomsayer Paul Ehrlich predicted that four billion people–including 65 million American–would perish from famine in the 1980s.

I think that Ward’s “15-30″ prediction is extremely excessive, but nitpicks aside, I think this shows us that scientists calls need to be heard. Now, I’m no historian, and I’ve never written for a board that drove a man to suicide before, but I seem to recall that in the 1970s, the environmental movement kicked into gear with the birth of the EPA under Nixon. Who knows where we would’ve been had the EPA never been brought into existence and various laws not have been passed by the Congress of the 70s.

Who knows where we would be right now if this Congress stepped it up with regard to climate change. And, hell, who really knows where we would be right now if the Opinion Journal didn’t write articles that attack themselves! I know this: my blog would be a bit less interesting!

Now that we’re off the subject of Global Warming, we can get to the subject that really puts hot air back into the atmosphere: gay marriage. Specifically, this time, Karl Rove and Laura Bush are dueling over whether or not to politicize the issue. Perhaps I’m being a tad cynical, but I think that Laura Bush should be telling the President to read his memos instead of fighting over gay marriage.

But you know the Republicans. Their priorities are better set than ours. Like that Clarence Thomas fellow. He’s got excellent priorities, including prayers for the President because he’s “in real trouble.” I wonder if, in his prayers, he made mention of a high tech lynching at Pennsylvania Avenue — oh! I’ll bet that’s how Thomas would describe my blog!

Maybe Thomas should drive down to Pat Robertson’s place — that is, if he’s as worried as he seems to be — and pick up some of Robertson’s protein shake for the President. It’s so strong it makes Robertson able to leg lift two thousand pounds! Surely it can save a bungled Presidency!

Romania has given Dracula’s castle back to its owners after it was seized by the Communist, says this newspiece.

All these stories just spoof themselves, don’t they?

According to this column and a former NSA Director, Patrick Fitzgerald is going after Dick Armitage, Colin Powell’s former Deputy, and not Karl Rove. I haven’t written about the leak for awhile, and I ignored this report that Rove had been secretly indicted because, as anyone with half a knack for history will attest, “secret” typically means “doesn’t exist.” Richard Nixon’s plan to end the War in Vietnam, or Kerry’s for Iraq, for instance. Besides the fact that secret leaks such as this one typically mean fraud or deception, Fitzgerald is not a man who leaks. This isn’t a Bush-league Kenneth Starr we’re talking about.

Now, about the article: if it is true that Fitzgerald is going after Armitage, I’d be thrilled. While I can’t deny that I would love to see Karl Rove do jail time, and I’m certain that he was very much an integral part of this whole fiasco, the Fitzgerald Prosecution is not about seeking out members of the Bush White House: it’s about Valerie Plame and all that entails. This spin doesn’t make sense to me, however: Armitage was against the War. Why would he seek to discredit Wilson? Why would he out Plame? It doesn’t add up, and it seems, to me, to be an attempt to spin Fitzgerald’s investigation by redirecting focus frm Rove.

If Armitage does wind up indicted, and proof that he’s the target arises, by all means that’s excellent. But I’m not so sure I buy this report anymore than I bought the TruthOut one — and I was right in that case. Caution is an excellent thing to have, and it’s one of the reasons Fitzgerald is so deliberate — so excellent!

If you’ve read more than a handful of my entries, I am sure you’ve come across my attacks on conventional wisdom. Today, the WSJ debunks the myths about the Iraq War, and, humorously, its debunking itself needs a debunking from someone who wholeheartedly supported, and supports, the Iraq War. That person is me.

The myths he debunks, in reverse order, are that “Promoting democracy in the Middle East is a postwar rationalization”; “Because weapons of mass destruction stockpiles weren’t found, Saddam posed no threat”; “The Bush administration pressured intelligence agencies to bias their judgments”; and “The president misled Americans to convince them to go to war.” I find no problem with his debunking of the first two, but the last ones are surely not myths. Bush was absolutely misleading, about the costs of War and about what we knew about his capabilities. Donald Rumsfeld declared that we know “where they [WMD] are” at one point, remember?

So the WSJ gets it half-right. They’re batting .500. That’s better than they usually do once I’m through lobbing a forkball down the middle of the plate.

Amongst Conservatives, the Conventional Wisdom is that, since the 1960s, Liberals have substituted “feeling for deep thought” and have now gone into the ditch. This ignores the fact that Conservatism is the ideology which attracts some of the shallowest positions and politicians in politics. Despite the facts, there are those who charge that Deep Liberal Thought is Dead.

I will say this: I think the “Give Peace A Chance” doctrine of some modern Liberals (oh Ramsey Clark, at what Communist Convention art thou?) is shallow and reactionary much like some Hard-Right Nuke the World ideas are ridiculous. Sometimes, there are shoddy Liberal ideas or phrases, too, that aren’t very deep or meaningful. It’s certainly the same with Conservatives. But, in my view, it is absurd to declare Deep Thought of any sort to be dead. To defend Liberalism!

Democrats have to run campaigns. They have to appeal to the public. Sometimes that means simplifying their positions into catchphrases. Perhaps the author doesn’t understand the basics of politics, that you have to simplify your message to get it across. If he wants to read deep Liberal Thought, he can find it in a million different bookstores or Libraries. If he genuinely believes that thirty second commercials should be loaded with deep political thought, he’s dreaming. And if he wants to mislead his reader into believing that Liberalism is devoid of modern thought, he can keep on doing what he’s doing.

I will say, to close, that the article was spurred, by his admission, because Harry Reid called the Senate bill making English the official language “racist.” Isn’t it? It’s a reactionary move meant to belittle diversity. The author argues that it’s a reasonable way to maintain American identity. Well, we haven’t had an official language through millions of immigrants before. American identity isn’t going to be helped by something like this, and our identity is in no need of rescue. America’s identity is strong. And its identity, aside from a beacon of freedom, is as the melting pot. Maybe the author would understand that if he’d taken “Government 101.”

Reid’s reply to the bill wasn’t particularly deep, to be sure. It didn’t have to be, as the bill itself was shallow and worthy of ridicule. That’s simple enough, eh? Although I’m sure that somehow though I know not how this proves Liberal Thought dead!

Political pundits have a way of making themselves look foolish, whether it’s because they’re bloviating in the face of reality or are being challenged to a duel. If my world were perfect, we’d either have pundits who know what they’re talking about at all times – my world would, of course, be a lot like C-Span on weekends – or pundits that are always entertaining, like Chris Matthews being challenged to a duel or Alan Colmes enjoying the cold in Aruba. But my world isn’t perfect – it’s merely a channel on my television – and instead, pundits make fools of themselves with silly predictions and sophomoric hype.

The latest object of my ridicule? This prediction that Harry Reid will be defeated by his own voters in 2010. It’s a silly prediction to make for several reasons. His next election is a long way off, to say the least, and because Reid is a very popular figure in Nevada. Some might wonder if he’s a Daschle Redux, but the answer is probably no. While Daschle ran ads hugging Bush, Reid has called the man a liar and has been every bit the scrappy Senator as he used to be, even with his newfound power. I’m not a Nevadan, and can’t call myself an expert on their political trends, but I can’t see Reid losing. I predict that Reid will be the Senator from Nevada until he decides to retire. Ante up!

I read much during the day, and I’ve gotta tell you, there are all sorts of things I come across. “Jimmy Carter Is Right” isn’t often one of them, but that’s what the WSJ says today. What’s he right about? Even a broken clock is right twice a day, to be sure, but I think it’s a testament to how awkward and archaic our system is that Jimmy Carter of all people has the answer. Who’s willing to take me on — twenty to one odds that no one ever writes that line again except with the intent to ridicule!

Rounding out this entry is this piece about Al Gore’s unlikely helpers. Who are they? The oil industry lobbyists, and Republicans in Congress. Ironic is the most delicious meal. Aside from broccoli soup, or anything Italian.

The media frustrates me, because they’ve the most uncanny knack for coming to the wrong conclusion. Today the New York Times calls Al Gore a “pariah,” and generally puts his potential in a negative light. How? For one, the Times decided to recycle one of the great talking points of recent years, and that’s that “Democrats do not like their losing Presidential candidates, while Republicans have no problem calling on them a second or third time.” This is absolutely true, of course, but misleading.

When your losing candidates are Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis, Jimmy Carter and John Kerry, you don’t go back to them. It doesn’t mean that the Democratic Party wouldn’t have returned to Bill Clinton had he lost in 1992, or that John F. Kennedy would’ve been done for had he lost in 1960. The fact is that Al Gore is not an iceberg from Boston, nor is he a plaid figure who uses his convention address to declare that he intends to raise taxes. Gore is a man who won the Popular Vote and has rallied to the side of Liberalism since his defeat.

He’ll be fine, should he run, I think, but I know that it’s not with the grassroots of the Democratic Party that he’s a pariah: it’s in the newsrooms. It was the same way in the year 2000, when the Press called him a liar and the public voted for him. Life isn’t fair, of course, and that’s why Gore gets this treatment from the bigwigs in the press. If you win the election, the questions are never asked. If you lose, the criticism never stops. And if you lose the election but win the Popular Vote — well, you’re not the President, are you, so you must’ve done a poor job. By Golly, if you really wanted to be the President, you’d have a few more friends on the SCOTUS!

Nancy Pelosi is a Pariah, as well, but she’s a genuine pariah. At least, she is with the Republican Party. The article essentially recounts tales of Republicans using Nancy Pelosi, the House Minority Leader, to raise funds, and I fully expect George Bush and the Republicans to run for their lives while saying, “If you divorce us, Nancy Pelosi will be cooking your legislation!” The problem here is the same that Democrats encountered in 2004, 1994 and 1984 (The Faulty Fours): “If you run for office by simply saying, ‘You’ll be sorry!’ you’re not going to win very much.” Should the GOP try to make a case with the public that Pelosi may become Speaker, they risk a) alienation of their base, which is tired of supporting policies that they don’t vote for and having their desires go unmet, and b) driving out the feminist vote for the first Female Speaker.

I’ve a couple more notes that I’d like to offer. Mayor Nagin of New Orleans has been re-elected, and it’s a shame. That bum belongs on the street just as much as Mike Brown, Kathleen Blanco, Michael Chertoff and George Bush. Another thing: this nonsense about a McCain v. Giuliani campaign has got to stop. Rudy Giuliani isn’t long for the South Carolina stop on the Republican schedule — or many others, for that matter — and I’m not too terribly sure McCain is, but at least he’s licking the boots of the big donors until that time comes.

You know what this reminds me of? The ridiculous talk about John Roberts for President, or of Rice. Let me tell you something that I think everyone should know. The “Progressive” wing of the Republican Party hasn’t been a catalyst for the Presidency since Theodore Roosevelt was succeeded by Howard Taft, and the Supreme Court hasn’t been a stepping stone to the nomination of a Party since Charles Evan Who? was knocked out of office by Woodrow Wilson. Likewise, Foggy Bottom isn’t a backdoor entrance to the Presidency unless a whole lotta people die.

To be fair to the media, it’s not like they have anything better to do than write up absurd Presidential matchups, drool over opinion polls or compare a President to either Lincoln or Nixon, depending on the aforementioned polls.

Today’s a good day for insight, it seems. At least on New Orleans and Iran.

Historian Douglas Brinkley today writes, “How New Orleans Drowned.”

New Orleans mayor Ray Nagin convened a press briefing at noon at City Hall. Casually dressed, his shaved head shining in the media lights, Nagin strained to seem like a man in charge. The day before, Louisiana’s low-key governor, Kathleen Babineaux Blanco, had declared a state of emergency. Reports from meteorologists indicated that Hurricane Katrina was growing ever more menacing. “Although the track could change, forecasters believe Hurricane Katrina will affect New Orleans,” said Nagin, 49, scratching his trimmed goatee. “We may call for a voluntary evacuation later this afternoon or tomorrow morning.” In terms of emergency preparedness, only a mandatory order would have been taken seriously by the public. But Nagin haltingly explained that he needed to confer with city lawyers about his options.

As politicians go, Nagin was a showboater. Just that morning, in fact, the New Orleans Times-Picayune had reported on the mayor’s latest venture: acting. A few days before, he had made his film debut in an indie thriller called Labou. For five hours—in the thick of the tropical-storm season—he had rehearsed and delivered his lines. His role: a corrupt Louisiana mayor. As he left the set he was in a boastful mood, reportedly calling out, “Hollywood South, baby!”

A New Orleans native with an M.B.A. degree, Nagin had become a local powerhouse in cable TV. In 2002 he jumped into politics. A virgin candidate with no public record whatsoever, he campaigned as a law-and-order reformer who would weed out corruption. Once in power, he became a darling of the conservative business elite, an African-American who was a virtual chamber-of-commerce cheerleader when it came to New Orleans’s future. (Behind his back, some African-American city-council members called him “Ray Reagan.”) Though he helped bridge differences between the city’s blacks, who made up 67 percent of the population, and whites, who accounted for 28 percent, his short tenure had been a rocky one. Within two years, the local murder rate had skyrocketed to almost 10 times the national average. When it came to good governance and keeping the peace, many considered the C.E.O. mayor, in Texas parlance, all hat, no cattle.

It gets more interesting the deeper you read, much like this piece on Iran’s letter. I urge you to read it. At the moment, I’m not quite sure how I feel about the article in its totality. I’m going to take time to reflect, and I’ll share my thoughts later but for now, I thought I’d link to the piece.

Let me recommend an article to you that I quite enjoyed. This one.

That is all for today.

Arlen Specter is my least-favorite Senator, and Russ Feingold might just be a runner up for the award. Today they clashed on the Committee floor over gay marriage, prompting Arlen to yell at the Senator from Wisconsin. I, for one, am disappointed in the Chairman for holding hearings on such an issue when the NSA’s wiretapping needs to be looked into.

Karl Rove, too. The CIA’s Valerie Plame incident. I know that Fitzgerald is, too, but why hasn’t Arlen done something like, I don’t know, hold a hearing and move for Rove’s security clearances to be taken away from him? Maybe for fear that King Karl will say something unpleasant about him behind closed doors, like he recently did to the House Republicans.

I’ll tell you, the Republicans are cracking up on the Senate floor and behind closed doors. The Coalition is collapsing, with the crumbling beginning at the White House and spreading everywhere. I think a piece of debris might’ve fallen and hit Pat Robertson, too, because lately, he’s gotten nuttier than before.

Pat Robertson says that God told him that a tsunami is coming our way. I’d like to consider myself a religious fellow, but I think the reverend’s confused. God told me, you see, that a tsunami was going to engulf the GOP is November, and I think Robertson must’ve misinterpreted it.

Or maybe he’s just making things up and God doesn’t foreclose upcoming disasters to him. It’s just a thought. I’m not doubting the Faith Healing Robertson, or anything.

Before we go, I’d like you to take a look at this. If you’ve got the heart.

This post is going to be brief.

A flare-up is going on within the blogosphere and the Media as Tony Snow used the term “tar baby” in his press briefing a couple of days ago. I’m not as offended as some, but I am amazed at his lack of discretion. Even the men they hire to be competent are incompetent.

The Chicago Tribune today takes us inside Guantanamo Bay, and it’s an interesting read, as is this piece about Morrocco: the model of hope for the Islamic World?

Finally, the articles about Al Gore running for President keep coming, with some declaring that he’d be the ultimate “You should have voted for me, look what happened!” candidate.