Office of the Independent Blogger

Donald Rumsfeld’s latest speech, delivered yesterday in Utah, is entitled, Facing the Central Questions of our Time. In it, he serves up a few delicious red herrings. Specifically,

[Numbers were added by me to distinguish questions.] 1. With the growing lethality and availability of weapons, can we truly afford to believe that somehow vicious extremists can be appeased? 2. Can we really continue to think that free countries can negotiate a separate peace with terrorists? 3. Can we truly afford the luxury of pretending that the threats today are simply “law enforcement” problems, rather than fundamentally different threats, requiring fundamentally different approaches? 4. And can we truly afford to return to the destructive view that America — not the enemy — is the real source of the world’s trouble?

In order,
1. Who believes that vicious Extremists — al-Qaeda, in more words — can be appeased, and who is offering to appease them? Most Democrats take the position that we need more soldiers in Afghanistan.
2. What free country is negotiating a peace with terrorists? There is none. None.
3. Can we afford the luxery of simply invading every country that might possibly have something to do with terrorism in some way or another? Listen, I’m all for military use if the cause calls for it, but not everything is law-enforcement and not everything is military. It’s a mixture of those two methods and of espionage with espionage easily being the best tool we have to fight terrorism. God bless the CIA.
4. No, we can’t. I agree. People who blame us for causing the problems in the Middle East are worng, much like those who argue that Iran, for instance, and terrorist groups are only “like they are” because the US has backed them into a corner — that is a flawed idea. Completely and absolutely. But let’s not credit Rumsfeld for insight, as this much should be apparent to all.

In other words, Rumsfeld’s latest speech is the same old same old, filled with questions he considers rhetorical, but that I consider foolish, all things considered, and misleading.

Barney Frank isn’t my first choice for Congressman of the year, but he’s a smart man, and his latest article in the Boston Globe raises valid points, once we get past its partisan gunslinging. (Don’t get me wrong. I do believe that there is a time and place for Partisanship, and that an election year is, for the most part, that time and place. But, I just don’t think it’s appropriate to elaborate on why you dislike the Bush Regime when you’re trying to point out that Afghanistan is still a hellhole, which it is, sadly, and it is being ignored by the Bush Administration. Their aim in ignoring it is twofold: to wash their hands of the War, by and large, and to focus money, manpower and the public on Iraq, because they a) don’t want the people to remember that al-Qaeda is still a threat that hasn’t been squashed in its homeland (but they do want you to remember that al-Qaeda can still attack us at home, go figure with Karl!), and b) they think that Bush’s legacy will be made in Iraq. Politics beyond everything, right Karl?

David Ignatius’ latest column looks at the Brinksmanship being played between Iran and America, and he writes as follows.

The unpredictable factor in this game of brinksmanship is Ahmadinejad. In another defiant move, he laid out a radical vision of an Iranian new world order. The United Nations Security Council is an outdated relic of the post-World War II era and should be abandoned, he said. On the nuclear issue, “no one can stop us.'’ He challenged President Bush to a live debate and seemed certain he would come out the winner. Seeing Ahmadinejad up close, you appreciate that he is a formidable politician. He played the roomful of 150 journalists like a master performer. He has the look of a bantamweight fighter — compact and agile, punching well above his weight. He’s quick on his feet, answering a broad range of questions, including some critical ones about the Iranian economy, but he came away unscratched. He speaks more softly than you expect, making jokes and, on this occasion, avoiding some of his usual anti-Israel bombast. But the hard edge is never far. His eyes can twinkle one moment and then suddenly become dark as night. My strongest feeling at the end of his performance was: He may be cocky and eccentric, but don’t underestimate him.

With a Thursday (Aug. 31) deadline looming on the nuclear issue, you might expect that Tehran would feel like a garrison town. But it’s surprisingly relaxed, and I think that’s because most Iranians expect the crisis will be defused, somehow. The regime has been putting on a show of defiance as the U.N. deadline approaches, shooting off new missiles in Persian Gulf war games, opening a new heavy-water reactor and festooning downtown streets with banners of Lebanon’s Hezbollah leader, Hasan Nasrallah. But this isn’t a militarized country, and it certainly isn’t eager for confrontation with America. “I don’t think anyone can think of a way to resolve problems between the U.S. and Iran other than negotiations,'’ says Ali Ahmadi, a 28-year-old writer at the opposition newspaper Sharq. Though he’s critical of Ahmadinejad, he describes the technical achievements of Iran’s nuclear program as “really satisfying,'’ and he sums up Iran’s dilemma this way: “We are watching how much it’s worth to continue the nuclear program — its price. I can see there is this ambivalence, this concern. Because people realize this choice can bring about certain harsh consequences.'’

Perhaps the most interesting fact of life in Tehran this week is that you can’t find anyone who is opposed in principle to dialogue with the United States. Even a few months ago, that topic was almost taboo, but now here’s Ahmadinejad himself calling for a public debate with Bush. “The golden key to being popular here is to normalize relations with the U.S.,'’ says Shahriar Khateri, a former member of the Revolutionary Guards who’s now a doctor and a participant in a joint project with American scientists to study the effects of chemical weapons. Iranians are patient people, and they seem to expect this crisis will play out awhile longer. They don’t want sanctions, but people I talked to don’t seem very worried about them, either. Iran has been living under some form of sanctions for several decades, and they’ve learned how to make their own cars, steel and pharmaceuticals — and now missiles and nuclear reactors.

I come back to the fierce jockeying of Tehran’s traffic jams. If Ahmadinejad behaves like most local drivers, he will go as far and fast as he can. It’s only when the fender is about to be crushed that he will put on the brake. That’s why this crisis is so dangerous — it’s easy to miscalculate when nobody knows the rules of the road.

I despise Middle Eastern and Asian diplomacy. It’s always about the last minute, and that’s a shame. In this case, however, I don’t think Ahmaniac is looking for the last minute as far as giving in. I don’t think he’s willing to give in on his nuclear program. I mean, I’ve been clear about this before: we’ve got to wait it out, and we can’t rush into a War, but that option looks likely, over time, and Ahmaniac doesn’t seem willing to compromise. I’m sure Bush looks the same to them, but here’s the key difference: he isn’t calling for an extermination of their people nor is he calling them a Satanic power.

If anyone needed further proof that the President’s beliefs don’t run as deep as his conviction is portrayed in the media, the White House was happy to provide it.

President Bush launched an initiative this month to combat international kleptocracy, the sort of high-level corruption by foreign officials that he called “a grave and corrosive abuse of power” that “threatens our national interest and violates our values.” The plan, he said, would be “a critical component of our freedom agenda.” Three weeks later, the White House is making arrangements to host the leader of Kazakhstan, an autocrat who runs a nation that is anything but free and who has been accused by U.S. prosecutors of pocketing the bulk of $78 million in bribes from an American businessman. Not only will President Nursultan Nazarbayev visit the White House, people involved say, but he also will travel to the Bush family compound in Maine.

Nazarbayev’s upcoming visit, according to analysts and officials, offers a case study in the competing priorities of the Bush administration at a time when the president has vowed to fight for democracy and against corruption around the globe. Nazarbayev has banned opposition parties, intimidated the press and profited from his post, according to the U.S. government. But he also sits atop massive oil reserves that have helped open doors in Washington. Nazarbayev is hardly the only controversial figure received at the top levels of the Bush administration. In April, the president welcomed to the Oval Office the president of Azerbaijan, Ilham Aliyev, who has been accused of rigging elections. And Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice hosted Teodoro Obiang Nguema, the president of Equatorial Guinea, who has been found to have millions of dollars stashed in overseas bank accounts.

But the Kazakh leader has received especially warm treatment, given that the same government that will host him next month plans to go to trial in federal court in January to prove that he was paid off in the 1990s by a U.S. banker seeking to influence oil rights. Although the banker faces prison time, Nazarbayev has not been charged and has called the allegations illegitimate.

It doesn’t surprise me. It’s hard, on one hand, to ignore every despot just because they’re despots because in certain situations we have to team with them (Roosevelt to Stalin to Churchill, for instance) but I think it’s disgraceful to curl in bed with a Dictator for money and oil. Is George W. Bush a grease monkey prostitute or the President?

Given that I’m in Chicago, I know that some of you must be surprised by my lack of comment on Elvira Arellano. Arellano is an illegal immigrat with a son who is a US Citizen. She was served a deportation order, but ran into a Church, claimed sanctuary, and has been there ever since. I do think she’s right in objecting to her deportation when her child is a citizen. Is she supposed to abandon her child and his country because she’s been served a deportation notice? Where’s the righteousness in that?

The only thing about this entire situation that gives me pause is the Sanctuary. I haven’t heard of someone claiming sanctuary in years, and I do hope that it doesn’t become a trend. That’s my sole concern.

Donald Rumsfeld isn’t dead — he’s just been busy lately, thinking. In his latest comments to the media, he is criticizing the lack of perspective from critics of the War on Terror. Now, I’m one who has often pointed out that there is a lack of perspective in modern affairs and by most people, and that if we’d all step back for a moment, we’d better understand things (this is in general). But for Donald Rumsfeld to lecture the public about perspective is like having Bill Clinton lecture you about chastity. It’s unacceptable, and the message should be ignored out of principle. Principle. I know it’s a dirty word today, but it means something to me, and it should mean more to politicians. Sadly, it doesn’t, and that’s why I loathe John McCain more than any other Republican.

John McCain is not principled. He isn’t Liberal. He isn’t intelligent. He isn’t even a Centrist. He’s as Right Wing as George Bush but with a better PR person. For those of you who ever thought he had principle, check this. He’s talking about visiting Bob Jones University, and that should say it all to you. Bob Jones is far-Right racist school with totalitarian Administrators. They smeared him in 2000, and he fought back. Now he’s sending them a love letter through the press, and he’s courting the Conservative vote that eluded him in 2000. Principle?

Speaking of principle, Christopher Hitchens was on Bill Maher’s show last week, and had a fabulous performance. I love Hitchens, you know. He’s always insightful and never afraid to speak his mind. Easily my favorite writer today.

In one of Fox’ more recent commissioned polls, they asked, do you want President Bush to succeed? Predictably, a ton of Democrats said no, and Republicans said yes. My answer to the question is in-between: I want him to succeed when he’s doing the right thing (I wish for Iraq to become peaceful and stable, for instance) but I hope he fails miserably at making budget deficits and tearing apart Social Security. I can’t see what the point of the poll was aside from trying to build Conservative outrage, and there was some, predictably, all over the radio and the Conservative blogosphere.

As you should know by now, I’m not fond of the FDA. I think that it’s an agency infilitrated by big business and, besides, it’s an agency that ignored my past inquiries. The FDA is in the news again, however, for approving the Plan B birth control pill for sale over the counter. I don’t have a problem with the decision, but I’m wondering about its politics.

It’s an election year, you see, and Christian Conservatives have little to be excited about, politically. Nothing or threatening has happened on the Gay Marriage front, or even on Abortion, either. (And besides, there’s a certain feeling of inevitability in Conservative circles regarding Roe, what with the confirmation of Roberts and Alito.) I’m willing to bet that someone high up in Conservative circles ordered the FDA to do this so as to rile up Conservatives for the fall. What? Don’t look at me as if they’re a pure organization; they’re not.

Every week, on Friday, I pick up a copy of the Chicago Reader and read. It’s a great independent newspaper, and it deserves all the credit it gets, especially for its recent articles on environmental policy in Chicago, police brutality in the 1980s and today’s piece, about a US Congressman who is married to a Guatemalan dictator’s daughter. Yeah, you read that right, and you can read more, here. The article deals with whether or not Jerry Weller is guilty of having a Conflict of Interest. You see, he happens to sit on the International Relations Committee and its western hemisphere subcommittee. If you’re gellin’ like Magellan, you know very well that Guatemala is in the Western Hemisphere, and if you’ve got common sense, you know that he should step down immediately from the committee.

But, this is Washington we’re talking about. Honest to God, I have trouble figuring out what a conflict of interest is. Oilmen run environmental agencies and Clarence Thomas’ wife was on Bush’s transition board when his case was before the Court in 2000. The ethics committee dictated that Weller CAN sit on the committee no problem. To make up for the “perception gap” in the public, Weller simply refuses to talk about Guatemala. Period. You would think that it doesn’t exist listening to him talk about Latin American countries. But, again, we’re talking about Washington, where conflict of interests don’t exist unless you’ve literally got your hand in someone’s pants. Which is what’s especially discomforting about this story: she’s his wife, and she’s a Parliamentarian in Guatemala with a father who has been accused of genocide; of course she’s got her hands in his pants! So what in the Potomac is a conflict of interest?

In similar news, a State Department official has been charged in regards to a bribery scandal. Namely, that he accepted lapdances in exchange for Visas. You know what’s the funny thing? If he were an elected official, there’d be no conflict of interest! Not in Washington, at least.

A teacher in Colorado was put on “paid leave” for displaying foreign flags in his Geography classroom. The schoolboard was worried that it was against the law for him to have those flags because there is a Law in Colorado that says you can’t have foreign flags in the classroom unless they are temporary and strictly related to the lesson, according to the Denver Post. I suppose it’s a precautionary move from the Colorado state government aimed at preventing foreign circumvention of American ideals. But, really, let’s be honest here: the Chinese government isn’t going to try to infiltrate American society and purge our youth’s minds of American pride through flags in seventh grade Geography classrooms in Colorado.

Arizona, maybe, but not Colorado! (I suspect, on a more genuine note, that this law is an attempt to prevent anyone from ever flying an Hispanic flag by request of students or out of respect to Hispanic heritage. I do know that I’ve been in classrooms that have had Puerto Rican, American, and Mexican flags co-existing, and I’d imagine that in Colorado — home of Tom Tancredo — is using laws like this to try and discourage illegal immigration. That seems to be the only mildly logical reason for such a law, unless it really is a paranoid attempt to prevent Chinese subversion. Of course, if something like that were to be their motive, they wouldn’t be the lone Guilties in the Grand Old Party of being somewhat senseless. I imagine they’d get on well with Katherine Harris,) outside of the parenthesis of course.

In a lengthy interview with Florida Baptist Witness, struggling U.S. Senate candidate Katherine Harris asserts, among other things, that the separation of church and state is a fallacy. “We have to have the faithful in government and over time,” the Witness quotes Harris as saying, “that lie we have been told, the separation of church and state, people have internalized, thinking that they needed to avoid politics and that is so wrong because God is the one who chooses our rulers.”

I keep hearing that (through the grapevine) about George Bush, and now it’s out in the distributing plant, manufactured by the beloved Katherine Harris. But, as a fellow Christian, I’ve got to wonder: since when did we start worshipping at the Supreme Court’s alter?

Here in Chicago, I often drop by Chinatown on my way to White Sox games, school, or from a random voyage downtown. There’s a Convenient train in that neighborhood that can take me anywhere in town, and by it, there are quite a few magazines and newspapers. You’ve got your typical stuff (the Tribune, Daily Southtown [”People Up North Just Don’t Get It!”]) and excellent independent stuff, too, like the Chicago Reader. Recently, I ran into a magazine that read, on the cover, Life is too Short to Live It Alone, and I looked at it. Its cover was adorable (you can see a poorly lit picture of a tired, dirty [from soccer practice] me holding the front cover, here,) and it was cute. Except that, when you open it, there’s nothing but advertising for pornography and strip clubs. Life is too short. Reading this article about Israel thinking that it might have to go alone against Iran.

If Israel wants to go to War with Iran prematurely, it’ll go it alone, for sure, and it’ll win it, too. Israel can destroy Iran in a heartbeat, much like we can. We’ve got the military in manpower and nuclear weapons, too, to destroy any foreign land overnight. I don’t condone that at all. I’m very much a believer in fighting limited wars whenever possible, meaning that we don’t burn down entire cities or firebomb the countryside unless we absolutely have to. Israel can do this of course, and has fewer moral qualms about it than I or the general American school of thought, as well, but I do hope that they wait for the world unless attacked. Iran is simply too dangerous a beast to be ignored by the World, and it’s a good sign that everyone but for China and Russia are firmly opposed to their gaining nuclear weapons. Ultimately, it doesn’t matter what they want — China will not wage war against America over Iran anymore than Russia will — and it’s important that everyone stay calm until you can’t anymore. Remember, Mahmoud Ahmaniac! is a mortal man; he won’t live forever, and it’s not worth it to wage a war to unseat him just yet. Not yet. Maybe not ever, but if Israel’s patient and tactful, it’ll never have to go it alone.

I, on the other hand, am feeling discouraged. You see, Las Vegas is closing its twenty four hour marriage office. Don’t they know that life is too short to live it alone?

Ralph Reed recently lost his battle to be a Lt. Governor, and now his political organization is losing power, too. Yes, that’s right, the Christian Coalition has been losing chapters, members and money, and it’s not a surprise to me, but I’ll explain why. There’s a new Christian influence in Washington — has been since George Bush took the Presidency — and that’s the Family-groups, led by Jimmy Dobson. Additionally, there’s a shift amongst the Right from opposing Abortion ardently to pushing against homosexuality with fire. I’m not sure what the reasoning is for this, but I suspect it has to do with complacency. I think that a lot of Conservatives see the current Supreme Court’s makeup, and see a Conservative Judiciary that they won’t have to worry about in terms of abortion, so their next plan of attack is to cut off homosexual issues before they develop into mainstream accepted thoughts.

Conservative leaders are getting savvier, politicaly, shifting from opposing something that the general public supports to something that the public generally opposes. Ralph Reed is more telegenic than James Dobson, but Dobson’s a smarter man. I don’t believe that the New Right will succeed at the ballot box for long, though, and if they don’t, might I be so kind as to suggest that they follow France (typical Liberal advice, I know: “Follow France!”) and their Conservatives? Namely, that they start handing out condoms to win votes.

Even France’s Conservatives are Liberal. That country has major problems. There’s no balance! It tilts so far to the Left that I’m amazed it doesn’t sink into the Atlantic. (Nothing against Liberalism, of course, but a nation of no balance is a nation of no political merit.)

A few weeks ago, I wrote an email to the FDA — the story is here — and I will reproduce the email below:

Hi, I read this news story:
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/story.aspx?guid=%7BB160F5C6-58AA-4078-
A431-1A64F9F94D25%7D

My question is, What is the purpose of this task force, exactly? Does this
mean that, before, your organization never looked at Nanotechnology, or that
you’ll be putting forth more analysis into the subject, or what, exactly?
What type of recommendations will you be giving at the end of the force?
“Nanotechnology good? Nano-bad?”

I’d ridiculed the task force as being pointless and ill-conceived, and so I contacted the FDA to find out if I was wrong, and there really was a purpose beyond window-dressing to their panel. Still, for the life of me, I can’t figure out what the hell the panel’s supposed to do, and the problem in perception is made worse by the FDA’s responses to my inquiry. First, they wrote back late to my inquiry, which is to say it took them a week. That’s unacceptable in the digital age, and it’s not as if the FDA’s doors are being banged down by people asking questions. Worse even than their timing, is the first response I received, reproduced as follows:

Mr. Pratt,
Are you a national reporter? I ask only because I want to get you to the
right person. It looks like you may work on the Hill? If so, I would like
to refer you to our Office of Legislation.

What a response! I suppose it must’ve terrified the FDA that Congress might be asking them questions, since that’s what the overall tone of her email gives off. “Oh God, if I say something wrong, this might embarrass the agency and endanger our funds!” Hey, I may be giving a sinister motive to the response I got, but it’s better than giving them the benefit of incompetence, isn’t it? My answer, in turn, was short and to the point, and her reply was, too, actually: “I am not a national reporter. I am a blogger. Who should I contact to get a simple answer to an easy question?”

Her answer to that? “I’m sorry. I don’t remember the question. Could you please re-send? Thanks[.]” What, don’t they have email archives? Whatever, I supposed it was a quick mistake — an effort to get back to me as soon as possible instead of in-a-week? — and then I resent my original question. Her answer was, “[BLANK] is the lead on this and will be back on Monday and will get back to you[.]” This was on Friday afternoon — a weekday, mind you — so I wrote her the following: “I don’t ask to be snarky or rude, but is Susan sick, on vacation, or on an FDA-related trip? I ask because I can’t think of any other reason why she wouldn’t be in on a Friday in the middle of the afternoon.”

Never got an answer to that. Never got an answer from anyone at the FDA yesterday. I guess they had some dangerous Corporate drug to approve or something. Next time, though, I’ll tell them I’m from the Office of the Independent Blogger — that‘ll scare ‘em good!

Mikhail Gorbachev is out of his cage again, giving the United States a piece of his mind.

Former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev said President George W. Bush should stop viewing the world “from the position of a superpower'’ and Vice President Dick Cheney should “calm down'’ and stop criticizing Russian leaders. The U.S. should understand that “leadership should be done not by domination, not by becoming a policeman in the world, but by being a partner,'’ Gorbachev said in a Bloomberg television interview to air this weekend, the 15th anniversary of a failed coup against him.

Gorbachev said Americans “should get rid of this disease which I call the winner’s complex'’ in the Cold War. “The victory complex is even worse than the inferiority complex,'’ he said. Gorbachev, 75, was Communist Party general secretary, the top Soviet power post, from 1985 to 1991 and won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1990 for his efforts to end the Cold War. When the Soviet Union broke apart in 1991, he was supplanted in the Kremlin by Boris Yeltsin, who in turn handed over the Russian presidency to Vladimir Putin six years ago.

I’ve been a consistent critic of Gorbachev, and his latest advice is no exception. What type of advice is that, really? “Stop criticizing,” he says, and then babbles about Victor’s Complex. “Victor’s Complex” sounds like what they might call erectile disfunction in Russia, for one thing, but seriously: the United States doesn’t suffer from victor’s complex in regard to Russia. If we did, we’d have been opponents of theirs post-Cold War, too, but we didn’t. We’ve given them tons of money, even at times during which they really needed it, and we’ve supported their policies even when we shouldn’t have.

As for the rest of his advice, about listening to the World, I seem to recall that as recently as two weeks ago the United States was working hand-in-hand with the French in brokering a resolution in Lebanon. Conversely, as recently as a year ago, Russia was threatening to freeze the Ukraine. If he’s got to give advice on getting along, he ought to fly into Moscow and talk to Putin first. (Which isn’t to say Putin should listen to Mikhail Gorbachev: nobody should. Taking advice from Mikhail Gorbachev on running a nation is like taking advice from Jimmy Carter on running a nation! And it isn’t to say that George W. Bush doesn’t need to be civilized, he does, but Mikhail Gorbachev isn’t the man to do it. What Bush needs is a date with a hypnotist, and perhaps the removal of the crayon that I suspect is in his brain.)

The worst thing in politics is the distortion of message. It may just be that human nature is prone to mischaracterize and belittle opposing viewpoints because they’re opposing viewpoints, but politics bring out the worst of people’s comprehension skills. It’s inevitable in a field of opinion and ego, but that doesn’t make it any more right, and sometimes, it isn’t just wrong but utterly shameless. Take Ned Lamont’s latest attack on Joseph Lieberman. Lieberman called for Donald Rumsfeld to resign. He’s called for Rumsfeld’s resignation several times before, and now he’s reiterated it. Lamont’s stance is that Lieberman is flip-flopping, which isn’t even remotely true. Lieberman has been more consistent on the Iraq War than anyone who supports it. He isn’t John Kerry, who minced words and refused to speak out for eight months; he isn’t George Bush, who changed the focus of rationale every couple weeks depending on the latest whims in public opinion. He’s always always always said, Saddam had to go; we didn’t send enough troops; Rumsfeld should go; but we have to stay. That’s too complicated for Ned Lamont, though.

The Lamont campaign issued a statement Sunday criticizing Lieberman for trying to “paint himself as courageous for clinging to the failed ’stay the course’ policy in Iraq and not listening to the voters of Connecticut on the need to change course.” “His new found ‘criticism’ of the war won’t convince Connecticut voters after so many years of stubbornly rubber-stamping Bush’s failed policies,” the statement said.

The war in Iraq was the hallmark of Lamont’s primary campaign. He calls for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from what he often refers to as “a bloody civil war,” and says he believes that those who got America into the conflict should be held accountable. Lieberman accused Lamont of distorting his stance on Iraq. “He made me into a cheerleader for
George Bush and everything that’s happened,” Lieberman said. “And the record shows that, while I believe we did the right thing in overthrowing Saddam Hussein, I’ve been very critical over the years, particularly in 2003 and 2004, about the failure to send enough American troops to secure the country, about the absence of adequate plans and preparation to deal with post-Saddam Iraq.”

“As bad as things are now — and they’ve gotten worse in the last six months — it would be a disaster if America set a deadline and said we’re getting all of our troops out by a given date,” Lieberman said. “That’s a position Ned Lamont has taken.” Tom Swan, campaign manager for Lamont, said Sunday the campaign stands by its criticism of Lieberman as being too close to
President Bush.

Lamont’s a piece of garbage. “Too close to President Bush” is too close to bullshit for my taste. Lamont knows full well that aside from support for the general War, George Bush and Joseph Lieberman are too different to be close. Just because they share a position on an issue doesn’t make them close. Hell, Lamont’s personal background is similar to Bush’s. Maybe we should start to say they’re the same man because they’ll both go easy on taxes and be happy to tear into the Environment? The only difference between comparing Lieberman’s closeness on issues to Bush’s and Lamont’s to the King’s would be that Bush and Lamont do have more in common idelogically. Doesn’t matter, though, because Ned opposes the War!

The other famous Liberal who supported the War in Iraq and has since faced political opposition as a lapdog for the President is Prime Minister Tony Blair, and I equally find the criticism of Tony to be unfair. Blair is in the news again but not for criticism leveled against him. No, this time, it’s with a leak saying he feels betrayed by Bush over the Middle East.

A senior Downing Street source said that, privately, Mr Blair broadly agrees with John Prescott, who said Mr Bush’s record on the issue was ‘crap’. The source said: “We all feel badly let down by Bush. We thought we had persuaded him to take the Israel-Palestine situation seriously, but we were wrong. How can anyone have faith in a man of such low intellect?” The disclosure comes ahead of a mini recall of Parliament to allow MPs to vent their fury over Mr Blair’s handling of Israel’s war with Hezbollah and whether the recent terror plot in Britain was affected by his role in the Iraq war.

George is a disappointment on both sides of the Atlantic. If we’d listen to nuance and sense rather than attempt to Lyndon Johnson every Liberal who happens to support the War in Iraq, we’d understand this. Or maybe I’m wrong, and the truth is that Tony Blair and Joseph Lieberman love War, Conservatism and Bush.

One of the odder phenomena of today’s age (starting in the sixties) is the “Rights” movement. Everybody has a movement of some sort, with organizations ranging from people who want to criminalize Baby Jesus Displays “In The Public Square” During Christmas to people who want to criminalize the existence of Ban Baby Jesus-types, NAMBLA-types to the “God Hates Fags, God Hates Switzerland” types. There are so many people who believe they are entitled to some right or another because they feel it’s something they need or want, and that’s absurd to me. There are plenty of good, strong, intelligent movements in this world, but there are a ton of useless organizations. A friend of mine recently redirected me to the National Youth Rights Association, saying it was a great group. I beg to differ.

Its goals are juvenile, its aims immature. I don’t consider it necessary to lower the drinking age, and I even think that their one justifiable goal — the lowering of the voting age — is ultimately indefensible. I just don’t believe that sixteen year olds deserve the right to vote, although I was sixteen a short while ago. Simply put, the eighteen year old limit is fine. For God’s sake, you aren’t even done with your basic education at the age of sixteen.

Not only are the group’s goals weak, from where I’m looking, its “accomplishments” page is a joke. Since its birth as an “organization” in 1998, it hasn’t accomplished anything, and if you read carefully, you’ll see that. Everything is a not-an-accomplishment-but-looks-like-it-if-you’re-lazy. For instance, “NYRA-Berkeley holds a voting age debate.” That’s it. Quite the accomplishment, isn’t it?

I guess what I’m saying is, not everyone is an abused group in need of more Constitutional protection or who merit a change in the Constitution.

Back in political news, I’ve been thinking about Joe Lieberman, and the more I do, the more I support his independent-Democrat campaign to retain his Senate seat. Ned Lamont can go to hell. He’s an overpriveleged rich boy with no stance on anything but his opposition to the War in Iraq. Joe Lieberman is a guy who pulled himself up by the bootstraps all his life and stuck by his principles at all times. I very much respect that, and if he loses, it’ll be a shame.

As I write, the Internal Revenue Service is going after Barry Bonds, businessmen everywhere and the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. Richard Nixon was known for sending the IRS after political opponents, and it’s long been held by Republicans that Bill Clinton did the same. A part of me wonders if the Internal Revenue Service has ever been used by George Walker Bush to harass political opponents, but I wouldn’t doubt it. I’d rather face off with the CIA than the IRS, because the IRS always gets it man. You can outwit a Secret Agent, you can outsmart a man, but you can’t beat a calculator.

Recently I read Tip O’Neill’s autobiography, and the Speaker of the House had a story to share about Richard Nixon and campaign contributions. George Steinbrenner, who was known for giving money to Democrats, was harassed by Nixon’s men and the IRS into giving campaign contributions to the Republican Party. The story was, Steinbrenner’s businesses were all being looked at and pored over by the IRS, and he knew that eventually they’d find something. The Administration told him to give Nixon money, and he did. Since then, he’s been a Republican. It’s a bizarre story that could come out of Russia, and O’Neill said he’d heard rumblings of other businesses being threatened in the same manner. There is occasional talk of Nixon as a Great Man, as Good President, but that should always be talked about second to discussion about his tyranny, and make no mistake, Richard Nixon was a tyrant.

Now that I’ve gotten that historical anecdote out of the way, let’s talk about the big news of late. this, the ruling by a Judge against the NSA’s wiretapping.

Noting “there are no hereditary Kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution,” a federal judge ruled Thursday that President Bush had exceeded his authority when he allowed the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans without a warrant. The American Civil Liberties Union, which brought the suit, said it would oppose a stay but agreed to delay enforcement of the injunction until Judge Taylor hears arguments Sept. 7. U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit said the surveillance by the NSA violates the rights to free speech and privacy, as well as the separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution.

The Bush administration said the program is a vital tool in the fight against terrorism and said it would seek a reversal by the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati. White House press secretary Tony Snow said the Bush administration “couldn’t disagree more with this ruling.” He said the program carefully targets communications of suspected terrorists and “has helped stop terrorist attacks and saved American lives.” Taylor ordered an immediate halt to the program, but the government said it would ask for a stay of that order pending appeal. The American Civil Liberties Union, which brought the suit, said it would oppose a stay but agreed to delay enforcement of the injunction until Taylor hears arguments Sept. 7.

The ACLU filed the lawsuit in January on behalf of journalists, scholars and lawyers who say the program has made it difficult for them to do their jobs. They believe many of their overseas contacts are likely targets of the program, which monitors phone calls and e-mails between people in the U.S. and people in other countries when a link to terrorism is suspected. The ACLU says the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which set up a secret court to grant warrants for such surveillance, gave the government enough tools to monitor suspected terrorists.

The government argued that the program is well within the president’s authority but said proving that would require revealing state secrets. The ACLU said the state-secrets argument was irrelevant because the Bush administration already had publicly revealed enough information about the program for Taylor to rule. Taylor agreed, writing in her 43-page opinion that “Plaintiffs need no additional facts” to establish their claims.

I agree with this ruling, of course, but I wish she’d left out the dig at George Bush’s father and family. As bad as he is, there’s no need for an arbitrator who is supposed to be impartial to say something that may seem impartial. Still, I know this ruling was made on the merits and is right on merit, and that is all you can ask for. To be right on merit.

For a woman who was Florida’s Secretary of State as well as a Congresswoman, Katherine Harris sure seems amateurish. It doesn’t get much worse than, “I had to take down endorsements that were never given to me but I took anyway.” I wrote her campaign recently to ask if I could, when I go down to Florida, spend time on the campaign bus so as to interview Katherine and properly cover it in the blog (wink wink); instead of responding, they put me on her stupid mailing list. She’s stupid like a fox!

Joe Scarborough, whose television show is the worst on cable television aside from Geraldo Rivera’s (but, at least, Rivera makes no bones about his hackery while Scarborough acts as if his status as an ex-Congressman means something), has asked, Is Bush An Idiot? and claims that Republicans are asking themselves that. I’d like to use this space to ask a different question: Is Bush Really Frustrated?

President Bush made clear in a private meeting this week that he was concerned about the lack of progress in Iraq and frustrated that the new Iraqi government — and the Iraqi people — had not shown greater public support for the American mission, participants in the meeting said Tuesday. Those who attended a Monday lunch at the Pentagon that included the president’s war cabinet and several outside experts said Mr. Bush carefully avoided expressing a clear personal view of the new prime minister of Iraq, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki.

But in what participants described as a telling line of questioning, Mr. Bush did ask each of the academic experts for their assessment of the prime minister’s effectiveness. “I sensed a frustration with the lack of progress on the bigger picture of Iraq generally — that we continue to lose a lot of lives, it continues to sap our budget,” said one person who attended the meeting. “The president wants the people in Iraq to get more on board to bring success.”

What kind of approach is that? “I want the Iraqi people to get on board with my occupation.” What does he expect to happen now? Does he expect the Iraqi public to all of a sudden rally around its leadership and ours? The time to rally public support has long past, and now it’s up to the Iraqi government, not ours. The time to pull out is nearing, actually, though we should leave a significant but not heavy number of troops there as to help reinforce Iraq’s armies.

You remember, I’m sure, that Mahmoud Ahmaniac of Iran has a blog now, and a ridiculous poll on it (to be followed by, “Am I Sexy” polls). Well, he’s one wily, devilish son of a bitch, as his blog has a secret virus that only attacks Israeli IP addresses. I was floored by this when I heard it, but I shouldn’t have been surprised. That’s awfully clever, and totally unnecessary.

Hezbollah has put the peace agreement between Israel and Lebanon and the UN in jeopardy by refusing to withdraw from the South and disarm. Diplomats are headed to Beirut to work things out. Ah, Middle Eastern diplomacy. Always the same song.

You know what was a weird headline for me this morning? “Carter’s Son Wins Nevada Primary.” In other words, Nevada Democrats don’t believe they can beat the Republican Senator.