Office of the Independent Blogger

The Mercenaries known as Contractors who are being paid by the US Government to “reconstruct” important buildings in Iraq are incompetent and crooked, and it’s been that way all War long. From Halliburton’s habit of using food with shrapnel still in it because its truck was shot to the most recent news about the Pearson Corporation, there is little to be proud of in terms of good old American capitalists in Iraq.

The contractor that botched construction of a $75 million police academy in Baghdad so badly that human waste dripped from the ceilings has produced shoddy work on 13 out of 14 projects reviewed by federal auditors, the top official monitoring Iraq’s reconstruction told Congress yesterday. In a House hearing on what has gone wrong with reconstruction contracts in Iraq, Parsons Corp. quickly became the focus, taking bipartisan heat for its record of falling short on critical projects. The Pasadena, Calif., firm was supposed to build facilities at the heart of the $21 billion U.S.-led reconstruction program, including fire stations, border forts and health-care centers. But inspectors have found a litany of flaws in the firm’s work. The one project reviewed by auditors that was being constructed correctly, a prison, was taken away from Parsons before its completion because of escalating costs.

Feces were leaking from the roof of Baghdad’s police station because this company botched the project. Everything they did was botched. Why? Because, I bet, these contractors are not in Iraq with a desire to do good by the Iraqi public: they are there to make money, and they are cutting corners and costs to that effect. Now we are seeing the ramnifications of this, and it’s disgusting. I’m not against Capitalism at all — I love Capitalism — but not at the expense of human lives, and these corporations should be punished, and their leaders, at the least, taken down from their roles at the top and forbidden by law from running companies again. It’s an embarrassment in America’s name when they do as they’ve done (Pearsons and Friends).

While we’re on the subject of crooked Capitalists that can be called Mercenaries, Abramoff put four hundred different contacts in touch with the White House. I’m amazed by the fact that people such as Jack Abramoff exist. I always thought that crooked power brokers such as he only existed in James Bond movies or John Grisham novels, but you live and learn as you get older, and I’m still young, discovering how dishonest and disgusting humanity can be. Like yesterday, remember how critical I was of Mark Foley and his Staff yesterday? Well, it gets worse. Look at this IM conversation between he and his Boy. Then note that he was the Chairman of the Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children. These men (these contractors, that lobbyist, this Congressman) are morally bankrupt.

And you know what else bothers me? The port security bill that’s about to be passed.

The ports bill, aimed at making the nation’s 361 seaports safer from biological, chemical or nuclear attacks, was to be the last vote taken by the House before its five-week break for the elections. The Senate could approve the bill Saturday. “In the post-9/11 world we have to strengthen security at our ports,” said Rep. Peter King (news, bio, voting record), R-N.Y., chairman of the House. Democrats, while generally in favor of the bill, complained that it failed to address rail and mass transit, other areas considered highly vulnerable to terrorist attack. They also said Republicans were using the bill as a vehicle for other GOP-backed measures.

Debate on the bill was delayed as negotiators wrangled over other legislation that might be added. “They’re using it as a dumping ground” for bills that couldn’t pass on their own, said Jim Manley, spokesman for Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada. Senate Democrats were successful in blocking inclusion of one measure, which would have given legal immunity to communications companies that supply subscriber records to the administration’s warrantless surveillance program. Another measure pushed by House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., to increase security for courts and judges, also failed to make the final cut, aides said. But it appeared that the final bill would have a provision, passed by the House, to restrict Internet gambling.

The post-9/11 year started five years ago, Captain. Why are we barely pushing this measure now? Oh, right. THis Congress is ridiculous.

Democratic Congressman Barney Frank has sex with teenage boys. If he doesn’t today, then he used to, back in the nineteen eighties. That is creepy, of course, and wrong. With that said, let’s go to the Sexual Exploits of Congressman Mark Foley, who sent odd private messages with the subtle intent of a pedophile to a former Page who is sixteen. Foley has resigned, as he very well should (and as Barney Frank should’ve, long ago) but there are some (read their comments here) defending Foley, and calling his comments to the boy via email “innocent” while attacking the media for misrepresenting Foley’s messages.

The Congressman’s office says that he was simply trying to gather archival information for his office, and that’s such a load as to be laughable. As a commenter says there, the rationale “begs the question….if these exchanges were simply so the Congressman could build an archive file for his office there are two questions I have 1) why was this not being done by his staff and 2) why was it done using his personal email? It is my experience that politicians don’t share their personal and private means of communication with every intern/page/volunteer that graces their office.” The answer is obvious: Foley is a liar, and his office is shameless. I have always been amazed by the shamelessness of people. Put this on the record: if I ever do something so disgraceful, I don’t deserve to be defended.

And now that we’re on the subject of Defense, Bob Woodward’s latest book is coming out, and it has a revealing, disturbing account of the War in Iraq. Interesting notes from the article excerpted as follows:

Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld is described as disengaged from the nuts-and-bolts of occupying and reconstructing Iraq — a task that was initially supposed to be under the direction of the Pentagon — and so hostile toward Condoleezza Rice, then the national security adviser, that President Bush had to tell him to return her phone calls. The American commander for the Middle East, Gen. John P. Abizaid, is reported to have told visitors to his headquarters in Qatar in the fall of 2005 that “Rumsfeld doesn’t have any credibility anymore” to make a public case for the American strategy for victory in Iraq. The book describes a deep fissure between Colin L. Powell, Mr. Bush’s first secretary of state, and Mr. Rumsfeld: When Mr. Powell was eased out after the 2004 elections, he told Andrew H. Card Jr., the White House chief of staff, that “if I go, Don should go,” referring to Mr. Rumsfeld.

Mr. Card then made a concerted effort to oust Mr. Rumsfeld at the end of 2005, according to the book, but was overruled by President Bush, who feared that it would disrupt the coming Iraqi elections and operations at the Pentagon. Vice President Cheney is described as a man so determined to find proof that his claim about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was accurate that, in the summer of 2003, his aides were calling the chief weapons inspector, David Kay, with specific satellite coordinates as the sites of possible caches. None resulted in any finds.

Two members of Mr. Bush’s inner circle, Mr. Powell and the director of central intelligence, George J. Tenet, are described as ambivalent about the decision to invade Iraq. When Mr. Powell assented, reluctantly, in January 2003, Mr. Bush told him in an Oval Office meeting that it was “time to put your war uniform on,” a reference to his many years in the Army. Mr. Tenet, the man who once told Mr. Bush that it was a “slam-dunk” that weapons of mass destruction existed in Iraq, apparently did not share his qualms about invading Iraq directly with Mr. Bush, according to Mr. Woodward’s account.

Another revelation of the book is that Andrew Card worked hard to have Rumsfeld fired, and he was joined by Laura Bush. It’s no surprise to me that First Lady Stepford is not as docile as she appears in public. The thing that does surprise me is that Andrew Card wasn’t chased out by George Bush and his Republican allies in Congress. He quit because he was too cowardly to fight from within (although he’s been too cowardly to fight from without, too):

Card tried again around Thanksgiving, 2005, this time with the support of First Lady Laura Bush, who according to Woodward, felt that Rumsfeld’s overbearing manner was damaging to her husband. Bush refused for a second time, and Card left the administration last March, convinced that Iraq would be compared to Vietnam and that history would record that no senior administration officials had raised their voices in opposition to the conduct of the war.

These guys are going to Historical Hell in a Handbasket. Their Dreams of a Positive Legacy are over.

Let’s start this off with a bit of light humor. Bruce Reed’s latest blog entry in Slate’s The Has-Been is out, and it’s a look at how Republicans can overcome Democratic ineptness and still lose the mid-terms. As usual, Reed manages to be hilarious and brilliant: the Jon Stewart of the Blogosphere.

Fail-Safe: As Jacob Weisberg explained last week, a growing chorus of conservative pundits has decided Republicans would be better off losing the midterm elections. This widespread conservative death wish casts new light on the Bush record. All these years, we’ve assumed Bush was running the country into the ground as a matter of principle. But perhaps his administration’s penchant for failure is just another way of pandering to the defeatist conservative base.

Conservatives say they want to lose, but can they pull it off? Republicans may have the desire, but can they overcome Democratic strategists’ experience and expertise? To be sure, Republicans have worked hard to lay the groundwork for a big defeat. But national elections are rarely lost solely on the merits. A losing campaign needs a losing game plan. In that regard, Republicans already seem to have stolen a page from the 2000 to 2004 Democratic playbook. In today’s world, it’s too risky to rely on a single bad strategy to lose an election. Campaign strategists need a fail-safe backup plan in case something goes wrong and the original losing strategy has to be abandoned.

This year, the Republicans are running three reasons to defeat them: 1. Raise the President’s profile. George W. Bush has been more visible of late, which is a clear and obvious mistake reminiscent of 1994, for Clinton. 2. Tell the public that George W. Bush is still in charge of the Senate, and moderation is only allowed on a case-by-case basis, but that otherwise, common sense will not prevail and Republicans will be pander bears. See Senator Frist’s immigration bill rebirth. 3. Allow the Congress to do-nothing. Easily said, easily done, of course, and then he finishes,

Of course, if their party fails to lose this fall, conservatives will be quick to blame Democrats. But by fighting back, running hard, and offering an alternative, Democrats are trying to help Republicans take a beating in November. Conservatives are right to put their foot down: If Republicans can’t lose this year, they ought to find a new profession.

Now, I’d like to talk about the most recent controversy in the news, that being George W. Bush’s partial declassification of the National Intelligence Estimate on whether or not terrorism has been exacerbated by the War in Iraq. The first thing about this that bothers me is that it took this “official” confirmation to set off a media frenzy. It’s been said plenty of times, by the State Department CIA and politicians, that Iraq has set off terrorists everywhere and provided a fertile feeding ground. Let’s look at the report a little more, however, by first taking a look at the TIMEpiece on it.

TIME’s stance on the piece is that it offers a little bit of everything for everyone, and that’s about true, although it’s very misleading. Ultimately, I think this report is a wash, as it’s all been said before and in stronger words, too, but TIME thinks this is a positive, as the report essentially states, “If we win the War in Iraq; things are very good in the fight against terror because we deal a blow against extremists. If we lose, which we are, terrorists have a new recruitment device and training center.” Any Republican who takes solace in this simple knowledge is silly. If we win, of course, things are good; the point is that we’re not, and it doesn’t look like we’re raising a victory flag anytime soon. To use the TIME logic on this: if George W. Bush happens to become a Harry Truman-George Washington hybrid in the coming years, instead of the Warren Harding-Jimmy Carter-Lyndon Johnson mix that he currently is, he’ll be considered a good, successful President.

Simply put, the TIME report is not good, and spinning it otherwise is illogical, as demonstrated in the prior paragraph. That isn’t the only criticism I have of the piece, however.

That isn’t the only problem I have with the article.

Bush responded hotly to the news accounts, saying during an East Room appearance on Tuesday: “Here we are, coming down the stretch in an election campaign, and it’s on the front page of your newspapers. Isn’t that interesting? Somebody has taken it upon themselves to leak classified information for political purposes.”

Isn’t it interesting that the man who sent Porter Goss to the CIA for the purpose Honor Killing and purging is talking about the politicization of intelligence? How about the fact that this man, who made it okay for the Vice President to declassify any intelligence he wants to just by mentioning it to someone (likely to cover them when they let something “slip” to a reporter). The hypocrisy aside, I think this column, which is the President’s stance on intelligence without the Bushian moron-speak, is right on.

There are some people calling for total declassifications of intelligence relating to Iraq and, pre-emptively, Iran, and I think these people are foolish. Intelligence analysts must be able to present their opinions free from political pressure from the White House and from the media. Given that today’s journalists can’t help but turn everything into Hitler’s Lost Army, it would be a mistake for intelligence analysts to ever make significant, consistent (in terms of leaks over a period of time) releases to the media so as to “help bolster public opinion.” Republicans have erased the CIA’s trust in the White House, this White House: it’d be brutal to make them fear the reporter, too, because the CIA should always be able to leak to a reporter if they have to, but not because the press demands it. You know what I mean?

Some things are secret for a reason, and the CIA should not be transparent like the Department of Commerce should be because otherwise, the press will turn their leader into Pinochet and their secrets into a mockery and their work into an impossibility.

Kazakhstan, a country that we will never hear about again but whose history is filled with violent dictators (surprise surprise) and awful men, took out an ad today in the NYT to defend its image from the new movie, Borat. I smell a rat, and he’s whoever at the NYT decided that it was acceptable to run an ad by a country whose leader is currently involved in the murder of opposition leaders. I’m all for free speech if you’re not one who denies it. That might sound hypocritical, but I would argue that the reverse argument is asinine. You know, “Well, because we believe in free speech, we have to let them speak.” That’s nonsense. If bin Laden requested to run an Advertisement in the Chicago Tribune he’d be rebuffed. Why should a dictator, elected in a crooked election and covered in blood, be allowed to defend his honor in American papers?

Why? So that Washington won’t feel that bad about dealing oil with them. Cynical though it sounds, it’s certainly true. The New York Times ran the ad because money is money, and the Kazakhs asked to publish it because they had to give up some token gesture. And while I’m being cynical, let’s look at this story, about how the Aviation Industry can cut CO2 emissions by twenty five percent if they just come together.

Wonderful stuff, though it’s not gonna happen, and that’s testament to the allure of money, more than anything else. If it did, though, I’d be the first one to congratulate Sir Branson.

Slate magazine continues to be a source for third way thought, always finding different angles on stories and getting deeper into the river. This week, they’re swimming in Clinton, and looking at his strategic blowup on Fox.

Democrats should rejoice that Wallace was as tough as he was. If he had been supine, fearful of another 3,000-word report from Media Matters, the party and Clinton would have been denied an opportunity. And Clinton would have been disappointed, at least judging from his spokesperson’s remarks afterward: “We’re fully aware of Fox News’ and Chris Wallace’s agenda, and President Clinton came in prepared to respond to any attack on his record. When Wallace questioned his record on terrorism, he responded forcefully, as any Democrat would or should.” In other words, he went in loaded for bear and blasted like Cheney as soon as he spotted one.

Did Clinton come across a little unhinged? Sure, but that’s an advantage in a midterm election where party passion matters. Liberal activists want to see their Washington representatives fight back the way Clinton did. This was a rallying cry and a signal to other members of the party to do the same. Clinton can go to individual districts to campaign for competitive candidates, or he can sell the same message wholesale by banging the table in a single performance on Fox.

Clinton didn’t just get the blood pumping among liberal activists. He made a policy critique aimed at the GOP election strategy designed to promote Republicans as the only party competent enough to handle terrorist threats. Each day people are discussing Clinton’s performance or Wallace’s questioning they will also be discussing which president did more to try to kill Bin Laden. Articles will revisit Bush’s Aug. 6, 2001*, Presidential Daily Brief in which he was told al-Qaida was planning a major attack and to hijack planes, and producers will reinterview Richard Clarke, who says Bush dropped the ball. (Clarke’s book, which is highly critical of the Bush team’s pre-9/11 terror efforts, is in the top 10 on Amazon.)

It’s a brilliant, tactful political move, but what else can one expect from Bill Clinton?

In other political news, George Allen has been accused of referring to black people as “niggers” when he played College football, and he denies it, while others say they were with him, like when he did such things as put a deerhead into a black family’s mailbox. Is anyone surprised by this news, considering Allen’s violent history and his relationship with the CCC, today’s KKK? George Allen is a scumbag, and no, he is not going to be President someday, as some believe.

Last night I ridiculed Gary Hart for saying that George W. Bush was going to invade Iran as an “October Surprise” to turn the tide in the elections. I still think it’s a silly accusation, since the politics of it would make no sense (the public is, of course, sick of war at the moment), but Karl Rove woke up today with the thought in mind to snow in July. Apparently, he’s planning an October Surprise, as that’s what he’s telling Republicans. I’m pondering it for a moment, and I can’t figure it out just yet. The obvious answers come to mind, of course: a declaration of death for Darth Turbin; a vow to pull troops out in the spring; a return to Normalcy? Perhaps it’ll be as simple as a tax cut, since that’s the Republican answer to everything. If it’ll fix any Economy and cure any social ill, surely it’ll help with electoral dysfunction.

Honestly, I’m thinking it’s a bluff, and an attempt to cheer up Conservative Congressmen before they kill themselves in mass before the altar of Dennis Hastert. Because, you see, if you wish to have a conspiracy, you tell no one, and here’s Rove…telling everyone. Notice the problem? The hitch in his plan? Loose lips sink conspiracies.

In other news, Japan’s Prime Minister is done, and here’s an article taking a look at him. It’s interesting stuff, if you’re into Asian politics (which I am, naturally, and considering my deep interest in Korea, I like to read what is said about the Japanese PM).

In France, a newspaper ran a leaked intelligence document alleging that bin Laden is dead. Everyone is denying the story, and I don’t buy it, either. It may be true or it may not be, but I’m unwilling to declare mission accomplished and say that bin Laden is dead until there’s good reason to believe as such. A French newspaper is not that evidence, and, as an aside, let me note that even if bin Laden were dead, it’d be with no help from the French. Unless he choked on a frog.

Hey, cut me some slack. I’m a Britain man, and if you ask the French President, he’ll tell you it’s all in good humor.

Gary Hart, the most famous of the suicidal Presidential candidates of the 1980s (“Go ahead, follow me, I’m a boring guy!” as opposed to, “The problems during my Presidency? They’re your fault, not mine!” [Carter] “I have no desire to avenge my wife if she’s raped and murdered; let’s talk about drug rehab!” [Dukakis] and “I will raise taxes!!” [Mondale]) has written an article this weekend, about the Bush Administration invading Iran this October. While that would certainly be some monkey business on Curious George’s part, I think that Gary is being a little paranoid with his assessment.

Call me a sucker, but I liked this fluff piece in the WSJ about Tony Snow’s clothing style. Tell you the truth, I think Tony is everything that a Press Secretary should be — except for Democratic. All kidding aside, I really believe that he’s a breath of fresh air.

In an administration that prides itself on viewing the world in black and white, White House press secretary Tony Snow is injecting a lot of color. Five months into the job, the former Fox News pundit is using his wardrobe to communicate that he’s not the stereotypical press secretary. With few exceptions, such as the late Pierre Salinger in the 1960s and Ron Nessen in the 1970s, they’ve worn nondescript clothes. President Bush’s first press secretary, Ari Fleischer, who notes that he is colorblind, says his wife dressed him, picking conservative clothes and staying away from things like vertical stripes that look bad on TV. “Press secretaries have tended to come out of either newspaper reporting or political public relations,” says presidential historian Stephen Hess, who teaches at George Washington University. “Neither of those occupations would be noted for classy haberdashery.”

Mr. Snow mixes things up, with colors that often seem to reflect the administration’s mood. Discussing Syria recently, he wore a serious white shirt and maroon tie. When the president gave an upbeat press conference in the Rose Garden after a surprise visit to Iraq, Mr. Snow wore a cheery pink shirt and light blue tie.

Just because this government governs Ugly, doesn’t mean they have to dress like it! (PS: Didn’t they ridicule Al Gore for dressing in a manner more consistent with his moods?)

Actually, I really do wish everyone in the Bush Administration were as chipper, enthusiastic and unorthodox as Tony Snow because if they were, we wouldn’t have to come across articles like this one, titled, “Suits Say U.S. Impeded Audits for Oil Leases.”

Four government auditors who monitor leases for oil and gas on federal property say the Interior Department suppressed their efforts to recover millions of dollars from companies they said were cheating the government. The accusations, many of them in four lawsuits that were unsealed last week by federal judges in Oklahoma, represent a rare rebellion by government investigators against their own agency. The auditors contend that they were blocked by their bosses from pursuing more than $30 million in fraudulent underpayments of royalties for oil produced in publicly owned waters in the Gulf of Mexico.

You see?

This morning, I woke up, rolled over, turned on the computer and went back to sleep, and then my cat came over, meowed and headbutt my face to wake me. After feeding Greyback, I checked my email, and I’d received a note with this link, which takes you to a transcript of Bill Clinton’s latest interview with Fox News. It’s good stuff, on the merits of his argument and the passion he displays, like when Bill tells his interviewer that he has a smug smirk, and you half-expect Clinton to say, “I’m going to slap it off your face if you don’t stop smiling.” It’s good to see the former President defend himself from nonsense.

The Department of Education has been audited and found to be very corrupt.

That about says it all today, for me. Not even the Department of Education is safe.

Coup is one of the nastier words in the English language, not because of its sound but the effect of it. Let me say, I’m not fond of the word, Kiss, because I speak Spanish and can understand some French, and their words for kiss are Besito and Baiser, respectively, words that I think give “Kissing” every bit the tenderness in diction that such an act deserves. Coup, conversely, is a word that sounds simple, gentle, like the coo of a bird, but its meaning is revolt, anarchy and suffering, which is what’s going on in Thailand. Let me say: this is the type of incident that demands American opinion, American support of Democracy. This is the sort of thing where, when it happens, we should be the first to vocalize against the destruction of Democratic society, and it should especially be so in an area, such as Asia, where Democracy is so fragile.

In Hungary, too, there are Democratic tensions, and as well all know, Hungary is a country with a very strong history of weak Democracy. Most Eastern European countries are, largely as a psychological effect that was had from being controlled by Russia for much of their existences. Today, however, there’s a different monster in Hungary, and the people are taking protest to the streets. You know, I do believe that people — that citizens — have the right to demand certain things in countries such as these, that they have the right to insist that their leadership resign when they’re caught lying. Why? In America, we have a House that can impeach. In Hungary, it’s the people who have to take that power, and I’m glad to hear that they won’t stand being lied to.

On another note: Mahmoud Ahmaniac was interviewed by Anderson Cooper last night, and you have to see it to believe it. It wasn’t much different from any other interview that he’s done, and that’s what makes it notable — that it was caught on American film. The interviewer asks about Ahmadinejad’s Holocaust denial and whether he really believes it didn’t happen. Ahmadinejad doesn’t answer the question and, instead, turns the conversation to why everyone should care so much if it did happen. The interviewer asks if Ahmadinejad’s statement about wiping Israel from the map was something he really believes. Ahmadinejad doesn’t answer the question and, instead, turns the conversation to how the Palestinians should be allowed to vote on whether or not Israel is allowed to exist. The interviewer is interrupted by Ahmadinejad, who questions whether the reporter is a Zionist spy whose questions are planted by the evil Jews.

The interviewer is shocked. End of interview.

You really should see it, if you haven’t. Anderson Cooper wound up saying something like “We have a free press in America - unlike what you have in Iran. I’m asking my own questions.” And then Ahmadinejad just says “Well, I think your work speaks for itself.” And I think it does, too.

The UN has turned into quite a playground for children. George W. Bush and Mahmoud Ahmaniac refuse to speak to one another at the jungle gym — although they will blast each other from across the baseball field, with President Bush throwing a “divorce” pitch and Mahmoud calling George W. Bush out with a knuckleball called war criminal. Not just happy to watch the big boys bully others, Venezuela has to get involved, and today Hugo Chavez strolled across the playground and called Bush “the Devil.”

I think this may be the first time in hundreds of years where the world is literally and absolutely run by idiots. Literally, and it stretches from continent to continent to continent to continent to continent to continent. To continent!

I know that, today, everyone will be talking about Chavez and Mahmoud’s comments, but to me, the most important news of the day is this:

Seeking a deal with Senate Republicans on the rules governing the interrogation of terrorism suspects, the White House has dropped its insistence on redefining the obligations of the United States under the Geneva Conventions, members of Congress and aides said Tuesday.

Good to hear that they’ve come back to Earth. I’ll enjoy it while I can, as I’m sure Bush’ll be back in all his Geneva Convention redefining Glory. His friend Alberto, too, much like, earlier in the year, Bill Frist pulled the issue of immigration from the Senate and said, that’s enough for now. Now he’s bringing controversy back by reintroducing a measure to have tougher borders. Clearly it’s an attempt to rile up the Republican base but, for my money, it’s a poor one. Republicans have made gains amongst Latinos, and with acts like this, they are deleting them, and further, it just isn’t good policy. Worst of all for Republicans, it doesn’t stand up to the smell test: it smells like a piece of pandering, and it is. Voters will see through that.

Thank you, Senator.

Not too far back, I wrote about the story saying that Karl Rove had had the West Wing exorcised of Hillary Clinton, and taunted that Bush had thrown Holy Water all over the Oval to clean it off Bill. President Clinton’s response to Karl Rove is apparently out and about, and it’s, “I am sick of Karl Rove’s bullshit.” That bothers me, to a point. Bill Clinton complaining about another man being calculating is like Dick Cheney complaining about another man’s ugly.

If he’s speaking from a purely policy perspective, I agree with him. Truthfully, I fully understand that Rove’s tactics are not too far off, politically, from Democratic tactics but for the fact that Rove is far more successful. It’s when it comes down to policy that Karl Rove is an aberration. By that I mean: you always have political advisors in the White House, and it’s unusual to have an advisor who runs the show and runs it poorly at that. You have to go to William McKinley and Mark Hannah, in my view, to find another President so dominated by an aide, and if that’s what he means by “bullshit,” I’m with Bill, but otherwise, I’m not. Dick Morris’ bullshit and his and Hillary’s are just as bad.

Beyond snark about Clinton’s complaints, there’s genuine news in Washington, and the first I’d like to speak of is the plan for military tribunals for terrorists. From the moment I read the title of this editorial this morning, When Miranda Met Osama, I knew I would enjoy it. I enjoyed the following part.

To keep up war momentum, the U.S. now needs to put terrorists on trial. And to do that Mr. Hunter supports enacting rules, requested by the president, that would allow military tribunals to try and convict terrorists using hearsay evidence and to use classified information, even if it is withheld from the defendant. The goal, in Mr. Hunter’s view, is to provide a “modicum of fairness,” while also taking into account battlefield realities. Soldiers aren’t police officers. In the midst of a firefight, they can’t be expected to collect forensic evidence for a criminal trial.

Last month, as Washington was settling down for Congress’s summer recess, there was reason to believe that President Bush would prevail with his proposal for military tribunals. Most Republicans in Congress support aggressive interrogations of suspected terrorist leaders and tough but fair military trials. And many Democrats, determined to win control of Congress in November, weren’t raising sharp objections.

But that was before Sen. McCain, along with Sens. Lindsey Graham and John Warner, turned a debate over rules to govern interrogations and military tribunals into a shouting match over “torturing” detainees. It’s notable that, unlike Abu Ghraib, this isn’t a controversy over documented abuses. Terrorists in U.S. custody have been aggressively interrogated, but no evidence has surfaced to indicate that they have been tortured. And in its proposed legislation, the White House wants to ratify, not expand, its current terrorist interrogation policies and its planned terrorist tribunals.

To me, there’s no reason for McCain to be doing this, politically or in terms of policy. What does McCain have to gain by going against Bush again? especially since he wants to run for President as a Republican. Then, there’s the simple fact that McCain won this battle months ago. Bush signed the papers he wanted him to sign. Isn’t that the end of it for John? He was celebrating half a year ago. And then, maybe the most serious part of this all, is the fact that tortured interrogations have nothing to do with the tribunal, really. They’re separate issues, overall. McCain is just grandstanding, but that’s to be expected of Barry Goldwater’s bastard child. Which isn’t to say I’m defending George H.W. Bush’s bastard child (the President), because he too is in the wrong of late, though not on this. He spoke to the UN today and came off looking a little loony to me.

In his annual address to the U.N. General Assembly, Bush directed a portion of his remarks to Iranians, saying “you deserve an opportunity to determine your own future” and an economy that rewards their talents. “The greatest obstacle to this future is that your rulers have chosen to deny you liberty and to use your nation’s resources to fund terrorism and fuel extremism and pursue nuclear weapons,” Bush said.

He does understand that the Iranian diplomats were there, not the people, right? Listen, I have no problem with open messages to a people or person (insert love letter here), but when you do that, and then pull this cowardice, there’s something wrong with you. Bush and AhManiac are going to go out of there way to avoid each other at the UN. Seems like Ahmaniac wants to go to the Nuclear Prom and George said no so he’s building his dress out of his mother’s old handbags and undergarments and now their feelings are too hurt to talk about it.

George Bush should man up, come over to him and say, “What are you doing? What are you doing?” and then he’d do well to call a translator.

You know what never ceases to amaze me? Muslims. They are crafty. Apparently, the Middle East has no running toilets but every single time someone in the West — be it Salman Rushdie or Newsweek or the Pope — says something mildly critical of Islam, there are riots and/or outrage (usually and). This weekend, the Pope made some comments about Muslims, and now he’s apologizing. First of all, this world is far too apology-oriented. Just once, I’d like someone to say, “I meant what I said, I won’t apologize!” like I’m sure the Pope would like to do, and let’s face it: when the Pope is afraid to speak his mind, there are serious problems.

Really, who’s going to fire the Pope if he says, “Shove it. I believe Islam is evil and Mohammed was a child molester, and I won’t say sorry for expressing that!” Is he afraid that God will smite him for criticizing Islam or something? Seriously, I don’t get it. Politicians have to fear their people because they get elected. Comedians? The Network. But the Pope? Jesus Christ! Something is seriously wrong with our society.

By the way, I’m back. Torn ACL and all.

Forgive me, again, but I tore my left knee apart in a post-soccer accident yesterday, and I can’t possibly blog tonight, as the pain in my knee is unbearable. Fortunately nothing broke, but my muscles and tendons and cartilage have been ripped up, and I’m waiting for my pain medication. Tomorrow, I have a meeting with a Specialist, and will likely need surgery.

I’ll be back within a week. I apologize for the inconveniences caused by this, and I do hope you don’t all miss me too much. You can always write me, of course: GregoryRoyalPratt@GmailDOTcom

This morning, I was directed to an article about Montana’s Senate Race by a headline about Conrad Burns being a psycho. Needless to say, I was tempted by the title and I took to the article immediately. The piece is interesting, but more than that, it’s notable for the significance it has on politics today.

The debate - and the crowd - got heated when moderator Jenny Johnson, editor of the Ravalli Republic, asked the candidates: “There has been much discussion about the corrupting influence of money in politics. How do you propose to change the culture of big money in politics?” Tester took the question first, replying: “Be honest.”

His response was greeted with enthusiastic cheers from the audience, which became louder when Tester said: “I’ll tell you right now, we’ve got the best government money can buy. “The fact is, you have to have people back there who have Montana values. You have to have people back there who are willing to tell people like convicted felon Jack Abramoff and his buddies, no.”

“It is well documented what’s gone on with my opponent in relationship to lobbyists back in Washington, D.C.,” Tester said. “Senator Burns has changed. He’s not the same guy he was in 1988. I don’t believe he would have done it then. Washington has changed him.” Burns fired back: “Washington hasn’t changed me. I have the same wife, the same kids, got the same principles, same values.”

“While we’re talking about that, Jon, why don’t we spell out the Votesmart little thing. What is this little slush fund? You call it a constituency fund - no accountability, you don’t have to report where you got the money.” Burns then challenged Tester on a foreign trip, which Burns claimed Tester took and didn’t report.

“Jon you were called on the carpet for illegal phone-calling to raise funds,” Burns said. “And I think you said at the time that’s a terrible law. “When you look at everything here, maybe I’m the only one here that’s not a lawbreaker. I might be the only one, I might be the only one.” The audience erupted in boos, hoots and profanity, and one cry of “psycho.”

The first, most important thing is that Burns has accused Tester of being crooked, but more than that, he accused him of having a slush fund. That is a charge that few politicians will make, and while I know not whether it’s true or false (considering Rovian politics), I do know that it betrays a deep fear in Burns’ heart that he will be defeated, likely because the polls say so. That was my reaction, and guess what? I was right. Burns’ got some problems.

(As to why I mentioned that I was stunned to see the allegation of a slush fund: it is the equivelant of Barry Bonds admitting to taking steroids but then saying, “What about Ivan Rodriguez? I did them with him. Eric Gagne? Talked about it all the time. Jason Giambi? Forget about it!”)

Beyond his electoral problems, I wonder if someday we’ll look at this as another shift in electoral tone. We can look to Truman’s campaign calling Republicans liars and do-nothings as one shift from pretentious kindness to combative politics, and then we can see the treatment given Clinton by the press in the 1990s as another. If we see, in coming years, Gubernatorial candidates accused of slush funds and Senate candidates and Presidential candidates, then it’ll be good and bad, because a) it’ll mean that the focus will be on illegal money and that’ll undoubtedly help clean up the system but b) it could lead some shady men with nothing to offer, a tool in getting elected. (See John McCain, Russ Feingold, Ralph Nader.)

I don’t want politics to become even less civil because Conrad Burns has Indian Burns given him by Jack Abramoff. Besides, I don’t think slush funds are all that common anymore. All the same, it’s nice to see a Senate fight come up by surprise and show itself to be exciting and tight. I thought, last year, that Santorum-Casey in Pennsylvania would be exciting, but Santorum’s so far gone that it isn’t worth it to follow if you’re in Chicago (although I do love Philadelphia, and Pittsburgh’s beautiful, don’t you know). Now, at least, we’ve got our marquee contest.

Burns. Tester. 06.
Slush funds and Indian Burns. What a race!