Office of the Independent Blogger

George W. Bush is in Chicago this week, and he’s as bending the truth like Beckham bends soccer balls.

President Bush kicked off a two-day visit to Illinois Thursday night by celebrating his 60th birthday with Mayor Daley and business leaders at a South Loop restaurant. “Laura said, ‘What do you want for your birthday?’ I said I want to have dinner in Chicago with the mayor,” a jovial Bush told the press corps and his guests in a private room at the Chicago Firehouse Restaurant at 14th and Michigan. Daley is a regular there. “I’ve got a lot of birthday wishes,” Bush, dressed casually in a blue button-down shirt, continued. “I hope the troops are safe. I hope Roger Ebert does well.” Ebert, the Chicago Sun-Times’ iconic film critic, underwent emergency surgery earlier this week.

Let’s analyze, shall we? Does he mean to have us believe that he told his wife he wanted to come to Chicago for his birthday, seriously? He wanted to visit what is probably the bluest city in America, to talk to an old Liberal lion and fundraise for a Republican gubernatorial candidate that he didn’t fully support and that has no chance in Springfield of becoming the Governor? Give me a break! And, as if that wasn’t enough, I have it on good source that he is not only not a fan of Roger Ebert, but a Richard Roper man!

Actually, the reason he came, as I suspect it, is a bit humorous in its own way. Mayor Daley’s former patronage chief was convicted yesterday along with a few others for being crooked political hacks. Patrick Fitzgerald prosecuted them, and he is the same man who has the Bush Administration by the Libby. I’ll bet they’re having a randy old time discussing their mutual distaste for Fitzgerald. But I suspect that, when it’s all said and done, Bush will have far more reasons to hate Fitzgerald, especially considering that Patrick Fitzgerald keeps showing Bush to be a liar and a phony. From here,

Bush told Fitzgerald that he had directed Vice President Cheney in the summer of 2003 to counter damaging allegations being made by former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, and gave Cheney permission to disclose highly classified intelligence information to do so. Bush did not admit any connection to the act at the center of the criminal investigation. “Bush also said during his interview with prosecutors that he had never directed anyone to disclose the identity of then-covert CIA officer Valerie Plame, Wilson’s wife,” Waas writes. “Bush said he had no information that Cheney had disclosed Plame’s identity or directed anyone else to do so.” Publicly, Bush has consistently portrayed himself as not only uninvolved with the leak of Plame’s identity, but utterly in the dark about it — and determined to punish any wrongdoers.

The truth, of course, depends upon what the meaning of the word “directed” and “counter” mean. It all depends on which way the truth spins, and what semantics you want to play. All I know is, that if you direct a hitman to “take care of” your family, and they are killed, you’re absolutely liable for their murder. Bush is, then, liable for the death of Valerie Plame’s CIA career.

Richard Holbrooke is back in the news, and writing about international politics and domestic ones, too. As usual, I think he’s spot on, but I wanted to pass his article along for those of you who haven’t seen it.

Letter to the President, June 24th, 2006.

It is of utmost importance that in this post-9/11 world we begin to plan for future wars, wars that are possible and probable along with wars impossible and improbable, for impossible is a term better suited for the logical than the senseless. As war is not always a subject of a deliberate nature, we must strive to make even the unlikeliest of conflicts possible, and from there it must be our task to turn these paths palatable to the public, as enemies lurk in every region of the world and the only manner to protect ourselves is to strike first, as has so often been articulated. To be able to effectively do this on the global stage, we must prepare for all eventualities, and for the sake of readying ourselves, we must assume everything an eventuality. The acquisition of weapons of mass destruction is inevitable by the Iranians, as it was for the North Koreans, and I’m pleased to see that the White House believed this so, for it certainly would have been a waste to engage these rogue states when they were in the budding stages of weaponry. It is better to launch a campaign aimed at depicting a nation as the enemy than it is to waste valuable time with such farce as diplomacy. I must applaud your actions, Mr. President, for you’ve done much to ensure that on the global chess board the American nation will find itself surrounded by enemies in future years. It is better to prepare for war than doddle in dialogue.

The guiding goal of foreign policy is to turn what might appear a farce to the unknowing — to those without access to classified information (of which there should be plenty, given that the public is generally incapable of grasping the deepest of information available to us, anyway) — into a master plan taking into account the need for newer, bloodier war, a need that exists in every sphere of our world. How better to maintain influence than to defeat an enemy, how better to unite a public than in war? That is where your brilliance lies, for while some cynics may reference you as a “divider” you are the ultimate uniter. You have brought the American public together in the way that only a tragedy can, and it will likely be this way for years to come as war engulfs us on foreign shores. In future years, because of your actions, we shall come together as a public to defeat our opponents on the global stage. If that praise sounds dramatic, it shouldn’t, Mr. President, for history is the greatest passion play, and it is a business that you make a killing in.

War as a tool in public policy has long been used by others, and in that respect you are no innovator, but your sheer nobility distinguishes you from all those who have come before. While such men as Andrew Jackson have used the power of patriotism to destroy an entire culture, and Franklin Roosevelt attempted to mold the American state into a socialist empire, you have done nothing but embolden our law enforcement agencies to protect us. More than that, however, you took action — bold, brilliant action — to prepare the public for future wars, and indeed you have not just prepared them for the concept but introduced them to our enemies, as well. Your foresight will be judged by historians in hindsight as the mark of an intuitive man with a subtle grasp on the globe, for you not only managed to show the public that Iraq, which has already been disposed of, for all intents and purposes, is on the wrong side of history, Iran and North Korea are as well, and happen to be worthy of future conquest. Not only that, but you have set the table so as to make it possible that, someday, we will engage them in War. Well played, sir, but I’ve a recommendation with an importance running behind none.

It is my recommendation that we add a new nation to the “countries we could be at war with” list, to the “countries we should be at war with” list, and that you take immediate action to prepare the American public and provoke the power of Peru. Peru is a country that we absolutely should be at War with, and I take the position that their growing status in the world poses a problem for the future of Democracy. I don’t believe that many people have talked it up yet, and that is because there is a fundamental logical gap to be found in the minds of bureaucrats everywhere. You, surely, have experienced their blunders firsthand, what with the poor advice given you repeatedly by the paper-pushing eggheads at the Department of State and the overly conservative hacks at the Central Intelligence Agency, but I commend you for taking the advice of young Wolfowitz and his peers instead. Listening to those was an act that few would have taken, and that not enough give you credit for having done.

Being a foreign policy visionary, I believe you will appreciate what I am arguing about Peru, but we must be unequivocal and righteous: we’ve got to invade Peru. It is paramount to American survival, to the pursuit of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We are in pursuit of a pursuit, and happiness is like safety is like democracy: you’ve got to want it real bad, because it won’t come without a fight, and the place to have that fight is undoubtedly on the shores of Peru. Now think about this as I dust off the spider webs and “common sense” and “conventional wisdom” — Osama bin Laden has evaded capture, as we unfortunately know. We didn’t find Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, although we know that that is far more complex than it seems on the surface, and damn those who have had the gall to insinuate dishonesty on our part. If they saw what we see, they’d have a different understanding of the world, but it’s best not to harp on the harbingers of misfortune. The harbingers of misfortune are to today’s day and age what the nattering naybobs of negativity were to Spiro Agnew, a man destined for the Presidency who was driven from his waiting perch by those who would tempt fate. His life and time is a lesson of itself, however: those who allow others to tempt fate are broken by inaction. The natural conclusion of that lesson is to always tempt fate, and that we must do. In Peru!

The WMD and Osama bin Laden connection might seem like a stretch, and it becomes a bit moreso if you take it into Peru, but that’s a connection that absolutely exists and that we need to emphasize in the coming two and a half years of your President. Those WMD in Iraq didn’t just get up and leave by themselves. Not even we have WMD which are capable of transmitting themselves, or at least I don’t believe we do. I will admit, my own genius is a tad tempered by my own occasional shortcomings. I never would have imagined, living my life before you, that someday the White House would be occupied with such a cool, calm, inspiring grace as you’ve displayed during your term. I’ve never longed to help a man mold history more than I do with you, Mr. President, and so I present my own analysis of al-Qaeda’s fugitive leader and the Weapons of Mass Destruction that love him: they eloped in the general direction of Machu Picchu: it was bin Laden who took them! I’m not sure exactly how, but my reasoning suggests that he hid them in his beard — oh, a joke, Mr. President! Surely we all enjoy the humor that is found in the occasional crack about facial hair, much like we all enjoy a good dosage of bravado.

Osama’s calculation was that the United States would look foolish because of the whole debacle, and he knew that only in Machu Picchu Peru could he be safe. He figured that, hey, nobody pays attention to that part of the World as it is, and there he went. Unfortunately for him, I have discovered his secret, and I urge you to take that course and stay it. You have been brilliant in setting up future war, but the time is now to begin a new one. While some of the more foolish among us call for war in Iran (or fear it), we should take them by surprise. The Peruvians, too, for those who are not with us are against us, and being against us is no good. There’s WMD in Peru, and bin Laden too! Machu Picchu Delenda Est! Whatever we do, we must never hold off on the invasion of Peru!

You must mull it over, Mr. President, and when you do, tell Karl he’s got himself a war cry, and we’ve got ourselves the key to all of the world’s problems, and an end to War as we know it, as well as a beginning to War as we don’t.

George W. Bush has “got[ten] his mofo back” — didn’t you hear? His trip to Iraq has given him the boost that he needs to govern, says the New York Post! This is more a declaration of accomplished missions than a sign of things to come, though. Bush’s Presidency will need far more than a day’s visit to Iraq to set his course right. He’ll need better policies, for one, and he’ll need aides who aren’t crooked. Oh, sure, they’ll point to Fitzgerald not charging Rove as proof of innocence for King Karl, but how about this corruption?

Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt’s trips seemed routine - visits to dozens of cities to launch the Medicare drug benefit and to help states plan for a potential pandemic. How he got there is creating controversy. Leavitt was criticized Wednesday for using a jet leased by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for emergencies. HHS estimated the cost of the flights at $720,000, and Democrats called it a waste of resources to do what Rep. John Lewis of Georgia called “public relations for the president.”

But, as we should all know from the last six years, there’s no such thing as a conflict of interest.

Bush recently said that he’d like to close Guantanamo, but I don’t buy it. Bush is a liar, haven’t you caught on? But let’s pretend that he’s being sincere when he says that, all things being right he’d close the jail, and look at that. Would it be a smart move? Absolutely. At this point, Guantanamo Bay needs to be shut down. It doesn’t do anything for us that a prison in Afghanistan or even here in the United States couldn’t do, and for all intents and purposes it appears that almost everyone held there is a low-level fighter. My opposition to the prison has nothing to do with the suicides recently there, but with the fact that it’s not a necessity. We don’t need Gitmo.

The Supreme Court has ruled that the police don’t have to knock on your door when searching with a warrant. That makes sense to me, and seems reasonable enough. I can’t say I see this case becoming an invitation for police officers to never knock. As long as everything else stays the same, and you have to be served with the warrant and notified and all that, I don’t see a problem with this.

Bloomberg is running a piece today asking if Newt Gingrich might be the beneficiary of 2006, whatever that may mean. To me, it’s a hack article, with a dubious standing in reality. Is Newt Gingrich a likely Presidential candidate? Not really, as it doesn’t seem to me like he would want to get back into politics after having been chased out by members of his own party and Larry Flynt. But, should he run, is he going to win the Presidency? Heaven, no. Look up the Newt Gingrich Cancer Story, and you’ll see just what I mean. Then take a look at his picture, and reflect on what Phil Gramm had to say when he ran for President in 1996: “I’m going to test whether or not a man as ugly as I can be elected in the day of television.”

He wasn’t. Know what I’m saying?

Big news today: Karl Rove apparently won’t be charged by Fitzgerald. What a shame that is, but I suppose it’s more of a testament to Fitzgerald’s integrity than anything else. He didn’t find anything explicitly criminal from Karl Rove, and instead of reaching for Starr and charges Karl Rove on something related to oral sex, he let it go. That’s because he’s a professional, although I do believe that Rove is probably guilty of something in this case. We’re in the courtroom of public opinion, after all.

Whenever I read an article from a former high-ranking member of a government, I wonder why they’re publishing their ideas in the newspaper instead of delivering them to the White House. You know, does Henry Kissinger really think his advice is more valuable to George Bush if relayed through the Washington Post — even though Bush doesn’t read, by his own admission? It’s something to think about, to be sure, and it makes you wonder at times if people merely write their op-eds to feed a sense of self-satisfaction instead of help the country. At the same time, it makes you wonder if the reason ex-officials have to publish their advice has to do with the current White House refusing to hear it in the first place, face-to-face. Whichever it is, Warren Christopher prompted that musing with his latest article on dealing with Iran. Christopher was our chief negotiator in the Iran Hostage Crisis, and here’s what he’s to say of today:

First, we must be sure we are talking with the right people. One of the most frustrating dead ends we encountered in the hostage negotiations was learning that despite prolonged efforts to forge a settlement with President Abolhassan Bani-Sadr, he did not even have the power to move the hostages from one location to another, much less cause their release. If our 2006 negotiators study the vectors of power in Iran, they may be able to avoid such frustrations. At the moment, Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is riding high. But he may not be as powerful as he seems and, in any event, power may shift over time. Ultimate authority remains with Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and we have not heard from Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, former two-term president and now chairman of the Expediency Council. In short, we should look for seams, even small ones, in the cloak of power.

Second, our negotiators should prepare themselves for what might be called “bazaar behavior.” For all my difficult dealings with interlocutors like China’s foreign minister, Qian Qichen, I always knew what he really wanted and that if an agreement was reached, its terms would be carried out. But with the Iranians, the negotiating style is likely to resemble that of a Middle Eastern marketplace, with outlandish demands, feints at abandoning the process and haggling over minor details up to the very last moment. Even after the agreement was signed on Jan. 19, 1981, the Iranians disavowed a vital technical annex. To bring them back in line, I directed the pilot of my plane, on a telephone line that I knew was tapped, to warm up the engines. The Iranians quickly dropped their claim, and a day later the hostages were released.

It’s fascinating, and, to tangent, I find all articles and books about political negotiations fascinating. The mannerisms of a foreign culture, their sense of shrewdness and bargaining — it’s all intriguing. If you ever get to read any of the books about the North Korean negotiations with Clinton, pick them up. They’re excellent. Who needs Harlan Coben for suspense when you’ve got reality, who needs a cleverly scripted movie for polished dialogue when you’ve got a domestic policy advisor named Zinsmeister?

Bill Clinton is a “virtuoso deceiver” and Hillary Rodham Clinton a “true chameleon” guilty of “self-serving behavior, comparative radicalism, and dubious personal morality.” Al Gore is a “mad dog” known to “foam at the mouth.” John McCain is given to “showboating.” And Jacques Chirac, Nelson Mandela, Gerhard Schroeder and Kofi Annan are all “feckless fools.”

And here I thought Dick Cheney would be the wittiest man in the White House!

I’d like to take this space to tip my hat to Representative Ginny Brown-Waite, a sophomore in the House who took the courageous action of introducing a bill declaring House offices not off-limits to subpoenas. House Speaker Hastert doesn’t like it, and I’ll share a dorky anecdote of mine with you. During the Chicago Debate League’s season, we had to debate whether or not to overturn the Korematsu Supreme Court ruling, and my partner told the Judge, “You know, this type of tool is not a good one to have for future leaders to have, because we don’t know what kind of man might come to office. If Bush and Cheney dies, Hastert becomes President, and we all know he’s tyrannical.” I just about had a heart attack because I thought it might offend the judge — and because I thought it untrue — but upon further review, it made the Judge smile (I distinctly remember that) and it was true! Hastert believes he’s above the law.

Earlier in the week, I complained that Arlen Specter was a hack, in more words, and he continues to be one. Now he’s involved in a game of footsie with Dick Cheney, who has told him that the NSA doesn’t need Congressional approval. How Imperial but true, considering that this Congress — and this lowly Chairman — don’t have the nerve to stand up to the Administration. Specter says that there’s “no doubt” that the program is breaking the Law, which makes me wonder why he’s not doing more. He’s introduced a bill that would just about rip down the program as it stands, but it’s not going anywhere because of a puppy dog Congress. What a shame it is, then, that Specter is holding half-hearted hearings, as if he put real effort into the hearings and sought to discredit and humiliate them with half the passion with which he smeared Anita Hill, then real progress would be made.

As it stands, I consider his efforts minor, and insincere.

We’ll leave it at that for today, as I’ve a Chemistry final to study for. But before I go, a few words of wisdom that President Bush must repeat every day: numbers are not your friend.

Yesterday, Tom DeLay said that he had served with honor in the House of Representatives. I, of course, disagreed, as many of us do. Tom DeLay is human filth, and that’s all there is to it. There is no nuance, no reason to have an extended discussion about it: DeLay is a vile, disgusting human being, not just because he blackmailed freshman House members in 1999 so as to make them vote to Impeach Clinton when they didn’t want to, not just because he spent his time in Washington curling up to every lobbyist in town, but because he was responsible for things like this.

At a time when the Republicans like to talk up human dignity and make mentions of fixing Immigration Law, this should be all you need to know about their truest, darkest intentions. (Special thanks to the special person who informed me of this sleazy situation.)

Members of Congress announced today they are re-introducing legislation to reform labor and immigration laws in a U.S. territory that they say Representative Tom DeLay (R-TX) and Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff protected from scrutiny for over a decade. Representatives George Miller (D-CA), Hilda Solis (D-CA), and John Spratt (D-SC) are introducing The United States-Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Human Dignity Act, which they hope will apply basic labor protections and U.S. immigration laws to the Pacific territory.

Indentured servitude, sweatshops–even forced abortions–are well-documented practices in Marianas islands factories, which have thus far managed to avoid U.S. labor laws while still, as a U.S. territory, applying “Made in the U.S.A.” labels to the finished product. DeLay extolled the Saipan garment industry as “a perfect petri dish of capitalism.” Miller sought support for the bill through a Dear Colleague letter sent to fellow legislators with the subject line, “Tom DeLay out, human dignity in.”

“For more than ten years, my efforts, and the efforts of so many others, have been thwarted,” Miller said, “by the corrupt partnership of two of Washington’s most powerful players: Representative Tom DeLay and lobbyist Jack Abramoff, and by their allies in Congress. Abramoff worked on behalf of the Marianas to, among other things, block implementation of U.S. labor laws. He arranged for current Marianas governor Beningo Fitial, while he was still a member of the territory’s house, to meet with President Bush and then-Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-MS) and Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert (R-IL).

Disgusting, unequivocally and absolutely. I say Democrats run on this issue, and anyone who opposes the application of labor laws to these places ought to be defeated.

Israel recently struck Palestine and the Palestinians — read: Hamas — responded by calling off their truce with Israel. It makes me wonder what our country would be like if we had a President willing to truly stand for Human Rights, with regard to the Marianas, and who could be bothered to do something about the violence in the Middle East but, as The Price of Loyalty tells us, George Bush decided early in his Presidency that it was time for America to “detach” itself from Israel-Palestine and let them work it out by themselves. Bill Clinton wrote in his memoirs that the situations in the Middle East and between China and Taiwan were interesting, in that, with regard to Taiwan-China, “the politicians should stay out of it, as that’s a situation that, left alone, will resolve itself” whereas the Middle East needs active, political intervention and diplomacy or else it’ll get worse. And isn’t that the truth?

How appalling that those most likely to talk up God are those most willing to sit back and allow, in the case of the Middle East, the murder of innocents because they believe that it would be embarrassing to fail at bringing peace to the Middle East, and so they’d rather not try; how disgusting that those most likely to accuse one of being unGodly or who would parade themselves in front of a Church are willing to allow slave labor on American soil. It’s such a shame that the media is unwilling to report that Tom DeLay and George Bush have blood on their hands because they had money on their mind.

The website I linked to yesterday sure called it: Zarqawi was betrayed! How interesting that is, though not quite as nifty as this, in my blog. George H.W. Bush waged a campaign to remove Donald Rumsfeld as Defense Secretary. As Blumenthal puts it,

The elder Bush’s intervention was an extraordinary attempt to rescue simultaneously his son, the family legacy and the country. The current president had previously rejected entreaties from party establishment figures to revamp his administration with new appointments. There was no one left to approach him except his father. This effort to pluck George W. from his troubles is the latest episode in a recurrent drama — from the drunken young man challenging his father to go “mano a mano,” to the father pulling strings to get the son into the Texas Air National Guard and helping salvage his finances from George W.’s mismanagement of Harken Energy. For the father, parental responsibility never ends. But for the son, rebellion continues. When journalist Bob Woodward asked George W. Bush if he had consulted his father before invading Iraq, he replied, “He is the wrong father to appeal to in terms of strength. There is a higher father that I appeal to.”

That higher father is Karl Rove.

Tom DeLay gave his last speech to the House of Representatives today, and struck a feisty tone. He declared that he regretted nothing, would do it all the same except for one thing: he’d fight harder, before saying he served honestly and honorably. Except for all the times he took bribes, you know?

A Liberal blogger took the time to go on the Campaign Bus of Katherine Harris recently, where he was joined by only one other reporter, and here’s his scoop on the events. Harris’ campaign is struggling to stay alive, and the article on it is fascinating, both for its humor and its insight into her campaign.

George W. Bush has been derided by some as an alcoholic, but as a politician, he certainly has the ability to cut his demands down cold turkey. In the past he’s dropped his opposition to the 9/11 Commission, the Department of Homeland Security, his refusal to engage the Iranians and the Koreans, and his pledge to bring dignity back to the Oval Office. Now he’s backing off of his promises to play tough with the Iranians and not “engage their bad behavior,” and he’s offering airplanes for their civilian fleet, and nuclear technology for power plants. Being of a rational mind, I’ve no opposition to these offers or the existence of the talks, but I am growing tired of the Texas Two-Step: back away from the dancefloor and then come roaring in right when the jukebox is running out of music. This awkward pattern of half-hearted brinksmanship, coupled with the latest Has Been brings to mind an interesting idea. Bruce Reed notes that Republicans have two parts: sunny and Economic; dark and Cultural. With the re-introduction of the Most Meritless Amendment Since Prohibition to the Constitution the mood has turned from good to bad in George Bush’s Washington. And that leads to better government from the Bush White House.

An odd thing that I’ve noticed is that the Bush Administration likes to do such whimpy, pacifist things as engage North Korea or Iran, Congress likes to steathily raise taxes, and things altogether get better whenever the President’s polls have slipped beneath the Nixon line. Ironically, whenever the President’s poll ratings hit their lowest, he decides that finally it’s time to do something internationally that he otherwise wouldn’t have done (Iran), and a sensible foreign policy has life breathed unto it. I figure that George Bush decides that, once he’s hit the thirties and he can’t get anything done in Washington, he decides that then is the time to search somewhere else for an achievement.

If the corruption, Defense Secretary, environmental plunderers and budget deficits that are bringing this country down from the inside and tearing down the White House from the outside have any upside, there’s the fact that, without them, Bush would deem it necessary and proper to pursue nonsense in foreign policy to keep his base happy. Keep the pressure up, and maybe he’ll decide to do something about Global Warming, because as it currently stands, George Bush is reinventing the way we do business in Washington — achieve nothing worthwhile unless everybody dislikes you: before then, it’s just not worth it!

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?

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.

When Bill Maher advised, years ago, to Be More Cynical, John Sullivan listened. The Sun-Times is running an interpretation of Bush’s speech that shows us that Republicans are No Nearer to Together on the issue than they were before. RealClear confirms by writing that “06 Prospects took a hit” with Bush’s speech last night. These are simply the politics of the speech — a dissection of its rhetoric, an analysis of its political effect. When we get to the meat, the situation gets worse.

Policy-wise, the President’s newest proposal — to move the National Guard toward the border, six thousand of them — isn’t going to work, either, as it’ll wind up overstretching the National Guard. Not only that, but it’s evidence that Bush and Rumsfeld haven’t learnt a darn thing from Iraq. If they had, they wouldn’t believe that they’ll secure the border with six thousand guardsmen.

What will they tell us next? That the guardsmen will be greeted as liberators by immigrants on the border? That six thousand are all that’s needed to secure the frontier? Is Donald Rumsfeld writing our policy on the border?

Let me tell you, the current Republican Party will be lucky to be greeted as the Republican Party by Conservatives this fall, if the Conservatives greet them at all. I’ve got a sinking feeling that Republicans are going to immigrate in mass numbers this fall, but while Liberals flee to Canada, the Republicans are going to enter truly foreign land for them: the Desert of the Non Voter.

This whole year has been a tough one for Republicans, as they don’t seem able to assimilate to the year 2006. Maybe we should deport the GOP to another era, one that they’re better suited for — the 1920s, perhaps? The Middle Ages? — instead of reliving the 1970s, as they’re so intent on doing. If Republicans found themselves in the Dark Ages, and Democrats back in the Glory Days of the New Deal, we could all be happy!

The Beatles used to say, “Money can’t buy me love.” Dick Cheney might disagree. But this year, Conservatives are going to say, “Lip Service Can’t Buy My Vote” and Democrats will find wind beneath its Wings with the collapse of the Vulcans.

Figuratively speaking, of course.

You had me at “My fellow Americans,” Al.

In case you missed it, Al Gore taped an address to the nation for Saturday Night Live, and it was excellent. If I’m right, it means that he’s seriously considering another run for President — beyond “Maybe and maybe not” toward “I need to do something, fast, because the nation’s in bad shape” — and injecting himself into SNL was his way of subtley reminding the public that a) he’s alive, b) he’d lead the nation in a very different direction than Bush.

Using this program as a springboard is a subtle, tactful way to inject himself back into the world of politics because, at the least, it keeps Hillary Clinton looking over her shoulder. Of course, it could ultimately mean that Gore has let the dream go and is having fun at its expense, but considering that this isn’t 2003 anymore, I highly doubt it. Either way, the video does starkly remind one that the times, they could have been-a better.

While Al Gore has subtlety and tact to spare, Laura Bush has the tact of a yes man in the Kremlin. “I don’t really believe these polls [on my husband]” she says. Like she doesn’t believe in global warming, competent politics or honesty in regard to romances with George.

But hey. She’s a Librarian. Not a mathemawhatchamacallit. Or a scientist, for that matter. So give her a break, will you?

George Bush has acknowledged the existence of the NSA’s data mining program, and assures you, promises you, that it strictly targets al-Qaeda. Tens of millions of al-Qaeda, all in this country. If he’s genuine — which he certainly is not, but for the sake of argument we’ll give him the benefit of the doubt that he doesn’t really deserve — this is a sign of obscene paranoia. Perhaps the White House is living with a new motto (the new one would, of course, replace the old of “Don’t Be Daddy, or Clinton!”), and it is:

Terriers terriers everywhere. And not a man to trust.

From now on, Bush’s NSA should be associated with “NonSense Allowed,” as the entire program is nonsense in every sense. Steve Chapman rounds out the reasons, and I’ll let him finish the job.

The Bush administration has managed to cross George Orwell with Sting. Every step you take, every move you make, Big Brother will be watching you. No one is exempt from the National Security Agency (NSA) program to amass a record of every phone call ever made, with the help of major telecommunications providers. As one insider told USA Today, “It’s the largest database ever assembled in the world.” And have no doubt: You’re in it. President Bush insisted, “We’re not mining or trolling through the personal lives of millions of innocent Americans.” In fact, that’s exactly what his administration is doing — 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. It is no longer possible (unless you’re a customer of Qwest, which has refused to cooperate) to make a telephone call without the government knowing about it and keeping a record of it. We are all suspects now.

An administration official told The New York Times the average person shouldn’t worry. The records, he said, were used only to keep tabs on “known bad guys.” But the government can easily get a court order to find out who a particular bad guy is talking to — or even to listen in. To target known bad guys doesn’t need a record of every call ever made. Why should law-abiding citizens care about this surveillance? To begin with, even the best of us sometimes make calls we wouldn’t want everyone to know about. Another reason is that we could be implicated in terrorism through no fault of our own. Suppose you call your friend Bob, who later calls his friend Rashid, who later calls his cousin in Kabul. The government may conclude you’re consorting with associates of Al Qaeda. It’s not just the NSA that will know whom you call. According to USA Today, the NSA told Qwest that “other government agencies, including the FBI, CIA and DEA, also might have access to the database.” What’s next? The IRS? The Office of Child Support Enforcement? Your local police?

Yes, that is next. It doesn’t make sense, I know, and it probably isn’t Constitutional, but remember: NSA. N.S.A.

Clinton Defeats Bush! At least, he does according to the the polling of the President. In related news, George Bush responded to the news by labeling the poll “unfair,” stating that comparing him to Bill Clinton is like comparing competence to incompetence. A good point, if I do say so myself, now let us move on to more important news.

Robert Novak’s latest report contains much anger. Liberal Democrats are upset with Howard Dean; Conservative Republicans with Bill Frist; Congressman Jerry Lewis with Major Leader Boehner; and the muffin man with the baker. It’s a tense year, this year of 2006, and everyone is looking to gain a political edge: that’s why some are upset with Dean, Frist and Boehner. Re-alignment elections don’t come often, and when they do, you’ve got to stand and deliver.

As far as the anger toward Dean, I don’t much mind his actions. Apparently, some are upset because he’s spending money in states like Mississippi where we’re not likely to gain a single thing this cycle or next. To me, the point is mooted by the fact that change isn’t an overnight thing, and you’ve got to build the party before you can win the election. By that measure, Dean is doing an excellent job. Besides, that state isn’t too far gone that Democrats have no hope of survival: had Trent Lott decided not to run for re-election there, the odds were good that Democrats would take that Senate seat. Fight them everywhere, I say. That’s why you raise the money, isn’t it?

With regard to the Conservative anger, they have a point in being angry with Frist and Boehner. The Republican Leadership is doing an excellent job at leading the GOP off a cliff, if I do say so myself.

Earlier in the week, I promised that I’d link to Iran’s letter to Bush once it’s released. I’ll keep that promise, and here it is. To tell you the truth, I think it’s a piece of trash. I find it to be so full of inaccurate notions — I’d say “dishonesty” but he believes his wacky assertions about things such as American human rights, despite his nation’s committing such heinous actions as hanging homosexuals for being homosexuals — that it isn’t worthy of a committed, intellectual response. If someone sent me this letter, I’d write them back with a brief “Thank you for the interesting read” note and leave it at that.

Unfortunately, Bush can’t just play it off as the ravings of an absurdity because they’re the ravings of an absurdity who rules a nation, and Fred Kaplan, my favorite columnist except for Mark Steyn, has his own advice on how to respond to Mahmoud, and he’s right, as usual. Iran needs an answer, and a real one at that for all the reasons that Kaplan states. It’s diplomatic before anything else, and there’s nothing to lose in corresponding with him. A reply would increase America’s leverage in the world and — if written with eloquence — could be a breakthrough moment in foreign policy history.

Sadly, we’re talking about George W. Bush, and I’ve got the teensiest inkling that he won’t be writing back. What makes me think that? This, for one (from Kaplan):

If Bush doesn’t reply to the letter, he will unavoidably give the impression that he’s simply not interested in talking. And the impression seems to reflect the reality. Flynt Leverett, a Middle East specialist formerly with the National Security Council and the CIA, recently told the Council on Foreign Relations that, in the spring of 2003, just after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, the Bush administration received a message from the Iranian government—sent through the Swiss Embassy, a long-standing intermediary—laying out a diplomatic agenda to resolve all the differences between the two countries. Bush ignored the message—and, in fact, criticized the Swiss government for passing it along. According to Leverett, Bush regarded the Iranian regime as “fundamentally illegitimate”; to communicate with it would be to legitimize it.

For another, there’s what Bill Maher said about Bush a while back in one of his new rules.

Everyone has to stop pretending that George Bush is so macho. Because, plainly, he acts like a girl. Not a woman — a girl. Not a week goes by when John Kerry isn’t attacked because he said something that hurt someone’s feelings. According to Bush spokesmen, Kerry lost the first debate because of his “new insult” to our allies when he said the coalition wasn’t genuine. Poland had Lithuania over for a debate party that night, and now they can’t look at each other without crying. All of the attacks on Kerry involve his thoughtless words at the expense of someone’s feelings: He hurt the Iraqi prime minister when he said he wasn’t legitimate — the bitch; he hurt the troops in Iraq when he said it was the wrong war at the wrong time — men!; he hurt the Vietnam vets when he totally broke the girl code and told everybody about their atrocities. And worst of all, he hurt the president’s feelings when he laughed at Whoopi Goldberg’s jokes.

And another thing about John Kerry: He uses Botox, he spends too much time on his hair, and he’s two-faced — flip-flopper! “Also, I bet John Kerry didn’t deserve any of those medals. I woulda gone to stupid old Vietnam, but I wanted to be a stay-at-home soldier.” Excuse me, this president isn’t resolute: He’s on the rag. He stopped having press conferences, which is basically saying, “I’m not talking to you.” He couldn’t testify before the 9/11 commission without having a man by his side. I’ll bet when they have lunch, Cheney orders for him. And then he just eats the salad. They say Kerry is too sensitive, but they’re the ones who turn everything into a big baby mama drama. Bush is the one who looked all crampy and pouty last week: “It’s hard work” — I kept waiting for him to say, “If you don’t like how I do your shirts, then iron them yourself.”

He even ran for president like a girl in 2000. Promising to “restore dignity to the Oval Office.” What man gives a rat’s ass about restoring an office? A real man thinks the Oval Office lost all its integrity the day Monica Lewinsky stopped coming in there to blow the president. And then, in the one area — I’m talking about Iraq — where he could use being a little in touch with his feminine side, he acts like the typical stupid male, who gets himself lost, won’t admit it, and won’t stop and ask for directions. No matter that we’ve already taken 10 wrong turns and are heading for what seems like it could be a cliff — no, he’s not stopping, not listening to anybody, not reading the instructions, just insisting, “Please, I know what I’m doing.”

Yes, it might just be that Bush won’t want to deal with Iran for fear of hurt feelings. You know, “my father and his friends waged a proxy war against you. We so can’t chill after school!” We’ll see what happens, but Bush loves to let opportunities go like Nixon loved wiretaps. We all know where Nixon’s love led him.

You know what the best headline I read today was? CIA Needs New President.

That, my readers, is the exact price of butter in Langley.