Month: September 2005

Tom Delay Indicted

On Wednesday the 28th, Republican House Majority leader Tom DeLay was indicted for conspiracy involving money laundering and he stepped down. I can already hear the Republican apologist brigade warming up to declare this a partisan witch hunt. For the record, the prosecutor responsible for the DeLay indictment has prosecuted 11 Democratic and 4 Republican officials over the course of his career before DeLay. Prosecutor Ronnie Earle is and always has been a straight shooter, smoking out government corruption no mater where it hides.

More on the flip
Nor, is DeLay’s indictment likely to be the only one of a prominent Republican over the next few months. The Plame investigation over the outing of a CIA agent is ongoing with possible consequences for the President’s chief advisor, Karl Rove, the Vice President’s chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby, and the never-confirmed US ambassador to the UN, John Bolton. Further investigations of Republican corruption in high places involve a number of elected and appointed officials involved in the ever-expanding series of prosecutions surrounding indicted Republican super-lobbyist Jack Abramoff. And as of this week, Republican Senatorial leader Bill Frist is under investigation for insider trading.

That’s starting to look an awful lot like a pattern.

Cross Posted at Media In Trouble

Last night on Charlie Rose, Bill Kristol was whoreing his book of recycled Weekly Standard fare.  I won’t get into the rediculosity surrounding any book that consists entirely of the “My Documents” folder in any columnist’s computer.  

In between Charlie Rose yucking it up with Billy the Kid, Kristol would let some admonishments towards the Administration slip.  The usual Kristol fare, taking full responsibility for pushing the overthrow of Saddam marbled with the “but I wanted lots of troops” qualifier.   I paused the DVR and grabbed the vomit receptacle I have designated for such occasions when Charlie Rose chooses to have one of these right wing hacks on his mostly decent and respectable show.

The dicotomizing of Kristol’s elaborate viewpoints coupled with carefully crafted arguements for his previously failed arguements intertwined with graciousness towards his dismissals continued on and on.  Then finally the question about the civil war in Iraq.
My unofficial transcript is as follows:

KRISTOL: There is not a civil war in Iraq. I think we know what a civil war looks like.  There is no ethnic cleansing in Iraq.  Iraq has not become the Balkans with an ethnic cleansing. etc..

Trust me, this is what he said.  In fact, I think he mentioned ethinc cleansing a few more times hoping it would somehow become a part of the national conversation.  

Now I am no expert on civil wars, but I know enough about them to know that while ethnic cleansing can and will occur in some civil wars, it is not a neccessary or required element of civil wars.  The terms ethnic cleansing and civil war are not interchangeable nor should they be conflated in some Kristolian way.  I recall a certain Civil War where white people in the North were killing white people from the south and vice versa.  Most dictionaries will define a civil war as a that between “factions or regions of the same country.”  In any case, if ethnic cleansing is a defining characteristic of civil war, Kristol later deomonstrated his infinite ignorance by admitting that said ethnic factor actually being present in Iraq.

Sir Kristol went on to say that “Suni’s are targeting Shiites.”  I am wrong to call this an admission for it is the reality (and reality need not be validated by admission).  It is what we see on whatever piss poor media coverage we get in the US regarding this war.  A war by the way that people like Kristol believe is the only means of achieving some glorious democratic end in the middle east.  Does anyone need reminding that this man is one of the fathers of Neoconism?  That gastly religion espoused by people in charge of this war (e.g. Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith, and Perle).  

This question of Civil War in Iraq and wether Iraq is on the verge of one, or actually engaged in one is a rather silly one to be debating at this time.  It is similar to the debate surrounding Evolution as a solid scientific theory.  There is ample evidence presented by the reality on the ground, as well as the Pentagon’s daily briefings to not only suggest a Civil War but to confirm it.  Depending on where you sit on the political specturm these sources should be satisfactory.

If you are moderate to liberal and accept the media’s version, you have to say, yep Civil War.  If you are a conservative and accept the Pentagon’s version of “the attacks are killing less Americans,”  then again you must define the situation as a Civil War.

Anyone who denies this reality should be gagged.  For the debate over the Iraqi Civil War usually accompanies some debate about how to “win in Iraq.”  A debate typically associated with lots of admissions of mistakes (as with Billy the Kid), along with platitudes of “if only we had realized our mistakes in the beginning.”  Lots of mistake mongering, when the debate over this civil war is in and of itself a mistake.

Fighting obvious realities like the current Iraqi Civil War is what got us to this point in the first place.  And the publications of Sir William Kristol and King Roberto Kagan took the lead in dismissing such realities as they were occuring, spinning their own wet dreams into common wisdom among the willing press.  Finally peddling books admitting to the mistakes of the power wielders for whom they were PR consultants.  

These voices should be silenced not amplified, and for that Charlie Rose or any other person wielding a camera and microphone who allows this man to advertise his book of deceitful warmongering deserves a lashing.

UPDATE: Vote on favorites below

We’re starting a book club in which we will read the same book and discuss it, starting with Mike Tidwell’s BAYOU FAREWELL. It’s already getting rave reviews from BooTribbers who have started reading it. The books we choose will be ones that illuminate the news that interests us and the issues that concern us. Those of us who are buying our copies are getting them from Powell’s, USING THE LINKS ON THIS SITE, as a way to raise a little income to support the Trib.

Okay. . .

1. DATE:  How does the 4th Saturday of each month sound to you? Weekends are low traffic times here, so this might be another way of contributing, by increasing visits and page hits.

2. Thanks for participating in the planning, Froggies. And by the way, anybody from any site is welcome to join us. Please do invite your friends from DKos, My Left Wing, Liberal Street Fighter, Village Blue, etc.

The Iraq war continues to be fought on the cheap.  No sacrifice for the wealthy. Just more and more tax cuts. Tax monies and supplies needed to maintain USA’s infrastructure were transferred to Iraq. This policy directly resulted in the destruction of most of New Orleans, a thousand deaths and increased costs for gasoline.

Iraq’s Civil War is starting. Continued occupation by “shot first and ask questions later” Western Christian soldiers will only accelerate the collapse of Iraq. The only question is when will full civil war explode and bring in the neighboring countries on opposing sides. A shut off of Iranian and Saudi oil supplies will make the Gulf Coast oil shut down feel like small change.

The incompetence and mendacity of the Bush Administration after five years is known fact. The real question is why has the Democratic Party completely failed to provide alternative plans to rally Americans to a reality based solution in the Middle East. Instead only Blogs like this one or Juan Coles’ Informed Comment discuss half hearted solutions.  Can the US Military Presence Avert Civil War?

The fact is if the USA continues on its current path it faces defeat and collapse of its economy from an Middle East oil shutdown in a few short years. Immediate US withdrawal will not stop the Sunni’s insurrection nor their drive to regain power. Instead it will accelerate the collapse to civil war. The only alternative is a fixed time table for US withdrawal and replacement with a regional/UN peacekeeper forces, defacto partition and a political settlement. A bloody alternative but it may prevent the destruction of the Iranian and Saudi oil fields.  Yet, not one politician or media pundit is proposing a realistic solution to the USA’s sandy quagmire.

UPDATE: The final vote was 78-22.

The Senate is voting today on the confirmation of John Roberts as Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court. The fix is in and he will be confirmed since not one Republican will cast a vote of conscience to oppose his nomination. This is a rubber stamp procedure for them. The fact that they’re all willing to vote for Roberts speaks volumes. Let’s hope Roberts proves them all wrong and turns out to be one of the most liberal justices ever. A gal can dream.

Watch or listen online on C-SPAN
Announced votes indicate the final vote will be 77-21.

I will post a list of Democrats voting against Roberts shortly.

Here they are:

Final vote: 78-22

The Philadelphia Inquirer (9/29, Budoff) reports that Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Robert P. Casey Jr. “said that if he were a senator, he would support the confirmation of John G. Roberts Jr. to the Supreme Court.  After considering factors such as character, resume and judicial philosophy, and listening to Roberts’ testimony before the Judiciary Committee, ‘I would vote to confirm him,’ Casey said in a statement issued by his campaign.  Casey’s decision erases a potential contrast with incumbent” Santorum.
The Philadelphia Inquirer (9/29, Budoff) reports that Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Robert P. Casey Jr. “said that if he were a senator, he would support the confirmation of John G. Roberts Jr. to the Supreme Court.  After considering factors such as character, resume and judicial philosophy, and listening to Roberts’ testimony before the Judiciary Committee, ‘I would vote to confirm him,’ Casey said in a statement issued by his campaign.  Casey’s decision erases a potential contrast with incumbent” Santorum.

Crossposted at Howard-Empowered People: An online community of Dean-inspired activists

Last night on Nightline, Howard Dean was interviewed by Ted Koppel in response to Tom DeLay’s indictment by a Texas Grand Jury. I recorded the interview, and you can find my transcript below.

Koppel: A little over four months ago Governor Dean, you were prepared to see Tom DeLay in jail without benefit of an indictment or a trial. Uhh…I mean, you already had him there. So, what’s your reaction now that there is at least an indictment? (Editor’s note: Not only is that a bratty question, but it was executed badly. If you’re going to go the asshat route, you really need to finesse it better than that.)
Dean: Well, I think that this is endemic, both in the White House and in the government. It’s a culture of corruption; the Republicans have bought Washington. A couple of weeks ago, the chief procurement officer in the White House was arrested on corruption charges, Tom DeLay is now indicted, but he has been convicted three times in the ethics committee of the House for ethical violations. Karl Rove, the Deputy Chief of Staff in the White House is now under investigation along with a senior person on Vice President Cheney’s staff, and now of course the majority leader of the Senate Bill Frist is being looked at for insider stock trading. So the Tom DeLay issue is an issue that’s been at the forefront, but it’s not just about Tom DeLay. It’s a thorough culture of corruption which has permeated the Bush administration, which has been brought to Washington by them, and we need to change it, and we can do better in this country.

Koppel: Governor, you were careful enough in each case to indicate that there are charges, there are suggestions–in no case has anybody been convicted of anything. So, to speak about a culture of corruption before any legal procedure has confirmed that seems a little premature, doesn’t it?

Dean: I don’t think so. I think when you have the Majority Leader who is now under indictment, having been admonished three times by the ethics committee, there is already a culture of corruption. You have the Senate leader trying to protest that he had nothing to do with insider trading. Look, this is a pattern, Ted. It’s a pattern that recurs again and again in this particular administration. We need a fundamental change in Washington–we need to get away from this. Where there’s smoke, there’s fire. If this was one case of one congressman, that would be one thing. The House Majority Leader, the Senate Majority Leader, the Deputy Chief of Staff in the White House, Dick Cheney’s Chief of Staff, the Chief Procurement Officer in the White House…this is pretty serious stuff and I think that the President frankly ought to repudiate it and he hasn’t done anything.  He’s stood by all these people. You know, we need some leadership in this country, and we need a president who will stand up for ethics in government, and we don’t have that president now.

Koppel: You clearly believe or you wouldn’t be saying these things that somehow this is going to resonate well with the American public. I guess my question would be do you think the American public is going to respond to what it sees as a partisan attack, by which I mean an attack which comes before the courts have spoken.

Dean:  Look, Tom DeLay was indicted by a jury of Texans. I don’t know if there’s 12 or 15 that sit in the Grand Jury in Texas, but this is not a partisan indictment. This is an indictment of his peers. His peers thought there was enough evidence to turn this into a trial, and it’s going to happen.

Koppel: Look, you know full well that an indictment–they often say that a good Attorney General can get an indictment with a ham and swiss sandwich. An indictment doesn’t mean necessarily mean that someone’s going to be convicted.

Dean: The Republicans, of course, would make that scheme. But this problem is, this is a pattern with Tom DeLay. This is not the first time he’s been in trouble. This is not the second time or even the third time he’s been in trouble. This is the fourth time he’s been in trouble, and the previous three times he was found by his own committee, his ethics committee in the House to in fact have been guilty of what he was charged of. So I think we again see a pervasive pattern of corruption in Washington at all levels: in the White House, in the Senate, and in the House. And this is the first indictment of a major political figure, but there have been previous indictments, both Jack Abramoff who was both a big fundraiser for the President and very close to Tom DeLay, the arrest of the Chief Procurement Officer in the White House…again and again we see a lot of this, and I think where there’s smoke, there’s fire.

Koppel: Let me ask you to keep your hat as Democratic National Chairman on for a moment, and give me a frankly partisan assessment of how, if at all, this can help the Democrats.

Dean: Well, I don’t think it helps the country at all–that’s the big issue. I mean, in times like these you kind of wince. This is not good for America. We’ve had some terrible blows: we’ve had the President’s blunders in Iraq, we’ve had the disaster Katrina which embarrassed us in front of the whole world, and now the whole world again gets to see the leadership in both the White House and the House and the Senate be indicted or investigated or arrested for corruption. It’s not a great time for America. I think Americans are sick of this. And I can tell you one thing; when we get back in power, which I believe is going to be in 2006 in the congressional, we’re going to have some ethics reform in Washington. We’re going to get tough, and we’re going to get tough on everybody, not just Republicans. Enough of this in Washington! We ought to have substantial ethics reforms in Congress and to get serious about this.

Koppel: Governor Dean, it’s good of you to come in and join us. Thanks very much.
Dean: Thanks, Ted.

An angry Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) — who charges Donald Rumsfeld with breaking the law for failing to comply with bills passed over a year ago — says he’ll offer amendments to the current defense bill that will “reimburse soldiers for body armor and equipment they purchased to better protect themselves while serving in Iraq.” (MSNBC)

The families of soldiers in Iraq continue to send them everything from “higher-quality protective gear to armor for their Humvees, medical supplies and even global positioning devices.” Medical supplies? GPS devices?

Dodd’s new provisions will “take the funding issue out of the hands of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and give control to military unit commanders in the field.”

Meanwhile, national guard units serving in the Gulf states hit by Katrina were plagued by a severe shortage of trucks, bulldozers and communications equipment.

The head of the National Guard, Lt. Gen. Steven Blum, says his chief problem is equipment — much of it battered from service in Iraq, or stuck in Iraq.

[Blum says that] communications systems in particular were scarce during the Katrina rescue operation, but he adds that he could have used more of almost everything. He filled those gaps through cross-leveling, but “that’s a stop-gap solution” that pushed the Guard to the edge of its capabilities. (Christian Science Monitor, via The Seattle Times)

The Guard has long received the leftovers but now, given its frontline status in Iraq, it’s time to change that. Two senators — Christopher Bond (R-Mo.) and Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) met with Pres. Bush last week to press him for $1.2 billion to replenish the Guard’s equipment.

Haven’t we been discussing these equipment problems for years now? Is it still “news” to the Bush administration that the prolonged conflict in Iraq — and the 120-degree heat — are wreaking havoc on our military’s equipment?

“The bottom line is that Donald Rumsfeld and the Defense Department are failing soldiers again” Paul Rieckhoff, executive director of Operation Truth, told MSNBC. OpTruth is an advocacy group for Iraq veterans.

Rieckhoff’s next statement astonishes me:

“It just became an accepted part of the culture. If you were National Guard or Reserve, or NCOs, noncommissioned officers, you were going to spend a lot of money out of your pocket,” said Rieckhoff, who was a platoon leader with the 3rd Infantry Division and served in Iraq from the invasion in March 2003 to spring 2004. “These are bureaucratic failures, but when they make mistakes like this, guys die. There has been progress made, but we’re still seeing serious shortages.”

Adds an infuriated Sen. Dodd:

“Rumsfeld is violating the law … It’s been sitting on the books for over a year. They were opposed to it. It was insulting to them. I’m sorry that’s how they felt.”

Update [2005-9-29 12:39:42 by susanhu]: Just in from CNN: Five U.S. soldiers have died from an IED during combat operations near Ramadi. And, at 10 am PT, it was announced that three suicide bombers struck — I think all near or in Baghdad. Forty are dead so far, and there are numerous injuries including severe burns and mangled limbs.

BELOW, the story of a father who just spent $1,000 to send his son desperately needed armor:

‘Not good enough’

“Your expectation is that when you are sent to war, that our government does everything they can do to protect the lives of our people, and anything less than that is not good enough,” said a former Marine who spent nearly $1,000 two weeks ago to buy lower-body armor for his son, a Marine serving in Fallujah.

The father asked that he be identified only by his first name — Gordon — because he is afraid of retribution against his son.

“I wouldn’t have cared if it cost us $10,000 to protect our son, I would do it,” said Gordon. “But I think the U.S. has an obligation to make sure they have this equipment and to reimburse for it. I just don’t support Donald Rumsfeld’s idea of going to war with what you have, not what you want. You go to war prepared, and you don’t go to war until you are prepared.”

Under the law passed by Congress last October, the Defense Department had until Feb. 25 to develop regulations for the reimbursement, which is limited to $1,100 per item. Pentagon officials opposed the reimbursement idea, calling it “an unmanageable precedent that will saddle the DOD with an open-ended financial burden.”

In a letter to Dodd in late April, David Chu, undersecretary of defense for personnel, said his office was developing regulations to implement the reimbursement, and would be done in about 60 days.

‘Serious shortages’

Soldiers and their families have reported buying everything from higher-quality protective gear to armor for their Humvees, medical supplies and even global positioning devices. … (MSNBC)

The Christian Science Monitor — via The Seattle Times (Sept. 27, 2005) — adds detail to what’s contributing to severe equipment shortages — and notes that it will take $20 billion to replenish the military’s equipment and supplies.

For those of you here who missed it, BooMan contributed an important diary to dKos the other day, a response to a complaint by Kos that (as Phil Ochs wrote in another context) “demonstrations are a drag”–and to other developments on dKos over the last year.

It’s an important statement about both the Daily Kos and BooMan Tribune (BooMan even talks a little about why he started this blog), and I think it’s worthwhile for anyone here to go over and take a look.
Now, I don’t agree with BooMan completely.  Some of the things Kos says do have validity, in my opinion.  On The Daily Show Jon Stewart poked fun at the demonstrators for the same things–basically, that many on the left try to take advantage of single-issue demonstrations like the one last weekend to promote other agendas.  But I am becoming more and more uncomfortable with dKos (if you are interesed, I posted a diary over there explain a little bit of why).  

dKos is not a community-driven site.  Decisions on its focus do come from the top, though we Kossacks do have some imput.

BooMan could provide the same sort of “direction” here but, so far as I know, has not–to date.

It’s a relief to hear his views, for it makes clear that he is aware of the danger.  That awareness will, I believe, keep him from falling into the traps set by the possibility of “control.”