Why Aren't They Reporting the Lies?

I mentioned below that the press will try to cover up for the McCain/Palin horrors as much as they can. How do I know this? Well, uh, because they've been doing it. Were Obama, Hillary, Gore, or Billy J Clinton to have said or done the same things McPalin has done, they would already have been laid out on a spit and roasted by the press. So why the double standards? Here's why:

1. Fox News & WSJ plus about half or more of the columnists in the major newspapers are lock-stock part of the GOP. No, they're not paid by them (as far as I know), but they identify closely with the GOP and believe that its crucial to their financial well-being and possibly the existence of civilization that the GOP remain in power. So this group of "journalists" - plus, naturally, all the known scum on the radio - will be campaigning for the GOP, attacking Obama, and covering for the GOP stooges. I suspect that based on the roster above, more than half of the voices in the major mainstream media are part of the GOP. Add onto that what I wrote about here - that the mainstream media is not liberal because of the market for news.

2. Reporters are basically cowards driven by market forces and will support anyone who's popular and attack anyone who's out of favor. People seem to really like Sarah Palin - and who doesn't want a evangelical dominatrix with a Fargo accent? - and the press won't rock that boat. Until people stop liking her.

3. Above all, the press need a horse race. The tension and conflict of politics sells news. We got the Iraq War because the press were cowards and we got a Bush re-election because the press needed to keep the election close. Even though in 2004 the Abu Ghraib story had already broke, and we hadn't found WMDs in Iraq, even with all these horrible things, the press decided that we needed a close election. Thanks.

What this means for 2008 is that even though McCain is clueless, has a temperament problem, changes his views more often than he changes shirts, appears to be very very stupid, and all in all will be a very dangerous president... were the press to point that out, there'd be a landslide for Obama and nobody would watch TV.

And even though Sarah Palin is a crazy Christian who can't tell the truth, bullies her enemies - which include those whose religion she despises - and is manifestly unqualified to be Vice President... if the press pointed all this out, they'd lose advertising dollars because of lack of interest.

As I said before, I think there's a good chance Palin/McCain will end up like Romney, but the press will do it's durndest to make sure we don't hear it from them.

Goldblog: Ketziot & Abu Ghraib

I've rapidly changed my opinion about Jeffrey Goldberg. When I read his pieces in the New Yorker, he sounded like just another American leftist against Israel. But then I found out that he actually lived in Israel and served in the IDF - which is way better than what I've done. So his Zionist bona-fides are greater than mine and as such, I allow him his left-wing opinions. I say 'allow' and not 'agree' because I can still think he's wrong - but since he's paid his dues and comes to his opinions from real experience, he's an "Israeli" voice in my mind, and not a Diaspora Jew.

That said, read his post about comparing his IDF service as a prison guard in Ketziot to the reports about Abu Ghraib. Here's the first few lines to whet your appetite. How Ketziot Never Could Have Prepared Me for Abu Ghraib:

When Sy Hersh first told me about Abu Ghraib, I could not understand him, and not merely because he begins sentences in the middle of sentences. This was a problem of cognition. I had long ago built a template in my mind about these sorts of issues, and the story Sy was telling me did not fit.

This template was something I devised in the 1991, when I was a military policeman at the Ketziot Military Prison Camp in the Negev Desert of Israel. I had moved to Israel at the age of 20. I was drafted, and after many strange and discomfiting turns, I found myself in Ketziot, where I didn't want to be, for several reasons, including a) it's very hot in the Negev and I have the melanin of a Finn; b) I was raised as a socialist Zionist, which meant that I was a Jewish nationalist who opposed the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza; c) the job itself, which was to maintain order in a prison holding 6,000 Palestinians, most of whom would kill me if given a chance. This is not to say that I wouldn't die for Israel. I just didn't want to die enforcing an occupation I thought morally and politically dubious.

Pic from here. Backpost finished 2009-12-06.

Why the Kennedy Endorsement is Good

My brother responded to my gleeful question about the Kennedy endorsement, whether Obama is JFK or RFK by saying:

Hopefully, more like Bobby. But truthfully, hopefully like neither one, on several levels.

I asked why - and I should note, I've never harbored ill-will to the Kennedys the way a thinking minority of my parent's generation seems to.

My brother's response:

Well, both were assassinated. JFK was high on rhetoric, but apparently quite lacking in substance. And there's the womanizing, which I'm tired of hearing about.

Fair enough. Here's my reply. Note, while this is being blogged now, it was originally an email exchange:

JFK - with all his faults - was a watershed for the boomer ideology. He was young, fresh, 'new century' ideals. He did what FDR and Reagan did - create a new ideology for America to follow. RR sucked. JFK, again for all his faults, stood for economic, racial, ethnic equality. The great society, the civil rights movement, were all done in his memory.

And similarly, the last 25-30 years have all been different riffs on Reagan's legacy. Clinton knew that too - hence why he shrunk government, abandoned health care, gutted welfare. These were all Republican ideas. And as Obama said, it's because Reagan provided a narrative to answer the excesses of the 60s and 70s.

Take the 'ruthless reviews' world famous (according to Wiki) "80s Action Film Guide" - the Dirty Harry, Rambo crap. Those movies were based on the idea that liberals were ruining America. It was crap, but RR captured that sentiment and turned it into a revolution.

There's now a chance to create a new narrative, akin to the FDR 'new deal,' the JFK 'new frontier/great society and the Reagan 'I Hate Everybody Not White' The realignment kicked into gear in the wake of Abu Ghraib and Katrina, exploded with the 2006 midterms, and can now be captured by Obama.

It's no longer a question in my mind. We have a chance - we meaning Democrats, but also we meaning America - to again reshape the world. This was the feeling that JFK gave people, the way the 'morning in America's crap of Reagan worked, and what can happen now.

Look at the voter turnout numbers! Turnout is usually low because people, especially the young, think that politics is worthless. Choosing between the lesser of two chumps. Gore vs. Bush, Kerry vs. Bush. Ugh ugh ugh. But Obama is drawing hundreds of thousands of new voters in each state. He's growing the party, and helping Democracy.

It's time.

First pic from here, second is from the Ruthless. Backpost finished 2009-12-18.

Torture Update

So the Times reports that the Canadian government officially believes that the United States tortures!:

Late last month, a federal judge in Canada ruled that the United States had violated international conventions on torture and the rights of refugees.

This is a matter of international law! How long will the US Press use the Cheney-Orwellian language to obscure the fact - clearly known by every other country but ours - that we torture! This is despicable.

Pic is the well-known Abu Ghraib torture still. Backpost finished on 2009-11-26.

Torture

There are people who believe that the Bush Administration hasn't consciously created and enforced a policy of torture. These people are either (a) seriously not paying attention (about 80-90% of the US population), (b) are credulous folk who believe the nice George when he says "[Read my lips] We do not torture," (c) the rest are Republican meat-heads who will echo whatever Bush/Rush/Headvoices tell them to believe.

There are people who do believe it's now American policy to torture. These people are either (a) Michael Moore types who believe that Bush regularly rapes kittens and purposely eats chili so he can use the Constitution as a Ty-D-Bowl wipe; (b) hardline Republicans who dearly hope we are torturing people because what's the point of being powerful if you don't boot people in the head? And then there's (c) people who read the papers/internet.

When my children ask in 10-15 years, "Daddy, what did you do when our government turned criminal?" I'll need a good story to tell them. I spoke out about the issue from the pulpit, I've written to my representatives. But, sadly, until it becomes a proven fact, I can't do much more. Before the Press and Congress confirm the facts, anyone who claims we torture has only circumstantial evidence.

However, there's some more recent evidence that not only do we torture, but that it's international knowledge. Other countries' governments know we torture, but Congress is still in the dark. [Barfing sound.]

Scott Horton, from Harpers, on December 1, cites two disturbing examples of how this plays out internationally:

Is America a nation that tortures? The question is being asked all around the world. It’s not a matter of idle speculation. Under international treaties, which many nations, not being liberated by the law-what-law?mantra of the Neocons, treat very seriously, there are specific prohibitions about cooperation with nations which torture. In particular, there is article 3 of the Convention Against Torture, which forbids any state party to return a prisoner to a nation where he is likely to be tortured.

In 2006, I had an off-the-record discussion with the chief law enforcement officer of one of America’s most important allies. Having read the torture memoranda out of the Justice Department, and having seen the reports issued by the Department of the Army dealing with abuses in Abu Ghraib, Bagram and Guantánamo, I asked, is your Government in a position to engage in prisoner exchanges with the Americans or to allow American interrogators unfettered access to persons in your Government’s custody? He responded in a manner that showed the question had been studied carefully. “I can assure you that we take our obligations under article 3 very seriously. We will not speak publicly about this, but of course we have terminated cooperation with the United States in ways that would violate article 3. And of course we have reached the only possible conclusion, which is that the United States has embraced torture as a matter of formal policy.” This is a nation which continues to be one of our dwindling number of allies, but it faces increasingly steep challenges in cooperating while it complies with the requirements of law.

And this judgment is a very broad one—now shared almost universally by America’s allies. We don’t have to consider what the enemies think.

More evidence of this phenomenon in a very important decision handed down on Thursday by Canada’s Federal Court. Professor Jaya Ramji-Nogales, who’s been patiently tracking the matter, furnishes a report:

Yesterday, the Canadian Federal Court issued an opinion in the case Canadian Council for Refugees, Canadian Council of Churches, Amnesty International, and John Doe v. Her Majesty The Queen. This case challenges the “Safe Third Country Agreement” between Canada and the United States that came into force in December 2004. This agreement provides that, with limited exceptions, individuals who first enter either Canada or the United States and then attempt to cross a land border into the other country in order to lodge an asylum claim must be returned to claim asylum in the first country they entered. In assessing the constitutionality of the agreement, the Canadian Court found that the United States does not comply adequately with Article 33 of the UN Refugee Convention, which prohibits return to persecution, or Article 3 of the Convention Against Torture, which prohibits return to torture — specifically naming the Maher Arar case as an example of the United States’ failure to protect.

As one of the experts who described the ways in which U.S. asylum law (in particular, the one-year filing deadline) violates international law, I am proud to note that the court found “the Applicant’s experts to be more credible, both in terms of their expertise and the sufficiency, directness and logic of their reports” and “more objective and dispassionate in their analysis and report” than the government’s experts. Of particular note, the Court found that “it would be unreasonable to conclude that the one-year bar, as it is applied in the U.S., is consistent with the Convention Against Torture and the Refugee Convention” and that this bar “has a disproportionate impact on gender and sexual orientation claims” for asylum. The Court also found that women making asylum claims based on domestic violence are not sufficiently protected under U.S. law. The long decision is well worth a read, and while it bodes well for asylum seekers in Canada (assuming that the judge’s final order, after further submissions, follows this opinion, and that the decision survives appeal), it reads as a damning critique of the treatment of those seeking protection in the United States.

That’s the long version. Here’s the short version: “We do not torture?” That claim has been formally reviewed by a court and found to be a lie.

Just to review: according to two close allies, Canada and an as yet unnamed country, have legally considered our country to be one that tortures. Is that proof enough?

The ticking sound you hear is the silence from Congress. Grrr.

{2009 Update: First pic from here, second from here.}

Meet the Press about Lieberman-Lamont

From Sunday:

MR. RUSSERT: Welcome both. Lanny Davis, friend of Lieberman; Jim Dean, friend of Lamont. Let’s go right to it.

Here’s the latest polling on this Senate race in Connecticut, let’s put it on the screen. Now: Lieberman 41, Lamont 54. Six months ago it was Lieberman 68, Lamont 13. What happened to Joe Lieberman? How could he lose 55-point lead?

MR. LANNY J. DAVIS: Well, I think from the very beginning he knew that his position on the war was contrary to the feelings of most Democrats, and that the challenge would be to try to convince Democrats to focus on the facts concerning his 30-year record as a progressive Democrat, and allow him to disagree, at least in part, on the war. He’s spoken out strongly against the conduct of the war. But I think he knew from the beginning that the war was a very dominant issue for Democrats, and it would tighten up.

MR. RUSSERT: Even amongst Lamont supporters, Mr. Dean, let me show you, this is quite interesting. Are you voting for Lamont, 30 percent; against Lieberman, 65. Is this a referendum on Joe Lieberman?

MR. JAMES H. DEAN: Well, I think you could probably say that, but I think more so, Tim, that it’s really a reference—a referendum, excuse me, on incumbency in general in Washington, and sort of the inertia that people have become to associate with getting things done in Congress. I think in a lot of ways, obviously the war, big, important issue among the voters, but I think we’re also need to talk about, you know, the fact that it’s been tough getting things done on health care, it’s been tough getting things done about our infrastructure and fully funding our schools. And while it’s unfair to hang any of that on Joe, because he’s fought for a lot of these things, I think there is a feeling that we need a change in Washington.

MR. RUSSERT: But the primary focus has been the war.

MR. DEAN: Mm-hmm.

MR. RUSSERT: In reference to February of ‘05, this now-famous picture of President Bush leaving the rostrum at the State of the Union message, hugging, kissing Joe Lieberman...


MR. DEAN: Yeah.

MR. RUSSERT: ...it evolved into this button that, “The Kiss: Too Close for Comfort!”

MR. DEAN: Yeah.

MR. RUSSERT: And many people refer to this speech Senator Lieberman gave in December of ‘05 as a real turning point. Let’s listen.

(Videotape, December 6, 2005):

SEN. JOE LIEBERMAN (D-CT): It’s time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be the commander in chief for three more critical years and that in matters of war, we undermine presidential credibility at our nation’s peril.

(End videotape)

MR. RUSSERT: “In matters of war, we undermine presidential credibility at our nation’s peril.” Is he suggesting that it is not patriotic to criticize a president’s conduct of a war?

MR. DAVIS: Absolutely not. The proof is in the pudding; he has criticized President Bush repeatedly for his inept handling of this war, for the lack of body armor, for the lack of the buildup with allies supporting the war. He’s actually said in 2003, “If I were president, I’d replace Donald Rumsfeld.” It is ludicrous to suggest that Joe Lieberman is against dissent in war. I was with Joe Lieberman in 1968 when he supported Robert Kennedy against an incumbent president. That comment was made about exploiting the war politically. He was referring as well to Republicans trying to use the war on terrorism for election purposes. That’s really the misconstruction of his comment. I think if he had to do it all over again, he wouldn’t have used those words.

MR. RUSSERT: When you heard those words, what was your reaction?

MR. DEAN: Well, actually, we did a petition drive on that, about those words, because we felt that, you know, there was an inference in here that dissent on this thing was wrong and, and we feel that, you know, we should be asking questions and dissenting on the wrong—dissenting on this war. So Democracy for America did a petition drive. I want to add also that Senator Lieberman, after that drive, met with both myself and several representatives of some of the groups in our network in Connecticut, which I—means a lot to me, and we had a, you know, a good dialogue about that. But again, you know, we’re in this race because we do believe in a change in Washington and we believe that we need some new voices in there and we believe we really need to consistently stand up against this president.

MR. RUSSERT: The only debate Lamont/Lieberman had, July 6th, Senator Lieberman said, “The situation in Iraq is a lot better than a year ago.” Is that his view?

MR. DAVIS: His view is to look at the facts that have occurred. There has been elections, a lot of people went to the polls under the worst of circumstances. I think every American—and by the way, Tim, I’m opposed to this war and I’m for Joe Lieberman. And there’s a reason that one can be against this war and in favor of Lieberman because of his progressive record for 30 years. But I was heartened when I saw those purple fingers in the air and I was heartened that people in Baghdad and throughout Iraq tried to show the ability to have democracy. So I think that’s what Senator Lieberman is talking about. But he does not deny that the inept handling of this war, that a borderline civil war that looks to be occurring, he’s not denying the difficulties that we now face, but he blames poor planning, ill execution, and he’s publicly criticized President Bush for that.

MR. RUSSERT: Rahm Emanuel, the congressman, the head of the Congressional Campaign Committee, is quoted in The Washington Post today saying the message out of Connecticut is don’t support the president on the war, that if you’re a rubber stamp for the president, it’s life-threatening. Do you agree?

MR. DAVIS: I agree that you shouldn’t be a rubber stamp for George Bush. And I think Rahm Emanuel was not talking about Joe Lieberman, because Rahm Emanuel knows about the facts. Joe Lieberman stood up to George Bush on every single tax cut for the wealthy, he opposed George Bush’s Social Security privatization plan, he led the fight against drilling in the Arctic Refuge, he supports stem cell research, he supports choice. Every major Democratic Party liberal organization—labor, environmentalists, the Human Rights Campaign, NARAL—support Joe Lieberman. Rahm Emanuel would not call a Democrat who supports 90 percent of his fellow Democrats in the Senate a rubber stamp for George Bush. That Kiss button is a campaign of distortion. Just because President Bush reached over and made that gesture, to make that into a campaign issue constitutes a misrepresentation of the facts of Joe Lieberman’s record as a Democrat in the Senate.

MR. RUSSERT: But the primary issue in this primary is the war.

MR. DAVIS: Yes. And I think it is absolutely understandable and legitimate for any Democrat who considers this war the paramount issue and the only issue to vote for Ned Lamont. And I respect that. I’m against this war, as I said, and I disagree with Joe Lieberman on the war, but I hope that Democrats watching in Connecticut, who look at a record of 30 years of fighting for progressive causes, will not allow the distortions of Joe Lieberman’s record, the Kiss button, calling him a lap dog—outright distortions, ignoring all of the times he’s been out there fighting George Bush on every major issue. That should be the dominant issue that counts when people go to the polls.

MR. RUSSERT: I’ve read all of Ned Lamont’s public comments on the war in Iraq...

MR. DAVIS: Mm-hmm.

MR. RUSSERT: ...and I’m trying to pin down exactly his position. This was June 22nd Hartford Courant. His campaign manager, Tom Swan, “said that Lamont backed the Reed-Levin plan”—that was a phased redeployment—“even though it was ‘watered down.’” And he said, “Lamont was ‘sympathetic’ to the John Kerry proposal” of a date-certain withdrawal, “but he wouldn’t necessarily vote for it, because he wants to be a uniter among Democrats.”

Then the very next day, the same newspaper, I read this: “A second measure offered by John F. Kerry, D-Mass. ... would have all U.S. troops out of Iraq by July 1,2007 ... ‘I would have supported them both,’” meaning Kerry and the Reed-Levin. What happened in 24 hours, and what is his position? Is he for an immediate withdraw, date-certain of all troops?

MR. DEAN: Right. My feeling is that he’s signed on with the Democratic Party leadership to withdraw the troops—start withdrawing troops by the end of this year. The...

MR. RUSSERT: Do you think Kerry says all out by July of ‘07 that he would vote of Kerry? So that’s his position?

MR. DEAN: Right. Ned wants to get the troops out ASAP. I mean, we, we all do. And the thing about this is is that there’s been a lot of, you know, sort of back and forth in this on Congress. The Democrats—you know, he’s one of those Democrats that’s taking a stand to get the troops out, that he’s willing to stand up for that and take the heat for doing it. He’s willing to sign on to the leadership to start withdrawing the troops by the end of this year, and that is the kind of thing that we need to further this debate and to get the troops out, because if we don’t start standing up for these things we’re never going to get them home right now, if we listen to this sort of rhetoric from the administration about staying the course and all of that.

MR. RUSSERT: But would he have voted for John Kerry’s resolution to bring all troops home—all of them—by July of ‘07?

MR. DEAN: I’m not sure whether he would have or not.

MR. DAVIS: Can I comment, please? On the very same day he said he would support Kerry’s, then he said he wouldn’t support Kerry’s, then he said he supported Chris Dodd’s position, which was opposed to Kerry’s. And here’s a fact that everybody maybe doesn’t know. In February of 2005, after that shot of President Bush kissing Senator Lieberman, Ned Lamont wrote out a check to the Lieberman campaign. February ‘05. If he was so much against the war, why is he supporting Joe Lieberman in February ‘05? What is his position on a deadline? Does he feel that pulling out, leaving a rogue state behind, is a danger? He won’t answer those questions, and I respect Jim not being able to answer the question, because his candidate won’t answer the question.

MR. DEAN: Well, he has answered that question in that he feels very strongly that the key to Iraq becoming its own government and running its own country is for our troops to get out of there as quickly as possible. I think he’s been pretty clear about that. He may have written a check to Joe Lieberman in the past, because Ned has been involved in Democratic Party politics for many, many years. And that’s, you know, part of what happens when you are involved in politics. And it was also before he was running for office.

MR. RUSSERT: Another big issue in the campaign that emerged is Terry Schiavo. Joe Lieberman was on this program in March of ‘05. I asked him about Terry Schiavo, his support of federal legislation to, to review her case, and I asked him this specific question:

(Videotape, March 2005):

MR. RUSSERT: You would have kept the tube in?

SEN. LIEBERMAN: I would have kept the tube in.

(End videotape)

MR. RUSSERT: Is that still his view?


MR. DAVIS: His view, along with every Democrat in the United States Senate, was to allow legislation to pass to give the family, the parents, another chance at the Florida court system. That legislation passed by unanimous consent. When Mr. Lamont criticizes Senator Lieberman on that vote in his advertisements—another distortion—he doesn’t say that every Democratic senator took the same position and allowed that legislation to pass.

MR. RUSSERT: Yeah, no Democratic senator objected. Tom Harkin, liberal from Iowa, was the one who was trying to fashion the compromise. Jesse Jackson, who was in Connecticut last week for your candidate, said that it was “cruel and crude” to remove the tube from Terry Schiavo. So is it fair for Mr. Lamont to use that as an issue when no other Democrat stood up and opposed it, and Jesse Jackson, his supporter, was saying “cruel and crude,” which is basically Lieberman’s position?

MR. DEAN: Yeah. You know, I think Ned’s position on this is that this isn’t and was not then and is not the federal government’s business. And I concur with that. I think this is a family decision. They’d certainly been through the state court system up and down. It’s a gut-wrenching situation for, for both sides of this. And this was not something that the Congress or the Senate or the federal government should be getting involved in.

MR. RUSSERT: I even asked your brother, Howard Dean, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, why he didn’t speak up during the debate. He said, “I wish I would have.”

MR. DEAN: Well, again, Ned is extremely committed to the fact that the federal government really needs to stay out of issues like this among family members, as well as a lot of other personal and moral issues. People send their legislatures—or people to Congress, Tim, for them to solve the problems that we have of health care, solve the problems that we have of our schools, to solve our foreign policy and national security problems. They don’t send people to Congress to start telling them what they’re supposed to do in their personal life or make these difficult moral decisions.

MR. RUSSERT: Let me go to the nub of this campaign, because it has been focused on the war and whether Senator Lieberman is a sufficient enough Democrat. The Congressional Quarterly does a comparison of voting records, and this is what they found in 2005. Lieberman’s in agreement with the Democrat Party 90 percent of the time, and in opposition to the party 10 percent of the time. That places him equal or better than 17 other Democratic senators of the 44 who are there. Why is Lieberman being—alone being picked out for a primary of this nature, and not others, who also voted for the war?

MR. DEAN: Well, I think, you know, it’s—again, it gets back to this sort of culture of incumbency. And again, I’m not trying to hang Joe on this, but Connecticut is a state that gives a lot more than it gets from the federal government. I think the voters are OK with that there. I think the voters understand that solving some of these difficult issues of transportation and health care in Iraq take some time, but the problem is there’s a great deal of frustration among the voters now in Connecticut because these huge tax breaks to the energy companies that are going on, the huge tax breaks to big pharma, the $200 million bridges to nowhere—you know, they see their money just going directly out and going down the drain and getting nothing back, and I think that’s really contributed a lot. I mean, obviously, Iraq is a big deal. Senator Lieberman’s statements supporting the Bush administration, I think, have, have highlighted that quite a bit. But some of these other things that’ve been simmering for over 20 years are, are also coming into play here.

MR. RUSSERT: But money for I-95 or for ferries to lessen the traffic congestion...

MR. DEAN: Yeah.

MR. RUSSERT: ...bringing home the bacon for Connecticut...

MR. DEAN: Yeah.

MR. RUSSERT: ...would Lamont see that as part of his duties as a senator?

MR. DEAN: I think he would fight for that. And you know something, Joe has fought for that. But the real problem here is that we live in a system where there’s 63 lobbyists for every single person in Congress, and Connecticut is getting the short end of the stick.

No matter who wins this race, Tim, I don’t want them, six years from now, saying, “I saved 10 defense industry jobs,” because that’s all the defense industry jobs we have left in Connecticut. We’re playing a zero-sum game that we’re on the wrong end of, and we need someone who’s going to say, “the heck with this culture of incumbency, we got to get something done for the voters and taxpayers of our state.”

MR. RUSSERT: Lanny Davis, The New York Times watched this race very closely, and they weighed in last Sunday with an endorsement for Ned Lamont. And they said it this way: “It is critical that the minority party serve as a responsible, but vigorous, watchdog. That does not require shrillness or absolutism. But this is no time for a man with Mr. Lieberman’s ability to command Republicans’ attention to become their enabler, and embrace a role as the president’s defender.”

MR. DAVIS: First of all, I respect The New York Times, but I think the Connecticut newspapers that know the candidates best should probably be listened to more by Connecticut voters. All five Connecticut papers who have endorsed any candidate—all five—endorse Joe Lieberman, including Ned Lamont’s hometown paper, The Greenwich Time.

The New York Times devoted 11 paragraphs to criticizing Joe Lieberman without mentioning all of the specific instances where Joe Lieberman opposed President Bush, as I mentioned earlier, including on Abu Ghraib, in which he said that he was outraged; including calling the surveillance program illegal. The New York Times simply omitted those facts, and I was allowed to write a letter to the editor pointing that out.

But compared to five out of five Connecticut newspapers, including the Greenwich Time, his hometown newspaper—and if I could just respectfully suggest to my friend Jim--90 percent voting with Democrats is a fact. Another fact is that Ned Lamont, when he served on the Board of Selectmen, bragged, bragged to The Greenwich Time, the same newspaper that endorsed Joe Lieberman, “I support 80 percent of the time what my Republicans on the Board of Selectmen.” So those are facts that Mr. Lamont is not mentioning in his ad. When he clones and morphs Joe Lieberman—from the face of Joe Lieberman to the face of George Bush, that is a distortion of what you put on the screen, that Joe Lieberman votes 90 percent with the Democrats.

I’m accustomed to Republicans distorting Democrats in campaigns. We saw what happened to Max Cleland, being morphed into Osama bin Laden. When Joe Lieberman is morphed into George Bush, and Ned Lamont doesn’t say that he votes 90 percent with the Democrats, that’s a distortion, and the people of Connecticut should consider whether distorting Joe Lieberman’s record is a fair thing, and whether that’s something that Mr. Lamont should regret, before they vote for him.

MR. RUSSERT: Give you a chance to respond.

MR. DEAN: Yeah, sure. Well, first of all, you know, I think that 80 percent with the Republicans has been a little bit blown out of proportion. This is a select committee that’s dominated by Republicans, and we’re talking about pot holes in streets, here. But let’s go up to not 30,000 feet on this thing, Tim, but about 100 feet. If you look—I mean, both campaigns have given as good as they’ve gotten in this race, on both sides of it. But the overwhelming tenor, or, or, view of the totality of this race is the fact that the voters are getting very, very excited about the fact that they are empowered to set the course for Connecticut, set the course for their party. We have a situation right now where 11,000 people have registered, reregistered from being Independent to being Democrat. We have a lot of people that are engaged in this debate and getting very, very excited. And I think, really, that’s been the temper of this debate, and that’s, and that’s been the, the tone of this election more than anything else. It’s been extremely positive.

And I’ll say one thing about the party brass, most of whom were in Joe’s corner because of the convention, they’ve done a great job at handling this and keeping this debate civil. Nancy DiNardo, head of the party, it’s not been an easy three months, she’s done a great job. Chris Dodd with his statesmanship. This has benefited the three outstanding congressional candidates that we have: Diane Farrell, Chris Murphy, Joe Courtney. You know, that’s really been the tone of this. And there’s been some stuff in the direct mail on both sides of this. But that’s not really the—it’s about this big compared to everything else that’s going on.

MR. RUSSERT: In late June, Senator Lieberman said, “I’m a Democrat, I’ve always been a Democrat, I always will be a Democrat.” Twelve days later he started circulating petitions for an independent run; an insurance policy if he loses the Democratic primary. The last time there was an Independent running for the Senate in Connecticut who was a Democrat was 1970, and here’s the result: Lowell Weicker, the Republican, got 42 percent of the vote; Joe Duffey, the Democrat, got 34 percent of the vote, and Tom Dodd, the Democrat running as an Independent—father of the incumbent Senator Chris Dodd--24 percent. If Joe Lieberman loses this primary on Tuesday by a significant margin, will he still try to run as an Independent and risk losing the seat for the Democratic Party?

MR. DAVIS: The answer is he will run as a Democrat. He will run, he will win on Tuesday night, in my judgment. The facts will catch up, five endorsements by Connecticut papers. He will win Tuesday.

But in the hypothetical question you’ve asked, he is ahead by 24 points in a three-way contest. He will win Democratic support, Independent support, and moderate Republican support. He will caucus with the Democrats, and he will stand for a Democrat who’s progressive for 40 years that I’ve known him, reaching across the aisle...

MR. RUSSERT: So he’ll definitely run as an Independent?


MR. DAVIS: ... and caucus with the Senate. Yes, he will.

MR. RUSSERT: Will this risk losing the seat for the Democrats?

MR. DEAN: No. You know, these are really the two big players in this race—Ned Lamont, Joe Lieberman. I believe that whoever wins the Democratic primary in this thing will, will go to victory, and then keep—we’ll keep our Senate seat. In fact, I’m quite convinced of that.

MR. RUSSERT: Would you hope that Joe Lieberman would step aside if he loses the primary?

MR. DEAN: Well, you know, I, I’m only thinking one foot ahead of the other, Tim. I’m not the sharpest tack in the world. And you know, I can see my way right now through Tuesday, and then we’ll figure out everything else afterwards.

MR. RUSSERT: Lanny, you—Davis—your new book, “Scandal: How Gotcha Politics is Destroying America.” You’re very tough on the bloggers here. Is Joe Lieberman in trouble because of the bloggers or because of his support of—on the war for President Bush?

MR. DAVIS: He’s in a tight race because he’s on the opposite side of the way most core Democrats—I don’t blame it on the bloggers. But I do say that the virulence and the hatred where you can’t disagree with somebody, you just have to call them evil, is really what I’m addressing in that book, and which this campaign unfortunately has had too much of.

MR. RUSSERT: Lanny Davis, Jim Dean, thank you very much for...

MR. DEAN: Thanks for having us on, Tim.

MR. RUSSERT: ...civilized debate.

MR. DAVIS: Thank you very much.

MR. DEAN: Yeah, appreciate it.

MR. RUSSERT: We’ll be right back.

Oh Great, More Ghraib

According to the newest reports, Guantanamo operated under similar torture rules as did Abu Ghraib: Washpost: "At Guantanamo, a Prison Within a Prison"

Maybe I'd feel better about the torture and rape if we actually were (a) not in a fictional conflict in Iraq, (b) the prisoners were dangerous people, (c) the prisoners knew something about the people who truly are trying to hurt us. Yet there have been no convictions from the torture; no proof that what we're doing is right. We fought a war - back in 1776 - to stop this kind of stuff, no?

As it is, we are just destroying people for fun. This is shameful. Again, I implore the GOPers out there, you have a voice, talk to your commandants about stopping these un-American activities before they actually become considered American activities.

Backpost finished 2/17/05, there was just a title and a link

I Apologize

Seriously, I need to apologize. My brother asked me if I should be so happy that Ashcroft was resigning because 'maybe they'll find someone worse.' I said, well sometimes the Devil You Know is already bad enough.

I was wrong. The new AG candidate, Alberto R. Gonzales, is another one of the GOP tokens but this time, with his own baggage. According to many reports (This from washingtonpost.com), Gonzales may be responsible for the "legal" decisions that threw away the Geneva conventions and led to the horrors of Abu Ghraib.

My brother was right, I was wrong, I apologize. In the future, when trying to predict the actions of the President, always choose the most despicable path.

Four More Years of Abu Ghraib

Just in case the recent pronouncements of the domestic agenda and the 'political capital' of a razor thin victory have confused you, the reports are coming in of systemic abuses in Guantanamo prison (AP: Guantanamo Abuses Reported.)

This was one reason why Bush had to lose: so the abuse, which was ordered down from the highest levels of the Executive Branch, could have been exposed and the 'evildoers' brought to justice.

I won't say that anyone who supports Bush or voted for he and his mobsters is guilty of suppressing these crimes. As I said before, you Republicans have a chance to communicate to your Embarrassment in Chief that you want justice done. As non-base, I will be ignored (to say the least).

But if Abu Ghraib, and now Guantanamo, doesn't keep you up at night, then there's not much hope for you as a moral person.

Education Gap

The Democracy Corps has an analysis of their recent survey that brings forward some startling facts. What they call "The Tale of Two Gaps"

The gender gap between Democrats and Republicans is a known factor. But in 2004 - as opposed to 2000 - we now see a clear gap in education.

The key chart:
________________2000 Gore, Bush___________2004 Kerry, Bush

Male________________42____54________________46________49
Female______________54____43________________52________45

Non-College_________48____48________________48________50
College_____________47____49________________52________44

These numbers are frightening, especially for you college-educated Republicans. Basically, as I've said before, the only ones voting GOP tomorrow are those who are irretrievably partisan or utterly uninformed.

If for whatever reason, Bush manages to steal 2004 like he stole 2000, then those of you who are GOP loyalists have a responsibility to tell your grinning idiot man-child in Chief that he needs to clean house. I don't think we in the losing party will have a voice if Bush wins (and who knows when we will again!). Please, for the love of all that's good, tell him that he needs to fire Rumsfeld immediately, retire Ashcroft, put Cheney in the old ogre's home. Please.

And if Bush doesn't win, then I want to buy tickets to the many many trials. If Rumsfeld doesn't get arrested for Abu Ghraib, we're still in trouble.

The ICRC Report

Good ol' Smoking Gun. They got the goods on the torture in Iraq: Red Cross: Iraqi Treatment "Tantamount To Torture" - May 10, 2004

P.S. one of my favorite Smoking Gun archives is the conversion of Marilyn Monroe.

Get it Yet?

I've been saying for a few days, more emphatically, about the evil of this administration. In today's Times, see this wonderful sound-bite from Herr Rumsfeld:

On his flight to Iraq on Thursday, Mr. Rumsfeld told reporters traveling with him that the Geneva Conventions were open to interpretation.

"There are always going to be differences of views as to whether something does or doesn't" adhere to the conventions, he said. "The test is what is decided and what is issued, and then is it adhered to."

Who'da Thunk It?

Andrew Sullivan actually agrees with me... whoa:

"JONAH TAKES THE BAIT: I can see where he's coming from, but Jonah Goldberg is surely wrong when he writes: 'Well, CBS' scoop has gotten someone killed and there will be more deaths, on both sides, as a result of this story before it becomes history.' The photographs emphatically did not get Berg killed, no more than they got Daniel Pearl killed. Al Qaeda may have exploited the photographs as a propaganda tool, but we know they need no 'reason' to behead or massacre Americans. The only reason they need is that the person is an infidel and in their captivity. Believing that this is an actual response by Zarqawi to Abu Ghraib is to accept Zarqawi's own spin. "

New Worst Man in America

Replacing previous title-holder Don "Uckfup" Rumsfeld, who himself replaced George "Father Art in Hell" Bush who replaced John "How Could I Ever Have Been Replaced?" Ashcroft, is Senator James "Unmarked Bills" Inhofe. A senator from Oklahoma; needless to say he is a Republican.

As you can see from the news reports (e.g. WashPost: Senator Critical of Focus on Prisoner Abuse ) Senator Inhofe takes spin #2 - attack the media for being so durn Constitutiony.

To quote the Tyrant du-Jour: "I'm probably not the only one up at this table that is more outraged by the outrage than we are by the treatment,"

Yes! Outraged by the outrage!

Not to feed into the outrage over his outrage by the outrage, I have to wonder just what is Inhofe receive for his act of ethics prostitution? A speaking spot at the Republican convention? New Defense Secretary?

And just so you know who we're dealing with, Inhofe happens to be a major supporter of Israel, probably the strongest in the Republican party!

See this:

• The seven reasons for supporting Israel (from a floor speech of Senator Inhofe on March 4, 2002).
• Also see this story
• And this

And, guess what, I didn't know he was a big Israel supporter when I read his remarks in the Senate... I JUST GUESSED! Seriously!! I wrote the first part of this post and on a hunch I googled "Inhofe" and "Israel" and voila, all this stuff comes up.

Why is it that the biggest scumbags in the government also Israel supporters? I don't want these people as my friends!

Guess What? Safire Has New Sugar Daddy

William Safire, who came of age on the knee of Nixon, has a new and disgusting cognitive dissonance: Rumsfeld Should Stay

According to Safire: "The highly effective defense secretary owes it to the nation's war on terror to soldier on."

I don't know if anybody in the rational world can call Rumsfeld 'effective' at this point. The war is a shambles. Pentagon officials are now releasing and leaking their long-held opinions that the war was and is fought in an amateurish and puerile manner.

Safire tries to stave off criticism by some strange story that "Rumsfeld was one of the few in power concerned about prisoners' rights" in 2001. Like past performance has any relevance to current behavior (and the 2002 assertion, quoted before, about “isolated pockets of international hyperventilation.”

Safire even believes Rumsfeld's claim that he was the last to see the photos:

"Why nobody searched out and showed him those incendiary pictures immediately reveals sheer stupidity on the part of the command structure and his Pentagon staff."

Poor Safire, a doddering senior citizen with betrayal issues. It's sad to see that the big supporters of Israel are, in point of fact, morons.

More of Abu Ghraib

Herr Rumsfeld warned us on Friday that worse is to come. According to the new New Yorker piece by Seymour Hersh:

NBC News later quoted U.S. military officials as saying that the unreleased photographs showed American soldiers “severely beating an Iraqi prisoner nearly to death, having sex with a female Iraqi prisoner, and ‘acting inappropriately with a dead body.’ The officials said there also was a videotape, apparently shot by U.S. personnel, showing Iraqi guards raping young boys."

Any of you out there deny the need for resignation and/or impeachment?

"Isolated pockets of International Hyperventilation"

Herr Rumsfeld, explaining in February 2002 his attitude towards Prisoners of War: Rumsfeld Explains Detainee Status (DefenseLINK News)

My Letter to Bush

The Honorable George W. Bush
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington DC 20510

Dear President Bush,

As someone who supported the war against Iraq and the toppling of Saddam Hussein, I implore you to call for the resignation of Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld following the revelation of the abuses in Abu Ghraib prison.

America is the greatest nation on Earth. As an Orthodox rabbi, I am ashamed about what our country has done. To blame individual soldiers - even if factually accurate - does not take responsibility for the effect that their evil has on our nation.

I am reminded of the Biblical comparison between King Saul and King David. Saul, when presented with war crimes from his subordinates (I Samuel 15), denies the crimes and denies his responsibility. It is this moral callowness that results in his losing his kingship.

David, on the other hand, when his trusted general Joab kills the rival general Abner, expresses voluble and visible contrition (II Samuel 3). David remains the king for all his lifetime and his descendants forever.

The dastardly action by our military has made a mockery of the United States. Our great and moral country has lost any chance of moral leadership in this world - unless we act like King David and express humility in a greater level than our transgression.

Please call on Secretary Rumsfeld to resign.

Sincerely,
[The Styx]

Spin for Sale! Get your red-hot Spin!

The conservative pundits are trying very hard to put a pretty face on the fact that their boys, Bush, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, etc, have a lot of explaining to do about the Iraq abuse.

Here's the summary of the spin:

1. What the soldiers did wasn't bad.

(This is from Rush Limbaugh, essential quote: This is no different than what happens at the skull and bones initiation and we're going to ruin people's lives over it and we're going to hamper our military effort, and then we are going to really hammer them because they had a good time. You know, these people are being fired at every day. I'm talking about people having a good time, these people, you ever heard of emotional release? You of heard of need to blow some steam off?)

2. The soldiers are just isolated bad-apples. (This is from the US Government)

3. There may have been widespread abuses but that's not torture (this is initially from Rumsfeld)

4. There are many people who are guilty, but certainly not the top members of government (this is from nearly all the conservative pundits).

5. A new one for me: from Jonah Goldberg (Jonah Goldberg on CBS & Abu Ghraib on National Review Online) that the abuses are bad and that's all we need to say about it but another entity to be blamed is CBS News for showing the pictures of the abuse. In his words CBS should be ashamed for running those photos.

Wow. I kid you not. That's what this guy - who is employed as a journalist (although pundits are not exactly journalists) - says.

He tries to stave off arguments by saying:

The good reasons [for showing the pictures] are obvious. The people have the right to know. The scandal firestorm sharpens the resolve of politicians and the military to investigate and stop the abuse of prisoners. The bad is that uproar from these pictures drowns out all other messages, explanations, and journalistic "context."

Huh?

The "context" is that: "Lost is the fact that in America torturers get punished, while in the Arab world they get promotions. "

Yeah, dude, you lost it all right. If he is correct, and it's unlikely he is, then Rumsfeld and Bush will ride the rails back to the Old Republican War Criminals Home. Because, hey, they are guilty, and hey, they won't be punished.

The only reason why the country knows about these vicious crimes is because of CBS and The New Yorker.

Proof in point: Rumsfeld met with Congressional leaders last week and did not mention to them about these atrocities. See the AP story, with this quote:

[Senator. Carl Levin, D-Mich ] and Sen. John Warner, R-Va., the [Senate Armed Services] committee chairman, both expressed displeasure that they had not been informed earlier.

Levin noted with "deep dismay'' that Rumsfeld and Myers had briefed the panel about Iraq in a classified session last week but did not mention the scandal the government knew was about to break in the news media.

Basically, the executive branch felt that Congressional oversight was unnecessary for the conduct of a war. That hasn't happened since the jolly days of Ollie North!

What Jonah G and the rest of his Fox New Channel types are afraid of is the truth coming out. Where will their White House access go? What about all those sweet little dreams of four more years of theft and menace?

Seymour Hersh's Exposure of Abu Ghraib

From the New Yorker: Torture at Abu Ghraib