Monday, October 09, 2006
Sunday, October 08, 2006
The Gang That Couldn’t Talk Straight
By Joe Conason
By now, Americans should know that when Republican congressional leaders talk about “family values,” they mean the values of the Soprano family. Like the mobsters on HBO, the Republicans rat each other out when things get sticky and they, too, have considerable difficulty in getting their stories straight.
Listening to the Capitol Hill gang explain how they handled the unappetizing matter of Mark Foley, the infamous Florida Republican forced to resign over his illicit behavior toward teenage male pages, it isn’t easy to distinguish between venality and stupidity. Did Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), Majority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) and the other Republican overseers ignore Foley’s misbehavior in the expectation that he would reform himself? Did they really believe that he should continue to chair the House’s Missing and Exploited Children’s Caucus?
Or did they just hope in the midst of burgeoning corruption scandals and voter discontent threatening their majority that the Foley problem could be concealed until after the midterm election?
While Hastert has never seemed capable of sustained cogitation, his responses to the questions raised by the Foley scandal have been particularly obtuse, and yet highly revealing as well. Sometimes he remembers being told about Foley, sometimes he doesn’t. In either case, he accepts no responsibility.
Appearing on the radio with Rush Limbaugh, the speaker even attempted to blame the Democrats for bringing up the Foley matter, insinuating that his political adversaries had withheld evidence of the congressman’s sexual predations for three years. His friends at The Wall Street Journal editorial page insist that fear of being perceived as “gay bashers” inhibited a serious investigation by the Republican leaders (who instead spent much of last summer warning that gay marriage would mean the end of Western civilization).
Such feeble attempts to shift the blame are less interesting than the emerging narrative of dereliction and coverup. Hastert told CNN that he wasn’t sure when he had first heard about Foley’s inappropriate conduct, but said that the issue may have come up last spring in conversation with Rep. Tom Reynolds (R-N.Y.), who chairs the National Republican Congressional Committee.
According to Hastert, he doesn’t specifically remember being told about the e-mail messages sent by Foley to a Louisiana teenager, but he conceded that Reynolds could have mentioned the matter.
Meanwhile, Reynolds, whose mission is to ensure the reelection of a Republican majority in November, says he informed the speaker because he thought his “supervisor” should know about Foley’s possible misconduct with a page.
Both he and Boehner, who says that he too discussed the issue with the speaker, claim they assumed that the boss had “taken care” of the problem. What that meant in practice was that Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.), who oversees the page program, told Foley to leave the Louisiana lad alone and be more careful in his dealings with the pages.
For some reason, Shimkus never disclosed the Foley problem to the other two representatives on the House Page Board, one of whom is a Democrat, who obviously couldn’t be trusted to keep his mouth shut. And for some reason, neither Boehner nor Reynolds ever followed up to learn how the problem had been addressed.
On July 27, the National Republican Congressional Committee received a contribution of $100,000 from the Friends of Mark Foley, a political-action committee controlled by the Florida congressman. No doubt that pleased Reynolds, perhaps enough to erase any disturbing memory of that Louisiana incident.
Those memories were revived last week, however, when Brian Ross of ABC News began to pose questions to Foley. At that point, a man named Kirk Fordham, who used to work for Foley but later was chief of staff to Reynolds, suddenly returned to his former boss to advise him on coping with the erupting scandal. [Fordham resigned Wednesday from Reynolds’ staff.]
The Reynolds aide approached Ross to make a deal: If ABC News would withhold the pornographic instant messages from broadcast and publication, he would make sure the network got an “exclusive” on Foley’s impending resignation. Like everything else in this tale, Fordham’s proposal reeks of stupidity and venality. It was stupid because the instant messages were at the heart of the story, and it was venal because it was an attempt to conceal what had really happened from the public and the press.
The truth about this matter, and many other issues of far broader significance, will never be known until these dissemblers and their enablers are removed from power.
By Joe Conason
By now, Americans should know that when Republican congressional leaders talk about “family values,” they mean the values of the Soprano family. Like the mobsters on HBO, the Republicans rat each other out when things get sticky and they, too, have considerable difficulty in getting their stories straight.
Listening to the Capitol Hill gang explain how they handled the unappetizing matter of Mark Foley, the infamous Florida Republican forced to resign over his illicit behavior toward teenage male pages, it isn’t easy to distinguish between venality and stupidity. Did Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), Majority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) and the other Republican overseers ignore Foley’s misbehavior in the expectation that he would reform himself? Did they really believe that he should continue to chair the House’s Missing and Exploited Children’s Caucus?
Or did they just hope in the midst of burgeoning corruption scandals and voter discontent threatening their majority that the Foley problem could be concealed until after the midterm election?
While Hastert has never seemed capable of sustained cogitation, his responses to the questions raised by the Foley scandal have been particularly obtuse, and yet highly revealing as well. Sometimes he remembers being told about Foley, sometimes he doesn’t. In either case, he accepts no responsibility.
Appearing on the radio with Rush Limbaugh, the speaker even attempted to blame the Democrats for bringing up the Foley matter, insinuating that his political adversaries had withheld evidence of the congressman’s sexual predations for three years. His friends at The Wall Street Journal editorial page insist that fear of being perceived as “gay bashers” inhibited a serious investigation by the Republican leaders (who instead spent much of last summer warning that gay marriage would mean the end of Western civilization).
Such feeble attempts to shift the blame are less interesting than the emerging narrative of dereliction and coverup. Hastert told CNN that he wasn’t sure when he had first heard about Foley’s inappropriate conduct, but said that the issue may have come up last spring in conversation with Rep. Tom Reynolds (R-N.Y.), who chairs the National Republican Congressional Committee.
According to Hastert, he doesn’t specifically remember being told about the e-mail messages sent by Foley to a Louisiana teenager, but he conceded that Reynolds could have mentioned the matter.
Meanwhile, Reynolds, whose mission is to ensure the reelection of a Republican majority in November, says he informed the speaker because he thought his “supervisor” should know about Foley’s possible misconduct with a page.
Both he and Boehner, who says that he too discussed the issue with the speaker, claim they assumed that the boss had “taken care” of the problem. What that meant in practice was that Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.), who oversees the page program, told Foley to leave the Louisiana lad alone and be more careful in his dealings with the pages.
For some reason, Shimkus never disclosed the Foley problem to the other two representatives on the House Page Board, one of whom is a Democrat, who obviously couldn’t be trusted to keep his mouth shut. And for some reason, neither Boehner nor Reynolds ever followed up to learn how the problem had been addressed.
On July 27, the National Republican Congressional Committee received a contribution of $100,000 from the Friends of Mark Foley, a political-action committee controlled by the Florida congressman. No doubt that pleased Reynolds, perhaps enough to erase any disturbing memory of that Louisiana incident.
Those memories were revived last week, however, when Brian Ross of ABC News began to pose questions to Foley. At that point, a man named Kirk Fordham, who used to work for Foley but later was chief of staff to Reynolds, suddenly returned to his former boss to advise him on coping with the erupting scandal. [Fordham resigned Wednesday from Reynolds’ staff.]
The Reynolds aide approached Ross to make a deal: If ABC News would withhold the pornographic instant messages from broadcast and publication, he would make sure the network got an “exclusive” on Foley’s impending resignation. Like everything else in this tale, Fordham’s proposal reeks of stupidity and venality. It was stupid because the instant messages were at the heart of the story, and it was venal because it was an attempt to conceal what had really happened from the public and the press.
The truth about this matter, and many other issues of far broader significance, will never be known until these dissemblers and their enablers are removed from power.
Mark Ruffalo: "Step Down, Mr. Bush."
I want to believe that the people we chose to lead our country are doing it in a way that is responsible, fair, and in the interests of the people who put them in office.
I want to believe that the checks and balances that our fore fathers sacrificed their lives and well being for, that document that has held this country together for so long and has guarded us from tyranny, the Constitution, would be upheld by those leaders and they would treat it with the same devotion that those who wrote it did.
I want to live my life and spend my time with my children and family and friends and go to sleep at night sweetly knowing that I live in America and that this system with all its problems works.
I want to believe that our government cares for the whole, represents the whole and not just a few. I don’t want to be up here today, but I know that I have to be up here I am up here for my children and yours, I am here in service to my country, because this administration that has come into power by seemingly more and more questionable means does not represent the whole, is not devoted to the Constitution and ultimately does not represent the people.
I don’t want to be up here today but I feel I have exhausted the way we have been taught to affect change in the way our government conducts itself. I’m here because we, the people, are not being heard.
I have voted, I have called, I have written letters, I have given of myself with my time and my money and still we have a government that refuses to respect the Constitution, a government that engaged in a war with illegal justification, a government that abandoned it’s own during Hurricane Katrina, a government that now condones torture a government that favors big corporations before it favors my children or yours.
Step down, Mr. Bush, we are not torturers.
Step down Mr. Bush, we are not war profiteers.
Step Down Mr. Bush, we care for our children and our poor.
Step Down Mr. Bush, we uphold our Constitution.
Step Down, we are not Republicans or Democrats or Independents or Socialists or Communists we are not Black or White we are not Red or Blue.
We are Americans and we demand you step down.
I want to believe that the people we chose to lead our country are doing it in a way that is responsible, fair, and in the interests of the people who put them in office.
I want to believe that the checks and balances that our fore fathers sacrificed their lives and well being for, that document that has held this country together for so long and has guarded us from tyranny, the Constitution, would be upheld by those leaders and they would treat it with the same devotion that those who wrote it did.
I want to live my life and spend my time with my children and family and friends and go to sleep at night sweetly knowing that I live in America and that this system with all its problems works.
I want to believe that our government cares for the whole, represents the whole and not just a few. I don’t want to be up here today, but I know that I have to be up here I am up here for my children and yours, I am here in service to my country, because this administration that has come into power by seemingly more and more questionable means does not represent the whole, is not devoted to the Constitution and ultimately does not represent the people.
I don’t want to be up here today but I feel I have exhausted the way we have been taught to affect change in the way our government conducts itself. I’m here because we, the people, are not being heard.
I have voted, I have called, I have written letters, I have given of myself with my time and my money and still we have a government that refuses to respect the Constitution, a government that engaged in a war with illegal justification, a government that abandoned it’s own during Hurricane Katrina, a government that now condones torture a government that favors big corporations before it favors my children or yours.
Step down, Mr. Bush, we are not torturers.
Step down Mr. Bush, we are not war profiteers.
Step Down Mr. Bush, we care for our children and our poor.
Step Down Mr. Bush, we uphold our Constitution.
Step Down, we are not Republicans or Democrats or Independents or Socialists or Communists we are not Black or White we are not Red or Blue.
We are Americans and we demand you step down.
Saturday, October 07, 2006
Fear The Penis
by Larry Beinhart, author of "Wag the Dog" and "Fog Facts"
Thank God for Mark Foley.
It proves that the American people still care about something.
It happens to be penises. But still.
They care about who talks about them, who plays with them, who covers them up, who uncovers them, who covers up the uncovering of them.
Even Jon Stewart put the big penis cover-up ahead of the fact that this government just passed a law that says that George Bush can say, “Hey you, you’re an enemy combatant,” and once he says that, they can whisk you away.
This is literally true. It’s like that joke in the first grade:
Make me a milkshake
Poof: You’re a milkshake
If George Bush says: you’re an enemy combatant. Poof! You are one. And then they can take you to Guantanamo, do not pass go, do not call your attorney, do not see a judge, do not hear the charges against you, go straight to the cage they want to put you in. The cage comes with lights that stay on 24 hours a day and wake-up calls every fifteen minutes so you never get to sleep and special exercise programs where you stand for hours in ‘stress’ positions, upward screaming cat, squatting tortured turtle, and other lite abuses that used to be quaintly prohibited by the Geneva Conventions.
Today’s joke:
Q: What do Americans do after they commit war crimes?
A: They pass a law that says they can’t be prosecuted for committing war crimes.
If you don’t find that funny, if you actually think that’s serious, then ask how come nobody else does. How come CNN doesn’t care, NBC, the NY Times? How come the Democratic leadership doesn’t care?
How did that that bill –- that contains all those provisions and more -– get passed without a filibuster? Without a fuss?
Thank God for Mark Foley. An old congressman hitting on teenage boys, that’s real news.
I was watching CNN yesterday. It was All Penis, All the Time.
Here’s a quote, from one of their reporters, “One question always rises to the top who knew what, and when did they know it?”
That’s true, but only when it has to do with a penis.
Last week Bob Woodward’s new book came out. One of the things he revealed was an additional meeting between the head of the CIA and Condoleeza Rice, back in July, 2001, in which he tried to shock her, shake her up so she would do something about terrorism.
That meeting is important for several reasons.
The fact that she didn’t anything about it led to the deaths of at least 3,000 people. Call me crazy, call me irresponsible, but that seems more important than an old queen hitting on young teens.
That meeting was kept secret from the 9/11 Commission, congress and the American people. There’s no security reason for it to be secret. Only a political one. Proof -- once again -- that 9/11 happened because the Bush Administration was asleep at the wheel.
When the book came out, Rice denied the meeting had happened. She flat out lied about it.
Documents proved it took place.
I don’t see CNN, or anybody else, hounding the White House about Condoleeza Rice’s cover up and her lies.
“One question always rises to the top: who knew what and when did they know it?”
Yeah, when the warnings are about the use of a penis. But not when the warnings are about a terrorist attack on New York.
The Rice lie and cover-up is not insignificant. It’s not ancient history. Because the whole point of Woodward’s book is that it’s still going on. The real experts are still warning the Bush administration that their policies –- and lack of policies -– are deadly disasters. Costing lives, costing money, creating enemies, with no chance of success. The president is still putting his fingers in his ears and not hearing them. His spokespeople are continuing to pretend the information doesn’t exist and lying, by omission and commission, to congress and the American people.
Even if we concede that obscene instant messages are a greater danger to the Republic than a military quagmire into which we entered based on deliberate lies, the danger from Mark Foley is done. The danger from additional congressman trolling for young stuff, if there are any, is easily met (A War on Congress, does have a certain appeal and would be vastly cheaper than the War on Terror). But the war in Iraq, and the war in Afghanistan, go on and on and on, like toxic Energizer Bunnies, killing and maiming, laying waste to the landscape and breeding virulent new strains of violent jihadists.
A few years ago, there was a play -- still around –- called the Vagina Monologues.
American politics, at the same time, turned into the Penis Monologues.
Anything else, in between penises, is just marking time. Fail to get bin Laden, who cares? Discover proof that the administration made up stories so they could have their war in Iraq, no big deal, according to the NY Times it wasn’t even news. Best estimate is that American bombs and artillery killed 100,000 Iraqi civilians; it would be rude to mention it. Then there’s all that money that disappeared. Paul Bremer blew through twenty billion (yes, Billion) dollars that was supposed to be held in trust for the Iraqi people and there’s no records and nothing to show for it. After that was gone, the occupation authorities blew through another twenty billion that was supposed to go for the reconstruction of Iraq. Let’s not ask where the money went –- no major media outlet has.
If you’re in the cable news business, you’re happy. This is the first really good penis since Bill’s.
If you’re anti-Republican, there’s another bit of good news. The Republican’s are slipping. It took Dennis Hastert a full week before he remembered to blame Bill Clinton.
Let me close with this. Advise to the youth of our country.
Dear youth; if you have dreams of going into politics, you should be fearless. Do not fear committing war crimes. Do not fear lying about terrorist warnings. Do not fear losing billions of dollars or reconstructions that never happens. But if you have a penis –- whether you’re a man or a woman -– leave it at home, before you venture forth to do battle in the field of America’s political wars.
Larry Beinhart is the author of Fog Facts: Searching for Truth in the Land of Spin, and The Librarian, which just won the Grand Prix de Littérature Policière.
Thank God for Mark Foley.
It proves that the American people still care about something.
It happens to be penises. But still.
They care about who talks about them, who plays with them, who covers them up, who uncovers them, who covers up the uncovering of them.
Even Jon Stewart put the big penis cover-up ahead of the fact that this government just passed a law that says that George Bush can say, “Hey you, you’re an enemy combatant,” and once he says that, they can whisk you away.
This is literally true. It’s like that joke in the first grade:
Make me a milkshake
Poof: You’re a milkshake
If George Bush says: you’re an enemy combatant. Poof! You are one. And then they can take you to Guantanamo, do not pass go, do not call your attorney, do not see a judge, do not hear the charges against you, go straight to the cage they want to put you in. The cage comes with lights that stay on 24 hours a day and wake-up calls every fifteen minutes so you never get to sleep and special exercise programs where you stand for hours in ‘stress’ positions, upward screaming cat, squatting tortured turtle, and other lite abuses that used to be quaintly prohibited by the Geneva Conventions.
Today’s joke:
Q: What do Americans do after they commit war crimes?
A: They pass a law that says they can’t be prosecuted for committing war crimes.
If you don’t find that funny, if you actually think that’s serious, then ask how come nobody else does. How come CNN doesn’t care, NBC, the NY Times? How come the Democratic leadership doesn’t care?
How did that that bill –- that contains all those provisions and more -– get passed without a filibuster? Without a fuss?
Thank God for Mark Foley. An old congressman hitting on teenage boys, that’s real news.
I was watching CNN yesterday. It was All Penis, All the Time.
Here’s a quote, from one of their reporters, “One question always rises to the top who knew what, and when did they know it?”
That’s true, but only when it has to do with a penis.
Last week Bob Woodward’s new book came out. One of the things he revealed was an additional meeting between the head of the CIA and Condoleeza Rice, back in July, 2001, in which he tried to shock her, shake her up so she would do something about terrorism.
That meeting is important for several reasons.
The fact that she didn’t anything about it led to the deaths of at least 3,000 people. Call me crazy, call me irresponsible, but that seems more important than an old queen hitting on young teens.
That meeting was kept secret from the 9/11 Commission, congress and the American people. There’s no security reason for it to be secret. Only a political one. Proof -- once again -- that 9/11 happened because the Bush Administration was asleep at the wheel.
When the book came out, Rice denied the meeting had happened. She flat out lied about it.
Documents proved it took place.
I don’t see CNN, or anybody else, hounding the White House about Condoleeza Rice’s cover up and her lies.
“One question always rises to the top: who knew what and when did they know it?”
Yeah, when the warnings are about the use of a penis. But not when the warnings are about a terrorist attack on New York.
The Rice lie and cover-up is not insignificant. It’s not ancient history. Because the whole point of Woodward’s book is that it’s still going on. The real experts are still warning the Bush administration that their policies –- and lack of policies -– are deadly disasters. Costing lives, costing money, creating enemies, with no chance of success. The president is still putting his fingers in his ears and not hearing them. His spokespeople are continuing to pretend the information doesn’t exist and lying, by omission and commission, to congress and the American people.
Even if we concede that obscene instant messages are a greater danger to the Republic than a military quagmire into which we entered based on deliberate lies, the danger from Mark Foley is done. The danger from additional congressman trolling for young stuff, if there are any, is easily met (A War on Congress, does have a certain appeal and would be vastly cheaper than the War on Terror). But the war in Iraq, and the war in Afghanistan, go on and on and on, like toxic Energizer Bunnies, killing and maiming, laying waste to the landscape and breeding virulent new strains of violent jihadists.
A few years ago, there was a play -- still around –- called the Vagina Monologues.
American politics, at the same time, turned into the Penis Monologues.
Anything else, in between penises, is just marking time. Fail to get bin Laden, who cares? Discover proof that the administration made up stories so they could have their war in Iraq, no big deal, according to the NY Times it wasn’t even news. Best estimate is that American bombs and artillery killed 100,000 Iraqi civilians; it would be rude to mention it. Then there’s all that money that disappeared. Paul Bremer blew through twenty billion (yes, Billion) dollars that was supposed to be held in trust for the Iraqi people and there’s no records and nothing to show for it. After that was gone, the occupation authorities blew through another twenty billion that was supposed to go for the reconstruction of Iraq. Let’s not ask where the money went –- no major media outlet has.
If you’re in the cable news business, you’re happy. This is the first really good penis since Bill’s.
If you’re anti-Republican, there’s another bit of good news. The Republican’s are slipping. It took Dennis Hastert a full week before he remembered to blame Bill Clinton.
Let me close with this. Advise to the youth of our country.
Dear youth; if you have dreams of going into politics, you should be fearless. Do not fear committing war crimes. Do not fear lying about terrorist warnings. Do not fear losing billions of dollars or reconstructions that never happens. But if you have a penis –- whether you’re a man or a woman -– leave it at home, before you venture forth to do battle in the field of America’s political wars.
Larry Beinhart is the author of Fog Facts: Searching for Truth in the Land of Spin, and The Librarian, which just won the Grand Prix de Littérature Policière.
Molly Ivins: Return of the War Criminal
by Molly Ivins
The fact that Henry Kissinger is ascendant in the Bush administration is easily the most vile revelation to surface in Bob Woodward’s new book.
Why the Military Commissions Act Is "Flagrantly Unconstitutional"
by Senator Patrick Leahy
"I mourn for the country and for the American values and principles on which I was raised and which I took a solemn oath to uphold."
read more
by Senator Patrick Leahy
"I mourn for the country and for the American values and principles on which I was raised and which I took a solemn oath to uphold."
read more
Well, we wouldn't want this clogging our courts
In a sworn statement sent to the Marine Corps' inspector general, a Marine sergeant says she heard guards from Guantánamo bragging last month about beating detainees, the Associated Press reports.
The sergeant, who works as a paralegal in the Marine Corps, said in the statement that she met the guards in a bar at the naval base on Sept. 23. One guard, identified as "Bo," told the sergeant that he had taken a detainee by the head and then slammed his head into a cell door. According to the sergeant, "Bo" said others at Gitmo knew of his actions but didn't do anything about them.
Other guards in the group also "told their own stories of abuse towards the detainees," the sergeant said. They spoke of hitting detainees, denying them water and "removing privileges for no reason." All told, the sergeant said, "about five others in the group admitted hitting detainees."
"From the whole conversation, I understood that striking detainees was a common practice," the sergeant said. "Everyone in the group laughed at the others' stories of beating detainees."
The AP obtained the sergeant's statement from Lt. Col. Colby Vokey, who is the Marine Corps' defense coordinator for the Western United States. Vokey is calling for an investigation, but it can go only so far: Even if the sergeant's allegations prove to be correct, the Military Commissions Act of 2006 would prohibit federal courts from doing anything about them.
-- Tim Grieve
Friday, October 06, 2006
Criticizing Cheney to His Face Is Assault?
By Matthew Rothschild
“Initially, I walked past him. Then I said to myself, ‘I can’t in good conscience let this opportunity pass by.’ So I approached him, I got about two feet away, and I said in a very calm tone of voice, ‘Your policies in Iraq are reprehensible.’”
read more
Olbermann’s Special Comment: It is not the Democrats whose inaction in the face of the enemy you fear
Olbermann: And lastly tonight, a Special Comment, about — lying. While the leadership in Congress has self-destructed over the revelations of an unmatched, and unrelieved, march through a cesspool… While the leadership inside the White House has self-destructed over the revelations of a book with a glowing red cover…
The President of the United States — unbowed, undeterred, and unconnected to reality — has continued his extraordinary trek through our country rooting out the enemies of freedom: The Democrats.
Yesterday at a fundraiser for an Arizona Congressman, Mr. Bush claimed, quote, "177 of the opposition party said 'You know, we don't think we ought to be listening to the conversations of terrorists."
The hell they did.
177 Democrats opposed the President's seizure of another part of the Constitution*.
Not even the White House press office could actually name a single Democrat who had ever said the government shouldn't be listening to the conversations of terrorists.
President Bush hears… what he wants.
Tuesday, at another fundraiser in California, he had said "Democrats take a law enforcement approach to terrorism. That means America will wait until we're attacked again before we respond."
Mr. Bush fabricated that, too.
And evidently he has begun to fancy himself as a mind-reader.
"If you listen closely to some of the leaders of the Democratic Party," the President said at another fundraiser Monday in Nevada, "it sounds like they think the best way to protect the American people is — wait until we're attacked again."
The President doesn't just hear what he wants. He hears things, that only he can hear.
It defies belief that this President and his administration could continue to find new unexplored political gutters into which they could wallow.
Yet they do.
It is startling enough that such things could be said out loud by any President of this nation.
Rhetorically, it is about an inch short of Mr. Bush accusing Democratic leaders; Democrats; the majority of Americans who disagree with his policies — of treason.
But it is the context that truly makes the head spin.
Just 25 days ago, on the fifth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, this same man spoke to this nation and insisted, quote, "we must put aside our differences and work together to meet the test that history has given us."
Mr. Bush, this is a test you have already failed.
If your commitment to "put aside differences and work together" is replaced in the span of just three weeks by claiming your political opponents prefer to wait to see this country attacked again, and by spewing fabrications about what they've said, then the questions your critics need to be asking, are no longer about your policies.
They are, instead — solemn and even terrible questions, about your fitness to fulfill the responsibilities of your office.
No Democrat, sir, has ever said anything approaching the suggestion that the best means of self-defense is to "wait until we're attacked again."
No critic, no commentator, no reluctant Republican in the Senate, has ever said anything that any responsible person could even have exaggerated into the slander you spoke in Nevada on Monday night, nor the slander you spoke in California on Tuesday, nor the slander you spoke in Arizona on Wednesday… nor whatever is next.
You have dishonored your party, sir — you have dishonored your supporters — you have dishonored yourself.
But tonight the stark question we must face is - why?
Why has the ferocity of your venom against the Democrats, now exceeded the ferocity of your venom against the terrorists?
Why have you chosen to go down in history as the President who made things up?
In less than one month you have gone from a flawed call to unity, to this clarion call to hatred of Americans, by Americans.
If this is not simply the most shameless example of the rhetoric of political hackery, then it would have to be the cry of a leader crumbling under the weight of his own lies.
We have, of course, survived all manner of political hackery, of every shape, size, and party.
We will have to suffer it, for as long as the Republic stands.
But the premise of a President who comes across as a compulsive liar — is nothing less than terrifying.
A President who since 9/11 will not listen, is not listening — and thanks to Bob Woodward's most recent account — evidently has never listened.
A President who since 9/11 so hates or fears other Americans, that he accuses them of advocating deliberate inaction in the face of the enemy.
A President who since 9/11 has savaged the very freedoms he claims to be protecting from attack. Attack by terrorists, or by Democrats, or by both — it is now impossible to find a consistent thread of logic as to who Mr. Bush believes the enemy is.
But if we know one thing for certain about Mr. Bush, it is this:
This President — in his bullying of the Senate last month and in his slandering of the Democrats this month — has shown us that he believes whoever the enemies are — they are hiding themselves inside a dangerous cloak, called the Constitution of the United States of America.
How often do we find priceless truth in the unlikeliest of places?
I tonight quote, not Jefferson nor Voltaire — but "Cigar Aficionado Magazine."
On September 11th, 2003, the editor of that publication interviewed General Tommy Franks — at that point, just retired from his post as Commander-In-Chief of U.S. Central Command — of Cent-Com.
And amid his quaint defenses of the-then nagging absence of Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, or the continuing freedom of Osama Bin Laden, General Franks said some of the most profound words of this generation.
He spoke of "the worst thing that can happen" to this country:
First, quoting, a "massive casualty-producing event somewhere in the Western World — it may be in the United States of America."
Then, the general continued, "the western world, the free world, loses what it cherishes most, and that is freedom and liberty we've seen for a couple of hundred years, in this grand experiment that we call democracy."
It was this super-patriotic warrior's fear that we would lose that most cherished liberty, because of another attack, one — again quoting General Franks — "that causes our population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass-casualty-producing event. Which, in fact, then begins to potentially unravel the fabric of our Constitution."
And here we are, the fabric of our Constitution being unraveled anyway.
Habeus Corpus neutered; the rights of self-defense now as malleable and impermanent as clay; a President stifling all critics by every means available and when he runs out of those, by simply lying about what they said or felt.
And all this, even without the dreaded attack.
General Franks, like all of us, loves this country, and believes not just in its values, but in its continuity. He has been trained to look for threats to that continuity from without.
He has, perhaps been as naive as the rest of us, in failing to keep close enough vigil on the threats to that continuity, from within:
Secretary of State Rice first cannot remember urgent cautionary meetings with counter-terrorism officials before 9/11.
Then within hours of this lie, her spokesman confirms the meetings in question.
Then she dismisses those meetings as nothing new — yet insists she wanted the same cautions expressed to Secretaries Ashcroft and Rumsfeld.
Mr. Rumsfeld, meantime, has been unable to accept the most logical and simple influence, of the most noble and neutral of advisers. He and his employer insist they rely on the 'generals in the field.'
But dozens of those generals have now come forward to say how their words, their experiences, have been ignored.
And, of course, inherent in the Pentagon's war-making functions, is the regulation of Presidential war-lust. Enacting that regulation should include everything up to, symbolically wrestling the Chief Executive to the floor.
Yet — and it is Pentagon transcripts that now tell us this — evidently Mr. Rumsfeld's strongest check on Mr. Bush's ambitions, was to get somebody to excise the phrase "Mission Accomplished" out of the infamous Air Force Carrier speech of May 1st, 2003 - even while the same empty words hung on a banner over the President's shoulder.
And the Vice President is a chilling figure, still unable, it seems, to accept the conclusions of his own party's leaders in the Senate, that the foundations of his public position, are made out of sand.
There were no Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq.
But he still says so.
There was no link between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda.
But he still says so.
And thus, gripping firmly these figments of his own imagination, Mr. Cheney lives on, in defiance and spreads — around him and before him — darkness… like some contagion of fear.
They are never wrong, and they never regret. Admirable in a French torch singer. Cataclysmic in an American leader.
Thus the sickening attempt to blame the Foley Scandal on the negligence of others or "The Clinton Era" — even though the Foley Scandal began before the Lewinsky Scandal.
Thus last month's enraged attacks on this Administration's predecessors, about Osama Bin Laden — a projection of their own negligence in the immediate months before 9/11.
Thus the terrifying attempt to hamstring the fundament of our freedom — the Constitution — a triumph for Al-Qaeda, for which the terrorists could not hope to achieve with a hundred 9/11's.
And thus, worst of all perhaps, these newest lies by President Bush about Democrats choosing to await another attack and not listen to the conversations of terrorists.
It is the terror and the guilt within your own heart, Mr. Bush, that you re-direct at others who simply wish for you to temper your certainty with counsel.
It is the failure and the incompetence within your own memory, Mr. Bush, that leads you to demonize those who might merely quote to you the pleadings of Oliver Cromwell: "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken."
It is not the Democrats whose inaction in the face of the enemy you fear, sir.
It is your own — before 9/11 - (and you alone know this), perhaps afterwards.
Mr. President, these new lies go to the heart of what it is that you truly wish to preserve.
It is not our freedom, nor our country — your actions against the Constitution give irrefutable proof of that.
You want to preserve a political party's power. And obviously you'll sell this country out, to do it.
These are lies about the Democrats piled atop lies about Iraq which were piled atop lies about your preparations for Al-Qaeda.
To you, perhaps, they feel like the weight of a million centuries.
As crushing. As immovable.
They are not.
If you add more lies to them, you cannot free yourself, and us, from them.
But if you stop — if you stop fabricating quotes, and building straw-men, and inspiring those around you to do the same — you may yet liberate yourself and this nation.
Please, sir, do not throw this country's principles away because your lies have made it such that you can no longer differentiate between the terrorists and the critics.
Good night, and good luck.
Closeted Gay Republicans and a Party in Political Free-Fall
by Lawrence O'Donnell
The LA Times has outed Kirk Fordham today. He will not be the last closeted gay Republican outed by this scandal.
Today's NY Times has a chart that outlines the "key communications" in the House of Representatives about Mark Foley's inappropriate contact with pages. More than one of the names in the chart, which includes Kirk Fordham, are rumored to be closeted gay Republicans who have been working at the highest levels of the Republican leadership.
They have been looking at their names in print for the last couple of days and no doubt fearing for their futures in a Party that is in political free-fall.
Are ambitious closeted gay Republican officials, the most reliable people Speaker Hastert could have delegated the Foley problem to last year? Obviously not. Heat on a closeted gay Republican in the House is heat on all closeted gay Republicans in the House. The most innocent Foley emails were enough to worry the parents of the recipient. They were enough to worry the closeted gay Republicans too. But the closeted gay Republicans were perfectly positioned in the House to make the problem disappear.
Now two Republican staffers are locked in a credibility contest: it's Kirk Fordham v. Scott Palmer, Hastert's chief of staff. Palmer flatly denies that Fordham warned him about Foley. Hastert's political life depends entirely on Scott Palmer's credibility. I can't find anyone in Washington who knows Palmer who thinks his credibility can survive this test.
It's no accident that the first call for Hastert's resignation came from Tony Blankley, Newt Gingrich's former press secretary. Tony knows that the scandal cannot die as long as Hastert and his staff are still in the building.
The Republican base--the Evangelical get-out-the-vote troops--are going to be devastated when they discover how many closeted gay Republicans were involved in policing Mark Foley in the House of Representatives. Republican House members know this. That's why momentum is building for a very quick House cleaning and a new Speaker by next week.
by Lawrence O'Donnell
The LA Times has outed Kirk Fordham today. He will not be the last closeted gay Republican outed by this scandal.
Today's NY Times has a chart that outlines the "key communications" in the House of Representatives about Mark Foley's inappropriate contact with pages. More than one of the names in the chart, which includes Kirk Fordham, are rumored to be closeted gay Republicans who have been working at the highest levels of the Republican leadership.
They have been looking at their names in print for the last couple of days and no doubt fearing for their futures in a Party that is in political free-fall.
Are ambitious closeted gay Republican officials, the most reliable people Speaker Hastert could have delegated the Foley problem to last year? Obviously not. Heat on a closeted gay Republican in the House is heat on all closeted gay Republicans in the House. The most innocent Foley emails were enough to worry the parents of the recipient. They were enough to worry the closeted gay Republicans too. But the closeted gay Republicans were perfectly positioned in the House to make the problem disappear.
Now two Republican staffers are locked in a credibility contest: it's Kirk Fordham v. Scott Palmer, Hastert's chief of staff. Palmer flatly denies that Fordham warned him about Foley. Hastert's political life depends entirely on Scott Palmer's credibility. I can't find anyone in Washington who knows Palmer who thinks his credibility can survive this test.
It's no accident that the first call for Hastert's resignation came from Tony Blankley, Newt Gingrich's former press secretary. Tony knows that the scandal cannot die as long as Hastert and his staff are still in the building.
The Republican base--the Evangelical get-out-the-vote troops--are going to be devastated when they discover how many closeted gay Republicans were involved in policing Mark Foley in the House of Representatives. Republican House members know this. That's why momentum is building for a very quick House cleaning and a new Speaker by next week.
Letterman's Top Ten
Top Ten Chapter Titles In Jim McGreevey's Book Presented By "Former New Jersey Governor Jim McGreevey"
10. "The Day I Got Caught Governing Myself"
9. "How To Pretend To Like Girls For 47 Years"
8. "From Schwarzenegger To Pataki: Governors I'd Like To Oil Up"
7. "Another Confession -- I Can't Resist Entenmann's Pound Cake"
6. "At First I Just Thought I Was Bipartisan"
5. "The New Jersey Budget Crisis -- What Would Judy Garland Do?"
4. "A Look At The Governor's Balls"
3. "Politicians Who Left A Bad Taste In My Mouth"
2. "How To Push Through A Bill -- Or A Steve Or A Larry..."
1. "Why I Don't Like Bush"
10. "The Day I Got Caught Governing Myself"
9. "How To Pretend To Like Girls For 47 Years"
8. "From Schwarzenegger To Pataki: Governors I'd Like To Oil Up"
7. "Another Confession -- I Can't Resist Entenmann's Pound Cake"
6. "At First I Just Thought I Was Bipartisan"
5. "The New Jersey Budget Crisis -- What Would Judy Garland Do?"
4. "A Look At The Governor's Balls"
3. "Politicians Who Left A Bad Taste In My Mouth"
2. "How To Push Through A Bill -- Or A Steve Or A Larry..."
1. "Why I Don't Like Bush"
Thursday, October 05, 2006
L. Ron Hubbard Scientology's esteemed founder.
By Michael Crowley
Our summer of Tom Cruise's madness and Katie Holmes' creepy path toward zombie bridedom has been a useful reminder of how truly strange Scientology is. By now those interested in the Cruise-Holmes saga may be passingly familiar with the church's creation myth, in which an evil, intergalactic warlord named Xenu kidnaps billions of alien life forms, chains them near Earth's volcanoes, and blows them up with nuclear weapons. Strange as Scientology's pseudo-theology may be, though, it's not as entertaining as the life story of the church's founder, L. Ron Hubbard.
To hear his disciples tell it, Hubbard, who died in 1986, was the subject of "universal acclaim" and one of the greatest men who ever lived. Not only did he devise the church's founding theory of Dianetics, which promises to free mankind of psychological trauma, he was a source of wisdom about everything from jazz music to nuclear physics. The official Web site dedicated to his life features subsites that expound upon his brilliant callings: "The Humanitarian," "The Philosopher," "The Writer," "The Artist," "The Poet/Lyricist," "The Music Maker," "The Yachtsman," and "Adventurer/Explorer: Daring Deeds and Unknown Realms." Visitors can hear an audio recording of Hubbard singing one of his own poems or learn about the soundtrack he composed for his 1,000-page sci-fi epic Battlefield Earth (later brought to Hollywood by Scientologist John Travolta). Hubbard's composition "utilized elements from several genres—from honky-tonk and free-swinging jazz to cutting-edge electronic rock. The result is a wholly new dimension in space opera sound." (Sign me up for a copy!)
There's a deep chasm between the erudite, noble Hubbard of Scientology myth and the true identity of the church's wacky founder. To those not in his thrall, Hubbard might be better described as a pulp science-fiction writer who combined delusions of grandeur with a cynical hucksterism. Yet he turned an oddball theory about human consciousness—which originally appeared in a 25-cent sci-fi magazine—into a far-reaching and powerful multimillion-dollar empire. The church now claims about 8 million members in more than 100 countries. The slow creep of Scientology's anti-drug programs into public schools, the presumably tens of millions of dollars the church keeps with the help of its tax-exempt status, and the accusations that the church has convinced people to hand over their life savings, make Hubbard's bizzarro legacy seem less like tragicomedy and more like a scandal. Comparable crackpots-in-chief like Lyndon LaRouche and Sun Myung Moon have had almost no detectable national influence. But famous Scientologists—Cruise, Travolta, the singer Beck, and even—say it ain't so!—the voice of Bart Simpson, have given Hubbard a veneer of popular credibility and his church a perpetual recruitment ticket.
Hubbard always imagined himself a great man of history. "All men are your slaves," he once wrote in a diary entry unearthed during a 1984 lawsuit. He reportedly once claimed to have written a manuscript that contained such brutal truths that anyone who read it went insane or committed suicide. He fancied himself a nuclear physicist, never mind his lack of training, and posited that fallout from Cold War nuclear tests were interfering with Scientology therapies. (Hubbard even wrote a book titled All About Radiation—a swell read, according to one reviewer on Amazon who says, "I understand radiation better and feel like I could survive an atomic explosion somewhere on the planet, if it wasn't, of course, really close to me.") He reportedly constructed the myth that he was a World War II combat hero, when in fact the Navy reprimanded him after a San Diego-based ship he commanded shelled some nearby Mexican islands for target practice.
Hubbard's version is understandably preferable to the reality, which was a dark farce. Hubbard was born in 1911 in Tilden, Neb. After flunking out of George Washington University, he became a pulp science-fiction and adventure writer. In the mid-1940s, he fell in with John Parsons, a wealthy and brilliant young rocket scientist in California, who also happened to be under the tutelage of the infamous satanist Aleister Crowley (no relation to yours truly, thankfully). According to Russell Miller's damning biography of Hubbard, Bare-Faced Messiah, Parsons was a science-fiction fan who briefly hosted Hubbard at his Pasadena, Calif., mansion, which featured a domed backyard temple and a rotating cast of occultists and eccentrics. Parsons described Hubbard as his "magical partner," and together the men engaged in a rite in which Parsons tried to impregnate with an antichrist child a woman he considered the whore of Babylon, a goal that Crowley had long promoted.
With Rachmaninoff's "Isle of the Dead" playing in the background, Hubbard allegedly chanted spells over the copulating couple, according to Miller and others. (Ultimately Hubbard would steal Parsons' girlfriend and allegedly bilk him in a Miami yacht venture.) Years later, when Hubbard had grown famous and realized the antichrist episode didn't comport with his image as a man of culture and wisdom, he would reportedly claim to have been working on an undercover mission for U.S. Naval Intelligence to investigate black magic.
Dabbling in (or investigating) witchcraft didn't pay the bills, and by the late 1940s Hubbard was in debt and despondent. Then in 1950 he published Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health, which he billed as "a milestone for man comparable to his discovery of fire and superior to his inventions of the wheel and arch." The theory of Dianetics promised to cure almost any physical and mental ailment—including wrinkles—by cleansing people's memories of traumatic past experiences so they could arrive at a "clear" mental state. Well poised to capitalize on a growing national fascination with psychotherapy, the book was an instant best-seller. Dianetics groups and parties sprung up nationwide.
Hubbard became an icon, and thousands of fans sought him out. In 1954, as the book's success—and his income—began to fade, Hubbard founded the Church of Scientology. His son Ron Jr. claimed in a 1983 interview with Penthouse that money was the motive, saying his father "told me and a lot of other people that the way to make a million was to start a religion." Hubbard made his millions quickly and used them to style himself as a sophisticated aristocrat, relocating to an English country home dubbed "Saint Hill Manor."
But Hubbard quickly alienated governments at home and abroad. He and his followers developed a reputation for intimidating critics and church defectors. An official inquiry in Australia concluded that Scientology is "evil" and "a serious threat to the community, medically, morally and socially; and its adherents sadly deluded and often medically ill." In 1963, federal agents, suspicious that Hubbard's therapy might pose a health risk, raided the church's Washington, D.C., branch. The IRS concluded soon after that Hubbard was skimming millions of dollars from church funds and revoked Scientology's tax-exempt status. (The church won back that status in 1993 after a long, fierce campaign; several European countries still don't recognize Scientology as a religion.) In 1967, Hubbard fled to the high seas for most of the next eight years. During this period he dreamed up the "Sea Org," a special branch of Scientology whose members wear sharp blue naval uniforms and sign contracts pledging their service for 1 billion years.
Hubbard finally returned to land in 1975, first to Washington, D.C., and then to the California desert. Lying low, Hubbard was doted on by a special group of teenage "messengers" who pulled on his socks and followed him with ashtrays when he smoked. He developed Howard Hughes-like eccentricities, flying into rages if he smelled detergent in his clothes, which caused the terrified messengers to rinse his laundry in multiple water buckets.
Meanwhile, the church's ongoing paranoia and vindictiveness culminated in a shockingly elaborate operation, which Hubbard dubbed "Snow White," to spy on and burglarize multiple federal offices, including the IRS and the Justice Department, with the aim of stealing and destroying government documents about Scientology. The Scientologists even planted moles in some federal offices. In 1983, 11 church leaders, including Hubbard's wife, were convicted and sentenced to prison for the conspiracy. Though Hubbard was named as a co-conspirator, he was never indicted.
By that time, in any case, he had gone into hiding. On or around Jan. 17, 1986, Hubbard suffered a catastrophic stroke on a secluded ranch near Big Sur, Calif. A week later he was dead. Scientology attorneys arrived to recover his body, which they sought to have cremated immediately. They were blocked by a county coroner, who, according to Scientology critics, did an autopsy that revealed high levels of a psychiatric drug (Vistaril). That would seem like an embarrassment given the church's hostility to such medications (witness Tom Cruise's recent feud with Brooke Shields), but it didn't stop the church from summoning thousands of followers to the Hollywood Palladium days after Hubbard's death. There they were told that Hubbard "willingly discarded the body after it was no longer useful to him," and that this signified "his ultimate success: the conquest of life that he embarked upon half a century ago." Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that Hubbard's ultimate success lay in convincing millions of people he was something other than a nut.
What Goeth Before the Fall
washingtonpost.com
By George F. Will
Thursday, October 5, 2006; A33
The Reverend Elmer Gantry was reading an illustrated pink periodical devoted to prize-fighters and chorus girls in his room at Elizabeth J. Schmutz Hall late of an afternoon when two large men walked in without knocking.
"Why, good evening, Brother Bains -- Brother Naylor! This is a pleasant surprise. I was, uh -- Did you ever see this horrible rag? . . . I was thinking of denouncing it next Sunday. I hope you never read it."
-- Sinclair Lewis, "Elmer Gantry"
In life as in literature, Elmer Gantry is a recurring American figure. He is making yet another appearance in the matter of former representative Mark Foley.
Sinclair Lewis's "Elmer Gantry," like most of his novels, is dreadful as literature but splendid as a symptom. Published in 1927, the year Charles Lindbergh flew the Atlantic and Babe Ruth hit 60 home runs and the American craft of ballyhoo was being perfected, the novel was a cartoonish blast of contempt for tub-thumping evangelists who were doing well for themselves while pretending to do good works to redeem this naughty world. Gantry succumbed to temptations of the flesh and the real estate market. The modern twist to the fall of Foley -- public protector and private predator of children -- is the warp speed with which it moved from exposé to therapy: Foley, who has entered alcohol rehab, says he takes "responsibility" for what he has become as a result of abusive priests and demon rum.
Having so quickly exhausted the Oprah approach, the Foley story moved on to who knew what, and when. That drove Speaker Dennis Hastert to the un-Oprah broadcasting couch on which Republicans recline when getting in touch with their feelings. To Rush Limbaugh's 20 million receptive listeners, Hastert, referring to Republicans as "we," said:
"We have a story to tell, and the Democrats have -- in my view have -- put this thing forward to try to block us from telling the story. They're trying to put us on defense."
It is difficult to read that as other than an accusation: He seems to be not just confessing a coverup but also complaining that the coverup was undone by bad manners. Were it not for Democrats' unsportsmanlike conduct in putting "this thing" forward, it would not be known and would not be disrupting Republicans' storytelling.
Their story, of late, has been that theirs is the lonely burden of defending all that is wholesome. But the problem with claiming to have cornered the market on virtue is that people will get snippy when they spot vice in your ranks. This is one awkward aspect of what is supposed to have been the happy fusion between, but which involves unresolved tensions between, two flavors of conservatism -- Western and Southern.
The former is largely libertarian, holding that pruning big government will allow civil society -- and virtues nourished by it and by the responsibilities of freedom -- to flourish. The Southern, essentially religious, strand of conservatism is explained by Ryan Sager in his new book, "The Elephant in the Room: Evangelicals, Libertarians, and the Battle to Control the Republican Party":
"Whereas conservative Christian parents once thought it was inappropriate for public schools to teach their kids about sex, now they want the schools to preach abstinence to children. Whereas conservative Christians used to be unhappy with evolution being taught in public schools, now they want Intelligent Design taught instead (or at least in addition). Whereas conservative Christians used to want the federal government to leave them alone, now they demand that more and more federal funds be directed to local churches and religious groups through Bush's faith-based initiatives program."
To a Republican Party increasingly defined by the ascendancy of the religious right, the Foley episode is doubly deadly. His behavior was disgusting, and some Republican reactions seem more calculating than indignant.
Foley's name remains on the ballot in Florida's 16th Congressional District, which means that Democrats, who needed 15 seats to capture the House, now need just 14. Thirteen, actually: In Arizona's 8th, where Republican Rep. Jim Kolbe is retiring, Republicans used the primary to vent, nominating a probably unelectable fire-breather on the immigration issue.
After the 1936 election, in which President Franklin Roosevelt shellacked the Republican nominee in all but two states, a humorist wrote: "If the outcome of this election hasn't taught you Republicans not to meddle in politics, I don't know what will." If, after the Foley episode -- a maraschino cherry atop the Democrats' delectable sundae of Republican miseries -- the Democrats cannot gain 13 seats, they should go into another line of work.
georgewill@washpost.com
© 2006 The Washington Post Company
By George F. Will
Thursday, October 5, 2006; A33
The Reverend Elmer Gantry was reading an illustrated pink periodical devoted to prize-fighters and chorus girls in his room at Elizabeth J. Schmutz Hall late of an afternoon when two large men walked in without knocking.
"Why, good evening, Brother Bains -- Brother Naylor! This is a pleasant surprise. I was, uh -- Did you ever see this horrible rag? . . . I was thinking of denouncing it next Sunday. I hope you never read it."
-- Sinclair Lewis, "Elmer Gantry"
In life as in literature, Elmer Gantry is a recurring American figure. He is making yet another appearance in the matter of former representative Mark Foley.
Sinclair Lewis's "Elmer Gantry," like most of his novels, is dreadful as literature but splendid as a symptom. Published in 1927, the year Charles Lindbergh flew the Atlantic and Babe Ruth hit 60 home runs and the American craft of ballyhoo was being perfected, the novel was a cartoonish blast of contempt for tub-thumping evangelists who were doing well for themselves while pretending to do good works to redeem this naughty world. Gantry succumbed to temptations of the flesh and the real estate market. The modern twist to the fall of Foley -- public protector and private predator of children -- is the warp speed with which it moved from exposé to therapy: Foley, who has entered alcohol rehab, says he takes "responsibility" for what he has become as a result of abusive priests and demon rum.
Having so quickly exhausted the Oprah approach, the Foley story moved on to who knew what, and when. That drove Speaker Dennis Hastert to the un-Oprah broadcasting couch on which Republicans recline when getting in touch with their feelings. To Rush Limbaugh's 20 million receptive listeners, Hastert, referring to Republicans as "we," said:
"We have a story to tell, and the Democrats have -- in my view have -- put this thing forward to try to block us from telling the story. They're trying to put us on defense."
It is difficult to read that as other than an accusation: He seems to be not just confessing a coverup but also complaining that the coverup was undone by bad manners. Were it not for Democrats' unsportsmanlike conduct in putting "this thing" forward, it would not be known and would not be disrupting Republicans' storytelling.
Their story, of late, has been that theirs is the lonely burden of defending all that is wholesome. But the problem with claiming to have cornered the market on virtue is that people will get snippy when they spot vice in your ranks. This is one awkward aspect of what is supposed to have been the happy fusion between, but which involves unresolved tensions between, two flavors of conservatism -- Western and Southern.
The former is largely libertarian, holding that pruning big government will allow civil society -- and virtues nourished by it and by the responsibilities of freedom -- to flourish. The Southern, essentially religious, strand of conservatism is explained by Ryan Sager in his new book, "The Elephant in the Room: Evangelicals, Libertarians, and the Battle to Control the Republican Party":
"Whereas conservative Christian parents once thought it was inappropriate for public schools to teach their kids about sex, now they want the schools to preach abstinence to children. Whereas conservative Christians used to be unhappy with evolution being taught in public schools, now they want Intelligent Design taught instead (or at least in addition). Whereas conservative Christians used to want the federal government to leave them alone, now they demand that more and more federal funds be directed to local churches and religious groups through Bush's faith-based initiatives program."
To a Republican Party increasingly defined by the ascendancy of the religious right, the Foley episode is doubly deadly. His behavior was disgusting, and some Republican reactions seem more calculating than indignant.
Foley's name remains on the ballot in Florida's 16th Congressional District, which means that Democrats, who needed 15 seats to capture the House, now need just 14. Thirteen, actually: In Arizona's 8th, where Republican Rep. Jim Kolbe is retiring, Republicans used the primary to vent, nominating a probably unelectable fire-breather on the immigration issue.
After the 1936 election, in which President Franklin Roosevelt shellacked the Republican nominee in all but two states, a humorist wrote: "If the outcome of this election hasn't taught you Republicans not to meddle in politics, I don't know what will." If, after the Foley episode -- a maraschino cherry atop the Democrats' delectable sundae of Republican miseries -- the Democrats cannot gain 13 seats, they should go into another line of work.
georgewill@washpost.com
© 2006 The Washington Post Company
Outrage as Misdirection: The Real Scandal Isn't Foley
by Dave Lindorff
It's a sad commentary on the state of American democracy, on the instincts of the American citizenry, and on the standards and judgment of the American newsmedia that the unsavory advances of a pathetic Forida congressman can have the nation in high dudgeon, while the ramming through of a patently illegal piece of legislation undermining a crucial 13th century civil liberty (habeas corpus), and the Fourth and Eighth Amendments of the constitution, and the secret planning for an illegal and catastrophic attack on Iran, both merit almost no complaint or mention.
Far be it from me to complain if Rep. Mark Foley's sexual obsession with teenage boys ends up sinking Republican hopes for hanging onto the House and Senate. But how sad that it would be if it is this, and the coverup of his crimes by the Republican leadership, that undoes the Bush administration, when its real crimes are of such grandeur and seriousness?
How are we to compare seeking to screw a 16-year old with totally screwing the Constitution? How are we to compare secret email solicitations with a secret plot to attack a nation of 62 million that poses no immediate threat to the U.S.?
How are we to compare the Republican Party's cover-up of a member's efforts to corrupt young pages with the same party's conspiracy to cover up the Bush administration's ineptness and possible foreknowledge of the 9-11 attacks, and of the campaign of lies and misinformation it used to drum up hysteria for an illegal and totally unwarranted invasion of Iraq?
How are we to compare the media feeding frenzy over the Foley scandal with the profound silence about Bush's Iran invasion planning, and with the deliberate brownout about information regarding a growing popular movement to impeach the president for his crimes?
And finally, how to we to compare the public revulsion over Foley's indiscretions with the widespread acceptance or, or even support for abuse of American captives in the War in Afghanistan, the Iraq War, and the so-called "War" on Terror, which has included rape, sodomy, sexual humiliation and torture of all kinds, and murder--especially when it is known that the vast majority of those captives were either guilty of nothing but being in the wrong place at the wrong time, or of simply being honest fighters for their respective countries, deserving of decent treatment under the Geneva Convention, and of a fair hearing into the propriety of their detention?
What kind of nation have we become?
At least the Foley saga makes it clear why the farcical impeachment of Bill Clinton for his extramarital escapade moved forward through the House to a Senate trial, while George Bush, whose crimes far exceed those of any president before him, including Richard Nixon, and place the whole American experiment in jeopardy, has not even faced censure, much less a bill of impeachment.
Democratic Congressional leaders Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid should be ashamed of themselves for leaping so boldly to the attack over Foley's crime and the Republican leadership's cover-up, while continuing to assert that there will be no effort to impeach the president for his own crimes even if they manage, with Foley's assistance, to wrest control of the House November 8.
The American media should be ashamed of themselves for wallowing in swill, when there is a cancer in the White House that is attacking the very foundations of the nation.
The American public should be ashamed for its sheer inanity and inattention to the responsibilities of citizenship.
Wednesday, October 04, 2006
Dumping Denny Won't Do It
By Harold Meyerson
It is a mark of the sheer panic sweeping the ranks of Republican congressmen that one of their most levelheaded members, Ray LaHood of Illinois, has suggested that Congress abolish its page program altogether in the wake of the Mark Foley scandal.
What conclusion are we supposed to draw from LaHood's proposal? That members of Congress cannot be trusted in the company of adolescents? If so, why punish the adolescents? Whatever happened in the Foley case surely wasn't the fault of the pages to whom Foley came on electronically, much less every teenager who has worked, or would like to work, as a page.
If LaHood believes that pages pose an irresistible temptation to his peers, there are surely solutions straight out of the Republican playbook that wouldn't punish the victims. How about building a 700-foot fence around all Republican members of Congress?
One thing is certain: Just dumping Denny Hastert as speaker, as many conservatives are demanding, won't clean up the Republican act. House Majority Leader John Boehner -- No. 2 in the House GOP hierarchy to Hastert's No. 1 -- now says that the failure to do anything about Foley since his e-mails first became known to the Republican leadership is Hastert's responsibility.
But we also know that Boehner and colleagues Tom Reynolds of New York, who heads the National Republican Congressional Committee; John Shimkus of Illinois, who heads the panel that oversees the page program; and Rodney Alexander of Louisiana, who received the first complaints about Foley, had the same information Hastert had, and presumably they noticed that Mark Foley still walked among them as a member of Congress.
We know that Shimkus neglected to bring up the Foley issue with Michigan's Dale Kildee, the one Democrat on the committee that oversees the page program. We know that all of them put their concern for avoiding a scandal that might damage their party's prospects over whatever fears they may (and should) have entertained about Foley's interactions with the Capitol's cadre of teenagers.
And should House Republicans toss Hastert overboard, then both their leaders in this session will have left the leadership in disgrace. Tom DeLay, after all, is soon to stand trial in Texas for abuses he is alleged to have committed in his drive to secure the House Republican majority by forcing through a mid-decade redistricting in his home state. And dissimilar as Hastert's inaction in the Foley case and DeLay's action in the Texas reapportionment may be, their motives were indisputably identical: elevating the retention of the Republican congressional majority over any concerns about the other consequences -- some legal, some moral -- of their acts.
There were, of course, other ways to ensure that majority short of such desperate expedients. Congressional Republicans might have bethought themselves to exercise some oversight on our war in Iraq, at least forcing the administration to articulate exactly what our strategy is.
They might have crafted a Medicare prescription program less to the drug companies' liking that didn't leave seniors having to fork over thousands of dollars for medications once the program's coverage ran out, as it has for many, at mid-year. They might have raised the minimum wage, something that, by the evidence of every recent poll, a vast majority of Republican rank-and-filers support. They might have raised revenue to cover the cost of the war and all the other programs they support. They might, in short, have made an effort to address the nation's needs.
Instead, the larger purpose of the Republican Congress has been to enrich the rich and to cling to power by all means necessary -- with the financial assistance of the grateful rich. Purging Hastert, like dumping DeLay, does not signal any shift in these priorities. Democratic candidates challenging Republican incumbents are well within their rights to note that their opponent voted to give control of the House to Hastert and DeLay in January of 2005 and to ask why anyone would think he or she would make a better choice next time. What would be different? After all, in not sharing what he knew about Foley with Kildee, Shimkus was merely following the Republicans' practice of cutting the other party out of all legislative deliberations and running the House of, by and emphatically for themselves.
And who are the Republican members of Congress who've opposed this? Who has voted for rules that allow Democrats to offer amendments to key bills from the floor of the House? Who among them would consider not just defenestrating Denny but also changing the way the Republican Congress does business? Nobody springs to mind.
So -- dump the pages? Come now. Let's just dump the Republicans.
Rice More Sordid Than Foley
By Robert Scheer
They are such liars. And no, I am not speaking only of the dissembling GOP House leaders led by Speaker Dennis Hastert who, out of naked political calculation, covered up for one of their own in the sordid teen stalking case of Rep. Mark Foley.
Call me old school, but I am still more concerned with the Republicans molesting Lady Liberty while pretending to be guarding the nation’s security, an assignment which they have totally botched. The news about the Foley coverup, while important as yet another example of extreme hypocrisy on the part of the Republican virtues police, should not be allowed to obscure the latest evidence of administration deceit as to its egregious ineptness in protecting the nation.
On Monday, a State Department spokesman conceded that then-National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice had indeed been briefed in July 2001 by George Tenet, then-director of the CIA, about the alarming potential for an Al Qaeda attack, as Bob Woodward has reported in his aptly named new book, “State of Denial.”
“I don’t remember a so-called emergency meeting,” Rice had said only hours earlier, apparently still suffering from some sort of post-9/11 amnesia that seemed to afflict her during her forced testimony to the 9/11 Commission. The omission of this meeting from the final commission report is another example of how the Bush administration undermined the bipartisan investigation that the president had tried to prevent. Surely lying under oath in what was arguably the most important official investigation in the nation’s history should be treated more seriously than the evasiveness in the Paula Jones case that got President Bill Clinton impeached. Nor is it just Rice who should be challenged, for Tenet seems to have provided Woodward with details concerning the administration’s indifference to the terrorist threat that he did not share with the 9/11 Commission.
In his book, Woodward described an encounter between Rice and Tenet, in a near panic about a rising flood of intelligence warnings just presented to him by top aide Cofer Black. Tenet forced an unscheduled meeting with Rice on July 10, 2001, because he wanted the Bush administration to take action immediately against Al Qaeda to disrupt a possible domestic attack.
“Tenet ... decided he and Black should go to the White House immediately. Tenet called Condoleezza Rice, then national security adviser, from the car and said he needed to see her right away,” Woodward reports. “He and Black hoped to convey the depth of their anxiety and get Rice to kick-start the government into immediate action.” A mountain of evidence proves that the Bush administration did nothing of the sort.
Now, if Rice truly does not remember that now-confirmed meeting—which was apparently first reported in the Aug. 4, 2002, Time magazine in an article titled “Could 9/11 Have Been Prevented?”—wouldn’t that indicate she didn’t take it that seriously? Not remembering confirms her inattention to terror reports at a time the Bush administration was already fixated on “regime change” in Iraq.
Rice is famously sharp and has an awesome memory. Considering the trauma of 9/11 and its effects, it is inconceivable that Rice would not recall such an ominous and prescient briefing by Tenet and Black, especially after the 9/11 Commission forced her to document and review her actions in those crucial months.
It is, however, as she stated Monday, “incomprehensible” that she, then the national security advisor to the president and the person most clearly charged with sounding the alarm, would have ignored the threat. But ignore it the administration did, and then later tried to lay the blame on the Clinton administration, which, Rice claimed at the 9/11 Commission hearings, lied when it said it had given the incoming White House team an action plan for fighting Al Qaeda.
“We were not presented with a plan,” Rice infamously argued under questioning from then-Sen. Bob Kerrey (D-Neb.), but instead were given a memo with “a series of actionable items” describing how to tackle Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.
Such weaseling would be funny if the topic were not so serious. But there is no way Rice can squirm out of this one, despite her impressive track record of calculated distortion on everything from Iraq’s nonexistent WMDs to the trumped-up ties between Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. Can there be any better case for turning over control of at least one branch of Congress to the opposition party so that we might finally have hearings to learn the truth of this matter, which is far more important, and sordid, than the Foley affair?
The McCain Charade
by Robert Kuttner The Arizona senator has set up a nice racket for himself -- and for hard-right Republican rule.
Cheney's Brain
David Corn notes that Bob Woodward's new book reveals Dick Cheney was lost without Scooter Libby, and after his aide's indictment, the veep ceased playing a visible role managing the Iraq War.
Venezuela's oil wealth funds gusher of anti-poverty projects
Hugo Chavez's revolution came to the hillside slum of San Juan one recent night in the glare of a solitary lightbulb and with puddles from a recent thunderstorm still underfoot. Two dozen people clustered on a rooftop to debate the money and power that...
Tuesday, October 03, 2006
Sawing Off the Judicial Branch
By Matthew Rothschild, Forget about Mark Foley. Something much more serious is going on. And that’s the demise of our democracy.
read more
Laura Doesn’t Count
By Matthew Rothschild, The Bob Woodward book confirms the worst about the lazy and arrogant president we’ve got there in the White House.
read more
By Matthew Rothschild, Forget about Mark Foley. Something much more serious is going on. And that’s the demise of our democracy.
read more
Laura Doesn’t Count
By Matthew Rothschild, The Bob Woodward book confirms the worst about the lazy and arrogant president we’ve got there in the White House.
read more
ABC: Foley had online sex during 2003 floor vote
Florida Rep. Mark Foley once told a former House page that he's never too busy to masturbate, and he apparently meant what he said. In a new IM exchange just posted by ABC News, Foley appears to have taken time out for some long-distance sexual satisfaction with a former page in the midst of a House vote on emergency wartime supplemental appropriations in 2003.
All told, the network says it has now received 52 separate instant message exchanges in which Foley, using the screen name Maf54, chatted up two different boys under the age of 18.
We'll assume for the moment that Foley isn't engaging in inappropriate communications with House pages from wherever he is in rehab today, but the disgraced congressman seems to be having a hard time kicking the IM habit. BlogActive says that maf54 was online as recently as this morning.
-- Tim Grieve
Florida Rep. Mark Foley once told a former House page that he's never too busy to masturbate, and he apparently meant what he said. In a new IM exchange just posted by ABC News, Foley appears to have taken time out for some long-distance sexual satisfaction with a former page in the midst of a House vote on emergency wartime supplemental appropriations in 2003.
All told, the network says it has now received 52 separate instant message exchanges in which Foley, using the screen name Maf54, chatted up two different boys under the age of 18.
We'll assume for the moment that Foley isn't engaging in inappropriate communications with House pages from wherever he is in rehab today, but the disgraced congressman seems to be having a hard time kicking the IM habit. BlogActive says that maf54 was online as recently as this morning.
-- Tim Grieve
"Mission Accomplished" was Bush's creation
by kos
The liars in the White House have always blamed the Navy for the "Mission Accomplished" banner during Commander Codpiece's speech on the USS Lincoln. But the reality, as is usually the case with this administration, was much different.
Things you can count on the Republican leadership to screw up:
by Bill in Portland Maine
The deficit. Body armor. Medicare reform. Social Security reform. The minimum wage. Port security. The National Guard. Diplomacy. The Geneva Conventions. Fair elections. Clean elections. Intelligence. Protecting the Constitution. Protecting the Bill of Rights. Government transparency. Oversight. Separation of church and state. The middle class. The poor. Tax reform. Tax cuts. Bankruptcy law. Global warming. Disaster management. Defeating terrorists. Saying no to lobbyists. Saying yes to public opinion. Pre-war planning. Post-war planning. Competence. Civil rights. Civil liberties. Civil debate. Veterans' benefits. Hiring based on ability. Legal surveillance. Morality. Energy policy. Energy independence. End-of-life decisions among spouses. Inclusion. Learning lessons from history. Learning, period. Drug policy. Fiscal responsibility. Trusting the generals. Trusting the spooks. Trusting the experts. Basic honesty. Basic health care. Education. Creating jobs. Keeping CIA operatives' identities secret. Catching Osama. Playing nice. Playing fair. Refilling ice cube trays. Making paper airplanes. Or coffee. Tying their shoelaces. Making friends. Blowing their noses. Counting to ten five three. Sharing their toys. Telling the truth. Uniting the country. Protecting underage kids from a predatory congressman.
by Bill in Portland Maine
The deficit. Body armor. Medicare reform. Social Security reform. The minimum wage. Port security. The National Guard. Diplomacy. The Geneva Conventions. Fair elections. Clean elections. Intelligence. Protecting the Constitution. Protecting the Bill of Rights. Government transparency. Oversight. Separation of church and state. The middle class. The poor. Tax reform. Tax cuts. Bankruptcy law. Global warming. Disaster management. Defeating terrorists. Saying no to lobbyists. Saying yes to public opinion. Pre-war planning. Post-war planning. Competence. Civil rights. Civil liberties. Civil debate. Veterans' benefits. Hiring based on ability. Legal surveillance. Morality. Energy policy. Energy independence. End-of-life decisions among spouses. Inclusion. Learning lessons from history. Learning, period. Drug policy. Fiscal responsibility. Trusting the generals. Trusting the spooks. Trusting the experts. Basic honesty. Basic health care. Education. Creating jobs. Keeping CIA operatives' identities secret. Catching Osama. Playing nice. Playing fair. Refilling ice cube trays. Making paper airplanes. Or coffee. Tying their shoelaces. Making friends. Blowing their noses. Counting to ten five three. Sharing their toys. Telling the truth. Uniting the country. Protecting underage kids from a predatory congressman.
For Reynolds and Hastert, the Foley plot thickens
by Tim Grieve
Maybe the House Republican leadership weathers the Mark Foley crisis. But there are developments on two tracks tonight that suggest it may be harder for either NRCC Chairman Tom Reynolds or House Speaker Dennis Hastert to get through this scandal than we would have thought just a few hours ago.
Let's take Reynolds first. Reynolds learned of Foley's e-mail exchange with a 16-year-old page in the spring of 2006, early enough to follow up with an investigation and -- if it revealed anything troubling -- insist that Foley drop his re-election campaign. Instead, it appears that Reynolds did nothing with his knowledge about Foley except pass it along to Hastert together with what Hastert calls "other things that might have affected campaigns." Two things to note here: In failing to do something more about Foley, Reynolds failed to protect other pages and he failed in his job of trying to get Republicans elected and re-elected to the House. If Foley is gone in the spring, his GOP replacement has a decent shot at winning in November; with Foley forced to leave the race late instead, his name remains on the ballot, and, as House Majority Leader John Boehner is now conceding, the Republicans have virtually no chance of holding on to his seat.
We knew all of that hours ago. Here's the new part. As we noted earlier today, ABC's Brian Ross has told the Washington Post's Howard Kurtz that a strategist for Foley tried to cut a deal with him last week: Ross doesn't disclose the sexually explicit IM messages Foley sent to pages, and the strategist gets Ross an "exclusive" on Foley's resignation. Thanks to AMERICAblog's John Aravosis, we know now that that strategist was Kirk Fordham.
Who is Kirk Fordham? He's a former chief of staff for Foley who is currently the chief of staff for Reynolds. Reynolds, it seems, loaned Fordham's services to Foley to help him navigate his way out of the page scandal. And what does that mean? It means, as Glenn Greenwald explains, that "the top aide to one of the Republican House leaders, as recently as last Friday, tried to suppress the most incriminating and important facts regarding this scandal. Isn't that the very definition of 'cover-up'?"
Indeed, it is. And Tuesday in Washington, Reynolds will have a whole new round of questions to answer about what he knew of his chief of staff's role in it.
And now for Hastert. The speaker acknowledges that Reynolds may have told him about Foley's e-mail exchange in the spring but says he just doesn't remember it. In an unusually mocking retort, CNN's Andrea Koppel told Hastert this afternoon, "This is the kind of thing, I've got to tell you, if somebody told me that a senior congressman was sending, perhaps, 'over-friendly' e-mails to a 16-year-old page, I'd remember." Hastert's pathetic response: "I'm just saying that I don't remember him telling me that." Pressed at another point today to explain why Republicans didn't do more when they first learned of Foley's problems, all Hastert could say was, "Would have, could have, should have."
Hastert might have bettered his lot if he'd put on some sort of bravura, take-charge performance today. But as night fell in Washington, right-wing pundit Bay Buchanan was saying that Hastert had "failed the parents of this country," and conservatives like Michael Reagan and Richard Viguerie were calling for his resignation.
Now it's getting worse. As Matt Drudge is reporting -- and, if the flashing police light is any indication, doing so with some degree of enthusiasm -- the right-wing Washington Times will call for Hastert to step down in Tuesday's paper. "House Speaker Dennis Hastert must do the only right thing, and resign his speakership at once," Druge quotes the Times as saying. "Mr. Hastert has forfeited the confidence of the public and his party, and he cannot preside over the necessary coming investigation, an investigation that must examine his own inept performance."
Neither Drudge nor the Times can force Hastert to leave, of course. And aside from marginalized GOP dissenters like Walter P. Jones and Christopher Shays, House Republicans who are talking about the need for "dramatic" steps seem to be referring so far to ideas like abolishing the House page program. But at some point, Karl Rove, Ken Mehlman and a House full of nervous Republicans may decide that they can't bear to have any more days like today between -- especially if it looks like already unhappy "values" voters might respond to it all by staying home in droves on Nov. 7. If that moment comes, look for Hastert to leave the speaker's office as quickly as he came to it during another Republican sex scandal eight years ago.
by Tim Grieve
Maybe the House Republican leadership weathers the Mark Foley crisis. But there are developments on two tracks tonight that suggest it may be harder for either NRCC Chairman Tom Reynolds or House Speaker Dennis Hastert to get through this scandal than we would have thought just a few hours ago.
Let's take Reynolds first. Reynolds learned of Foley's e-mail exchange with a 16-year-old page in the spring of 2006, early enough to follow up with an investigation and -- if it revealed anything troubling -- insist that Foley drop his re-election campaign. Instead, it appears that Reynolds did nothing with his knowledge about Foley except pass it along to Hastert together with what Hastert calls "other things that might have affected campaigns." Two things to note here: In failing to do something more about Foley, Reynolds failed to protect other pages and he failed in his job of trying to get Republicans elected and re-elected to the House. If Foley is gone in the spring, his GOP replacement has a decent shot at winning in November; with Foley forced to leave the race late instead, his name remains on the ballot, and, as House Majority Leader John Boehner is now conceding, the Republicans have virtually no chance of holding on to his seat.
We knew all of that hours ago. Here's the new part. As we noted earlier today, ABC's Brian Ross has told the Washington Post's Howard Kurtz that a strategist for Foley tried to cut a deal with him last week: Ross doesn't disclose the sexually explicit IM messages Foley sent to pages, and the strategist gets Ross an "exclusive" on Foley's resignation. Thanks to AMERICAblog's John Aravosis, we know now that that strategist was Kirk Fordham.
Who is Kirk Fordham? He's a former chief of staff for Foley who is currently the chief of staff for Reynolds. Reynolds, it seems, loaned Fordham's services to Foley to help him navigate his way out of the page scandal. And what does that mean? It means, as Glenn Greenwald explains, that "the top aide to one of the Republican House leaders, as recently as last Friday, tried to suppress the most incriminating and important facts regarding this scandal. Isn't that the very definition of 'cover-up'?"
Indeed, it is. And Tuesday in Washington, Reynolds will have a whole new round of questions to answer about what he knew of his chief of staff's role in it.
And now for Hastert. The speaker acknowledges that Reynolds may have told him about Foley's e-mail exchange in the spring but says he just doesn't remember it. In an unusually mocking retort, CNN's Andrea Koppel told Hastert this afternoon, "This is the kind of thing, I've got to tell you, if somebody told me that a senior congressman was sending, perhaps, 'over-friendly' e-mails to a 16-year-old page, I'd remember." Hastert's pathetic response: "I'm just saying that I don't remember him telling me that." Pressed at another point today to explain why Republicans didn't do more when they first learned of Foley's problems, all Hastert could say was, "Would have, could have, should have."
Hastert might have bettered his lot if he'd put on some sort of bravura, take-charge performance today. But as night fell in Washington, right-wing pundit Bay Buchanan was saying that Hastert had "failed the parents of this country," and conservatives like Michael Reagan and Richard Viguerie were calling for his resignation.
Now it's getting worse. As Matt Drudge is reporting -- and, if the flashing police light is any indication, doing so with some degree of enthusiasm -- the right-wing Washington Times will call for Hastert to step down in Tuesday's paper. "House Speaker Dennis Hastert must do the only right thing, and resign his speakership at once," Druge quotes the Times as saying. "Mr. Hastert has forfeited the confidence of the public and his party, and he cannot preside over the necessary coming investigation, an investigation that must examine his own inept performance."
Neither Drudge nor the Times can force Hastert to leave, of course. And aside from marginalized GOP dissenters like Walter P. Jones and Christopher Shays, House Republicans who are talking about the need for "dramatic" steps seem to be referring so far to ideas like abolishing the House page program. But at some point, Karl Rove, Ken Mehlman and a House full of nervous Republicans may decide that they can't bear to have any more days like today between -- especially if it looks like already unhappy "values" voters might respond to it all by staying home in droves on Nov. 7. If that moment comes, look for Hastert to leave the speaker's office as quickly as he came to it during another Republican sex scandal eight years ago.
Monday, October 02, 2006
Fatally Incompetent Fucking Liar.,
W's bitch Cuntaleeza can't remember shit either. Of course, she skipped town just in time to avoid cameras. Just like Denny Hastert, Ronnie Reagan and the rest of the scumbag "Republi-cants" her memory goes foggy at the right times.
"Intercourse Cunti"
"Intercourse Cunti"
State of Denial
John Nichols writes that as House Speaker Dennis Hastert calls for an investigation of who knew what about Rep. Mark Foley's cyber-molestation of a page, the consequences will be felt all the way to Election Day.
Never Again is Now
Richard Kim writes that Congress has granted the President wartime powers that resurrect the spectre of mass internment of innocent citizens that occurred in World War II.
John Nichols writes that as House Speaker Dennis Hastert calls for an investigation of who knew what about Rep. Mark Foley's cyber-molestation of a page, the consequences will be felt all the way to Election Day.
Never Again is Now
Richard Kim writes that Congress has granted the President wartime powers that resurrect the spectre of mass internment of innocent citizens that occurred in World War II.
Mark Foley and Bill O'Reilly: Culture Warriors
"I'd be rubbing your big boobs and getting your nipples really hard . . . and then i would take your other hand with the falafel thing and i'd put it on your pussy."
-Bill O'Reilly
"how's my favorite young stud doing did you spank it this weekend where did you unload it cute butt bouncing in the air."
-Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fla.)
On Friday's Factor, Bill waited until late in the program to discuss the unfolding Mark Foley scandal. That quintessential O'Reilly outrage had somehow faded into the night and we were left with a rather subdued Bill:
"In the Impact Segment tonight, a very disturbing story. Republican Congressman Mark
Foley of Florida has resigned for sending a series of e-mails to a 16-year-old former congressional page.
Foley was a strong advocate of Jessica's Law and protecting children from predators,
now finds himself having to explain his relationship with a young boy.
O'Reilly later explained that, "Mark Foley is the co-chairman of the House Missing and Exploited Children Caucus. He's been on this program many times on FOX News Channel, often talking about protecting the kids."
We were still waiting for O'Reilly to go ballistic. After all, how would he have reacted if Howard Dean had been caught up in such a thing? O'Reilly spelled it out to Fox News' Major Garrett.
"Yes. You know, a real tragedy here, Major. I know you're just reporting and you don't comment as a reporter. But the real tragedy is that Foley did some good work, you know, getting the database up, the federal database to track child predators."
Sadly, Bill feels the real tragedy is that he has had Foley on the program multiple times and has propped him up as a fine example of a child protector, and now it turns out his fellow culture warrior may very well be whacking off to Garanimals ads. As for Foley's database, it’s a fine idea, but you’re not supposed to treat it like your own personal eHarmony.com.
"And now it's all gone. And there's deep suspicion on the part of a lot of people about politicians in Washington, even when they try to help the kids. I mean, that's the tragedy of this whole thing."
He concluded, "Yes. It is a depressing situation."
What the hell is O'Reilly talking about? We've never seen O’Reilly go this easy on a
newspaper publisher who declines to censure an editorial writer who defends a judge who gives a child predator less than 40 years breaking rocks in Guantanamo Bay. But now the best he can muster is, “It is a depressing situation.” Could it be that Bill so effortlessly groups people into insipid categories such as "culture warrior" and "secular-progressive," he simply doesn't know how to process it when one of his own falls from grace?
For a bit of perspective, let's take a look back at one of Foley's previous appearances on The Factor. Here are the two culture warriors fighting the S-P fanatics on the June 23, 2003 show:
"In the Impact Segment tonight, a Time magazine article spotlighted a Florida camp for kids that does not require clothing that has led to some controversy.
Joining us now from Washington, Congressman Mark Foley is running for Senate in
Florida. Mr. Foley is the co-chairman of the Congressional Missing and Exploited Children's Caucus."
REP. MARK FOLEY (R), FLORIDA: "Well Bill, we're talking about kids, impressionable young kids that are being put together in camps that I think are not only degrading to them, but dangerous to their well-being. People that are working around these camps, people that are peering through the fences can have significant ill intent. And so this is like putting a match next to a gas can. It's sooner or later going to explode and there'll be real dangerous consequences.
Foley later added, "Kids deserve protection. People that are under the age of 18 need supervision by someone who will look out for them."
You know, Foley’s right. Kids under 18 do need supervision. We thought we'd look at his particular brand of child protection by reviewing some of the text messages Foley sent to an underage male page, also in 2003. Let's just see how he looks out for the kids:
"did you spank it this weekend yourself"
Here the Republican from the great state of Florida seeks to build a rapport with the boy by discussing his weekend activities. Showing an interest in the boy is a key part of providing much-needed supervision.
"where do you unload it"
Again, Foley shows an in interest in the boy. By asking questions, he can really build that mentor relationship that is so important between members of the House of Representatives and their pages.
"cute butt bouncing in the air"
Building up the self-esteem of the minor is very important. Foley understands this. By complimenting the boy's ass, Foley shows that he appreciates him as a person.
"i always use lotion and the hand"
Now we start to see the mentorship aspect of the relationship. Now the boy can take some of what Foley has learned and apply it to his own circumstances, perhaps avoiding some of life’s great pitfalls…like not using lube.
"and grab the one eyed snake"
Gross. Seriously.
On the night after this interview aired, O'Reilly read a letter from one of his viewers.
Nancy Williamson, Naples, Florida: "I was recently at a nude camp. The youth were well supervised, well mannered, and comfortable with the environment. I challenge
Congressman Foley to visit."
Nancy, we believe Congressman Foley will accept your challenge.
Bush's Conception Conflict
By Michael Kinsley
It was, I believe, Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) who first made the excellent, bitter and terribly unfair joke about conservatives who believe in a right to life that begins at conception and ends at birth.
This joke has been adapted for use against various Republican politicians ever since. In the case of President Bush, though, it appears to be literally true.
Bush, as we know, believes deeply and earnestly that human life begins at conception. Even tiny embryos composed of a half-dozen microscopic cells, he thinks, have the same right to life as you and I do. That is why he cannot bring himself to allow federal funding for research on new lines of embryonic stem cells or even for other projects in labs where stem cell research is going on. Even though these embryos are obtained from fertility clinics, where they would otherwise be destroyed anyway, and even though he appears to have no objection to the fertility clinics themselves, where these same embryos are manufactured and destroyed by the thousands -- nevertheless, the much smaller number of embryos needed and destroyed in the process of developing cures for diseases such as Parkinson's are, in effect, tiny little children whose use in this way constitutes killing a human being and therefore is intolerable.
But President Bush does not believe that the deaths of all little children as a result of U.S. policy are, in effect, murder. He thinks that some, while very unfortunate, are also inevitable and essential.
You know who I mean. Close to 50,000 Iraqi civilians have died so far as a direct result of our invasion and occupation of their country, in order to liberate them. The numbers are increasing as the country slides into chaos: more than 6,500 in July and August alone. These numbers are from reliable sources and are not seriously contested. They include many who were tortured and then killed, along with others blown up less personally by car bombs and suicide bombers. The number does not include the hundreds of thousands who have died prematurely as a result of a decade and a half of war and embargos imposed on the Iraqi economy. Nor does it include soldiers on both sides, most of whom are innocent, too. Last week the number of American soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan surpassed the number of people who died in the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
Bush is right, of course, that the inevitable loss of innocent life in wartime cannot be a reason not to go to war or a reason not to fight that war in a way intended to win. Eggs, omelets and all that. "Collateral damage" should be a consideration weighed in the balance. But there is no formula to determine when you have the balance right. It does seem to me that both our wars in Iraq were started and conducted with insufficient consideration for the cost in innocent blood. Callousness, naivete and isolation -- isolation of the decision makers from democratic accountability and isolation of citizens from the consequences, or even the awareness, of what is being done in their name -- all have played a role. I don't see anything coming out of this war that is worth 50,000 innocent lives, although a case can be made, I guess.
But it is hard -- indeed, I would say it is impossible -- to reconcile Bush's absolutism over allegedly human life when it is a clump of unknowing, unfeeling cells with his sophisticated, if not cavalier, attitude toward the loss of innocent human life when it is children and adults in Iraq.
In all discussions weighing the cost of something or other in terms of human life, a philosopher pops up at this point and says that the crucial difference is a matter of intentions. Terrorists purposely target innocent civilians. We try hard not to kill innocent civilians, even if we know it can't be avoided. They're worse, even if our score is sadly higher.
But are stem cells any different? Stem cell researchers don't want to kill embryos. They know that the deaths of embryos are a consequence of what they do, and they think that curing terrible diseases is worth it -- just as President Bush thinks that bringing democracy to Iraq is worth it. In the case of stem cells, there is the added element that the embryos in question will be killed anyway (or pointlessly frozen indefinitely) if they are not used for research. And -- oh, yes -- there is still the question of whether a clump of a half-dozen cells you can't see without a microscope is actually a human being in the same sense as a 6-year-old girl blown up as she skips off to kindergarten in Baghdad.
A commander in chief who must face life-or-death questions such as these deserves a bit of sympathy. I would sympathize more with Bush if his answers weren't so preening and struggle-free. It is wonderful to be so morally pure that you won't allow a single embryo to be destroyed in the quest for medical cures that could save lives by the thousands. You are way beyond Gandhi, sweeping the path ahead to avoid stepping on an insect: Insects have more human characteristics than a six-cell embryo.
And regarding Iraq you are quite the man, aren't you, "making the tough decisions." A regular Harry Truman, consigning thousands to death in order to bring democracy and freedom and peace to millions. But Truman actually produced democracy and freedom and peace, whereas you want credit for your hopes. That's not how it works. If you want to be the hard-ass, you get judged by results. And you can't be Gandhi and Truman at the same time.
Foley vs. Clinton
by Joshuah Bearman
"It's vile. It's more sad than anything else, to see someone with such potential throw it all down the drain because of a sexual addiction." -- Mark Foley, R-West Palm Beach, September 12, 1998, referring to Bill Clinton in the St. Petersburg Times.
Another one-two punch of karmic irony for Republicans. First, there was James West, Republican Mayor of Spokane, Washington, noted for vigorously opposing gay rights measures until he was caught exchanging messages with someone he thought was a 17-year-old boy on a gay website.
Then Virginia Representative Edward Schrock, a staunch Republican backed by the Christian Coalition, left a message on a gay phone dating service looking for a partner to "get together with a guy from time to time just to -- just to play... get naked, play, and see what happens." Nothing wrong with that, unless by day you are a howling, vitriolic advocate for a Constitutional ban on gay marriage.
Unlike Schrock, Foley voted moderately on gay rights issues. Unfortunately for Foley, when he got caught IM'ing a teenage Congressional page, he also happened to be Co-chairman of the Missing and Exploited Children Caucus. And the House leadership knew and protected Foley. Which we all know is what this scandal is really about.
It's as if there's some kind of secret Republican Inappropriate Appointment Committee. Let's put the closeted cruiser in charge of gay bashing! Head of the sex offender watchdog committee is a borderline sex offender? Check. Or make that, write him a check!
Today's Republicans don't believe in accountability. Foxes in the henhouse is the rule, rather than the exception. Five-and-a-half years, and they're drunk with power. It's a tragic corruption of the party's cause. And they have no one to blame but themselves. They run all the branches, a majority of the governorships, and have the mouthpieces of talk radio and the biggest cable news outfit to distribute their talking points. Not to mention an enfeebled and confused Democratic party to dominate. Even with an open playing field, they're scoring goals on themselves left and right. Come election day, maybe a few Democrats will show up to claim the forfeit.
White House downplays Foley scandal as "simply naughty emails"
by Joe in DC
White House Press Secretary Tony Snow, appearing on CNN this morning, downplayed the Foley scandal.
Soledad noted that Snow "tried really hard to minimize the impact and any kind of political fallout." Snow said, "I hate to tell but it's not always pretty up there on Capitol Hill and there have been other scandals as you know that have been more than simply naughty emails.""Simply naughty emails."
That's all they were says the Bush White House. Just naughty emails between a 52 year old member of Congress and some 16 and 17 year olds childen. Just naughty emails when a grown man asks a sixteen year old boy to measure his penis. Just naughty emails when a member of Congress asks a child to describe how he masturbates.That's why the GOP House leadership is scrambling. That's why they had to call in the FBI. That's why the Florida Department of Law Enforcement is investigating.
by Joe in DC
White House Press Secretary Tony Snow, appearing on CNN this morning, downplayed the Foley scandal.
Soledad noted that Snow "tried really hard to minimize the impact and any kind of political fallout." Snow said, "I hate to tell but it's not always pretty up there on Capitol Hill and there have been other scandals as you know that have been more than simply naughty emails.""Simply naughty emails."
That's all they were says the Bush White House. Just naughty emails between a 52 year old member of Congress and some 16 and 17 year olds childen. Just naughty emails when a grown man asks a sixteen year old boy to measure his penis. Just naughty emails when a member of Congress asks a child to describe how he masturbates.That's why the GOP House leadership is scrambling. That's why they had to call in the FBI. That's why the Florida Department of Law Enforcement is investigating.
Sunday, October 01, 2006
The Onion:
Senate Wins Fight To Lower Allowable Amperage Levels On Detainees' Testicles
WASHINGTON, DC—Led by a bipartisan group of senators critical of White House policy on suspected terrorists, the Senate passed a bill Thursday that prohibits interrogators from exceeding 100 amps per testicle when questioning detainees.
"Even in times of war, it is counterproductive and wrong to employ certain inhumane interrogation techniques, and using three-digit amperage levels on the testicles of captives constitutes torture," said Sen. John Warner (R-VA), who has also supported reducing the size of attack dogs and the height of nude pyramids. "Using amperages of 99 and lower, with approved surge protectors on the jumper-cable clamps, are the hallmarks of a civilized society."
The legislation did not address amperage restrictions on suspected terrorists' labia
Is Woodward Calling Bush a Liar?
After two books that made President Bush look pretty good, Bob Woodward is out with a new one that comes awfully close to calling the president a liar.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)