College students, hide your laptops and whatever you do, don't stay with a bunch of friends in a single house. Because freedom of assembly is not guaranteed to dirty fucking hippies.
Jane Hamsher and Glenn Greenwald are in Minneapolis, and when word got 'round of SWAT raids on 5 DFH houses, they took their cameras and hit the streets.
Black clad, heavily armed officers entered without warrant, handcuffed occupants and laid them face down on floors for up to 45 minutes. Laptops and political materials confiscated, no charges filed, except for two people who will be charged with "conspiracy to commit riot", a vague statute which has, apparently, never been used up to know, and which will almost certainly face a constitutional test in the courts after this weekend's raids.
Glenn's post has video and links to local coverage. Jane has more.
I was at an end of summer pool party yesterday, and talking with a man who's political cynicism was palpable. You know the drill: both parties corrupt, no difference, we're screwed. I made a rather impassioned plea for practical engagement over cynicism: of course we can screw it up if we win, on any number of fronts and in any number of ways. The point is to try, and to put your support behind the candidate who lays out ideas that you believe are most likely to give good results.
"But it doesn't bother you that they can record all of your email and collect all of your data and spy on you without reason and," etcetera.
Of course that matters to me! It matters deeply to me! Which is why I cannot fathom allowing the party that has worked so hard to strip us of constitutional protections to retain power.
This weekend's raids underscore this for me, in dramatic fashion. Police in Denver may have behaved badly with protesters, and the DNC may have been overly aggressive in keeping the scene media-friendly for the candidate.
But the RNC will preemptively attack anyone who may pose a political threat: through political prosecutions approved by the justice department, and by raiding groups whose crime is, say, non-violent political protest.
The RNC is criminal. Their use of local and national law enforcement is criminal.
Wondering what kind of media coverage this story will get.
Sunday, August 31, 2008
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Pappy and The Broad
Viewing McCain's pick of Sara Palin as anything other than cynical politics is ridiculous.
She's an avowed anti-abortionist; which means that James Dobson and Co are finally on board with the ticket, along with hopes that they'll rally their to date unexcited base.
She's young, so she makes the ticket look prettier.
She's a woman, which, in the minds of people like Rove and McCain means that the rest of us simple little women will not fail to be inspired by the opportunity to put someone with a uterus in the White House.
That, my friends, is what Sara Palin offers the Republicans. And they also know that if anyone on the Obama campaign, say, Joe Biden, calls them out on it, they risk looking condescending at best and misogynist at worst.
I listened to the broadcast media all day refer to the choice as historic, which rankled me. Dems put a woman up for VP 24 years ago, so in setting that particular historical precedent, Republicans are, unsurprisingly, a bit behind the times.
This could be viewed as historic in the fact that she's on a Republican ticket: this marks the day when they decided they could benefit from a skirt or two in prominence. It can be viewed as historic in the context of the full campaign, meaning that come January, we'll either have a black president or a female VP. That's something.
But this is an image pick, not one based on merit or vision. She isn't Hillary, a woman who has worked her entire life toward the respect and opportunity she currently has, and who reached her pinnacle this year on the trust of millions of voters, rather than a single team of political operatives.
She isn't Barack; who, again, rose to prominence on his own guts and skill, bringing millions of Americans to his side.
She's a first term governor of a resources rich small state, and she brings to the ticket pot holes for Joe Biden and anti-global warming pro-oil cred.
She is, in short, the formalization of the same crude, pandering, misogyny that gave us "Happy Hour for Hillary" in Denver last week.
I'm disgusted with the campaign's Rovian use of women as emotional triggers and props.
And that's all I have to say about that at the moment. I'm going to go read Joe Conason now and see what he has to say about it. I am sure it will be devastating.
Update: Conason here.
She's an avowed anti-abortionist; which means that James Dobson and Co are finally on board with the ticket, along with hopes that they'll rally their to date unexcited base.
She's young, so she makes the ticket look prettier.
She's a woman, which, in the minds of people like Rove and McCain means that the rest of us simple little women will not fail to be inspired by the opportunity to put someone with a uterus in the White House.
That, my friends, is what Sara Palin offers the Republicans. And they also know that if anyone on the Obama campaign, say, Joe Biden, calls them out on it, they risk looking condescending at best and misogynist at worst.
I listened to the broadcast media all day refer to the choice as historic, which rankled me. Dems put a woman up for VP 24 years ago, so in setting that particular historical precedent, Republicans are, unsurprisingly, a bit behind the times.
This could be viewed as historic in the fact that she's on a Republican ticket: this marks the day when they decided they could benefit from a skirt or two in prominence. It can be viewed as historic in the context of the full campaign, meaning that come January, we'll either have a black president or a female VP. That's something.
But this is an image pick, not one based on merit or vision. She isn't Hillary, a woman who has worked her entire life toward the respect and opportunity she currently has, and who reached her pinnacle this year on the trust of millions of voters, rather than a single team of political operatives.
She isn't Barack; who, again, rose to prominence on his own guts and skill, bringing millions of Americans to his side.
She's a first term governor of a resources rich small state, and she brings to the ticket pot holes for Joe Biden and anti-global warming pro-oil cred.
She is, in short, the formalization of the same crude, pandering, misogyny that gave us "Happy Hour for Hillary" in Denver last week.
I'm disgusted with the campaign's Rovian use of women as emotional triggers and props.
And that's all I have to say about that at the moment. I'm going to go read Joe Conason now and see what he has to say about it. I am sure it will be devastating.
Update: Conason here.
Friday, August 29, 2008
No, Senator McCain, I Am Not An Idiot
You think I'm stupid.
You think I'm going to fall for it.
You think that because I loved Hillary Clinton, gave money to Hillary Clinton, stood in the freezing rain for two hours to see her speak, put a sticker on my car, wore my pin around town, and supported Hillary Clinton to the very end, that I will vote for you.
You think I will forget every single one of my personal and political values just because there's a vagina on your pro-war, anti-woman, anti-science ticket.
You, Senator McCain, are wrong.
I'd love to see a woman in the White House. I would have loved to see a woman on Obama's ticket.
But not this woman.
Not a woman who thinks decisions about my body should be made by hateful old men in Washington.
Not a woman who thinks science is a myth.
Not a woman who thinks the Republican party has anything to offer besides more war, higher taxes, oil dependency, and hate.
I am not falling for it, Senator McCain.
Because what you do not understand is that my support for Hillary was not about anatomy. It was about values. Hillary Clinton articulated and represented my dreams.
You do not. Not even with a vagina on your pathetic ticket.
This changes nothing.
No way. No how. No McCain.
Cross-posted at DailyKos
You think I'm going to fall for it.
You think that because I loved Hillary Clinton, gave money to Hillary Clinton, stood in the freezing rain for two hours to see her speak, put a sticker on my car, wore my pin around town, and supported Hillary Clinton to the very end, that I will vote for you.
You think I will forget every single one of my personal and political values just because there's a vagina on your pro-war, anti-woman, anti-science ticket.
You, Senator McCain, are wrong.
I'd love to see a woman in the White House. I would have loved to see a woman on Obama's ticket.
But not this woman.
Not a woman who thinks decisions about my body should be made by hateful old men in Washington.
Not a woman who thinks science is a myth.
Not a woman who thinks the Republican party has anything to offer besides more war, higher taxes, oil dependency, and hate.
I am not falling for it, Senator McCain.
Because what you do not understand is that my support for Hillary was not about anatomy. It was about values. Hillary Clinton articulated and represented my dreams.
You do not. Not even with a vagina on your pathetic ticket.
This changes nothing.
No way. No how. No McCain.
Cross-posted at DailyKos
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Why does God hate Republicans?
Here they are, trying to protect marriage and man's right to plunder, and yet: on the heel's of the anniversary of Katrina, Gustave is headed for land.
WaPo:
And unlike Bush and McCain, the people on the ground in Crawford that day were sorting batteries and blankets and non-perishable foods, loading buses and vans for immediate delivery to New Orleans.
I love New Orleans, really great memories of that city. So Katrina felt personal to me- self involved white woman that I am.
And if- and I say if- if the convention next week is in any way adversely affected by a storm like Gustav, I will take it as a sign that karma or the gods and goddesses have some scores to settle.
You could take it as a random act of weather, sure. But as a feminist ACLU member, I've been taking blame for years, and I would love th chance to spread it around.
WaPo:
Republican officials said yesterday that they are considering delaying the start of the GOP convention in Minneapolis-St. Paul because of Tropical Storm Gustav, which is on track to hit the Gulf Coast, and possibly New Orleans, as a full-force hurricane early next week.via TPM:
The threat is serious enough that White House officials are also debating whether President Bush should cancel his scheduled convention appearance on Monday, the first day of the convention, according to administration officials and others familiar with the discussion.
"The Republicans can't seem to get a break when it comes to August and when it comes to the weather," said Rove, a FOX News analyst. "I know this is being thought a lot about in Washington and at the White House and discussed and I suspect they will monitor it carefully and figure out what to do."And Greg says,
Yeah, Katrina (which hit in August 2005) was really rough on those Republicans, no question about it.I was in Crawford, Texas, when Katrina hit. And I watched him fly overhead on his way to Arizona, where he presented McCain with a cake that both of them discarded after the photo op.
And unlike Bush and McCain, the people on the ground in Crawford that day were sorting batteries and blankets and non-perishable foods, loading buses and vans for immediate delivery to New Orleans.
I love New Orleans, really great memories of that city. So Katrina felt personal to me- self involved white woman that I am.
And if- and I say if- if the convention next week is in any way adversely affected by a storm like Gustav, I will take it as a sign that karma or the gods and goddesses have some scores to settle.
You could take it as a random act of weather, sure. But as a feminist ACLU member, I've been taking blame for years, and I would love th chance to spread it around.
I Have Become an Obamabot
I laughed at them. Silly cultists, drinking Kool-Aid, talking about The Savior, The Messiah, The One. I laughed at the slogans they chanted. Fired up. Hope and Change. Yes we can.
Bunch of nonsense.
I said I'd vote for him anyway. He's a Democrat, and we need one in the White House.
I said I'd vote for him anyway. McCain is worse, a continuation of eight disastrous years, and an assault on every single one of my personal and political values.
But this week, I stopped being just a Democrat who will vote for the party's nominee.
This week, I became an Obamabot.
I can't tell you the exact moment it happened.
I loved Michelle Obama's speech on Monday. She was stunningly beautiful and composed, but also warm and passionate. She spoke about her life, about her husband, about their beliefs and dreams that they want to share with the American people. With me.
When she said the words "18 million cracks," I cried. I couldn't help it. I'd wanted so much for Hillary Clinton to be the nominee and take back the White House and shatter the glass ceiling once and for all.
And there was Michelle Obama, who, with three simple words, not only acknowledged everything I felt, but said she felt the same way too. She wanted it too. She's a woman and a mother of two daughters, and she wants to smash that ceiling as much as I do.
And with those three words, she seemed to be promising that it will happen. Her husband will help us continue to shatter glass ceilings everywhere across America.
And I wept with joy and, yes, with hope.
But I don't know if that wasn't the moment I became an Obamabot.
Because then there was Tuesday. Oh, Tuesday.
When Hillary Clinton took the stage, was there any Democrat in America who would question why I and so many others supported her? She was glorious -- beautiful in a color few can wear, more passionate than she has ever been, gracious and sincere in her support of Obama, and clear in her message to all of us that we are Democrats, we are family, and we must work together to change this country.
And then she made me cry.
But I don't know if that was the moment.
Because then there was Wednesday.
And on Wednesday, for the first time in eight years, I felt like maybe the Democratic Party was listening to us after all. Because we didn't want another wimpy convention, where Democrats were too afraid to take on Republicans. We don't want to play nice. We don't want to bite our tongues.
We want to win.
And they heard us. Was there any Democrat in America who watched John Kerry's speech and didn't think that if that John Kerry had reported for duty four years ago, we'd be working for President Kerry's re-election right now?
And there were others. The video of military service men and women telling their stories, pleading with us to end this war, bring them home, stop their friends from dying.
And there was the former Republican who proudly proclaimed he was now a Democrat because he knows his former party no longer represents anything but old, tired ideas that don't work.
And I realized in that moment that we are not just united -- we are unanimous. We all want change -- not just Obama supporters, not just Democrats, but all of us.
And then they gave us Bill. Bubba. The Big Dog. Call him what you will -- that man made me so proud to be a Democrat. Again. Finally.
Bill reminded us of why we loved him. Why we believed in him. Why we stood by him, in spite of all of his, uh, imperfections.
I fell in love with Bill Clinton all over again last night. Is there any Democrat in America who can't say the same?
He passed the torch. The man from Hope endorsed the man who gives us hope, and he did it with his trademark charm and humor and wit.
It was 1992, and I was a freshman in high school, sitting in my parents' living room with all their friends, cheering at the television as we watched President Bush's failed administration fade into oblivion and the dawning of a new era, and we danced and we sang, "Don't stop thinking about tomorrow."
What a tremendous feeling to hear that song once again. As if we were given permission to look into the future once more, instead of having to be afraid of what tomorrow might bring. No more terrorist threat color wheel; no more duct tape. It's going to be okay. We can look forward to tomorrow again.
But I don't know if that was the moment.
Because then Joe Biden spoke. And I'm no fan of Joe Biden. I could write an essay on all the reasons I'm no fan. I could, but I won't.
Because last night, I made peace with Joe Biden. I forgave him for all the ways he has let me down. None of that matters now. He did the job he needed to do. He made the case to us -- to me -- for Barack Obama. He made the case against John McCain. And this time, when he made one of his infamous gaffes, it was the right kind. Because John McCain really is just more of George Bush.
But I don't think Joe Biden's speech was the moment for me.
Because then Barack Obama himself took the stage, and I felt my heart swell and my lungs tighten and tears sting my eyes, and I realized that I wanted nothing more than to see this man, and his family, in the White House. In my White House.
I was convinced. After nearly two years and endless debate with my family and friends and fellow Kossacks, after my shock and disappointment at seeing my dream candidate defeated, after swallowing my pride and hopes and trying my best to be supportive of our party's nominee, and after an incredible week of seeing the all-stars of our party make the case, again and again and again, that we desperately need Barack Obama, I am convinced.
And I am fired up.
And I believe in Hope and Change.
I get it now. I understand.
Yes We Can.
Yes We Can.
Yes We Can.
It is not just a slogan. It is not just a silly music video made by celebrities who are want to endorse the next hip thing.
It is our truth, as Democrats and as Americans.
Yes. We. Can.
So this, today, is my moment. This is the moment I went from being a good Democrat to a proud Obamabot. Because today, I am going to my local campaign headquarters to volunteer for Barack Obama. Because helping to elect him may be the most important thing I've done in my thirty years so far.
Because now, I believe.
Yes We Can.
Cross-posted at DailyKos
Bunch of nonsense.
I said I'd vote for him anyway. He's a Democrat, and we need one in the White House.
I said I'd vote for him anyway. McCain is worse, a continuation of eight disastrous years, and an assault on every single one of my personal and political values.
But this week, I stopped being just a Democrat who will vote for the party's nominee.
This week, I became an Obamabot.
I can't tell you the exact moment it happened.
I loved Michelle Obama's speech on Monday. She was stunningly beautiful and composed, but also warm and passionate. She spoke about her life, about her husband, about their beliefs and dreams that they want to share with the American people. With me.
When she said the words "18 million cracks," I cried. I couldn't help it. I'd wanted so much for Hillary Clinton to be the nominee and take back the White House and shatter the glass ceiling once and for all.
And there was Michelle Obama, who, with three simple words, not only acknowledged everything I felt, but said she felt the same way too. She wanted it too. She's a woman and a mother of two daughters, and she wants to smash that ceiling as much as I do.
And with those three words, she seemed to be promising that it will happen. Her husband will help us continue to shatter glass ceilings everywhere across America.
And I wept with joy and, yes, with hope.
But I don't know if that wasn't the moment I became an Obamabot.
Because then there was Tuesday. Oh, Tuesday.
When Hillary Clinton took the stage, was there any Democrat in America who would question why I and so many others supported her? She was glorious -- beautiful in a color few can wear, more passionate than she has ever been, gracious and sincere in her support of Obama, and clear in her message to all of us that we are Democrats, we are family, and we must work together to change this country.
And then she made me cry.
I'm a United States senator because in 1848 a group of courageous women and a few brave men gathered in Seneca Falls, New York, many traveling for days and nights -- (cheers, applause) -- to participate in the first convention on women's rights in our history.
And so dawned a struggle for the right to vote that would last 72 years, handed down by mother to daughter to granddaughter -- and a few sons and grandsons along the way.
These women and men looked into their daughters' eyes and imagined a fairer and freer world, and found the strength to fight. To rally. To picket. To endure ridicule and harassment, and brave violence and jail.
And after so many decades, 88 years ago on this very day, the 19th amendment giving women the right to vote became enshrined in our Constitution. (Cheers, applause.)
My mother was born before women could vote. My daughter got to vote for her mother for president. This is the story of America, of women and men who defy the odds and never give up.
But I don't know if that was the moment.
Because then there was Wednesday.
And on Wednesday, for the first time in eight years, I felt like maybe the Democratic Party was listening to us after all. Because we didn't want another wimpy convention, where Democrats were too afraid to take on Republicans. We don't want to play nice. We don't want to bite our tongues.
We want to win.
And they heard us. Was there any Democrat in America who watched John Kerry's speech and didn't think that if that John Kerry had reported for duty four years ago, we'd be working for President Kerry's re-election right now?
And there were others. The video of military service men and women telling their stories, pleading with us to end this war, bring them home, stop their friends from dying.
And there was the former Republican who proudly proclaimed he was now a Democrat because he knows his former party no longer represents anything but old, tired ideas that don't work.
And I realized in that moment that we are not just united -- we are unanimous. We all want change -- not just Obama supporters, not just Democrats, but all of us.
And then they gave us Bill. Bubba. The Big Dog. Call him what you will -- that man made me so proud to be a Democrat. Again. Finally.
Bill reminded us of why we loved him. Why we believed in him. Why we stood by him, in spite of all of his, uh, imperfections.
I fell in love with Bill Clinton all over again last night. Is there any Democrat in America who can't say the same?
He passed the torch. The man from Hope endorsed the man who gives us hope, and he did it with his trademark charm and humor and wit.
It was 1992, and I was a freshman in high school, sitting in my parents' living room with all their friends, cheering at the television as we watched President Bush's failed administration fade into oblivion and the dawning of a new era, and we danced and we sang, "Don't stop thinking about tomorrow."
What a tremendous feeling to hear that song once again. As if we were given permission to look into the future once more, instead of having to be afraid of what tomorrow might bring. No more terrorist threat color wheel; no more duct tape. It's going to be okay. We can look forward to tomorrow again.
But I don't know if that was the moment.
Because then Joe Biden spoke. And I'm no fan of Joe Biden. I could write an essay on all the reasons I'm no fan. I could, but I won't.
Because last night, I made peace with Joe Biden. I forgave him for all the ways he has let me down. None of that matters now. He did the job he needed to do. He made the case to us -- to me -- for Barack Obama. He made the case against John McCain. And this time, when he made one of his infamous gaffes, it was the right kind. Because John McCain really is just more of George Bush.
But I don't think Joe Biden's speech was the moment for me.
Because then Barack Obama himself took the stage, and I felt my heart swell and my lungs tighten and tears sting my eyes, and I realized that I wanted nothing more than to see this man, and his family, in the White House. In my White House.
I was convinced. After nearly two years and endless debate with my family and friends and fellow Kossacks, after my shock and disappointment at seeing my dream candidate defeated, after swallowing my pride and hopes and trying my best to be supportive of our party's nominee, and after an incredible week of seeing the all-stars of our party make the case, again and again and again, that we desperately need Barack Obama, I am convinced.
And I am fired up.
And I believe in Hope and Change.
I get it now. I understand.
Yes We Can.
Yes We Can.
Yes We Can.
It is not just a slogan. It is not just a silly music video made by celebrities who are want to endorse the next hip thing.
It is our truth, as Democrats and as Americans.
Yes. We. Can.
So this, today, is my moment. This is the moment I went from being a good Democrat to a proud Obamabot. Because today, I am going to my local campaign headquarters to volunteer for Barack Obama. Because helping to elect him may be the most important thing I've done in my thirty years so far.
Because now, I believe.
Yes We Can.
Cross-posted at DailyKos
McCain Campaign Issues Lying Ad?
So says (moderately brain damaged, usually) Jake Tapper:
If Jake Tapper is willing to call you out, your slip is definitely showing.From the Fact Check Desk: Did Obama Say Iran Is a 'Tiny' Country That 'Doesn't Pose a Serious Threat'?
August 27, 2008 11:13 AMWe, in the media, have given a lot of airtime to the TV ads of Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., this week, starring, as they do, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y.
There's been evidence emerging that McCain's campaign isn't really running these ads anywhere, according to the Campaign Media Analysis Group.
"These were basically video press releases," CMAG’s Evan Tracey tells the Wall Street Journal.
OK, so that's kind of dishonest of the McCain campaign.
Today's new McCain ad -- "Tiny," [...] crosses a new line into dishonesty, however, beyond whether or not it's actually airing anywhere.
The script reads: "Iran. Radical Islamic government. Known sponsors of terrorism. Developing nuclear capabilities to 'generate power' but threatening to eliminate Israel.
"Obama says Iran is a 'tiny' country, 'doesn't pose a serious threat,'" the ad continues. "Terrorism, destroying Israel, those aren't 'serious threats'? Obama -- dangerously unprepared to be president."
This is a dishonest representation of Obama's words.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
The day
Initially, I gave Bill Clinton's speech a B, because Bill is capable of great, soaring oratory, and I grade him on a curve.
Then I realized that Bill probably toned it down specifically because the night was not supposed to be about him. It's Biden's night, and Bill left some air in the room for Joe to use.
Biden did what I hoped he'd do: he came out strong and explained who he is and what he believed in, and then he began to sharply draw the lines and contrasts that need to be deeply carved into the national conversation over the next two months.
This administration has appallingly low approval ratings, holding steady in the high 20s-low 30s for about three years now. The only reason McCain has any footing at all is that his campaign has been able to keep McCain's image separate from McCain's actual policy judgments, which are almost identical to President Bush and Vice President Cheney's.
He has the same foreign policy advisers, essentially. His economic advisers advocate more of the same. And Biden's right: his judgment has been proven wrong on key foreign policy and domestic issues repeatedly over the past few years.
The Dems need to keep reminding everyone of where we're at, and who brought us here. Biden started the chorus off nicely.
Also, Angry Mouse. Angry Mouse sings a rousing chorus, too.
Then I realized that Bill probably toned it down specifically because the night was not supposed to be about him. It's Biden's night, and Bill left some air in the room for Joe to use.
Biden did what I hoped he'd do: he came out strong and explained who he is and what he believed in, and then he began to sharply draw the lines and contrasts that need to be deeply carved into the national conversation over the next two months.
This administration has appallingly low approval ratings, holding steady in the high 20s-low 30s for about three years now. The only reason McCain has any footing at all is that his campaign has been able to keep McCain's image separate from McCain's actual policy judgments, which are almost identical to President Bush and Vice President Cheney's.
He has the same foreign policy advisers, essentially. His economic advisers advocate more of the same. And Biden's right: his judgment has been proven wrong on key foreign policy and domestic issues repeatedly over the past few years.
The Dems need to keep reminding everyone of where we're at, and who brought us here. Biden started the chorus off nicely.
Also, Angry Mouse. Angry Mouse sings a rousing chorus, too.
Three More Reasons I'm Voting For Obama
I didn't vote for him in the primary.
I didn't advocate for him in the blogosphere until he won the nomination.
But damn it, I'm fired up. I'm ready to go.
And I'm proud to be an Obama supporter. I'm proud to say you will hear no condemnation from me about Barack Obama between now and November. I am proud to aspire to be Obama's biggest cheerleader on DailyKos.
I've already given three reasons for supporting Obama.
Well, here are three more:
One: Michelle Obama. We need this woman to be our First Lady. Brilliant, beautiful, accomplished, inspiring -- and dare I say it, as good a speaker as her husband, if not better.
The role of First Lady is a critical one, or at least it can be, with the right First Lady.
This country's second First Lady, Abigail Adams, was credited with being a powerful influence on her husband and a voice for women in our young democracy:
Eleanor Roosevelt damn near ran her husband's presidency toward its end.
Jackie Kennedy brought grace, sophistication, and French food to America.
And Hillary...Hillary showed this country that behind every powerful man, you better believe there's an equally powerful woman helping him along the way.
We need Michelle Obama, and her beautiful daughters, to bring vitality and joy back into the White House and across America.
Two: Hope and Change. I have mocked Hope and Change. Empty rhetoric, pretty words.
But I was wrong.
After two days of the Democratic Convention, I understand that now. I'm becoming a believer. Some speakers have been better than others, but many have sought to lay out the clear choice in this election: the past or the future.
McCain offers the past. War, dependence on foreign oil, tax breaks for the rich. And fear. Lots of fear. Fear of the terrorists and the Russians and Iraq and Iran and black men and free women and gay marriage and science.
But Obama offers us the future. He offers us the chance to believe that we can do more and be better. I don't know if Obama can deliver all of the dreams he has dared us to dream. I'm a pessimist by nature. But I'd rather hope for a brilliant future than fear we are forever trapped in a dismal past.
Three: Hillary Clinton. I didn't need her speech last night. I was one of her strongest supporters, but when Obama wrapped up the nomination, I jumped on board.
But still...
Last night, Hillary spoke to me. She inspired me. She made me laugh. She made me cry.
She spoke about the Seneca Falls Convention, where our long struggle began. She quoted Harriet Tubman, one of my favorite women in history. She urged us to keep going, keep fighting, keep standing up, keep trying.
Because one day, we're not just going to put cracks in the ceiling. We're going to shatter that damned ceiling once and for all.
And President Obama is going to help us do it.
She articulated what she stands for, which is why I voted for her, and she said -- in the clearest and plainest of words -- that Obama shares her values. My values. And McCain does not. No way. No how. No McCain.
Hillary made me proud, last night. Proud to have supported her, and proud to be supporting Obama now. But most importantly, she made me proud to be a Democrat. And that's something I haven't felt in eight years.
Because we are the party of the future. We are the party that put 18 million cracks in the glass ceiling.
We are the party of hope and change.
These are my three simple reasons. I'm sure I'll think of more.
What are yours?
Cross-posted at DailyKos
I didn't advocate for him in the blogosphere until he won the nomination.
But damn it, I'm fired up. I'm ready to go.
And I'm proud to be an Obama supporter. I'm proud to say you will hear no condemnation from me about Barack Obama between now and November. I am proud to aspire to be Obama's biggest cheerleader on DailyKos.
I've already given three reasons for supporting Obama.
Well, here are three more:
One: Michelle Obama. We need this woman to be our First Lady. Brilliant, beautiful, accomplished, inspiring -- and dare I say it, as good a speaker as her husband, if not better.
The role of First Lady is a critical one, or at least it can be, with the right First Lady.
This country's second First Lady, Abigail Adams, was credited with being a powerful influence on her husband and a voice for women in our young democracy:
I long to hear that you have declared an independency. And, by the way, in the new code of laws which I suppose it will be necessary for you to make, I desire you would remember the ladies and be more generous and favorable to them than your ancestors.
Eleanor Roosevelt damn near ran her husband's presidency toward its end.
Jackie Kennedy brought grace, sophistication, and French food to America.
And Hillary...Hillary showed this country that behind every powerful man, you better believe there's an equally powerful woman helping him along the way.
We need Michelle Obama, and her beautiful daughters, to bring vitality and joy back into the White House and across America.
Two: Hope and Change. I have mocked Hope and Change. Empty rhetoric, pretty words.
But I was wrong.
After two days of the Democratic Convention, I understand that now. I'm becoming a believer. Some speakers have been better than others, but many have sought to lay out the clear choice in this election: the past or the future.
McCain offers the past. War, dependence on foreign oil, tax breaks for the rich. And fear. Lots of fear. Fear of the terrorists and the Russians and Iraq and Iran and black men and free women and gay marriage and science.
But Obama offers us the future. He offers us the chance to believe that we can do more and be better. I don't know if Obama can deliver all of the dreams he has dared us to dream. I'm a pessimist by nature. But I'd rather hope for a brilliant future than fear we are forever trapped in a dismal past.
Three: Hillary Clinton. I didn't need her speech last night. I was one of her strongest supporters, but when Obama wrapped up the nomination, I jumped on board.
But still...
Last night, Hillary spoke to me. She inspired me. She made me laugh. She made me cry.
She spoke about the Seneca Falls Convention, where our long struggle began. She quoted Harriet Tubman, one of my favorite women in history. She urged us to keep going, keep fighting, keep standing up, keep trying.
Because one day, we're not just going to put cracks in the ceiling. We're going to shatter that damned ceiling once and for all.
And President Obama is going to help us do it.
She articulated what she stands for, which is why I voted for her, and she said -- in the clearest and plainest of words -- that Obama shares her values. My values. And McCain does not. No way. No how. No McCain.
Hillary made me proud, last night. Proud to have supported her, and proud to be supporting Obama now. But most importantly, she made me proud to be a Democrat. And that's something I haven't felt in eight years.
Because we are the party of the future. We are the party that put 18 million cracks in the glass ceiling.
We are the party of hope and change.
These are my three simple reasons. I'm sure I'll think of more.
What are yours?
Cross-posted at DailyKos
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Calling all PUMAS: you're embarrassing me
The McCain camp's big strategy for this week is to use the simple little women it can get near to sow discontent in the Democratic party and peel away feminist support for Barack Obama. And the disgusting thing is that there seem to be quite a few simple little women lining up to help them do it.
Witness the ad they released: a Washington nurse and Hillary delegate, telling you "It's okay" to vote for a man who voted against the Lebetter legislation on equal pay this year.
Witness the pandering "Happy Hour for Hillary" party they're throwing in Denver.
Are you all so stupid that you don't understand you're being used? Are you all so self-involved that you don't notice when you're being lied to?
Got a problem with Obama referring to someone as "sweetie"? What about McCain referring to his wife as a cunt?
You wanna buy the idea that he will support Roe v. Wade? Did you watch the Saddleback forum? Have you listened to anything he has said on the subject during his entire public life- other than one comment in 1999? How about checking something easy- like his campaign website?
"Country before party"? So you think that the economy is swell, war is good, and if we deregulate everything except equal pay we'll be better off after 4 years of McCain? And that's why you were supporting Hllary Clinton?
I understand that there is an argument for acknowledging your disappointment. I know that you aren't fond of Obama, for whatever reason. But if your answer to all of this is to let the Republicans use you, you're an embarrassment.
Witness the ad they released: a Washington nurse and Hillary delegate, telling you "It's okay" to vote for a man who voted against the Lebetter legislation on equal pay this year.
Witness the pandering "Happy Hour for Hillary" party they're throwing in Denver.
Are you all so stupid that you don't understand you're being used? Are you all so self-involved that you don't notice when you're being lied to?
Got a problem with Obama referring to someone as "sweetie"? What about McCain referring to his wife as a cunt?
You wanna buy the idea that he will support Roe v. Wade? Did you watch the Saddleback forum? Have you listened to anything he has said on the subject during his entire public life- other than one comment in 1999? How about checking something easy- like his campaign website?
"Country before party"? So you think that the economy is swell, war is good, and if we deregulate everything except equal pay we'll be better off after 4 years of McCain? And that's why you were supporting Hllary Clinton?
I understand that there is an argument for acknowledging your disappointment. I know that you aren't fond of Obama, for whatever reason. But if your answer to all of this is to let the Republicans use you, you're an embarrassment.
Michelle
Michelle Obama knocked it out of the park last night. Anyone who could be reached must have been touched by her speech.
Of course there are the hystericals: the Nobama Puma narcissists and the set partisans. But if a democrat or independent or even republican with any opening in the head or heart watched her last night, I fail to imagine how they could come away without a new admiration for the woman.
Off for family fun today, and can't wait for tonight.
Of course there are the hystericals: the Nobama Puma narcissists and the set partisans. But if a democrat or independent or even republican with any opening in the head or heart watched her last night, I fail to imagine how they could come away without a new admiration for the woman.
Off for family fun today, and can't wait for tonight.
Saturday, August 23, 2008
It's Biden
John Cole says:
He's a white male with a gazillion years in the senate, and a face and a name easily recognizable by much of the country. He's got foreign policy cred, and sort of a tough guy persona. And as the press is deeply concerned about "seriousness" -meaning things they hear and approve of at the right cocktail parties- Biden is likely a press-friendly choice. Over the years, they've probably been to a lot of the same cocktail parties and shared space on campaign buses and planes zooming off to serious foreign policy meetings.
Also, while he's not mac & cheese boring (Bayh), he's reassuring to people who can't handle the very radical idea of a black president and a woman VP- too much too soon! As much as we'd like to believe the country can handle it, there are an awful lot of nervous nellies out there, press and citizenry, for whom that idea would be just so frightening.
(Aside: I don't mean that I wouldn't have supported a "scary" choice. In many ways I think it might be a case if not now, when?)
I have watched too many senate hearings to love Biden. But I like him. And he can get mean- he should be great in the VP debates. And as for his tendency to say really amazingly stupid things: we're running against McCain here, a walking gaffe machine. I think that takes the heat off Biden somewhat.
BTW- The pick is probably gonna be Biden according to the media, who I rate as the person most likely of all the VP possibles to call Mitt Romney an asshole. Others are hoping for a casual “m____ f_____.” Either way, I call that a win.Megan Gogerty says:
The best thing about Biden, though? He's so articulate. And clean.I say Biden is a smart, if safe, choice. By "safe" I mean that he isn't the face of CHANGE, or anything so romantic and exciting as that.
He's a white male with a gazillion years in the senate, and a face and a name easily recognizable by much of the country. He's got foreign policy cred, and sort of a tough guy persona. And as the press is deeply concerned about "seriousness" -meaning things they hear and approve of at the right cocktail parties- Biden is likely a press-friendly choice. Over the years, they've probably been to a lot of the same cocktail parties and shared space on campaign buses and planes zooming off to serious foreign policy meetings.
Also, while he's not mac & cheese boring (Bayh), he's reassuring to people who can't handle the very radical idea of a black president and a woman VP- too much too soon! As much as we'd like to believe the country can handle it, there are an awful lot of nervous nellies out there, press and citizenry, for whom that idea would be just so frightening.
(Aside: I don't mean that I wouldn't have supported a "scary" choice. In many ways I think it might be a case if not now, when?)
I have watched too many senate hearings to love Biden. But I like him. And he can get mean- he should be great in the VP debates. And as for his tendency to say really amazingly stupid things: we're running against McCain here, a walking gaffe machine. I think that takes the heat off Biden somewhat.
Friday, August 22, 2008
More on surges and timelines
Froomkin:
In agreeing to pull U.S. combat troops out of Iraqi cities by June, and from the rest of the country by 2011, President Bush has apparently consented to precisely the kind of timetable that, when Democrats called for one, he dismissed as "setting a date for failure." Bush can call it an "aspirational goal" until he turns blue, but a timetable is exactly what it is, thank you very much. [snip]
It is hypothetically possible that an American pullout on this timetable will leave behind a peaceful, democratic and pro-Western Iraq. One can certainly hope. But it seems more likely that the sectarian fissures opened by the U.S. invasion and subsequent occupation will once again explode into violence as soon as U.S. troops -- and U.S. payments -- stop creating an artificial sense of stability.
And then, of course, there's Bush's own histrionic prediction. "It makes no sense to tell the enemy when you plan to start withdrawing," he said last May. "All the terrorists would have to do is mark their calendars and gather their strength -- and begin plotting how to overthrow the government and take control of the country of Iraq. I believe setting a deadline for withdrawal would demoralize the Iraqi people, would encourage killers across the broader Middle East, and send a signal that America will not keep its commitments. Setting a deadline for withdrawal is setting a date for failure -- and that would be irresponsible."
So the next big question is this: How will Bush explain this turnaround when he finally emerges from his Crawford vacation? Will he try to downplay its significance? Or will he actually suggest that the job is nearly done in Iraq? That would be a bold move indeed, but not one with a lot of evidence to support it.
Surges and timelines and "war"
The Bush administration will apparently agree to removing all US troops from Iraq's cities and villages by next June, with a complete pull out by the end of 2011. Note, though, that they are also stating a proviso that the proposed timeline will be subject to a review of "events on the ground", as usual. It's more of an "aspirational goal". Meaning they really do not want to be bound by such a plan, regardless of what Iraqis have to say about it.
Supporters of Bush military strategery, in particular the Surge™, would like us all to humbly apologize for ever opposing the Surge™, for ever doubting the supreme wisdom of the president and his generals.
Not so fast, kids.
I opposed the Surge™ for a few reasons, and I don't think any of those reservations have been resolved or proven wrong. Yes, if you put armed soldiers on enough street corners, violence in the immediate area will likely decrease. That isn't exactly deep thinking.
The Surge™ did not address the political and civil structure of the country. In fact, the successes touted by the administration over the past two years have often been dependent on the very fractures that keep Iraq from full political progress. In other words: if the majority Shia run the Sunnis out of a neighborhood, then sectarian violence in that neighborhood stops. This is a strategy still employed by Shia and Sunni throughout Iraq, creating a still growing wave of Iraqi refugees.
The Surge™ also takes a great deal of credit for decreases in violence which are due to the Sunni Awakening- those former insurgents who have been on our payroll to police their cities since about a year before the Surge™ began. This is particularly true outside of Baghdad, where the majority of Surge™ troops are focused.
But the majority Shia in the Iraqi government really don't like the Awakening, and are targeting them for arrest and imprisonment. We and the Sunnis had asked that they be trained and moved into the Iraqi armed forces, but that isn't happening at any great pace. Instead of integration and unity, we are simply seeing governmental reinforcement of the sectarian divide.
And that doesn't even address the Kurds, who are still a regional power in their own right. It doesn't address the still unbuilt infrastructure, which could be funded at this point by Iraqi budget surpluses.
The problem is that we keep calling this a war, and thinking that we can fight our way to victory. But if the Surge™ was supposed to "give the Iraqi government breathing room" so that they could build civil and legal frameworks and agreements, and make progress in uniting the country and so forth, how can we call what we're looking at now a victory? Iraq is still a deeply divided country, and it looks to me like the government will have a tough time getting to real reform because none of the key players trust each other, nor do I think they have developed a shared vision of what a healed Iraq will look like.
The Surge™ was and is a flawed approach because it is an extension of the same thinking that got us into this mess: that American military might is the sole answer to all questions, that this is a "war" at all.
It's an occupation, and not a well executed one.
Supporters of Bush military strategery, in particular the Surge™, would like us all to humbly apologize for ever opposing the Surge™, for ever doubting the supreme wisdom of the president and his generals.
Not so fast, kids.
I opposed the Surge™ for a few reasons, and I don't think any of those reservations have been resolved or proven wrong. Yes, if you put armed soldiers on enough street corners, violence in the immediate area will likely decrease. That isn't exactly deep thinking.
The Surge™ did not address the political and civil structure of the country. In fact, the successes touted by the administration over the past two years have often been dependent on the very fractures that keep Iraq from full political progress. In other words: if the majority Shia run the Sunnis out of a neighborhood, then sectarian violence in that neighborhood stops. This is a strategy still employed by Shia and Sunni throughout Iraq, creating a still growing wave of Iraqi refugees.
The Surge™ also takes a great deal of credit for decreases in violence which are due to the Sunni Awakening- those former insurgents who have been on our payroll to police their cities since about a year before the Surge™ began. This is particularly true outside of Baghdad, where the majority of Surge™ troops are focused.
But the majority Shia in the Iraqi government really don't like the Awakening, and are targeting them for arrest and imprisonment. We and the Sunnis had asked that they be trained and moved into the Iraqi armed forces, but that isn't happening at any great pace. Instead of integration and unity, we are simply seeing governmental reinforcement of the sectarian divide.
And that doesn't even address the Kurds, who are still a regional power in their own right. It doesn't address the still unbuilt infrastructure, which could be funded at this point by Iraqi budget surpluses.
The problem is that we keep calling this a war, and thinking that we can fight our way to victory. But if the Surge™ was supposed to "give the Iraqi government breathing room" so that they could build civil and legal frameworks and agreements, and make progress in uniting the country and so forth, how can we call what we're looking at now a victory? Iraq is still a deeply divided country, and it looks to me like the government will have a tough time getting to real reform because none of the key players trust each other, nor do I think they have developed a shared vision of what a healed Iraq will look like.
The Surge™ was and is a flawed approach because it is an extension of the same thinking that got us into this mess: that American military might is the sole answer to all questions, that this is a "war" at all.
It's an occupation, and not a well executed one.
The coveted D&D bloc
I had to send my teens a recap on the campaign D&D war. Most of them are too young to vote. All of them are deeply thoughtful. Some of them enjoy a regular D&D date, while others roll their eyes and beg for a different activity.
Pretty much all of them will think this is hysterical, and the GOP better hope they don't harbor deep resentments over petty, stupid things when they are old enough to register. Might not be good for the future of the party.
Pretty much all of them will think this is hysterical, and the GOP better hope they don't harbor deep resentments over petty, stupid things when they are old enough to register. Might not be good for the future of the party.
But in their new role as bloggers, the paper’s editors seem to have all the intelligence and reason of the average Daily Kos diarist sitting at home in his mother’s basement and ranting into the ether between games of dungeons and dragons.- McCain campaign in-house blogger Michael Goldfarb on 8/1, responding to criticism of a campaign commercial by the NYT editorial blog.
If my comments caused any harm or hurt to the hard working Americans who play Dungeons & Dragons, I apologize. This campaign is committed to increasing the strength, constitution, dexterity, intelligence, wisdom, and charisma scores of every American.- Goldfarb responding to criticism on the internet, which may or may not have been raised by actual D&D players
It may be typical of the pro-Obama Dungeons & Dragons crowd to disparage a fellow countryman's memory of war from the comfort of mom's basement, but most Americans have the humility and gratitude to respect and learn from the memories of men who suffered on behalf of others.- Goldfarb on 8/18, responding to questions about the candidate's veracity
It’s official. Thanks to some initiative-taking readers (or perhaps someone totally unrelated to this blog… I’m still not sure), the “Pro-Obama Dungeons and Dragons Crowd” group has been created at MyBarackObama.com. [snip] We even have not one, but two completely awesome logos, made by McE and Beth, respectively… w00t!- candleboy.com
Different universe
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Is there another David Gregory that I don't know about?
Weird.
And very very happy that Rachel Maddow will anchor her own show.
Despite his often piercing and on-point questions, this behavior has cemented David Gregory as a liberal-media-conspiracy incarnate in the eyes of conservatives and a kind of tough-questioning hero to many on the anti-Bush left.There must be another David Gregory out there that I am unaware of.
And very very happy that Rachel Maddow will anchor her own show.
I want my habeas back
The AG thinks the FBI needs broader surveillance powers, and he's fixin' to do something about it. From NYT:
On Tuesday, I listened to a really great Fresh Air with Terry Gross segment with Michael Beschoss, on his book Taking Charge: The Johnson White House Tapes, 1963-1964.
A couple of bits of the original tapes from October 1964 are fascinating and have topical relevance. LBJ is on the eve of a reelection campaign, and his private conversations with a couple of key figures kept me in my car. Listen to his conversation with Billy Graham (about 9 minutes in at the link above) if you think that using evangelical leaders to cover one's political ass was invented in 1980.
The segment that I'm thinking about this morning, though, was a conversation toward the end of October with J. Edgar Hoover.
LBJ is worried, because there are rumors of a pending "October Surprise" planned by the Goldwater camp. Specifically, he's worried that Goldwater's team may have found and will name secret homosexuals within the administration, or photos of Johnson himself with a woman of ill repute. A Republican operator has scored a point earlier in the month, discovering that close Johnson aide Walter Jenkins was arrested at a DC YMCA having sex with a man. The press was tipped off, and Johnson suddenly feels vulnerable on the "morality" issue.
On the one hand, this tape has a comic edge: Johnson is aware of the rumors about Hoover's sexuality, so he is probably taking some real pleasure in pressing him about how one might know that someone was "queer". It's amusing if disgusting as they discuss the ways men part their hair, "walking funny", mannerisms, and the like.
But this conversation is only one part of a broader narrative. Johnson was on the phone with The director of the FBI a lot during these weeks, for one reason and one reason only: to put a stop to any opposition research hitting the press in the run up to the election.
Beschloss makes the point that this was in no way atypical presidential behavior. That the FBI should be used to silence potential scandal doesn't appear to have been questioned. We talk about the "hands off" approach that the press took with FDR's disabilities or JFK's private life, but I wonder how much of that had to do with the presidential ability to call out the goons when needed to squelch gossip or unflattering information.
The Nixon administration's grasping paranoia brought an end, for a time, to the use of the FBI as a private security force and the DOJ as a political shield. But since 9/11/01, new fears and paranoia have given strength to the expansion of executive power and the lessening of restrictions or oversight with regard to the practices of the military, the FBI, the NSA, and the DOJ. The agencies and institutions which could wreak the most damage to a constitutional republic have been steadily freed from restrictions designed to protect the country and its citizens from constitutional abuse, while the institutions whose role it is to provide oversight and correction have seen their influence steadily usurped (congress) or undermined through political maneuvering and deck-stacking (the courts, the free press). All under the undying zombie meme that they need all these "tools" to prevent another major terrorist attack.
But. It has been extensively documented that the failures of the FBI and intelligence agencies prior to 9/11/01 were due not to a lack of information, but a lack of action. The FBI had plenty of dots to connect, plenty of actionable intelligence. The lack was in leadership. Anti-terrorist investigation was not given priority, and key information was not shared up the chain of command.
The idea that 9/11/01 would have been prevented if only the agencies had better tools is false. But it's prevalent, and it has lead to the destruction of law and order, and of constitutional protections. While I'm sure that Bush and Mukasey really just want to keep everybody safe, they are creating tools which can -and will, given our history- be used as political bludgeons, and undermine the integrity of our criminal justice system.
Quite a legacy.
Mukasey, for his part, says that the new guidelines are intended merely to assist poor, confused agents, who cannot seem to figure out the rules as they are (this is the same reason Mukasey gives for the politicization of Justice under AG Gonzalez). He has agreed not to sign the new guidelines until after a congressional hearing on 9/17.
Let's hope the congress shows some spine. That would be a nice change.
WASHINGTON — A Justice Department plan would loosen restrictions on the Federal Bureau of Investigation to allow agents to open a national security or criminal investigation against someone without any clear basis for suspicion, Democratic lawmakers briefed on the details said Wednesday.
The plan, which could be made public next month, has already generated intense interest and speculation. Little is known about its precise language, but civil liberties advocates say they fear it could give the government even broader license to open terrorism investigations.
On Tuesday, I listened to a really great Fresh Air with Terry Gross segment with Michael Beschoss, on his book Taking Charge: The Johnson White House Tapes, 1963-1964.
A couple of bits of the original tapes from October 1964 are fascinating and have topical relevance. LBJ is on the eve of a reelection campaign, and his private conversations with a couple of key figures kept me in my car. Listen to his conversation with Billy Graham (about 9 minutes in at the link above) if you think that using evangelical leaders to cover one's political ass was invented in 1980.
The segment that I'm thinking about this morning, though, was a conversation toward the end of October with J. Edgar Hoover.
LBJ is worried, because there are rumors of a pending "October Surprise" planned by the Goldwater camp. Specifically, he's worried that Goldwater's team may have found and will name secret homosexuals within the administration, or photos of Johnson himself with a woman of ill repute. A Republican operator has scored a point earlier in the month, discovering that close Johnson aide Walter Jenkins was arrested at a DC YMCA having sex with a man. The press was tipped off, and Johnson suddenly feels vulnerable on the "morality" issue.
On the one hand, this tape has a comic edge: Johnson is aware of the rumors about Hoover's sexuality, so he is probably taking some real pleasure in pressing him about how one might know that someone was "queer". It's amusing if disgusting as they discuss the ways men part their hair, "walking funny", mannerisms, and the like.
But this conversation is only one part of a broader narrative. Johnson was on the phone with The director of the FBI a lot during these weeks, for one reason and one reason only: to put a stop to any opposition research hitting the press in the run up to the election.
Beschloss makes the point that this was in no way atypical presidential behavior. That the FBI should be used to silence potential scandal doesn't appear to have been questioned. We talk about the "hands off" approach that the press took with FDR's disabilities or JFK's private life, but I wonder how much of that had to do with the presidential ability to call out the goons when needed to squelch gossip or unflattering information.
The Nixon administration's grasping paranoia brought an end, for a time, to the use of the FBI as a private security force and the DOJ as a political shield. But since 9/11/01, new fears and paranoia have given strength to the expansion of executive power and the lessening of restrictions or oversight with regard to the practices of the military, the FBI, the NSA, and the DOJ. The agencies and institutions which could wreak the most damage to a constitutional republic have been steadily freed from restrictions designed to protect the country and its citizens from constitutional abuse, while the institutions whose role it is to provide oversight and correction have seen their influence steadily usurped (congress) or undermined through political maneuvering and deck-stacking (the courts, the free press). All under the undying zombie meme that they need all these "tools" to prevent another major terrorist attack.
But. It has been extensively documented that the failures of the FBI and intelligence agencies prior to 9/11/01 were due not to a lack of information, but a lack of action. The FBI had plenty of dots to connect, plenty of actionable intelligence. The lack was in leadership. Anti-terrorist investigation was not given priority, and key information was not shared up the chain of command.
The idea that 9/11/01 would have been prevented if only the agencies had better tools is false. But it's prevalent, and it has lead to the destruction of law and order, and of constitutional protections. While I'm sure that Bush and Mukasey really just want to keep everybody safe, they are creating tools which can -and will, given our history- be used as political bludgeons, and undermine the integrity of our criminal justice system.
Quite a legacy.
Mukasey, for his part, says that the new guidelines are intended merely to assist poor, confused agents, who cannot seem to figure out the rules as they are (this is the same reason Mukasey gives for the politicization of Justice under AG Gonzalez). He has agreed not to sign the new guidelines until after a congressional hearing on 9/17.
Let's hope the congress shows some spine. That would be a nice change.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)