Nader in; Takes "Oldest" spot from McCain

Ralph Nader, 73, whose spoiler role in the 2000 election enabled the Bush victory, is running again. So, now, John McCain, 71, isn't the oldest candidate in the race.

Mickeleh's Take: Nader, who saw no practical difference between Bush and Gore is unsafe at any age.

(Tags:Ralph Nader, Nader, Campaign)

Who Won Last Night's Debate? Here's a Clue.

Note: McCain-Obama First Debate Who Won?

Both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton had strong debate showings last night. Many folks are calling it a draw today. And in the sense that the debate probably changed no votes, it was a draw. Which, of course, means that Clinton lost.

Mickeleh's Take: There were two memorable moments last night and Clinton owned both: When she dissed Obama with a cheap joke, she was boo'd. And when she praised him at the end and promised unity no matter who got the nomination, she got a standing ovation.

I think that says it all.

(Tags:Hillary Clinton, Hillary, Clinton, Barack Obama, Barack, Obama, Debate, Democratic Party, Campaign)

Viva Obama

Mickeleh's Take: Yum.

Jokes You Can Xerox

That plagiarism thing came up again. Obama said Deval Patrick is one of his national co-chairs, and gave him the line. Clinton said, Obama should use his own words. Otherwise it isn't "Change you can believe in. It's Change you can Xerox."

So where did Hillary get that line? Anybody out there think she wrote that joke? Anybody?

Obama and Hillary on Edwards: Both gracious, one masterful.

With John Edwards dropping out of the race for the Democratic nomination for president, the two remaining candidates are both reaching out to Edwards supporters on their websites. Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama lead with gracious nods to John and Elizabeth and to the issues and causes that they championed in the campaign.

As an Edwards supporter, I appreciate both statements. But it is Barack's statement that gets my vote. Here's why:

Hillary' statement is in her prosaic voice:

John Edwards ended his campaign today in the same way he started it - by standing with the people who are too often left behind and nearly always left out of our national debate.

John ran with compassion and conviction and lifted this campaign with his deep concern for the daily lives of the American people. That is what this election is about - it's about our people. And John is one of the greatest champions the American people could ask for.

I wish John and Elizabeth all the best. They have my great personal respect and gratitude. And I know they will continue to fight passionately for the country and the people they love so deeply.

—Hillary Clinton

It praises John, identifies with his issues, and wishes John and Elizabeth well. By the numbers.

Now read Barack's statement. It is a much more savvy embrace of the tonality and history of the Edwards campaign.

John Edwards has spent a lifetime fighting to give voice to the voiceless and hope to the struggling, even when it wasn’t popular to do or covered in the news. At a time when our politics is too focused on who’s up and who’s down, he made a nation focus again on who matters – the New Orleans child without a home, the West Virginia miner without a job, the families who live in that other America that is not seen or heard or talked about by our leaders in Washington. John and Elizabeth Edwards have always believed deeply that we can change this – that two Americas can become one, and that our country can rally around this common purpose. So while his campaign may end today, the cause of their lives endures for all of us who still believe that we can achieve that dream of one America.

—Barack Obama

In the opening sentence Obama acknowledges that the media largely kept John in shadow and silence. He chides the media for horserace coverage rather than issues and causes. He personalizes abstract issues with examples in the way that Edwards did in his stump speeches. He then uses his own campaign lexicon of "believe" and "change" to embrace the Edwards quest. And he closes by embracing Edwards key phrases "cause of my life," and "one America."

Graphically, Obama's site has absorbed Elizabeth and John into its own design language, while Clinton has posted a news photo.

The Hillary statement feels obligatory. The Barack statement feels like John's voice is still heard.

Mickeleh's Take: Regardless of whether John Edwards chooses to endorse either of the remaining candidates, Obama has already endorsed Edwards issues and embraced his supporters.

(Tags:Edwards, John_Edwards, Barack, Obama, Barack Obama, Hillary, Hillary Clinto, HRC, Campaign, Democratic, Primary)

Ann Coulter, Christian Revisionist

Isn't it off message for Coulter to talk about "perfecting" the Jews? I thought the object of the game was to "save" us.

She called Christianity the FedEx version of Judaism. As in, "There's a lady who's sure all that glitters is gold And she's buying the FedEx to heaven."

Mickeleh's Take: In Coulter's view of her religion, she gets to think of herself as being perfect, without actually having to be decent.

(Tags:Ann Coulter, Coulter, Jews)

Money Talks

Tristero at Hullabaloo explains how it works.

President Bush or President Betray Us?

The freedom to dissent got a double-barreled blast yesterday—from the President and the Senate. (Yes, the same Senate that earlier failed to restore the right to Habeas Corpus.) Both condemned the "General Betray Us?" ad that MoveOn.org placed in the New York Times last week.

Are we now supposed to hold our General in the same reverence that the Muslims hold their Prophet?

Isn't General Petraeus is fighting for our liberty to make cheap puns on his name? Or don't we have that freedom anymore?

Bush, on the other hand, is fighting to equate dissent with treason, subvert our Constitutional liberties, and gather dictatorial powers to the Presidency.

Yesterday he came up to (maybe over) the line of warning the Democrats not to irritate the military. He does this while cherishing the privilege of his political allies to smear honorable opponents with lies and innuendo. He said, "I felt like the ad was an attack, not only on Gen. Petraeus, but on the US military." (Hats off to Prof. Lakoff who presciently declared yesterday "Metonymy Day.")

I'm embarrassed and infuriated that twenty-two Democrats made it possible for the Dornyn amendment to pass. (SEE BELOW for the names.) Thought experiment: how many Republicans would join with Democrats in condemning the Swift-boating of Kerry, the smears of Max Cleland and John Murtha?

Turning an ad (whether you liked it or not—and I didn't like much, BTW) into a issue worthy of Presidential threats and Senatorial condemnation is not simply an attempt to distract from weightier matters (cholera breaks out in Iraq; Blackwater security guards ordered to leave by Iraqi government, etc.). It's an attempt to chill dissent. (Please see the excellent post on Kos by hbjackson.)

To guard against having all of our liberties frog-boiled away by slow increments, I'm reviving and adapting the old Homeland Security alerts to track attacks against our freedoms. I'm raising the threat level to Orange.

I'm also signing up and sending MoveOn.org some money to continue their fight. Please do likewise. Liberty: use it or lose it.

Mickeleh's Take: Bush claimed, after 9-11, "they hate us for our freedoms." Maybe he thinks that suppressing our freedoms will make them hate us less.

Here are the Democrats who voted to condemn the ad: Baucus (MT), Bayh (IN), Cardin (MD), Carper (DE), Casey (PA), Conrad (ND), Dorgan (ND), Feinstein (CA), Johnson (SD), Klobuchar (MN), Kohl (WI), Landrieu (LA), Leahy (VT), Lincoln (AR), McCaskill (MO), Mikulski (MD), Nelson (FL), Nelson (NE), Pryor (AR), Salazar (CO), Tester (MT), Webb (VA)

Three Democrats avoided the issue: presidential candidates Biden (DL) and Obama (IL), and my own Iraq-tightrope-walking, needle-threading Sen. Cantwell (WA).


(Tags:MoveOn, Petraeus, MoveOn.org, Betray Us, Dissent, Libery, Senate, Bush, Iraq)

Five Questions Following Senate's Failure to Restore Habeas Corpus

1. Why is the headline: "Senate Rejects Habeas Legislation" and not "Republican Minority Blocks Vote on Habeas Legislation"?
2. Why does Majority Leader Reed accept cloture votes and move on rather than forcing Republicans (plus Joe Lieberman) to go to the diapers and actually filibuster?
3. Why don't Democratic Party leaders (including the presidential candidates who have the media spotlight) make Republican obstructionism the issue—leaving Republicans a clear field to make "Democrat" ineffectiveness their issue.
   
4. If we support the Democratic campaigns to get a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, will we actually see progressive legislation?
5. Is the Ralph Nader claim that there's no significant difference between the parties starting to look any better to you?

Mickeleh's Take: Congressional approval polls are even lower than Presidential approval polls. Bonus question: How politically risky would it be for the Democratic leaders to more assertive?

Edwards Fundraising: Smart, Postitive, Uplifting

In a word, here's how politicians raise money: fear.

The typical fundraiser is an appeal for money to keep the boogeyman du jour at bay. You've seen 'em: If so-and-so wins the world will end and you'll lose your immortal soul and your Google stock.

Can we stand four more years of the Bush war? Can we stand to have Hillary in the White House? Can we stand by while gays destroy the sanctity of marriage? While abortionists murder the unborn? While the Republicans shred the Constitution? While Al Qaeda plots to murder us in our beds? While Republican senators and airport policemen spend all afternoon hogging the toilet stalls, preventing decent travelers from finding a place to poop? etc.

John Edwards decided to go a different way. Contribute to his campaign and you'll be entered into a drawing to go to New Orleans with him to work with him "alongside families who are rebuilding their homes and their lives."

Mickeleh's Take: A politician ppealing to goodness, generosity, and our better natures? Hmmm. Isn't this newsworthy in the traditional "man-bites-dog" sense? Which means it will go unnoticed in a media world where the top stories are a girls doing an awkward dance in her undies and a football player turned murderer makes a grab for sports memorabilia.

Here's my suggestion, John. You want coverage? While you're in New Orleans, get your hair cut in a local barber shop. And throw the guy a $400 tip.

Francine's Take on Alive Day Memories

Francine Hardaway has written a deeply moving reflection on watching the HBO documentary Alive Day Memories, in which James Gandolfini interviews troopers who had been seriously wounded, physically and emotionally in Iraq. She notes

The war goes into its fifth year. Bush goes on doing whatever he wants. Congress goes on doing nothing. And I wonder how the voters feel about staying in Iraq forever.

While I was reading it, iTunes randomly selected The Band's "Tears of Rage" as the soundtrack.

Mickeleh's Take: This quick note is no substitute for reading Francine's blog. And reading her blog is no substitute for watching Alive Day Memories. And watching Alive Day Memories is no substitute for ... what? What are we doing to stop this?

"Return on Success"? Nah, Impeach on Failure

Whatever happened to the fearsome Republican phrasemaking A-team? You know, the folks who brought us "the death tax," "clear skies initiative," "defense of marriage." Have they all left the building? Is there nobody left who can do better than "Return on Success"?

The phrase can't help but stir echoes of "Return on Investment." We have made an investment of 3776 dead (3637 since "Mission Accomplished"), 27,848 wounded, (at least 500 with amputations), and a cost surging well past $400 billion. The Bush proposed investment will see us to at least another thousand U.S. dead and a cost mounting toward a trillion dollars. (And that investment, of course, doesn't see us to the end. It leaves us with more troops in Iraq than we had before the surge began.)

What is our return? Well, we got Saddam and Bush got to prance around and parade his package in a flight suit. And I think some Iraqi schools got painted. And there's a market somewhere that U.S. politicians can visit if they are sufficiently well guarded.

Any other returns on our investment? Iraqi deaths number, by the most conservative estimates, about 70,000. By more likely estimates, they are multiple hundred thousands—and a story by Tina Susman in this morning's L.A. Times says the Iraqi toll may pass one million. Dead.

The U.N estimates more than 4 million Iraqis have been forced from their homes, some 2 million are now living in other (mostly Arab) countries. We've fueled worldwide recruiting for al-Qaeda.

And the other day, our poster-boy for "success" in Anbar province, Sheikh Sattar Abu Reesh was blown up near his heavily guarded compound.

Krugman, this morning, notes that Bush political crony and member of the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, Ray Hunt has gone and cut a side deal with the Kurds in Iraq for oil. Talk about insider trading—here's a guy in a position to know and he's betting on the failure of Bush's proclaimed policy of seeking a united Iraq. Over the line, Smokey puts in more plainly: "Bush's pals begin the looting of Iraq."

That's just a partial accounting of our return on investment.

But "return on success" is not a bad choice simply for its echo of "return on investment." It's downright monstrous in its own right. It seems to place the burden of coming home squarely on the shoulders of the soldiers and marines in Iraq. Get the job done and you can come home.

As if the job is theirs to do. As if they had the power to deliver success.

Everyone (but Bush and Cheney) agrees that there is no military solution to Iraq. The only way out is diplomatic and political. But there, we got nothin'.

So, Bush is holding our military force hostage pending a "success" that they cannot influence, a success that he has so far refused to pursue with any vigor, commitment, or competence.

Mickeleh's Take: When Bush lists all the awful things that might happen if we pull out, he comes up with a list that's very close to the things that have happened since we invaded. How about replacing "Return on Success" with "Impeach on Failure"?

Caustic Column by Kitman on Couric

Marvin Kitman spews a little well-deserved sarcasm in his take on New York mag's cover story on Katie Couric.

Michael Moore Does Surgery on Wolf Blitzer With No Anesthetic

Here's a bit of joy. Crooks and Liars has video of Michael Moore on the Wolf Blitzer show on CNN. Moore detours the interview away from Wolf's agenda to demand an apology from Blitzer (as well as CNN and the rest of the MSM) for neglecting their job in the run-up to the Iraq war. He reminds Blitzer that Fahrenheit 911 was right and CNN's coverage of the run-up to the war was wrong. He points out that CNN's hostility to Sicko might be motivated by the large infusion of advertising they carry from big pharma.

Moore also has the video on his own site along with a refutation of the Sicko slams that intro'd the interview.

Mickeleh's Take: Nice to know that someone other than Cheney can reduce Wolf Blitzer to a stunned, sputtering blintz. Wouldn't the world get better faster if more guests would follow Moore's lead? Why do guests blandly accept the premises of the interviewer?

(Tags: Sicko, Michael Moore, CNN, Wolf Blitzer, Healthcare, News)

Isikoff Quotes White House Aid: Bush Pardoned Libby to Avoid "Fracture" with Cheney

Michael Isikoff has some insder reporting on how Bush came to commute Libby's sentence. No surprises, but some good detail. The money quote of the report is attributed to one of two unnamed White House "advisers," "I'm not sure Bush had a choice. If he didn't act, it would have caused a fracture with the vice president."

Naturally, Isikoff has to balance the article by throwing up Clinton's pardon of Marc Rich as an equivalent. Howie Kurtz on TV ended his segment on this topic with "enough hypocrisy on both sides."

It's time for the press to cease and desist from using false balance to distort what's happening. Bush clearly used the power of a commutation to stop an investigation into what special prosecutor Fitzgerald J Fitzgerald identified as a "cloud over the Vice President." There is no equivalent to that in Clinton's actions. As Fitzgerald said last February, "We didn't put that cloud there. That cloud's there because the defendant obstructed justice. That cloud is something you just can't pretend isn't there."

During the investigation, Libby was told not to discuss the case with anybody. He almost complied. Who did he discuss it with? Says Fitzgerald: "the only person [Libby] told is the vice president. Think about that." (source: Truthout.)

Mickeleh's Take: The fix is still in. The big lie is still the order of the day. And too much of the media still plays along. Mr. Isikoff, what's the compulsion to stuff every report with "on the other hand..."? Keep the other hand in your pocket. It will improve your objectivity.

And yes. Clinton did some terrible things. So did Bush 41. (He pardoned the Iran-Contragate crew.). If you have to find historical balance, how come you only talk about Clinton? The Bush example is a much closer parallel.

(Tags: Cheney, Libby, Commute, Bush, News, Politics)

Thom Hartmann: An Even Better Rant

A common thread in the rants I linked to below is the common sense view that George W. Bush kept Scooter out of jail to keep him silent and protect the White House.

Thom Hartmann presents a chronology that points within a week or so the moment that the fix went in—the moment when Scooter's defense team suddenly decided to mount no defense—not to call Libby, not to call Cheney, not to do anything but smile and wait it out.

Hartmann begins with the objection raised by George Mason at the time the constitution was written:

The President of the United States has the unrestrained Power of granting Pardons for Treason; which may be sometimes exercised to screen from punishment those whom he had secretly instigated to commit the Crime, & thereby prevent a Discovery of his own Guilt. –

and makes a very strong case that what Mason feared is exactly what transpired.

Mickeleh's Take: The framers did not leave us without remedy. As James Madison responded to Mason's objection:

[I]f the President be connected, in any suspicious manner, with any person, and there be grounds tp believe he will shelter him, the House of Representatives can impeach him; they can remove him if found guilty...

It's up to Congress to act. It's up to us to keep the pressure on Congress.

For your Weekend Reading: 10 Best Rants About Bush-Cheney-Scooter

That dead soul who slinks into a room to the strains of "Hail to the Chief"... that smirk on a stick who tells audiences he's happy to take an incomplete on how history will judge his administration... that self-styled commander guy and decider who, in reality, is content to merely be puppeteered by his vice president... that guy who in refering to himself simply as "43," reminds us continually of his I.Q... has this week provoked new outrage, scorn, and deeply earned contempt for handing a stay-out-of-jail card that George W. Bush handed to his and Cheney's shared operative, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Jr as well as carefully reasoned and researched explanations of how far Bush has strayed from the guidelines of his own Justice Department.

Here (with a nod to the friends who have emailed me pointers) are ten of the best responses. Actually, it goes to eleven (and beyond).

Mark Morford (S.F. Gate)

...But really, you do have to laugh at the vicious antics this administration, and perhaps Dick Cheney in particular, that most nefarious molester of U.S. law and ignorer of all political integrity and deeply homophobic father of a creepily lesbian daughter and overall gruntingly guff sneerer at all moral principle, masterful mocker of everything you somehow still manage to think, even in your most despondent and ethically disillusioned state, that American politics is somehow supposed to be about....

Juan Cole (Informed Comment)

...Basically, in Bushworld, high government officials are above the law, including all international law and most domestic...

Hunter (Daily Kos)

...With each passing day, Bush becomes a little less presidential, and a little more like Al Capone with an Air Force.

Editorial (NYT)

...Mr. Bush’s assertion that he respected the verdict but considered the sentence excessive only underscored the way this president is tough on crime when it’s committed by common folk. As governor of Texas, he was infamous for joking about the impending execution of Karla Faye Tucker, a killer who became a born-again Christian on death row. As president, he has repeatedly put himself and those on his team, especially Mr. Cheney, above the law.... Mr. Bush did not sound like a leader making tough decisions about justice. He sounded like a man worried about what a former loyalist might say when actually staring into a prison cell.

Edward Lazarus (FindLaw)

As a procedural matter, the President chose to bypass long-established Department of Justice guidelines for exercising his pardon and commutation power.

These guidelines recommend and anticipate that the Administration will consult with the lead prosecutor on the case, and even with the sentencing judge... that commutations ordinarily should not be given until the individual under consideration has served some period of time in jail, and has either exhausted or given up his or her appeals...

TPM Reader AR (Talking Points Memo)

It seems pretty clear to me that Bush would not be taking nearly as much heat if he'd waited for Libby to do some time in prison. So why the hurry? Was the hurry because Bush wanted to take no chance that Libby would start talking?...

Amy Butler (Senior Pastor, Calvary Baptist Church, Washington, D.C.)

Dear Mr. Bush... Maybe you feel you’re protected enough to behave in whatever manner you want, to leave democracy and the American people in the dust while you keep your friends happy, but I want you to know I’m tired of it all. For the first time in my adult life I am genuinely alarmed about the kind of country I will be handing off to my kids....

Andrew Sullivan (The Atlantic)

... The number of people George W. Bush sent to their deaths without a second's thought is higher than any living governor in the United States. And yet it took a perjury conviction of a white, wealthy, connected apparatchik to awaken the president's sensitivity to injustice...

(For the record, the number Bush sent to their deaths is 152, including 2 women. In the case of one of those women, Karla Faye Tucker, Bush ignored pleas for mercy from the Pope, Jerry Falwell, Pat Roberts. Sullivan cites a devastating 2003 article from by Alan Berlow from The Atlantic, "The Texas Clemency Memos." Read it and weep.)

Editorial (The Montgomery Advertiser)

Don Siegelman must be wondering right about now about the wisdom of being a lifelong Democrat, not a Republican.

The former governor, who last week pleaded with a federal judge that he deserved probation and not prison time, instead was whisked off in shackles immediately after his sentencing to start serving a seven-year sentence, despite the fact that his appeals in the case were still pending...

Dan Froomkin (washingtonpost.com)

... Was there a quid pro quo at work? Was Libby being repaid for falling on his sword and protecting his bosses from further scrutiny? Alternately, was he being repaid for his defense team's abrupt decision in mid-trial not to drag Cheney into court, where he would have faced cross-examination by Fitzgerald?...

(Froomkin cites A Judiciary Committee report prepared after Watergate: which summarizes the framers' intent regarding Impeachment. George Mason, anticipated circumstances much like our own in which a president might use the pardon power to shield actions that he himself initiated, "to stop inquiry and prevent detection." James Madison responded, "[I]f the President be connected, in any suspicious manner, with any person, and there be grounds tp believe he will shelter him, the House of Representatives can impeach him...")

Keith Olbermann, Special Comment (MSNBC)

[AGAINST FOOTAGE OF BUSH AT GROUND ZERO] ...We enveloped our President in 2001. And those who did not believe he should have been elected—indeed those who did not believe he had been elected—willingly lowered their voices and assented to the sacred oath of non-partisanship.

And George W. Bush took our assent, and re-configured it, and honed it, and shaped it to a razor-sharp point and stabbed this nation in the back with it.

Were there any remaining lingering doubt otherwise, or any remaining lingering hope, it ended yesterday when Mr. Bush commuted the prison sentence of one of his own staffers....

(See it on YouTube.)

[late breaking: Thom Hartmann's even better rant]


Bonus section: The Washington Post Series on Cheney by Barton Gellman and Jo Becker:

Part 1: “A Different Understanding with the President”
Part 2: “Pushing the Envelope on Presidential Power”
Part 3: “A Strong Push from Backstage”
Part 4: “Leaving No Tracks”

Sidney Blumenthal (Salon)

Mickeleh's Take: The White House is counting on our national ADHD to ensure that we quickly move on to some other shiny thing and lose sight of our outrage. We're not moving on until Bush and Cheney move on. I wonder if moveon.org should consider a name change.

(Tags:Scooter, Scooter Libby, Commute, politics, justice, injustice, Bush, Cheney)

Can You Spare $61 To Help Undo What Bush Has Done?

George W. Bush turns 61 tomorrow. To exploit the occasion, Laura Bush's name has been appended to a GOP fundraising letter inviting folks to give a present that all Republicans can share: a donation to the party.

Alan Bisbort has a better way to celebrate: Donate $61 to someone or some group to help repair even a bit of the damage caused by the Bush administration.

Consider, for example, sending $61 to a friend who needs help with the bills after her recent illness and lack of insurance has wiped out her life's savings (I've got a couple candidates, if you're stumped for anyone who qualifies). Or consider sending $61 to any prisoner jailed for political reasons. (My personal pick is Jeff Luers; for more information, visit http://www.freefreenow.org). Or just send the $61 to the usual suspects who are out there on the front lines, trying to redress global crises and political repression: Greenpeace (www.greenpeace.org), Earth First! (www.earthfirst.org), Wild Aid (www.wildaid.org), Population Connection (www.populationconnection.org), Amnesty International (www.amnesty.org), and Doctors Without Borders (www.doctorswithoutborders.org).

The point is to send the $61 anywhere that offers hope, compassion, healing. That means, literally, anywhere but the GOP!

Bisbort urges that you accompany your gift with a note explaining its significance.

Mickeleh's Take: It's a great idea. Where will you donate your $61?

Surprise: Bush Can Use Language With Great Precision

A running bit on Letterman called "Great Moments in Presidential Speeches," follows the classic comedy three-step of set-up, set-up, punchline.

1. Set-up: FDR, delivering his best remembered line: "The only thing we have to fear is... fear itself"
2. Set-up: JFK, delivering his best remembered line: "Ahsk not what youah country can do faw you. Ahsk what you can do faw yoah country"
3. Punchline: GWB, fumfering and stammering, eyes darting, shoulders hunched

It's a sure-fire laugh. But it's Bush and team that get the last laugh. When the chips are down, Bush says neither more nor less than he means.

When Plame's name was first leaked, Bush said: "If there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated the law, the person will be taken care of.'' After a jury said Libby violated the law, Bush took very good care of him. (With an implication of even better care to come.)

When Gonzales play-acted advanced Alzheimer's in front of the U.S. Senate, Bush said Gonzales "answered every answer he could possibly answer, honestly answer, in a way that increased my confidence in his ability to do his job.” Translation: Gonzales answered only the questions that could be answered without implicating Rove, Cheney, or me. His ability to stonewall increased my confidence that he could do his job, which is to shield the rest of us." He went on to say, "Some senators didn’t like his explanation, but he answered as honestly as he could."

Mickeleh's Take: If a prisoner is stabbed in a fight, and he tells the authorities that he must have slipped and fallen on the shiv, he gains status in the yard for having "held his mud." Libby and Gonzales both held their mud. They'll be taken care of.

(Tags:Bush, Libby, Commute, Gonzales)

When in the Course of Human Events...

On this fourth of July, please take a step to help put an end to the injustice of King George. I'm so appalled at the distance between the ideals under which this country was founded and the conduct of its current administration. Kohut says that in the Pew surveys, the single word that respondents use to describe Bush is "incompetent."

But incompetence is the least of it. IMHO, incompetence is a smokescreen for a very effective dismantling of the rule of law in this country.

In commuting Libby's sentence, Bush reaffirms that he believes that the Cheney-Bush administration is above the law.

In commuting Libby's sentence, Bush reveals that his insistence on on strict, mandatory sentencing guidelines does not apply to him or his cronies.

In commuting Libby's sentence, Bush tramples on the myth of fair, impartial justice.

In commuting Libby's sentence, Bush endorses obstruction of justice as a legitimate tool of statecraft to be applied when convenient.

Clemency has no part in Bush's calculation. He's simply reinforcing the stonewall that has protected Cheney, Rove, and ultimately himself.

Commuting Libby's sentence isn't about loyalty to Libby any more than endorsing Gonzales is about loyalty to Gonzales. In both cases, Bush is working to keep up the firewall that keeps real justice at bay.

Congress can leap that firewall with subpoenas backed by the force of impeachment. Will the Senate convict? unlikely. But the impeachment and investigation can move forwared and uncover the truth.

Please take an action to resist. Call the White House. Call your congressional reps. Sign this moveon.org petition to subpoena Cheney and, if he resists, impeach him:

"Congress must force Vice President Cheney to respond to its subpoenas. If he continues to obstruct justice and disregard the rule of law, Congress has no choice but to begin impeachment proceedings against him."

http://pol.moveon.org/subpoena/

Mickeleh's take: ... it becomes necessary.

(Tags:Bush, Cheney, Scooter, Libby, Commute, Commutation, moveon.org, petition, impeach, subpeona)