Hookergate

I've not written much on the rapidly-metastisizing scandal involving Brent Wilkes and the hookers. To sum up: We have indications that the prostitution ring, or sting, goes back for a decade or more. We have seen the allegation that Porter Goss, now the DCI, was either snared by this ring or helped to mastermind it. Goss has denied any involvement.

We even have a "John Netley" of sorts (Ripperologists will catch the reference) in the form of Christopher Baker, the guy who somehow managed to start the Shirlington Limousine Service, and somehow managed to get an ultra-hefty Homeland Security contract, despite having an impressive rap sheet. Baker was Wilkes' driver.

The bit that really jumped out at me occurs in Ken Silverstein's instantly-famous article "Red Lights on Capitol Hill?"

Apparently photographs were taken, and investigators are anxiously procuring copies. My heart beats faster in fevered anticipation.

So...someone goes in for photography. Nudge nudge. Wink wink. Say no more.

Actually, there's a lot more to say. If we presume that these congressmen were just a bit smarter than Lyndie England, and that they knew better than to take incriminating photos of themselves (and then allow the snaps to fall into the hands of outsiders), we must ask: Who took these images, and under what circumstances?

Those who do not learn from history...

One historical nugget I keep mentioning in this blog concerns Xaviera Hollander, the New York City madam credited with writing The Happy Hookerin 1971. The co-writer (ghost writer?) of the book was Robin Moore -- an odd choice, since he usually specializes in military and intelligence matters. Anthony Summers, in his Nixon bio, tells us (in a footnote!) that, according to Moore, the CIA had set up clandestine cameras in Xaviera's bedroom, in order to get blackmail material on Washington pols and visiting Arab potentates.

The Arabs requested non-Jewish girls. At the time, nobody knew that Xaviera was Jewish (on her father's side).

The Moore/Hollander book contains a chapter in which Moore himself receives credit for having set up the hidden cameras in Xaviera's bedroom -- for "research" purposes. Obviously, that excuse is absurd. Just as obviously, the real reason this book received such widespread publicity was to let certain parties know that embarrassing photos existed -- and to let them know about Xaviera's heritage.

And that (I believe) is how America managed to keep one generation of Middle East leadership under control.

If the same trick worked once, why not keep working it?

At one time, people might have scoffed at the suggestion that Wilkes is "spooked up" -- but now, everyone who has studied the matter must understand that we are dealing with no mere crook. Wilkes, like Poppy Bush, has long been an Agency-friendly businessman not formally employed by the Company. His first real job was with the World Finance Corporation, a CIA-connected money laudromat which had its origins in the anti-Castro Cuban milieu.

I talked to someone who knew Brent and Dusty back in their high school days. According to my source, the two were obsessed with gaining power -- even then. What better way to accomplish that goal than through a little blackmail?

Footnote: As several readers have pointed out, the original WSJ piece did specify that female prostitutes were involved, as did a number of subsequent articles. Since the sting seems to have netted a number of pols, I do not think the presence of women invalidates my previous speculation about Cunningham. I honestly believe that the guys at the Washington Blade may have been on to something. There's a pun to be made out of the preceding sentence, but I won't make it.

Dollar slides

From the Sunday Times of London:

THE dollar has embarked on a big decline that will see it fall against all leading currencies, according to analysts.

The plunge is being prompted by America’s $800 billion (£438 billion) current-account deficit, they say.

You think gas prices are high now? Imagine what will happen if, when, oil is denominated in the euro, with Iran leading the way.

China announced in July of 2005 that it would divorce its curency from the dollar. Those low, low WalMart prices won't last forever. More than that: China gets much of its oil from Iran. A U.S. nuclear attack on Iran could cause Asia to declare an economic war on the United States by refusing to service our deficit. Why should the Chinese continue to keep alive the creature that attacked a chief supplier?

And why should any foreign investor keep tossing money into our stock market? A dropping dollar insures losses, even when stocks perform well.

The good news: American-made goods will be be cheaper overseas. The bad news: We don't make anything anymore.

Colbert & Bush

Fiinally got a chance to watch the video of Stephen Colbert roasting George W. Bush and the Washington press corps. (Here and here.) Colbert is funny. But the real gut-busting laughs come when the camera shows Dubya's reaction shots. I was about to call him the best straight man in history -- but then I remembered Ashe and Gannon.

Why did the FBI search Jack Anderson's files?

According to the official story, the FBI went "fishing" through the late Jack Anderson's files to ferret out information on the AIPAC case. Wayne Madsen -- yes, I know, but stay with me a bit -- thinks they had another reason: "That explanation by the FBI did not hold any water since Jack Anderson had not been active in pursuing that particular story -- he had suffered from Parkinson's Disease since 1986." Madsen, citing his usual anonymous "inside" sources, thinks that the feds really went looking for info concerning "Poppy" Bush and the JFK assassination.

Well...maybe. But Anderson maintained his column until July, 2004, and he relied upon "scoops" from a small cadre of field reporters -- Baker Street Irregulars, as it were. (Incidentally, that cadre once included Brit Hume -- and if you're the paranoid sort, you may suspect that he worked for more than one master.) So AIPAC data may well have found its way into the Anderson files.

If Jack Anderson had information linking Bush to the assassination, he never mentioned it in his column. In the mid-1960s, Anderson revealed CIA-mafia collusion to kill Castro. Later, the columnist promulgated a particularly ludicrous disinformation story, in which Castro supposedly captured some mobster assassins and "brainwashed" them into killing JFK. In 1989, Anderson hosted a laff-a-minute TV "documentary" promoting this theory.

Did he really believe that theory? I doubt it; no sane man could fall for such guff. What were his actual views on the assassination? Wish I knew!

Depleted Uranium in Afghanistan

Has a generation in Afghanistan been poisoned by America's use of depleted uranium in bombs? See the evidence for yourself, here and here. Be warned: These are the most disturbing photographs you will ever see.

Between 800 and 1200 metric tons of uranium munitions were used in this country. Since medical facilities are so primitive, we cannot know the percentage of pregnancies affected by DU. But: "In the month of May 2005, in one maternity ward in Kabul, 150 babies were born deformed."

Here's another disturbing fact: The people who justify the use of DU shells tend to be the same type of folk who argue that abortion is murder.

R.I.P. John Kenneth Galbraith

I learned a lot from the works of John Kenneth Galbraith, who died today at the age of 97. This witty and wise man popularized the concept of "countervailing power" -- the notion that labor and government were necessary bridles for capitalism. That idea now seems to belong to another time. A better time.

Galbraith was the deputy head of the Office of Price Administration in World War II. Businessmen often came to his office to plead for exemptions from wartime restrictions. I recall reading -- somewhere -- that Galbraith and his assistant devised a clever signal: Whenever an "appellant" seemed to stray from the world of strict fact, Galbraith would wriggle two fingers up and down. This gesture referred to the way ants might wriggle their antennae in order to "talk" to each other while trudging neck-deep through moist bullshit.

These days, I cannot watch cable news for ten consecutive seconds without wriggling my fingers.

ANOTHER video?

Now Al-Zawahri has a video out! Al Qaeda has become so prolific, one wonders if they have an office in Chatsworth. (That's an in-joke for folks in the San Fernando Valley.) In the past, these communiques have always tended to help George Bush far more than they could ever help Osama. The release of three videos in so short a period is awfully damned suspicious.

I refer readers to the post below -- particularly the section on the 1994 Revolution in Military Affairs paper. Also see this important 1999 story from the Washington Post.

Further comments on the Zarqawi video

I'm glad that most readers understood that my intention in the previous post was to raise questions and to provoke debate, not to promulgate a conclusion. Lew Scannon offered this interesting comment:

I too, have doubts about the authenticity of the video, and posted on it when it first came out at unbrainwashed because in Z2 (which was the picture I used for comparison) his nose appears to be shorter than the video picture. But if this guy is hobbling around Iraq with a wooden leg, how has he not been captured when Saddam (who was rumored to have several doubles) was?

Did Zarqawi's nose "grow"? I tried to come to some sort of determination by overlaying the image I call (in the post below) Z2 with image Z4. I rotated Z4 so that the vertical axes lined up, and then enlarged the image so that the diameter of the iris of the right eyes matched in both images. Z2 has been tinted blue and Z4 has been colorized in magenta. I tried to match the position of the eyes as closely as possible. Here are the results:



As you can see, the noses appear to be of different sizes. However, since the angles do not match -- one head leans forward a bit more than the other -- we really cannot make a determination. We need better photos.

This right-wing site published a translation of the video as well as a frame capture which offers a better view of the ear. As noted earlier, the guys who do this sort of analysis professionally always like to get good, clear shots of the ears. Here is a blow-up of that frame grab compared to a detail from the image I call Z1 (and keep in mind the differences in lighting):


Here, the ears seem more similar in shape than was the case in our previous comparison, but I'm still bothered by the fact that "video Zarqawi" has ears resting flat against his head, while the earlier photos have protuberant ears.

Could the video be a high-tech fake involving manipulation of previously-existent footage? (The obvious point of reference here would be the LBJ scene in Forrest Gump.)

In the video, Zarqawi does make reference to contemporary events:

The crusade enemy, when invaded Iraq, meant to control this nation and reinforce the Zionist state, from the Nile to the Euphrates. However, Allah granted your sons the Mujahedeen by standing firm before the strongest crusaders attack to the Islamic land. They stood strong against this attack for over three years, disbursing their soles and their wealth.

The translator obviously meant "souls" instead of "soles." Z goes on to address W:

You became like the one who’s treating himself from alcohol by alcohol. You were never at any time truthful with yourself or your people, although it's found some truth in your great grandparents you are fully detached from.

The first sentence of this quote is actually kind of funny. I certainly hope that the second sentence is not a garbled reference to a notorious post which appeared on this blog on the first of this month.

Is it possible to use existing audio and video to make Zarqawi say things he never said?

Quite a while ago, we discussed a 1994 study titled The Revolution in Military Affairs and Conflict Short of War, by Steven Metz and James Kievit of the Army War College. One of the many topics addressed by this report is the possibility of replacing the television broadcasts of an adversarial nation with altered video. To illustrate how this tactic might be implemented, Metz and Kievet end their work with a fictional "after action report" describing an RMA-style campaign against Cuba:

Individuals and organizations with active predilections to support the insurgency were targets of an elaborate global ruse using computer communications networks and appeals by a computer-generated insurgent leader. Real insurgent leaders who were identified were left in place so that sophisticated computer analysis of their contacts could be developed. Internecine conflict within the insurgent elite was engineered using psychotechnology...

The attitude-shaping campaigns aimed at the American public, the global public, and the Cuban people went quite well, including those parts using computer-generated broadcasts by insurgent leaders--"morphing"-- in which they were shown as disoriented and psychotic.

Emphasis added. The reference to "computer communications networks" indicates one reason why the DOD would want the Zarqawi video posted online. (I suggest reading the entire report, which now seems eerily predictive of the Bush years.)

Readers should consult the important 1999 Washington Post article on how American PSYOPS units create convincing audio and video fakes. Also take a look at this 2002 story from the Guardian, which details how Swiss scientists exposed a Bin Laden audio tape as a forgery.

One other aspect of the new Zarqawi video bothers me. How could Zarqawi and his band train in the open desert and conduct live-fire exercises? We may presume that satellites scan every inch of Iraq continuously. Where and when was this footage taken?

A side note: Perhaps the most disturbing "data nugget" I discovered in the course of this research was a reactionary reader's comment posted on the aforementioned right-wing blog:

...remember my constant admonitions about what we're going to have to do with all the liberals and muslims before it's over. They are our enemies and will continue to try to destroy us if we don't kill them all.

(Emphasis added.) If these dreams of violence ever translate into acts, then our homegrown far-right fiends would conduct an orgy of destruction that would make 9/11 seem insignificant. Obviously, if a lefty repeatedly called for extinguishing millions of Americans, the FBI would -- properly -- investigate. But, even after Oklahoma City, Bush's secret police grant special privileges to the promoters of right-wing terrorism. They may say what others may not.

Is the Zarqawi video a hoax?

People still snicker whenever anyone suggests that the American intelligence community has, in the past, manipulated the American press. Yet nobody laughed at Donald Rumsfeld when he claimed that

"The terrorists, Zarqawi and bin Laden and Zawahiri, those people have media committees. They are actively out there trying to manipulate the press in the United States."

Rumsfeld did not point to a single story in the U.S. media influenced by the putative Zarqawi "media committee." How could he? The Defense Secretary's assertion is inane on its face. A couple of criminals despised by all Americans could never "spin" CBS or the New York Times.

Is Abu Musab al-Zarqawi himself a manipulation? As we discussed in a recent post, the Washington Post revealed that the "threat" posed by this alleged Al Qaeda leader was largely the creation of a military PSYOPS unit. The propaganda campaign created by this unit targeted both the foreign press and the U.S. "home audience." Our troops were another target: When they unleashed "Whiskey Pete" on civilians in Fallujah, they did so in the belief that they were fighting Zarqawi.

On the same day the Post story appeared, Bush -- in a speech -- cited as genuine a Zarqawi letter now known to be fake.

Journalist Robert Fisk feels that Zarqawi may have died years ago. The Jordanian has not been seen in years; he did not communicate with his family when his mother died; he has made no attempt to help his wife.

Fisk is hardly the only skeptic to make such a claim -- see, for example, this page of links. (Note: A number of the links go to pages I consider less than credible.)

There are numerous mysteries surrounding this alleged Al Qaeda mastermind: The many reported deaths...the leg that either was or was not amputated...his alleged presence in the questioned Nick Berg decapitaion video...and more.

I cannot discuss all of these matters here -- although I should note in passing that, if memory serves, we never did receive official confirmation that Zarqawi's voice was heard on the Berg video. One would think that the CIA possesses the ability to nail that sort of identification.

Now we have a new video featuring Zarqawi -- a man who has died many a death, a man claimed by the august Washington Post to be largely a PSYOPS-driven myth. The timing of this video release, so soon after the Post story, seems rather convenient. A copy of the Zarqawi video can be found here. (I can't help noting that one of the jihadist fighting songs sounds an awful lot like an old WWI ditty: "Skitta-marink-a-dink-a-dink-a-parlez-vous...")

If you're well-read in the lore of intelligence operations, you may have come across accounts of faked videos involving look-a-like actors. I will discuss one notorious example in a future post. For now, let us note in passing that we do have one confirmed incident of a faked beheading video put together by a young hoaxer named Benjamin Vanderford, who seems to have operated out of bizarre personal motives. If a mere civilian can create such a thing, a military psychological operations unit could surely do a more professional job.

All of which means that we have good reason to ask: Is the man in the new video Zarqawi?

Please note that, as of this writing, the CIA has not offered a public confirmation of this video's authenticity. Neither has the intelligence service of any other nation. (Update: Fox News did quote an unnamed "intelligence official" as saying that technical analysis had identied the voice as Zarqawi's. Since Fox would not identify the agency employing this source, we have no idea if the assertion is credible.)

Forgive me if what follows seems a little too "grassy knoll" for some of you, but I thought I would try my hand at some rudimentary photographic analysis. Very rudimentary. I have not tracked the origin point of the most commonly-reproduced "Zarqawi" photos, and I am forced to work with very low quality jpg images. What follows is only a start; all conclusions must be very tentative. I hope that, in the future, photographic professionals will have a go at continuing this work, and that they will be in a position to use better raw materials.

First, let us arrange our Zarqawi images.

The image I have labeled "Z1" -- reproduced toward the beginning of this post -- appears on many web sites. It shows Zarqawi before he became a jihadist.

Z2 (above), another commonly-seen picture, allegedly shows the man after he joined the fight. For some reason, most web sites flip this image horizontally. (You can tell by the blemish on his right cheek.)

I believe Z1 and Z2 to be authentic, but I may be wrong.

Z3, which should appear to the left of these words or just above (depending on your browser settings) was taken from the questioned video.

Z4 appears below. This image comes from the same video.



All right. Now let's start to look a little closer. What identifying marks can we find on Z1, the earliest image, and the one least open to question?


There are also noteworthy features on his chin -- a mole and a scar. In later photos, a beard covers these identifying marks, so they are now of little use to us. The blemish on the right cheek appears in all of these photos; it is easily faked with a daub of make-up. We need not pay any further attention to it.

Let's get in as close as we can to the mouth (remembering, as always, that we are dealing with poor materials). The question mark indicates that the image comes from the questioned video.


The sharply defined, rather off-center V-shaped indentation in the upper lip, visible in the early photos, seems to have gone missing in the stills captured from the video. Zarqawi also seems to have developed a Cheney-esque sneer, in which the lower lip slides to one side.

Now let's peer into Zarqawi's eyes:
The shape of the eyebrow is very similar in both instances. However, the eyebrow does seem thicker in the earlier photo. In the video, Zarqawi's eyes droop -- frankly, he looks stoned. Perhaps one can blame fatigue and poor diet.

When the FBI and the intelligence community do this sort of work, they try to acquire clear shots of the ears, since they are almost as identifiable as fingerprints. In this case, the ear angles are far from ideal. Even so, the close-to-the-head ears of "video Zarqawi" seem to differ markedly from the bat-like protruding ears we see in the earlier images. (I flipped a detail from Z1 in this instance; you can do your own comparisons using all these images, plus any others you dig up.) So far, the ears offer the strongest evidence that this video carries the odor of fish.

Does the same man appear in all four of these pictures? Frankly, I am not sure; the poor raw materials disallow certainty. Although I lean toward the view that the video Zarqawi is a "ringer," I can be talked out of the idea. The apparent differences do strike me as sufficiently noteworthy to merit further study. (Incidentally, there are those who say that Zarqawi was captured and turned; thus, even if the man in the video is genuine, the video itself could be fictional.)

Readers must come to their own conclusions.

Truth or Consequences

dr. elsewhere here

[Correction: Color me embarrassed. Applying my own connection to the "what would Jesus do?" bumper sticker to Glenn's book, I erroneously posted his title previously as "What Would a Patriot Do?" The title is now accurately presented in the text. Yet another nod to "said friend" on that one. What would one do without such??]

In addition to having what promises to be a fantastic new book coming out, How Would a Patriot Act? (that happens to be Number 1 on Amazon!), Glenn Greenwald posted a provocative piece today addressing the remarkable penchant of rightwingnuts to play fast and loose with the truth.

Of course, we in the reality-based community ask that question on at least a daily basis, but Glenn presented a couple of unique thoughts that prompted me to email him a question that has been haunting me whenever I think about this disturbing and disturbed tendency of this "conservative Christian" cult to disregard the truth.

I thought I'd share the bulk of that email, and when (or if; Glenn must be way busy these days!) I get a response, I'll share that too, with his permission, of course.

One uncontroversial factoid in my profession (of psychology) is that, typically, behaviors persist only when there is either reward or inadequate consequence.

You sort of alluded to the reward part by noting how these hate-mongers are regularly treated as acceptable and mainstream. Hell, they make bundles and represent the President, for chrissake (double entendre intended).

What seems to feed that reward system is the fact that there are no consequences. Somehow, the fact that none of these guys ever gets slapped down just fuels their self-righteous conviction that it’s all free speech. They’re untouchable.

Curse the day we lost the Fairness Doctrine.

But is there really no way to sue these folks for libel? I mean, when an individual expressly refers to a source for data that are then reported as true but are flat wrong, does that not exhibit knowledge aforehand? Does this not expose their “free speech” as lies? To offer a sort of counter-analogy, had the blogger offered himself, not that source, as author of those data, and then proceeded to copy the source verbatim, that would be a clear case of lying as plagiarism.

Of course, as I understand it, any suit requires at least the demonstration of damages, and I realize that would be difficult to do. But would not the wildfire of untruth blazing across all those rightwing websites show some sort of damage? If not to the specific individual targeted, but to the public (which includes myself) who deserve the truth, if not civility? Is this not damage to reality?

John Dean wrote an interesting post not long after the Swift Boaters’ book came out that showed how Kerry might have a libel case against those authors because embedded in the book was an internal contradiction that exposed their awareness they were lying. Can’t recall that detail, but here is the link to his article, and here is another piece where he includes the media’s complicity.

In addition, there is the bizarre but amusing irony that the term “swiftboat” has entered the lexicon as a verb meaning a concerted effort to destroy someone with lies (though even that very usage has been “swiftboated;” see the disputed section here).

I am not a lawyer, but my professional expertise does permit me to opine on just why these behaviors you lament are so rampant and persistent; my professional ethics compel me to seek or suggest a remedy. My patriotism leaves me outraged.

What if the Democrats made truth A huge, if not THE huge, issue from now through 08 (or forever, for that matter)? And back it up with the threat of lawsuits for anyone who crosses the legal line, whatever that might be.

These people are disturbing not just my peace, but the peace of the world, by fomenting hatred with their lies. Julius Streicher was hanged at Nuremberg for just that crime.

I'll keep you posted. Meanwhile, consider these words of Polonius from Hamlet:

This above all: to thine own self be true, And it must follow, as the night the day, Thou canst not then be false to any man.

Wilkes. Wade. Cunningham. Hookers. And more...

First, a simple question: Why is Brent Wilkes, the spooked-up bribe-master who ran so many not-quite-real businesses, still living as a free man in Poway, California?

Second, the Wall Street Journal and TPM Muckraker report that the juiciest aspect of the scandal will soon burst wide upon. Remember the hookers? Remember the "hospitality suites" at the Watergate (yes, the Watergate) and the Westin Grand?

Wade says his mentor and fellow Cunningham briber Brent Wilkes had set up the ring -- rented the hotel rooms, found the limousine company and the hookers.

We've heard for months that other congressfolk were involved, but so far, the only name we have is Cunningham's.

Here's the really intriguing bit: So far, none of these stories have specified the sex of the prostitutes. Read the WSJ piece carefully, and you'll see that writer Scot Paltrow goes out of his way to avoid assigning gender-revelatory pronouns to the "escorts." As I noted in a previous piece (scroll down to "Finally, our story goes gay"), the Washington Blade identified Cunningham -- who has made some rabidly anti-homosexual pronouncements -- as having, shall we say, a secret life.

One of Wilkes' few employees appears to be the same fellow who owns a San Diego dance club with a gay clientele. Gay porn has been shot there in "off hours."

There's no point in humiliating Duke further. But don't you want to know who else might have made use of this service...?

Truthiness? [UPDATED]

dr. elsewhere here

[UPDATE at end of this post]

Recently a friend and I were lamenting the drumbeats to wage war on Iran, and became mutually fascinated by the character of Ahmadinejad, Iran’s new president. We recalled that, right after his election, some of the ’79 hostages claimed he was the ringleader of their kidnappers. Soon other hostages disputed this claim, and the assertion merged with other murk into something like the memory hole.

Still, we could not help but note the reports of this man’s inflammatory rhetoric and how it seemed to be an exact mirror reflection of our own, playing right into the plans, both past and future, of the neocon march to world hegemony. By all reports, he seems to be mocking Bush’s “bring it on” attitude, certainly playing with fire by fueling the many US excuses to attack.

Then we reflected a bit on the outcome of the ’79 hostage crisis, and remembered that this episode actually ended up benefiting Ronald Reagan, and gosh, was it not also the case that these terrorists ended up working with our man Ollie North and others in sabotaging negations throughout the ’80 campaign, and then further to fund the Contras in Latin America.

So, given the possible connection between Ahmadinejad and covert US operations, and given the maniacal nature of the guy’s rhetoric, we wondered if he might just be a US puppet, installed expressly to incite the kind of inflammatory responses that would justify our nuking their bunkers.

Hey. If you’re not paranoid, you’re not paying attention, right?

Well, it turns out there might not be need for so much complication even if there is every reason to be paranoid.

Jeff Wells happened to be watching a Russian news site recently, and they streamed a press conference with this guy, this Ahmadinejad.

Seems he does not quite act the part when he is live and in person. Seems he can actually be reasoned, measured, informed, and eager to negotiate. He also brings up the fascinating but very important point that Iran cannot be building nuclear weapons because this expressly violates Islamic law.

So. With what are we left? Still beating drums? Check. Still paranoid? Double check. Still dangerous? Triple check. But what appeared to be a tangled inside job is even more inside than that. It appears that the puppet is not Ahmadinejad, but may be instead the US media.

Gosh. I am shocked. Shocked, I tell you.

[UPDATE]

I sat on this story for a bit before posting, but it still bothered me. Of course, the whole stinking mess bothers me, from Iran hostage soup to nuke Iran nuts, and it was a bit hard to sort it out.

So I chatted with said friend who also felt bothered, but zeroed in on the problem instantly by pointing out that there is ample evidence that Iran - and other countries claiming Islam as their law (think Saudi Arabia, for starters) - is not above duplicity, religious laws notwithstanding.

Given my quick faulting of the American press (not to worry; they're not getting off the hook here), I decided to look around, and found on the English Al Jazeera site an article that addressed just that duplicity on both sides of the inflammatory rhetoric, giving a history from the hostage soup to the nuke 'em nuts.

Of course, I remain pseudo-shocked. But is this getting just ridiculously layered with lies here, or am I the only one feeling more than a tad tipsy with all this "truthiness"?

Reverential nod and hat tip to "said friend;" you know who you are.
;-)

Lunch with Russ. I call him Russ.

People have asked about the "bloggers' lunch" with Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold that I attended last Saturday. I'm usually a no-show at these things (and by "these things," I mean everything), but as it happens, a gig brought me to that part of town earlier that day. So what the hell.

It was only while shaking hands with the Senator that the rather intimidating thought struck me: "Hey. This guy could be the president in a few years."

The other attendees came prepared with pens and notepads; you should therefore check out their reports if you want to know what the senator actually said. (Here and here and here and here and here and here.) Feingold did indeed pick up the check. Had I known he would pull a trick like that, I would have ordered something pricier than the Minestroni soup. (Ah, Beverly Hills waiters! I had forgotten how snooty they can be: "Eating light today, are we, sir?") It can now be said that Cannonfire has taken a political payoff in the form of soup. If any other politicians care to stake me to even nicer meals, my contact information is above.

Bottom line: Senator Feingold is the real deal and would make a terrific president. And that thought ran through my head even before he grabbed the check. He has something of a Harry Truman-esque air -- a smarter-than-average average guy who knows how to talk to all sorts of people without once seeming to pander or duck.

If you owned a store, this is a guy you'd want running it. That statement may strike some people as faint praise, but in my book, it's the highest compliment any politician can or should get. Six years ago, pundits might have claimed that Americans want a visionary, not a shop-keeper. But the Bush era has taught us that we invite disaster if we allow the nation to be headed by someone who lacks basic managerial skills, someone who could never have run Truman's haberdashery, someone who views himself as a prophet or a potentate rather than an employee of the people.

Feingold intimated that the more tradition-minded managers of the Democratic party haven't always supported him. Had they seen it coming, they would never have countenanced his call for the censure of George W. Bush. Given this display of Squishy Spine Syndrome, the question arises: If we get a Democratic majority, does that mean we will get investigations of the Bush administration, investigations that we bloggers have demanded for years? (While I did not actually use the words "We want BLOOD," such was the intended sentiment, figuratively speaking.) Feingold assured us that investigations probably will take place once "the good guys" get a little subpoena power.

We shall see. It's hard to trust mainstream Dems when so few of them would back Feingold's very reasonable call for censure.

Should we support Feingold in the primaries, if he chooses to run? Possibly. But John Kerry is making definite signals of wanting to give it another go, and I've always liked him. (And a hearty Scalia-esque Vaffanculo to anyone who says I shouldn't.) That said, Feingold does convey the impression that he could repair the broken machineries of state. Besides, just as only a Nixon could go to China, perhaps only the first Jewish president (one not named Lieberman) can bring some common sense and balance to the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.

Since some folks might consider the preceding statement impolitic, let's make one thing clear: I was invited to this outing by fellow blogger Brad Friedman, not by Feingold's people, who have probably never seen this blog. That point needs emphasis, lest some right-winger reference one of the more outlandish comments posted here in order to damn the senator by association.

By the way, there were some absolutely gorgeous women sitting in the booth right behind Senator Feingold. He probably thought I was hanging on his every word. Well, I was listening.

Tony Snow and the Nazis

A longish piece by Tony Snow, the new Bush press secretary, appears on an anti-Martin Luther King site owned by the viciously racist (and anti-Semitic) Stormfront organization. Don't get too excited: The article, about Kwanzaa, appears to have been lifted from the Detroit News. However, Snow is in a financial position to make lawsuit noises when an objectionable group rips off his words -- and he apparently did not object when the Nazis made use of his text. Perhaps he did not know about it.

Snow did knowingly (and enthusiastically) contribute to the ghastly Free Republic site, home to racists and other accomplished haters. His posts are now being scrubbed. Hit the Wayback machine, Mr. Peabody...!

Nukin' the Net

dr. elsewhere here

Not long ago I posted a piece on the threat against the Net coming to the House as a bill that will essentially destroy cable companies' responsibility for public service as our Public Access Channels, as well as allow the big media companies to charge for "premium" sites.

I realize that I emphasized the issue about public access channels and did not bring up the implications for general internet use, exposing my bias. But, everyone is finally recognizing the importance of this bill, including Josh and tpmcafe (with links to two sites devoted to this cause here and here), dailykos, atrios, mydd, firedoglake, and Avarosis.

In short, the bill acts upon the notion that the internet does not fall under telecommunications law that requires network neutrality. The bill is designed to give cable megacorporations even more power over the internet, starting with the power to slow down access to competitor sites.

We've become so accustomed to the net we take for granted that each site we access is as fast and easy as any other, and the content is driven by we, the users. But with this bill, the cable companies will decide how fast or slow access will be to each site, and what content will influence those speeds. It will quickly look a whole lot more like cable TV.

Do I have your attention now? Consider just for a moment how vastly different is our experience of the web versus our experience of cable. Does ANYONE out there even hardly ever watch TV? Remember 57 channels and nothing on? Try 250 with less than nothing on!!

This is very very serious, folks, and it is hitting the House floor tomorrow evening at 5 PM EST, to be debated on Wednesday. Please, PLEASE, contact your Congressional representative and let them know, with both barrels, just how you feel about this privatization of our communication access.

The future of the internets depends on it!

"Impeach Bush!" cries California

A bill calling for Dubya's impeachment (and Cheney's!) has been introduced in the California State Legislature. If it passes, my fair state will be the second -- after Illinois -- to explore the option outlined in Section 603 of Jefferson's Manual of the Rules of the United States House of Representatives. (Scroll down for the scoop on Illinois.)

Why is this a good, necessary and even tactically wise move, even though the partisan makeup of our current House makes impeachment politically impossible? Because debate over impeachment supercedes all other business. Keep the Republicans talking about this issue -- keep them spinning away the many crimes of Fearless Leader -- and they will have little time to do mischief elsewhere.

More than that. The world should know that America does not support this atrocious administration. An impeachment debate -- an ongoing, seemingly endless series of impeachment debates -- will make that message clear.

Malkin

Not long ago, this blog (and others) posted the phone number and exact street address of far-right propagandist Michelle Malkin. She, in turn, had previously made widely available the private telephone numbers of protest organizers at UC Santa Cruz.

She did so despite the long-standing journalistic tradition of never publishing private contact information gleaned from press releases. She did so despite requests to remove the data from her site. She did so because she knew full well that her zealous followers would harass and threaten those protestors.

Malkin's defenders have argued that the students were "communists" -- an insult that has seen increasing usage in recent days. At one time, the term "communist" was reserved for those who believed that the state should run all industry. But to right-wingers, "communist" describes anyone who dislikes George W. Bush -- the man who, paradoxically enough, has done more than any other single individual to put this country in hock to the Chinese, who really are communists.


Malkin has announced that, due to the publication of her home address, she will now have to relocate. I am not happy that she must do so -- but frankly, neither am I sad.

Of course, one cannot expect Malkin to admit that she took the first and cheapest shot, and that any blows directed her way were retaliatory. All right-wingers are so egomaniacal that, even when clearly in the wrong, they would rather eat spiders than apologize. But the right has established a pattern of intimidating opponents through publication of private data and the issuance of threats, and this pattern forces decent people to fight fire with fire.

Malkin will not employ such tactics again. She has received a necessary schooling, although I am sure that she did not enjoy her lesson and will never confess to having been educated.

Let me address another point.

Malkin argued that the protestors were "anti-troops." For a sadly eloquent response to this foolishness, read the obituary of Army private Angelo Zawaydeh, 19, of San Bruno, California. (The L.A. Times piece requires registration.) He was killed by a mortar shell on March 15. His family told the Los Angeles Times that he had "grown disillusioned" with the war, and that he had become convinced that the Iraqis should "fight their own battles."

Why are good men like young Zawadeh still fighting and dying in that country? Because if the Iraqis were allowed to "fight their own battles," the people of that nation would regain control of their own oil. Too few Americans understand that Bush has literally stolen that oil -- has placed, by decree, the entire industry in non-Iraqi hands. Americans may refuse to recognise this fact, but the Iraqis see it with great clarity. That's why they all have come to hate their "liberators."

Zawadeh died to protect Bush's larceny -- a theft sanctioned by Michelle Malkin. She does not support our troops. She wants good soldiers to die in an obscene cause.

Can a state impeach W? Can Fitz? (UPDATED)

Can a state legislature initiate impeachment proceedings against the president? The Illinois legislature thinks so:

2 WHEREAS, Section 603 of Jefferson's Manual of the Rules of
3 the United States House of Representatives allows federal
4 impeachment proceedings to be initiated by joint resolution of
5 a state legislature; and

6 WHEREAS, President Bush has publicly admitted to ordering
7 the National Security Agency to violate provisions of the 1978
8 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, a felony, specifically
9 authorizing the Agency to spy on American citizens without
10 warrant; and

11 WHEREAS, Evidence suggests that President Bush authorized
12 violation of the Torture Convention of the Geneva Conventions,
13 a treaty regarded a supreme law by the United States
14 Constitution; and

15 WHEREAS, The Bush Administration has held American
16 citizens and citizens of other nations as prisoners of war
17 without charge or trial; and

18 WHEREAS, Evidence suggests that the Bush Administration
19 has manipulated intelligence for the purpose of initiating a
20 war against the sovereign nation of Iraq, resulting in the
21 deaths of large numbers of Iraqi civilians and causing the
22 United States to incur loss of life, diminished security and
23 billions of dollars in unnecessary expenses; and...

And so on. You get the idea. This all sounds good. But is it real?

First: The impeachment resolution really does show up on the Illinois Legislature web site. (Scroll down to the bottom -- HJR0125). But that doesn't mean that Illinois will be able to cajole a republican Congress into acknowledging its interpretation of Jefferson's Manual. The Senate follows the Standing Rules of the Senate, and there can be no impeachment and conviction without the Senate.

Even so, getting these impeachment proceedings on record is a delicious idea. And to make the cake even tastier, Jefferson's Manual offers still another way to bring about an impeachment. Here is the relevant section:

Sec. 603. Inception of impeachment proceedings in the House.

In the House of Representatives there are various methods of setting an impeachment in motion: by charges made on the floor on the responsibility of a Member or Delegate (II, 1303; III, 2342, 2400, 2469; VI, 525, 526, 528, 535, 536); by charges preferred by a memorial, which is usually referred to a committee for examination (III, 2364, 2491, 2494, 2496, 2499, 2515; VI, 543); or by a resolution dropped in the hopper by a Member and referred to a committee (Apr. 15, 1970, p. 11941-42; Oct. 23, 1973, p. 34873); by a message from the President (III, 2294, 2319; VI, 498); by charges transmitted from the legislature of a State (III, 2469) or Territory (III, 2487) or from a grand jury (III, 2488); or from facts developed and reported by an investigating committee of the House (III, 2399, 2444).

Didja see it? "by charges transmitted from...a grand jury."

Has someone instructed Patrick Fitzgerald as to just how much power that grand jury actually holds? Perhaps the good ladies of POLL (Patrick's Official Lusting League) might care to contact his office... (Many thanks to reader "sunny"...)

UPDATE: Actually, this is more of a "backdate." Bob Fertik posted the full rules back in January. One of his readers offered the following points of interest:

A direct proposition to impeach is a question of high privilege in the House and at once supersedes business otherwise in order under the rules governing the order of business (III, 2045-2048; VI, 468, 469; July 22, 1986, p. 17294; Aug. 3, 1988, p. 20206; May 10, 1989, p. 8814; see Procedure, ch. 14, sec. 1-5)... but a resolution simply proposing an investigation, even though impeachment may be a possible consequence, is not privileged (III, 2050, 2546; VI, 463). But where a resolution of investigation positively proposes impeachment or suggests that end, it has been admitted as of privilege (III, 2051, 2052, 2401, 2402).

Will the gambit succeed, sans a Democratic majority? No. Is it worth doing? Yep!

Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson

You've read about the revolt of the generals. Now hear what a Colonel has to say. Of course, we have discussed the views of Lawrence Wilkerson, former aide to Colin Powell, in previous posts. But now he has offered the most hard-hitting -- and yet, most sensible -- sentiments I've seen yet from a retired military man.

Five Point Plans

dr. elsewhere here

Evidently, newly anointed WH Chief of Staff Bolten has concocted a Five Point Plan to rescue Bush. Interesting how the repugs forget this concept was Stalin's brainchild for economic recovery in the USSR.

You can read the original Time article, or just review rawstory’s synopsis of the list. But I’ll take you through the points here, with my sense of just why each of these will backfire.
For what that’s worth.

1) "Deploy guns and badges" -- to play to the conservative base on illegal immigration, using the cloak of Homeland Security.
Good grief. Did the unprecedented protests teach them nothing? Resistance to their strongarm, lawnorder tactics is huge. If they deputize a bunch of swaggering wingnuts and give them weapons, it will become a wild bloodbath that will backfire in their nasty little faces.
Oh. Wait. They already deputized a swaggering wingnut and gave him weapons, and he’s in big trouble, with the polls and with the law. Clearly they miss the connection.

2) Make Wall Street happy through tax cuts.
Wall Street? This guy Bolten is supposed to be smart and he is admitting he is going to grease those greedy palms even more than they already have, while continuing to ignore all the increasingly poor and deprived working Americans? If he thinks this is what will make W’s poll numbers rise, he must be eating some very ripe yeast.

3) Brag more ("highlight the glimmer of success in Iraq").
Yeah. Right. The perfect antidote for the swaggering egos that got us into this mess: brag louder. And of course, that requires that they overlook the mess itself. Gotcha. Hey, isn’t this like the definition of “truthiness”?

4) Reclaim security by playing tough with Iran (On Iran, "Democrats will lose").
The pattern is beginning to emerge, is it not, folks? Pay no attention to the mistakes that created the need for this rescue plan; just do more of the same while assuming that the public is incapable of a learning curve. Playing tough in Iraq worked so well; the American people clearly feel safer now, especially knowing how they’ve been lied to by those entrusted to protect them. Think folks will recognize the same pattern of lying about Iran as the one that shnookered most of the country the first time? What was that line? Won’t get fooled again? Bush mangled that whole concept so badly, its appearance here as policy resembles the lisping king story of Castalian Spanish. Sort of like “nukular” becoming an acceptable pronunciation of “nuclear.”
In any case, the concept does recall that wise warning of the Republicans’ first president: Can’t fool all the people all the time. But that stuff is so lost on these creeps.

5) Court the press (offer Tony Snow of Fox News the job of White House press secretary).
Here again, if we screwed up, just do it bigger, bolder now! Yup, that’ll work.
Considering Tony Snow – as well as at least one other Fox candidate – for WH press secretary actually may be the final piece of unequivocal evidence that these guys are as stupid and incompetent and utterly clueless as we have come to recognize. Of course, we just adore them for it, as confirmation is always comforting, and it makes for such incredibly terrific comedy!
What? Do these guys really believe that making Fox News their official propaganda arm will fix their relationship with the press?? That’s like calling in the Madame of the brothel where hubby has been whoring to counsel his rocky marriage. This cynical move will only make the WH press corps (with the exception of Faux Snoozers, of course) more irritable, more aggressive, more relentless.
I can live with that, but I doubt that is the reaction Bolten is shooting for.

Don’t know about you guys, but reading this plan is actually a bit encouraging. Official stupidity actually documented as an official Five Point Plan. And every single point destined to backfire.

Of course, we have to ask ourselves if we have any reason to take it at face value, as truth. Why would they expose their plan? Especially when it is not anything like a new plan, just more of the same. Even Tony Snow as press secretary is nothing like a shift.

Perhaps the fact that these guys cannot come up with anything novel is yet more reason to feel a bit encouraged. Knowing that these idiots have chosen yet another idiot to guide them with an idiotic plan for change, which is just more of the same, is as comforting and confirming as watching Wily Coyote's face as he hangs suspended over yet another cliff. Beep beep.

Then again, they may be putting this decoy out there to distract everyone while they go about their dirty business. But double yet again, that is itself more of the same; misleading in every way possible. Their motto must be, "Never, ever shoot straight when you can think of a way to try and fake everybody off." From the minds of mafioso.

There may be still more reason to feel encouraged. The fact that, despite the powerful hold this administration has over the press, a solid 2/3 of those polled see through all the crapola anyway. That, and the fact that these dopes really have no people skills whatsoever, in terms of understanding the way folks work and then using that information to govern (dunh, whazzat?). They sure did not get the "endless occupation" factor in Iraq, nor the flowers and chocolate expectations; I can think of no reason to expect them to have any better insights into their own people. They clearly do NOT get the notion of what a working democracy means, so why should we expect them to have a clue what it means to the people of the US?

All that being said, the only thing we may have to fear now is the depth to which Rove will stoop in order to steal the upcoming elections. Diligence, folks. Stay informed and skeptical. Because for their vote stealing schemes to work, the polls have to be reasonably close; otherwise, it will be too obvious. If the polls stay this bad, Rove will be under some serious pressure to deliver wins in November over that credibility hurdle. Which means, things are going to start getting really nasty for all Democratic candidates real soon.

But I think that may even backfire, too, now. I’m hopeful that the American citizen has reached its watershed “mad as hell” moment and WILL NOT TAKE ANYMORE. The whole thing will be pretty interesting to watch.

Which also brings me to a perspective on the Dems strategies. All of us have been pretty ticked that Feingold was left to fend for himself – and us all – in his motion to censure. Everyone complains wildly about the DNC leadership not showing any backbone. But I may have mentioned before that Harry Reid is from Nevada and the guy knows how to play poker. He also knows Dems have no power in Congress right now; none, zippo, nada. There have been times when I actually thought he might be really playing the repugs, setting them up. His role in the nomination of Harriet Miers was not trivial, and he played that cool as a cucumber while Bush ending up getting red as an embarrassed chili pepper before it was all over. And the embarrassement may not be over yet, as word has slipped out that she may be next in Bolten's crosshairs.

I will say this much again: Working with the Republican leadership right now must be the most frustrating exercise in futility ever, especially for veteran Dems who not only know DC really does not and should not work the way it has been since ’01 (or since '94, really), but for everyone who wants to do the right thing for the country and their constituents. The natural tendency for anyone frustrated and faced with futility is to either lash out or retreat into numb catatonia.

I honestly do not see the Dem leadership in a catatonic state; it’s more like a holding pattern. They’re picking their battles carefully. Why lash out and send up flares, despite the polls, that the propaganda press will only destroy in their uniquely unpatriotic way? We can't do anything about it till we get some power back, so let's stay out of the line of fire as much as possible till we do. I think this might also be a reason Dems are so slow to move on Iran right now. What I see Reid doing is directing those of his party who will agree that, if we just give these nincompoops enough rope, they’ll eventually hang themselves.

The mess Bolten was hired to rescue with his pointless five points is, after all, our case in point.

Poltergeists

Cannon here: I've run into a couple of interesting political stories, which will appear here (probably) before long. It's not every day a humble blogger slurps up a bowl of Minestroni soup while chatting with a potential future president...

For now, I would like to indulge in a non-political weekend post. The topic, this Sunday, is poltergeists. The imminent release of a new film called An American Haunting -- which finally brings to the screen the tale of the Bell Witch -- forces us to confront this burning issue.

Puh-leeze don't confuse this yarn with the The Blair Witch Project. This ain't that. The Bell Witch is real.

Well...purportedly real.

Which is to say, I grew up with the story. I must have been eight or nine years old when I first read a "true" account of these events, which took place in Robertson County, Tennessee between 1818 and 1821. Scared the bejeebus out of me, it did.

If you haven't heard the legend, it's about a family named Bell whose household was invaded by a talking poltergeist, which they called a "witch" because the word "poltergeist" was not then in common usage. Unlike the rather lethargic ghosts found in most other 'true" haunting accounts, the Bell Witch took action, traded quips, altered lives -- and, in the end, commited murder.

I'm surprised that Hollywood has ignored the story until now.

The first screenplay I ever wrote (everyone in Los Angeles writes screenplays -- car mechanics, cops, water heater repairmen, Mayor Villaraigosa, everyone) was about the Bell Witch. That youthful effort was no doubt quite laughable. Every few years, I've thought about returning to the task, but one problem always seemed insurmountable: Starting in the 1970s, audiences came to expect buckets of gore from a scary movie. The Bell Witch tale, which ends with a single poisoning, has an insufficient body count.

All the individuals named in the legend provably existed, even the ones with very improbable names: Betsy Bell, Theney Gooch, Richard Rowell Ptolemy Powell, and a batty lady named Katt Batts. Betsy's brothers fought under General Jackson at the Battle of New Orleans. Powell, Betsy's schoolteacher and eventual husband, later became a Tennessee legislator; he died in debt after a business reversal, and family members had to care for his widow. An oral tradition of the Witch manifestations exists within the Bell family to this day.

Many family members (including Betsy) later moved to Mississippi, where there arose a version of the legend quite different from the one you may have read about. This version appears to conflate Betsy's tale with that of Katt Batts' daughter Mary, who died young. Some folklorist argue that the Mississippi variant of the story contributed to the "Bloody Mary" game which girls still play at slumber parties.

But aside from the family's oral traditions, do we have any evidence that something supernatural actually took place in Robertson County in 1818?

Not really.

These folks were a literate bunch who often corresponded and kept diaries, and many of their letters and other writings survive. Yet not a single resident of Robertson County left any contemporary reference to the Witch. Even the clergymen who (it is said) were called in to witness the manifestations did not see fit to mention the matter in their record books.

The first definite published reference to the Bell Witch appears in The Goodspeed History of Tennessee, a now-rare book which appeared some sixty-five years after the Witch made her exit. In 1893, a respected journalist named Martin Ingram -- publisher of the Clarksville Leaf-Chronicle, which is still going strong-- put together the first book-length account of the Witch manifestations. His work includes what appears to be raw materials, including interviews with elderly witnesses. He also reprints a manuscript called "Our Family Trouble," allegedly written in 1846 by Betsy's brother Richard.

Ingram also references a 1849 edition of the Saturday Evening Post which, supposedly, published a story on the Witch -- one which implied that Betsy was the "author" of the phenomenon. However, researchers who have checked every issue of the Post published during that year have found no reference to the Bell Witch. I would offer the humble suggestion that the typesetter for Ingram's book made an error; perhaps the actual date was 1846. (If you've ever set type by hand, you'll know how easy it was to confuse a 6 with a 9.)

"Our Family Trouble" remains the only account written by an alleged eyewitness, and it did not see publisher's ink until many years after the author's death. The legend of the Witch -- rather like the story of Jesus -- became codified a generation after the events.

Advance word on An American Haunting (filmed in Romania!) is positive, although -- as one might have predicted -- some teen viewers appear distressed by the lack of grue and gore. Even so, I hope this wonderful old folktale still has the ability to provoke a nightmare or two. The advertising copy says that the movie is based on "the terrifying true story." It was indeed terrifying at one time, at least to eight-year-old boys reading past bedtime. But was it ever true?

You be the judge.

Decider? De-LIAR!

dr. elsewhere here

In the post just before this one, I make brief reference to Bush's announcing that he "hears the voices and reads the front page" as he asserts he is "The Decider." Ya gotta wonder just what front page that might be (but of course, more disturbingly, what those voices are about!).

In any case, I have to doubt that his front page reads anything like this one:

They Said "Well, This Isn't About Intel Anymore. This Is About Regime Change”

You'll be able to get the full story tomorrow night on 60 Minutes (CBS, 7 PM EST) as they cover the CIA agent who claims there was no intel supporting WMDs and the administration knew it. Don't miss it.

And, in a highly related and utterly HYSTERICAL matter, don't miss this wonderful rendition of the Eggman in W's face.

You know we're making progress when there is so much unabashed and unbridled fun-poking and protest singing at the chimp 'n chief's expense (more on these entertainments soon).

More on our leaky sinking ship of state

dr. elsewhere here

Could we say here that this ship of state may well sink, rearranged deck chairs and all, precisely because the Captain and crew have been deliberately besetting it with leaks?

But this would be only one of a thousand other means of sabotage they’ve employed, such as – to push this metaphor, er, from stem to stern – tossing all valuables (including people and their advice) overboard, jury-rigging every single government agency, ignoring warnings from below and aloft, forcing anyone with good sense to walk the plank, sailing us into dangerous waters, cutting us away from our Constitutional anchor, steering us off our moral course, running us aground, leaving us swamped, in the doldrums and feeling quite rudderless and adrift, like no one is at the helm, or really, like we’ve been collectively keel-hauled. All because these pirates in Captain’s quarters have been drinking not the kool-aid, but sea water.

As evocative as metaphors can be, they can also hide important details. Just so, our hopes can shape how we read information. So much of what we do here on the web is invest in a kind of wild speculation, to quote the leaker in chief (though surely ours is far more educated than his might be from “hearing the voices and reading the front page”). What we do is gather information and try to discern its meanings in order to forecast what might happen next. Or soon.

But I would like to submit that, good forecasters – as good leaders and investigators and sailors – are, above all, patient. (Making Johnny Depp and Fitz oh so sexy, and W so not.)

After finding several posts online after asserting my own “wild speculation” about the meaning of Wednesday’s wacky workover, I then ran across this very sage cautionary piece by none other than Jane Hamsher, who warns us that the presumption that Rove is soon to be indicted might be foolhardy, as she finds not enough evidence to call this either inevitable or imminent.

The only thing she admitted as convincing was David Schuster’s point that every “Official A” Fitz has ever named in a primary indictment has himself ultimately been indicted.

That being said, we must look beyond the possibility that John Ryan’s recent trial in Chicago, by our own heartthrob Fitzy (down girls, we must be patient enough to share adulation; you know who you are), explains the recent relatively quiet Scooter front in DC. Ryan’s convictions on all 18 counts took eight years to bring to closure. And Fitz is still at it, going after Chicago Mayor John Daly and several others.


Likewise, Larry Johnson gives us some background and inside poop on the agent who was fired for leaking the US foreign prison story to Dana Priest. Certain questions raised there, as well, so again, we must be patient, and diligent, in our watch on these matters, as well as the suggestion that Condi, too, has those leaky loose lips that sink ships.

I’ve never been lost at sea, and I hope this is the closest I ever come to experiencing anything like that feeling. But from this metaphorical vantage point, I can see that that circumstance will force one to consider outright mutiny, as well as finding other leaders who know the ropes, watch the signs, and remain steady throughout the storms.

And above all, show patience, and faith in their vessel.

So let us all await the fair wind blowin’ out the south over our shoulders. Then we’ll set our course and go….

Sinking ships leak

dr. elsewhere here

Where to begin.

Of course, there is the ongoing irony of Bush insisting he will not tolerate leaks, while leaking the identity of a CIA agent. At least.

Then today we hear that a CIA agent has been fired for leaking information about our secret overseas prisons. You know; the embarrassing expose that won Dana Priest the Pulitzer.

This guy exposes a probable crime against humanity, and he's fired. Karl Rove commits a crime by exposing a CIA agent for revenge against a dissenter (who just happens to be the agent's husband), and he was promoted. Remember? Deputy Chief of Staff after stealing another election? Even after being heavily implicated in the scandal. This week's demotion was, well, damage control, on so many dimensions.

But now, folks, we have yet another example of selective leaking from our sinking ship of state with the newly arranged deck chairs.

Seems none other than Condi - our Secretary of State - has been "accused" of leaking secrets to AIPAC in a manner no different than how a Pentagon official shared secrets with an Isreali lobbyist. That official is now serving 12 years.

Interestingly, the defense in the case is apparently trying to say that, because Condi did this, it shows (a) that this is how business is done in DC, and (b) it is therefore ok.

Just like Bush saying, if he leaks, it's ok; he was just informing his subjects.

But I'm quibbling over annoying details here when there are oh so many more annoying details to explore.

It's just really hard to keep up and keep 'em all straight.

Sexual politics

You've probably already seen the amusing series of photos depicting Katherine Harris playing footsie with a young male reporter for a college newspaper. Prepare to be shocked: I don't believe that she has done anything terribly wrong in this instance. Granted, she displayed poor judgment -- yet another reason to vote against her.

Here's what bugs me. If a male politician her age (especially one named Clinton) had acted in a precisely similar fashion with a young female reporter, pundits would immediately reach for terms like "sexual predator" and "sexual harrassment." Few would use such terms to describe Katherine Harris.

An essentially silly situation thus leads us to ponder a rather serious conundrum. Can we -- should we -- define the term "sexual harrassment" in an equitable fashion? Must one own a penis to qualify for that charge?

A simple question...

Josh Marshall asked a good question yesterday: "Does it strike anyone else as odd that the White House tossed McClellan out the window without having a replacement ready to announce?"

I'd like to ask an even simpler follow-up question: Do you think Scott quit or was "axed to leave"?

Few have seriously suggested that he could face a Plame-gate indictment. Still, perhaps we can hear a few scenarios along those lines from our readers -- especially from the ladies of "Patrick's Official Lusting League," or POLL (a group formed in the comments section two posts down).

Bush joins Club33

According to a new poll, Bush's approval rating is down to 33%. And here's the beauty part: The poll was conducted by Fox. Which means that other polls may soon go below the 30% mark.

This development provides a welcome riposte to those who scoff at the importance of the "revolt of the Generals." That revolt -- I am convinced -- has helped to chip away at Dubya's Republican support. Southerners will always revere the military, and no amount of spinning can ease the damage done by respected retired leaders of our military forces.

Call it a slow-motion, non-violent coup: The Generals, simply by speaking their minds, stoke fury at W; the voters will (we hope) respond by forcing a change in Congress -- and once Dems get subpoena power, watch out.

Of course, the fact that gas prices are now hovering above the three-buck-a-gallon mark also has something to do with Bush's unpopularity.

KRISPY Kreepy Karl

dr. elsewhere here

Well, on occasion there may well be a method to their madness.

The madness being this pseudo-shakeup, and the occasion being Karl Rove's relief of certain WH duties - so he can concentrate on swinging the November elections, of course. We sure had good reason to wonder what might be up. Will it turn out that tossing Scottie away from the WH press corps wolves was just a smokescreen (Josh astutely wonders why Scottie would leave without a ready replacement) to distract media attention from Karl's shift away from policy and possibly toward police?

Turns out, just as Scottie was bidding farewell to his tormentors, the Biggest, Baddest Wolf in their neck of the woods (i.e., Fitz) was meeting with the Grand Jury where he presented additional evidence against Rove in the Plame leak case, and announced to them that he will soon be sharing a list of criminal charges with the jury members in hopes that they will deliver a multicount indictment against Bush's Brain. Jason Leopold of Truthout spoke with attorneys and US officials close to the case, and to Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, who recently admitted that Rove remains a "subject" in the ongoing investigation. According to Leopold's sources, Fitz explained to the Grand Jury that Karl had lied eight out of the nine times he had been questioned about the details of this case, and previous testimony was reread in the courtroom yesterday that implicated Rove in both lying and in the campaign to smear Joe Wilson.

So. Joe Wilson, along with the rest of us, just might be granted a real live viewing of that delicious fantasy of Karl Rove being frog-marched out of the White House in handcuffs!

Now, if you'll be so kind as to allow me a minor conceit on Joe's behalf here, I'd like as graciously but pointedly as possible to connect the import of Karl Rove's felonies and fate to Mr. Cannon's very important post just below this one. The common denominator is the abominably amoral and heartlessly destructive behaviors these people - Karl Rove and Michelle Malkin and their entire mob of Flies (as in Lord of the) - are capable of. There is no real distance between Malkin's and Coulter's insistence on exposing innocent individuals to death threats and Karl Rove's insistence on smearing Joe Wilson, or John Kerry or John McCain, for that matter. Or, as long as we're on the subject, Rummy's exposing innocent Iraqis to slaughter in order to maintain military-industrial power over our nation. Etc., ad infinitum, ad nauseam. They're all playing footsie in that perverted power grid.

The list of abhorent actions is too long to insert here, and I know you can each do it for yourselves. Though I invite you to just start a list of categories, from stealing the 2000 election to the tax cuts in early 2001, right through 9/11 and the USAPATRIOT Act, and the Hammer's cynical legislation and Abramoff's criminal control of Congress, and ignoring science and imposing an American Taliban, and lying us into Iraq and now Iran, and just lying about everything, and the arrogance and manipulation and buck-passing and fear-mongering and excusing torture for chrissake, and trashing the Constitution and everything we as a nation ever stood for. Just a start; the deeper details do overwhelm.

And it's not simply that these sad, cowardly bullies are capable of these monstrous things. No, they actually seem to feel perfectly justified in committing these offenses against anyone who is somehow in their way. We all learned how to behave and treat each other in kindergarten, how to get most of what we want without hurting anyone else; these are the kids who never got it, the ones who bullied and picked on those who tried to play by the rules, those they called names because they/we refused to be naughty and reckless like they were. Like Abramoff brazenly breaking the rules of an election in elementary school, and Karl doing the same in high school, then both of them, infamously, prophetically, in college.

Scottie was recently compared to Piggy from Lord of the Flies, and Karl could easily take the role of Jack, the ring leader of the most savage acts in the book. Hell, he essentially is Jack, as are most of the rest of the heavy players. For the insanity to escalate as much as it did in the novel, and as much as it has here in our world, the lighter players have to join in. The "base" and most of the rest of the country have allowed this to happen, ignoring the consequences, and continue to do so, from keeping these thugs in office to giving the likes of Malkin and Coulter and Savage and O'Reilly and Hannity and Rush and Boortz and all those hate-spewing banshees - as well as their lesser, relatively "civilized" propaganda parrots like Chris and Timmy - a soapbox to stand on.

Karl's kabal requires the likes of Michelle to deliver the message of intimidation from the Jacks of this world, the same way Goering understood the power of this message in bringing the people to "the bidding of their leaders." Though Goering killed himself before he could be hanged at Nuremberg, one man who participated in his menacing dance of fear was hanged for his crime, even though he never wore a uniform and never worked in the Nazi government. That man was Julius Streicher, editor of Der Sturmer, the vile and vicious German newspaper. The Nuremberg jurists condemned him for inciting hatred and extermination of the Jews.

The theme of Lord of the Flies was that each and all humans, even seemingly innocent children, are capable of evil; I should think that would be a theme from history, as well. But an implicit theme in the book was that limits on behavior are needed, for rules made by grown-ups help to manage the potentially dangerous unruliness in kids of all ages, because unlimited and unruly behavior always has some consequence.

Our modern world imposed the Nuremberg hangings not only on the executors of the crimes against humanity, but against a man who schooled and manipulated the masses into justifying and, even in some cases, committing those crimes. We will not recover any decency in our country - and indeed, do not deserve to - if we do not bring the Karls and Michelles and Rummys and Rushes and Bushes to some kind of consequence, some kind of justice. No, I am absolutely not suggesting we hang these depraved characters. But we must as a society reject fully their heinous behaviors and refuse them audience or influence.

Malkin revisited

Yesterday's post on Malkin caused quite a storm, and I suppose a follow-up is in order.

Contact information on letterheads and organizational materials used to be considered private. It was legal but not ethical for political opponents to publish that data. At one time, when conservativism was an honorable stance and not a cause for rabid zealotry, all sides knew not to cross that line.

That was then. Things have changed -- and the change was initiated by the right.

Toward the beginning of the current administration, Freepers published private contact information for a restaurant employee who had dared to "card" the Holy and Unassailable Bush Daughters, then underaged. The clear implication was that this individual deserved harrassment and death threats simply because she had dared to inconvenience members of the ruling dynasty.

There were similar incidents -- all from right-wing sites.

(To read the rest, click "Permalink" below)

Not long ago, the despicable Ann Coulter revealed the telephone number of Lydia Cornell, a very nice lady with young children. Lydia's household received many death threats from the Freeper Freikorps. Coulter excused her actions in now-familiar terms: Lydia Cornell had revealed her contact info in the body of a letter. In the pre-net days, that practice was considered a standard courtesy, even when political opposites corresponded. Coulter argued that Lydia's willingness to reveal her phone number was tantamount to an invitation to receive calls from any brownshirt who wished to pay the toll charges.

Coulter's message to her mob was clear: Go get 'er! Angry Ann, who considers herself a Christian, has made no secret of the fact that she wants to see a wave of physical intimidation directed against anyone who disagrees with her political stances.

Then Malkin did pretty much the same thing, and offered similar excuses. She did not remove the students' information from her site even when asked to do so.

The pattern is obvious. Coulter was not kidding when she spoke of physical intimidation. Today, it is telephonic death threats. Tomorrow, fires will be set and tires slashed. The next day -- corpses.

There's only one way to stop this pattern from asserting itself again: Fight back. We all remember Sean Connery's words of advice to Kevin Costner in The Untouchables.

After the Lydia Cornell incident, I did not publish Coulter's personal phone number (although I had it), but the Malkin offense was simply infuriating. Those students she targeted for intimidation DID recieve death threats. (By the way, those students are not "anti-troops." Malkin is the one who cares so little for the lives of our soldiers that she would have them placed in harm's way in a war of aggression.)

Furthermore, it is clear that intimidation was Malkin's sole purpose in making those phone numbers available to her reactionary readers. The fact that Malkin found the contact information on organizational materials is irrelevant; her intent is the only factor that matters.

We all know -- and Malkin surely knew -- that rightists make a habit of issuing threats of death and violence. Left-wing writers receive such messages often; right-wing writers rarely do. Why? Because people on the right are sad, sick little creatures attracted to puerile dreams of power and vengeance -- dreams which compensate for being trapped in anonymous lives in which intelligence, creativity or accomplishment play no role.

Threats give way to actual acts. Look and see: Oklahoma City, the Amtrack derailment of 1995, the killing of Matthew Shephard, the murders of Brandon Teena and Gwen Araujo, attacks on abortion clinics, the violent dictatorship planned by the Dominionists. Within an Islamic context, Al Qaeda is a right-wing movement. No matter which theory of 9/11 you prefer, nobody on the left perpetrated that ghastly conspiracy. Nobody on the left was responsible for Jenin. Nobody on the left used white phosphorous on women in Fallujah.

Right-wingers are monsters. Monsters.

If we do not fight back, we will return to the situation which prevailed in Germany in 1920s, when right-wing groups called the Freikorps -- no different in rhetorical style from the Freepers and the militia maniacs -- killed with impunity hundreds of liberals. One night, they would chant in the beer hall: "Death to Walter Rathenau, the godforsaken Jewish sow!" The next night, Rathenau -- a true German patriot -- was murdered. On a later date, the anti-Hitler writer Fritz Gerlich went missing. His wife answered a knock on the door late one night, as a brownshirted thug handed over her husband's eyeglasses. Message delivered.

Over 400 murders of that sort took place in the warm-up to Hitler's takeover.

I predict that this history may repeat itself after a new terror incident. We cannot allow the people who have ruined this country to continue to call us traitors, as they do routinely. They are the ones who have spent our national treasury, indebted us to Arabs and the communist Chinese, sullied our name internationally, lurched our society toward theocracy and initiated a war to steal oil. They are the traitors.

We must break the pattern of intimidation now by standing up to these monsters. Remember, bullies are cowards.

Predictably, they will retreat to what I call the "false underdog" position. Malkin has already issued an "I will not be intimidated" statement, even though she clearly was the one who first decided to use intimidation as a tactic. Let her spew. I don't think she will ever repeat this vile trick. As Connery said in that movie: Thus endeth the lesson.

A young independent British film-maker named Kevin Brownlow once produced (in the 1960s) a film called It Happened Here, which posits what the U.K. might have looked like if Germany won the war. At the end, the protagonist joins the underground. He balks at some of the resistance tactics under discussion. "Won't this make us as bad as them?" he asks.

"Of course it does," answers the leader of the underground. "The appalling thing about Fascism is that it forces you to adopt fascist means to combat it."

I despised that sentiment when I first saw the film, more than twenty years ago. Now, I've reluctantly come to agree.