Friday Big Blue Smurf Blogging: What They Said

For about five minutes today I found myself wishing I were going to Netroots Nation. After all, Melina and I had a great time when we went in 2007, snarking about self-important people like the Big Blue Smurf himself and sitting around eating margarethe pizza and blogging. Then I remembered that it's in Las Vegas, and a quick look at the Weather Channel site revealed that at 8 PM Eastern Time (5 PM in Vegas) it was 110 degrees out there, which puts our mid-90's to shame. I don't care how much air conditioning you have; I am going to be hot as hell in that kind of weather. Sorry, but not even Alan Grayson is enough to get me to spend a bunch of money to shvitz like that.

Especially when the Kossacks are all excited about being able to ask Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid questions.

So along comes today's honoree, who perhaps gets honored more than anyone else, largely because in times like these, sometimes the niceties have to be dispensed with. And no one spills bile (or curses more than I do) better than Bustednuckles.

Money quotes:

Jesus Christ, some people just don't get it..
Oh My God!! Nancy Pelosi is coming to the Net Roots National Convention!! Piss my fucking pants and eleventy eleven, Whoo Hoo!
Bonus, Harry Fucking Reid is too!!

Oh My Fucking God, where is my Sharpie..

[snip]

Oh, we don't have enough votes, the Republicans are going to Fillibuster, yadda fucking yadda.

You pussy mother fucker. Ram your fucking agenda down their fucking throats and if they want to fillibuster, make damn sure they have a few cots and some fucking hot tea.

Now ya have some crazy fucking bitch taking you on and you can't even handle that shit.

[snip]

If that crazy bitch Angle whips yer ass in the Primary, it will go a long way to rehabilitate the Electoral process..
Just think, Michelle Bachmann won't be the craziest fucking moron in Congress any more and you and old Bitch McConnell can have a nice honeymoon. After ya just fucked over the millions of folks who were counting on some fucking unenjoyment, gave billions to the cunt fucking bastards in the banking industry and let BP get away with killing three fucking states and a few hundred thousand former tax payers, it's time for you to retire. Take Joe Fucking Lieberman with ya.

I just wish he'd lay off the "c" word.

Honorable mention: Driftglass, who is the perfect antidote to David Brooks.

Meanwhile, on an unrelated note, our esteemed co-blogger and friend Melina, who is so far ahead of the zeitgeist that she was doing the backyard chicken thing before it was cool, was on the local news this evening. I have a 15" pot on a table on my front walkway with 2 pepper plants, basil, and a cucumber plant that can't decide whether it's a vegetable plant or a flowering one. I'm starting to think I need a hen to go with it. I'm sure my neighbors would be thrilled.

Obama's Gesture; Tries to Block Torture Pictures That Are Already Out There. Nice Try...I Guess....

So, who is he blocking these pictures from? In the shadow of the looming snowball rolling down the hill behind him, President Obama seemingly caved today and decided to block the release of the new array of torture photos coming out of Abu Ghraib Prison, Iraq. The pictures are more of the same series that we've seen already, and many have been already published in other countries. In a way, the President was able to play both sides of the fence in that the pictures had already been leaked anyway, and so he was able to appear thoughtful on the effect that these photos would have on our soldiers serving around the world, but also he could be sure that the outrage would be there because they, or some of them, would be out in a bigger way than they had been previously. The problem is that in trying to cover this up for whatever reason, we hurt ourselves more, in that anything short of demanding a thorough investigation of the torture program of the previous administration will not be enough to regain our worldwide moral standing.

In covering his bases, Obama maintains his legendary cool but can also find his outrage along with the people. He should, however, be careful in that there will be a point, if it hasn't come already, that he starts to seem disingenuous in his handling of the situation. There is really only one response to what has gone on; it has to be addressed, not buried. Whatever the reasons are for his decisions so far, there is no excuse for not appointing an independent prosecutor to look at this; especially in light of Nancy Pelosi's statements today...talk about disingenuous!I'm having alot of trouble buying that deer in the headlights exclamation of surprise! If I knew they were lying about everything then what did the likes of Ms. Pelosi need? We are supposed to believe that just now she put the dates of reported torture together with the briefings and realized that they lied to her!!? At least she has the power to demand an investigation, and it looks like she will. I think that we are going to see more and more of this, because the vortex of wrongdoing is going to suck everyone in who doesn't get on the right side of this thing. (and for a really disgusting experience, see Rove's article in the Wall Street Journal today about the Pelosi timeline, breaking down what she knew and when she knew it, according to the master manipulator himself!)



Lets recap, for those who have been watching the Cheney media circus this past week, and who might be a tad confused. First of all, contrary to the blathering of the Cheney machine, we know that torture doesn't work. This is a fact that has been proven by numerous experts over many years, and this example of torture has proved it again. Torture is only used to force captives to make untrue statements incriminating themselves and their countries or groups; this would be helpful only if one wanted to connect something like, say, 9-11 to Saddam Hussein...um...yeah.

The Bush/Cheneys decided to disregard all real expert opinion, and surround themselves with only those who would be blindly loyal to their plan, (Plan: the concept of which I use lightly in this instance,) and that meant that they had to find malleable fundamentalists or blind patriots who had less experience in these issues than they should have had and that would follow orders without question; as Bill Maher said "low hanging fruit."

So, how could this happen? The channels that are the checks and balances of this country were corrupted, so If the orders came directly from the oval office that this was an unprecedented national emergency, then I suppose that the spy agencies might lie to the congress, right? Who knows? It was such a mess and Bush/Cheney were rewriting the rules as they went along. The only example that I can think of as anything like this situation is, unfortunately, 24! That's all well and good, but the glaring sticking point is that it went on for so long. This wasn't a one shot deal, it was a program that reportedly came directly down from the Vice President's office.



Ultimately, all of that tin-foil-hat stuff that we were trying not to succumb to, turned out to be true. All along, I kept saying that next comes the dancing girls and elephants, because I couldn't believe that it could possibly get this much stranger than fiction. I have trouble still believing that all of this was done for the money and/or revenge for Bush one, but anything could be true....the only thing that resonates with me is that this is a sort of fundamentalist mental illness, and group-think of the kool-aid variety; cognitive dissonance. To break the very tenants that this country was founded on, and to perform acts that we tried and convicted others of in the past, thereby creating more recent law that we can cite along with the actual laws and the Geneva Convention, and to do it all so openly, leads me to believe that there is some sort of real deep mental problem here which we would could call any number of things, but the actions performed in it's service were clearly illegal and must be addressed.



Obama can block the images all he wants but they will see the light. The thing is that he must come out in favor of investigation of these crimes soon, regardless of any precedent he might set for prosecution of prior Presidents of the Untied States. He must assume that neither he or any other President would commit such acts and if they were ever implicated for actions in office, they would welcome at least an investigation. To not investigate and try to bury this is much more of a danger to our troops all over the world than looking at it in the light and punishing the criminals.


c/p RIP Coco

Or what? Or we shall taunt you a second time?

Henry Waxman is sending what's going to turn out to be just another empty threat to Attorney General Michael Mukasey:

For more than one year, the Oversight Committee has been seeking documents from the Department of Justice relevant to our investigation into the leak of Ms. Wilson’s identity. Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald has cooperated with the Committee’s investigation, providing documents directly to the Committee and releasing others to you for production to the Committee. Two of the documents that Mr. Fitzgerald has provided to you for production to the Committee are the reports of the FBI interviews of President Bush and Vice President Cheney. Despite the Committee’s repeated requests, you have consistently refused to provide these reports to the Committee or unredacted versions of the reports of FBI interviews with White House staff. In response to the Committee’s June 16 subpoena, you wrote: “we are not prepared to provide or make available any reports of interviews with the President or Vice President from the leak investigation” because of “core Executive Branch confidentiality interests and fundamental separation of powers principles.”

In deference to your concerns and in a further attempt at accommodation, the Committee will not seek access to the report of the FBI interview of President Bush at this time. The report of the FBI interview with Vice President Cheney needs to be produced, however. The Vice President’s former chief of staff, I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, told the FBI that it is “possible” that the Vice President instructed him to disseminate to the press information about the identity of Ms. Wilson. The Committee cannot complete its inquiry into this serious matter without the report of the Vice President’s FBI interview.

The arguments you have raised for withholding the interview report are not tenable. When the FBI interview with the Vice President was conducted, the Vice President knew that the information in the interview could be made public in a criminal trial and that there were no restrictions on Special Counsel Fitzgerald’s use of the interview. Mr. Fitzgerald clarified this key point last week, writing to the Committee that “there were no agreements, conditions, and understandings between the Office of Special Counsel or the Federal Bureau of Investigation and either the President or Vice President regarding the conduct and use of the interview or interviews.”

Vice President Cheney’s attorneys have consistently maintained that he is not an “entity within the executive branch.” Whether this unusual claim is accurate or not, I am aware of no freestanding vice presidential communications privilege, let alone one that covers voluntary and unrestricted conversations with a special counsel investigating wrongdoing. There certainly was no such understanding when our Committee sought the FBI interview report of an interview with Vice President Gore. The Justice Department produced the interview to the Committee despite the fact that it contained discussion of official White House business.

In his closing remarks in the criminal trial of Mr. Libby, Special Counsel Fitzgerald stated: “There is a cloud over what the Vice President did that week.” Your cooperation in this matter could go a long way to dispelling this notion or perhaps confirming Mr. Fitzgerald’s fears. Either way, this Committee and the American people are entitled to know what happened. For similar reasons, you should also produce the unredacted versions of the interviews with White House staff that the Committee has subpoenaed.

Does anyone actually believe that this White House, or this Justice Department, is actually going to respond to a Congressinal subpoena? Nancy Pelosi may have this release up on her web site, but this is the woman who took impeachment off the table, no matter how large the magnitude of Bush Administration crimes, and now she is urging Waxman's committee to NOT enforce the subpoena that Kark Rove ignored.

Unless Congress is prepared to put its money where its mouth is, I'm getting tired of these "sternly-worded letters" that appear more and more to be simply grandstanding designed to appease those who still believe that the Administration's oath to uphold the Constitution means something.

Well, count this person unappeased.

It's the accountability, stupid!

Today, as we savor the fact that one year from today, our long national nightmare of the Bush/Cheney regime will at last (we hope) be over, someone needs to give Nancy Pelosi a clue that impeachment is no longer about removal from office, it's about documenting for the sake of history (and to prevent forgetting the past):

U.S. House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi says she’s drawing heat from fellow Democratic lawmakers as well as people across the nation for refusing to move to impeach President George W. Bush or Vice President Dick Cheney.

“I go through airports, and people have buttons as if they knew I was coming,” Pelosi said with a smile, mimicking a protester pointing to an “Impeach” button on their chest.

But the California Democrat said she is sticking to her position that trying to remove Bush or Cheney would be divisive, and she added, most likely unsuccessful. If the House voted to impeach Bush and Cheney, a two-thirds vote would be needed in the closely divided Senate to oust them.

That's not the point, and she should realize that. As far as trying to remove BushCheney being divisive, that's the biggest insult of all, and it goes a long way to explain why she has caved to the Bush Administration in absolutely everything -- because she doesn't want to be "divisive." Well, divisiveness where today's Republican party consists of anything that varies one iota from marching in lockstep with the most insane elements of the party.

A two-party system is sometimes going to be divisive, especially where issues in which the parties are so far apart are concerned. If she's so afraid of divisiveness, then let her step aside for someone who has the guts to do the right thing for the country and the Constitution.

Barack Obama, take note.

And with this one statement, Nancy Pelosi shows she's not qualified to lead

Nancy Pelosi, quoted in the New York Times:

“What is interesting to me is how the Republicans have stuck with the president...I didn’t foresee that.”

And that, my friends, may very well be the "WTF???" moment of the year.

How on earth could Nancy Pelosi have NOT known that Republicans would stick with this president, when they had been doing just that for six years? When even Arlen Specter and Chuck Hagel, the most outspoken critics in the Republican Party voted for everything George Bush wanted and against everything he didn't, when the time came to take a stand? I realize that Specter and Hagel are in the Senate, not the House, but they are emblematic of the lemmings-off-a-cliff mentality of the Republican Party. Did she really expect that Republicans were just going to stop doing what they've been doing since 1994 and suddenly capitulate to the inevitability of Democratic dominance? If so, then she's more out of thought than any of us thought and it's time for her to step down and let someone else lead; someone willing to see what's right in front of his/her eyes.

This should have been a speech on the floor of the House of Representatives

Ms. Pelosi, THIS is how you do it:

“I didn’t vote for him,” an American once said, “But he’s my president, and I hope he does a good job.”

That—on this eve of the 4th of July—is the essence of this democracy, in 17 words. And that is what President Bush threw away yesterday in commuting the sentence of Lewis “Scooter” Libby.

The man who said those 17 words—improbably enough—was the actor John Wayne. And Wayne, an ultra-conservative, said them, when he learned of the hair’s-breadth election of John F. Kennedy instead of his personal favorite, Richard Nixon in 1960.

“I didn’t vote for him but he’s my president, and I hope he does a good job.”

The sentiment was doubtlessly expressed earlier, but there is something especially appropriate about hearing it, now, in Wayne’s voice: The crisp matter-of-fact acknowledgement that we have survived, even though for nearly two centuries now, our Commander-in-Chief has also served, simultaneously, as the head of one political party and often the scourge of all others.

We as citizens must, at some point, ignore a president’s partisanship. Not that we may prosper as a nation, not that we may achieve, not that we may lead the world—but merely that we may function.

[snip]

The enforcement of the laws is turned over to those of one political party, who will swear beforehand that they will not enforce those laws. The choice between war and peace is turned over to those of one political party, who stand to gain vast wealth by ensuring that there is never peace, but only war.

And now, when just one cooked book gets corrected by an honest auditor, when just one trampling of the inherent and inviolable fairness of government is rejected by an impartial judge, when just one wild-eyed partisan is stopped by the figure of blind justice, this President decides that he, and not the law, must prevail.

I accuse you, Mr. Bush, of lying this country into war.

I accuse you of fabricating in the minds of your own people, a false implied link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11.

I accuse you of firing the generals who told you that the plans for Iraq were disastrously insufficient.

I accuse you of causing in Iraq the needless deaths of 3,586 of our brothers and sons, and sisters and daughters, and friends and neighbors.

I accuse you of subverting the Constitution, not in some misguided but sincerely-motivated struggle to combat terrorists, but to stifle dissent.

I accuse you of fomenting fear among your own people, of creating the very terror you claim to have fought.

I accuse you of exploiting that unreasoning fear, the natural fear of your own people who just want to live their lives in peace, as a political tool to slander your critics and libel your opponents.

I accuse you of handing part of this Republic over to a Vice President who is without conscience, and letting him run roughshod over it.

And I accuse you now, Mr. Bush, of giving, through that Vice President, carte blanche to Mr. Libby, to help defame Ambassador Joseph Wilson by any means necessary, to lie to Grand Juries and Special Counsel and before a court, in order to protect the mechanisms and particulars of that defamation, with your guarantee that Libby would never see prison, and, in so doing, as Ambassador Wilson himself phrased it here last night, of becoming an accessory to the obstruction of justice.

[snip]

The twists and turns of Plame-Gate, of your precise and intricate lies that sent us into this bottomless pit of Iraq; your lies upon the lies to discredit Joe Wilson; your lies upon the lies upon the lies to throw the sand at the “referee” of Prosecutor Fitzgerald’s analogy. These are complex and often painful to follow, and too much, perhaps, for the average citizen.

But when other citizens render a verdict against your man, Mr. Bush—and then you spit in the faces of those jurors and that judge and the judges who were yet to hear the appeal—the average citizen understands that, Sir.

[snip]

It is nearly July 4th, Mr. Bush, the commemoration of the moment we Americans decided that rather than live under a King who made up the laws, or erased them, or ignored them—or commuted the sentences of those rightly convicted under them—we would force our independence, and regain our sacred freedoms.

We of this time—and our leaders in Congress, of both parties—must now live up to those standards which echo through our history: Pressure, negotiate, impeach—get you, Mr. Bush, and Mr. Cheney, two men who are now perilous to our Democracy, away from its helm.

For you, Mr. Bush, and for Mr. Cheney, there is a lesser task. You need merely achieve a very low threshold indeed. Display just that iota of patriotism which Richard Nixon showed, on August 9th, 1974.

Resign.

It should not fall on the shoulders of Keith Olbermann to do this. Olbermann's job is to inform and to entertain. It is the job of Nancy Pelosi and everyone in the House of Representatives -- Democratic and Republican -- to provide oversight to the Executive branch. We already know that every Republican in the House and Senate believes that party loyalty trumps the law, the Constitution, and the good of the nation. Nancy Pelosi's refusal to lead on holding this Administration accountable, her refusal to even TRY to appeal to the consciences of those Republicans who may still have a scintilla of their souls left; her betting the ranch on the 2008 election while U.S. attorneys hand-selected for their willingness to systematically disenfranchise those who would not vote Republican and who lack the resources to fight their disenfranchisement; her clear and obvious adherence to the "Thank You Sir May I Have Another" doctrine of the DLC and other corporatist political whores; mean that once again, Keith Olbermann is just a voice in the wilderness, a wilderness in which we wander, still capable of being stunned by the extent of the lawlessness and the willingness of this Administration to destroy this country for greed and power and cronyism -- so stunned that we don't know what to do anymore to save our country.

And those fuckers in the White House know it.

OK, so what are you going to do about it, Nancy?

Nancy Pelosi's statement on the all-but-pardon of Scooter Libby:

The President’s commutation of Scooter Libby’s prison sentence does not serve justice, condones criminal conduct, and is a betrayal of trust of the American people.

The President said he would hold accountable anyone involved in the Valerie Plame leak case. By his action today, the President shows his word is not to be believed. He has abandoned all sense of fairness when it comes to justice, he has failed to uphold the rule of law, and he has failed to hold his Administration accountable.

And so have you, Madam Speaker. The difference is that we expect this from this president. We elected Democrats last fall in the hope of getting something different. So far you've ignored us.

And in case you don't get it, let Joe Wilson spell out for you what it means:

"From my viewpoint, the president has stepped in to short circuit the rule of law and the system of justice in our country. In so doing, he has acknowledged Mr. Libby's guilt for, among other things, obstruction of justice, which by definition is covering up for somebody in a crime. By commuting his sentence, he has brought himself and his office into reasonable suspicion of participation in an obstruction of justice. The commutation of (Libby's) sentence in and of itself is participation in obstruction of justice."

Nancy Pelosi: Can't win, don't try

Who knew that Nancy Pelosi would end up adhering to the Bart Simpson view of the universe? In the rarefied Washington air of the Speaker, the sure bet (sic) of winning the White House in 2008 trumps any attempt at holding this Administration accountable for its crimes against the Constitution and the American people. In other words, it's all about the party (and presumably the Benjamins). And if that means that George W. Bush and especially Dick Cheney are never held accountable for their crimes, well so be it. After all, what is the Constitution when compared to the coffers of the DSCC?

Martin Bosworth at Scholars & Rogues was on a blogger conference call with Pelosi, and recognizes what I do, and what you do, and what other bloggers know -- but what Pelosi and the Democrats in Congress either don't know or don't care to know: that an Administration that views itself as above the law can do plenty of damage in two years:

I understand how tough the political process is in the best of environments–and this is anything but. Pelosi is a new Speaker leading the Dems back to power for the first time in 12 years, and she’s a woman, so she gets the 20 percent sexism tax attached to everything she does. I get that. Bush has stacked the government so thoroughly with “loyal Bushies” at every level, in all three branches, that it will take years to get rid of them and undo all their damage. I get that too.

But at the same time, when you look at the sneering defiance with which the Bush/Cheney axis refuses to comply with even the basic tenets of law, or how they’re incapable of passing any sort of legislation without it collapsing under the weight of its own bullshit, or any one of a million other crimes that have been committed under the aegis of the Worst President Ever, you have to ask yourself, “What the hell are we waiting for? How much power can a guy with a historically low approval rating really wield?”

Plenty. Bush’s veto pen can kill all of the progressive, forward-thinking legislation Pelosi wants to push, and without 60 Senators on board to override a veto, that’s that. And do not doubt he will do it–the man has proven time and again that he simply does not care what others think, and will happily kill any legislation out of spite, ignorance, or just plain meanness.

Bush has almost two years left to do incalculable damage and to continue to sully and stain the future and reputation of our country. At a time when the nation’s mindset is leaning more progressive left than ever, and we have strong enough leaders in Congress and elsewhere to make the change, it’s tough to accept that impeaching Bush (and Cheney) for their flagrant violations of law and ethics can’t be done. Right now, they are in the way of making this country a better place.

Indeed, the biggest obstacles to turning this country around are in the White House right now. And when an obstacle is in your way, you find a way around it, or you go through it. If we can’t get around them, then they need to go.

This is all pretty disheartening when viewed in the context of the Administration's view that Congressional subpoenas regarding the illegal domestic wiretapping program are an "unfortunate choice of confrontation" on the part of Congress.

When the executive branch is as out of control as this one is, Congress has an OBLIGATION to hold it to account. If an appeal to a partisan Supreme Court overturns an impeachment attempt, or subpoenas, or whatever other Constitutional measures are taken to hold this bunch to account, so be it. But at least you have to TRY. Betting the ranch on a Democratic presidential win when guys like David Gregory are out there defending the likes of Ann Coulter and partisan Secretaries of State still have the power to withhold voting machines from minority neighborhoods is a sucker bet.

Can we please put this story to bed now?

Probably not; not in a world in which the Big Topic on Paula Zahn tonight was whether the fact that Barack Obama is trying to quit SMOKING CIGARETTES disqualifies him for the presidency.

But we can always hope.

I mean, when TONY FUCKING SNOW is coming to the defense of Nancy Pelosi, you know that House Republicans have gone too far:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi did not request a larger plane for personal use to travel cross-country without stopping, Bill Livingood, the House sergeant at arms, said Thursday.

Livingood said the request was his, and he made it for security reasons.

"The fact that Speaker Pelosi lives in California compelled me to request an aircraft that is capable of making non-stop flights for security purposes, unless such an aircraft is unavailable," Livingood, who has been at his post for 11 years, said in a written statement.

"I regret that an issue that is exclusively considered and decided in a security context has evolved into a political issue," the statement said.

Pelosi is striking back against accusations she asked for a plane larger and more expensive than the one used by former House Speaker Dennis Hastert, a claim published last week in The Washington Times.(Watch Pelosi call the GOP charges "a myth" )

The Times article, headlined "Pelosi's Power Trip -- Non-stop Nancy Seeks Flight of Fancy," led the Republican National Committee to send out a research briefing and blast Pelosi on the House floor.

The article said Pelosi asked the Pentagon for "routine access" to a military plane "not only for herself and her staff, but also for relatives and for other members of the California delegation," quoting sources "familiar with the discussions."

"I have never asked for a larger plane," Pelosi said. "This is a myth that they are talking about on the floor."

The White House also stood behind Pelosi.

"As speaker of the House, she is entitled to military transport and ... the proper arrangements are being made between the Sergeant of Arms Office in the House of Representatives and the U.S. Department of Defense," White House spokesman Tony Snow said.

"We think it's appropriate," he added. "And so, again, I think this is much ado about not a whole lot. It is important for the speaker to have this kind of protection and travel."

And here's the best part:

Meanwhile, Rep. John Murtha, D-Pennsylvania, chairman of the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, said on Thursday that he's planning hearings this spring on executive and congressional travel on military aircraft.

Murtha said he's requested from the Defense Department records on travel and logistics from the past two years. He asked the Defense Department to hand those over within a month.

Once again: Hoist, petard, etc.