"So Come Back, Woody Guthrie ..."

In addition to our patron saint, here at A Cautious Man there is a special place of honor for Steve Earle (whose own website is somewhat neglected, but who is ably served by the indispensable Original Unoffical Steve Earle Site). As noted recently by Eric Alterman, "Steve Earle’s singing and songwriting connects to a place in the American past that allows him to create timeless music that could have been written yesterday but sounds as if it’s been around a hundred years", while at the same time he is relentlessly political (sometimes, too much for his own good). In these troubled times, Mr. Earle is riding to our rescue with a new album, "The Revolution Starts ...Now", to be released on August 24. The track list shows several politically-minded songs, among them "Condi, Condi", a reggae, sort-of paean to the National Security Adviser, with lines like "They say you're too uptight, I say you're not/Dance around me spinnin' like a top/Oh, Condi, Condi, don't ever stop." There's also "F the CC", described as follows in Billboard:

Earle pulls no punches in his assault on the Ramones-esque track, which boasts the chorus, "F*** the FCC /f*** the FBI / f*** the CIA / I'm living in the motherf***ing U.S.A."

In the column linked to above, Mr. Alterman confessed, "I'm actually ashamed to admit how much I love that song 'F**k the FCC.' It reminds me of being ten and listening to Country Joe and the Fish, but with a much better beat." I'm looking forward to experiencing that guilty pleasure, as well.

VIVA LAS VEGAS! -or- I'm so glad I'm livin' in the USA

So I hear this story on the radio this morning, about Linda Ronstadt getting booed and causing a Republican riot in Las Vegas, because she praised Michael Moore during her performance at the Aladdin Casino. The announcer on my local news station actually noted that this is what happens in these "polarized times". Now it seems, as is usually the case, the truth is somewhat at variance with what the flacks, spinners, and publicists would have you believe. First off, what she did was to dedicate the song "Desperado" to Michael Moore (something which has been a part of her performances, as the folks at FreeRepublic.com discussed earlier this month, in their usual style). Second, it appears that the audience's unhappiness may have been due to the fact that her act consists mostly of old standards, and not her "greatest hits". By the way, that last piece of information comes from an article in the Las Vegas Sun, which has other additional details that the national wire service story has left out (yes, I know, big surprise). Then, as uncovered by Tbogg, even the right-leaning National Review site is providing information from someone who was there, debunking reports of "bedlam". Meanwhile, it seems that the Aladdin is a big, expensive failure of a casino, which is in the process of being sold. Any press may be good press, apparently.

But, of course, the Washington Post's Reliable Source is right on top of the facts:

Linda Ronstadt, why don't you come to your senses? Booed last month during her performance at Wolf Trap when she dedicated her encore "Desperado" to Bush-bashing filmmaker Michael Moore, the singer has done it again. Saturday she sparked protests and got booted from the Aladdin hotel-casino in Las Vegas. "It was a very ugly scene," Aladdin President Bill Timmins told the Associated Press. "She praised him and all of a sudden all bedlam broke loose." Whisked off the property, Ronstadt, 58, was not allowed to return to her luxury suite. Before her show, she felt compelled to tell the Las Vegas Review-Journal: "I keep hoping that if I'm annoying enough to them, they won't hire me back." Mission accomplished.

So, is there a moral to this story? Maybe, it's that in these "polarized times", the reputation for thuggery, enjoyed by those of a particular political persuasion, might be used by owners of failing casinos, entertainers, and lazy newsmen.

Have Mercy on the Man Who Doubts What He's Sure of ...

In the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, it always seemed that there was an assumption that war was necessary, and opponents were expected to prove why there should not be one. Doubts about the wisdom of the course of action chosen, were belittled and even mocked. Now, there's a small surge of doubt, being seen with respect to the justification for the timing and manner of the invasion of Iraq last year. More Administration-friendly voices are noting that there should have been more caution, perhaps, in the decision-making process. For example, the Republican chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Pat Roberts, was quoted in the New York Times the other day (as pointed out by Josh Marshall in TPM):

Mr. Roberts said he was "not too sure" that the administration would have invaded if it had known how flimsy the intelligence was on Iraq and illicit weapons. Instead, the senator said, Mr. Bush might well have advocated efforts to maintain sanctions against Iraq and to continue to try to unearth the truth through the work of United Nations inspectors. "I don't think the president would have said that military action is justified right now," Mr. Roberts said. If the administration had been given "accurate intelligence," he said, Mr. Bush "might have said, 'Saddam's a bad guy, and we've got to continue with the no-fly zones and with inspections.' "

That is basically a statement that going to war as we did was a mistake! Sen. Roberts hedges a bit, by blaming the intelligence agencies, but I think that more needs to be learned, about how the intelligence was handled and interpreted.

Which leads to another doubter, David Kay. As noted here back in January, Dr. Kay disappointed a lot of war proponents with his conclusion that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction. At the time, he speculated that the intelligence agencies should consider apologizing to the President. I noted that stories about the pressure on intelligence analysts were already being heard, such as those recounted by Kenneth "Gathering Storm" Pollock. As he noted:

The intelligence community's overestimation of Iraq's WMD capability is only part of the story of why we went to war last year. The other part involves how the Bush Administration handled the intelligence. Throughout the spring and fall of 2002 and well into 2003 I received numerous complaints from friends and colleagues in the intelligence community, and from people in the policy community, about precisely that.

Well, now Dr. Kay is being heard, voicing his concern about how the British and American governments overstated the case, based on what the intelligence indicated. As reported by Newsmax:

President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair should have realized before going to war that intelligence on Iraqi weapons was weak and did not indicate Saddam Hussein posed a danger to the West, America's former chief weapons inspector in Iraq said Sunday.

David Kay resigned from the CIA in January and his conclusion then that Iraq did not have stockpiles of forbidden weapons caused serious problems for both Bush and Blair, undercutting their main justification for war.

He told Britain's ITV network that Bush and Blair "should have been able to tell before the war that the evidence did not exist for drawing the conclusion that Iraq presented a clear, present and imminent threat on the basis of existing weapons of mass destruction."
"That was not something that required a war," he said.

He said the leaders may not have been sufficiently critical of intelligence on Saddam's alleged weapons of mass destruction.

There's more on this on the website of the British newspaper The Independent.

So, to recap. The top Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee says that the war was a mistake, but based on bad intelligence. Experts "in the know", who are not "liberal shills" by any stretch of the imagination, point out that, instead of "bad intelligence", the real problem was bad judgment by the decision-makers at the top. Is any of this relevant, now? I believe it is, because going forward we have to insist that decisions about going to war include a healthy dose of doubt and circumspection. If our government takes the approach that they need to be shown why not to go to war, we should do something about that.

They Sent Some Dude with a Calling Card, He Said Do What You Like, But Don't Do it Here

No doubt you've read about Whoopi Goldberg, the latest victim of the type of politically-motivated boycotting I discussed here the other day.  Some choice examples of the messages sent to Slim-Fast can be found on FreeRepublic.com.  It's unfortunate that this effort succeeded, because that means that we can expect more of that type of childish nonsense as campaign season continues (and probably after that, as well).  I'll say it again, this seems to be a technique mainly practiced by the pro-Bush/Republican/Conservative/pick-your-label side of the aisle.  Look, Dennis Miller has been annoying and partisan for some time now, but I never heard of any efforts to boycott satellite TV because he was a spokesman. 
 
And to top it off, I learned today that the dudes at pabaah.com (who I had mentioned and linked to last week) would rather I not link to their site.  When I click on the link in my post below (or the one in this paragraph) I get a little message.

Your coming from a site that we don't like. So why dont we send you back! powered whit Protector System

Go ahead, you try.  See?  Now, leaving aside their difficulty with contractions, I find it amusing that my relatively innocuous reflection on thought-based boycotting (the worst thing I called it was "silly") earned me a semi-literate invitation to never darken their door again.  Checking my Sitemeter, it looks like a couple of other people have been bounced back here, as well.
 
I have no idea what to do about this.  Looking at their advertisers, I can't see any actual products to boycott until they cease their unwarranted ban on my linking to them (not even the W Ketchup).  Maybe the best thing to do is use them as a resource when making my entertainment choices.  You know, find some good movies or shows based on their list of what not to see. 
 
Oh, and sorry about the long post title.  The line just fit the topic, and I couldn't help myself.

I Think I Got a Good Idea of the Game That You're Playing

I know that there are a lot of people who sincerely believe that same-sex marriage could harm traditional marriage. But, I'm not going to comment on that now. Instead, I've been intrigued by the cynical use of this issue by the President and his leading Senate supporters. Unfortunately for them, the game is not going exactly as planned:

But instead of a landmark debate, Republicans found themselves filibustering their own amendment to stop it from coming to the floor on Wednesday for a straight up-or-down vote -- out of fear that it might fail to get even 51 votes, much less the 67, or two-thirds majority, required to amend the Constitution. Republicans apparently were taken by surprise when Democrats, sensing a huge victory, offered to lift their own objections and proceed to direct consideration of the measure.

As many as a dozen Republicans, various aides and lobbyists said, might bolt from their party on the issue. Many Republicans have long been wary of federal intrusion on what has always been a state domain, believing an amendment would violate their basic principle of keeping the federal government out of state matters.

Many on the Republican side were concerned that the Amendment, as proposed, could be read to prohibit measures other than marriage, such as "civil unions", so:

Seeking to lift their vote count among their rank-and-file, Republican leaders struggled to come up with alternative wording for the constitutional amendment that would reduce it to the first sentence of the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment by Sen. Wayne Allard, R-Colo.

That would leave an amendment which simply states: "Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman." Now, remember that the whole point of this exercise is to keep the courts from allowing same-sex marriages. With so few words, how exactly would this statement affect marriage-like unions? Why, the courts will decide, after all! These folks are so eager to have a vote, that they don't even care that the end result could, essentially, be meaningless.

It seems that they may not even care whether there ever is an amendment. After all, the President and his Senate allies haven't advanced an amendment on abortion - because that does not serve their political interests. They get more mileage out of talking about the issue, without having to put Congress on the record. In the same way, the simple fact is that they are not proposing a Constitutional amendment because they believe that they can get it approved. They are doing this because they think it will help them defeat candidates who would support better health care, assistance for the poor and environmental protection. They also think it will help them defeat candidates who do not share their enthusiasm to rush to war ("pre-emptive" or not) instead of seeking other solutions.

In short, this has nothing to do with advancing anyone's "values" (traditional or otherwise). This is a strategem to attempt to hold on to power, pure and simple.

Little White Lies You Tell to Ease the Pain

In a speech today on the War on Terror, President Bush seems to be demonstrating an ability to block out any "bad news" - that being information which contradicts his long-held worldview on the source of, motivations for, and solutions to the dangers faced by the U.S. from terrorist attacks. Whether it’s the Senate Intelligence Committee, or the 9/11 Commission, there are more and more indications that the efforts of the Administration are either ineffectual or aimed at the wrong targets. Nevertheless, it appears that from now through the election, the President will continue to pretend that there have not been major mistakes in defending against terrorism. There's the "unfinished business", which the President wants us to believe has been taken care of -

Today, Afghanistan is a world away from the nightmare of the Taliban. That country has a good and just President. Boys and girls are being educated. Many refugees have returned home to rebuild their country, and a presidential election is scheduled for this fall. The terror camps are closed and the Afghan government is helping us to hunt the Taliban and terrorists in remote regions. Today, because we acted to liberate Afghanistan, a threat has been removed, and the American people are safer.

Look, we all know that it's premature to declare victory in Afghanistan. The country is still the site of major military actions, and our soldiers are still dying there. There are areas outside of Kabul and other cities which are still controlled by Taliban supporters. And speaking of breeding grounds for terrorism -

Three years ago, terrorists were well-established in Saudi Arabia. Inside that country, fundraisers and other facilitators gave al Qaeda financial and logistical help, with little scrutiny or opposition. Today, after the attacks in Riyadh and elsewhere, the Saudi government knows that al Qaeda is its enemy. Saudi Arabia is working hard to shut down the facilitators and financial supporters of terrorism.

Interesting discussion by the President, all but pointing to Saudi Arabia as the locale where attacks on the U.S. were funded and planned. But, he doesn't think that's important to focus on, since he had his favorite target -

America must remember the lessons of September the 11th. We must confront serious dangers before they fully materialize. And so my administration looked at the intelligence on Iraq, and we saw a threat. Members of the United States Congress from both political parties looked at the same intelligence, and they saw a threat. The United Nations Security Council looked at the intelligence, and it saw a threat. The previous administration and the Congress looked at the intelligence and made regime change in Iraq the policy of our country.

In 2002, the United Nations Security Council yet again demanded a full accounting of Saddam Hussein's weapons programs. As he had for over a decade, Saddam Hussein refused to comply. In fact, according to former weapons inspector David Kay, Iraq's weapons programs were elaborately shielded by security and deception operations that continued even beyond the end of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

As has been mentioned here before, this seems to be part of an effort to make people forget that there were weapons inspectors in Iraq up to the day President Bush told them to leave.

Even if we give the President a "pass", and assume he's an innocent victim of mistakes by the intelligence agencies, the fact remains that he still says that the invasion, at the time it took place, in the manner it took place, and with the limited support from other nations with which it took place, was still a correct decision. That he still believes this, is not a comforting thought, because it suggests that he is content to ignore facts which challenge his preconceived notions.

And that is not a good thing.

The Stars All Appear on the Screen ...

… or not, if some people have their way. There are people who choose not to see a movie or performance, if they disagree with the political views of one of the performers. Others take it to the next level, and organize boycotts of celebrities they disagree with. This goes far beyond boycotting a particular work, because of disagreement with its content; I'm talking about boycotting anything and everything featuring the offending celebrity, as a way to "punish" that person for their political views. I think it's, well, silly, and I've found an example that makes it look especially silly.

The only large-scale efforts in this regard that I've seen are "anti-liberal", such as "Boycott Liberalism", "Boycott Hollywood" and "Patriotic Americans Boycotting Anti-American Hollywood" or PABAAH. It's interesting to read the lists - there are a lot of performers who have run afoul of these people. It's just as interesting to see what movies and shows are to be "shunned". The involvement of just a single "offending celebrity" is enough to taint a whole movie or show. Not only that, but for a lot of these celebrities a single remark or action (such as signing an anti-war petition) is enough to taint that person and anything he or she has ever appeared in. As a result, for example, this weekend you can't go see either the new Will Farrell movie (because Christina Applegate lent her name to "Artists for the U.N.) or Will Smith in I, Robot (co-star James Cromwell signed something entitled "Artists United to Win Without War").

Which brings me now to a new movie, the documentary America's Heart and Soul. As described by WorldNetDaily , "With its patriotic undertones and emphasis on the goodness of Americans, the film is a marked contrast to Michael Moore's Bush-bashing documentary 'Fahrenheit 9/11'". Steve Beard in National Review stated, "While it was never intended to be a response to Moore's snarly conspiratorial docudrama, America's Heart and Soul may prove to be the anti-Fahrenheit 9/11." And, the anti-Michael Moore site MoveAmericaForward held a special viewing of the film, and heartily endorses it.

It therefore pains me to inform people that, alas, due to the participation of one of the aforementioned offending celebrities, there should be calls to boycott the film America's Heart and Soul. Just look at the official website for the film, and the prominent place given to announcing that the movie features "a special song by John Mellencamp." That's not the only "special song" he's written lately, as noted in a news item featured by "Boycott Liberalism", about last evening's Kerry/Edwards fundraiser:

Other celebs also competed to bash Bush. Singer John Mellencamp sang a specially written song that called the president "just another cheap thug" and ridiculed him as the "Texas bambino."

Celebrities have run afoul of the boycotters for a lot less than that. Now, then, if you're a true-blue supporter of the Administration, how do you express your patriotism? Go see the "antidote to Fahrenheit 9/11", or show Mellencamp and the rest of them that you'll refuse to support people who attack your President? I don't suppose you could decide that boycotting everything featuring an offending celebrity is, perhaps, going too far?

Carnival Life on the Water

No matter what your political persuasion may be, this could be a quite the time: The National Review Post-Election Cruise! It's sailing from November 13-20. Now, just suppose that brand-new two-some of John and John win that election. Imagine the fun to be had on the open seas, where the cruise line promises "Plenty of chances to meet, schmooze and enjoy personal interaction with our special guest speakers", including Rich Lowry, Michelle Malkin, Dick Morris and Ed Gillespie. You might even be treated to some "Cheney-esque" repartee.

C'mon, take a chance and book now. You know you want to.

Tramps Like Us, Baby We Were Born to Run

Alternate Title No. 1: I'm pulling out of here to win.
Alternate Title No. 2: No retreat no surrender.
Alternate Title No. 3: We liked the same music, we liked the same bands.
Alternate Title No. 4: You'll need a good companion for this part of the ride.
Alternate Title No. 5: Meet me in a land of hope and dreams.

Throwing caution to the wind, I can safely say that this is an auspicious day in American political history. By selecting John Edwards as his running mate, John Kerry has created the first major-party ticket for President and Vice President made up entirely of Springsteen fans. No word on how the other party plans to counter the Democratic Party's "all-Tramp" line-up.

As the song says, "Dreams will not be thwarted/Faith will be rewarded."

Independence Day

I realized that I'm observing Independence Day this year in a variety of appropriate ways, roughly corresponding to Franklin Roosevelt's "Four Freedoms". For the first, "Freedom of Speech", we saw "Fahrenheit 9/11" last night. I'll probably have some random thoughts on it another time, but I will say that the second half is more powerful and effective than the "snarkier" parts in the beginning (and any commentators who claim they left in the middle of the movie, should go back and see the whole thing).

For the second, "Freedom of Worship", this evening I'm attending our community's annual interfaith gathering in the park, taking to heart John Adams' advice as quoted below. That's a celebration of not only our diversity (with Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, and Baha'i participants), but also our unity as a community and a nation.

For the third, "Freedom from Want", there's a cook-out to be at tomorrow afternoon, before helping with my son's Boy Scout troop, selling hot dogs as the sun sets and our town fireworks burst overhead.

As for the last, "Freedom from Fear" - well, despite the efforts of the folks in charge of issuing terror warnings this weekend, I hope everyone has a Happy Independence Day!

Dancing in a Sky Filled With Light

For Independence Day, fireworks are a necessity:

I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary festival. It ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance, by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires, and illuminations, from one end of this continent to the other, from this time forward for evermore.
J. Adams, on the adoption of the Declaration of Independence, Letter to Abigail Adams (July 3, 1776)

So, here are some fireworks for the Fourth:

Sandy, the fireworks are hailin' over Little Eden tonight
Forcin' a light into all those stoned-out faces left stranded
on this Fourth of July.
B. Springsteen, "Fourth of July, Asbury Park"

I can hear the fireworks
I can hear the people, people shouting out
I can hear the people shouting out (up and down the line)
And it's almost Independence Day
Van Morrison, "Almost Independence Day"

We drove the car
To the top of the parking ramp
4th of July
Sat out on the hood
With a couple of warm beers
And watched the fireworks
Explode in the sky
Ani Difranco, "Independence Day"

Once in a while
In a big blue moon
There comes a night like this
Like some surrealist
Invented this 4th of July
Joni Mitchell, "Night Ride Home"

Counted the stars on the 4th of July
Wishing we were rockets bursting in the sky
Talking about redemption and leaving things behind
Willie Nelson, "Mendocino County Line"

And the Rockets' red glare, the Bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night that our Flag was still there.
F. S. Key, "The Star-Spangled Banner" (1814)

Wherever Somebody's Struggling to be Free

Lyndon Johnson destroyed his presidency, and himself, over the Vietnam War. But his legacy also includes his actions which culminated, forty years ago today, in his signing of the Civil Rights Act:

We believe that all men are created equal. Yet many are denied equal treatment.

We believe that all men have certain unalienable rights. Yet many Americans do not enjoy those rights.

We believe that all men are entitled to the blessings of liberty. Yet millions are being deprived of those blessings--not because of their own failures, but because of the color of their skin.

The reasons are deeply imbedded in history and tradition and the nature of man. We can understand--without rancor or hatred--how this all happened.

But it cannot continue. Our Constitution, the foundation of our Republic, forbids it. The principles of our freedom forbid it. Morality forbids it. And the law I will sign tonight forbids it.

I wouldn't have been aware of this anniversary, if not for a terrific story today on NPR's Morning Edition. I was especially impressed to learn that Johnson had been advised to wait unil after July 4, to sign the legislation; there was a fear of public demonstrations against the new law. Not only did he reject that advice, but he reminded Americans of what the Declaration of Independence really stands for, as he put the law into effect.

A Nice Little Place in the Stars

I was aimlessly flipping between cable news channels about 11:00 p.m. the other night. I'm not sure why, since the choices included Bill O'Reilly in another Michael Moore diatribe and CNN providing an outlet for "legal experts" on the Scott Peterson trial. Suddenly, on CNN, they switched to a live anchor, over in Australia or somewhere like that, for coverage of the Cassini spacecraft entering orbit around Saturn. It was refreshing to see live news coverage of an actual event, that actually provided information.

I didn't stay up for the first live pictures, but those and more are being provided online at the official website of the Cassini mission to Saturn. The whole thing is very cool, and I'm going to keep checking back there.

There's Got to be a Better Way

An article in today's New York Times, about William Buckley relinquishing his control of his magazine, National Review, contains the following interesting statement:

"With the benefit of minute hindsight, Saddam Hussein wasn't the kind of extra-territorial menace that was assumed by the administration one year ago," Mr. Buckley said. "If I knew then what I know now about what kind of situation we would be in, I would have opposed the war."

What do we know now, about the wisdom of launching the invasion of Iraq, that we didn't know then? At the time, we knew that we did not have Security Council support, even though we were ostensibly enforcing Security Council resolutions. At the time, we knew that the work started in Afghanistan was not yet complete, work that had the support of a broad array of nations (including Muslim nations). At the time, we knew that Saddam Hussein's regime was effective confined within the borders of the "no fly" zone, and that northern Iraq was basically autonomous under Kurdish control. At the time, we knew that we had inspectors on the ground in Iraq (who left only when George Bush told them to get out, on the eve of war). At the time, we knew that responsible voices (religious as well as secular) were counseling against resorting to an invasion. At the time, we knew that an invasion would mean devastation - at least, we should have.

And what did our leaders know? A lot more, or at least they should have. They should have known that the justification for war was based on picking and choosing from intelligence - to build a case for war, not to decide whether to go ahead with one. They should have known that had little, if any, actual evidence to support a connection between Hussein and Osama bin Laden. And, at the very least, they should have known how difficult the occupation would have been (their top general had told them that the planning was inadequate, before they relieved him of duty).

One did not need a crystal ball, to see today's morass of continued violence without any discovery of WMDs, to have opposed the invasion.

Sometimes it Might Seem Like it Was Planned

So this morning, everyone was surprised by the early handover of sovereignty by the Coalition Provisional Authority, to the new interim Iraqi government. As reported in the news:"Iraqi political leaders said the transfer of sovereignty occurred days earlier than had been planned in an effort to thwart possible efforts by insurgents who may have been planning attacks." Who plans these bold moves? Is it the State Department, or the Pentagon?

How about a questioner during "Ask the Whitehouse"? From an online session last Friday, when Paul Wolfowitz was taking questions:

jon, from huntington beach, ca writes:
I realize that Iraq is in control of a great deal of the government but why dont you catch the insurgents off-guard and turn full control over to Iraq now. What difference does a few days make? I have the feeling that they are planning some big attack on the 30th. Remove the significance of June 30th.

Let the Iraq deel with the insurgents starting right now.

Paul Wolfowitz
That’s an interesting idea. The terrorists work by surprising us and we need to think about what we can do to throw them off balance. But their real target is not so much a date as it is the new government. Saddam’s killers and Zarqawi’s terrorists are already ramping up their attacks.

[Edited 7/1/04 to add] And Mr. Harris sitting in at This Modern World also noticed this, and paints a word picture of what could have happened after that exchange.

We Chose the Words, and Yeah, We Drew the Lines

I wasn't going to join the folks who piled on to Veep Dick Cheney, who apparently wielded a rarely-used transitive verb in the U.S. Senate when he told Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy to go "intercourse" himself. I wasn't going to mention how many supporters of the Administration had been shocked, shocked to learn that John Kerry had said that the Administration had "F***ed" up in Iraq.

But, not content to let the story die, it is now being reported:

Vice President Dick Cheney says he has no regrets about cursing Sen. Patrick "Leaky" Leahy with what the FCC deems a naughty and costly expletive if uttered on radio or TV.

"I felt better after I said it," Cheney told Fox News Channel today. "A lot of my colleagues felt what I said badly needed to be said."

No word on whether there were high-fives and fist pumps after the Veep made his statement to Fox News, or whether Cheney followed it by tugging on his crotch and spitting.

Telling Leahy to go F himself "badly needed to be said"? What the Dick is that all about?

On a Last Chance Power Drive

Apparently, some dim bulb in the EPA Energy Star program got the bright idea that, in order to push efficient lighting, etc., it would be a great idea to make fun of alternate-fueled vehicles (you can see the video of the ad by clicking the links on the EnergyStar site). As described in news reports (as pointed out by Daily Kos):

In a 60-second version of the public service announcement, a woman named Suzanne says she is concerned about pollution and global warming, but laments the homegrown efforts of her husband, Mark, to cut emissions from the family car. Mark - nerdy, pudgy, harried - is shown rigging up their car, first with a sail, then a microwave contraption using huge satellite dishes, and finally a helium tank with a bulbous hose.

Now, speaking as a new Prius owner, I'll give the benefit of the doubt to those clowns at EPA - I don't think that they did this as part of some plot to protect the auto industry from improved efficiency standards. But, I think the fact that this ad was even made, does show that we have some, well, ignorant people setting environmental policies these days.

Where the Bands Are

Now this is an idea I can get behind (from www.draftbruce.com):

Dear Bruce:

We the undersigned need you.

Our country's leadership is in desperate need of change.

On September 1, the Republicans will hold their convention in New York City and will nominate George Bush for President. Many people will see this event as it will be broadcast on all the major television networks. However, an opportunity exists at that time to make it clear to Americans that they can choose an alternative to George Bush.

I have put Giants Stadium on hold on September 1 in the hope that you will lead the music industry in coming together and perform in a concert for change. Once it is known that you are involved, many other artists will want to perform with you. Together your collective voices and music will send a clear message to all Americans that our country needs their vote to create change. The event is called VoteAid: "Concert for Change" and we think that it has the potential to become the largest concert in history. We would like the money that this concert generates to go to support voter registration and participation throughout the country, but more importantly your decision to play at exactly the same time George Bush is being nominated will focus all Americans on the importance in this election for their future as well as the future of the world.

Okay, maybe it's a little hokey, and an imposition on Mr. Springsteen to make such a demand. On the other hand, if you visit Bruce Springsteen's offical website, and click on the "News" link, he currently has reprinted Al Gore's speech of May 26 (which closes, for example, with "So today, I want to speak on behalf of those Americans who feel that President Bush has betrayed our nation's trust, those who are horrified at what has been done in our name, and all those who want the rest of the world to know that we Americans see the abuses that occurred in the prisons of Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanamo and secret locations as yet undisclosed as completely out of keeping with the character and basic nature of the American people and at odds with the principles on which America stands"), describing it as "one of the most important speeches I've heard in a long time". So, if you wish, you can visit www.draftbruce.com and sign the petition.

No One Here Knows How it Started

Does anybody remember why we invaded Iraq? Not the myriad reasons touted on cable shout-fests and by bloggering pundits, but the actual, official, legal reason approved by the U.S. Congress? The October 16, 2002 Joint Resolution, the basis for the President proceeding to invade Iraq in March of 2003, required as a condition that the President provide Congress with his determination that -

- acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

With WMDs being scarce, that terrorist connection became even more important to the Administration. Most recently, that was laid out by the Press Secretary:

Q: Why hasn't the administration made more of the U.N. inspectors' report that says Saddam Hussein was dismantling his missile and WMD sites before and during the war? And doesn't that, combined with the now proven al Qaeda link between Iraq -- between Saddam Hussein and the terrorist organization -- unequivocally make the case for going to war in Iraq?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think in terms of Iraq and ties to terrorism, Secretary Powell outlined the former regime's support for and ties to terrorists when he went before the United Nations. Director Tenet has testified in open session before Congress about what we know about those ties. You heard the President talk about some of those ties earlier today in the Rose Garden when he was asked a question. So I think those ties are well known, and we have talked about them previously.

Certainly, when you look at someone like al Zarqawi, he was an individual who was in Iraq prior to the decision to go to war, and he is someone who remains in Iraq. And he is a senior al Qaeda associate.

Q: Is that why you went to war?

MR. McCLELLAN: And -- Helen, I think we spelled out our reasons why we went to war.

Q: I think you did.

MR. McCLELLAN: And certainly ties between the regime --

Q: There were weapons of mass destruction.

MR. McCLELLAN: -- ties between the regime and terrorism was a very serious concern.

Today, what has been confirmed by the 9-11 Commission? (Link is a .pdf)

Bin Ladin also explored possible cooperation with Iraq during his time in Sudan, despite his opposition to Hussein's secular regime. Bin Ladin had in fact at one time sponsored anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan. The Sudenese, to protect their own ties with Iraq, reportedly persuaded Bin Ladin to cease this support and arranged for contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda. A senior Iraqi intelligence officer reportedly made three visits to Sudan, finally meeting Bin Ladin in 1994. Bin Ladin is said to have requested space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but Iraq apparently never responded. There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda also occurred after Bin Ladin had returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship. Two senior Bin Ladin associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq. We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States.

(Emphasis added) No connection whatsoever. When did the U.S. first realize this? Did we ever have any "credible evidence" that they were connected? Did the President ever provide any support for his determination that they were connected, which he was required to do?

A Restless Heart

Well, you've probably heard by now - Rush Limbaugh and his wife are ending their marriage (the third for both, apparently). Look, it happens to a lot of people. It's nothing to carry on about.

Nevertheless, it got me to thinking. I'm tired of hearing that the way to save "traditional marriage" is to ban any legal recognition of same-sex unions. I'm in a "traditional marriage", and I have never been able to figure out why it mattered at all to me if the couple next door were both guys. Sometimes I think that the whole "gay marriage" debate would be over, if every American realized that they do, in fact, know someone who is gay. It may be easier for some people to be against something desired by strangers, than someone you actually know.

Anyway, while a lot of Americans don't know a gay person, or realize that they know one, there are a whole lot who do know who Rush Limbaugh is. They invite him into their homes, cars and offices every weekday. They may listen to him with their children, and make approving comments about his opinions.

So, I have to ask the obvious question: What is a greater danger to traditional marriage - seeing two people entering and staying in a life-long relationship, or seeing someone you know and respect ending another in a series of marriages?

Some Folks are Born Made to Wave the Flag

A little good news/bad news on the Pledge of Allegiance front. Today, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the decision of the Ninth Circuit declaring that reciting "under God" as part of the pledge violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The Court's decision was based on standing, however. That is, they decided that the plaintiff, Michael Newdow, did not actually have a legal right to represent the interests of his daughter (who lives with her mother, who has sole legal custody). That leaves the substantive issue to another day.

But the good news, as pointed out by No More Mister Nice Blog, is that this removes the pledge as an "election-year wedge issue". The bad news, as noticed by Mr. Balkin at Balkinization, is the intimation in the concurring opinion of Justice Clarence Thomas that the Establishment Clause should not apply to the states.

I'd be more worried about the implications of the Thomas view of the law, than about whether the pledge includes "under God".

Don't Get Caught on the Wrong Side of That Line

As reported this week by the Rome correspondent John Allen of the National Catholic Reporter:

A Vatican official told NCR June 9 that in his meeting with Cardinal Angelo Sodano and other Vatican officials, Bush said, “Not all the American bishops are with me” on the cultural issues. The implication was that he hoped the Vatican would nudge them toward more explicit activism.

Other sources in the meeting said that while they could not recall the president’s exact words, he did pledge aggressive efforts on the cultural front, especially the battle against gay marriage, and asked for the Vatican’s help in encouraging the U.S. bishops to be more outspoken.

According to sources, Sodano did not respond to the request.

"Not all the American bishops are with me", says the President. What would give him that idea?

We join with Pope John Paul in the conviction that war is not "inevitable" and that "war is always a defeat for humanity." This is not a matter of ends, but means. Our bishops' conference continues to question the moral legitimacy of any preemptive, unilateral use of military force to overthrow the government of Iraq. To permit preemptive or preventive uses of military force to overthrow threatening or hostile regimes would create deeply troubling moral and legal precedents. Based on the facts that are known, it is difficult to justify resort to war against Iraq, lacking clear and adequate evidence of an imminent attack of a grave nature or Iraq's involvement in the terrorist attacks of September 11. With the Holy See and many religious leaders throughout the world, we believe that resort to war would not meet the strict conditions in Catholic teaching for the use of military force.

That was a statement from America's Catholic bishops on the eve of war last year. More recently, they've commented on the "Torture, what torture?" situation.

The gravity of the threats we face tempts us to tolerate an ends-justify-the-means morality. The inherent justice of our cause and the perceived necessities involved in stopping terrorism can lead to a minimalist morality that accepts a "permissive" interpretation of international law, the "inevitability" of mounting civilian casualties in Iraq, and the "realism" of an over-reliance on military responses to the problem of global terrorism.

The moral challenge at this moment is to address the horrendous cases of abuse in a way that proves to the world – and, most importantly, to ourselves – that our nation has not succumbed to these risks. The universal condemnation of what has taken place at Abu Ghraib is a hopeful sign that, despite the unspeakable evils done to us and the terrible threats we face, our nation is committed to acting in full accord with fundamental moral norms and America's cherished ideals of liberty and justice for all. In doing so, we will uphold international law, strengthen the moral fiber of our nation, and best honor the memory of the victims of September 11th and the soldiers and civilians who have died in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Now, I know that the President was talking about other issues, such as same-sex marriage, when he seemed to ask that the American bishops get more "with" him. On balance, given the Catholic view on issues of war and peace, help for the poor, worker rights and the environment (to name a few), Bush may prefer for the bishops to keep quiet. Basically, the President seems to be all for having religious support to tell other people what to do, but can't be bothered with advice about how he should act. That just makes it more outrageous for him to be trying to claim that the "religious" vote should belong to him.

Or, as the good folks at Get Your War On have put it,

Remember when a reporter asked George W. Bush who his favorite political philosopher was, and he answered "Jesus Christ"? Do you think Jesus would have rolled over in his grave, if he hadn't risen from it?

You Better Look Hard and Look Twice

With all the torture authorization revelations now tumbling out, I think it's time to revisit other episodes in our "War on Terror". Specifically, a matter I've commented on here before, the case of Captain James Yee, the Muslim chaplain at Guantanamo who was detained on, and then "cleared" of, espionage charges. Back in March, I had reviewed the details of the case and his release. At the end of that post, I noted the official statement on behalf of the then-commander at Guantanamo:

U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Geoffrey D. Miller, Commander of Joint Task Force Guantanamo, dismissed all charges related to the alleged mishandling of classified information pending against Army Chaplain James J. Yee, ending an investigation that began with his apprehension at the airport in Jacksonville Naval Air Station, Fla., in September 2003. Citing national security concerns that would arise from the release of the evidence, Miller decided to drop these charges. Miller made his decision after consultation with government lawyers and intelligence officials. Although Miller considered Yee's offer to undergo a debriefing in exchange for the government dropping the charges, granting him immunity and supporting his resignation, relevant law enforcement agencies could not support Yee's request for immunity.

(Emphasis added). Back in March, I had asked, "What 'relevant law enforcement agencies' wanted the Army just to drop this, and are they the same ones who told [the customs officer] to detain Captain Yee in the first place? And finally, will anybody in the news media bother to pursue any of these questions?" Now, however, a more pointed question must be asked: What did Chaplain Yee know about the treatment of the Guantanamo detainees, and were they trying to keep him quiet?

I am not normally prone to speculation like this. However, there are enough circumstances present to warrant including Chaplain Yee in the investigation. As noted in May:

The decision to jail Yee was made by Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller, then commander of Guantanamo's detention camp. He oversaw the espionage investigations of all four men. He has since been transferred to Iraq, where he is now engulfed in the controversy involving prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib.

When the Army dropped six criminal counts against Yee in March, military officials said they did so to avoid making sensitive information public — not because he was innocent.

If you remember, as previously reported, this is not the first time General Miller was sent to Iraq:

"The idea was to get a handle on what worked in Cuba and to apply it to Iraq," says one of the officials. "The trend [in Iraq] was negative, and they wanted that reversed, and they wanted Saddam's head on a platter."

Cambone tasked his deputy, Lt. Gen. William Boykin, with traveling to Guantanamo Bay and assessing whether tactics employed there that had successfully produced “actionable intelligence” might be transferred to Iraq.

Within a few weeks, Boykin had dispatched Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller, the officer who had implemented Gonzales’ "new paradigm" interrogation rules at Guantanamo Bay, off to Baghdad to figure out how to crack captive insurgents.

“There was a realization that the U.S. needed to be much more methodical about getting at the insurgent networks in Iraq,” says William Arkin, an NBC News military analyst and intelligence specialist. “There was a well-known understanding that these thousands of Iraqis who were being detained needed to be exploited, and Boykin definitely dispatched [Maj. Gen. Geoffrey] Miller to figure that out.

And as also reported, General Miller's visit to Iraq in August of 2003 resulted in some changes there:

So Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the Coalition commander in Iraq, and his top intel officer, Maj. Gen. Barbara Fast, asked for a fixer. They got one in Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller, the commandant at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where the U.S. military had held more than 600 detainees for more than two years without charges. A Texan with a jutting jaw and thinning hair, Miller was nothing if not self-assured, much like his ultimate superior, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. According to a subsequent inquiry by Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba, Miller's task was "to review current Iraqi Theater ability to rapidly exploit internees for actionable intelligence." Translated into English, that meant to beef up interrogation techniques so as to break prisoners more quickly. Or as Karpinski puts it, Miller's plan was to "Gitmo-ize" the place, to teach the soldiers manning Abu Ghraib his best psychological and physical techniques for squeezing information out of detainees. That included using Karpinski's MPs to "enhance the intelligence effort." At a meeting of top military-intelligence and MP commanders last September, Miller bluntly told Karpinski: "You're going to see. We have control, and [the prisoners] know it."

(Emphasis added) We now know more about the techniques which were authorized at Guantanamo, under the "Torture, what torture?" approach:

United States Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld personally approved four special interrogation techniques used on two al-Qaeda operatives held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, who then talked about the terrorist network and its plans, the commander of US forces in Latin America said today.

Army General James Hill, who heads the US Southern Command, declined to describe the techniques. He said other detainees might "figure out a way to resist those techniques" if they were disclosed.

But Hill specifically denied that police dogs have been used to intimidate detainees during interrogations at Guantanamo, contrary to a sworn statement by an Army intelligence officer under investigation in the Abu Ghraib prison scandal in Iraq.

In the statement, as reported May 26 by The Washington Post, Col. Thomas Pappas, commander at Abu Ghraib when abuses of detainees occurred, said the use of dogs was urged by Major General Geoffrey Miller in a 2003 visit to Iraq.

We are also learning now that other new "techniques" were approved, for use at Guantanamo - which General Miller could also have brought over to Iraq on his 2003 visit:

According to people who have seen the interrogation matrix, according to the official statements of the Pentagon spokesman, the 24 or so techniques that Secretary Rumsfeld approved fall far short of anything that they would consider to be torture. Now of course we have to take their word for it because they haven't revealed what those techniques are. But according to the Pentagon spokesman, 17 of those techniques are ones that already are used in the army. They're part of the army's field manual on interrogation that's been in place for years. Seven of them are not... four of them require Rumsfeld's personal authorization before they can be used.

There are more details of the Rumsfeld approval issue, in a PBS NewsHour interview at this link (along with some enlightening transcripts of Attorney General Ashcroft's grilling in the Senate yesterday).

So, where are we? It seems that General Miller was authorized, directly by the Secretary of Defense, to use additional "techniques" on the Guantanamo prisoners. He is then dispatched to Iraq in August of 2003; we have seen what they did at Abu Ghraib, after General Miller's "visitation". That would warrant a further investigation at Guantanamo. As for Chaplain Yee, when he was arrested in September of 2003 it was reported that "the 'highest levels' of government made the decision to arrest Capt. Yee, who had counseled suspected al-Qaeda terrorists at Guantanamo for a lengthy period." He was detained for carrying out "classified material", but his case was dismissed when the government could not state what that classified material was.

Maybe Chaplain Yee was carrying sensitive information out of Guantanamo - in his head, based on what he saw, and was told by the detainees. Maybe Chaplain Yee has been silenced (for now) as a result of the Army's prosecution (including allegations of adultery and having pornography). Maybe other people know what was going on, and have seen what they did to Chaplain Yee. Maybe someone with some authority should look into this.

[Update on 6/16] I just noticed a news report from June 11:

Four Democratic members of Congress are calling on the Pentagon to investigate the Army’s treatment of a Muslim chaplain who was suspected of espionage and imprisoned for 76 days before all charges were dropped.
The Army’s decision to drop all charges against Capt. James Yee “raises important questions about the strength and legitimacy of initial assertions by Army officials that Capt. Yee had engaged in espionage and treasonous conduct at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba,” Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., and three other House members said in a letter to the Pentagon’s inspector general.

I wish them good luck.

Killing Just to Kill

From TalkLeft comes word that the Iraqi interim government will restore the death penalty in that country. The linked article contains additional details, not mentioned in the excerpt quoted by TalkLeft. For example, the Justice Minister who stated that the death penalty was being revived, is very clear about who the likely candidate is:

"Under Saddam Hussein, there were some 120 crimes punishable by death, but we are going to narrow it down to those who, for instance, were responsible for mass graves or plundering the country's oil wealth," the minister said.
. . .

The justice minister, less than a week after his appointment, was adamant that Saddam deserved no less than the firing squad.

"Some people ask me if Saddam Hussein can escape a death sentence. For me, his case is very simple. He was the head of the armed forces and he deserted.

Now, I would guess that any lower-down officers who deserted, or otherwise left the way clear for American forces to enter Baghdad, won't be subject to the same penalty. In any event, I don't know if this is just some way for the new government to show that it is "independent", or if this has some other implication (such as a potential return to the "good old days").

The US adviser to the Iraqi justice ministry forwarded a request from the coalition for the death penalty to be abolished, but Mr Hassan said he rejected it.

"I told him the social situation and the cultural level were not the same in Iraq and his country," he stressed.

"A sentence should contain a deterrent element. The harshness of a sentence and its deterrent element should be decided on the basis of local social values."

Look, this isn't about shedding tears for Saddam Hussein. The "new Iraq" is supposed to be moving forward, becoming a modern democracy. The trend in the modern world is to move away from capital punishment. The region's most democratic country, Israel, abolished the death penalty, as did the most progressive Muslim country, Turkey. A return to capital punishment in Iraq would be consistent with the approach of "traditional" Muslim countries. In an informative article published in 2000, Professor William Schabas noted: "Although essentially all Moslem or Islamic countries retain the death penalty in their domestic law, practice varies considerably from one to another. Some, like Iran and Iraq, are enthusiastic practitioners, while others, such as Tunisia, conduct executions in only the rarest of cases. The religious argument is invoked frequently, yet the diversity of practice would suggest there is little consensus even among Moslems as to the scope of capital punishment." If we're trying to get Iraq to transform, then this is not a helpful step.

We can't know how hard the Coalition Provisional Authority pushed (if at all) to prevent the return of the death penalty. Unfortunately, the desire for revenge may have resulted in this situation. My own personal opinion is that, in a country where there has been, and may continue to be, so much death, the government should set an example and reject violence and death.

Of course, that's advice that others could take, as well.

When Saddam was captured last December, the United Nations and the European Union voiced their opposition to the idea of restoring the death penalty, but Mr Hassan remained unimpressed.

"There are still many countries like the United States that resort to the death penalty. Why shouldn't Iraq have the right to do it?" he asked.

My Electric Surges Free

I took delivery of my 2004 Prius this past weekend. I realize that I'm now part of a cult, complete with online gurus.

As I mentioned to my neighbor, while I tell myself that it's eminently practical for the type of drivng I do, it's also "cool". I haven't put much of a dent in the gas supply yet, so I don't know what my actual mileage is - I'll report back. In the meantime, the coolest part has been being able to push the "Start" button, and drive away silently before the gas engine gets going.

Way cooler than those guys in the new Beetles or Cooper Minis, imho.