for the New York Press last week, about the media's masturbatory brouhaha over Hillary Clinton's illusory Cleavage on the Senate Floor a couple of weeks ago, a few things I didn't have the space to get to have continued to dance around in my head, and this seems to me like as good a place as any to try to make some progress towards working them out.
The thing is that while, of course, I found it absurd, unfair, and all of that, that anyone would even pretend to find Clinton's minor wardrobe malfunction to be anything remotely resembling newsworthy, it did do something kind of amazing as far as I was concerned. It reminded me that she really was a woman. And a woman with an excellent shot at the White House, no less.
Ever since 9/11 Bush has been telling us that Islamist terrorists attacked us because they hate our freedom. Ever since 9/11 we've been watching that freedom erode, and complaining about our fearless leader's failure to do anything to actually make us safer. All this time we've been worrying about silly things like cargo containers and unscreened luggage, oblivious to the efforts being made on behalf of our security. By killing off our freedom, Bush is saving our lives! He's ensuring that those freedom hating terrorists will turn their attention elsewhere! If oppression equals homeland security, then just think what a fabulous job he's doing!
Given today's Raw Story revelation that Karl Rove has been surprisingly helpful in Patrick Fitzgerald's ongoing investigation, can there be any doubt that he's made a deal? He has no loyalty to anyone but himself, and perhaps to Bush. He and Bush are both known to be concerned with the Bush legacy, wich isn't looking so good at this point. However delighted Rove might be to hear Cheney say he needed to spend more time in his bunker with his family, the scandal of his disgrace would only drag the Bush legacy down ever lower. This isn't about White House power plays, it's about Rove's scrambling to save himself. Do we really think there's anyone Karl Rove wouldn't sell out to ensure his own safety? Really?
Let's go back to that happy day last October when Scooter was indicted. Until that very morning, as I recall, general consensus was that Scooter & Karl would both be indicted. Then, at some point, the rumour mill changed its mind, and told us Scooter would be on his own. All of which was really most peculiar. Next, we learned how
In the 11/28 issue of Newsweek, Michael Isikoff & Eve Tompson repeat the inexplicable GOP claim that Bob Woodward's testimony this week in the Plame leak case somehow weakens Fitzgerald's case against Scooter. Maybe someday they'll rejoin the rest of us in reality.
The article begins with the interesting idea that then Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage might have been both Bob Novak's & Woodward's source. They then make the absurd, inexplicable, & undocumented, claim that Armitage has no particular ties to Cheney, & was if anything opposed to the Iraq invasion. Could these people be any more shameless in their lying?
The civil rights upon which our democracy is based all serve to protect the individual from the arbitrary workings of state power. Protection from unusual search and seizure, and cruel & unusual punishment, and the rights to trial by a jusry of one's peers, to confront one's accusers in a court of law, and the separation of church and state, all work to assert and define the limits of state power & the rights of the individual. They acknowlege powe's self-serving and self-enhancing tendencies, and imply the right to privacy, the right to maintain certain aspects of the individual's external physical body, and internal self, beyond the reach of power.
If the Bush administration has any genuine interest in overturning Roe v. Wade, it is nothing to do with abortion, & everything to do with dissolving the barrier it erects between the state and the bodies, hearts, and minds of its citizens.
According to Raw Story, Chalabi's going to have a full social calendar on his upcoming visit, featuring, among White House officials, the Prince of Darkness himself, Dick Cheney. Does it make any sense at all that Cheney would send his minions after Joe & Valerie Wilson, over a simple difference of opinion, yet still welcome Chalabi with open arms? Chalabi made all sorts of false statements about Iraqi WMD's, and is alleged to have, in fact, been an Iranian double agent. If I were the Vice President, I would have a big problem with that. I would probably not be speaking to Chalabi, if I were the Vice President.
Then again, I am not an evil sociopath, which probably makes a difference.
Somewhere along the line, liberals got saddled with the reputation of being tedious, overearnest, prissy, ivory tower intellectual types. I have friends who are socially liberal & fiscally conservative, yet voted (twice!) for Bush. When I ask for an explanation, it's all vagueness about just not liking Kerry. They found him annoying, in a prissy intellectual kind of way. Easy enough to do, when they've bought into this idea that that's what liberals are. I tend to dismiss this notion, knowing perfectly well that liberals are as diverse & interesting & funny a group as any. Some comments to a recent diary, though, have got me wondering.
We've all heard the speculation about which members of the Bush administration might be gay, most of us have indulged in a little of it ourselves. The list of, "Senior White House Officials," whose proclivities we've wondered about is pretty impressive, really:
Karl Rove
Scott McClellan
Scooter Libby
The Cheneys
Condoleeza Rice
Harriet Miers
(I feel like I'm leaving someone out.)
Now, I'm not suggesting any of them actually are gay, just that... It's quite a list. I don't remember any equivalent rumor mongering during the Clinton years. Something about George Stephanopoulos, now & then, but that's pretty much it. Odd, isn't it?
Now that Harry Reid's restored a little of my faith in our Congressional leadership, I'm thinking about the Democratic Party's marketing problem. For 5 years now, at least, we have not been able to connect with the electorate, yet the Republicans have. They're a band of elitist sociopaths, so what can they possibly have that we principled progressives don't? They've had fantastic marketing, & they've developed a strong brand identity. So, I think there's actually something we could learn from them. How could we use their tactics to advance our progressive principles, instead of perpetuating their evil?
Is it entirely too late to organize primary challenges against some of our Democratic incumbents? I've been googling away, looking for any one of them clearly & directly saying Alito is an unacceptable extremist. Every comment I could find, however, seems to end with a "witholding judgement until hearings," clause. What the hell are these people so afraid of?
Fear based leadersip cannot provide effective opposition. Yesterday's "Racial slur," crap is a case in point.
They say dry drunks are ticking time bombs of self-destruction. They've white knuckled it through the DT's, but haven't acquired the skills needed to build and maintain stable successful lives. They may put on a good show for a while, but stability & success make them anxious. Eventually they'll find a way to self-destruct themselves back into the chaos & failure with with they're so much more comfortable. Alito's nomination tells us Bush's time bomb has detonated.
He's broken the official GOP rules of engagement with the religious right.
Is it maybe, just barely, possible that everything's going to be ok, now that Bad Ass Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald is on the case? After 5 years of watching our civil rights, & our democracy disappearing like a magician's rabbit, & wondering which foreign would be the first to accept U.S. citizens seeking asylum from the Bush regime's fascism (I was guessing France or Germany, but hoping for New Zealand), I'm starting to think we might just get our country back.
It was the press conference Friday afternoon that got my optimistic juices flowing.
Today's round of wild speculation begins with an old, familiar piece of speculation. We know that Iran Contra alum & PNAC supporter had a series of backchannel meetings in Rome & Paris with such colorful characters as AIPAC officials, Italian intelligence agents, and an Iranian arms dealer so shady CIA agents aren't allowed to talk to him (and that's pretty freaking shady), back in, I believe, 2001-2002-ish. And so, this line of speculation goes, working with fellow Iran Contra alum & PNAC conspirator Dick Cheney's full knowlege & encouragement, he contrived the creation of those notorious forged documents, which supported the notion that Iraq had been trying to buy yellowcake from Niger.
Despite being a Cheney/Rumsfeld/ PNAC type, Ledeen's currently on Rove's staff.
Like everyone else, I'm longing to know what's going to happen next with Fitzgerald's investigation. It seems pretty clear that it isn't over, but who will be the next winner in the Indictment Sweepstakes?
I'm not sure about that one, but I do have a theory/dream as far as what he's up to now (at this point, I should probably disclose that, once upon a time, I watched way too much Law & Order, & lately I've been having an extra hard time keeping my inner conspiracy theorist in check). I think he's on the Niger forgery case, playing a little prosecutorial cat & mouse to flush out another flipper or two, who will, in turn, lead him into the dark heart of the WMD sales team/conspiracy (and is there anybody out there who doesn't think that means Cheney, at this point?).
Trying to keep my reasoning (or wild speculation, whatever) as concise as possible, so...
