I protest.

Censorship?

Remember that Army Times article, "Nothing but lip service?" Well, you can find a copy of that article here and here, but according to Jason at Blah3, it has been scrubbed from the Army Times site. He's right, if you go to the link you find an empty page.

I guess that criticizing the President and Congress in public is no longer allowed, eh? At least, not by those who are being wounded or dying in their wonderful little adventure in "nation building."

Another bit of vileness.

In his article "Bush's fundraising 'effortless'," Kos points out this Guardian story about Bush "raising" some $20 million in two weeks.

Compare Bush to Howard Dean, who raised $7.5 million in three months. Dean's contributions came not from $2,000-per-plate "fundraisers," but from people like me (who until this point had never contributed to a political candidate) contributing an average of roughly $75. Bush collects huge amounts from a handful of his ultrarich cronies, while Dean depends on ordinary folks to contribute what they can. Worse, Bush himself "spends no time on it," according to a Gephardt aide quoted in the article. "He gets on a plane, shows up for 15 minutes, and leaves. And each of these [Democratic] candidates spends volumes of time on the phone asking for money."

I suppose that this isn't so surprising. Certainly Bush has given the wealthy everything they have ever wanted from the federal government, and more besides. He has made it so that the wealthy continue to accumulate larger and larger piles of cash while the poor and middle class get screwed. I don't think that Bush and the rest of the Republicans are even making a pretense that they represent the "common man" any longer. They represent the wealthy and the privileged, not the people of this country who have to work for a living.

While I don't think that any of the Democratic hopefuls is by any stretch of the imagination a saint, I know for certain that I have more in common with Dean, or Gephardt, or even Kerry with his Heinz-fortune-inheriting wife, than I do with anyone on the Bush side of things. All I have to do to realize this is to look at their campaigns. Leiberman will have raised maybe $4 million this quarter? Dean is in the lead with $7.5 million? Both a small fraction of the millions with which Bush will be gifted by Election Day.

Bush represents the worst kind of privileged elite; born with a silver spoon in his mouth, arrogant with the expectation that life owes him everything he asks for without the least bit of effort. He is the idiot son of an obscenely wealthy family and has never known a hint of want in his life. That he receives these millions while at the same time kids are dying in Iraq at his behest, while he is doing his best to dismantle programs upon which millions of Americans depend for their health and living, while he lies to those to whom he is ultimately responsible (that is, us), this is vile, contemptible and despicable.

Make no mistake: They will be condemned, both Bush and those who support him. If not soon, by the American public, then later, by our posterity. Let us all see that we are not deservedly condemned as well.

Wiped out.

I was up in San Jose today trying to do my small part to improve the unemployment numbers, interviewing with a tiny firm called StorAd. I flew up from LAX this morning, flew back in the afternoon after the interviews. I am, officially, toast. I did well in the interview, though, even correctly solving a normally simple C problem long after my brain had become thoroughly fried.

So I got home and what do I find? The Prick in Chief has put American soldiers at even further risk. (Link thanks to editor at Blah3: Weblog Entry - 07/02/2003: 'Let's you and him fight.') These are awfully brave words for someone who has never risked his life in the military, who deserted his National Guard post during wartime, who now is wasting the lives of young Americans with his empty boasting.

"Bring it on?" So how many dead American soldiers do we have to have before we no longer "got plenty tough force there?"

I'm not even going to start with his grasp of the English language. He was pretty obviously off-script and will be hearing about that from Rove.

We're still averaging one dead American kid a day. Or more.

They "brought it on."

After President Idiot put his foot in it up to his chin yesterday, Reuters tell us that the "militarily insignificant" attacks continue: U.S. Soldier Killed, 20 Said Wounded in Iraq.

One U.S. soldier was killed and 19 were wounded in two attacks in central Iraq on Thursday night, while another was hurt in an explosion on Friday, the U.S. military and witnesses said.

A U.S. military spokesman said that in Thursday's attacks, a sniper shot dead one American soldier in Baghdad and 19 were wounded in an attack near the town of Balad, north of the capital.

Witnesses said at least one U.S. soldier was wounded on Friday when an explosion targeted a Humvee vehicle on the outskirts of Baghdad.

They said the 8.30 a.m. (0430 GMT) blast damaged the Humvee and an Iraqi civilian car. The soldier appeared to be lightly wounded, they said.

At least one dead American soldier a day. Every day.

Bush: "We have the force necessary to deal with the situation."

The attacks have continued despite a crackdown by U.S. troops in areas to the northeast and north of the capital, once a hotbed for Saddam loyalists.

Just what force would that be, Mr. Bush?

The situation in Iraq, caused by a lying, overreaching, incompetent Administration, has been bungled to the point that I am convinced it can no longer be salvaged. Even if someone competent were to take charge, there's not much he could do at this point. It's too late.

Time to bring our kids home. They don't want to be there and the Iraqis don't want them there. As long as they stay, at least one will come home every day, regardless.

In a body bag.

Misleading headlines department.

From CNN online this morning: Bush to celebrate July 4th with troops.

Sounds good, doesn't it? Sounds like he's going to actually go join the men and women on the ground in Iraq to help them celebrate the Fourth and maybe actually improve morale.

Or not:

The president's visit to Dayton, Ohio, on Friday was to be his 10th trip this year to a key battleground state that will be crucial in the 2004 elections.

Bush's stop at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, just northeast of Dayton, offers him another opportunity to praise troops serving around the world and fighting terrorism.

He's going to "celebrate" with troops in Dayton, Ohio as a photo-op as a part of his campaign for reelection.

Meanwhile, the war in Iraq goes on. The troops he should be visiting keep being wounded and dying. Unsurprisingly, there's no mention at all of that story on the CNN main page. I had to go to Reuters for it.

Happy Fourth.

Billmon says it a lot better than I can, in "The Price of Patriotism."

About the young men and women in Iraq:

I don't support what they are doing there; I can't pray for their victory -- and anyway, under the circumstances, what kind of "victory" can there be? But to forget them would be to forget the sacrifice my father made -- and the sacrifices that so many have made over the years. So this 4th of July I'm thinking about our soldiers in Iraq, and wishing them home, safe and sound and soon.

Go read it.

Horror story.

This weekend, people in the United States celebrate a national holiday, "Independence Day." They have parties, grill steaks, hamburgers, hot dogs, they watch fireworks, spend days at the beach or with their families. Yesterday, I attended a party given by a close friend, where we had all kinds of good food and relaxed conversation. While we did this, though, we had forgotten something.

There are a lot of people in Iraq who now have no family with which to spend a holiday. Their parents, cousins, brothers, sisters, children, are dead. Dead in a war that the United States unilaterally imposed on them, without necessity or even good reason, on the basis of lies.

The Sunday Guardian tells a handful of stories of some of those people, in "Iraq: the human toll."

Children in Fallujah dying at the hands of an A-10 pilot. A clearly-marked hospital and ambulances bombed in Nasiriyah. All the children of an escaping family killed with the chain-gun of an American tank, except for the last child, who died of her wounds and exposure outside the field hospital that night, after she and her parents were put out without even a blanket.

American media seized on Nasiriyah as the setting of their "heroic" story of the hour, the so-called "rescue" of Jessica Lynch.

And most famous of all will be the first floor of Nasiriyah General Hospital, where Private Lynch was being treated when snatched in what the story emblazoned across cinema screens will narrate as a raid of daring heroism (although doctors and ancillary staff recall the episode differently: as the Americans blasted and kicked their way in, they were welcomed and shown to Private Lynch's ward, with no resistance offered). Every major American television network has since dutifully traipsed through this corridor, anxious to relive the fantasy version of the drama.

None of them, however, bothered to visit ward 114, a few doors down from Jessica's. In there, separated by a curtain, lie Daham Kassim, aged 46, and his 37-year-old wife Gufran Ibed Kassim. Daham has his arms bound, and a stump where his right leg used to be. Gufran cannot move her arms, wounded by gunshots, and probably never will. But the pain is not in their bodies, it is in their faces.

They lost all their children, most to that chain-gun and the last to exposure and her wounds.

It is small wonder that Bush has insisted that no American be subject to the international war crimes court. While the Iraqis may have done some terrible things, much of what we did was at least as bad, if not worse, if only for the fact that one should expect better from us. In the push into Baghdad:

'It was very confusing,' recalls Ali Mahadi, a welder. 'I was having breakfast in the front of my house, and when I heard the first shooting I presumed it was the Iraqis, because we'd been told there were no Americans near Baghdad.

I went upstairs to see what was happening, and saw the first armoured car coming over the bridge there. Bilal Abdul Muhed was driving his taxi, and another man. They got out, put their hands up, and were shot to pieces. A lot of people rushed out to try and help Bilal — fools, they were killed, too, by the shooting, right and left, as the Americans came through.'

Emphasis mine. Noncombatants. With their hands raised. This is called "murder."

The piece concludes,

America and Britain have proclaimed their war in Iraq over and won, but wars, unlike football matches, do not end when the whistle blows. Iraq remains a land without peace; a war of attrition continues between the occupier and a fragmented resistance. And each night, when the sun sinks into Baghdad's skyline, the burning and shooting begins again - be it among the populace or between that populace and the Americans. The chatter of guns and arcs of tracer fire pierce the eventide; billowing smoke rises into the dusk. The city may live under the martial order of military occupation, but it is also afflicted by a lawlessness which that very order has unleashed. And it is not only in fighting that civilians die. The anarchic absence of peace, that the Iraqi war has wrought, also kills.

On and on it goes. Now it is not only Iraqi civilians dying, it is American soldiers as well, placed where they have no business being and where they have no desire to be, in an impossible and completely untenable position. As they become even more miserable and terrified, they add to the anarchy and terror around them.

And in the end, innocents pay for American arrogance with their lives.

A job posting.

I just received this in email, on a mailing list for alumni of the former Locus Computing Corporation. It was sent from a Washington Post employee via his brother, who is a member of that list.

Posted here for your amusement:

Web Infrastructure Specialist

As Web applications grow at The Post, so does our need to provide solid behind-the-scenes support for these applications. With that in mind, we're looking for someone to join the deployment group within Web Solutions as a Web Infrastructure Specialist. We're looking for someone with solid experience supporting Web, Web Application (WAS) and Proxy Servers; LDAP Directories; managing web security, performance and capacity; supporting web hosting and server clusters; understanding authentication, authorization and provisioning; and internet network design, protocols and management tools. If you know someone you think would be perfect for the position, or would like to know more about this opportunity so you can tell your friends, please contact Perry Payne x 4-6294 or Jeanne Koch x4-6217.

Submitted by Jeanne Koch

No mention whether they might be looking for some real journalists, though. Too bad.

(If you're legitimately interested in the job, by the way, here are instructions to use those extensions in the ad: There is a toll free number — 1-800-627-1150. When the recorded message answers, always wait for the sentence pertaining to you to finish or it's no go. First the recording says "Press <1> if you have a touch-tone phone. OK, now press 1. "If you know your party's five digit extensions, enter it now." OK, after the sentence is finished, enter one of the five digit extensions at the end of the notice.)

Another misguided plan.

From the BBC tonight comes an article about yet another plan with no home of success: "'Murder rewards' offer for Iraqis."

It seems that former New York police chief Bernard Kerik is unveiling a scheme to reward Iraqis who provide information about the murder of U.S. or British soldiers or Iraqi collaborators.

[He] told the BBC that the minimum reward would be $2,500. "The attacks on the coalition forces, the attacks on the Iraqi police are nothing more than attacks on the Iraqis themselves... It's time for the Iraqis to stand up and go after these people," Mr Kerik said.

The problem is, unfortunately, that the Iraqis are those people. Imagine occupied France during World War II; that is how the average Iraqi feels right now. At this point, any collaborator risks his life and anyone receiving these "rewards" may as well be receiving their own death warrant. It has become clear that Iraq has not been "liberated," it has been occupied, and, as far as Iraqis are concerned, by a hostile power. Our bungling of the occupation has destroyed any hope of willing cooperation.

This reward system is a bandaid on an amputated limb. There is no hope that it might work. It's too late.

And young American soldiers pay the price for our national incompetence, one by one, every day.

"We're here to help them!"

And then there are our troops: "Heat and violence hits US troops." The kids, and they are kids, almost all of them no older than 21, are confused and surprised that the hostility they are facing.

Even though they are an army of occupation, many soldiers I have spoken to are surprised at the upsurge in violence against them. They were told that the people of this country would greet them as liberators. "We're here to help them!" said a soldier on duty at a checkpoint near my hotel. Her commanding officer does not allow interviews with the media - but she did agree to speak to me anonymously. She's only 21-years old, a newlywed from Oklahoma, but Iraq is proving no honeymoon. "Of course I'm scared," she says "I wake every morning and wonder if I'm gonna still be alive by nightfall."

Despite having been lied to, they are just trying to do what they are told, like any good soldier.

An echo of Viet Nam is in the way the war is being fought now, with guerillas being supported by the civilians the soldiers are theoretically supposed to "protect."

Another anonymous soldier spoke to me through the window of his humvee armoured vehicle. … "I don't want say anything bad about these people, but the way they're attacking us is just so...sneaky," he says. "Shooting at us from rooftops as we drive by ... and I wish they'd just like, stand up and fight us." Street children are playing around us. … "It's like with these kids. Some of the Fedayeen get them to distract us, then they attack us. I mean, using kids!"

Then there are the physical conditions. Our soldiers, at least the rank and file, work and sleep in the intense desert heat of Iraq. Today it will be 115 degrees. Tonight it will cool to 83.

It was midnight, two hours past curfew, but the heat was almost as impressive, and oppressive, as it had been in the daytime. The soldier stepped out of the humvee, his face sweating. The US troops who work on the streets and the checkpoints wear their body armour at all times. He revealed a little of the conditions the army were working under. "It's terrible. We're sleeping in this heat without any air-conditioning. I just wake up in a puddle of sweat every morning... and they're not giving us enough water, just a bottle a day!"

They expected gratitude from the Iraqi people and they expected to be home in a few weeks. Instead they find a people who resent having foreigners occupying their country and running their government, badly. They find themselves performing duties for which they are not trained and to which they are not suited, forced to stay in a place they dislike for month upon month. They find themselves targets in a slowly disintegrating occupation of an increasingly hostile country.

And still their leaders lie to them.

Shame!

Adam Morris, in "Brainysmurf: Hong Kong batting 1000; America, 0.00,"
compares the United States government to the Chinese government, and the Hong Kong protest of Article 23 to the apathy of the American people with respect to the erosion of civil liberties after 9/11.

Adam lives in Tianjin in the People's Republic of China. He is well aware of the authoritarian rule of the Communist Party in China and was apparently not surprised by Article 23, the legislative act that would have destroyed most civil liberties in Hong Kong in the name of "national security." As Adam says,

Before making an about face and practically killing Article 23 from the table, Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa asked the people to trust him and bring the idea of state to that of unquestioned hero. We are the state and we can only do good. No law-abiding citizen had anything to fear, Tung said.

This is, indeed, the attitude of the government of China. It treats its citizens as children for whom it must care and who must not be allowed too much freedom. Of course, this leaves any civil rights as merely those rights not being trampled by that government at any particular moment. Adam goes on to say, though, that

Bush and those directly under him make the exact same arguments in every single press conference available when defending the military tribunals, questions over post-Saddam Iraq, and just about every other foreign policy issue there is. Even on taxation, the administration's line that the cuts were exactly what the economy needed occured at just the right time is treated as a kind of open state secret that one is woefully wrong to stamp as incorrect. The aristocracy's policies have the flavor of ye olde time stamps on official documents that is intended to dodge activist resurgence.

That is exactly right. The Bush administration's attitude toward the American people is virtually the same as the Communist Party's toward the Chinese people. This is despicable, but it isn't the whole story.

So how does this result in my lacking respect for America, and not just despising the mostly isolated group in the American government that is responsible?

Because the Hong Kong people get the issue, fought for it using freedom of act and speech and protest, that was direct cause for the embarrassment of the politicians who are to blame. That is what America is supposed to be good at. That is supposed to be a binding trait. Checks and balances. Have our politicians reap what they sow. That we aren’t getting it while a small island community on the other side of the world is shows how far America has fluttered from its roots.

Beijing tried to assert power over Hong Kong and failed. It failed because a half million people out of a total population of 6.8 million took to the streets in protest. In a "special administrative region" without a democratic government those protestors prevailed and that government has withdrawn the legislation, at least for the moment.

Here in the "land of the free," though, the so-called "USA PATRIOT" Act was passed without a word of protest from our democratically elected representatives. Robert Ashcroft uses that legislation every day to infringe civil rights. In a country that supposedly values "liberty," where those accused of crimes are "presumed innocent" until they are proven guilty (unlike China, where they must often prove their innocence), American citizens are held as "enemy combatants," without trial, without charge, without representation or the right to confront their accusers or to even know of what crime they are charged!

This is all done in the name of "national security." George W. Bush demands that we trust him. Robert Ashcroft assures us that only terrorists need fear the sweeping powers granted by the "USA PATRIOT" Act and its kin.

The citizens of Hong Kong didn't believe their leaders when they said the same things. Instead, they took to the streets in protest. Here, though, those who protest are reviled and derided as "traitors" and "unpatriotic." The overwhelming majority who do not protest, meanwhile, meekly accept more and more restrictions that, they are told, are meant to keep them "safe." The American public embraces the easy lie and rejects the difficult truth, even when the lies are blatant and the truth undeniable.

As Adam says,

I have no choice but to hang my head in shame.

What goes around.

Over a month ago I wrote an entry here called "The Bush psyche." Well, today Steve Gilliard at the Daily KOS wrote "Time to admit the obvious: there are no WMD," in which he quotes a story from Capitol Hill Blue, "White House admits Bush wrong about Iraqi nukes."

"The [Niger] report had already been discredited," said Terrance J. Wilkinson, a CIA advisor present at two White House briefings. "This point was clearly made when the President was in the room during at least two of the briefings."

Bush's response was anger, Wilkinson said.

"He said that if the current operatives working for the CIA couldn't prove the story was true, then the agency had better find some who could," Wilkinson said. "He said he knew the story was true and so would the world after American troops secured the country."

There's quite the tempest in the comments to this particular entry over there. Lots of people are questioning the validity of the CHB story. Apostropher has picked this up as well.

Honestly, I don't know whether the story is true, but I would tend to believe it. As I wrote in comments on Kos' site, this behavior is entirely consistent with that described by John Brady Kiesling in the Salon interview I quoted on May 30. I said that I would actually be surprised if Bush hadn't behaved in the way described in the CHB article. It is entirely consistent with his character. It's also a very simple answer to a complex question. Why did he go ahead with the flawed evidence? Because he refused to see that it was flawed. Why? Because he didn't want to see that it was flawed. He only saw what he wanted to see.

Now, this isn't a sign of Bush being "just f***ing nuts," as Apostropher puts it. People do this all the time. It is, however, a sign that he has some real problems with reality when he continues to embrace fantasy despite the fact that reality keeps hitting him in the face.

Bush is not a healthy man. I said this on May 30 and it is if anything only more true now. I shudder to consider how he will react if and when his delusions are finally brought into the open.

UPDATE 7/9/2003, 17:39: Doug Thompson at Capitol Hill Blue has retracted the story. Seems he, along with the rest of us, was conned by this "Wilkinson" guy. Kudos to Thompson for owning up, though, and apologizing.

Ashcroftian lies.

Emma at Notes on the Atrocities points out this article by the ACLU: "ACLU Demands Truth From Justice Department; New Report Details False Claims About Scope, Impact of PATRIOT Act." To my complete lack of surprise, it turns out that Ashcroft has been lying when he has said that the so-called "USA PATRIOT" Act doesn't permit anything that wasn't permitted before:

The American Civil Liberties Union today said that it has found a consistent pattern of factually inaccurate assertions by the Department of Justice in statements to the media and Congress, statements that mischaracterize the scope, potential impact and likely harm of the now-notorious USA PATRIOT Act. … Specific instances of what the ACLU termed the Attorney General’s legal version of "voodoo economics" include:

• The Justice Department’s repeated assertion that the USA PATRIOT Act’s surveillance provisions cannot be used against U.S. citizens. In fact, the surveillance provisions are applicable to citizens and non-citizens alike. Some of the surveillance provisions can be used even against citizens who are not suspected of espionage, terrorism, or crime of any kind.
• The Justice Department’s repeated assertion that Section 215 of the Patriot Act, which permits the government to demand that any organization — including a library, bookstore, or hospital — turn its records over to the FBI, cannot be invoked unless the government can show “probable cause.” In fact, the law contains no such restriction. Section 215 requires only that the government declare that the records are “sought for” an ongoing investigation. The “sought for” standard is an extremely lenient one, and it bears no resemblance to “probable cause.” That the standard is so low is especially troubling in light of the Attorney General’s recent acknowledgement (at a June 2003 Congressional hearing) that the FBI could use Section 215 to obtain not only library and bookstore records but also computer files, educational records, and even genetic information.

The report itself can be found here; (note that this is a PDF file and you need the Adobe Acrobat Reader to read it). In addition to the above, it points out that Section 215 of the Act can be applied to anyone, not only to "terrorists and spies," as the Justice Department would have it. They also remind us that Ashcroft's assertion that "[t]he American people can trust the authorities not to abuse their powers" is false: "Democratic societies are based on checks and balances, not on blind faith in the good intentions of government officials."

Emma points out that, in fact,

the Ashcroft dragnet has been largely a failure at producing links to terrorism (though it's great at harrassing immigrants). In addition to work done by the ACLU, the Migration Policy Institute released a report last month that described widespread arrests, but few terror-related convictions. Moreover, among those detained (and of the 1,200, the MPI could only identify a third) were "persistent violations of due process as well as harsh law-enforcement measures directed solely at males from Arab and Muslim countries." Forty-six percent had lived in the states over six years, and half had wives and children.

I watched a large part of Ashcroft's most recent testimony before the House Judiciary Committee a few weeks ago and was revolted by his calm arrogance and his matter-of-fact lying regarding the Act. Even worse is his desire for even more intrusive and wide-ranging powers. And over and over he maintains that we "can trust him."

Right. Like a mouse can trust a snake.

How it should be.

Via bean at Alas, a blog we find this article in the Detroit News: "Gay newlyweds embrace Canadian marriage."

After exchanging vows, we spent the weekend in Toronto, giving us a chance to test drive being newlyweds in a wonderfully accepting city. We stopped calling each other "partner" and began using "spouse." When shopkeepers, cab drivers, hotel clerks and waiters asked why we were visiting Canada, we explained we had come to marry -- and everyone cheered.

Take that, Scalia, you slimy homophobic toad!

A bit of advice.

Take my advice: Do not cut a dozen jalapenos without wearing gloves. Just don't. If you do, you'll be very sorry. I did, and I'm sorry.

While I recover, take a look at G.'s photos from Baghdad and read Salam Pax's latest Guardian column. The most striking part of that column was this bit:

The next thing was getting into Basra and being stopped at the checkpoint. One soldier in a floppy hat waving his hand for you to slow down, and when you lower the window he actually greets you with "al salamu alaikum". That got him some appreciative giggles - imagine that happening in Baghdad.

Unfortunately, that kind of thing should be happening in Baghdad. It isn't because the people who are in control don't know what they are doing. The soldier's haven't been trained for this duty and their leaders (Bremer and his cohorts) are incompetent.

Salam also has something interesting to say about "blood money" and how the British dealt with the deaths of two innocent men. Funny, it's hard to imagine the Americans knowing or caring anything about the local customs, much less actually following through on something like that.

Interesting times.

Yesterday I attended a reunion of former employees of a now-defunct company, Locus Computing Corporation. Apart from the technology (which is still around), the best thing about Locus was probably the people. A bunch of us got together at Marina Park in Ventura (California) and generally chatted and had a good time. Some of us also got a bit sunburnt (curse this damned pale skin!). It was good to see folks whom I haven't seen in a while and to get some tech talk that I've been missing since being unemployed.

So I've been a bit out of the loop. Meanwhile, all hell breaks loose. Tenet "takes the fall" for Bush, Bush "considers the matter closed" and Rumsfeld stammers his way through some difficult questions on television. I'm keeping my fingers crossed that this won't just go away, as I'm sure those in the White House are so fervently hoping. There is some reason to hope, as well, seeing as Time Magazine, that notable bastion of the SCLM, has as its cover story "Untruth and Consequences," subtitled "A Question of Trust," which brings Bush's credibility into serious question. Now, this is Time Magazine, the magazine for those with a sixth-grade reading level. If this doesn't bring the issue into the public consciousness, nothing will.

Even the heavily slanted CNN Online is getting into the act, with tonight's lead story "Iraq story falls short, Democrats say." Yeah, the Democrats are saying it, but the real news is that CNN is printing it.

Of course, ABC News online says nothing about the issue (their lead story is about the hurricane watch in South Texas, certainly of interest if one lives in Freeport but not otherwise). The propaganda arm of the Republican Party, Fox News, boldly cries "Bush Team Defends Statement," with Rumsfeld, Tenet and Rice all pictured in various poses that are meant to communicate that they are the grown-ups and know better than you or I. This is why I don't watch television news.

The SCLM notwithstanding, though, I don't think that the Bush puppet show can avoid this one. They have lied from the beginning; some have suggested and I agree that by now they may not even know when they are lying and when they are not. Their lies are beginning to catch up with them. If there is any justice, there will be impeachment proceedings before the end of the year. Unfortunately, the thousands of Iraqis and hundreds of American soldiers will still be dead. Including those soldiers who die between now and the time they are relieved.

In Iraq, the handpicked "Iraqi Governing Council" has decided to, um, rescind six holidays established by Saddam Hussein. Gee, that was controversial! Sure, it will take a while to get going, but how about getting the power back on, or something? While I hope that this council will make a real difference and will truly represent Iraqis, I'm afraid that it will be nothing but a front for the occupation, a front that will cease to exist the instant the occupation ends. Likely with the members of the council swinging from hastily-erected gallows.

I hope that that's not the case, but from the performance so far, that's what I'm afraid will happen.

In another part of the world, a real historical revisionist claims that the Rape of Nanjing was a lie: Senior Japanese lawmaker draws rebukes from China, South Korea for remarks on wartime record. To contrast with an event more familiar to Westerners, this would be very much like a senior member of the German Bundestag calling reports of the Holocaust a lie.

And around we go. I just want to know what will be the next idiocy from the mouth of the idiot in the White House. I guess we'll all find out tomorrow.

Minitrue.

From C.J. Silverio: THE MINISTRY OF TRUTH.

If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever.

I got your next right here, son.

Prometheus 6 has outdone himself once more, putting Ari Fleischer's last hurrah into plain, um, "english." Heh. And you thought Black English Month was over.

Questioner: So, now that Prez is busted big time, he ain't talking to us no more?
Fleischer: Yo, man, he got his fingers in his ears, he's going nahnahnahnahnahnah... yeah, I'd say he's too through with you
Questioner: Too through? You saying we just gotta go for the ol' okeydoke and let it lay like that?
Fleischer: Yup.
Questioner: But somebody lied,man. Who was it?
Fleischer: I ain't getting in that shit, dawg. Next.
Questioner: I got your next right here, son. …

Go read it. Belly-laugh time.

Personally, I think Bush is a liar and stoopit.

Welcome to the new Amerika.

I haven't made one of these posts in a while, mostly because the outrages perpetrated by our government have been at least somewhat less egregious recently. Today, though, that changed. From CNN Online: "Justice refuses to let Moussaoui call witness." That's the Department of Justice, not an individual judge. Judge Leonie Brinkema has ordered the DoJ to allow Moussaoui access to Ramzi Binalshibh, an Al Qaeda operative and a man who can, Moussaoui believes, testify that Moussaoui was not part of the 9/11 plot.

Brinkema sided with attorneys assisting Moussaoui, who is representing himself, in ordering the government to allow him to question Binalshibh via satellite hookup. Her original ruling was made January 31.

The attorneys argued that Moussaoui's right to a fair trial, as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment, depends on his constitutional right to call available witnesses of his choosing.

The Justice Department appealed the January order, but a three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said it could not step in until Brinkema ruled on the government's response to her order. Two weeks ago the court turned down a request for a rehearing.

The 4th Circuit Court refused, 7-5, to reconsider the verdict of the panel. One would think that at this point Ashcroft has no choice but to allow Moussaoui access to Binalshibh as ordered. One would think that, but one would be wrong. Ashcroft refused.

Brinkema can now dismiss all charges against Moussaoui, or she can

… choose to dismiss some charges, restrict government evidence or block the government's pursuit of the death penalty.

The problem with a dismissal is that Ashcroft would almost certainly then declare Moussaoui an "enemy combatant" and "try" him in a military tribunal. This would strip him of any rights that he might still possess.

These are the people who are, in theory, supposed to "protect" us. But who will protect us from them? If this can happen to Moussaoui, if worse can happen to Jose Padilla, then what is to stop from doing this kind of thing to any of the rest of us? All they need is an accusation, if that.

Finally, to add the final stomach-wrenching twist, CNN Online is running one of their polls, this one asking, "Should prosecutors allow 9/11 defendant Zacarias Moussaoui access to a jailed al Qaeda leader?" "No" is leading "Yes" by 8465 votes to 3577. Essentially, although they probably don't realize it because of the bias in the way the question was phrased, fully seventy percent of the respondents think that Moussaoui should be deprived of the right to a fair trial.

This is vile.

Welcome to the new Amerika, land of despotism, fascism, lies and false "justice," where the once-admirable Constitution is now just an old piece of parchment.

Mildly positive developments.

I don't have time to write much tonight, but I do want to point out the generally positive developments in the land of the so-called "liberal" media. Today Robert Scheer of the LA Times asserted A Firm Basis for Impeachment. Some seem to think that impeachment would merely distract from the goal of defeating Bush in 2004. I would rather see him defeated this year, myself. Of course, with a Republican Congress, the odds are against it.

It's pleasing to see that CNN Online not only has an article about the deficit (and the idea that the White House would cut it in half by 2006 is simply absurd; how, with more tax cuts for the rich?), but articles about Iraqi discontent and the Google WMD gag. Of course, they don't have any articles currently up about the lies continuing to come from the White House. Apparently North Korean nukes chased those articles off the page.

So while things could be better, they have certainly been worse. It's a mildly encouraging sign in a time when we need all the encouragement we can get.

Grinding days.

The last couple of days have been incredibly difficult, especially today. Between news like "Senate Rejects Iraq Intelligence Commission" and Dubya's smug, smirking face on every television, reading the news is depressing enough. On top of that, though, I missed a medication dose on Saturday. I suffer from clinical depression; missing a dose doesn't have an immediate effect, rather it is delayed as the levels of neurotransmitter slowly respond to the lack of the chemical that had been keeping them high. Today was the first day it really started to hit me.

Jim Capozzola certainly knows whereof I speak. He is apparently dealing with even more than I am at this point. I do have to say, though, that one should not be too hard on those who don't "get" biologically-based depression. I have found that it is something that is almost completely indescribable to someone who hasn't experienced it. On the other hand, to someone who has experienced it, almost nothing need be said; they understand instantly. But why should those without depression really understand it, if they don't have to deal with it daily? Better for everyone if they don't, I think. I would certainly not wish this on anyone. Of course, it is natural to expect that those close to one might be more considerate than to demand that one not be "sitting on [one's] duff all the time." That behavior, though, just shows crass inconsideration, born out of ignorance of what depression really is.

I have tried to describe my depression to others, from time to time. I stopped, though, when I brought my wife to tears. It's difficult enough that I have to deal with it constantly; why should those around me have to understand it as well as I do? Depression is hell itself, or worse. Having my loved ones really understand it doesn't help me and it hurts them.

Times like this, though, are incredibly difficult. Moreso, I think, because now I know what it's like to not be locked in the hellish cycle of horror. Still, I do know that this time will be over, which is a lot more than I once knew. Not so long ago, a time like this lasted for weeks, months, sometimes a year or longer, without respite. Now the worst may last as long as a day. Medication and therapy have indeed made a difference. Maybe that's what both Jim and I need to think about.

I do "get" depression. But I'm also working on having a life despite it.

This is a surprise?

I've been seeing a lot of articles like "Daily Kos: Iraq war WAS about the oil" and seeing people (in this case Markos himself) say things like "File this under 'holy shit,'" or seeing articles like this one, "Good God," this time on Blah3, all about the doings of the Bush administration and I have to wonder how these people can be so shocked. My only surprise is when I read about the regime doing something good. I suppose that it may seem that I've become pretty jaded and cynical, but, really, I'm still pretty idealistic. It's just that my idealism has become tempered by a strong dose of realism. How can one be surprised when someone whose obvious goals are anathema to any caring, reasoning person actually takes action to further those goals?

It has long been clear to me that the Bush administration, meaning not just Bush himself, but Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Rice, Ashcroft and the rest, are in this for themselves, and only for themselves. How can I be surprised when they lie to us to push us to war, or when they pass legislation that helps only the wealthy (i.e. themselves) and does the rest of us only harm, or any of the rest of the outrages that they've perpetrated? The problem here is that I haven't been fooled. I knew from the beginning that Bush was Bad News for the United States, in a serious way. On 9/11, my first sick, impulsive thought was that the Bush bunch had done it themselves. I didn't really believe that but I am certainly not surprised that they may have allowed it to happen, whether through incompetence or malice. The event was certainly the best thing that ever happened to them; I knew that from the first instant.

About two weeks after the event itself, I mentioned to my therapist (whom I see to treat my biologically-based depression) that I was really scared of what "he" was going to do. David immediately assured me that Bin Laden was hiding in a very deep hole and I had to stop him and explain that it was not to Bin Laden that I was referring. I was afraid of what Bush was going to do, with respect to our civil rights. It was only weeks later that the so-called "USA PATRIOT" Act was pushed through a thoroughly frightened and intimidated Congress.

I'm not a genius, I don't think I can see anything that anyone else is unable to see. I think it's obvious, if only you allow yourself to see it and you not blind yourself with what you want to believe is true. I saw it from the beginning; the actions of the Administration spoke all too clearly.

Since I am not a genius, the thing that frustrates and enrages me is to see people turn a blind eye to the abuses. They don't want to see the bad things being done by the Administration, they don't believe these kinds of things can happen, so they don't allow themselves to see it. This is as true in Congress as it is next door.

So why exclaim "good god" or "holy shit" as if whatever outrage it is were so completely unexpected? From these people, expect the outrages. The one or two good decisions made by the Administration have been buried by truckloads of lies, deceit and treachery. These people lied when they swore to protect and defend the Constitution and the people of the United States. Since then, they have only continued their lies. Today, like yesterday, the day before and last week, American soldiers in Iraq died because of those lies. And these people still lie. Were we to expect better from them, we would be in fact the fools they believe us to be.

A case in point.

Jim Capozzola finds the events today in the House Ways and Means Committee "unbelievable." I can only say: No, it's not.

Didn't I just blog about this?

If you've spend the last couple of days under a rock, read the Washington Post article about it, "House Democrats Storm Out of Ways and Means Committee."

This kind of crap is exactly what I expect from the DeLay House. These ultraconservative bastards think that they now have total control and can walk all over anyone in their way. The real news here, though, is that the Democrats are no longer lying down for it. Today Nancy Pelosi introduced a resolution in the full House protesting this nastiness; Leah at Atrios' Eschaton has the scoop. Naturally it provoked a furor, which is all to the good, since this will draw public attention to the antics of the Republicans. Like most things that live under rocks, they can't stand the light.

Finally, Billmon has covered this in his inimitable way, in "Freedonia Rules." The scary bit, though, is the update at the end. While we aren't the Weimar Republic, the House certainly isn't the Reichstag and the stakes are a lot lower this time, the parallel is chillingly close. Fortunately, though, DeLay just thinks he's Hitler.

Honor.

I don't have time for it tonight, but I feel a strong urge to write something about that word, "honor." It appears to have lost most of its meaning and all of its relevance to the bulk of people in the United States. I think that this is a bad thing.

But as I said, I don't have time for it tonight. This entry is mostly just to remind me to write about it later and to promise the two of you reading this that something more about the subject will be forthcoming. As soon as I have time.

Snicker.

Via American Dissent:

Threat rating: High. The Bush administration is concerned that
it may not get a second term. Therefore, we are going to change
the rules so that each Democrat vote only counts as 0.2 votes
because Democrat is a shorter word than Republican

What threat to the Bush administration are you?

A disturbing but unsurprising report.

When I read the title of Jeralyn's entry at TalkLeft, "New Government Report Documents Patriot Act Abuses," I felt a chill. Ashcroft lies about it but anyone with sense knows that the Justice Department has been walking all over the rights of its victims, ever since the so-called "USA PATRIOT" Act was passed. At last, though, we may actually find out what those abuses are.

Jeralyn refers to a New York Times article, "Accusations of Abuse in Report on USA Patriot Act," and quotes from it extensively. The bit that is interesting to me, though, begins at the paragraph just after her excerpt:

The report is Mr. Fine's evaluation of his efforts to enforce provisions of the Patriot Act that require his office to investigate complaints of abuses of civil rights and civil liberties by Justice Department employees. The provision was inserted into the law by members of Congress who said they feared that the Patriot Act might lead to widespread law enforcement abuses.

The report draws no broad conclusions about the extent of abuses by Justice Department employees, although it suggests that the relatively small staff of the inspector general's office has been overwhelmed by accusations of abuse, many filed by Muslim or Arab inmates in federal detention centers.

The inspector general said that from Dec. 16 through June 15, his office received 1,073 complaints "suggesting a Patriot Act-related" abuse of civil rights or civil liberties.

The report suggested that hundreds of the accusations were easily dismissed as not credible or impossible to prove. But of the remainder, 272 were determined to fall within the inspector general's jurisdiction, with 34 raising "credible Patriot Act violations on their face."

In those 34 cases, it said, the accusations "ranged in seriousness from alleged beatings of immigration detainees to B.O.P. correctional officers allegedly verbally abusing inmates."

Over a thousand complaints. I can understand that many may not have been credible and others may be impossible to prove, but I still wonder in just what way the report "suggested" this. That notwithstanding, however, it is clear that not only has Ashcroft violated citizen's civil rights within the scope of the Act, he has even violated the Act itself, by allowing his department to go much further than the Act itself allows.

I will be waiting impatiently for the report to make it to public view. I have to say as well that Glenn Fine, the inspector general who wrote this report, has my deep respect at the moment. It is good to see that someone there still believes in the Constitution and is not willing to kowtow to Ashcroft's tyranny.

UPDATE, July 21: Here is the actual report; this New York Times article has a summary.

Mendacity and manipulation.

Jeralyn at TalkLeft again shows why I read her site several times a day, with "Ashcroft Defends the Patriot Act." She points at a Washington Post article about Ashcroft's news conference today in Alaska, "Ashcroft Defends USA Patriot Act." In that news conference, he called criticism of the Act "based on exaggerations and falsehoods" and claimed that it "extended to anti-terrorism efforts the same law-enforcement tools that were available to fight other forms of crime." The claim of "exaggerations and falsehoods" is absurd; it is in his interest to deprecate those who criticise him and this is how he chooses to do so.

His claim, though, that the Act only "extended" existing "law-enforcement tools" is a lie. I don't have the time to locate and cite the proof of his mendacity, but the Act at the very least made those "existing tools" much more invasive and much easier to obtain. At least in traditional "murder or drug-trafficking investigations," solid probable cause is required for a subpoena. Now, under the so-called "USA PATRIOT" Act, investigators no longer have to establish probable cause. It's almost to the point that a mere suspicion is enough to garner a subpoena. In some cases even now, subpoenas may be issued for little, if any, reason. Ashcroft knows this. He likes this power and wants more. Therefore he lies when he tries to counter criticism of his beloved Act.

He went on to say,

We use these tools to secure the liberties of our citizens. We use these tools to save innocent lives,

I think the complainants mentioned in the latest Inspector General's report would disagree very strongly indeed with that assessment. So far, as far as I am aware, Ashcroft has shown not one single attack that was thwarted using the powers of the Act. So he is lying on both counts. More, he is playing on the fears of his audience, telling them indirectly that they need to depend on him and on the powers given him by the Act for their safety.

The Washington Post article ends with this sentence (emphasis mine):

The Republican-controlled state legislature in Alaska has approved a resolution condemning the act as an infringement of civil liberties.

So even some Republicans are resisting the new order of things. I'm not surprised; the nastiness from this Administration has become too egregious for even Republicans to ignore, particularly the moderate Republicans. I'm sure that Ashcroft and his buddies in Washington are fuming at this "betrayal." Heh.

Bravo, Alaska!

We'll see.

The media is announcing that "Hussein's Sons [were] Killed in [a] U.S. Raid" today. While it's certainly true that the world can get along without those two quite nicely indeed, I remain … skeptical.

Seems we've heard this kind of thing before.

Take that, Ashcroft!

Yet another from Jeralyn at TalkLeft: "House Votes to Repeal 'Sneak and Peek' Searches." In "House Takes Aim at Patriot Act Secret Searches," the Washington Post reports that the House of Representatives has voted "overwhelmingly" (that is, 309 to 118, which doesn't seem that overwhelming to me …) to de-fund Section 213 of the so-called "USA PATRIOT" Act. Section 213, "Authority for delaying notice of the execution of a warrant," is the so-called "sneak and peek" provision, that allows

… surreptitious search warrants , seizures upon a showing of "reasonable necessity" and eliminates the requirement of Rule 41, Fed. R. Crim.P. that immediate notification of seized items be provided.

…

The effect of this provision is to allow the police to enter and search a home without telling anyone they have done so, seriously undermining the Fourth Amendment and one’s ability to mount a fourth amendment challenge to the search or any other kind of defense.

This is from Jeralyn's quotation of Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT ACT) Act of 2001: An Analysis.

I have two points to make here. One is that this conveniently provides me with the proof of Ashcroft's mendacity that I didn't have time for yesterday. The other is more important: Because of the significant Republican majority in the House, this act could only have succeeded with pretty major Republican support. This was emphatically a bipartisan amendment.

Just for the record, Representatives who voted against the provision to de-fund Section 213 included Howard Coble and Tom DeLay. And, to my surprise and extreme displeasure, Jane Harman, my Representative! Time for an angry letter, I think.

My letter to Jane Harman.

After my nasty little shock at the end of my last entry, I wrote a letter to my Representative, Jane Harman. I have reproduced it below for your perusal.

When I examined today's vote regarding the Otter of Idaho Amendment to H.R. 2799, which de-funded Section 213 of the so-called "USA PATRIOT" Act, I was shocked, surprised and chagrined to find that you voted against the Amendment! I strongly believe that Section 213 in particular is a particularly dangerous part of a very dangerous Act, the danger being to the civil rights of the citizens of the United States. Section 213 seriously undermines the rights granted us by the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution.

I will always enthusiastically support legislation which dismantles or rolls back any part of the so-called "USA PATRIOT" Act. Section 213 is a particularly nasty bit of that Act and so is a very good target for the action taken today by the House. I was very happy to see both Republicans and Democrats working together to protect the civil rights of their constituents. This is why I cannot understand why you voted as you did.

Please explain, Ms. Harman. I voted for you when you stood for reelection, but without some explanation of your vote, I'm afraid I will be unable in good conscience to do so again.

Thank you for your attention to this very important matter.

It's not a long letter, but I hope that it will get some attention, anyway.

Quick note.

I'm not feeling well tonight so I can't write much. I do, though, want to point folks at a moving story in the Kansas City Star, "Father tries to end cycle of tragedy" (via Jeralyn at TalkLeft).

Just go read it.

Robert Fisk and the reality of Baghdad.

Well, it appears that the Idiots In Charge were right and they did, indeed, kill Uday and Qusay. And it appears that the order to kill them, rather than to, say, capture them for trial, almost certainly came from the White House. With this in mind, I finally broke down and paid my £1 so that I could read Robert Fisk's story about this in the Independent: "What are Iraqis to make of this theatre of the macabre?"

For obvious reasons, I can't repost the story here in its entirety, but I can quote from it pretty heavily, enough so that anyone reading this can get the important bits.

As usual, he's pretty sarcastic with respect to the actions of the Americans in Baghdad. For good reason, I think. He begins by comparing the current circus to that performed by the Ba'ath Party in 1963 after their execution of the prime minister, Abdul Karim Qassem:

The Americans followed a grand Iraqi Baath party tradition by showing their dead enemies on television yesterday. Back in 1963, when Abdul Karim Qassem's corpse was shown on the screen, there was no colour television and the executed prime minister — Baathists and army officers had jointly condemned him to death — appeared in black and white, propped up in a chair but very, very dead.

Yesterday, it was all in colour. The faces of Uday and Qusay Hussein had been carefully reconstructed by US army morticians, and lay on trolleys, stitched up and with the colour of false life injected into their newly shaved faces, but also very, very dead.

The Iraqis showed off the corpse of Qassem so that the Iraqi people would believe he was dead. The Americans showed off the corpses of Uday and Qusay Hussein so that the Iraqi people would believe they were dead. And ghoulish wasn't the word for it.

Fish later points out that the original photographs that were so unconvincing were produced "just in time for the one day — Friday, the Muslim sabbath — when there are no newspapers in Iraq to publish them." As he says, only an occupation army could do such a thing. (And just what idiot managed that, anyway? Never mind, it was probably the idiot who was wearing combat boots in a Washington television studio recently.)

It's hilarious to me that these idiots are awaiting "a family member" to claim the bodies, "as if Saddam was going to turn up at the airport in a Mercedes to sign the release papers." Short of that easy joke, though, it seems very bizarre to expect that any of that family might actually show up. What have those people been smoking?

Fisk did an informal "private public opinion poll on those corpses," as part of an apparent shopping expedition. As he says,

The good news … was that 60 per cent of the 50 or so Iraqis I spoke to believed that the original photograph was indeed Uday. The bad news was that almost all of the 60 per cent demanded to know why the Americans didn't bother to capture them so they could be put on trial for their monstrous crimes.

The ironmonger who finally provided the bath plug [for which Fisk was searching] — and, yes, his name really was Uday — was among the most eloquent. "It is him, of course it's him," he said. "But why did the Americans deprive us of a trial? They could easily have surrounded that house with just four people inside and waited till they surrendered. There are many, many Iraqis who have been waiting for real justice, the justice of a democracy not of the military kind. And instead of a trial, they give us a photograph."

Um, yeah. What about that? No, of course, it wasn't the "men on the ground" that made that decision. Uday and Qusay were important enough that the decision had to have been made at the highest levels, meaning, these days, in the White House. Of course, there were a few interesting tidbits of information almost certainly known by the brothers that the United States government would very much not like to have come out in such a trial. This would also be a reason that Saddam himself might not be taken alive. Right?

In the residential district of Mansur, near the site of the bombing in April in which the Americans blew 16 innocent civilians to bits in the vain hope that they would hit Saddam and his sons, it was the same story.

Yes, it was Uday. Perhaps it was Qusay. But did the Americans make any real attempt to capture them? And (of course), why was there no American compensation for the victims of the slaughter in Mansur? One of the few survivors, Abdullah Museiha, has asked for compensation from an Iraqi court. The Americans have offered nothing.

And, of course, the so-called "liberal" media have written not one damned word about that little mistake. A mistake in which, far from killing Saddam Hussein, at least two families were killed. Adults and children. Fisk himself wrote about seeing the corpse of an infant at the site. Is it any wonder that we have zero credibility with Iraqis in general and Baghdadis in particular.

A photocopyist, ironically very close to the spot where Qassem was executed 40 years ago, asked why the Americans thought that the deaths of Uday and Qusay, which he accepted, would lessen the resistance to American occupation.

Which leads to the really bad news. Every one of the Iraqis I spoke to, without exception, said the guerrillas attacking the Americans were not just Saddam "remnants", but a mukawama shaabia, a popular resistance, and therein, for America, lies the rub.

George Bush may say the contrary, Tony Blair may say the contrary and the host of occupation officials here may desperately want to believe them; but in Baghdad, there is now widespread sympathy, not for the killers and torturers of Saddam's regime who are indeed attacking Americans, but for the much more serious Sunni Islamist movement which is principally responsible for opposing the occupation.

One of the Mansur men put it like this: "You are living on false hopes if you think these pictures will change anything. The war of liberation has started and we are behind it." And if this is true, there are going to be a lot more corpses.

In the 1920's the Sunni and the Shia put aside their differences to fight a common enemy, the British. It's a new century and a new chance to learn again that old maxim: Those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it.

Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, DeLay, Bremer, Rice and all the rest can lie, and lie, and lie, and it won't change a thing. The situation in Iraq already went from bad to worse and is now on its way to intolerably horrible. (I suspect that in fact, for those "men on the ground" there, it reached "intolerable" some weeks ago.) Bush is being dragged into a new Viet Nam, only with the serial numbers filed off, the names all changed and a desert instead of a jungle, whether he likes it or not.

While he may in fact deserve it (along with his partners in crime and I do mean that literally, not figuratively), the rest of us do not. Least of all those who are dying in Iraq right now.

At least one dead American soldier per day. Every day.

Ashcroft to House: "Fuck you!"

Unsurprisingly, Ashcroft is seething about the amendment passed by the House of Representatives a couple of days ago: "Justice Department decries 'terrorist tipoff' amendment."

The department sent a four-page unsigned letter on Friday to House Speaker Dennis Hastert, which signaled it intends to fight the congressional effort to dismiss the law that allows delayed notification of search warrants in certain cases.

Emphasis mine. Unsigned, eh? So Ashcroft is not only a bully, he's a coward as well. That's not surprising either, I suppose, since bullies are typically cowards.

Ashcroft is using his customary tactic of lying in order to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt in the minds of his opponents:

"The Otter amendment, better termed the terrorist tipoff amendment, would have a devastating effect on our ongoing efforts to detect and prevent terrorism as well as combat other serious crimes," the Justice Department letter said.

The letter to [Speaker of the House Dennis] Hastert, R-Illinois, charged the lawmakers "hastily adopted" the measure "based partly on inaccurate information."

Right. And just what "inaccurate information" would that be?

Justice officials are notably upset about new advertisements from the American Civil Liberties Union that include the assertion the law "allows government agents to secretly search your house and not even tell you."

Unfortunately for Ashcroft, the ACLU assertion is unquestionably true; Section 213 does indeed allow such searches without your knowledge. You are supposed to find out after the fact, but it could possibly be long after. My question: How does this square with the following bit of text:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

In case you're wondering, that's the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, that piece of paper that adorns the toilet roll in Ashcroft's bathroom.

Finally, to add insult to injury, that CNN Online page also featured one of their little polls, this one asking, "Should law enforcement be allowed to secretly search homes of people suspected of terrorist ties?" Yes or no. The problem was that the poll was broken and was not counting "no" votes. I'm certain of this, because when I saw it, the numbers were 2517 "yes" to zero, yes, zero "no." That "no" number should have been at least one, if only for my vote.

I see that CNN has just taken down the poll, though. Good.

Goodbye, Lilly.

Billmon learned today that Lilly has died: Whiskey Bar: Requiem for Lilly.

A little girl with a huge soul.

Goodbye, Lilly.

Nothing from me for a bit.

Between my own lack-of-job stress and anxiety, my wife's anxiety about my job situation and general depression about the whole situation, I won't be posting here much for a bit. If at all. Keep up the good fight and I'll be back when I've depressurized a bit.

Thank Bush and the Republicans for the tax cuts that have "created new jobs" and that are therefore "lowering the unemployment rate," he said with bitterness. Fucking bastards.

For now, I'll be doing a bit of coding. The world can go hang.

Oh, if someone wants to email me with really interesting stuff, you can reach me here. I would appreciate the emails, too. This corner of the weblog universe is mighty cold and lonely, these days.