O'Hanlon, The Times, and The Surge

I called in to NightTalk last night and was on hold for about 40 minutes. Never made it on the air.

Mike Pintek (sitting in John McIntire's old chair but by no means filling it) was discussing this New York Times op-ed with Earl Tilford, a military historian from Grove City College.

By the end of the hour, their political exchange had shriveled up into an echo chamber discussion on the Book of Revelations (Pintek: "Don't they know that the Jews win?" is what I heard).

Oh god, I thought. How completely removed from reality can a political discussion be when its foundation is the last book The Bible? Hitchens is right: Religion poisons everything.

Here's how the op-ed begins:

VIEWED from Iraq, where we just spent eight days meeting with American and Iraqi military and civilian personnel, the political debate in Washington is surreal. The Bush administration has over four years lost essentially all credibility. Yet now the administration’s critics, in part as a result, seem unaware of the significant changes taking place.

Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms. As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration’s miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily “victory” but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with.

Pintek, being Pintek, took from the op-ed and presented the viewers with the meme that the surge in Iraq is working. I was calling in to say, in essence, not so fast.

The primary reason is found here. Mr. O'Hanlon (one of the two authors of the op-ed) is from the Brookings Institution. It turns out that the Brookings Institution maintains a database on statistics from the Iraq war and these statistics conflict with what O'Hanlon wrote for the Times. Oh yea, O'Hanlon is also responsible for the Brookings data.

From the Brookings web site:

Michael O'Hanlon spearheads the Iraq Index project at Brookings, with assistance from Research Assistant Jason H. Campbell. O'Hanlon is a Foreign Policy Studies senior fellow and served on a U.S. government delegation to Iraq to review post-war progress.

Here's the Brookings Iraq Index (dated, July 23 2oo7). This is from page 4 of that document:

With what promised to be a pivotal summer now more than half over, the situation in Iraq remains tenuous at best. Even with all surge forces in place and operational, the modest progress made in the security sphere thus far has not had the hoped-for subsequent influence on the political and economic sectors. Adding to the pressure is the steadily increasing demands stateside for a change in strategy. Indeed, the “political clocks” in Washington and Baghdad are perhaps farther apart today than they have ever been.

From a security standpoint, having the full allotment of surge troops in theater has allowed for intensified coalition operations in and around Baghdad aimed at rooting out militants from their sanctuaries. Initial reports indicate that these have led to a decrease in the levels of violence in these areas. However, violence nationwide has failed to improve measurably over the past 2-plus months, with a resilient enemy increasingly turning its focus to softer targets outside the scope of the surge. And while the number of internally displaced persons has declined, it has done so not as a result of security improvements but because there are fewer places for Iraqis to run with a number of provinces unable to accept any more refugees. In assessing the overall sentiment of the Iraqi people recently, U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker summed it up in one word: fear. [emphasis added]

Never mind that O'Hanlon and Pollack (hardly critics of dubya's war) have been wrong many many many other times about the war in Iraq.

Sure Mike. The surge is working.

So it was Data Mining!

This weekend, the NYTimes reported:

A 2004 dispute over the National Security Agency’s secret surveillance program that led top Justice Department officials to threaten resignation involved computer searches through massive electronic databases, according to current and former officials briefed on the program.

Later on in the article, there's some interesting stuff.

The Justice Department announced in January that eavesdropping without warrants under the Terrorist Surveillance Program had been halted, and that a special intelligence court was again overseeing the wiretapping. The N.S.A., the nation’s largest intelligence agency, generally eavesdrops on communications in foreign countries. Since the 1978 passage of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, known as FISA, any eavesdropping to gather intelligence on American soil has required a warrant from the special court.

In that it's a felony (an "offense") to eavesdrop in any way other than what's allowed by FISA. And:

In addition, court approval is required for the N.S.A. to search the databases of telephone calls or e-mail records, usually compiled by American phone and Internet companies and including phone numbers or e-mail addresses, as well as dates, times and duration of calls and messages. Sometimes called metadata, such databases do not include the content of the calls and e-mail messages — the actual words spoken or written.

Now look at this part:

The first known assertion by administration officials that there had been no serious disagreement within the government about the legality of the N.S.A. program came in talks with New York Times editors in 2004. In an effort to persuade the editors not to disclose the eavesdropping program, senior officials repeatedly cited the lack of dissent as evidence of the program’s lawfulness.

I seem to recall that the Times took some heat because it knew about the warrantless domestic surveillance before the 2004 election - and yet didn't say anything. Do you think dubya's administration was lying then about the "lack of dissent" in order to bolster the Republicans' chances in November of that year? For an administration that politicizes everything, I wouldn't be surprised at all.

Mr. Gonzales defended the surveillance in an appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee in February 2006, saying there had been no internal dispute about its legality. He told the senators: “There has not been any serious disagreement about the program that the president has confirmed. There have been disagreements about other matters regarding operations, which I cannot get into.”

By limiting his remarks to “the program the president has confirmed,” Mr. Gonzales skirted any acknowledgment of the heated arguments over the data mining. He said the Justice Department had issued a legal analysis justifying the eavesdropping program.

The dispute, it seems, was not about the program itself, but the data that the program sifted through. Yea, that makes sense.

But even the Times misses one:

On Tuesday, to respond to Mr. Comey’s account, Mr. Gonzales testified in a Senate appearance that he went to the hospital only after meeting with Congressional leaders about the impending deadline for the reauthorization. He said the consensus was that the program should go on, so he felt he had no choice but to seek Mr. Ashcroft’s approval.

Where's the mention that this is also completely wrong? Take a look:

Tom Daschle. Jay Rockefeller. And now Nancy Pelosi.

That makes three members of the Gang of Eight -- the bipartisan congressional leadership briefed about President Bush's warrantless surveillance -- to dispute Alberto Gonzales's testimony that the Gang demanded the surveillance continue after a March 2004 briefing telling them that acting Attorney General James Comey refused to reauthorize the program.

Perhaps it depends on what the definition of "consensus" is.

From Mike Luckovich at the Atlanta Journal Constitution

New York Times Editorial: Impeach Gonzales

Today:

As far as we can tell, there are three possible explanations for Mr. Gonzales’s talk about a dispute over other — unspecified — intelligence activities. One, he lied to Congress. Two, he used a bureaucratic dodge to mislead lawmakers and the public: the spying program was modified after Mr. Ashcroft refused to endorse it, which made it “different” from the one Mr. Bush has acknowledged. The third is that there was more wiretapping than has been disclosed, perhaps even purely domestic wiretapping, and Mr. Gonzales is helping Mr. Bush cover it up.

Democratic lawmakers are asking for a special prosecutor to look into Mr. Gonzales’s words and deeds. Solicitor General Paul Clement has a last chance to show that the Justice Department is still minimally functional by fulfilling that request.

If that does not happen, Congress should impeach Mr. Gonzales.

Impeach.

The Sunday Jack Kelly Posting

This one will be short, as many aspects of this story, frankly, disgust me.

Even when he's fact-checking someone else (good to know J-Kel at least knows the concept of "fact-checking") he can't help but spin things himself. Case in point, this sunday's column.

He's telling the tale of a piece found in the New Republic called "Shock Troops." In that piece the then-pseudonymous author (turns out his name is Scott Thomas Beauchamp) describes some nasty things he and some others have been doing over there in Iraq.

Here's how Jack Kelly details one incident:

Next he described finding the remains of children in a Saddam-era mass grave uncovered when his unit was constructing a combat outpost: "One private ... found the top part of a human skull ... He marched around with the skull on his head ... No one was disgusted. Me included."

And his criticism of it later on in the piece:

No mass graves have been discovered during the time Pvt. Beauchamp has been at FOB Falcon.

Sounds pretty cut and dried for the column doesn't it? Beauchamp is discredited because he claimed to have found a Saddam-era "mass grave" when it was impossible for him to do so. Nice work, Jack. But let's take a look and see what was actually written in "Shock Troops":

About six months into our deployment, we were assigned a new area to patrol, southwest of Baghdad. We spent a few weeks constructing a combat outpost, and, in the process, we did a lot of digging. At first, we found only household objects like silverware and cups. Then we dug deeper and found children's clothes: sandals, sweatpants, sweaters. Like a strange archeological dig of the recent past, the deeper we went, the more personal the objects we discovered. And, eventually, we reached the bones. All children's bones: tiny cracked tibias and shoulder blades. We found pieces of hands and fingers. We found skull fragments. No one cared to speculate what, exactly, had happened here, but it was clearly a Saddam-era dumping ground of some sort.

Notice anything missing? Like the phrase "mass grave"? Beauchamp never claimed to have found a "mass grave" only a "Saddam-era dumping ground of some sort." Turns out that this part of the story has actually been corroborated. Here. At the conservative's conservative-leaning Weekly Standard, some criticisms of "Shock Troops" have been printed. The second one states:

There was a children's cemetery unearthed while constructing a Combat Outpost (COP) in the farm land south of Baghdad International Airport. It was not a mass grave. It was not the result of some inhumane genocide. It was an unmarked cometary where the locals had buried children some years back. There are many such unmarked cemeteries in and around Baghdad. The remains unearthed that day were transported to another location and reburied.

Now take a look at the New Republic piece. It fits, doesn't it?

So it is Jack Kelly who is wrong here, isn't it. He claimed that Beauchamp said he found a "mass grave" (except he never made that claim). And it turns out that according to a critic of Beauchamp's, they did find a children's cemetery (just like Beauchamp said they did).

Another incident. Here's what Kelly writes:

Finally, Pvt. Beauchamp described another friend "who only really enjoyed driving Bradley Fighting Vehicles because it gave him the opportunity to run things over. He took out curbs, concrete barriers, corners of buildings, stands in the market, and his favorite target: dogs."

Pvt. Beauchamp described how his friend killed three dogs in one day: "He slowed the Bradley down to lure the first kill in, and, as the diesel engine grew quieter, the dog walked close enough for him to jerk the machine hard to the right and snag its leg under the tracks."

And his criticism a little while later:

It is physically impossible for the driver of a Bradley to see a dog to the immediate right of his vehicle.

Now what Beauchamp actually wrote:

I know another private who really only enjoyed driving Bradley Fighting Vehicles because it gave him the opportunity to run things over. He took out curbs, concrete barriers, corners of buildings, stands in the market, and his favorite target: dogs. Occasionally, the brave ones would chase the Bradleys, barking at them like they bark at trash trucks in America--providing him with the perfect opportunity to suddenly swerve and catch a leg or a tail in the vehicle's tracks. He kept a tally of his kills in a little green notebook that sat on the dashboard of the driver's hatch. One particular day, he killed three dogs. He slowed the Bradley down to lure the first kill in, and, as the diesel engine grew quieter, the dog walked close enough for him to jerk the machine hard to the right and snag its leg under the tracks. The leg caught, and he dragged the dog for a little while, until it disengaged and lay twitching in the road. A roar of laughter broke out over the radio. Another notch for the book. The second kill was a straight shot: A dog that was lying in the street and bathing in the sun didn't have enough time to get up and run away from the speeding Bradley. Its front half was completely severed from its rear, which was twitching wildly, and its head was still raised and smiling at the sun as if nothing had happened at all.

Bauchamp a paragraph later says he didn't see the third kill. On a simply logical basis, not being able to see immediately to the right does not mean that the driver of the Bradley couldn't snag a dog's leg. Just that it would be very difficult. And notice that that's not the only way this person killed dogs. The second kill was a straight one, Beauchamp wrote. The Bradley simply rolled over it. I am guessing the driver could see straight a head.

None of this is to say that everything that Beauchamp wrote is true. All I am saying is that Jack Kelly, former "National Security Correspondent" for the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, can't help but manipulate the facts in order to support his politically motivated conclusions. He should be doing better work than this. In the meantime, I'll just go with what Andrew Sullivan wrote about the hysteria on the right side of the blogosphere on this story:

Look: I don't know the roots of everything Scott Thomas Beauchamp has written. If there are aspects to his first-person accounts that do not pan out, we need to know. But so far, there's no evidence of anything wrong. So far, the hysteria says far more about the hysterics than about TNR.

And if atrocities in Iraq are what you're looking for, check this article from The Nation. One example:

We heard a few reports, in one case corroborated by photographs, that some soldiers had so lost their moral compass that they'd mocked or desecrated Iraqi corpses. One photo, among dozens turned over to The Nation during the investigation, shows an American soldier acting as if he is about to eat the spilled brains of a dead Iraqi man with his brown plastic Army-issue spoon.

"Take a picture of me and this motherfucker," a soldier who had been in Sergeant Mejía's squad said as he put his arm around the corpse. Sergeant Mejía recalls that the shroud covering the body fell away, revealing that the young man was wearing only his pants. There was a bullet hole in his chest.

"Damn, they really fucked you up, didn't they?" the soldier laughed.

The scene, Sergeant Mejía said, was witnessed by the dead man's brothers and cousins.

Maybe Jack Kelly should have written about that instead.

A Hindu Prayer In The US Senate

Remember this?

Yesterday, the Washington Post reported that US Hindu organizations are asking the presidential candidates to denounce the protest that occured in the Senate chamber.

Somehow I'm guessing that none of the 3 Evolution-doubters among the Republicans will denounce the free exercise of religion that took place.

But what about the Dems? Anyone have any word on whether Clinton, Obama, Edwards, et al have said anything about it?

Join the Party with Howard Dean!

SAVE THE DATE

Heather Arnet Jennifer Brady Kirk Burkley Leo M. Castagnari Dan Cerrone Charlie Datz Christina Dixon & Geoffrey Webster Patrick Dowd John Hagan Cris Hoel Thomas Juring

Jeff Meagher Khari Mosley Heidi & Andrew Norman Liane Ellison Norman & Robert Norman Lazar Palnick Lindsay Patross Richard Pearson Vickie Pisowicz Lynda Wrenn Danika Wukich R. Clayton Wukich

and

Governor Howard Dean, M.D.
Chairman, Democratic National Committee
Invite you to

JOIN THE PARTY!

Wednesday, August 1, 2007

The Church Brew Works
3525 Liberty Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA

4:30 PM
"Join the Party" Reception
$25 per person

RSVP Here

Speaking of avatars...

Speaking of avatars, you can create your own Simpsons cartoon you at the movie website.

Here's mine:


(h/t to Three Rivers Online.)

One Spy Program or Two?

That's what they're asking over at TPMCafe.

Alberto Gonzales' testimony that there was "no serious disagreement" within the Bush Administration about the NSA warrantless surveillance program has left senators sputtering and fulminating about the attorney general's apparent prevarications. But a closer examination of Gonzales' testimony and other public statements from the Administration suggest that there may be a method to the madness.

There's a lot of evidence to suggest that Gonzales's careful, repeated phrasing to the Senate that he will only discuss the program that "the president described" was deliberate, part of a concerted administration-wide strategy to conceal from the public the very broad scope of that initial program. When, for the first time, Program X (as we'll call it, for convenience's sake) became known to senior Justice Department officials who were not its original architects, those officials -- James Comey and Jack Goldsmith, principally -- balked at its continuation. They did not back down until the program had undergone as-yet-unspecified but apparently significant revisions. But when President Bush announced what he would call the "Terrorist Surveillance Program' in December 2005, he left the clear impression that the program had always functioned the same way since its 2001 inception.

It's always nice to see Hamlet referenced in the news. In the play, Polonius notices a certain rationality in Hamlet's seeming insanity:

Though this be madness, yet there is a method in't. (Hamlet II, ii, 206)

But let's get back to the current madness, this administration.

It's an interesting article. The main point being that the domestic surveillance program as originally conceived and put into operation is very different from the one dubya described in Dec, 2005.

In essence, the issue is this: if Gonzales succeeds in convincing the committee that there really is a material distinction between the program as it existed before and after Comey’s intervention, he won't just save himself from perjury. He will perhaps have preserved an administration strategy of concealing the scope of Program X from the public and most of Congress -- making it appear that the program that Bush disclosed in December 2005, incorporating Comey's objections, is the same program that existed since October 2001, long before Comey put the brakes on at least some aspects of it. That may be at the heart of the White House's claim of executive privilege to prevent the Senate Judiciary Committee from seeing documents detailing the genesis of Program X.

I don't think I'm following this, however as there seems to be a contradiction. If Gonzales succeeds in convincing the committee there is a distinction between the programs (pre- and post- Comey's intervention), then he will possibly be preserving the administrations strategy of concealing the scope of the program as originally implemented and keeping up the appearance that the two programs (pre- and post-Comey's intervention) are the same?

Am I reading it wrong? Am I reading too deeply? Should I just drink the kool-aid and blame it all on Clinton (doesn't matter which - Hill or Bill) and the "Democrat Congress" instead?

Quoted In The P-G!

Go take a look at Tony Norman's column today.

The column is about how someone calling him (or her)self "Evergrey" used Tony's picture on a local architecture forum.

I get the whole eighth paragraph.

Go read the column - it'll do you good.

More Republicans Repudiate The Bush Doctrine

From the Washington Post today.

Let's set up the authors' conservative bona fides, shall we? This is the piece's first sentence:

One of us was appointed commandant of the Marine Corps by President Ronald Reagan; the other served as a lawyer in the Reagan White House and has vigorously defended the constitutionality of warrantless National Security Agency wiretaps, presidential signing statements and many other controversial aspects of the war on terrorism.

I'm not much of a fan of those last points, but I don't have to be. The first sentence settles these two as anything but your run of the mill Democrats. It's the second sentence of the piece that I found most intriguing:

But we cannot in good conscience defend a decision that we believe has compromised our national honor and that may well promote the commission of war crimes by Americans and place at risk the welfare of captured American military forces for generations to come.

Intruiging because of what that decision was.

Last Friday, the White House issued an executive order attempting to "interpret" Common Article 3 [of the Geneva Convention] with respect to a controversial CIA interrogation program. The order declares that the CIA program "fully complies with the obligations of the United States under Common Article 3," provided that its interrogation techniques do not violate existing federal statutes (prohibiting such things as torture, mutilation or maiming) and do not constitute "willful and outrageous acts of personal abuse done for the purpose of humiliating or degrading the individual in a manner so serious that any reasonable person, considering the circumstances, would deem the acts to be beyond the bounds of human decency."

Sounds kinda complicated, so the authors of this piece sum things up.

In other words, as long as the intent of the abuse is to gather intelligence or to prevent future attacks, and the abuse is not "done for the purpose of humiliating or degrading the individual" -- even if that is an inevitable consequence -- the president has given the CIA carte blanche to engage in "willful and outrageous acts of personal abuse."

So you can add "war crimes" to the long list of dubya's presidential sins (it's been on my list since the first civilian casualty in the so-called "Shock and Awe" phase of the his bloody war) as well as "rogue nation."

Wasn't this the crowd that was going to restore dignity to the White House? Weren't they going to restore law and order to a formerly lawless (or so they said) White House?

Guess again.

Josh Marshall on Impeachment

Over at Talkingpointsmemo, Josh Marshall has an interesting posting on impeachment. In the spirit of full disclosure and as if it's not at all obvious let me reiterate that I'm all for it. Josh ain't so sure. His reasons:

Minor reasons are that it's late in the president's term and that I think impeachment itself is toxic to our political system -- though it can be less toxic than the high officials thrown from office. My key reason, though, is that Congress at present can't even get to the relatively low threshold of votes required to force the president's hand on Iraq.

Of course, he's right. And it's shameful that Congress hasn't been able to flex its constitutional muscles and force dubya's hand on his bloody war. But that doesn't mean the push for impeachment should stop. Someone has to be out front pushing for what's right and what's constitutional. But I'm getting ahead of myself. Josh's faith in his decision has been faltering a little and he gives some reasons:

This was the exchange in which Gonzales simply refused to answer one of Sen. Schumer's questions -- didn't say he didn't remember, didn't invoke a privilege, just said, No. Not going to discuss that with you. Move on to the next question.

It's not that this one incident is a matter of such consequence in and of itself -- though I would say it's pretty consequential. But it captures pretty fully and in one small nugget the terrain the White House is now dragging us on to.

As I explained in that post, testifying before Congress is like testifying in a court of law. The questions aren't voluntary. You have to answer every one. You can invoke a privilege and the court's will decide whether the argument has merit. But no one can simply decline to answer a question. And yet this is exactly what Gonzales did.

And in general:

Without going into all the specifics, I think we are now moving into a situation where the White House, on various fronts, is openly ignoring the constitution, acting as though not just the law but the constitution itself, which is the fundamental law from which all the statutes gain their force and legitimacy, doesn't apply to them.

If that is allowed to continue, the defiance will congeal into precedent. And the whole structure of our system of government will be permanently changed.

Which is precisely my point. Let's assume the next president is a Democrat, would any Republican want the next administration to ignore the constitution as flippantly and as flagrantly as this one does? The fact that they're still protecting their president, and placing party above the nation is evidence enough of the Republicans' political crudity.

Eventually some compromise will take place and what it will entail no one can say at this point but there's a large chunk of the American People itching for impeachment right now. For example, in the last few days, a the Takoma Park city council (are you reading this, Council President Shields?) voted to call for the impeachment of Bush and Cheney. There are 81 other municipalities (at this point) with similar resolutions passed.

If everyone screaming "Impeach" just closed up shop and went home because there aren't enough votes in the Congress, then what would become of the inevitable compromise?

Even if the bastards are never impeached, pushing for it will guarantee something that might not happen if those collective voices were not raised.

More Trouble For AG Gonzales

From the AP:

Documents show that eight congressional leaders were briefed about the Bush administration's terrorist surveillance program on the eve of its expiration in 2004, contradicting sworn Senate testimony this week by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

The documents, obtained by The Associated Press, come as senators consider whether a perjury investigation should be opened into conflicting accounts about the program and a dramatic March 2004 confrontation leading up to its potentially illegal reauthorization.

A Gonzales spokesman maintained Wednesday that the attorney general stands by his testimony.

I saw this on Olbermann last night. More details:

At a heated Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Tuesday, Gonzales repeatedly testified that the issue at hand was not about the terrorist surveillance program, which allowed the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on suspects in the United States without receiving court approval.

Instead, Gonzales said, the emergency meetings on March 10, 2004, focused on an intelligence program that he would not describe.

But if the document, a four page memo from the Director of National Intelligence, is right, then AG Gonzales is lying. If the memo is incorrect then there's some other intelligence gathering program out there.

Looks like it's the first one. I guess an AG who's perjured himself is better than another illegal domestic surveillance program, right?

Right?

So Many Lies...

I've been having a bit of difficulty choosing which clip of AG Alberto Gonzales to use. Should it be this one that shows him refusing to answer Senator Shumer's questions?

Or this one where he's either lying OR admitting that there is more than one intelligence gathering system (other than the one that's already known about)?

To remind everyone, it was this news item from December 2005 about how the NSA was instructed to conduct warrantless surveillance on US Citizens that compelled us (if my memory serves me correctly) to post that big word IMPEACH above the 2PJ banner.

Now either AG Gonzales is actively lying to a Congressional Committee OR there are more surveillance programs that the Bush administration hasn't told us about.

Impeach. Impeach. Impeach.

Best to start with Gonzales

It's official: Jeff Koch is a widdle pootie cat!

As I posted last week, Pittsburgh City Council took their first vote on koi pond-owner Councilman Jim Motznik's cat licensing bill last Wednesday with the final vote scheduled for today's legislative meeting.

The last vote was a four to four tie with District 3 Councilman Jeff Koch abstaining but promising to choose sides today.

So was Koch fish or feline?

As the headline suggests, Koch cast his vote with the kitty lovers:

From the Post-Gazette:

"The ordinance, the way it's written, is just an extra taxing burden on those who follow the law," Mr. Koch said. He predicted that irresponsible cat owners, whose pets are more likely to cause property damage to neighbors, would just ignore the measure.

"If I thought for one minute that this would help control the population of wild cats, I would be for it," he said.

Councilwoman Darlene Harris argued that an existing code provision requiring that cats carry identification -- be it a tag, tattoo or microchip -- was enough.

Hooray for the purty pooties!
(...And Councilors Dan Deasy, Darlene Harris, Jeff Koch, Bill Peduto and Doug Shields!)

Jimmy Breslin on Impeachment

Pulitzer-prize winning writer Jimmy Breslin writes:

I am walking in Rosedale on this day early in the week while I wait for the funeral of Army soldier Le Ron Wilson, who died at age 18 in Iraq. He was 17 1/2 when he had his mother sign his enlistment papers at the Jamaica recruiting office. If she didn't, he told her, he would just wait for the months to his 18th birthday and go in anyway. He graduated from Thomas Edison High School at noon one day in May. He left right away for basic training. He came home in a box last weekend. He had a fast war.

The war was there to take his life because George Bush started it with bold-faced lies.

And uses the "I" word:

If Bush did this in Queens, he would be in court on Queens Boulevard on a murder charge.

He did it in the White House, and it is appropriate, and mandatory for the good of the nation, that impeachment proceedings be started. You can't live with lies. You can't permit them to be passed on as if it is the thing to do.

He goes on to debunk the idea that Impeachment would be somehow damaging to the nation. He ends the piece mentioning Sara Taylor, recently testifying as to why she won't answer some questions put to her by some Members of Congress while she was under oath, "I took an oath to uphold the president," she said.

That president had been in charge of a government that kidnapped, tortured, lied, intercepted mail and calls, all in the name of opposing people who are willing to kill themselves right in front of you. You have to get rid of a government like this. Ask anybody in Rosedale, where Le Ron Wilson wanted to live his young life. His grave speaks out that this is an impeachable offense.

Impeach.

Do I Even Need To?

According to a new poll out by the American Research Group, showing:

A total of 71% of Americans say they disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president according to the latest survey from the American Research Group.

Among all Americans, 25% approve of the way Bush is handling his job as president and 71% disapprove. When it comes to Bush's handling of the economy, 23% approve and 73% disapprove.

Among Americans registered to vote, 27% approve of the way Bush is handling his job as president and 70% disapprove. When it comes to the way Bush is handling the economy, 23% of registered voters approve of the way Bush is handling the economy and 72% disapprove.

But here's the kicker:

This is the highest level of disapproval and lowest level of approval for the Bush presidency recorded in monthly surveys by the American Research Group.

I wonder how much lower this will go.

Delano's Interview with Melissa Hart

Posted on KDKA's website is Jon Delano's full interview with (god, I love writing this next part) former Member of the House of Representatives Melissa Hart. It can be found here.

Some early highlights:

Delano: Let me ask you, why do you think you lost in 2006?

Hart: I think part of it was, we didn't get to substance. The
campaign never really happened. It became an assassination more than a
campaign. And it's disapointing, I didn't run campaigns like that.

D: An assassination of you?

H: Oh, absolutely.

D: In what way?

H: Well, did you turn on your TV last fall? There was no opportunity
for any discussion. Any discussion that we had was drowned out by the
negative schlocky commercials.

D: You were characterized as being a supporter of President Bush and
former Senator Rick Santorum. I think the figure was 98% of the
time.

H: And what relevance was that? On what particular issues. No body
asked.

Let me step in here. Ms Hart's grasp on recent history is rather disappointing. One part that she is omitting, unfortunately, is something reported by the Rothenberg Report. I wrote about it here. As they say in the biz, she was "caught napping" until it was too late in that campaign. According to the Rothenberg Report (sub req, sorry) there was the pesky issue of some drum lessons that got in the way of her campaigning.

Let's remember that she refused to debate Altmire. Take a look at the ever astute Chris Potter (he of the CP) had to say last October 2006:

Mostly, however, he has attacked Hart for carrying water for the Bush Administration, especially where the war in Iraq is concerned. He has also castigated her for supporting free-trade agreements, which he contends hurt working people in the district.

So far, Hart has replied by saying ... well, not much, really. She's refused to debate Altmire. [Hart campaign manager Luke] Myslinski says a schedule conflict preempted one debate, and Hart refused to participate in one sponsored by the League of Women Voters because "Jason is a former member there." But Hart's campaign also declined a third debate whose sponsoring organization, the Beaver County Chamber of Commerce, has ties to a Hart campaign staffer. Altmire has offered to debate anyway, but Myslinski says, "If we did really well in the debate, he'd say it was rigged. We aren't putting ourselves out there like that." [emphasis in original]

And if that's too far out of the "mainstream media" (as the City Paper surely is) then there's this from the P-G:

Congresswoman Melissa Hart believes U.S. troops need to do more work in Iraq, while her Democratic challenger, Jason Altmire, suggests they should battle terrorism elsewhere.

The differences between them on the Iraqi war -- the Republican incumbent supportive of the Bush administration's approach, her opponent capturing the frustration with it voiced among some of the citizenry -- highlighted a side-by-side session yesterday. The two 4th Congressional District candidates took questions from Pittsburgh Post-Gazette editors and reporters.

It was a rare joint appearance by them, as Ms. Hart has thus far rejected several invitations to publicly debate her opponent. The pair were respectful to each other, sticking to issues rather than personal attacks. [emphasis added]

So let's not settle in too too comfortably with this idea that there was "no discussion" especially since it was Melissa Hart who was refusing to debate.

YouTube/CNN Debates Tonight

Democratic presidential candidates face off tonight at 7:00 PM ET on CNN.

The hook for this debate?

The candidates will answer questions submitted to them by the public via YouTube.

While it's too late to submit video questions for tonight's debate, you still can submit one for the Republican candidate debate in September HERE.

IMPEACH CHENEY MONDAY!

FLOOD CONGRESS WITH CALLS TODAY, MONDAY, JULY 23RD


The following is a compilation of a couple different emails.

Easy actions below to email Congress now and Fax Congressman Conyers with one click TODAY!

The Impeachment Moment is Now

We've reached the impeachment moment for Vice President Dick Cheney. We've pushed the cosponsor list for H. Res. 333 up to 14.

Chairman John Conyers says that if we get 3 more Congress Members to get behind impeachment, he will start the impeachment proceedings.

Many Congress Members must be recognizing that there is no other path available. Cheney and Bush have repeatedly refused to comply with subpoenas, ordered former staffers not to comply with subpoenas, and announced that the Justice Department will not enforce contempt citations from Congress. When a special prosecutor attempted to hold this administration accountable, Cheney's chief of staff obstructed justice, and Cheney persuaded Bush to commute his sentence. There is no course left for Congress but impeachment.

On Monday, July 23rd, the fifth anniversary of the meeting that produced the Downing Street Minutes, Cindy Sheehan, Ray McGovern, Rev. Lennox Yearwood, Ann Wright, Debra Sweet, Dave Lindorff, David Swanson, Jodie Evans, Medea Benjamin, Kevin Zeese, and Tina Richards will lead a march to Chairman Conyers office and not leave until he agrees to begin impeachment proceedings.

If you cannot be there, you can take two minutes on Monday and do two things: phone Chairman Conyers at 202-225-5126 and ask him to start the impeachment of Dick Cheney; and phone your own Congress Member at 202-224-3121 and ask them to immediately call Conyers' office to express their support for impeachment. Your Congress Member might be one of the three needed, not just to keep impeachment activists out of jail but to keep this nation from devolving into dictatorship.

Email your Congress Member ( http://www.democrats.com/peoplesemailnetwork/73 )

On Monday - Fax Congressman Conyers with one click ( http://www.peaceandjustice.it/ )

A great article with more information: Conyers: 3 More Congress Members and I'll Impeach can be found HERE.

HERE IS A LIST OF TOLL FREE CAPITOL HILL SWITCHBOARD NUMBERS:

1 (800) 828 - 0498
1 (800) 459 - 1887
1 (800) 614 - 2803
1 (866) 340 - 9281
1 (866) 338 - 1015
1 (877) 851 - 6437

FOR PENNSYLVANIANS:

Why no PA congressional sponsors of H Res. 333 (Cheney impeachment)? Write a brief e-mail.

Congresspeople in PA, none of whom are co-sponsors! (name, party-District, phone, FAX, web-contact page)

Representative Robert A. Brady (D - 01) 202-225-4731, 202-225-0088
www.house.gov/formrobertbrady/issue.htm

Representative Chaka Fattah (D - 02) 202-225-4001, 202-225-5392
www.house.gov/writerep /

Representative Phil English (R - 03) 202-225-5406, 202-225-3103
www.house.gov/english/zipauth.shtml

Representative Jason Altmire (D - 04) 202-225-2565, 202-226-2274
www.altmire.house.gov/IMA/issue_subscribe.htm

Representative John E. Peterson (R - 05) 202-225-5121, 202-225-5796
www.house.gov/johnpeterson/ima/contact.htm

Representative Jim Gerlach (R - 06) 202-225-4315, 202-225-8440
www.house.gov/writerep/

Representative Joe Sestak (D - 07) 202-225-2011, 202-226-0280
www.sestak.house.gov/IMA/issue_subscribe.htm

Representative Patrick Murphy (D - 08) 202-225-4276, 202-225-9511
www.patrickmurphy.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id;=55&Itemid=86

Representative Bill Shuster (R - 09) 202-225-2431, 202-225-2486
www.house.gov/shuster/zipauth.htm

Representative Christopher Carney (D - 10) 202-225-3731, 202-225-9594
www.carney.house.gov/contact.shtml

Representative Paul E. Kanjorski (D - 11) 202-225-6511, 202-225-0764
www.kanjorski.house.gov/?option=com_content&task=view&id;=2&Itemid=

Representative John P. Murtha (D - 12) 202-225-2065,
202-225-5709 www.house.gov/murtha/write.shtml

Representative Allyson Schwartz (D - 13) 202-225-6111,
202-226-0611 http://www.schwartz.house.gov/issue_subscribe.shtm%20l

Representative Michael F. Doyle (D - 14) 202-225-2135, 202-225-3084
www.house.gov/doyle/email_mike.shtml

Representative Charles W. Dent (R - 15) 202-225-6411,
202-226-0778 www.dent.house.gov/contact.aspx

Representative Joseph R. Pitts (R - 16) 202-225-2411,
202-225-2013 www.house.gov/pitts/service/correspond.htm

Representative Tim Holden (D - 17) 202-225-5546,
202-226-0996 http://www.holden.house.gov/feedback.cfm?campaign=Holden&type=Let

Representative Tim Murphy (R - 18) 202-225-2301,
202-225-1844 www.house.gov/writerep /

Representative Todd R. Platts (R - 19) 202-225-5836, 202-226-1000
www.house.gov/platts/email.shtml

------------------
The sponsors, to date, are:

Yvette Clark New York/11 06/06/2007
William Lacy Clay, Jr. Missouri/1 05/01/2007
Keith Ellison Minnesota/5 06/28/2007 member of House Judiciary
Committee and the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and
Civil Liberties
Sam Farr California/17 07/12/2007
Bob Filner California/51 07/12/2007
Hank Johnson Georgia/4 06/28/2007 member of House Judiciary Committee
Dennis Kucinich Ohio/10 04/24/2007 author of resolution
Barbara Lee California/9 06/07/2007
Jim McDermott Washington/7 07/10/2007
James Moran Virginia/8 07/10/2007
Jan Schakowsky Illinois/9 05/01/2007
Maxine Waters California/35 06/12/2007 member of House Judiciary Committee
Lynn Woolsey California/6 06/07/2007
Albert Wynn Maryland/4 05/10/2007

Jason Altmire in Time Magazine

Time Magazine's got a short piece on Congressman Altmire. It begins with a conundrum for the Congressman:

"Can't we please stop the war?" Eugene Gabriel implored Congressman Jason Altmire, shouting over a singer belting out Beyoncé's Listen at the annual New Castle fireworks festival in western Pennsylvania. "That's what I wrote on my donation envelopes to you, both times, $200 a pop."

The freshman Democrat leaned into Gabriel's ear to make sure his response was heard: "We tried, but [President George W.] Bush vetoed it." The Democratic strategy, Altmire explained, was to keep the pressure up by continuing to schedule votes on Iraq and hope "that more Republicans will go to the White House and say, 'We can't do this anymore.'" The reply didn't quite mollify Gabriel, 49, a financial adviser who calls himself pro-life, pro-gun but antiwar. His son Michael, 22, is in the National Guard in neighboring Ohio; half of his division is expected to be deployed to Iraq in 2008.

Two hundred feet and 20 minutes later, having weaved his way farther into the crowd, Altmire faced another question about "the mess in Iraq," this time from William Proch, 71, a retired steelworker. But when Altmire again mentioned Bush's veto, Proch grew angry, accusing Altmire of being "in lockstep with [Speaker of the House Nancy] Pelosi, putting our troops in danger." The lifelong Republican voted for Altmire in 2006 after GOP ethics scandals left him wanting a fresh face. But because he also wants more troops in Iraq, not fewer, Proch is feeling buyer's remorse.

By the end of the piece he is by one constituent accused of being a rubberstamp for Bush and by another a rubberstamp for Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. The writer, Jay Newton-Small, points out the demographics of the district:

Altmire's district stretches west from the Pittsburgh suburbs to the Ohio border. In 2006 he wrested the congressional seat from three-term incumbent Melissa Hart with just 52% of the vote. The district should vote solidly Republican; on the same ballot, former Steelers football star Lynn Swann, the Republican challenger to Governor Ed Rendell, won by more than 20 percentage points. But the time was right for Altmire, a pro-gun fiscal conservative whose sandy hair, hazel eyes and freckles make him look far younger than his 39 years.

The narrow win--by just 9,798 votes--has made Altmire a top target of Republicans. Swann briefly flirted with the idea of challenging Altmire but announced last week he would not, opening the door for a rematch with Hart, who told local papers this month she plans to run again.

Though I'm not sure I'd agree with the assertion that the district "should vote solidly Republican." Last week I heard Bill Green (WPXI Political Analyst extraordinaire) say on NightTalk that the district was more Democratic than Republican (he pointed out that it was Ron Klink's old seat).

Coincidentally, Green did say that he thought that the seat would remain Altmire's after the 2008 election. He also said he didn't think it was a good idea for Melissa Hart to get into the race.

Bill Green said that.

Jack Kelly Spins Again

When you read his column today, pay careful attention to what he's saying and what he's not saying and what his general assumptions are. Let's begin:

It is reasonable (though it no longer may be accurate) to describe the security situation in Iraq as "bad," or "grim," or "dire." But it isn't getting worse. Security has improved so much since January that after a visit to Iraq last week, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said a "sea change" has taken place.

Let's take a look at that "sea change" reference. Here it is at the Washington Post:

Upbeat on what could be his final visit to Iraq before retiring, the top U.S. general said Tuesday that parts of Iraq are undergoing a "sea change" in improved security.[emphasis added]

Here it is at Time.com:

In his most optimistic remarks since the U.S. troop buildup began, Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Tuesday that Iraq has undergone a "sea change" in security in recent months, and that this will influence his recommendation to President Bush on how long to continue the current strategy.

After conferring with Maj. Gen. Walter Gaskin and other commanders in this provincial capital west of Baghdad, Pace told reporters he has gathered a positive picture of the security environment not only here but also in Baghdad, where he began his Iraq visit on Monday.

He was asked whether this would inform his thinking about whether to continue the current strategy, with extra U.S. troops battling to security Baghdad and Anbar province. "It will because what I'm hearing now is a sea change that is taking place in many places here," he replied. "It's no longer a matter of pushing al-Qaida out of Ramadi, for example, but rather — now that they have been pushed out — helping the local police and the local army have a chance to get their feet on the ground and set up their systems."

So it's "many places here" in Iraq undergoing the sea change - not the whole country.

Gen. Pace was speaking in Ramadi where Time says he gathered a positive picture of what's going on "here and in Baghdad" - did you catch that? J-Kel never qualifies things that way. To him, the sea change is in Iraq.

But this "sea change" is really not news. Take a look at this from the Washington Post from last month:

Three months into the new U.S. military strategy that has sent tens of thousands of additional troops into Iraq, overall levels of violence in the country have not decreased, as attacks have shifted away from Baghdad and Anbar, where American forces are concentrated, only to rise in most other provinces, according to a Pentagon report released yesterday. [emphasis added]

Ramadi, where General Pace spoke, is the capital of Al Anbar province. So as of early last month, the violence in the whole country has not decreased, but shifted away from Baghdad and Anbar (where General Pace was speaking) out to the other provinces.

By leaving that out, Commando Kelly leaves us with a false impression. That's what's known as a lie of omission.

Kelly does write this:

Americans are being misinformed because many journalists and politicians are less interested in the facts on the ground than in putting their spin on those facts.

I just don't know if Kelly understands his unintentional irony.

The View From Below

"President Bush temporarily will transfer power to Vice President Dick Cheney while Bush has a colonoscopy Saturday."

One would certainly assume by now that Bush has had his head up there long enough to know every nook, cranny and crevice in loving detail.

Also, one could be forgiven for wondering how Cheney could possibly take control for the Prez when he's not even a member of the Executive Branch . . .

(h/t to Shakesville.)

Republican Filibusters

The headline to this McClatchy article reads:

Senate tied in knots by filibusters

Here's how it begins:

This year Senate Republicans are threatening filibusters to block more legislation than ever before, a pattern that's rooted in — and could increase — the pettiness and dysfunction in Congress.

The trend has been evolving for 30 years. The reasons behind it are too complex to pin on one party. But it has been especially pronounced since the Democrats' razor-thin win in last year's election, giving them effectively a 51-49 Senate majority, and the Republicans' exile to the minority.

Before someone charges in, reminding everyone of the many "Democrat filibusters" when the Republicans ran the Senate, here's something to gnaw on:

Nearly 1 in 6 roll-call votes in the Senate this year have been cloture votes. If this pace of blocking legislation continues, this 110th Congress will be on track to roughly triple the previous record number of cloture votes — 58 each in the two Congresses from 1999-2002, according to the Senate Historical Office. [emphasis added]

Triple. Not match. Not double. But triple.

Republican filibuster.

Get used to it.

FEMA - Still Doing a Heckova Job!

From today's Washington Post:

The Federal Emergency Management Agency since early 2006 has suppressed warnings from its own field workers about health problems experienced by hurricane victims living in government-provided trailers with levels of a toxic chemical 75 times the recommended maximum for U.S. workers, congressional lawmakers said yesterday.

A trail of e-mails obtained by investigators shows that the agency's lawyers rejected a proposal for systematic testing of the levels of potentially cancer-causing formaldehyde gas in the trailers, out of concern that the agency would be legally liable for any hazards or health problems. As many as 120,000 families displaced by hurricanes Katrina and Rita lived in the suspect trailers, and hundreds have complained of ill effects.

Good god! Hasn't this administration screwed over the victims of Hurricane Katrina enough? I guess drowning the city of New Orleans was only a start. Let's expose 'em to formaldehyde!

Committee Chairman Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.) decried what he called FEMA's indifference to storm victims and said the situation was "sickening." He said the documents "expose an official policy of premeditated ignorance" and added that "senior officials in Washington didn't want to know what they already knew, because they didn't want the legal and moral responsibility to do what they knew had to be done."

Hey, weren't these folks calling themselves "Compassionate Conservatives" a few years ago?

What's compassionate (or, to be fair, conservative) about forced indifference to formaldehyde exposure to people who lost everything?

Yep, our dubya's doing a heckova job. Heckova job.

Executive Privilege Trumps All

Via TalkingPointsMemo, I found this at the Washington Post:

Bush administration officials unveiled a bold new assertion of executive authority yesterday in the dispute over the firing of nine U.S. attorneys, saying that the Justice Department will never be allowed to pursue contempt charges initiated by Congress against White House officials once the president has invoked executive privilege.

The position presents serious legal and political obstacles for congressional Democrats, who have begun laying the groundwork for contempt proceedings against current and former White House officials in order to pry loose information about the dismissals.

And:

"A U.S. attorney would not be permitted to bring contempt charges or convene a grand jury in an executive privilege case," said a senior official, who said his remarks reflect a consensus within the administration. "And a U.S. attorney wouldn't be permitted to argue against the reasoned legal opinion that the Justice Department provided. No one should expect that to happen." [emphasis added]

Legal criticism:

Mark J. Rozell, a professor of public policy at George Mason University who has written a book on executive-privilege issues, called the administration's stance "astonishing."

"That's a breathtakingly broad view of the president's role in this system of separation of powers," Rozell said. "What this statement is saying is the president's claim of executive privilege trumps all."

Legal praise:

David B. Rifkin, who worked in the Justice Department and White House counsel's office under presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, praised the position and said it is consistent with the idea of a "unitary executive." In practical terms, he said, "U.S. attorneys are emanations of a president's will." And in constitutional terms, he said, "the president has decided, by virtue of invoking executive privilege, that is the correct policy for the entire executive branch."

The Imperial Presidency. So no matter if it's right or wrong, if dubya sez so, it's "the correct policy" for the US Attorneys. As another legal critic said in the piece, because the White House controls the enforcement process, it's just going to thumb its nose at Congress. All legal precedents aside. They don't matter because dubya sez so.

Remember a few years ago when the Republicans in Congress had their collective panties in a twist because "no one is above the law"?

Sen. Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.) said the administration is "hastening a constitutional crisis," and Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.) said the position "makes a mockery of the ideal that no one is above the law."

Waxman added: "I suppose the next step would be just disbanding the Justice Department."

Is there any more evidence needed for how toxic this administration has become? Whether its lying the nation into war, or stonewalling Congressional oversight, or simplly disrespecting the Constitution, this administration has done so much damage it's difficult to imagine how long it will take to fix.

IMPEACH

Pgh City Council Vs. Pgh City Cats

Wednesday saw the Pittsburgh City Council take it's first vote on licensing cats (final vote Tuesday). While the Burghosphere is jumping with Councilwoman Twanda Carlisle's remarks on the evolution of feline behavior ("In 2007, cats are more aggressive than they used to be"), she was far from the only Councilor to, um, "distinguish" herself during the debate on the bill.

Councilman Jim Motznik painted himself as being primarily concerned with the safety and welfare of pet cats -- no mention as he had in the past of his own, personal concerns for the safety and welfare of his pet fish in his backyard koi pond. More amusing was his likening himself to former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani. At least he kept the comparison to "quality of life" issues and wasn't claiming to be "America's Councilman."

But, what I found to be most disturbing about Council's conversation wasn't Carlisle's evolutionary thesis or Motznik's Rudy pretensions, it was Councilman Len Bodack's arguments.

Bodack made it clear that he favored the bill and he indeed voted for it. However, he actively encouraged the segment of the cat owning population who keeps their cats indoors to IGNORE THE LAW FOR WHICH HE WAS VOTING.

Yep, he basically said that if you had indoor cats no one would be the wiser if you just didn't bother to license them.

What the hell kind of legislator votes for a law that he's telling people to break?

Oh yeah, one who the voters of his district wisely decided not to invite back.

What a jerk.

[sigh]

Major props to Councilwoman Darlene Harris for all the research that she did on the issue and for taking the sensible and humane position that the real problem is feral cats and the best solution is to have the City reinstate its program to trap, spay and return the cats which was dropped by Act 47.

If you read the MSM/blogs you may know that the vote this week was four in favor and four against with one abstention by Jeff Koch.

Koch will be voting on the bill next week. If, like me, you believe that cat licensing is not the way to go, please contact Koch at:

jeffrey.koch@city.pittsburgh.pa.us
Telephone: 412-255-2130
Fax: 412-255-8950

It's especially important to contact him if you live in Council District Three.

P.S. I hear Koch is a cat owner.

.

Pittsburgh's 2nd Annual Dyke March

WHAT: Pittsburgh Dyke March
WHEN: Saturday, July 21, 2007, 5PM
WHERE: CMU Lawn

From Sue talking about last years's march:

Last year's event was awesome with dozens of dyke-identified queer women marching proudly through the streets of Oakland. It is hard to describe so let's take a quick look back at what we were saying last year ...

These women have done a good job creating a dyke-affirming event. The next challenge is to reach out beyond their circles of genderqueer women to all those dykes who didn't attend, didn't hear about it and are pretty much mainstream. Their voices should be part of the dialogue because they too are being disregarded by those in power. There are lots and lots of suburban dykes in Pittsburgh complete with minivans, car seats and years of misogeny on their backs.

Mayor Luke's Security

This caught my eye this morning. It's from today's Rich Lord of the P-G.

In the first six months of this year, Pittsburgh Mayor Luke Ravenstahl's bodyguards made more money than their boss did. That's one result of the ramped-up security around the city's top executive, who is accompanied by an officer at public, political and personal affairs.

So he's got round-the-clock police protection when he's out in public.

"There are times when if I do something personal at somebody's home, I'll go with my wife and myself," he said. But if he's out politicking, or grabbing dinner and drinks, he's accompanied.

Wait. Does this mean he had an officer with him when he flew to NYC and couldn't remember where he ate or slept?

Well, does the officer know?

Local Fallout From the US Attorney Firings

From Pamela Reed Ward in today's P-G.

You remember the US Attorney Firing scandal doncha? Ward writes:

The House and Senate judiciary committees are investigating the firings of nine federal prosecutors late last year. Some allege that the moves were politically motivated, and that prosecutors were forced out because of a reluctance to pursue Democratic officials or for moving forward in investigating Republicans.

And there's a Pittsburgh connection to all this: US Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan's prosecution of Dr. Cyril Wecht. In a letter to AG Gonzales, House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers wrote:

The prosecution of Dr. Cyril Wecht in the Western District of Pennsylvania by U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan has also engendered controversy. It has been alleged that the case of Dr. Wecht, a prominent 75-year old Democrat who was the coroner in Allegheny County, is indicative of other prosecutions in the Western District - since 2001, the U.S. Attorney has never indicted a Republican official, and has only prosecuted officeholders who are democrat.21 Dr. Wecht, a world renowned forensic pathologist and television commentator, was charged with misusing his office and personally enriching himself by, among other thngs, striking a deal with a local university to trade unclaimed cadavers for university lab space.22 Claiming Dr. Wecht was a flight risk, Ms. Buchanan advised his defense lawyers, including former Attorney General Richard Thornburgh, that her office intended to arrest Dr. Wecht and subject him to a "perp walk," even though Dr. Wecht and his lawyers repeatedly offered to self-surrender and voluntarily appear in court to be arraigned.23 Reportedly only after former Attorney General Thornburgh spoke with Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty did Ms. Buchanan agree not to arrest Dr. Wecht and subject him to a "perp walk." In court filings, Dr. Wecht alleges that Ms. Buchanan's office inflamed the press by making inappropriate statement.24 The U.S. Attorney's office urged the courts to set the trial in October, 2006, a month before the congressional elections; the case was postponed only after the federal appeals court agreed to hear motions by Dr. Wecht's attorneys. Yet U.S. Attorney Buchanan has not brought charges against at least two Republican officials who, like Dr. Wecht, are alleged to have misused their office staff.25

I included the footnote numbers (they're those teeny numbers after some of the sentences). You'll see why in about 10 seconds. Ward writes:

Though her testimony has not been made public, it is referred to in a footnote of the letter sent to Mr. Gonzales. In it, Ms. Buchanan told investigators that she has only prosecuted Democratic officeholders.

That's footnote 21:

Mary Beth Buchanan, Interview with House Committee on the Judiciary, at 145-6.

The footnote 25 in that section of Conyers' letter points to this Op-Ed in the P-G by Thomas J. Farrell. This is what Farrell wrote back in March:

Democrats do occupy most public offices in Allegheny County, but are the Republican officials in the 24 other counties of the Western Pennsylvania District all squeaky clean? Why apparently no investigation into Republican U.S. Rep. Tim Murphy's use of government office staff to support his campaign -- which is not unlike what happened in the Allegheny County sheriff's office? Ms. Buchanan also left to local authorities the prosecution of Republican state Rep. Jeff Habay after similar accusations arose.

Attorney Farrell also points out ex-Senator Santorum's by now famous residency problems. Apparently no investigation there, either.

I can understand her only prosecuting only Democratic officeholders in Pittsburgh (show me the Repulicans holding office in this city and I'll change my mind) but she's prosecuted no Republicans in Western PA at all since 2001?

Something very fishy there.

She's certainly a loyal Bushie, isn't she?

Generation Chickenhawk: A Must See!

Check out this clip at Huffingtonpost.com.

Here's how the film-maker, Max Blumenthal, describes it:

On July 13, 2007, I visited Section 60 of Arlington National Cemetery, where the bodies of American soldiers killed in Iraq were freshly interred. Afterwards, I headed across the street to the Sheraton National Hotel, owned by right-wing Korean cult leader Sun Myung-Moon, to meet some of the war's most fervent supporters at the College Republican National Convention.

In conversations with at least twenty College Republicans about the war in Iraq, I listened as they lip-synched discredited cant about "fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here." Many of the young GOP cadres I met described the so-called "war on terror" as nothing less than the cause of their time.

Yet when I asked these College Repulicans why they were not participating in this historical cause, they immediately went into contortions. Asthma. Bad knees from playing catcher in high school. "Medical reasons." "It's not for me." These were some of the excuses College Republicans offered for why they could not fight them "over there." Like the current Republican leaders who skipped out on Vietnam, the GOP's next generation would rather cheerlead from the sidelines for the war in Iraq while other, less privileged young men and women fight and die.

Along with videographer Thomas Shomaker, I captured a vivid portrait of the hypocritical mentality of the next generation of Republican leaders. See for yourself.

It's amazing how many opt to finish their degrees or otherwise just sit out dubya's war.

As a perc, make sure you see the t-shirted Republican kid who, while he was tempted, prayed to god in order to make sure that he's not gay. Lo and behold, he isn't!. Hallelujah!

Happens about 4 and a half minutes in.

Blumenthal ends the piece by saying that the day he was there talking with the gungho college kids who can't bring themselves to enlist, 3 more American servicemen died in Iraq

DRAFT COLLEGE REPUBLICANS

UPDATE: Here's the clip from Youtube.

DeSantis Responds

Yesterday, Mark DeSantis issued a press release responding to Mayor Luke's press release of the day before.

“Transparency and honesty in any campaign is not a ‘tactic’, it is an obligation. I would hope that Mr. Ravenstahl would feel the same way,” said DeSantis.

Act 47/Budget

“I am very aware of the meaning and requirements of Act 47. My pledge is designed to ensure that each candidate has a clear grasp of this enormous challenge,” said DeSantis.

A few questions for Mr. Ravenstahl in that regard: 1) Has he implemented the Act 47 recommendations?; 2) Has he met the cost reduction target?; and 3) Does his budget have realistic assumptions?

DeSantis further elaborated that making a realistic budget plan is about effective city leadership. “Leadership is not about meeting some minimum legal requirement. It is about far exceeding the minimum requirements,” said DeSantis. Mr.DeSantis believes that public officials and those seeking public offices should try to work out the best plan possible.

It is true that Mr.DeSantis has not worked with council on a budgetplan. However, Mr. DeSantis is not currently a public official and therefore is not charged with the task of preparing a budget. However, Mr. DeSantis has expressed his willingness to develop a plan for this city.

Gift/Gratuity

This pledge is taken from Section 197.07 of the city charter.

Debates

Mr. Ravenstahl sent a letter asking for two debates. Mr. DeSantis responded by asking for eight. There is precedent for eight or more debates as evidenced by the 2005 mayoral race. Bob O’Connor squared off against his democratic challengers on more than eight ocassions. In 2003, Jim Roddey and Dan Onorato took part in more than twenty debates.

In addition, both campaign have already agreed to and scheduled a mayoral forum set for September 27, 2007. Mr. DeSantis’ debate coordinator has also been actively working with media organizations to schedule debates.

Mr. DeSantis is available for further comment.

As The Burgher wrote, it's good to see a back and forth this hearty this early on. If anything, it shows the need for more debates.

Senator Edwards, This Evening

Former Senator and current Presidential candidate John Edwards was in Pittsburgh this evening. He was giving a speech at The Hill House as part of his Road to One America Tour making its way across the country.

When I arrived a little after 5, there were a few people there, more than a smattering but less than a crowd. By the time Edwards began to speak about an hour later, the place was sweaty full. The early reporting from the AP says 250 people were there.

Initially they shuttled us "press" people ("Are you with the press?" they asked. "Yes, I'm a blogger." I answered.) to a room in the next building over. On the way I saw the politically ever-present Jon Delano. I guess he was there to cover the evenings event's too.

We were moved en masse into the next building, to a daycare room. The tables unbelievably tiny and the bathroom had instructions posted on the wall (One said "Remove Pants" - remember, we're talking real little kids here). Fuzzy children's art was hung from the ceiling and the alphabet was on full display on the far wall. The press area was roped off.

Then the kids arrived. At least two dozen and none could've been more than 4 or 5 years old. The room filled quickly - filled with the bustle of children and the rustle of the quickly sweating camera crews. Fox News was there, as was Reuters. The locals (TAE, KQV, P-G and so on) were all represented. C-Span was even there. We heard the Senator was finishing an interview for Hardball in the next room.

In short order, the kids were read a story ("If You Give a Pig a Pancake") and then another ("Dinosaurs, Dinosaurs"). Songs about little teapots short and stout were sung. Songs about little stars twinkling above in the sky so high and the itsy-bitsy spider crawling up the water spout. Cute doesn't begin to describe it all.

O'Toole of the P-G asked about the room. He was told that the room was for the 2 yr olds. But the kids in the room at that point were any where between toddlers and 5 yrs old. On a regular day, most of the kids would've been home by that time of day.

Then The Senator arrived. He was greeted by the children singing a rousing rendition of "You're a Grand Old Flag" (please no Ann Coulter jokes - there's little kids in the room.).

There were handshakes all around, he spoke to some of the mothers present and got a "Get Well" card for his wife, Elizabeth. Cameras whirring incessantly, capturing every nanosecond.

And then the photo op was over.

The Main Event

As quickly as everything was set up, it was broken down and we were on our way to the main hall at Hill House. For the press, it was up in the balcony. Bram was there, as was Mark Rauterkus. After some introductory speeches by three people enormously helped by the programs at The Hill House, Edwards came to the podium. He began by saying he'd been on that stage before, at this Wake-up Walmart tour. The OPJ blogged on that evening, here.

Senator Edwards spoke very eloquently about poverty, the damage that it does and some steps to eradicate it. Such an important issue facing society, he called it the "great moral cause of our time."

He began by mentioning the other cities he's visited on the tour, beginning with New Orleans. In one of the few times the speech got obviously political, he called the national response to what happened in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina a "national disgrace" and a "complete failure of presidential leadership."

He mentioned this speech by the Rev. Martin Luther King, where the Rev, though speaking about the war in Vietnam said:

A time comes when silence is betrayal.

For Edwards, the idea applies just as well to povery. It's wrong, he said, in a nation as wealthy as ours to have 15 million people living in deep intractable poverty. Where people can be working full time and still live in poverty.

In Cleveland, he said, he came across a middle class neighborhood being sucked dry by predatory lenders. In a one block radius, there were 38 homes in foreclosure. Lost to predatory lending practices.

The racial and economic segregation in the society are not good for our democracy, he said. In the nation's schools, there are two systems; one for the wealthy and the other for everyone else. As a solution, he's proposing a few ideas; bonuses to wealthier schools who take in poorer students, the establishment of magnet schools in the inner cities, "2nd chance High Schools for people who dropped out of High School, raising teacher salary and bonuses for teachers who opt to work in poorer neighborhoods.

He began to wrap things up with a few tough rhetorical questions about what we really believe as a society. Do we really believe in equality? In opportunity? That all children deserve the same chance? The answers should all be yes. Then he turned to the crowd:

The power is with you.

The Civil Rights Movement didn't start in the Oval Office, he said. It started in places like The Hill House. Same thing with the protests against the war in Vietnam. It was a movement.

And now we need, he said, a movement to end poverty.

The After Speech Press

After the speech, Senator Edwards took a few questions from some local reporters (Delano went first - OF COURSE). He answered questions that fleshed out some of the details of his speech (refunding the currently defunded programs for mental health care and so on).

There was a mini-interview with C-Span, ranging from Edwards third place in the current polls to Ann Coulter. Of Coulter, Edwards said, there's nothing wrong with disagreement, but hate mongering should not be included in the national discussion. It's demeaning to the process.

I gotta admit, I was impressed. The cynic in me, however, pointed out to the rest of me that although very little of the evening's words were political in nature (there was no "Edwards for President" material to be found anywhere, for instance. No banners, no buttons, nothing.), it still felt like a political speech, but with all the obvious political stuff carefully and surgically removed - a parallel speech of sorts with all the rhetorical arrows that would have pointed to "Vote for Me" remaining in the quiver.

Not that it wasn't important for The Senator to say what he said, but he is running for President. And perhaps this was a smart way to do it in the short run, campaigning without any messy polticial cliches attached.

Jim Quinn Gets Fact-Checked (July 17 Edition)

An astute reader clued me in to this column by J.D. Prose.

The whole thing started out when Allys Boyer, an 84-year old constituent of Congressman Jason Altmire's and Gold Star Mother, wanted to go visit the White House in late June. Her son, Cpl Larry Boyer, was killed in Vietnam in May, 1969. Coincidentally, President George W. Bush was just completing his first year in the comparatively cushy (certainly compared to Vietnam) Texas Air National Guard in May, 1969.

Fortunate son.

Turns out there's a policy in place at the White House for Gold Star Families to be pushed to the head of the line when looking to get a White House tour.

Sounds like good news for Allys, doesn't it?

Not so fast. The policy is for only for those families who lost a loved one in Iraq or Afghanistan. And remember, Allys Boyer lost a son in Vietnam when dubya was guarding the air over Texas.

Prose wrote about it here (sub. req - sorry), but the full text can be found here (if you can wade through the freerepublic garbage that surrounds it).

That's when Quinn, the well-armed terrorist, chimed in. Here's how Prose wrote it this weekend:

Now, we don't know what Quinn said and we weren't bothered enough to find out, but from the e-mails and comments, we gathered that we're lazy, stupid, unethical, anti-military and a shill for U.S. Rep. Jason Altmire, D-4, McCandless Township.

Whew! At least nobody called us ugly.

We were mainly accused of being duped by Altmire and his spokeswoman, Christina Stacey, who informed us of the Boyer family's request for a White House tour and the subsequent rejection.

Quinn's apparent claim was that Altmire knew Vietnam mothers weren't eligible for preferential treatment, but he offered up Mrs. Boyer as a pawn to make President Goofy, uh, Bush look bad.

"You are a sucker, J.D.," wrote Luke Snatchko of Burgettstown on the Web site. "They submitted their request knowing it would get turned down."

"Dem. leaders mis-represent soldiers' status to the White House knowing that it will be discovered and denied later. They are using the press to develop non-stories," wrote Jerry Linger of Cincinnati.

Riiiiiight. See? It was A VAST LEFT-WING CONSPIRACY!!

With Bush enjoying such immense popularity (29 percent) and riding a wave of success in Iraq (cough, cough), House Democrats decided to knock him down a peg by concocting lies about the White House ignoring mothers whose sons died fighting in Vietnam. Brilliant!

Then the nutcase case really got moving. There were allegations by Quinn that the Boyers were big contributors to the Democratic Party. Here's where the fact-checking happened. Prose continued:

Center Township reader Robin Cox, who's been no fan of ours, posted a critical comment, but then showed the initiative we lack and checked out Quinn's argument.

Here's what Cox later wrote: "Mr. Quinn used an anonymous source, someone he calls 'Son of Deepthroat.' I'm always skeptical of anonymous sources ... Mr. Quinn claimed a Lexis/Nexis search uncovered contributions from the Boyers to Howard Dean and George Soros-related 527s. I checked FEC data on the Center for Responsive Politics website for the 2000 through 2008 campaign cycles and found no contributions to anyone under any of the Boyer names mentioned in the Prose column ... Mr. Quinn alleged there were at least four other cases similar to that of the Boyers. A Google search found no hits to support that allegation."

Don't these guys think that someone might actually check their work?

But the bigger issue here is what Quinn was trying to do. In order to deflect from the issue (that there are two tiers of support in dubya's White House for Gold Star Families, when there should only be one), he raises non-issues (who knew which rules and when) and manufactures "facts" (the Boyers non-existent campaign donations).

Jim Quinn, Pittsburgh's own crazy-ass wingnut.

DeSantis/Ravenstahl Update

So, what happened today in the mayoral race?

First, at a news conference downtown, Mark DeSantis challenged Mayor Luke Ravenstahl to at least 8 debates. He also signed the following campaign pledges:

1. The candidates will not accept gratuities or gifts from parties or their representatives that have business currently before the City of Pittsburgh or that regularly have business with the City of Pittsburgh; (Lawful campaign donations are excluded.)
2. The candidates will not misrepresent their past business or political experience and will not misrepresent the past business or political experience of their opponent;
3. The candidates put forth a plan to prevent the City of Pittsburgh from entering bankruptcy. The plan will be submitted by both candidates on or before October 1, 2007;
4. The candidates will run a campaign that treats City of Pittsburgh voters with respect; and
5. The candidates will agree to debate the relevant issues facing the city on at least eight (8) occasions between August 1, 2007 and election day.

He also issued the following press release:

Mr. DeSantis believes that at least eight debates are necessary to provide Pittsburgh voters with an informed decision in this upcoming election. “A thoughtful discussion on the issues and challenges facing this city is the only method to provide voters with a clear choice in democratic leadership,” said DeSantis.

In a June 20, 2007 letter, Mr. Ravenstahl requested two debates with the caveat that his current position as the appointed mayor may prevent him from engaging in these debates. “ It is my first and foremost responsibility and its scheduling requirements are enormous”. (See Ravenstahl Letter dated June 20, 2007). Mr. DeSantis believes that engaging in thoughtful debate on the issues facing city residents is the responsibility of both candidates. “Two debates are simply not enough. City residents need to have as many opportunities as possible to accurately assess the qualities and abilities of each candidate”, said DeSantis.

Mr. DeSantis expects Mr. Ravenstahl to provide an answer to this challenge by July 23, 2007. The DeSantis campaign looks forward to working to secure the debates as soon as possible.

The Ravenstahl campaign issued the following response:

It is our hope and desire that this campaign can be about the issues, rather than just election year campaign tactics. The Mayor is very disheartened by what we’ve seen from our opponent thus far.

If our opponent does not know, the City of Pittsburgh is required under Act 47 and Act 11, the Intergovernmental Cooperation Authority, to have a five year budget and recovery plan. We have that already. The major difference between our opponent and Mayor Ravenstahl is that the Mayor has already been a part of making that plan and bringing it into existence. Mayor Ravenstahl is the first Mayor in years to implement a structurally balanced budget. Mayor Ravenstahl has cooperated with the ICA, Act 47 and Pittsburgh City Council to put forth a plan to balance the City’s budget. Our opponent has not.

With regard to our opponent attempting to offer a policy that differs from the existing law relative to the City Ethics Code, Mayor Ravenstahl complies fully with the existing law and will continue to do so. No amount of election year antics will change that.

Mayor Ravenstahl has served for over ten months now. He has demonstrated that he always treats the voters and residents of the City with the highest degree of respect. In fact, he has stood election twice before and has always done so. Our opponent has not.

Our opponent exclaimed in his announcement that no candidates should misrepresent his own or his opponent’s past business or political experience. On this we can agree.

Finally, our opponent asks now, in the form of his pledges, to call on the candidates to agree to debate. Our opponent should be reminded that on June 20th, Mayor Ravenstahl was the first candidate to call for and offer specific debates. To date, our opponent has not responded to our offers. Now our opponent is using campaign tactics to rewrite history. Mayor Ravenstahl looks forward to debating his opponent vigorously.

A few thoughts. They really gotta get a better writer over there at Ravenstahl HQ. Take a look at the fifth paragraph - the one that starts "Mayor Ravenstahl has served for over ten months..."

If we start from the position that any given sentence is a more or less discrete idea, then there's some messy overlap of sentences there. The first sentence lays out the case that the mayor treats voters with respect. Fine, but then there's this sentence:

In fact, he has stood election twice before and has always done so.

Huh? Always done what? Stood election twice? That makes absolutely no sense. I am guessing that that phrase belongs with the previous sentence. But with that word "always" in there ("...he always treats the voters...") simply cutting and pasting it over would be redundant.

And then what hasn't DeSantis done? Stood election twice? Or treated the voters with the highest respect? If it's the first one, so what? All the original coverage about DeSantis pointed out that he's never run for elected office. What does that have to do with treating the voters with respect? If it's the second, then where's the evidence from the campaign for this charge?

See what I mean? It's bad writing that does not serve the Mayor's campaign well at all.

And what's with the use of the royal we? As Mark Twain once (reportedly) said:

Only kings, editors, and people with tapeworm have the right to use the editorial "we."

Safe to say that good old Sam Clemens is quite right about that.

Jury Duty

I'm on it.

More specifically: I'm an alternate juror in a criminal court case.

That's as specific as I can get for now, of course.

And, yes, I believe it's my civic duty to serve, but this is my third time (all three in the criminal division) and I don't know any friends or family members who have served even once.

Did I mention that I got sequestered the last time I served?

About half the jury pool raised their hands when asked if they had ever served before.

Random selection my ass.

Senator Bob Casey In The News

Here's something Senator Casey did recently:

Sen. Bob Casey stood on the Senate floor Wednesday and read the names of 169 soldiers killed in Iraq with ties to Pennsylvania.

He delivered a tribute to Pennsylvanians who have died in Iraq after voting for a measure that did not advance. The measure would have guaranteed that troops who fought in Iraq be allowed to stay home as long as they had been overseas.

Here's the text of what he said and a link to the video.

Earlier that day, the Republicans in the Senate killed the Webb amendment (S. 2012), an eminently logical amendment that would require the already overworked troops to be at home for at least as long as they were deployed in Iraq.

Senator Casey had this to say about the vote:

I am disappointed that procedural tactics were used to act as a rubberstamp for President Bush and to obstruct action to give troops more time at home between deployments. This amendment had the bipartisan support of 56 U.S. Senators.

After more than four years at war in Iraq and almost six years in Afghanistan, our troops have served multiple tours that have kept them away from their families and hurt our long-term military readiness.

We cannot state enough the effect that having a loved one deployed on what is often multiple tours has on a family or a community. Children are growing up seldom seeing their mothers or fathers. And by giving our troops less time to rest and train between deployments, our military readiness is undermined.”

And as I said, the Republican Senators dutifully killed the measure.

So much for supporting the troops.

Go watch the video. Casey reads the names of all 169 Pennsylvanians killed by dubya's war. They were real men and women with real families. Real lives ended. Someone has to pay some attention to them.

See John Edwards in Pittsburgh on Tuesday

From the John Edwards Campaign:

On Tuesday, July 17th, you can help make history. John Edwards is traveling to 11 cities and towns in 3 days to shine a light on the continuing injustice of poverty in America. And on Tuesday evening, the Road to One America Tour is coming to Pittsburgh.

You're invited to join John Edwards at this historic event. To learn more and RSVP click here: http://johnedwards.com/r/22510/848331/

Here are the details: What: John Edwards discusses his plan to end poverty in America When: Tuesday, July 17th, 5:45 PM Where: The Hill House, 1835 Centre Ave., Pgh, PA 15219 RSVP: Here

This is not about politics. This is about taking a stand -- about saying that 37 million Americans living in poverty is a national disgrace, and it is time we do something about it.

By joining John in Pittsburgh on Tuesday, we can show the nation that we care, and that we have the will to end poverty in America.

We hope to see you on Tuesday evening:
http://johnedwards.com/r/22514/848331/

This event is free and open to the public.

This will not be Edwards' first visit to The Hill House. You can click here to see 2pj's coverage of Edwards visit back in August of '06 at the Pittsburgh stop on the Wakeup Wal-Mart Tour.

Personally, I really wish some of the other Democratic candidates would start having some free and public events here in the Burgh.

Bob Schieffer's Had Enough.

Saw this over at the daily kos.

It's Bob Schieffer's commentary from today. It's posted here. Here it is complete.

I am still not sure that I believe it: The Iraqi parliament is going on vacation during the month of August.

The White House offers the lame excuse that, after all, Baghdad is hot in August – sometimes 130 degrees.

May I ask a follow-up?

How much hotter do you suppose it is if you are a wearing a helmet, full body armor, carrying ammunition and walking foot patrols through Baghdad?

The last I heard, that is how American troops are spending their August in Iraq.
For me, this does it.

God help the Iraqi people because there is not much America can do to help a government that leaves Americans dying in the streets while the parliament escapes to cooler climes. Does this mean we should pull out immediately?

No. A sudden withdrawal could set the entire region aflame. The truth is there are no good options left. But from here on, we need to put aside the dream of building a democracy in Iraq and focus solely on what is in our national interest.

It won't be pretty, but for all our good intentions, about all we can do now is try to contain this mess, pull our troops back from the middle of this civil war, and concentrate instead on the terrorist threat that this country faces around the world. As for what kind of government Iraq needs, let their parliament figure it out. They can get right on it when the Baghdad weather turns cooler.

That really is a lame excuse. Tony Snow should be ashamed.

Another Anti-War Editorial

From an editorial in today's paper:

Perhaps Jack Murtha put it best: The Pennsylvania congressman, among the first to make the cogent argument that staying the course in Iraq was the exercise in futility that indeed the war has become, says President Bush is delusional.

Based on the president's recent performance, we could not agree more. "Staying the course" is not simply futile -- it is a prescription for American suicide.

We've urged for months to bring our troops home.

Now is the time.

Suming up:

• The President is delusional.
• Continuing this war is suicide.
• It's time to bring the troops home - now.

Next snippet:

And quite frankly, during last Thursday's news conference, when George Bush started blathering about "sometimes the decisions you make and the consequences don't enable you to be loved," we had to question his mental stability.

Summing up:

• This editorial board questions the president's mental stability.

And finally:

If the president won't do the right thing and end this war, the people must. The House has voted to withdraw combat troops from Iraq by April. The Senate must follow suit.

Summing up:

• This is what I've been saying for a long long time.

And which paper is this editorial from? The left-leaning Post-Gazette? The liberal Village Voice? The outright commie pinko City Paper?

Crshk! Uh, that's a big-time negatory on all three there, good buddy. Over?

This editorial is from the Richard Mellon Scaife-owned Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.

I kid you not. Check it aht.

Melissa Hart: Already Misleading the Public

She hasn't even made it official and Missy Hart's already misleading the people she wants to represent.

An astute reader of this blog reminded me of this point.

Take a look at this criticism from Ms Hart. She's quoted in the P-G as saying:

I've watched the Congress in action over the last six months and they haven't gotten a thing done and the issues that need to be addressed haven't been addressed.

But wait. Wasn't she a member of the last Congress? Wasn't that Congress controlled by the Republicans? And isn't she a member of that party?

For the intellectually challenged, the answer to each of those questions is a hearty, "Yes."

Now for the kicker (and you KNEW there was a kicker coming, didn't you?). Wasn't the 2006 Congress known as the "do-nothing" Congress?

You can answer "yes" to that question as well.

Take a look at this. It's from May, 2006 (Melissa Hart was still in the Congress then - though I'm not sure if she was taking drumming lessons at that point yet):

Members of Congress know the Washington-area airports very well. Most members use them twice a week, arriving for work late Tuesday and scurrying back to their home states on Thursday. Congress is on schedule to meet fewer days this year than any Congress since 1948 -- the year President Truman campaigned against what he called the "do-nothing Congress." [emphasis added]

Then there's this commentary from Lou Dobbs at CNN in early August, 2006:

This Republican-led, do-nothing Congress is on its way home for a five-week vacation. I'm sure while there, they'll be glad to explain to their constituents why they need so much rest in a year in which they will work fewer than 80 days. [emphasis added]

They worked fewer than 80 days in the first 7 months of 2006? The total, according to this site, doesn't look any better. The House met only 101 days during the second session of the 109th Congress (2006)

Did Missy Hart speak up then?

Missy's Back!

Ah...

Life here at 2PJ just got a little bit sweeter. Dennis Roddy at the P-G reported this morning:

Former Congresswoman Melissa Hart says she is planning a comeback bid to regain the seat she lost a year ago to Democrat Jason Altmire.

Though David M. Brown at the Trib put it much more succinctly.

Melissa Hart wants a rematch.

So now we get to point out Missy Hart's political biography. For instance, that back in late 2004, Tom Delay was in deep deep trouble. Allegations of corruption, indictments on the way, the whole shebang. This is how I wrote it up:

For those of you how haven't been following this story (and there may be one or two of you out there!), House Republican Tom "The Hammer" Delay may be indicted soon over some fraudulent fundraising schemes (what's that you say? A REPUBLICAN involved in FRAUD? Say it ain't so!).

Trouble is the House had a rule that said that if any committee head were to be indicted, he/she would have to relinquish that job until the indictment is ironed out.

Bad news for Delay, right? One of the most powerful House members might have to step aside for a while because of an indictment. He raises a lot of money for other House Members, you know. So this must be bad news for the Republicans in the House, right?

Not so fast, my friend. Not so fast. Wonder what the "moral values" party did when faced with this dilemma?

They changed the rule.

So to protect their corrupt colleague, a whole buncha Republicans in the House of Representatives voted to change the rules - and Melissa Hart was one of them.

Here's something slipped out of the coverage of the last campaign - only to be picked up my the Rothenberg Report after the election. By the way, this is from Sean Trende of humanevents.com (hardly a left-leaning source):

According to the non-partisan Rothenberg Report, Hart was sure of another victory, and avoided campaigning in part because it interfered with drum lessons she was taking. She lost to under-funded candidate Jason Altmire by 4 points. [emphasis added]

Such a committment to her district! That she couldn't be bothered with the campaign because she was taking drum lessons.

Welcome back, Missy! We missed you.

(Sore Loser) Missy Hart says she'll run against Altmire (Again)

FORMER US Congresswoman Melissa Hart (R) who LOST to challenger Jason Altmire (D) in the 4th Congressional District in 2006 has decided to run again in 2008 because of her "commitment to public service, despite the elections of last year."

According to the Post-Gazette article, Missy's commitment included warning former Steeler Lynn Swann that she will be throwing her hat (back) into the ring. Apparently Swann was already being courted by the national GOP to take on Altmire, but he has decided not to make that bid.

Some may recall Hart's notably ungracious concession speech where she actually thanked the crowd for booing Altmire's name and only remembered to tack on a "congratulations" to him in the last couple seconds of her speech. (Audio available here.)

More Ravenstahl / Ethics Board Coverage

Jon Delano video story:
http://kdka.com/video/?id=29811

Bob Mayo video story:
www.thepittsburghchannel.com/video/13680005/index.html?taf=pit

WTAE online story:
http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/news/13677749/detail.html

The Ethics Board to Mayor Luke: Come Talk to Us.

I think (though I'm not sure, perhaps someone can translate the Pirate-speak for me) that Bram has already written on this.

Let me try: Avast. Shiver me timbers. Weigh anchor. Hoist the mizzen or ye will be in Davey Jones' locker soon, ye landlubber. Yarrrr.

So anyway Rich Lord got the story today that the long-running and well established Ethics Committee wants a word with young Mayor Luke:

The city of Pittsburgh's Ethics Hearing Board expressed deep concern today about Mayor Luke Ravenstahl's attendance last month at an expensive charity golf event as a sponsored guest of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, but stopped short of declaring him in violation of the city Ethics Code.

And late this afternoon, Republican Mayoral candidate Mark DeSantis was (briefly) on Fred Honsberger's air to discuss the matter. Briefly.

Earlier in the day DeSantis released this statement:

I am hopeful that Mr. Ravenstahl will cooperate in the Ethics Board investigation. We need to have confidence in our leaders and the only way to accomplish that goal is to avoid the appearance of impropriety. I am renewing my challenge to Mr. Ravenstahl to pledge not to accept any gifts or gratuities. I agreed to the same pledge on July 5, 2007 and asked Mr. Ravenstahl to do the same.

On Fred's show, he repeated the pledge and added that "it's best for the mayor to cooperate fully with the ethics board" in order to "clear the name of the mayor and the mayor's office."

The subject of debates came up in the conversation between DeSantis and the Honz. DeSantis has challenged the Mayor to at least 8 debates adding that Dan Onorato and Jim Roddey had more than 20 debates when they ran against each other for the County Executive - so 8 debates is, well, somewhat modest in comparison.

In a letter from him to DeSantis, Mayor Luke has proposed 2.

On Fred's air, DeSantis characterized the letter as "oddly worded" and "troublesome" in that the "debates" that are described might not be debates at all, but would seem more like stylized speeches.

In the letter to DeSantis, the Mayor points out how important it is to have a debate "so that the voters have an opportunity to learn more about the candidates for Mayor and our respective positions on the issues." Then he offers the debates:

In an effort to further that objective, I have asked the League [of Women Voters] and KDKA to jointly program and host a televised Mayoral debate. Further, I have asked WQED to develop a forum wherein high school seniors, both private and public, could question the Mayoral candidates and observe a debate. I have also requested that WQED televise this forum.

DeSantis is right. It is oddly written. Is there a grammarian in the house? First thing, I wouldn't have split that infinitive in the first sentence as everyone knows that only Starfleet Captains get to split infinitives. Second, while the sentence might flow a little better if both verbs are in the same form, ("I have asked the League and KDKA to program and to host a televised Mayoral debate"), he could have simply simplified the sentence into "I have asked the League and KDKA to host a televised Mayoral debate."

That way, the "program" part is implied (and therefore unecessary). It also clears away the messy parallel verb forms AND the use of "jointly" to split that infinitive, bold as it was.

Enough of that. I am struck by the format of the second "debate." Luke wants high school students to ask the questions? About what? Granted he says in his letter to DeSantis:

While I recognize that most High School students are not of voting age, I believe they are critical to the success and future of this City. Afterall the Mayor is the Mayor for all Pittsburghers, not just those of voting age.

That is of course true but think about what that means for the purpose of a Mayoral debate. Instead of experienced journalists asking the candidates probing questions about the very serious issues facing Pittsburgh (and I'm talking to you, Jon Delano!) we're runing the risk of having some 17 yr old ask "Boxers or briefs?"

Maybe that's just safer territory for young Mayor Luke.

The House Votes

The AP reported yesterday:

The Iraqi government is achieving only spotty military and political progress, the Bush administration conceded Thursday in an assessment that war critics quickly seized on as confirmation of their dire warnings. Within hours, the House voted to withdraw U.S. troops by spring.

The House measure passed 223-201 in the Democratic-controlled chamber despite a veto threat from President Bush, who has ruled out any change in war policy before September.

The measure, H.R. 2956, is called the "Responsible Redeployment from Iraq Act" begins with a "Sense of Congress" by pointing out that the Authorization For Use Of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (AUMF):

...authorized the President to use the Armed Forces as the President determined necessary and appropriate in order to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by the Government of Iraq at that time;

And since:

the Government of Iraq which was in power at the time the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 was enacted into law has been removed from power and its leader indicted, tried, convicted, and executed by the new freely-elected democratic Government of Iraq;

So I guess it's time to end this thing.

The next sections outline a reduction to "a limited presence of the armed forces in Iraq" and then describe how the President, basically, has to explain his general Iraq strategy to the various committees of the Congress, including a justification of the size of the "limited presence" and its duration.

It's called "oversight" and it's what's supposed to be done (it was supposed to have been done all along) by Congress.

The bill passed the House 223-201. Locals Altmire, Doyle and Murtha voting for, Tim Murphy voting against.

Christian "Tolerance" In The US Senate

The AP reported that today, the first time, a Hindu clergyman gave the opening prayer in the US Senate.

Rajan Zed, from the Indian Association of Northern Nevada, was obviously not a Christian and some Christians in the gallery were obviously not happy about that.

Take a look:

Before he had a chance to speak, a Christian in the gallery piously intoned:

Lord Jesus, forgive us father for allowing a prayer of the wicked, which is an abomination in your sight!

According to TPMCafe:

Senator Bob Casey (D-PA), serving as the presiding officer for the morning, immediately ordered them taken away — though they continued to yell at the Hindu cleric as they were headed out the door, shouting out phrases such as, "No Lord but Jesus Christ!" and "There's only one true God!"

You can hear the protestor continue:

This is an abomination! We shall have no other Gods before You. You are the one true God.

Later in the day, Flip Bentham, Director of Operation Save America/Operation Rescue, issued the following press release:

Theology Moved to the Senate and was Arrested

Theology has moved from the church house onto the floor of the United States Senate, and has been arrested.

WASHINGTON, July 12 /Christian Newswire/ -- Ante Pavkovic, Kathy Pavkovic, and Kristen Sugar were all arrested in the chambers of the United States Senate as that chamber was violated by a false Hindu god. The Senate was opened with a Hindu prayer placing the false god of Hinduism on a level playing field with the One True God, Jesus Christ. This would never have been allowed by our Founding Fathers.

"Not one Senator had the backbone to stand as our Founding Fathers stood. They stood on the Gospel of Jesus Christ! There were three in the audience with the courage to stand and proclaim, 'Thou shalt have no other gods before me.' They were immediately removed from the chambers, arrested, and are in jail now. God bless those who stand for Jesus as we know that He stands for them." Rev. Flip Benham, Director, Operation Save America/Operation Rescue

There's more background material here. But all you really need to know is found in these words:

"When you stand up and are arrested, and the Hindu is allowed to go free, this country has gone upside-down," Benham added — though when asked, he later clarified that he does not believe people of other religions should be arrested for their beliefs. "Now, why are Hindus allowed here? Why are Muslims allowed here? Because we are a nation that's free, built upon the principles of almighty God."

Maybe Hitchens is right: Religion Poisons Everything. Or maybe this is closer:

Americans United for Separation of Church and Stat's Executive Director Barry W. Lynn said that the protest "shows the intolerance of many religious right activists. They say they want more religion in the public square, but it's clear they mean only their religion."

See? There's a reason for the separation of Church and State.

Is there *ever* a time we can believe these guys???

When I first heard about Homeland Security Chief Michael Chertoff's "gut feeling" my immediate reaction was that someone needed to mash Chertoff's statement:


with this video:


However, the day after he made his remarks he said he hadn't meant to alarm anyone and Official White House Spinmeister Tony Snow responded as following in a presser:

Q: Does the White House and the President share that same gut feeling?
MR. SNOW: I don't want to try to get into gastrointestinal descriptions.

Fine.

So we were told: "Don't worry, be happy" only to discover later that night that:

"The al Qaida terrorist network has rebounded and is at its greatest strength since it was expelled from Afghanistan after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, a new top-level U.S. intelligence assessment concludes..."

And, then there's this:

The White House has called an urgent multi-agency meeting for Thursday to discuss a potential new al Qaeda threat on U.S. soil, ABC News reported on Tuesday.

[snip]

The unnamed official told ABC the level of concern of a new attack in the United States was now higher than it had been in some time.

So which is it?!?

Do we believe the Bush Administration or the Bush Administration???

Maybe it's because the NeoCONs are so completely conflicted about a possible terrorist attack themselves, they can't keep their stories straight.

After all, they tell us we're in Iraq because "we have to fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here" and that they are the only ones who can save us, but then they have to periodically scare us into submission with terrorist warnings every time Bush gets some bad PR.

So who's a poor girl supposed to believe?

Then to top it off we have this from Virginia's own (he never moved back to PA, did he?) batshit crazy Rick Santorum:

Santorum Suggest New Terror Attacks Will Change View Of War

[...]

Santorum went on to clearly imply that terror attacks will occur inside America which will alter the body politic and lead to a reversal of the anti-war sentiment now dominating the country.

"Between now and November, a lot of things are going to happen, and I believe that by this time next year, the American public's going to have a very different view of this war, and it will be because, I think, of some unfortunate events, that like we're seeing unfold in the UK. But I think the American public's going to have a very different view," said the former senator from Pennsylvania.

Yep, that's Lil Ricky getting all misty-eyed about how another big terror attack on US soil will bring the American public back around to the right way of thinking.

[sigh]

So, to review, according to the Bushies:

Run! Run! We're all going to die!

It's all cool! :-)

Run! Run! Only we can save your sorry asses!

We're creaming our jeans for a big BOOM from al Qaeda to put you bitches back into line -- our only hope for November '08.

Got it?

Good!

So, what's the only things that we do know?

1. According to our own government, the Iraq War has created more terrorists.
2. Al Qaeda is now as strong as ever.
3. Bin Laden has still not been captured "dead or alive."

Heck of a job, Bushy!

(h/t to Bram for emailing me the Santorum quote.)

And now for something completely different

(h/t to Chris Briem)

Al Qaeda - Back At Full Strength.

9/11 happened and al-Qaeda was behind it. The war on terror was born.

Then George W Bush lied us into a war with a country that had nothing to do with 9/11: Iraq.

So how're things going for ole dubya and his war(s)?

The situation in Iraq is "grave and deteriorating" according to the Iraq Study Group and MSNBC is reporting that CIA Director said it's "irreversible."

The situation with al-Qaeda is not going any better.

From McClatchy:

The al Qaida terrorist network has rebounded and is at its greatest strength since it was expelled from Afghanistan after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, a new top-level U.S. intelligence assessment concludes, U.S. officials said Wednesday.

And the AP:

A new threat assessment from U.S. counterterrorism analysts says that al-Qaida has used its safe haven along the Afghan-Pakistan border to restore its operating capabilities to a level unseen since the months before Sept. 11, 2001.

Do you think that maybe, just maybe, if dubya hadn't ordered the invasion of Iraq, the war on al-Qaeda would be a little farther along? Gone are the days when dubya can boast taking out taking out 2/3 (or was it 3/4?) of al-Qaeda's leadership. And we won't mention Cheney's delusion that the insurgency is in its "last throes."

Bush deserves his low approval ratings. He deserves the scorn that history will inevitably place on his dry-drunk shoulders. He deserves the blood on his hands of the, by now, more than thirty six hundred dead American servicemen and women in Iraq.

No way around it.

Worst. President. Ever.

Where's Joe Lieberman Getting His News?

Via Greg Sargent and Eric Kleenfield over at TPMCafe:

Here's the text:

You know, Harry Reid said a while ago that the war in Iraq is lost. It's wrong. It's not lost. In fact, I would say we're beginning to win it. We've turned the tide with the new strategy. And in fact, I cannot conceive of a circumstance in which American forces would lose the war in Iraq, on the ground in Iraq. If we lose it, it's gonna be lost here at home, in a different kind of war for public opinion and political support."

Meanwhile out in reality.

The Green Zone (that heavily fortified section of Baghdad where the American and Iraqi facilities are) is still under attack:

At least 20 mortar rounds and Katyusha rockets struck the fortified Green Zone on Tuesday afternoon, killing an American service member and two other people in an attack on the heart of U.S. and Iraqi government facilities in the capital.

An Iraqi and a third person of unknown nationality were killed in the attack, according to a statement released by the U.S. Embassy. About 18 people were injured, including two U.S. military personnel and three American contract employees, the statement said.

Security is so bad there that a visiting Member of the US House of Representatives couldn't even leave the zone and had to wear body armor during the entire trip:

Security conditions in Iraq prevented Bachmann from meeting any Iraqis, leaving the Green Zone or staying in Iraq overnight. She and other congressional members were required to wear full body armor, including Kevlar helmets, during the entire trip, she said.

Of course, this House Member, being a loyal bushie, still believes in dubya's surge.

But [U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann] said she was encouraged by reports of progress from [U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan] Crocker, Gen. David Petraeus and other personnel in Iraq linked to the surge.

Although she did say elsewhere in the piece:

It hasn't had a chance to be in place long enough to offer a critique of how it's working.

Logic and consistency has never been this gang's strongest suit.

Ravenstahl's Bad Press

The Trib's Jeremy Boren has a good piece today on Mayor Luke's public relations problems. He describes Mayor Luke's most recent kerfuffle:

Ravenstahl endured two weeks of criticism by Pittsburgh-area women's groups angry that he promoted three police officers who had faced allegations of domestic violence or disturbances.

The mayor's initial refusal to disclose his whereabouts during a June 28 public hearing on the promotions heightened the furor, which turned to outrage when the women's groups learned he was playing golf on the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center's dime at the exclusive Laurel Valley Country Club in Ligionier. UPMC paid $27,000 for Ravenstahl and two UPMC executives to play in the celebrity event, hosted by the Mario Lemieux Foundation.

The mayor said UPMC's invitation does not violate a city law that prohibits public officials from taking gifts from companies doing business with the city. He said the UPMC money went to a charity.

Ravenstahl, 27, of Summer Hill, won't explain why he did not want to reveal his whereabouts.

Apart from the obviously absurd paragraph about how Luke's going to a charity golf event on UPMC's dime doesn't constitute a "gift" from a company doing business with the city, it's that last part that's part of a pattern - you'll see.

Because Mayor Luke's had trouble being honest and upfront in the past. Boren has a good run-down:

On Jan. 18, the mayor admitted police handcuffed and detained him. He dismissed the incident as "much to do about nothing" and blamed reporters for only asking if he had been arrested, not if he had been detained. Ravenstahl denied shoving the police officer who cuffed him, but he acknowledged shouting profanities at the officer, whom he criticized for aggressively charging into a crowd of people waiting to enter the stadium.

And:

On March 13, Ravenstahl flew to New York City with billionaire Penguins co-owner Ron Burkle, a longtime Democratic fundraiser. The trip on Burkle's private jet -- dubbed "Ron Air" by former President Clinton -- came shortly after local officials and the team announced a $290 million deal to build a hockey arena Uptown to keep the Pens in town.

Ravenstahl denied traveling to New York when asked about the trip early March 19, but he changed his story later in the day.

Can someone tell my why that wasn't a gift either?

About the hearing on the police promotions:

"What I was doing and where I was at has no reflection on me not being there," he has said.

Huh? He's an elected official! He decided to play golf rather than face the voters (many, but not all, of whom were women) he pissed off. He doesn't get to decide that "it's no reflection."

Boren ends the piece:

Ravenstahl is on vacation this week, his first since taking office Sept. 1 after the death of Bob O'Connor.

A spokeswoman did not respond to questions about where he went.

Of course not.

Another lie from AG Gonzales

The Washington Post is reporting:

As he sought to renew the USA Patriot Act two years ago, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales assured lawmakers that the FBI had not abused its potent new terrorism-fighting powers. "There has not been one verified case of civil liberties abuse," Gonzales told senators on April 27, 2005.

Six days earlier, the FBI sent Gonzales a copy of a report that said its agents had obtained personal information that they were not entitled to have. It was one of at least half a dozen reports of legal or procedural violations that Gonzales received in the three months before he made his statement to the Senate intelligence committee, according to internal FBI documents released under the Freedom of Information Act.

And:

Caroline Fredrickson, a lobbyist for the American Civil Liberties Union, said the new documents raise questions about whether Gonzales misled Congress at a moment when lawmakers were poised to renew the Patriot Act and keenly sought assurances that there were no abuses. "It was extremely important," she said of Gonzales's 2005 testimony. "The attorney general said there are no problems with the Patriot Act, and there was no counterevidence at the time."

I know it was you, Fredo. You broke my heart.

New numbers: Zero, 10,000,000,000 and 3,606

From the AP:

A progress report on Iraq will conclude that the U.S.-backed government in Baghdad has not met any of its targets for political, economic and other reforms, speeding up the Bush administration's reckoning on what to do next, a U.S. official said Monday.

To put that in numerical terms, "not met any" means that they've met zero targets. It's the null set.

From another AP story:

The boost in troop levels in Iraq has increased the cost of war there and in Afghanistan to $12 billion a month, and the total for Iraq alone is nearing a half trillion dollars, congressional analysts say.

All told, Congress has appropriated $610 billion in war-related money since the Sept. 11, 2001, terror assaults, roughly the same as the war in Vietnam. Iraq alone has cost $450 billion.

The figures come from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, which provides research and analysis to lawmakers.

And some context and details:

The $12 billion a month "burn rate" includes $10 billion for Iraq and almost $2 billion for Afghanistan, plus other minor costs. That's higher than Pentagon estimates earlier this year of $10 billion a month for both operations. Two years ago, the average monthly cost was about $8 billion. [emphasis added]

And of course the real cost.

As of this morning, 3,606 dead American troops (3,598 confirmed by the DoD).

Yer doing a heckova job, dubya. Heckova job.

Make up your mind, Lil Mayor Luke

Should or shouldn't a mayor of the City of Pittsburgh be expected to man up and show up when they're invited to controversial Council meetings?

Apparently Luke Ravenstahl sang a different tune back when he was on City Council:

WTAE Channel 4 Action News reporter Bob Mayo dug through the archives and found that Ravenstahl attacked former mayor Tom Murphy for missing a Council session in 2004.

[snip]

Then-City Councilman Ravenstahl called it "shameful" when Murphy did not come before Council to talk about Ravenstahl's 2004 bill to lower the parking tax.

"These are troubling times for the city of Pittsburgh and for the mayor of the city or somebody to represent his administration not to come to the table on such serious issues is regrettable, shameful," Ravenstahl said in 1994.

Murphy did face off in Council two months later over the money crunch.

At that meeting, Ravenstahl cited Murphy's clashes with state lawmakers and asked Murphy if he'd resign.

"Basically throw yourself out there and say, 'I saved the city,'" Ravenstahl said in 1994. "If they say, 'We're to ask you to step aside.' It's not that I'm asking for that, I'm just wondering."

Murphy told Ravenstahl he'd quit only if people making personality clashes an issue quit too.

"That we would stand together and they would sacrifice their political careers with me, to say for the betterment of this region we would all resign," Murphy said in 2004. "If that would happen, I'd be happy to do it."

Hmmm...Looks like we know where Luke got his "it's political" excuse from: Tom Murphy!

You can read all about it at thepittsburghchannel. It was on today's 6:00 PM news. The newcast mentions that Ravnestahl was "out of town" when they looked for a comment from him.

You'll also want to check out Bob Mayo's blog from today which goes over in loving detail the times that Pittsburgh Mayors have braved public ire at City Council meetings.

I have to say KUDOS to Mr. Mayo. I did a google search last week to try to find examples of Mayors attending past Council hearings and came up with a big NOTHING, so it looks like Mayo did some REAL digging on this one.

A Trib Editorial: What Happens When Science is Misquoted

The Pittsburgh Tribue-Review's Editorial Board chimes in on Kilimanjaro and global warming this morning.

The board uses (misuses is a better word) this article in the journal "The American Scientist" to support this hypothesis about climate change:

The only thing settled about global warming is that it's unsettled science.

They point out:

Kilimanjaro is a poster child for those who believe man-made global warming is causing Mother Nature's meltdown. However, air temperatures measured at the altitude of the glaciers and ice cap on Kilimanjaro are almost always substantially below freezing. Thus, the air by itself cannot warm ice to melting, the magazine reported in its latest edition.

And:

If human-induced global warming has played any role in the shrinkage of Kilimanjaro's ice, it could only have joined the game quite late after the result already was clearly decided, say the authors.

Which leads to the last paragragh:

So, what's happening? Deforestation, the Earth's cycles or other factors could affect the snows of Kilimanjaro, scientists suggest. Which also suggests the hysterical green Chicken Littles should consider all scientific possibilities before making unsettling squawks that the sky is falling.[emphasis in original]

In fact, the article makes a more complicated case than what the Trib editors want you to think it makes. A glacier is always in flux based on how much mass it accumulates, via new snow and how much it looses, via melting (when the ice turns to water) or sublimation (when the ice turns to water vapor).

The observations described above point to a combination of factors other than warming air—chiefly a drying of the surrounding air that reduced accumulation and increased ablation—as responsible for the decline of the ice on Kilimanjaro since the first observations in the 1880s. The mass balance is dominated by sublimation, which requires much more energy per unit mass than melting; this energy is supplied by solar radiation.

They're hoping you think that since the situation on Kilimanjaro is more complicated than previously thought, you'd drink the kool-aid and conclude that the global warming sky isn't falling.

But take a look at the stuff they don't mention from the American Science article.

The fact that the loss of ice on Mount Kilimanjaro cannot be used as proof of global warming does not mean that the Earth is not warming. There is ample and conclusive evidence that Earth's average temperature has increased in the past 100 years, and the decline of mid- and high-latitude glaciers is a major piece of evidence. But the special conditions on Kilimanjaro make it unlike the higher-latitude mountains, whose glaciers are shrinking because of rising atmospheric temperatures. Mass- and energy-balance considerations and the shapes of features all point in the same direction, suggesting an insignificant role for atmospheric temperature in the fluctuations of Kilimanjaro's ice. [emphasis added]

What was the word the "scientists" at the Trib used? Unsettled?

Too bad they're just not being honest about things. Furthermore, it's unsettling when a newspaper's editorial board decides that it's perfectly OK to misuse science to manipulate its readers.

UPDATE: Here's the link to the PITTSBURGH TRIBUNE REVIEW Editorial.

Sunday. Jack Kelly. The Spin's Not Unexpected.

Geez. How many things DOES Jack Kelly get wrong in today's column? Now much does he omit?
Paragraph one:

Scooter" Libby will serve as much time in prison for lying under oath to a federal grand jury as Bill Clinton served for lying under oath to a federal grand jury.

There's a reason for this. Clinton was acquitted of of the charges for which he was impeached. Scooter Libby was convicted. According to the Constitution, in impeachment procedings, the House makes the accusation (the impeachment) and the "trial" takes place in the Senate. And in 1999, they acqutted Clinton of the charges. Did J-Kel miss that?

Paragraph two:

Mr. Libby, who was chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, was convicted in March of lying about how he learned that Valerie Plame Wilson worked at the CIA. Last month Judge Reggie Walton sentenced him to 30 months in prison and a $250,000 fine.

Actually, there's more to it than that. The indictment spells out five counts. Libby was convicted of four out of the five.

Count One: Obstruction of Justice, where he

...knowingly and corruptly endeavor to influence, obstruct and impede the due administration of justice, namely proceedings before Grand Jury 03-3, by misleading and deceiving the grand jury as to when, and the manner and means by which, LIBBY acquired and subsequently disclosed to the media information concerning the employment of Valerie Wilson by the CIA.

Count Two: Libby was convicted of making false statements to FBI investigators about his conversations with Tim Russert.

Counts Three and Four: Libby was convicted of committing perjury before the Grand Jury.

Commando Kelly then rattles off the Democratic politicians who are outraged at the Libby commutation, but were outraged that Clinton had been impeached - Kelly's hoping to score some "hypocrasy" points.

Of course I can play that game too. Take a look at this from mediamatters.org. George Will, William Kristol, Wesley Pruden, The WSJ Editorial Board, Tony Snow all thought that perjury is very very serious. But now? Not so much.

Even Jack Kelly himself thought perjury was very very serious. Back then. Here he is on January 3, 1999:

[T]he question is this: Is perjury before a criminal grand jury in and of itself reason sufficient to remove a president from office?

I think it is, but the answer isn't obvious.

So perjury is reason enough to remove a sitting (Democratic) president. But not reason enough for a (Republican) Chief of Staff to go to jail for.

He then brings up Mark Rich.

[T]he financier who fled the country to avoid prosecution for tax evasion, fraud and "trading with the enemy." On his last day in office, President Clinton pardoned Mr. Rich after his ex-wife, Denise, donated $1 million to the Democratic Party and $10,000 to the Clinton legal defense fund.

Well,of course Kelly fails to mention that Rich's attorney from 1985 to 2000 was none other than Scooter Libby. But we all already knew that, right? By the way, he was indicted in 1983 by none other than US Attorney Rudy Giuliani.

Here's Clinton's reasons for the Rich pardon (spelled out in this letter to the NYTimes (sub. necessary). Clinton points out that similar charges against other people were raised in civil court, not criminal court; the Energy department "found that the manner in which the Rich/Green companies had accounted for these transactions [for which they were charged] was proper." And so on.

Here's a big one:

[T]wo highly regarded tax experts, Bernard Wolfman of Harvard Law School and Martin Ginsburg of Georgetown University Law Center, reviewed the transactions in question and concluded that the companies "were correct in their U.S. income tax treatment of all the items in question, and [that] there was no unreported federal income or additional tax liability attributable to any of the [challenged] transactions

Clinton also "required them to waive any and all defenses, including their statute of limitations defenses, to any civil charge the government might bring against them."

Then there were the calls for pardons from people like Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak.

So what is in Jack Kelly's column a clear quid-pro-quo becomes something, well, not so clear. But all that's necessary for Jack Kelly is for him to think there's a whiff of a deal in order for there to be a real live in reality deal. No other evidence is necessary to write about.

Paragraph eleven:

That day Mr. Clinton also pardoned four men who had bilked the government out of some $40 million. They were leaders of the Orthodox Jewish Skver sect in New Square, N.Y. Members of the sect usually vote Republican, but broke heavily for Hillary Clinton in her Senate campaign after she invited the group's spiritual leader to the White House.

Here's where Jack Kelly is either lazy or is just making stuff up. From CNN:

That's where the question of Senator Clinton and the Skver sect comes in. Hillary Clinton has insisted she played no role in commuting the sentences of the four Hasidim, who stole more than $30 million in government grants, subsidies and loans, and that she did nothing unethical by attending two sessions with the leaders who sought their pardons. The first took place in the Rockland County village of New Square last August, while she was running for the Senate. State party operatives thought the tiny community--which had often voted in a bloc in the past--was a promising one for Hillary in her race against Republican Rick Lazio. Following Hasidic custom, Hillary covered her head and chatted about the village's health-care services from across a coffee table, on which a tall bouquet of flowers served as the traditional screen that Hasidim require between the sexes. As far as anyone knows, that was a campaign event only; no pardons were mentioned. [emphasis added]

The next session came four months later, after the sect had delivered nearly 1,400 votes for Hillary and only 12 for Lazio. On the morning of Dec. 22, Grand Rabbi David Twersky and an associate went to the White House and tearfully appealed to the President to pardon Benjamin Berger, David Goldstein, Jacob Elbaum and Kalman Stern. Hillary attended the meeting in the White House Map Room but insists she did not participate in the conversation. "I did not play any role whatsoever," she told the Associated Press. "I had no opinion about it."

Wait. So the meeting in the White House was after the election? Huh. Jack Kelly didn't mention that, either. Nor did he mention what actions Clinton took for the four. Here's the info:

• Benjamin Berger: 30 months commuted to 24 (the $577,000 fine reamined.)
• David Goldstein: 70 months commuted to 30 (the $10 million fine remained.)
• Jacob Elbaum: 57 months commuted to 30 (the $11 million fine remained.)
• Kalman Stern: 7o months commuted to 30 (the $11 million fine remained.)

Commuted, not pardoned. Jack, you know there's a difference, right? Anyway, it's not exactly what you described, is it?

I could keep going, but I've been at it for a couple hours and I'm tired.

Suffice it to say that this week's column by Jack Kelly is a near perfect example of his willingness to spin, omit material and outright rewrite history in an attempt to score political points.

But, Jack. You know someone's gonna check your work. Why even bother?

More Numbers...

The Pythagoreans held that the Universe is constructed solely of numbers. And so I have some more.

According to the American Research Group the numbers don't look good for the Bush/Cheney junta. When asked this question:

Do you favor or oppose the US House of Representatives beginning impeachment proceedings against President George W. Bush?

A near equal split occurred. 45% of those polled favored IMPEACHMENT with 46% opposed. The theoretical margin of error is plus or minus 3%. By the way, a majority of those polled (54%) favored IMPEACHMENT of Vice-President Cheney. Only 40% opposed.

The numbers for dubya's numbers break down this way. Democrats favor/oppose IMPEACHMENT by 69/22 percent. Republicans (understandably, I guess) favor/oppose IMPEACHMENT by 13/86 percent. And fully half of the Independents favor/oppose IMPEACHMENT by 50/30 percent.

According to this Newsweek poll, dubya doesn't seem to be doing a good job. When asked this question:

Are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the way things are going in the United States at this time?

Only 24% answered that they were satisfied with the way things are going. 67% (or 2/3rds) said they were dissatisfied.

When asked this question:

Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president?

Only 26% of those polled said they approved. 60% disapproved.

Just keeping y'all (y'inz?) up-to-date on how badly this president has been doing his job.

New Ravenstahl Campaign Poster

We managed to snag a copy of the new Luke Ravenstahl for Mayor campaign poster and we present it to you, dear readers:

Mark DeSantis in the City Paper

Charlie Deitch has a good profile of Mark DeSantis in the current City Paper.

Kudos to Deitch for writing it and kudos to Chris Potter for running it.

Local Kid Makes Good!

In what has to be the silliest argument against Universal Health Care, local kid Jerry Bowyer (remember him? the shredder of rabbis?) sees a terror threat in medical bureaucracies on Fox "News":

Let me see if I can sum up Jerry's argument. Since a universal health care program would require more doctors (really?), this country would have to import doctors to fill that need and at least some of these doctors would come from "Islamist" countries. And since "they" know how to "game the system" and stay relatively anonymous within large bureaucracies, there's a danger that if this nation adopts a universal health care system, it will be more vulnerable to terrorist attacks, like the ones we just saw in the UK.

Good Ole Jerry. Still crazy after all these years.

UPDATE: Jerry made it onto Keith Olbermann's "Worst Persons in the World" for July 6th. Unfortunately someone should have told Sir Keith that Jerry's last name is pronounced "BOY-yer" not "BOW-yer."

Tony Norman Gets Snarky!

Check it aht:

Why can't the media and the blogosphere leave our hard-golfing, excuse-making, verging on morally compromised mayor alone?

At 27, Mayor Luke Ravenstahl is young, but he wasn't born last night. He knows a lot of the criticism of his official conduct is the result of jealousy, ageism and irrational resentment at what he's been able to accomplish with little or no effort.

Ha!

Get over it! Mayor Luke is committed to exercising every prerogative at his disposal now that he's been spared the indignity of finishing his first term in elected office as an obscure councilman from the North Side.

Let those who would refuse to use the prestige of the mayor's office to score access to Kenny Chesney or Tiger Woods cast the first stone. This mayor isn't afraid to look like a goofy, fawning fan boy for the sake of an autograph.

Ha ha!

Go read Tony's column. You could use the chuckle.

Is the Mayor going on Vacation?

A source sent to me a copy of a letter Mayor Ravenstahl sent to Deputy City Controller Pokora and City-Clerk Johnson-Wasler (a cc was sent to "Department Directors").

Here's the complete text of the letter:

Pursuant to Section 111.02 of the Pittsburgh Code, I hereby designate Chief Michael Huss to authorize and execute all correspondence requiring my signature during my absence on Monday, July 9, 2007 through Monday, July 16, 2007. Thank you.

Not really sure what this means.

That part of the City Code reads as follows:

§ 111.02 DEPUTY DIRECTORS; DESIGNATION; POWERS AND DUTIES; REVOCATION.

In case of death, resignation, sickness, absence or inability of the head of any City executive departments, other than the Department of City Controller, the Mayor or the head of the affected department shall designate in writing, filed with the City Clerk and Controller, a deputy to act for the department head, and to exercise the powers and discharge all duties of the department head during the absence or disability or until a new director is appointed, except the powers of appointment and dismissal of employees. The Mayor or the head of the affected department may revoke any designation at any time without cause by a revocation in writing, file with the City Clerk and Controller. The deputies shall serve without additional compensation and may be required by ordinance to give bond in the amount as the Treasurer may fix.

Huh. My guess is that he's going on vacation. Was this planned? If anyone has any other info, please e-mail it in (all e-mail kept in strict confidence).

DeSantis Pledges Not to Accept Gifts & Favors as Mayor

From the Mark DeSantis Campaign:

MARK DESANTIS MAKES CAMPAIGN PLEDGE THAT HE WILL NOT TAKE ANY GIFTS OR FAVORS AS MAYOR.

SUMMARY:

1) Mr. DeSantis states that as Mayor, “my focus will be on Pittsburgh’s problems and not on accepting personal perks.”

Mr. DeSantis makes this assertion in light of the revelation that Mr. Ravenstahl accepted a gift worth approximately $9,000.00 that included golf “at the Laurel Valley Golf Club, breakfast and lunch in a private dining
area, a gift bag, a commemorative money clip, an evening social and prizes for top finishers.” (From Post-Gazette article dated July 5, 2007). Mr. Ravenstahl accepted this gift instead of attending a public hearing on his controversial promotion of three Pittsburgh police officers with past histories of domestic violence. Mr. DeSantis wants to assure Pittsburgh voters that he will take the responsibility of addressing their needs and priorities in a serious manner.

2) Further, Mr. DeSantis believes that Mr. Ravenstahl’s conduct violates the City of Pittsburgh charter. Specifically, it violates § 197.07 regarding accepting gifts and favors. The ordinance states as follows:

§ 197.07 OFFERING OR ACCEPTING GIFTS AND FAVORS.
A public official, City employee or agent of the City shall not solicit or accept from an interested party, nor shall any interested party offer or give anything of value to a public official, City employee or agent of the city, subject to the following exceptions:
* * *
(f) Admissions to cultural or athletic events not to exceed two hundred fifty dollars ($250.00) per calendar year in the aggregate and one hundred dollars ($100.00) per calendar year from any single person, agent or other interested party; (Ord. 2-1992, eff. 2-13-92)

An “interested party” is defined under the ordinance as:
§ 197.02 DEFINITIONS.
* * *
(g) INTERESTED PARTY.
(1) A person or agent having or seeking to obtain a contract, grant, employment or any financial relationship with the City or any of its departments, agencies, boards, commissions or authorities;
(2) A principal, agent and/or attorney in legal proceedings in which the City is then an adverse party; or
(3) A person with an interest that may be substantially affected by the performance or nonperformance of the official duties of the public official or City employee.
(Ord. 28-1990, eff. 11-28-90)

Mr. Ravenstahl accepted a gift/favor from an interested party and received admission to an athletic event that was worth in excess of $250.00. In addition, he received several other gifts due to his attendance. Mr. Ravenstahl’s focus appears to be on personal gain, rather than governmental accountability. Mr. DeSantis will restore accountability and honesty in government as Mayor of the City of Pittsburgh.
3) Mr. DeSantis is available for interviews on this subject matter.

-30-

http://www.municode.com/resources/gateway.asp?pid=13525&sid=3 (LINK TO CITY CHARTER)

An article in today's Post-Gazette identifies which "interested party" sponsored Luke's golfing vacation: UPMC.

UPMC, being one of the region's largest businesses, of course often has occasion to look for "good will" from City government. Very recent examples of this was their competing to become the single source health care provider in the Mayor's new employee wellness and health care plan and their request to erect a giant 20 foot tall sign on top of the U.S. Steel Tower in Downtown.

Ironically, UPMC just "drafted a get-tough policy that would prohibit its physicians and other employees from accepting almost all freebies." According to UPMC:

Industry influence can result in "unacceptable conflicts of interest," the draft says, adding that financial support or gifts, even in modest amounts, "can exert a subtle but measurable impact on recipients' behavior."

I guess we don't need to wonder how they would feel about one of their own doctors accepting a $9,000.00 golf outing, huh?

Kevin Miller's in Good Company

The other day, I called into KDKA to try to convince Kevin Miller (who was sitting in for Fred Honsberger at the time) that he was wrong about Valerie Plame.

He said she was not a covert agent.

I amassed actual factual information to show him his obvious error. But as you well know, "facts" and "reality" have little sway on our nation's right wing pundits (and more than a few trolls here at 2PJ for that matter).

Well, Mr Miller's in good company. Wesley Pruden, writing in the moonie-owned Washington Times, said roughly the same thing (h/t to Mediamatters.org):

If anyone compromised "national security" by "outing" Valerie Plame as Mata Hari, it was not Scooter Libby. The special prosecutor knew all along that it was Richard L. Armitage, another government functionary, who had "outed" Valerie at the CIA, except that she was not really a covert agent, anyway, and even if she had been the law protecting covert agents did not actually apply to her.

Let's review.

According to this document filed by Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald:

The assertion that the collective facts known at an early point in the investigation warranted a summary termination of the investigation does not stand up to close scrutiny. First, it was clear from very early in the investigation that Ms. Wilson qualified under the relevant statute (Title 50, United States Code, Section 421) as a covert agent whose identity had been disclosed by public officials, including Mr. Libby, to the press.

I noticed this from the conclusion:

Mr. Libby, a high-ranking public official and experienced lawyer, lied repeatedly and blatantly about matters at the heart of a criminal investigation concerning the disclosure of a covert intelligence officer’s identity. He has shown no regret for his actions, which significantly impeded the investigation. [emphasis added]

And that, my friends, is what he was convited for - lying and obstruction of justice. Perjury is illegal and Scooter was convicted beyond a reasonable doubt of committing it.

That Valerie Plame was covert is a point written into a sentencing memorandum filed by a US Attorney in a federal court. If that "fact" is incorrect, then why isn't Fitzgerald being hauled into court for perjury?

Simple. Plame was covert and anyone saying otherwise is lying.

Update on Luke Ravenstahl's Golf Outing

I wrote about it this morning here.

The Burgher got some more info here. The Burgher points out that someone attending the event as a "two day" participant had to cough up a cool $27,000.

We already know by Boren's article that Luke participated as an amateur. Does that mean he paid the 27 grand? Does he get paid enough to be able to shell out that amount for a charity event? The Burgher asks whether someone comped the thing for Mayor Luke. Is someone going to ask Mayor Luke about it?

Mayoral candidate (and prospective debate opponent) Mark DeSantis issued a press release about this earlier today:

Mr. Desantis believes that effective leadership is about priorities.

Clearly Mr. Ravenstahl’s decision to snub the women that he outraged by promoting three police officers without regard to their past links to domestic violence demonstrates that his priority is not city government.

Rather, Mr. Ravenstahl’s actions illustrate his inability to take responsibility for his conduct and for the conduct of those in his administration. Mr. Ravenstahl’s priorities, namely golf, should not come at the expense of the residents in the City of Pittsburgh .

Mr. Desantis believes in honest government. The only way a leader can promote honest government is to honestly evaluate the needs and priorities of the people with whom he has an obligation to serve.

Can't wait to see them debate.

UPDATE: This has been updated elsewhere. The $27,000 was for THREE golfers, not just one. So if my grade school arithmetic still holds up, that means that it cost (someone) $9,000 for Mayor Luke to go out and play.

Here we go, here we go, here we go again!

Major h/t to Progress Pittsburgh for picking up on an item in The Trib's Sunday Whispers column.

Recall how surprised some people were (well, I sure was) when Mayor Luke Ravenstahl "challenged his Republican opponent Mark DeSantis to at least two debates in the run-up to the November general election"? Surprising considering how he played and won "Beat the Clock" with any debates while Peduto was still in it.

The non surprising part was where Luke said of the debates: "one of which would rely on high school students to ask questions of the candidates" (Are You Smarter Than A High Schooler?).

Also not surprising was the P-G's report on the same story:

Mr. DeSantis has said that he hoped to see at least four debates and would welcome more. But Mr. Ravenstahl's letter hinted that he may not be amenable to the expansive schedule his challenger would prefer.

Well, now The Trib has another take on Luke's letter:

But judging from a letter Ravenstahl sent to DeSantis shortly after the GOP businessman kicked off his campaign last week, don't be surprised if the mayor attempts to welsh on every debate.

Although Ravenstahl agreed in principle to two debates, he wrote, "I have made a firm commitment to dedicate myself in total to my responsibilities as mayor. It is my first and foremost responsibility, and its scheduling requirements are enormous."

Some Grant Street observers believe those sentences lay the groundwork for Ravenstahl backing out of one or both of the debates to which he has committed.

There also has been some snickering about the mayor's newfound dedication to his office.

Here's a thought:

Can maybe the public see the whole letter so we can make our own judgment on what Lukey is saying?

Olbermann Last Night

I was making funnel cakes last night in Crafton (where I ran into Mark Rauterkus - Hey, Mark!) and so I missed Keith's commentary live. I caught it, luckily, on the late night repeat.

In case you missed it. Here it is:

Crooks and Liars has the transcript.

Some Highlights:

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

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

It’s the fixed ballgame and the rigged casino and the pre-arranged lottery all rolled into one — and it stinks. And they know it.

Nixon’s mistake, the last and most fatal of them, the firing of Archibald Cox, was enough to cost him the presidency.

And in the end, even Richard Nixon could say he could not put this nation through an impeachment.

It was far too late for it to matter then, but as the decades unfold, that single final gesture of non-partisanship, of acknowledged responsibility not to self, not to party, not to “base,” but to country, echoes loudly into history.

Even Richard Nixon knew it was time to resign.

Then he said:

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

We of this time — and our leaders in Congress, of both parties — must now live up to those standards which echo through our history:

Pressure, negotiate, impeach — get you, Mr. Bush, and Mr. Cheney, two men who are now perilous to our Democracy, away from its helm.

And for you, Mr. Bush, and for Mr. Cheney, there is a lesser task.
You need merely achieve a very low threshold indeed.

Display just that iota of patriotism which Richard Nixon showed, on August 9th, 1974.

Resign.

I'm so glad I caught the repeat.

Where In The World Was Luke Ravenstahl?

Now we know where he was during that recent City Council hearing. He was out playing Jeremy Boren has the story.

Pittsburgh Mayor Luke Ravenstahl played at a celebrity golf tournament rather than face more than 100 women angered by the promotions of three police officers linked to accusations of domestic violence or disturbances in their pasts.

What is it with this guy and golf? But take a look at the next few paragraphs:

"I can confirm that he was there both days," said Nancy Angus, director of the Mario Lemieux Foundation, which organizes the annual Mario Lemieux Celebrity Tournament.

So Boren got the tournament to confirm.

But...

Ravenstahl refused to say Friday and again Sunday where he was during the more than two-hour City Council public hearing at 1:30 p.m. Thursday in City Council Chambers. [emphasis added]

Did he think that no one would find out? That no one would check? What's he using for brains these days?

Here comes the chutzpah:

"Some are attempting to unfairly criticize me for attending a charitable event while a public hearing was being held on the 28th. This smacks of crass politics and yellow journalism and disappoints me greatly," Ravenstahl said in a statement last night.

Wait a sec! He was denying he was there as recently as Sunday - and it was a charitable event?? He's denied he was at a charitable event and then when it was confirmed that he was - THEN he says criticising him for it "smacks of crass politics and yellow journalism"?

No, Luke. You're the disappointement.

As Jeanne Clark (who was at the meeting and not out playing in Ligonier) said:

What's astonishing is that if he was really trying to raise money for charity, he was trying to hide it from people by not answering the question.

Yep. That's our mayor.

And in case you hadn't heard, he refused to overturn the promotions.

People Have the Power

People Have the Power - Patti Smith

I was dreaming in my dreaming
of an aspect bright and fair
and my sleeping it was broken
but my dream it lingered near
in the form of shining valleys
where the pure air recognized
and my senses newly opened
I awakened to the cry
that the people / have the power
to redeem / the work of fools
upon the meek / the graces shower
it's decreed / the people rule

The people have the power
The people have the power
The people have the power
The people have the power

Vengeful aspects became suspect
and bending low as if to hear
and the armies ceased advancing
because the people had their ear
and the shepherds and the soldiers
lay beneath the stars
exchanging visions
and laying arms
to waste / in the dust
in the form of / shining valleys
where the pure air / recognized
and my senses / newly opened
I awakened / to the cry

Refrain

Where there were deserts
I saw fountains
like cream the waters rise
and we strolled there together
with none to laugh or criticize
and the leopard
and the lamb
lay together truly bound
I was hoping in my hoping
to recall what I had found
I was dreaming in my dreaming
god knows / a purer view
as I surrender to my sleeping
I commit my dream to you

Refrain

The power to dream / to rule
to wrestle the world from fools
it's decreed the people rule
it's decreed the people rule
LISTEN
I believe everything we dream
can come to pass through our union
we can turn the world around
we can turn the earth's revolution
we have the power
People have the power ...

Happy Independence Day!

Can you say "Hypocrites"

Mr. Law & Order, Republican Presidential candidate Fred Thompson

NOW:
"I am very happy for Scooter Libby. I know that this is a great relief to him, his wife and children. While for a long time I have urged a pardon for Scooter, I respect the President's decision. This will allow a good American, who has done a lot for his country, to resume his life."

THEN:
In 1999 when Thonpson was a Senator, he voted "guilty" on article 2, the obstruction of justice article during the Clinton impeachment.

Mr. Tough On Crime, Republican Presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani

NOW:
"After evaluating the facts, the president came to a reasonable decision and I believe the decision was correct."

THEN:
(Giuliani in 1987) The United States Attorney in Manhattan, Rudolph W. Giuliani, declared yesterday that the one-year prison sentence that a Queens judge received for perjury was ''somewhat shocking.''

''A sentence of one year seemed to me to be very lenient,'' Mr. Giuliani said, when asked to comment on the sentence imposed Wednesday on Justice Francis X. Smith, the former Queens administrative judge.

The Man Who Promised to Bring Back "Honor and Integrity" to the White House, Republican President George W. Bush

NOW:
"I respect the jury’s verdict. But I have concluded that the prison sentence given to Mr. Libby is excessive. Therefore, I am commuting the portion of Mr. Libby’s sentence that required him to spend thirty months in prison."

Bush will also not rule out a pardon down the road.

THEN:
"I don't believe my role is to replace the verdict of a jury with my own." [From Bush's autobiography, "A Charge To Keep," 11/99]

"I will swear to uphold the laws of the land. But I will also swear to uphold the honor and the integrity of the office to which I have been elected, so help me God," said then-Governor George Bush [CNN, “Inside Politics,” 8/11/00]

"Americans are tired of investigations and scandal, and the best way to get rid of them is to elect a new president who will bring a new administration, who will restore honor and dignity to the White House." [Then-Governor George Bush on CNN’s “Burden of Proof,” 9/15/00]

"Americans want to be assured that the next administration will bring honor and dignity to the White House." [Then-Governor George Bush on CNN’s “Capital Gang,” 8/13/00]

"A reformer with results. He will restore integrity and values to the White House." [2000 Bush Campaign Ad aired on CNN’s “Crossfire,” 2/17/00]

"Please thank the personnel of your departments and agencies for their commitment to maintain the highest standards of integrity in Government as we serve the American people." [Memo from President Bush to Executive Officials, 1/20/01

"The President has set high standards, the highest of standards for people in his administration. He's made it very clear to people in his administration that he expects them to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. If anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration." [White House Briefing, 9/29/03]

"I don't know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information. If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action." [Bush Remarks: Chicago, Illinois, 9/30/03]

When the White House was asked specifically whether Karl Rove, Elliot Abrams or Lewis Libby told any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said: "Those individuals -- I talked -- I spoke with those individuals, as I pointed out, and those individuals assured me they were not involved in this. And that's where it stands." [White House Briefing, 10/10/03]

Asked in June 2004 if he'd stand by his pledge to fire anyone found to have leaked, Bush replied "yes." [Bush Press Conference: Savannah, GA, 6/10/04]

The Dark Lord, Republican Vice President Dick Cheney

Oh, hell, c'mon, who cares what he has to say about this! Scooter is perjuring and obstructing justice for Dick Cheney!

Hey, MSM, here's a question to ask Bush:

"Is it fair that Scooter Libby will serve less jail time than Paris Hilton?"

.

Kevin Miller is Wrong, Wrong, Wrong

I was just on KDKA. Kevin Miller (he's filling in for Fred today) had been saying about Valerie Plame that she was NOT covert. Therefore the whole Libby trial was somehow a sham.

He also said that Bush was right in commuting the prison sentence because (and I am NOT joking here) "rank has its privileges." So Kevin Miller, patriotic American, thinks that that the same laws that you and I have to abide by, the powerful don't have to.

Nice going, Kevin.

I had to call in and spank him. I just had to.

I pointed out that he was absolutely wrong about Valerie Plame. Congressman Henry Waxman opened a Congressional Hearing with a statement that he and his staff cleared with the CIA and Michael Hayden, head of the CIA where he said:

This hearing is being conducted in open session. This is appropriate, but it is also challenging. Ms. Wilson was a covert employee of the CIA. We cannot discuss all of the details of her CIA employment in open session.

I have met, personally, with General Hayden, the head of the CIA, to discuss what I can and cannot say about Ms. Wilson's service. And I want to thank him for his cooperation and help in guiding us along these lines.

My staff has also worked with the agency to ensure these remarks do not contain classified information.

I have been advised by the CIA and that even now, after all that has happened, I cannot disclose the full nature, scope and character of Ms. Wilson's service to our nation without causing serious damage to our national security interests.

But General Hayden and the CIA have cleared these following comments for today's hearing.

During her employment at the CIA, Ms. Wilson was undercover. Her employment status with the CIA was classified information, prohibited from disclosure under Executive Order 12958. [emphasis added]

Patrick Fitzgerald filed papers saying that Valerie Plame was covert - MSNBC covered it here. The complete document is here.

Right now he's mixing in President Clinton's impeachment in order to muddy the waters.

He raised the question in regards to Libby, "What was the underlying crime?" Implying, I guess, that since no one was charged with an underlying crime, the real crime of perjury (for which Libby was convicted) should be ignored.

Of course when a caller brought up exactly the same argument about the Clinton impeachment ("What was the underlying crime in the Clinton impeachment?"), Kevin Miller dutifully pointed out that Clinton lied to the grand jury.

Since Kevin Miller is on NewsRadio1020, don't you think he should actually maybe you know read the news?

CALL THE WHITE HOUSE

According to this survey, only 21% of the American people who are familiar with the case agree with Bush's decision to commute the sentence of convicted perjurer and obstructor-of-justice Scooter Libby.

Senator Biden issued this statement yesterday:

Last week Vice President Cheney asserted that he was beyond the reach of the law. Today, President Bush demonstrated the lengths he would go to, ensuring that even aides to Dick Cheney are beyond the judgment of the law. It is time for the American people to be heard — I call for all Americans to flood the White House with phone calls tomorrow expressing their outrage over this blatant disregard for the rule of law.

I plan to.

Here's the contact page from whitehouse.gov.

The phone number over there is: 202-456-1111

If you wanna fax something over the number is: 202-456-2461

Bush Commutes the Sentence

The President's Statement (by way of TPMCafe):

The United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit today rejected Lewis Libby’s request to remain free on bail while pursuing his appeals for the serious convictions of perjury and obstruction of justice. As a result, Mr. Libby will be required to turn himself over to the Bureau of Prisons to begin serving his prison sentence.

I have said throughout this process that it would not be appropriate to comment or intervene in this case until Mr. Libby’s appeals have been exhausted. But with the denial of bail being upheld and incarceration imminent, I believe it is now important to react to that decision.

From the very beginning of the investigation into the leaking of Valerie Plame’s name, I made it clear to the White House staff and anyone serving in my administration that I expected full cooperation with the Justice Department. Dozens of White House staff and administration officials dutifully cooperated.

After the investigation was under way, the Justice Department appointed United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois Patrick Fitzgerald as a Special Counsel in charge of the case. Mr. Fitzgerald is a highly qualified, professional prosecutor who carried out his responsibilities as charged.

This case has generated significant commentary and debate. Critics of the investigation have argued that a special counsel should not have been appointed, nor should the investigation have been pursued after the Justice Department learned who leaked Ms. Plame’s name to columnist Robert Novak. Furthermore, the critics point out that neither Mr. Libby nor anyone else has been charged with violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act or the Espionage Act, which were the original subjects of the investigation. Finally, critics say the punishment does not fit the crime: Mr. Libby was a first-time offender with years of exceptional public service and was handed a harsh sentence based in part on allegations never presented to the jury.

Others point out that a jury of citizens weighed all the evidence and listened to all the testimony and found Mr. Libby guilty of perjury and obstructing justice. They argue, correctly, that our entire system of justice relies on people telling the truth. And if a person does not tell the truth, particularly if he serves in government and holds the public trust, he must be held accountable. They say that had Mr. Libby only told the truth, he would have never been indicted in the first place.

Both critics and defenders of this investigation have made important points. I have made my own evaluation. In preparing for the decision I am announcing today, I have carefully weighed these arguments and the circumstances surrounding this case.

Mr. Libby was sentenced to thirty months of prison, two years of probation, and a $250,000 fine. In making the sentencing decision, the district court rejected the advice of the probation office, which recommended a lesser sentence and the consideration of factors that could have led to a sentence of home confinement or probation.

I respect the jury’s verdict. But I have concluded that the prison sentence given to Mr. Libby is excessive. Therefore, I am commuting the portion of Mr. Libby’s sentence that required him to spend thirty months in prison.

My decision to commute his prison sentence leaves in place a harsh punishment for Mr. Libby. The reputation he gained through his years of public service and professional work in the legal community is forever damaged. His wife and young children have also suffered immensely. He will remain on probation.The significant fines imposed by the judge will remain in effect. The consequences of his felony conviction on his former life as a lawyer, public servant, and private citizen will be long-lasting.

The Constitution gives the President the power of clemency to be used when he deems it to be warranted. It is my judgment that a commutation of the prison term in Mr. Libby’s case is an appropriate exercise of this power.

Simple Story. No Jail = Scooter keeps his mouth shut.

George W. Bush: No Adult Supervision

He's seen as "calm" and still acting "as if he's master of the universe." Henry Kissinger, the Cambodia-bomber himself, finds him "serene" and "at peace." Congressman Peter King (R-NY) finds him "amazingly calm."

All of which scares the bejesus out of me.

In case you didn't know it, I'm talking about our great and glorious leader, George W. Bush. The article is from today's Washington Post. According to the first paragraph, dubya's gotten all introspective:

At the nadir of his presidency, George W. Bush is looking for answers. One at a time or in small groups, he summons leading authors, historians, philosophers and theologians to the White House to join him in the search.

The piece lays out some of the oppressively bad news facing dubya:

The reality has been daunting by any account. No modern president has experienced such a sustained rejection by the American public. Bush's approval rating slipped below 50 percent in Washington Post-ABC News polls in January 2005 and has not topped that level in the 30 months since. The last president mired under 50 percent so long was Harry S. Truman. Even Richard M. Nixon did not fall below 50 percent until April 1973, 16 months before he resigned.

The polls reflect the events of Bush's second term, an unyielding sequence of bad news. Social Security. Hurricane Katrina. Harriet E. Miers. Dubai Ports World. Vice President Cheney's hunting accident. Jack Abramoff, Tom DeLay and Mark Foley. The midterm elections. I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Alberto R. Gonzales and Paul D. Wolfowitz. Immigration. And overshadowing it all, the Iraq war, now longer than the U.S. fight in World War II.

Such pressure doesn't sit well with most presidents:

Other presidents have been crushed by the pressure. Lyndon B. Johnson was tormented by Vietnam War protesters outside his window shouting, "Hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?" Nixon swam in self-pity during Watergate, talking to paintings and once asking Henry Kissinger to pray with him. Bill Clinton fumed against enemies and nursed deep grievances during his impeachment battle.

But not our Georgie. The scary part for me is how in spite of all the crap he's dumped on the rest of the world, it obviously hasn't effected him that much. The reason?

Much of the discussion focused on the nature of good and evil, a perennial theme for Bush, who casts the struggle against Islamic extremists in black-and-white terms. Michael Novak, a theologian who participated, said it was clear that Bush weathers his difficulties because he sees himself as doing the Lord's work.

"His faith is very strong," said Novak, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. "Faith is not enough by itself because there are a lot of people who have faith but weak hearts. But his faith is very strong. He seeks guidance, like every other president does, in prayer. And that means trying to be sure he's doing the right thing. And if you've got that set, all the criticism, it doesn't faze you very much. You're answering to God."

Maybe Hitchens is right: Religion poisons everything.

Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid

Did you know there's a lesbian crime wave sweeping the nation?

Neither did I!

Fox "News" has the story.

Funny. Especially the part about how the gangs call themselves "Pink Pistol Packing Groups." What, the word "posse" was unavailable?

Newsmen with podcasts!

Today, Bob Mayo put up "a podcast of my Q&A; with Mayor Ravenstahl on his decision not to rescind the controversial police promotions."

Jon Delano has many new links on his sidebar to video of many candidates in Pittsburgh; both local (DeSantis) and national (Giuliani, Obama and Romney).

Impeach Cheney

A good friend of mine sent me this link.

Looks like the calls of Impeachment are more spreading further across the ideological map. This time it's Bruce Fein, chairman of American Freedom Agenda.

Fein, you'll recall, served as Deputy Attorney General under Ronald Reagan. He's been an adjunct scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, a resident scholar at the Heritage Foundation and a lecturer at the Brookings Institute. Hardly a liberal.

He wrote recently at Slate.com:

Under Dick Cheney, the office of the vice president has been transformed from a tiny acorn into an unprecedented giant oak. In grasping and exercising presidential powers, Cheney has dulled political accountability and concocted theories for evading the law and Constitution that would have embarrassed King George III. The most recent invention we know of is the vice president's insistence that an executive order governing the handling of classified information in the executive branch does not reach his office because he also serves as president of the Senate. In other words, the vice president is a unique legislative-executive creature standing above and beyond the Constitution. The House judiciary committee should commence an impeachment inquiry. As Alexander Hamilton advised in the Federalist Papers, an impeachable offense is a political crime against the nation. Cheney's multiple crimes against the Constitution clearly qualify. [emphasis added

He lists the reasons. After discussing briefly the "preposterous" reasoning that sought to remove Cheney's office from the Executive Branch, Fein goes deeper:

The vice president asserted presidential power to create military commissions,which combine the functions of judge, jury, and prosecutor in the trial of war crimes.

And:

The vice president initiated kidnappings, secret detentions, and torture in Eastern European prisons of suspected international terrorists.

And:

The vice president engineered the National Security Agency's warrantless domestic surveillance program targeting American citizens on American soil in contravention of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978.

And so on...