Routine Magic

I'm keeping neocons from the door tonight with left-over wedding Redhook ESB - outside temp, carbonation more or less shot- but nevertheless a beverage to be reckoned with. Sadly there are gallons that will go to waste when keg must be returned tomorrow. Would you could be here for a party!

I'm premiering Bruce's "Magic," just acquired today. I believe I will be growing fond of this disk.

My Bush-clock is losing its' lcd moxie, but I think it says 464 days. Personally, I doubt I have that much tolerance left in my system. Remind me please what the other options are.

I missed a couple hours of idiot-box tonight (albeit Daily Show/Colbert/Olbermann - almost always a rewarding experience) as I was negotiating borrow of pickup truck. We were recently gifted with 1,000 lbs of "Zoo-Doo," the cleverly-marketed expulsion from the local zoo. Moving a half-ton of animal-poop is non-trivial when you are down to one car.

But I have the requisite shredded potatoes properly boiled and awaiting browning in the AM. (I.e., hashbrown energy source to bolster doo-workers.)

. . . We're livin' in the future and none of this has happened yet . . .

Even George Can Spell "Loser"

I am trying to find some reassurance in the number of folks recently getting increasingly frank about the cancerous dishonesty and criminality that seems to be the sine qua non of the cheney presidency. Not that the little stick-figure dummy-on-knee doesn't also get aroused at having uncle dick tickle him into "fooling" the people. He's gotten away (so far) with so much lawbreaking and general delinquency in his life that I'm sure he still gets a thrill out of gaming the system. The system, that is, that formerly held civilization as we knew it together - you trust me, I trust you, we abide by laws, and etc.

I'm channeling Dan Froomkin here. His post Tuesday under the title "Bush's Feeble Torture Dodge" seemed to me unusually frank and plain-speaking, and appropriately so:

President Bush's attempt on Friday to bat down the renewed furor over his secretive and brutal interrogation policies was profoundly empty of meaning -- and utterly ineffective.

Bush once again denied that his administration has engaged in torture, even as more evidence emerged that he continues to sanction behavior that most people would call just that. He wrapped himself in the flag and mobilized the rhetorical straw men, but offered not one new reason why anyone should believe him.

It's worth parsing his words carefully. Here's the transcript of his remarks, inserted into what was originally supposed to be a briefing solely about the economy.

Bush: "There's been a lot of talk in the newspapers and on TV about a program that I put in motion to detain and question terrorists and extremists. I have put this program in place for a reason, and that is to better protect the American people. And when we find somebody who may have information regarding an -- a potential attack on America, you bet we're going to detain them, and you bet we're going to question them -- because the American people expect us to find out information -- actionable intelligence so we can help protect them. That's our job."

Nobody, of course, is suggesting that the government shouldn't detain or interrogate legitimate terrorist suspects; the question is whether or not it should torture them -- an issue Bush then dealt with cursorily.

"Secondly, this government does not torture people. You know, we stick to U.S. law and our international obligations."

By now, Bush's insistence that "we don't torture" has become a perverse tautology: It doesn't mean that we don't torture; it just means that if we do it, he doesn't call it torture. (See Jon Stewart and John Oliver, quoted below.) And was Bush asserting some sort of hairsplitting distinction between obligations and laws?

"Thirdly, there are highly trained professionals questioning these extremists and terrorists. In other words, we got professionals who are trained in this kind of work to get information that will protect the American people. And by the way, we have gotten information from these high-value detainees that have helped protect you."

But evidence of the success of harsh interrogation techniques is hard to find. Bush's insistence in February 2006, for instance, that CIA interrogation thwarted an Al Qaeda attack on Los Angeles was quickly downplayed by intelligence officials. And what little investigative reporting I've seen suggests that harsh interrogation has produced little to no valuable information -- certainly none that experts say couldn't have been obtained through traditional means.

"And finally, the techniques that we use have been fully disclosed to appropriate members of the United States Congress. The American people expect their government to take action to protect them from further attack. And that's exactly what this government is doing, and that's exactly what we'll continue to do."

But those members of Congress say they have not been fully briefed on the Bush policies.

And as for what the American people expect? Well, I think they expect their government not to engage in torture.

Greg Miller and Richard B. Schmitt write in the Los Angeles Times: "President Bush on Friday defended the CIA's harsh interrogation of terrorism suspects, saying its methods do not constitute torture and are necessary to protect America from attack.

"But Bush's declaration that the United States 'does not torture people' did little to dampen the fallout from fresh evidence that his administration has used secret legal memos to sanction tactics that stretch, if not circumvent, the law."

Michael Abramowitz and Joby Warrick write in Saturday's Washington Post: "Bush's statement that Congress has been briefed on the interrogation tactics drew a swift and angry reaction from Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), chairman of the Senate intelligence committee.

"'The administration can't have it both ways,' Rockefeller said in a statement. 'I'm tired of these games. They can't say that Congress has been fully briefed while refusing to turn over key documents used to justify the legality of the program.'"

-clip-

There is more at that post you should explore.

But our own charlie mccarthy-monkey is also being subjected to unusual multiple lashings by former Pres Carter (admittedly not the first by him, to the great credit of Mr. Carter, who I might have given up on too early when he was in office). This "protocol" that dictates that former prexies never criticize a sitting (semi-comatose, enraptured with the cheney-fondling, and in total denial of reality in this case) prez seems absurd to me when there is so much evidence of criminality, venality, and generally treasonous behavior by virtually the entire pack of vermin infesting the white house. For that matter, under the circumstances, I have to say as aside that the absence from stage of Colin Powell is only adding to the negative legacy he is earning and so richly deserves. He needed to strap on a codpiece after the Petraeus circus and make a serious statement. He has turned out to be a remarkably pathetic lost cause and big-time loser, having wasted an amazing amount of credibility.

I am again making use of Froomkin here. He had this today under "Carter Critique":

Former president Jimmy Carter is once again lambasting the current occupants of the White House.

In one interview yesterday, Carter accused President Bush of abandoning the basic principles of human rights, engaging in torture, and lying about it. In another, he called Vice President Cheney a disaster for our country and a militant who is "trying again to promote once again what might well be a counterproductive and catastrophic military venture."

While it's traditional for former presidents to show some deference to their successors, this is not the first time Carter has publicly scolded Bush. Back in May, for instance, he infuriated the White House by calling Bush the worst president of all time when it comes to international relations. A Bush spokesman responded by calling Carter "increasingly irrelevant."

Carter may or may not be politically irrelevant, but the 2002 Nobel Peace Prize winner's critique is certainly timely -- coming as Bush's torture policy and Cheney's itchy trigger finger continue to provoke controversy.

Carter's Words

Here's the video and transcript of Carter's appearance on CNN with Wolf Blitzer yesterday.

Carter: "I think the entirety of the global human rights community . . . would agree with the fact that our country, for the first time in my lifetime, has abandoned the basic principles of human rights. . . .

Blitzer: "President Bush said as recently as this week the United States does not torture detainees."

Carter: "That's not an accurate statement if you use the international norms of torture as has always been honored, certainly in the last 60 years, since the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was promulgated. But you can make your own definition of human rights and say, 'We don't violate them.' And we can -- you can make your own definition of torture and say 'We don't violate it.'"

Blitzer: "But by your definition, you believe the United States, under this administration, has used torture."

Carter: "I don't think it, I know it, certainly."

Blitze: "So is the president lying?"

Carter: "The president is self-defining what we have done and authorized in the torture of prisoners, yes."

Here's the video of Carter's interview with the BBC's Matt Frei, discussing Cheney's preference for force over diplomacy.

"As usual, Dick Cheney is wrong," Carter said. "He's a militant who avoided any service of his own in the military and he has been most forceful in the last 10 years or more in fulfilling some of his more ancient commitments that the United States has a right to inject its power through military means in other parts of the world. And here he's trying again to promote once again what might well be a counterproductive and catastrophic military venture. . . .

"You know, he's been a disaster for our country. I think he's been overly persuasive on President George Bush and quite often he's prevailed.

"One of his main commitments was to go into Iraq on false pretenses and he still maintains that those false pretenses are accurate."

-clip-

Oh, They're Just Shocked!

I'm back, after more of a hiatus than I had expected or planned. We had the little matter of a wedding to put on last weekend, with attendance potentially well over a hundred. Not wanting to contribute to trend I read about in paper recently of average cost of an upscale event being around $26,000 (presumably largely due to the equivalent of "outsourcing"), we chose to make an attempt to act like proper authorities should. I.e., checks and balances, prudence in expenditures, and lots of hard work with the assistance of enthusiastic volunteers.

It seems to have been a success. Knowing how way leads on to way I may or not be returning to this topic. But, in short, the service came off without a hitch and the reception, from decorations to food and beverage service to exuberant dance-marathon, was variously described as "best party ever" and "best wedding we've ever had here."

So that at least partly vindicated the many weekends of prep work and several solid days of work late last week by hardcore family members and friends, assembling and arranging table decor, and setting up and decorating the hall in particular. Of course there were also the house-guests and pre-rehearsal-dinner-dinner and actual rehearsal dinner, both held at our house and a source of no little stress and strain. In actuality, those were not minor productions in their own right. As one example, I know I took a vacuum to numerous places where vacuums have seldom been known before!

But we're struggling back to reality now, the happy couple down in Mexico for a week, and our last houseguest departing tonight for a bit of R&R in the Southwest before return to Paris.

And I feel some compulsion to get this train back on the track too. Publicizing, circulating, and agitating seem to me to continue to be vital tasks. Both the clear identification and response to prior lawbreaking and civilization-destruction as well as the prevention of more of the same must continue to be high priorities.

I could probably come up with a dozen items here, but will settle basically for one Krugman article. However, that is reason to alert you if you were not already aware to Paul's NYT blog, launched as I recall 9/19. His op-eds have of course been hidden behind a firewall for some time now, as part of the pay-to-read program the Times experimented with. Mercifully that program has ended, but the blog is an extra bonus. Well worth bookmarking and visiting regularly. As just one example, PK's first post on blog had a telling exhibit on the history of economic haves versus have-nots in this country.

He captions this one Same Old Party, and for good reason. It is a total smackdown of the effort being made by the rats who have thus far failed to find their way to the hawsers and scamper from the foundering ship of bush-fools to instead isolate george as an aberration and no proper representative of their glorious program (pogrom?). And, as frosting on the numerous telling layers of parallels in the behavior of still-revered icons like RR, RMN, and Goldwater, this master ends by tweaking our ears with a terrific lyrical borrowing. Rather than lacerate the post to feature all of my favorite bits, I am giving you the whole sandwich:

There have been a number of articles recently that portray President Bush as someone who strayed from the path of true conservatism. Republicans, these articles say, need to return to their roots.

Well, I don’t know what true conservatism is, but while doing research for my forthcoming book I spent a lot of time studying the history of the American political movement that calls itself conservatism — and Mr. Bush hasn’t strayed from the path at all. On the contrary, he’s the very model of a modern movement conservative.

For example, people claim to be shocked that Mr. Bush cut taxes while waging an expensive war. But Ronald Reagan also cut taxes while embarking on a huge military buildup.

People claim to be shocked by Mr. Bush’s general fiscal irresponsibility. But conservative intellectuals, by their own account, abandoned fiscal responsibility 30 years ago. Here’s how Irving Kristol, then the editor of The Public Interest, explained his embrace of supply-side economics in the 1970s: He had a “rather cavalier attitude toward the budget deficit and other monetary or fiscal problems” because “the task, as I saw it, was to create a new majority, which evidently would mean a conservative majority, which came to mean, in turn, a Republican majority — so political effectiveness was the priority, not the accounting deficiencies of government.”

People claim to be shocked by the way the Bush administration outsourced key government functions to private contractors yet refused to exert effective oversight over these contractors, a process exemplified by the failed reconstruction of Iraq and the Blackwater affair.

But back in 1993, Jonathan Cohn, writing in The American Prospect, explained that “under Reagan and Bush, the ranks of public officials necessary to supervise contractors have been so thinned that the putative gains of contracting out have evaporated. Agencies have been left with the worst of both worlds — demoralized and disorganized public officials and unaccountable private contractors.”

People claim to be shocked by the Bush administration’s general incompetence. But disinterest in good government has long been a principle of modern conservatism. In “The Conscience of a Conservative,” published in 1960, Barry Goldwater wrote that “I have little interest in streamlining government or making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size.”

People claim to be shocked that the Bush Justice Department, making a mockery of the Constitution, issued a secret opinion authorizing torture despite instructions by Congress and the courts that the practice should stop. But remember Iran-Contra? The Reagan administration secretly sold weapons to Iran, violating a legal embargo, and used the proceeds to support the Nicaraguan contras, defying an explicit Congressional ban on such support.

Oh, and if you think Iran-Contra was a rogue operation, rather than something done with the full knowledge and approval of people at the top — who were then protected by a careful cover-up, including convenient presidential pardons — I’ve got a letter from Niger you might want to buy.

People claim to be shocked at the Bush administration’s efforts to disenfranchise minority groups, under the pretense of combating voting fraud. But Reagan opposed the Voting Rights Act, and as late as 1980 he described it as “humiliating to the South.”

People claim to be shocked at the Bush administration’s attempts — which, for a time, were all too successful — to intimidate the press. But this administration’s media tactics, and to a large extent the people implementing those tactics, come straight out of the Nixon administration. Dick Cheney wanted to search Seymour Hersh’s apartment, not last week, but in 1975. Roger Ailes, the president of Fox News, was Nixon’s media adviser.

People claim to be shocked at the Bush administration’s attempts to equate dissent with treason. But Goldwater — who, like Reagan, has been reinvented as an icon of conservative purity but was a much less attractive figure in real life — staunchly supported Joseph McCarthy, and was one of only 22 senators who voted against a motion censuring the demagogue.

Above all, people claim to be shocked by the Bush administration’s authoritarianism, its disdain for the rule of law. But a full half-century has passed since The National Review proclaimed that “the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail,” and dismissed as irrelevant objections that might be raised after “consulting a catalogue of the rights of American citizens, born Equal” — presumably a reference to the document known as the Constitution of the United States.

Now, as they survey the wreckage of their cause, conservatives may ask themselves: “Well, how did we get here?” They may tell themselves: “This is not my beautiful Right.” They may ask themselves: “My God, what have we done?”

But their movement is the same as it ever was. And Mr. Bush is movement conservatism’s true, loyal heir.