When A Really Bad Democrat Sneaks Into Congress, It's Serious And It's Harmful-- Vicente González

Members of Congress don't call bloggers and apologize much. But just over a year ago Blue America was backing Sonny Palacios for an open south Texas seat, TX-15, a long narrow district that heads north from the Rio Grande through McAllen and Edinburg, up Route 281 and zigging and zagging up to Seguin east of San Antonio. It's a pretty safe Democratic district. Obama won it both times with 57% and Hillary beat Trump by about the same margin. My congressional friend though, was backing a very wealthy right-wing hustler, Vicente González. González, desperate to win the crowded primary pretended to be a progressive and put a million dollars of his own money into his campaign.

The run-off between Palocios and González was May 24. Sonny is a proud outspoken progressive, a proactive leader with valuable experience as a community leader, school board member, attorney and single father. González is hard to pin down. To one audience he'll claim to be progressive and to another he'll call himself a conservative Democrat. He told a students event that he had voted for Bernie Sanders and a few days later sent out a mailer saying he was a Hillary Clinton endorser. He's very much like Trump in that way... He says whatever pops into his mind based on who the immediate audience is. People in McAllen are calling him the "Trump of South Texas." And, like Trump, he talks a good game about women but his actions speaker louder since, like Trump, exploiting women is part of his business model. He swore in the McAllen Municipal Court (case number 2010-00096858) that he owned the Longhorn Saloon, a topless bar and strip club, which was eventually closed down due to illegal prostitution and drug trafficking on the premises. You cannot run for Congress and claim to be a champion of women’s rights when you're enriching yourself by prostituting vulnerable women.

González persuaded my friend to endorse him. By that time he had self-funded to the tune of $1,650,000 into his campaign and he swamped Palacios, burying him in dishonest advertising. Not long after my friend endorsed him, local radio hosts mentioned to González on the air that "You were endorsed by the Progressive Caucus... I've heard you say once before you see yourself as a conservative Democrat." He immediately responded, "I do in a lot of ways but I guess they agreed with some of my views... I'm not changing my principles... I appreciate the endorsement but my views are my views." Those views aren't remotely progressive, not even pro-Choice. And he's a 100% NRA shill. "I govern from the middle. You know I'm not for raising taxes... I believe we should have the strongest military in the world-- always-- and we should lead the world militarily." One of the interviewers, the more overtly Republican one, listened to him speaking and asked "Why are you running as a Democrat?" He said he's been a Democrat all his life and reiterated that he's a conservative and then said "There are a lot of great candidates on the Republican side as well. I'll reach across there aisle and work with them." Too bad they didn't ask him to name any. The only other congressional candidate he's ever contributed to is right-wing Blue Dog, Filemon Vela, who routinely votes against every progressive proposal... as González has been doing as well.

So, that apology... "You were right on this one. González took my campaign contribution, committed to progressive positions in the CPC questionnaire, and then reneged on joining the CPC and seems to be headed towards being even worse than you told me he would be when you warned me not to endorse him. Not too proud to acknowledge when I'm wrong. He and his team lied to us. It's as clear as that."

González joined the Blue Dogs and has begun running up a truly horrible voting record. ProgressivePunch has already given him an overall "F" rating. His crucial vote score is 57.14, slightly worse than Dan Lipinski. Alas, though, this isn't the kind of district where the idea of primaries is built into the collective DNA. America is going to be stuck with González for a long time-- unless or until he gets caught doing something illegal.

The Senate Environment Committee goes American. ALSO: Idiot Al "The Torture Guy" Gonzales lands a job!

THEN: Lovely Lake Louise, in . . . um, lovely Alberta

Ah, the majesty of the Rockies (Canadian Rockies, that is)

NOW: Are we sure this kayaker isn't . . . Canadian?

The view now on the committee's website

And you thought the U.S. Chamber of Commerce spent all its time trying to screw American workers! Somebody found the time to provide this tip reported by Al Kamen today's Washington Post "In the Loop" column. -- Ken

Jeez, Louise: When Did We Annex Canada?

By Al Kamen

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce alerted us Monday to an interesting photo on the Web site of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. Seems, with summer heat bearing down soon on the area, as "readers consider how to escape the heated climate change debate and spend their vacation dollars this summer," that senators wanted to be sure Americans don't forget the glories of . . . the Rockies, the Chamber told us by e-mail.

The committee's home page featured a beckoning photo of a spectacular vista in that mountain range. One problem, though: It was of Lake Louise, which happens to be in the Canadian Rockies.

We called the committee's majority Democrats to ask about this promotion of foreign travel. But a spokesman referred us to Republican members, saying "they were responsible" for the photo.

And indeed, a committee GOP spokesman said that back on Dec. 22, 2006, with Democrats poised to take over the Senate, "we put together this fantastic new Web site," and the Republicans were rushing to put it up "before they took over."

So the outgoing Republicans decided to use some placeholder pictures that a vendor provided. Had they regained control, they most likely would have added pictures of Oklahoma (ranking GOP member Jim Inhofe's state) or maybe some oil rigs to the ones being used.

The Democrats changed some of the pictures. It became more California (Chairman Barbara Boxer's state), and more polar bears and such were added. But "they haven't seen fit to take this one down," the Republican spokesman added.

Wait a minute, a Democratic staffer retorted. "We didn't vet their selections. We inherited the site." The Democrats changed a few pictures, that staffer said, but "if they'd wanted to change a picture, they could have said so." The foreign picture has been taken down, we were told.

But some of those bears looked distinctly Canadian. Did anyone check?

EX-AG IDIOT AL "THE TORTURE GUY" GONZALES FINDS WORK -- HE'S GONNA BE A PROFESSOR!

In other "Loop"-y news, former Attorney General Gonzales has news for the friends and fans who waved bye-bye, chanting "Write if you get work," as he left the nationan's capital a couple of years ago. His job hunt as at last borne fruit:

We've been long awaiting word on where former attorney general Alberto R. Gonzales would land after leaving the Bush administration two years ago. And now we have an answer: deep in West Texas.

The Texas native has been hired by Texas Tech University as a political science professor. He will teach a "special topics" course on contemporary issues in the executive branch at the Lubbock campus, a university official told the Austin American-Statesman

A professor, eh? "Special topics," eh? They'll have to be pretty special for Idiot Al to remember 'em. It's quite a leap of faith to have a guy teaching a course who never saw or heard anything, and even if he did doesn't remember a blessed thing about it.

#

Yes, There's Other News-- Take Kyle Dusty Foggo and Alberto Gonzales, For Example

Gonzales and Foggo: two Republicrooks facing the bar of Justice

The Bush Regime appointed a corrupt political hack as Executive Director of the CIA-- then professed shock-- I mean shock-- when he behaved like... a corrupt political hack. We've been covering his case here at DWT since early March, 2006 when Newsweek first floated the facts about his sleazy relationship to corrupt members of Congress. The Bush Regime has skipped away from this disaster without so much as a "huh?" from the American people. The police swept into his home and office, indicted, and... well, today he pleaded guilty to extremely reduced charges. In fact, one charge "of defrauding the United States in a corruption case that stemmed from the bribery scandal that brought down former U.S. Congressman Randall 'Duke' Cunningham."

Bush appointed him to be the #3 ranking official at the CIA to make sure all the kickbacks and bribes went to the right (right-wing) people. He was in cahoots with GOP lobbyist and contractor Brent Wilkes who currently in prison after being convicted of bribing Cunningham. He was sentenced to 12 years but, like all the Republican crooks found guilty of corruption, is expected to be pardoned by Bush before he leaves the White House he has disgraced so badly.

And Foggo isn't the only Republicrook coming home to roost who Bush will be pardoning in January. Today Attorney General Mukasey appointed a federal prosecutor to look into whether or not his predecessor, Alberto Gonzales, should spend the rest of his miserable life-- or some part of it-- behind bars for turning the Department of Justice into a politicized whore house-- and for the cover-up that followed. So far, "the investigation uncovered 'significant evidence' that partisan political factors played a role in some of the 2006 dismissals. Particularly 'troubling,' according to the report, was the sacking of New Mexico U.S. Attorney David C. Iglesias after several Republican elected officials complained about voter fraud and public corruption cases he pursued. That episode raises the possibility that obstruction of justice and wire fraud laws were violated."

In the 390-page report, issued this morning, they said Gonzales "bears primary responsibility" for the debacle and asserted that he was "remarkably disengaged" from the process, which stretched on for months. Investigators said that after the mass firings came to light, Gonzales made "misleading" public statements about his involvement, failing to recall his attendance at a critical meeting and documents that landed on his desk.

...The internal watchdogs asked that the investigation continue under the authority of a prosecutor with the power to compel testimony and production of documents. They said their probe was thwarted in part because they could not interview key witnesses, including former White House officials Karl Rove, Harriet E. Miers and William Kelley. Investigators also pointed out that the White House refused to turn over internal documents related to the dismissal of the prosecutors by citing the "sensitivity" of the issues, saying the move had "hindered" their inquiry.

Mukasey selected Connecticut Acting U.S. Attorney Nora R. Dannehy, a federal prosecutor for 17 years, to answer the lingering questions. Dannehy will report to the department's second in command. Her investigation likely will extend for months, ensuring that the politically charged issue will extend into the next administration.

UPDATE: Poker, Hookers, and Black Contracts: Or How To Make a CIA Trial Go Away

The above is the title of Laura Rozen's Mother Jones piece on the latest Dusty Foggo developments. I recommend you click the link and read it in its entirety.

...it wasn't the hookers, the card games, the water contract, or even the staff mistress that concerned the Agency's executives when Foggo spared them by entering a guilty plea on a single count of wire fraud Monday. In exchange for the plea, prosecutors agreed to drop the 27 other charges and requested only three years prison time out of the 20 Foggo could have faced. ("Your lawyers did a good job for you," US District judge James C. Cacheris told Foggo after he accepted his guilty plea, with evident understatement.)

No, what truly worried Agency brass were the darker secrets their former top logistics officer was threatening to spill had his case gone to trial as scheduled on November 3. They included the massive contracts Foggo was discussing with Wilkes, estimated by one source at over $300 million dollars. "Wilkes was working on several other huge deals when the hammer fell," a source familiar with Foggo's discussions with Wilkes told me. What kinds of deals? According to the source, they included creating and running a secret plane network, for whatever needs the CIA has for secret planes now that the network it used for extraordinary rendition flights has been outed. "In or about December 2004," the Foggo indictment says, "Foggo discussed with Wilkes and J.C. the idea that Foggo might be able to get Wilkes a classified government contract to supply air support services to the CIA…. In or about January 2005, Wilkes directed various ADCS employees to begin developing an air support proposal that would be designed to answer the CIA's classified needs as outlined by Foggo."

When it comes to a big-time whitewash, even Tom Sawyer couldn't have done a better job than our one and only attorney general, Judge Malarkey

"Professionalism is alive and well at the Justice Department."

-- said today by U.S. Attorney General Judge Malarkey

to delegates at the annual meeting of the American Bar Association

"Although I don't foresee any prosecutions, we will of course cooperate with all legitimate inquiries into the extent and causes of, and the remedies for, any breakdowns in the lawful and effective functioning of the Department of Justice. This includes coordinating efforts to ensure that all present and former officials, not just of the DoJ but of the entire executive branch, with pertinent information are made available to testify."

-- not said today by U.S. Attorney General Judge Malarkey

to delegates at the annual meeting of the American Bar Association

by Ken

So, "professionalism is alive and well at the Justice Department"? What a relief! Oh, happy day! So it's all OK now, right?

Oh gawd, oh gawd, oh gawd. Of course it's not all OK. Not at all.

It's so entirely not-all-right that I should once again be jumping up and down and screaming at the outrage of it. My guess is that if you've found your way to DownWithTyranny, you've done your share of such jumping up and down and screaming at the outrage. So you know both how all that jumping and screaming feels and how exhausting it becomes when the outrages not only don't go away but keep piling up.

Earlier today Howie passed along this report by the AP's Mark Sherman on the attorney general's appearance this morning at the ABA annual meeting. It appears that our Judge Malarkey announced more or less officially that all the wrongdoing alleged or hinted at in those recent IG reports regarding illegal politicization in the hiring of career (as opposed to political) appointees is now formally whitewashed.

"There was a failure of supervision by senior officials in the department," said Judge Malarkey, according to the AP's Sherman. "And there was a failure on the part of some employees to cry foul when they were aware, or should have been aware, of problems."

This appears to be what Sherman was referring to when he wrote:

Mukasey used his sharpest words yet to criticize the senior leaders who took part in or failed to stop illegal hiring practices during the tenure of his predecessor, Alberto Gonzales [right].

But, he told delegates to the American Bar Association annual meeting, "not every wrong, or even every violation of the law, is a crime. In this instance, the two joint reports found only violations of the civil service laws."

Whoa there! Easy now, dude, don't go ballistic on us!

Asked for comment, former Attorney General Idiot Al "The Torture Guy" Gonzales, on whose watch the worst of the Justice Department atrocities occurred, said, "Man, that Judge Malarkey knows how to bum a guy out. I feel bad, real bad."

OK, I made this up. I have no evidence whatsoever that Idiot Al feels bad at all, although I wouldn't be surprised to learn that he's annoyed and a trifle embarrassed by yet more discussion of the systematic law-breaking carried out by a host of department officials under his supervision. But it's hard to disagree with Howie's thumbnail characterization of Judge Malarkey's crackdown:

Fox guarding henhouse: "Hold still while I shout stern words at you without actually punishing you!"

Knowing that I'm on record as judging the political perversion of the Justice Department as, next to the catastrophe in the Middle East, the most damaging depredation of the Bush regime, Howie asked if I wanted to write about this. And I should certainly want to. And yet, and yet . . .

It's just so exhausting, and feels so futile, that . . . that . . . well, I don't even want to think about it. Which of course is exactly what Judge Malarkey is counting on to successfully sweep this whole ghastly democracy-demolishing mess under the spacious DoJ rug.

For the record, the judge's remarks appear not to extend to other aspects of the DoJ breakdown still under investigation. According to Sherman:

Other intrusions of Bush administration politics into department hirings and firings remain under investigation. Justice officials say the attorney general's remarks do not preclude criminal prosecutions if wrongdoing is found in the inquiries into the firing of nine U.S. attorneys in 2006 and the hiring practices in the department's civil rights division.

Of course there is still no indication that anyone in the Bush regime plans to do anything except obstruct those still-ongoing but faltering investigations into DoJ misconduct. I'm certainly not holding my breath that Harriet Miers and Josh Bolten and especially Karl Rove will be under oath spilling their guts anytime soon.

In the end it occurred to me that maybe I should just write the plain truth: that I'm exhausted, and rendered beyond combat by this latest evidence of how much good all the previous jumping up and down and screaming did -- including all the jumping up and down and screaming done by much more eloquent and persistent jumpers-and-screamers than yours truly.

The moral of the story appears to be:

If you happen to run a rampantly corrupt governement, or a rampantly corrupt agency of a rampantly corrupt government (in particular an agency responsible for the administration of justice), and in a moment of faint-heartedness you think you've accumulated more dirt than you can possibly sweep under the rug, don't forget that you can always buy more rugs.

And that demon discount shopper South Carolina Sen. Lindsey "The Rug Merchant" Graham [above] can probably get you a deal on them.

#

CONGRESS SUBPOENAS KARL ROVE!

Yesterday I watched a video of former U.S. Attorney, David Iglesias, a Republican, speaking about GOP election fraud. He was targeted by Senator Pete Domenici, Rep. Heather Wilson, and lame congressional wannabe Darren White and then ordered fired by Karl Rove, an order ex-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales was happy to carry out. It was one of many orders Happy Alberto carried out in a purge of honest men from the Justice Department. If someone works in the upper echelons of the Justice Department today, it is because they were willing to pervert and subvert Justice at the behest of criminals like Rove and Cheney. Take a look at the video:



David Iglesias: "I've been very disappointed in Darren [White]. He doesn't understand his duties as a Sheriff. He put, and, this is what I'm very critical of Gonzales (as well), they put loyalty to their party at a higher level than their loyalty to the Constitution. Darren did the same thing."

And Iglesias was far from the only example of how Rove and the Bush Regime wrecked the American Justice system for their own purposes. Ken and I have been writing a lot about former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman, who was also targeted for political extinction by Rove-- and then dragged off and imprisoned. Today we are one small step closer to restoring the rule of law in our country with the subpoena served on Karl Rove by the House Judiciary Committee. Chairman John Conyers:

“It is unfortunate that Mr. Rove has failed to cooperate with our requests. Although he does not seem the least bit hesitant to discuss these very issues weekly on cable television and in the print news media, Mr. Rove and his attorney have apparently concluded that a public hearing room would not be appropriate. Unfortunately, I have no choice today but to compel his testimony on these very important matters.”

Here's the full text of Conyers letter to Robert Luskin, Rove's attorney:

Mr. Robert D. Luskin
Patton Boggs LLP
2550 M Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20037-1350

Dear Mr. Luskin:

We were disappointed to receive your May 21 letter, which fails to explain why Mr. Rove is willing to answer questions in writing for the House Judiciary Committee, and has spoken on the record to the media, but continues to refuse to testify voluntarily before the Committee on the politicization of the Department of Justice, including allegations regarding the prosecution of former Governor Don Siegelman. Because of that continuing refusal, we enclose with this letter a subpoena for Mr. Rove's appearance before the Committee's Commercial and Administrative Law Subcommittee at 10:00 a.m. on July 10, 2008.

In light of specific statements in your letter, we want to clarify several points. Your letter is incorrect in suggesting that the enclosed subpoena will raise the same issues as the Senate Judiciary Committee's subpoena to Mr. Rove and the pending lawsuit concerning our Committee's subpoena to Harriet Miers. Both these matters focus on the firing of U.S. Attorneys in 2006 and efforts to mislead Congress and the public on that subject. Here, as we have made clear from the outset, the Siegelman case is a principal focus of our request for Mr. Rove to testify. In addition, unlike Harriet Miers, Mr. Rove has made a number of on-the-record comments to the media about the Siegelman case and the U.S. Attorney firings, extending far beyond "general denials of wrongdoing." There is no question that both the prior subpoenas to Mr. Rove and Ms. Miers should have been complied with. But it is even more clear that Mr. Rove should testify as we have now directed.

We would also dispute your contention that we are "provoking a gratuitous confrontation while the issues raised by the Committee's request are being litigated in U.S. District Court or why the Committee refuses to consider a reasonable accommodation." There are a variety of mechanisms for resolution of any dispute between us, and we need not wait for resolution of separate and ongoing litigation to attempt to employ or consider those other mechanisms. We have also previously noted that we do not believe your proposal to respond in writing to written questions is reasonable or consistent with the precedents of this Committee.

Your letter also suggests that Mr. Rove is not a "free agent" and would follow the requests of the White House with respect to his testimony. Particularly in light of the factors discussed above, we hope that the White House will not take the position that Mr. Rove should not testify. Other former White House officials, including Sara Taylor and Scott Jennings who worked with Mr. Rove in the White House's political office, have in fact testified in response to congressional subpoenas, and dealt with questions of privilege on a question-by-question basis. Mr. Rove should follow the same course.

We should make clear, however, that Mr. Rove, as a private party not employed by the government, is himself responsible for the decision on how to respond to the enclosed subpoena, which is a legally binding directive that he appear before the Committee on July 10. In an analogous situation in the 1970s, when the White House attempted to instruct a private party, AT&T, not to comply with a House Subcommittee subpoena, AT&T "felt obligated to disregard those instructions and to comply with the subpoena," resulting in a lawsuit by the Administration seeking to enjoin such compliance.1 We very much hope that will not be necessary in this case, but we also hope that you will understand that Mr. Rove's obligation, as a private party, is to seek to comply with the enclosed subpoena. Indeed, you appeared to recognize this yourself when you responded to an earlier media inquiry as to whether Mr. Rove would comply with such a subpoena by e-mailing "sure."

Finally, we want to make clear that we are very willing to meet with you and your client to discuss this matter. Please direct any questions or communications to the Judiciary Committee office, 2138 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515 (tel: 202-225-3951; fax: 202-225-7680).

Sincerely,

John Conyers, Jr.
Chairman

Here's my presentiment: If we have much more "good for business" Republican misrule, it's not just poor Preston who's going to get his ass fired

Was President Mobutu swapping management tips
with the first President Bush?

These days I get most of my news, not from a newspaper, or TV or radio, or the Internet, but from the elevator in my office building. This 22nd-century technology may not have reached you yet, but in our elevators we have a little display screen that dispenses concise nuggets of wisdom along with ads, ads, ads.

This morning, for example, I learned that the IRS's corporate audit rate has dropped to 26% from 72% in 1990. I assume this is because corporations have become so scrupulous in their attention to even the finest points of the tax code, but it's a very small screen in the elevator, and there was no room to explain. Do you think there could be any other reason for the drop?

The tax-audit information was displayed while I was riding back down to the lobby, intending to go out to the coffee wagon down the block, where--if you get there early enough--you can get a really good (and really big) cinnamon roll for a dollar. If the cinnamon rolls are gone, you can usually still get a bowtie--not quite as many empty calories, but a serviceable day-starter. (Last week the woman ahead of me was thrilled to get what appeared to be the last chocolate-iced French cruller in Midtown.)

You also get a genuinely friendly greeting from the proprietor, who always seems authentically grateful for your business, even though you're only giving him a buck--and even that only on those days when you can't get through the morning without a sugar rush. As commercial transactions go, this is about the only one I look forward to, the one that leaves me feeling that both parties have come out ahead on the deal.

On the way back up to my office the Elevator Genie offered his/her daily word-improvment feature. Every day the Genie teaches us a new word, and today it was presentiment. I don't remember the Genie's definition, but the American Heritage Dictionary College Edition offers: "A sense of something about to occur; premonition."

But what I can't forget is the example the Genie offered. The day's word is always used in a sentence. The sentence for presentiment was:

"Preston had a presentiment that he was going to be fired."

Gadzooks!

Now I don't know this Preston fellow, and it may be that he deserved to have his ass fired. Maybe his coworkers can't believe that he managed to hold onto his job this long, though his vulnerability today seems to have been fatally enhanced by the too easy alliteration of his name with today's word, presentiment.

Gee whiz, though, is this truly the only kind of presentiment available to us in the Age of Bush? I mean, was it really so far-fetched for our Preston to have a presentiment that his boss was going to offer him a promotion and a raise? Alas, there are two things we can be fairly sure of in this case: (1) Preston's company probably was under no pressure from an impending tax audit, and (2) the poor guy was probably replaced with a nitwit. If he was replaced at all. It could just be "downsizing." I wouldn't be at all surprised if the managerial geniuses several levels above Preston, who likely have no idea who does what in the company, simply decided that his workload can be divvied up among his surviving coworkers. Somebody'll do it. That's what makes them geniuses.

Maybe this hit home because we just had a sudden and shocking firing in our company on Friday. And it was somebody way above poor Preston's pay grade. It was a fairly highly placed person--several levels above me, though that's not saying much. (Over the years I seem to have worked my way down the ladder to a rung lower than the lowliest clerk.) Still, this person wasn't so highly placed that she didn't have a level or two of fire-at-will management above her.

I spoke to my (former) boss briefly on Friday, and she indicated that she had had short notice--unlike Preston, she apparently did not have any presentiment. She said that when she got home she planned to have a giant martini.

Very likely that's what poor presentimental (yes, there really is such a word--it's in the dictionary) Preston will do when he gets home, probably before he breaks the unhappy news to the wife and kiddies--with or without reference to the unfortunate presentiment. I hope the poor sap doesn't have one of those creative mortgages that are destined for default under the best economic circumstances. Otherwise it's just a matter of time before he and his loved ones are out on the street.

This will, it appears, come as something of a shock to former HUD Secretary Alphonso Jackson. People are suggesting now that he may not have been absolutely on top of the looming mortgage crisis. Yesterday's Washington Post reported:

In late 2006, as economists warned of an imminent housing market collapse, housing Secretary Alphonso Jackson repeatedly insisted that the mounting wave of mortgage failures was a short-term "correction."

He pushed for legislation that would make it easier for federally backed lenders to make mortgage loans to risky borrowers who put less money down. He issued a rule that was criticized by law enforcement authorities because it could increase the difficulty of detecting and proving mortgage fraud.

As Jackson leaves office this week, much of the attention on his tenure has been focused on investigations into whether his agency directed housing contracts to his friends and political allies. But critics say an equally significant legacy of his four years as the nation's top housing officer was gross inattention to the looming housing crisis.

And it's only in the second Bush term that people have seemed subject to firing for these gaffes. In the first term, about the only way you could get fired was by disagreeing with the escaped-mental-patient "orthodoxies" of the World According to "Big Dick" Cheney, a man we now know doesn't have a sane cell in his brain.

It's sometimes said that economics adviser "Fat Larry" Lindsey was an exception, having been fired for failing to go along with Chimpy the Prez's "Run Like a Rodent" quasi-fitness program. Or then again, Fat Larry may have been fired for attempting to provide even a rudimentary answer to the question of how much our prospective adventure in Iraq might cost in actual taxpayer dollars. Everyone knows that if you have to ask how much a war is going to cost, you can't afford it.

In the second Bush term, throwing loyal lackeys overboard has become a lot more common, as the people in charge struggle to save their own sorry asses. Heck, if "Dandy Don" Rumsfeld could be made to fall on his sword, could anybody be safe? Why, eventually even that tamest, lamest lapdog, former counsel to the president and then-Attorney General Idiot Al "The Torture Guy" Gonzales got his marching orders. Say, did you see where Idiot Al can't seem to find a job? I'm not surprised. If he said, "Fries with that?" to me, probably the last thing on earth I would do is get the fries.

But then there was a "good news" story of a sort in this morning's Post, about how managerial responsibility and accountability seem to be gaining a foothold in the Congo as it tries to recover from the decades of catastrophic misrule by "the famously kleptocratic dictator Mobutu Sese Seko" and political upheaval. Mobutu himself of course became unimaginably rich, and I think it's safe to say that a circle of his cronies made out pretty well too. However:

Graft and mismanagement have left the Congolese among the poorest people in the world. But with a years-long civil war for the most part over and a democratically elected government in place, investors are beginning to return to the resource-rich country.

This ought to be a feel-good story, and I certainly wish the Congolese all the luck they've been denied all these decades. I'm just a little spooked by that sentence, "Graft and mismanagement have left the Congolese among the poorest people in the world."

I wish this didn't sound so eerily like the Bush-McCranky Economic Policy. Especially as we head into recession, we have to hope that in this election cycle massive numbers of American voters--enough to offset not just Republican candidates, but Emanuelite and Schumeresque corporatist "Republican lite" Democrats---see through the dreadful misapprehension that Republican governance is "good for business."

Just ask poor Preston.

#

ALBERTO GONZALES-- ANOTHER VICTIM OF BUSH'S UNEMPLOYMENT STATS?

Long ago America decided it wouldn't buy a used car from Richard Nixon. I have a feeling the rationale-- basically distrust-- had more to do with that conclusion than anything about unemployment statistics. Since Bush has worked his "economic miracle" on America, the unemployment rate-- in terms of actual people not working-- has skyrocketed. But that is hardly the reason why no one is hiring Alberto Gonzales.

Tomorrow's NY Times looks at the one man unemployment catastrophe. Why can't the recently fired Attorney General and Bush family retainer find himself a job? "He has, through friends, put out inquiries, they said, and has not found any takers. What makes Mr. Gonzales’s case extraordinary is that former attorneys general, the government’s chief lawyer, are typically highly sought." Could it have something to do with the way the quality of his work in his last job was evaluated? Honest people wouldn't want someone like Gonzales and organized crime would probably require someone more competent. Besides, who wants to sign on someone likely to have to stand trial and who will certainly be the subject of investigations and unflattering headlines in the not too distant future. His lifelong aspiration-- to be the first Hispanic-American member of the Supreme Court are far less likely than being the first Attorney General to expire in a prison cell.

[H]e left office last August with a frayed reputation over his role in the dismissal of several federal prosecutors and the truthfulness of his testimony about a secret eavesdropping program. He has had no full-time job since his resignation, and his principal income has come from giving a handful of talks at colleges and before private business groups.

“Maybe the passage of time will provide some opportunity for him,” said one Washington lawyer who was aware of an inquiry to his firm from a Gonzales associate. “I wouldn’t say ‘rebuffed,’ ” said the lawyer, who asked his name not be used because the situation being described was uncomfortable for Mr. Gonzales. “I would say ‘not taken up.’”

The greatest impediment to Mr. Gonzales’s being offered the kind of high-salary job being snagged these days by lesser Justice Department officials, many lawyers agree, is his performance during his last few months in office. In that period, he was openly criticized by lawmakers for being untruthful in his sworn testimony. His conduct is being investigated by the Office of the Inspector General of the Justice Department, which could recommend actions from exonerating him to recommending criminal charges. Friends set up a fund to help pay his legal bills.

His friends say he makes a living giving speeches and some schools and corporations actually funnel large sums of money to him, ostensibly for sharing his wisdom with their students. "Pomona College debated inviting him and decided he was not worth the money, the college newspaper reported. His first speech at the University of Florida last November was interrupted by protesters dressed as detainees."

I would recommend a job he has been very adapt at-- that of fluffer for the rich and powerful-- but apparently even they are no longer interested in Gonzales' well demonstrated talents. Maybe after Bush pardons him on his last day of disgracing the presidency, for whatever crimes he may have committed, some rightists will think of something they can do with... like in the back somewhere where he won't have much interaction with normal people.

AG Malarkey appears to have taken a tangible step toward restoring a modicum of professionalism to the decimated Department of Justice

It's hardly the highest-profile problem facing the Justice Department, but considering the range of disasters and catastrophes facing Attorney General "Judge" Malarkey, he earns points for his move yesterday, filling at least temporarily the vacant Minnesota U.S. attorney position with a competent career prosecutor, naming the top surviving assistant in the troubled office, Frank Magill Jr., as acting U.S. attorney. (Frank Magill Sr. retired last summer after 21 years on the bench of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th District. I found some photos of Dad, but sorry, none of Junior.)

Amy Goldstein reports in today's Washington Post that both of Minnestota's U.S. senators were urging the new AG to consider people inside the office, which has been in something close to open revolt, to fill the vacancy from inside. HometownSource.com reports praise for the appointment from both Republican Sen. Norm Coleman and Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar. There seems to be general relief--if not outright wonderment, or even dancing in the streets--in Minnesota.

The vacancy, you'll recall, was created by the resignation under pressure of Rachel Paulose, one of former AG Idiot Al "The Torture Guy" Gonzales's screechingly incompetent ideologues--who was hardly ever in Minnesota anyway, spending most of her time committing judicial mayhem with her concurrent day job at DoJ in Washington.

Neither DoJ nor the White House is saying whether Magill is being considered for proper appointment to the job, which requires Senate confirmation, of course. (Current statue allows an acting U.S. attorney to serve up to 210 days.) Apparently nobody involved has evolved to the point of thinking that we're entitled to any information about what our government is doing.

#

IF BUSH LOOTED FORT KNOX AND FLEW TO HIS ESTATE IN PARAGUAY, WOULD PELOSI PUT IMPEACHMENT BACK ON THE TABLE? MAYBE

It was all over the BBC World Service today, and all over CNN International. The pompous airhead whom conspirators and the mentally challenged call the president said he is "reserving judgment" on the destroyed CIA tapes. Does it strike anyone as odd-- like how about Bush-protector Nancy Pelosi for starters-- that he who should be judged thinks to puff himself up into some kind of pose of dignity and tell the media (with a straight face) that he is reserving judgment. Who buys this crap?

South Koreans just elected a right-wing crook. We taught them democracy real good. Putin learned from our political establishment too. He is reputed to have amassed a $40 billion fortune-- and the Russians, not exactly a democracy-loving lot, just worship him. He's in the same league as Bush and Cheney.

Well, at least the Washington Post has a columnist pointing out that the emperor has no clothes. "At a year-end press conference this morning, President Bush staved off questions about White House complicity in the destruction of CIA interrogation videotapes, refusing even to flatly deny that he was personally involved. Bush also declined to say whether he thought the destruction of the tapes was right or wrong."

The quote by Bush that is all over Thai TV today: "I'm going to reserve judgment until I find out the full facts." Will he then have himself arrested? The Post's Dan Froomkin suspects it is more likely to lead to the malevolent Cheney than to the hapless Bush. We'll see.

It's all highly reminiscent of Bush's no-comment strategy during the investigation of the White House role in the leak of Valerie Plame's identity as a CIA agent. Then, as now, Bush could have demanded that his aides tell him what they had done. But he obviously didn't want to hear it.

And now, as then, Bush can insist that he wants to wait for others to determine the facts, and then refuse to comment while an investigation is ongoing-- until the press corps loses interest in the matter.

Today, since former vice presidential aide Scooter Libby has dropped his appeal in the Plame case, the coast was clear for reporters to ask Bush any of the many important, unanswered questions about that case. But nobody did.

There's plenty of guilt, in the upper reaches of the regime, to go around starting with corrupt regime lawyers David Addington, John Bellinger III, and, of course, Alberto Gonzales. Yesterday's NY Times started the ball rolling. Destroying evidence is a serious matter and the media should be howling. Too bad we have a thoroughly politicized and utterly compromised Department of Justice. Let's try to keep in mind which collaborationist Democrats voted to approve this band of crooks as it all unfolds. This is at least as serious as Watergate. At least.

WILL FORD MOTORS HELP ABU GONZO ESCAPE?

-by Karen Allen

David G. Leitch, general counsel and senior vice president of the Ford Motor Company, has sent out a letter soliciting contributions to an Alberto Gonzales defense fund. Before moving to Ford, Leitch was deputy counsel for George W. Bush. Looks like he's still carrying water for Bush and Gonzo. Leitch sobs that Gonzales is "innocent of any wrongdoing" and does not havethe means to pay for his legal defense after a career spent in public service and suggests donations from $500 to $5,000. The Washington Post commented in an article, "legal defense funds are common in Washington, but not for attorneys general".

Gonzo lied, misled and more for Bush in his role as Attorney General of the United States, and the Repugs are expected to reward him by paying his defense bills. Leitch has been quite generous to right-wing Republicans over the years himself, having doled out at least $12,896 in federal elections including hefty sums to losers like George Allen (R-VA), Jim Talent (R-MO), Mitt Romney (R-MA/UT), and Rick Santorum (R-PA). And Leitch himself was rewarded with a huge salary at Ford Motor Company. All this gives new meaning to the Ford Escape!


UPDATE: BUSH REGIME OPERATIVES POPULATING LOBBYISTS OFFICES EN MASSE

A friend well connected in the automotive industry sent me some more information on this. Turns out that the Leitch isn't the only Ford person friendly with the Bush Administration. This article describing the vast numbers of Bush Regime employees who have left for the greener pastures of lobbying notes that the DC lobbying office for Ford is the fifth most popular destination for washed up Bushies-turned-lobbyists.

What's short and dumb and crooked--and is getting $40K to share what he knows (say, just what DOES he know?) with a bunch of college students?

He's ba-a-ack!

Yes, it's our own Idiot Al "The Torture Guy" Gonzales, and he's back! On Nov. 19 he's being paid $40K to give a speech at the University of Florida, as reported by The Independent Florida Alligator.

Idiot Al is being brought to Gainesville by Accent, the UF Student Government's speakers bureau, which is funded by student activity fees. The question is, what is he being brought there for? Has his agent assured the girls and boys at UF that, when it's prying congressional committees asking questions, he knows nothing, but that for their 40 Gs he'll have a vertiable memory revival, sing hallelujah! Or is he just going to spew that old-time far-right-wing political blather?

I assume Idiot Al's got a lecture agent out there peddling him. I just wonder if anyone's left to help him work up the act he's going to be taking on the road. After all, even if he decides to spill his guts, tell everything he knows, that fills--what?--maybe five minutes? Seriously, people, the first tryout of the Idiot Al Road Show is scheduled now, for the 19th.

Well, there's always the old Chuckles the Clown formula:

A little song,
A little dance,
A little seltzer
Down your pants.

Now I'm not suggesting that Idiot Al actually appear in a clown suit . . . oh wait, hold on. Maybe that's exactly what I'm suggesting! Yes, that's it: the Torture Guy in a clown suit, only not with the traditional ball-like clown nose [above].

No, instead he's tricked up with a nice long Pinocchio-style schnozzola [right] to symbolize his historic relationship with the truth.

So he comes out, and he sings a few songs, tells a few jokes. You know--

A priest, a rabbi, and a Democrat go into a bar, and Karl Rove has it blowed up real good.

Now that's entertainment.

#

A GOOD FOLLOW-UP TO ALBERTO GONZALES-- EXPECT NO CHANGES AS SENATE DEMOCRATS DO WHAT THEY DO BEST

If you missed hearing the Senate Judiciary Committee questioning the Bush's Regime's next Attorney General, Michael Mukasey, you owe it to yourself to hunt it down. I heard a replay on NPR tonight. It was astounding. Crooks & Liars has a benevolent piece up, with Mukasey comparing the Bush Regime's torture memo (by future war crimes defendant Jay Bybee) to the Nazis. If that sounds more reasonable than something you'd expect from someone nominated for anything by Bush, rest assured-- it was straight downhill from there-- and now even Republicans are calling him unacceptable.

Probably after a threatening phone call from Cheney, he repeatedly "declined to say if he considered harsh interrogation techniques like waterboarding, which simulates drowning, to constitute torture or to be illegal if used on terrorism suspects." Now that's the kind of nominee we expect from BushCo!

On the second day of confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Mr. Mukasey went further than he had the day before in arguing that the White House had constitutional authority to act beyond the limits of laws enacted by Congress, especially when it came to national defense.

He suggested that both the administration’s program of eavesdropping without warrants and its use of “enhanced” interrogation techniques for terrorism suspects, including waterboarding, might be acceptable under the Constitution even if they went beyond what the law technically allowed. Mr. Mukasey said the president’s authority as commander in chief might allow him to supersede laws written by Congress.

...In the case of the eavesdropping program, Mr. Mukasey suggested that the president might have acted appropriately under his constitutional powers in ordering the surveillance without court approval even if federal law would appear to require a warrant.

Might as well end the hearings now; after statements like that, I'm sure the Democrats are frothing at the mouth to follow their Republican colleagues right down the rabbit hole. Let Feingold and Dodd vote "no," and call it a confirmation by acclimation.

My personal favorite exchange came when Mukasey refused to respond to a question about condoning torture techniques first used by the Spanish Inquisition and, until Bush, always prosecuted by the U.S., saying he wasn't going to answer questions like that just to be collegial. At that point, if Leahy has a bit more spine, he would have shut the hearings down and told Mr. 24% approval rating to tell his nominee to answer the questions or to send over a better nominee. But he doesn't and he didn't. And Mukasey will by next month, no doubt, be a fitting follow-up to the Alberto Gonzales Show.

THE BUSH REGIME, THE THORNY QUESTION OF TORTURE, WAR CRIMES AND ACCOUNTABILITY

Will we ever see Bush, trial and dentencing over, TV cameras shhoting, being offered a last cigarette and blindfolded? In my dreams. But will we ever see him behind bars-- and not just Bush and Cheney, just the entire foul regime that has evolved around their 2000 coup and the ensuing years of criminality disguised as government? I hope we're not reducing to seeing him dragged off for some tawdry felony like selling a presidential pardon to GOP contractor Thomas Kontogiannis for $400,000 (via Randy "Duke" Cunningham). No, it should be one of the big issues-- the ones that involve the Constitution, like subverting Democracy. What about the use of mercenaries? Or torture?

Today's NY Times brings up the pesky torture thing again the Bush Regime is so assiduously trying to put behind itself.

When the Justice Department publicly declared torture “abhorrent” in a legal opinion in December 2004, the Bush administration appeared to have abandoned its assertion of nearly unlimited presidential authority to order brutal interrogations.

But soon after Alberto R. Gonzales’s arrival as attorney general in February 2005, the Justice Department issued another opinion, this one in secret. It was a very different document, according to officials briefed on it, an expansive endorsement of the harshest interrogation techniques ever used by the Central Intelligence Agency.

The new opinion, the officials said, for the first time provided explicit authorization to barrage terror suspects with a combination of painful physical and psychological tactics, including head-slapping, simulated drowning and frigid temperatures.

Mr. Gonzales approved the legal memorandum on “combined effects” over the objections of James B. Comey, the deputy attorney general, who was leaving his job after bruising clashes with the White House. Disagreeing with what he viewed as the opinion’s overreaching legal reasoning, Mr. Comey told colleagues at the department that they would all be “ashamed” when the world eventually learned of it.

Well, the world has learned of it. Are Americans ashamed? Well... do you consider Republican to be Americans? They're not ashamed. Well, that isn't fair; some of them are ashamed. But when the University of Ohio's Scripps Center did a survey in 2006, 66% of respondents who identified themselves as "strongly Republican" endorsed torture. (Only 24% of those self-identifying as "strongly Democratic" endorsed torture. How you going to expect weak and ambitious politicians like John Boehner, Howdy Doody and Norm Coleman to behave like civilized human beings if this is their base of support?

The Bush Regime has done all it could to blur the definition of torture and confuse Americans into a state of uncertainly about what it is. Most Americans know it's something the bag guys in foreign places do... not us. Wikipedia is clearer than the Bush Regime about what it is.

Torture, according to international law, is "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity."

...In the 21st century, torture is widely considered to be a violation of human rights, and discouraged by article 5 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Signatories of the Third Geneva Convention and Fourth Geneva Convention agree not to torture protected persons (POWs and enemy civilians) in armed conflicts, but some nations are still not signatories.

International legal prohibitions on torture derive from a philosophical consensus that torture and ill-treatment are repugnant, abhorrent, and immoral.

And the United Nations-- and now you'll see a reason right-wingers have always hated it so-- has also had some things to say about torture, "things" largely shapaed by American diplomacy and signed by a succession of legitimate (unlike the current one) American presidential adminstrations. The key provisions of the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment are 1, 2, 3, and the first paragraph of Article 16.

Article 1
1. Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

Article 2
1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to
prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.

2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.

3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.

Article 3
1. No State Party shall expel, return ("refouler") or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.

Article 16
1. Each State Party shall undertake to prevent in any territory under its jurisdiction other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment which do not amount to torture as defined in article I, when such acts are committed by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. In particular, the obligations contained in articles 10, 11, 12 and 13 shall apply with the substitution for references to torture of references to other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Although Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic leadership has made themselves complicit by taking impeachment off the table, both "Congress and the Supreme Court have intervened repeatedly in the last two years to impose limits on interrogations, and the administration has responded as a policy matter by dropping the most extreme techniques. But the 2005 Justice Department opinions remain in effect, and their legal conclusions have been confirmed by several more recent memorandums, officials said. They show how the White House has succeeded in preserving the broadest possible legal latitude for harsh tactics... a hidden legacy of President Bush’s second term and Mr. Gonzales’s tenure at the Justice Department, where he moved quickly to align it with the White House after a 2004 rebellion by staff lawyers that had thrown policies on surveillance and detention into turmoil."

Associates at the Justice Department said Mr. Gonzales seldom resisted pressure from Vice President Dick Cheney and David S. Addington, Mr. Cheney’s counsel, to endorse policies that they saw as effective in safeguarding Americans, even though the practices brought the condemnation of other governments, human rights groups and Democrats in Congress. Critics say Mr. Gonzales turned his agency into an arm of the Bush White House, undermining the department’s independence.

After the Supreme Court ruled in 2006 that the Geneva Conventions applied to prisoners who belonged to Al Qaeda, President Bush for the first time acknowledged the C.I.A.’s secret jails and ordered their inmates moved to Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. The C.I.A. halted its use of waterboarding, or pouring water over a bound prisoner’s cloth-covered face to induce fear of suffocation.

But in July, after a monthlong debate inside the administration, President Bush signed a new executive order authorizing the use of what the administration calls “enhanced” interrogation techniques-- the details remain secret-- and officials say the C.I.A. again is holding prisoners in “black sites” overseas.

Back to Wikipedia for a moment:

Many countries find it expedient from time to time to use torturous techniques; at the same time few wish to be described as doing so, either to their own citizens or international bodies. A variety of devices bridge this gap, including state denial, "secret police", "need to know", denial that given treatments are torturous in nature, appeal to various laws (national or international), use of jurisdictional argument, claim of "overriding need", and so on. Many states throughout history, and many states today, view torture as a tool (unofficially and when expedient and desired). As a result, and despite worldwide condemnation and the existence of treaty provisions that forbid it, torture still occurs in two thirds of the world's nations.

Torture remains a frequent method of repression in totalitarian regimes, terrorist organizations, and organized crime.

Is the Bush Regime a totalitarian regime? Is the Bush Regime a terrorist organization? Is the Bush Regime an organized criminal operation? If you're a regular DWT reader you already know how I would answer those three questions. Hopefully impartial juries in courts of law will get to answer them in the not too distant future.


UPDATE: CHRIS DODD CONDEMNS BUSH REGIME TORTURE AND DECEPTION

"The law is crystal clear-- torture is illegal. It is 'abhorrent' that the Bush Administration would publicly disavow torture, while its Office of Legal Counsel is secretly interpreting settled law to reach the opposite conclusion. It is imperative we understand the extent of this deception. The Office of Legal Counsel must release how many other secret opinions they have produced during the Bush Administration that justified violations of the Constitution, federal statutes, the laws of war, and international human rights.

"Congress's Constitutional authority is the power of the purse. And should the Justice Department not comply, I intend to use that authority by drafting legislation defunding the Office of Legal Counsel."

UPDATE: EVEN REPUBLICANS ARE ASKING WHAT SHOULD BE DONE ABOUT THE WAR CRIMINALS IN THE WHITE HOUSE

Whatever Nancy Pelosi accomplishes, she will always be tarred as the Speaker who took impeachment off the table and disgraced Democrats by not even trying to hold the war criminal accountible-- or trying to stop him from committing more war crimes.

Andrew Sullivan to the right of Pelosi thinks Bush should be held accountable-- but so does Steve Porter, to her left.

“Pelosi and the Democrats had their chance to impeach this administration-- to rid us of their arrogance, their lies, their policies of death and greed. They chose not to do so. Rather, they have given Bush everything he has asked for and only feigned opposition by saying that they would try to overcome his policies and vetoes ‘at a later date.’ How does one say that and look in the face of a family whose child will be killed in Iraq between now and a later date? How does one say that to a mother whose child might die between now and a later date for lack of health care?

“War and health are big, big businesses and the people in Washington who take political money from those businesses-- and they are on both sides of the aisle-- will never, never vote for the people they are supposed to represent before they vote for the special interests who pay and own them.
 
“It is hard to know which is worse, the people in government who betray us or the electorate itself for continuing to put them there. Perhaps in 2008 the public will awaken to new voices, voices which are not owned and which have the courage to speak out on behalf of the citizens of our nation."

While DWT fave David Dreier was voicing "warm feeling and affection" for the Colombian Congress, did his hosts at least lock up the silverwear?

Isn't the real question: What the heck was Republicrook David Dreier doing
addressing the Colombian Congress to begin with? Was he invited by the
Bogota chapter of the International Association of Congresscrooks?

So the Washington Post's Al Kamen thought he could slip out of town the last couple of weeks in August and still be In the Loop? Poor baby! He paid the price on his return today, with all the news made by some of his favorite newsmakers, like our old pal Idiot Al "The Torture Guy":

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales resigned and headed to Disney World over Labor Day weekend with the family, some of his kids' friends and his security detail. (Why he needs a detail when he's safely outside the Beltway is unclear, but they're said to be handy when the lines down there get really long.)

Then there's this tidbit about one of the oldest members of the DWT family, celebrated California congresscrook and closet case David Dreier, practically a founding member of the DWT Rogues' Gallery:

A Bit Too California for Colombia

Rep. David Dreier (R-Calif.), on a trip to Colombia to talk trade matters, got a bit too California in a speech to that country's lawmakers. He perched himself casually on a wooden lectern, feet crossed, in the chamber in Bogota as his audience members sat stiffly, staring from their leather chairs.

Newspapers criticized him as showing a lack of respect. Some lawmakers were said to have been offended or a bit amused by the faux pas, Reuters reported.

"I have the highest regard for the Congress of Colombia," Dreier told reporters in Bogota last week. "I meant absolutely no offense. . . . I simply wanted to demonstrate my warm feeling and affection."

Which just leaves the question, what does it mean when someone like Dreier, who has treated his membership in the Congress of the United States as, essentially, a license to steal, tries to "demonstrate my warm feeling and affection" for the Congress of Colombia?

We could nail it down if we knew that at some point our Dave said to the Colombian legislators: "You're my kind of people." It might or might not be true, but at least we would know what he thinks of them.


UPDATE: HOWIE AND JANE SPEAKIN' OUT ABOUT DREIER IN L.A. THIS SUNDAY

Jane was busy in Santa Monica and I was in New York while Dreier was bothering people in Colombia but this Sunday we'll both be speaking at a small rally for Russ Warner, the Blue America candidate challenging Dreier for his CA-26 seat. We'll be introducing Russ to folks at the Hollywood Knolls home of our pal Suzanne around 4pm. If any DWT readers would like to come along and meet Russ-- or Jane or me, drop Alica an rsvp and get directions-- alica@wanerforcongress.com/. If you can't make it Sunday but want to give Russ a hand in ridding our government of one more odious rubber stamp Republican, Blue America is open-- 24/7.

Talk about a career move: Idiot Al "The Torture Guy" just had his first big-league AB, pinch-hitting for the Yankees--tapping a weak grounder to short

Oh wait, this was Alberto Gonzalez, with two "z"s. Never mind.

Unless . . . wait, here's a thought. Maybe the various congressional committees seeking testimony from Idiot Al about his tenure as attorney general would like to have the Yankees' Alberto G testify. He should be able to give them at least as much information.

For what it's worth, the scouting report on our Alberto says he's a slick fielder, maybe not exactly a dynamo of a hitter.*

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
*"Any discussion of Alberto Gonzalez begins with defense. Alberto Gonzalez has one of the best infield arms in the minor leagues: a certified cannon. I heard one person compare his arm to Cal Ripken's. He doesn't have phenominal range, but he is above average to both sides. Combined, Alberto Gonzalez is one of the top defensive shortstops in baseball. On the other side of the ball, Gonzalez isn't as bad as other defensive wizards of the minors. . . ."
--from the blog Pinstripe Prospects (where, by the way, he is illustrated with a photo of none other than our Idiot Al!)

If "The Judge" becomes our next attorney general, who's going to be his deputy? (Well, yes, naturally we do have a couple of suggestions to offer)

Wouldn't it be great to have the Chertoff-Brown team reunited?

Say, if Homeland Security Sec'y Mikey "Here Come da Judge" Chertoff gets to replace Idiot Al "The Torture Guy" Gonzales as U.S. attorney general (as if anyone could replace Idiot Al), does that mean we can look forward to him bringing his old sidekick "Heckuva Job" Brownie back into gov't service as his No. 2, the deputy attorney general? Of course there are apparently several hundred other "top" jobs open at the Justice Dept. in case The Judge has someone else in mind to be his deputy. (Barney Fife would seem about right.)

But man, wouldn't that be something, having The Judge and our Brownie teamed up again and back in action? Doing for the DoJ, well, what they did for New Orleans and the Gulf Coast.

Oh wait, didn't Idiot Al "The Torture Guy" already do that?

I BET BUSH GETS SOME SLIMEBAG INTO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S CHAIR BEFORE HE DOES ANYTHING TO HELP NEW ORLEANS

On the second anniversary of Hurricane Katrina, the Bush Regime may have no real plan to rebuild New Orleans, but they probably do have a plan to insert the incompetent knave who was in charge of homeland security at the time, into the Attorney General's job. Even before the news had leaked out that Gonzales was finally resigning, there were rumors that Chertoff would be the next Attorney General. Right-wing propaganda sites like Drudge and the Politico started the day claiming that Bush was going to make a recess appointment to avoid having the Regime's overwhelming criminality broadcast all over TV during confirmation hearings. Both the GOP-connected sites removed the recess appointment posts within minutes, apparently having gotten word from their superiors at the propaganda ministry that that wasn't today's message. (If you're wondering why Gonzales resigned today, instead of last week or last month or two months ago, Sidney Blumenthal makes a great case in Why Did Gonzales Resign? that "without Karl Rove around to give him his orders, and with the investigations closing in, 'Fredo' had nowhere to turn.")

If Bush doesn't do the recess appointment thing-- and he crossed his heart and hoped to die in front of Harry Reid that he wouldn't do that this time-- he could just try to get Chertoff through the way normal presidents do. (Best of luck with that, Bushie.) Or he could appoint a quasi-respected Republican senator. Senators always confirm other senators. Bush may have trouble finding one as corrupt and malleable as he would want, although John Cornyn would fit the bill. Or he could just leave Paul Clement in as Interim or Acting A.G. until the clock runs out. I guess for the next few days the traditional media will be able to talk about who'll be the next in line instead of Michael Vick finding Jesus or Owen Wilson's attempted suicide.

Almost all of the remainder of this most hated of all lame ducks' term will be about letting clocks run out-- including the disgrace of the inaction on New Orleans.

BUSH AND CHENEY DID NOT RESIGN

A one word description of the Bush Regime might be "lawless." It sort of sums the whole mess up nicely. I never thought Alberto Gonzales was one of the masterminds of evil, not the way Rove and Cheney, for example were. He was more the useful idiot, a low grade pal of the low grade presidunce who feels comfy around people who aren't terribly brilliant. It seemed unbelievable that Gonzales, caught in one lie after another, after another, after another hung in there so long. But he became a living mantra for "He serves at the pleasure of the president." And the presidunce insists he is the president and the decision maker and he takes himself very seriously.

Yesterday I did a little research into the U.S. backed (run) coup in Vietnam that ended in the brutal murder of the U.S. puppet president, Ngo Dinh Diem, and his brother Ngo Dinh Nhu. Why the brother? Nhu didn't have an official role in the government but he carried out many of the functions of the Attorney General, at least in terms of being a regime strongman. He ran a private militia whose job was to buck up the authoritarian rule of his corrupt family. He was a big proponent of torture of "enemies of the regime." In the U.S., presidents have chosen someone they could trust to walk off a cliff for them and break any law for them. John Kennedy had his brother. Nixon's first Attorney General, John Mitchell, went to prison rather than spill the beans. Bush started with a political hack, religionist nutcase and far right extremist, defeated Missouri Senator John Ashcroft, but he wasn't enough of an insider and he was eventually replaced with cipher Alberto Gonzales, a man with no independent base outside of BushWorld and a man of no accomplishments whatsoever outside of his relationship with Bush.

So, as the foul, foul regime unwinds, who is enough of a tool to make Bush comfortable with. I imagine a prerequisite will be an agreement not to investigate-- and to prevent the investigation of-- lots and lots and lots of lawlessness... and Dick Cheney and Karl Rove. So far this morning the name on everyone's lips is Chertoff, the man who is best known for avoiding any responsibility-- as head of the Department of Homeland Security-- for the catastrophe of New Orleans.

The Senate will have to confirm whichever partisan hack Bush decides on. They should take this responsibility seriously and not rubber stamp Bush's whim. What is called for now is not a Ngo Dinh Nhu, a John Mitchell, a Bobby Kennedy, an Ed Meese or an Alberto Gonzales, but someone who is truly independent who will serve the interests of the American people, not the defensive needs of a crumbling lawless regime. The Senate should refuse to even consider anyone with close ties to the Bush regime. It isn't what America needs now. Being an insider should be a disqualifier.

Patrick Leahy, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which will get the first crack at whatever crook Bush tries to get into the job, issued a statement just now, a statement that gets to the heart of the problem: Bush. Leahy has it completely right; let's see if he's got what it takes to convince his Senate colleagues to follow through with his premises. How about Patrick Fitzgerald?

Under this Attorney General and this President, the Department of Justice suffered a severe crisis of leadership that allowed our justice system to be corrupted by political influence.  It is a shame, and it is the Justice Department, the American people and the dedicated professionals of our law enforcement community who have suffered most from it.  
 
The obligations of the Justice Department and its leaders are to the Constitution, the rule of law and the American people, not to the political considerations of this or any White House.  The Attorney General's resignation reinforces what Congress and the American people already know-- that no Justice Department should be allowed to become a political arm of the White House, whether occupied by a Republican or a Democrat. 
 
The troubling evidence revealed about this massive breach is a lesson to those in the future who hold these high offices, so that law enforcement is never subverted in this way again.  I hope the Attorney General's decision will be a step toward getting to the truth about the level of political influence this White House wields over the Department of Justice and toward reconstituting its leadership so that the American people can renew their faith in its role as our leading law enforcement agency.

CONYERS IS ON THE SAME PAGE AS LEAHY

John Conyers, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, has a similar perspective to the one expressed by Senator Leahy. "It is a sad day when the Attorney General of the United States resigns amid a cloud of suspicion that the system of justice has been manipulated for political purposes. More than accountability, we need answers. Unfortunately, the continued stonewalling of the White House in the U.S. Attorney scandal has deprived the American people of the truth. If the power of the prosecutor has been misused in the name of partisanship, we deserve a full airing of the facts. The responsibility to uncover these facts is still on the Congress, and the Judiciary Committee in particular."

Reid gets it too (but will he act on it?):"Alberto Gonzales was never the right man for this job. He lacked independence, he lacked judgment, and he lacked the spine to say no to Karl Rove. This resignation is not the end of the story. Congress must get to the bottom of this mess and follow the facts where they lead, into the White House."

And every line of Russ Feingold's short statement is exactly right, the last one, of course, being the most crucial-- and the one most likely to be compromised on by Russ' pathetic colleagues in the Senate. “Attorney General Gonzales’ tenure was marked by unprecedented politicization of the Department of Justice, deception of Congress and the American people, and disrespect for the rule of law.  He should never have been confirmed and should have resigned long ago.  The first loyalty of the next attorney general must be to the law, not the president.”