Some Sanity in Kansas

From Reuters:

The Kansas Board of Education on Tuesday threw out science standards deemed hostile to evolution, undoing the work of Christian conservatives in the ongoing battle over what to teach U.S. public school students about the origins of life.

The board in the central U.S. state voted 6-4 to replace them with teaching standards that mirror the mainstream in science education and eliminate criticisms of evolutionary theory.

"I'm glad we've taken this step. If we are going to have a well-educated populace, this is important," said board member Sue Gamble.

Now I wonder if dubya still thinks that "both sides should be taught" (as if both sides were equally valid competing theories). From 2005:

President Bush invigorated proponents of teaching alternatives to evolution in public schools with remarks saying that schoolchildren should be taught about "intelligent design," a view of creation that challenges established scientific thinking and promotes the idea that an unseen force is behind the development of humanity.

Although he said that curriculum decisions should be made by school districts rather than the federal government, Bush told Texas newspaper reporters in a group interview at the White House on Monday that he believes that intelligent design should be taught alongside evolution as competing theories.

President Bush said students "ought to be exposed to different ideas."

"Both sides ought to be properly taught . . . so people can understand what the debate is about," he said, according to an official transcript of the session. Bush added: "Part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought. . . . You're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, and the answer is yes."

For a theory as equally valid to Intelligent Design, please open your pseudoscience books to this.
I know, I know. It's an old joke. But so is Intelligent Design.

...And Isn't Dodd's Also Running For President?

From TPMMuckraker:

Word comes down that tomorrow Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) and Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ) are going to introduce a bill to radically reform the constitutionally-challenged system of terrorism detainee prosecutions. Known as the Effective Terrorists Prosecution Act, the bill, according to Dodd, would reintroduce habeas corpus protections to Guantanamo Bay detainees; create an independent court review to military commission rulings; and bar information obtained through "coercion" (read: torture); among other provisions.

Whether Dodd and Menendez's legal fix will pass is unclear. It essentially reverses the Bush administration's favored Military Commissions Act of last year, which stripped habeas rights from terrorism detainees -- and passed the Senate with 65 votes.

The bill would almost certainly face a veto from the White House. But with civil liberties lawyers gearing up for a litany of legal challenges to the MCA's constitutionality, Dodd and Menendez might have an opening.

For those curious, here's the text and the vote for the Military Commissions Act.

A few questions (and I'm channeling the trolls so that they don't have to do a "spit take" with their morning coffee):

1. Doesn't Christopher Dodd and the rest of the Democrat Party see we're at war?
2. Does they hate George Bush so much that they'll do anything to undermine him, even if it means helping the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11?
3. Did Dodd and the Democrat Party forget the lessons 9/11?
4. Why does Christopher Dodd and the Democrat Party hate America?

On the one hand, I have to wonder whether Dodd's presidential ambitions have anything to do with the introduction of this bill.

On the other, who cares? If it will restore the Constitution to something recognizable, then I'm all for it.

Ruth Ann Drinks the Conservative Kool-Aid

As the saying goes, sometimes you feel like a nut and sometimes you don't.

This morning, P-G Columnist Ruth Ann Dailey showed us all that sometimes she's just nuts.

What am I talking about? Get a gander at today's column.

Ruth Ann begins:

Besides the war in Iraq, last fall's elections, we were told, were supposedly about banishing corrupt representatives and rebuking others who had not adequately heeded the public's wishes. Since Republicans controlled both houses of Congress, a far larger number of the chastened hailed from the right side of the aisle than from the left.

Hmm interesting teaser. She follows that with:

Last week, Rep. Jack Murtha actually made the none-too-veiled threat that his benefactress, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, could leverage budgeting for the Department of Defense if the brass didn't give her the bigger, better airplane she was demanding. It's hard to find words adequate to describe the corruption of someone who'd barter military resources, and therefore national safety, for a lavish perk.

The lovely and talented Ruth Ann gets to the heart of the matter a few paragraphs later:

But the original sin was Ms. Pelosi's. Just weeks after promising the dawn of a corruption-free, environmentally sensitive era on Capitol Hill, the new Democratic speaker rejected the 12-seat Gulfstream 3 jet that her Republican predecessor had used and asked for something much larger.

Ms. Pelosi requested the military equivalent of a 757, the most luxurious airplane available for a nonstop coast-to-coast trip. She and her staff had decided that pausing to refuel would be a security risk, having evidently forgotten they can refuel at any of the country's dozens of Air Force bases, the appropriations for which, Mr. Murtha reminded us, Ms. Pelosi controls.

Look carefully at RAD's words. She's a writer who gets paid to write and thus we should assume she chooses her words very carefully. She wrote:

...if [the Pentagon] didn't give her the bigger, better plane she was demanding.

And:

[T]he new Democratic Speaker rejected...

(We should all give thanks, of course, to Ruth Ann for not going with the childish 'Democrat Speaker.")

And then:

Ms. Pelosi requested the military equivalent of a 757, the most luxurious airplane available...

"[S]he was demanding" and "The Speaker rejected..." and "Ms Pelosi requested...." These words were in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette dated 2/12/2007. If columnists at the P-G write their columns a day in advance, we can be safe in our assumption that Ruth Ann Dailey at the very least submitted and okayed (if not wrote) those words as late as Sunday, the 11th of February. If it was earlier, the P-G is just a phone call away - more than enough time to fix an embarrassing mistake.

And this is an embarrassing mistake.

In any event, remember that day, February 11.

If Ruth Ann Dailey had read this post from Friday February 9, she would have been able to head over to MSNBC to read this in the article from February 8:

The Air Force transport plane decried by Republicans as an extravagance for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was requested by the House sergeant-at-arms as a matter of security, he said Thursday.

“I regret that an issue that is exclusively considered and decided in a security context has evolved into a political issue,” Bill Livingood said in a news release. He said because Pelosi lives in California he was compelled “to request an aircraft that is capable of making non-stop flights for security purposes, unless such an aircraft is unavailable. This will ensure communications capabilities and also enhance security.” [emphasis added]

And this:

The White House on Thursday defended Pelosi.

“This is a silly story, and I think it’s been unfair to the speaker,” White House spokesman Tony Snow said.

And here's the same story from CNN (also from Feruary 8th):

House Sergeant at Arms Bill Livingood said Thursday it was his decision to request a larger plane that could travel cross-country non-stop for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's use, dousing conservative claims that the speaker herself wanted a larger, more expensive plane for herself and her family.

"The fact that Speaker Pelosi lives in California compelled me to request an aircraft that is capable of making non-stop flights for security purposes, unless such an aircraft is unavailable," Sergeant at Arms Bill Livingood, who has been at his post for 11 years, said in a written statement.

"This will ensure communications capabilities and also enhance security. I made the recommendation to use military aircraft based upon the need to provide necessary levels of security for ranking national leaders, such as the speaker. I regret that an issue that is exclusively considered and decided in a security context has evolved into a political issue." [emphasis added]

Again, these were from February 8, three days before Ruth Ann finished (or submitted or okayed) the column. Her column.

Aren't columnists at the P-G regardless of their opinions at least required to get the facts straight? Maybe do some research?

Now let's get back to Congressman Murtha. Here's what Ruth Ann Dailey wrote:

Last week, Rep. Jack Murtha actually made the none-too-veiled threat that his benefactress, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, could leverage budgeting for the Department of Defense if the brass didn't give her the bigger, better airplane she was demanding. It's hard to find words adequate to describe the corruption of someone who'd barter military resources, and therefore national safety, for a lavish perk.

Since we already know that that last part ("bartering military resources, and therefore national safety for a lavish perc") is complete crap, it's hard not to see the rest of Ruth Ann's column as just another fresh steaming pile of poopie propaganda.

Her original sin is that she's allowing her political opinions skew what she should have known to be factual: Pelosi didn't request, she didn't reject, and she didn't demand any planes. The negotiations were done (and this is from The White House) the Sgt at Arms and the Air Force.

Hey, wasn't it not a few weeks ago that we bloggers were being criticized (on OffQ, Ms Dailey's former stomping grounds, no less) for "making stuff up" and for "publishing lies as the truth"?

Interesting how Ruth Ann is guilty of what we were only accused of. The only difference is that she's in print.

UPDATE: Ruth Ann's Column's made it national!

Place Yer Bets!

Remember Pastor Haggard?

He's the guy who spent a great deal of time denouncing homosexuality all while enjoying the pleasures of a male prostitute and crystal meth.

After a three week intensive course in...something, he's now declared himself 100% heterosexual. This comes as great news to our friend Sue.

Another Sue (this one is Susie Bright) has set up a betting pool for those who are certain Haggard's gonna fall off the hetero-wagon, they're just not sure when.

Place yer bets!

A Recent Presidential Chuckle

From a few days ago (via talkingpointsmemo). The article offers up some examples of how complicated things have gotten over Iraq, Iran and the rest of the region. At the tail end we see this:

At a farewell reception at Blair House for the retiring chief of protocol, Don Ensenat, who was President Bush's Yale roommate, the president shook hands with Washington Life Magazine's Soroush Shehabi. "I'm the grandson of one of the late Shah's ministers," said Soroush, "and I simply want to say one U.S. bomb on Iran and the regime we all despise will remain in power for another 20 or 30 years and 70 million Iranians will become radicalized."

"I know," President Bush answered.

"But does Vice President Cheney know?" asked Soroush.

President Bush chuckled and walked away.

So nice to see that the decider-in-chief can get all chuckly when faced with the reality of his foreign policy.

Senator Obama Announces

Some early coverage:

MSNBC

CNN

The Transcript (via Fox).

And some highlights:

We all made this journey for a reason. It's humbling, but in my heart I know you didn't come here just for me, you came here because you believe in what this country can be. In the face of war, you believe there can be peace. In the face of despair, you believe there can be hope. In the face of a politics that's shut you out, that's told you to settle, that's divided us for too long, you believe we can be one people, reaching for what's possible, building that more perfect union.

And:

The genius of our founders is that they designed a system of government that can be changed. And we should take heart, because we've changed this country before. In the face of tyranny, a band of patriots brought an Empire to its knees. In the face of secession, we unified a nation and set the captives free. In the face of Depression, we put people back to work and lifted millions out of poverty. We welcomed immigrants to our shores, we opened railroads to the west, we landed a man on the moon, and we heard a King's call to let justice roll down like water, and righteousness like a mighty stream.

Each and every time, a new generation has risen up and done what's needed to be done. Today we are called once more — and it is time for our generation to answer that call.

For that is our unyielding faith — that in the face of impossible odds, people who love their country can change it.

And:

All of us know what those challenges are today — a war with no end, a dependence on oil that threatens our future, schools where too many children aren't learning, and families struggling paycheck to paycheck despite working as hard as they can. We know the challenges. We've heard them. We've talked about them for years.

What's stopped us from meeting these challenges is not the absence of sound policies and sensible plans. What's stopped us is the failure of leadership, the smallness of our politics - the ease with which we're distracted by the petty and trivial, our chronic avoidance of tough decisions, our preference for scoring cheap political points instead of rolling up our sleeves and building a working consensus to tackle big problems.

For the last six years we've been told that our mounting debts don't matter, we've been told that the anxiety Americans feel about rising health care costs and stagnant wages are an illusion, we've been told that climate change is a hoax, and that tough talk and an ill-conceived war can replace diplomacy, and strategy, and foresight. And when all else fails, when Katrina happens, or the death toll in Iraq mounts, we've been told that our crises are somebody else's fault. We're distracted from our real failures, and told to blame the other party, or gay people, or immigrants.

And as people have looked away in disillusionment and frustration, we know what's filled the void. The cynics, and the lobbyists, and the special interests who've turned our government into a game only they can afford to play. They write the checks and you get stuck with the bills, they get the access while you get to write a letter, they think they own this government, but we're here today to take it back. The time for that politics is over. It's time to turn the page.

Yes, it is.

A Interesting reaction to the Pelosi Smear

I posted here that there's evidence that the previous speaker of the house (a Republican, doncha know) used his military plane for overtly political purposes. The Hill had the story:

On Sunday, Oct. 1, Hastert’s team was scrambling to contain the escalating fallout from the Foley page scandal.

That day, Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.), then the chairman of the page board, had gotten an urgent phone call from Stokke. The Hastert team wanted Shimkus to return to Washington immediately from his home in southern Illinois in order to appear at a press conference on Monday with the Speaker, and they did not want to deal with commercial flight schedules.

So at 8 p.m. that day, Shimkus arrived at the military side of the Scott Air Force Base near Belleville to board the Speaker’s jet that had been dispatched for him.
The plane then headed to an airport near Aurora, Ill., to pick up Hastert, who had been weekending at his home in Plano, before flying on to Washington.

That Monday, Hastert and Shimkus headlined a press conference in the Capitol to talk about the Foley resignation.

Well take a look at what's tacked onto the end of this CNN story:

Meanwhile, Rep. John Murtha, D-Pennsylvania, chairman of the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, said on Thursday that he's planning hearings this spring on executive and congressional travel on military aircraft.

Murtha said he's requested from the Defense Department records on travel and logistics from the past two years. He asked the Defense Department to hand those over within a month.

If Denny Hastert has nothing to hide then he and the other members of Congress from the Republic Party should have no problem in letting Congressman Murtha holding those hearings and seeing those records.

It's only fair.

The Perils of Blogging, Part I

Yes, as we all know by now, the City Paper's big article on blogging is out. 2 Political Junkies is well represented (I'm sure some will think over-represented) in it. I thought that it was pretty good overall, but I have to say that I was taken aback when I read this sentence:

At the same time, bloggers are allowed to play favorites, or even donate to political campaigns, as Lupinacci did with a $200 contribution to Bill Peduto's mayoral campaign last year.

The article's author, Marty Levine, had not asked me any questions about political donations and so I did not expect to see this information there.

Now, I know that campaign donations are public information. I'm not saying that Levine had no right to look the information up and publish it.

Still, when I saw this, it felt kinda creepy and intrusive.

My first thought was, why am I being singled out? Am I the only blogger to have made any donations? I quickly realized that the majority of bloggers mentioned blog anonymously so no one could look up the info about them if they had wanted to. No doubt, Levine would have. (And, I still may have been the only one to contribute to the mayor's race last year anyway.)

Now, neither of my two quotes were about either Ravenstahl or Peduto, so the donation information was used solely to add to the meme that bloggers get to play by their own rules -- rules that are much less restrictive than those for the MSM.

Here, for example, are some rules from The New York Times Company Journalism Ethics Policy:

89. Journalists do not take part in politics. While staff members are entitled to vote and to register in party primaries, they must do nothing that might raise questions about their professional neutrality or that of our news operations. In particular, they may not campaign for, demonstrate for, or endorse candidates, ballot causes or efforts to enact legislation. They may not wear campaign buttons or themselves display any other insignia of partisan politics.

90. Staff members may not themselves give money to any political candidate or election cause or raise money for one. Given the ease of Internet access to public records of campaign contributions, any political giving by a staff member would risk feeding a false impression that we are taking sides. [Emphasis added]

Many members of the MSM go the extra step of registering as Independents. Bill O'Reilly, for example.

OK. That was snark.

My point being that while I'm sure most journalists try to maintain objectivity (FOX News not included), many do vote and therefore obviously have opinions and preferences when it comes to candidates. Moreover, most people might say that there is a discernible overall point of view found at many media outlets. Is there not a difference to be found between, say, the Trib and the Post-Gazette? Maybe, not just in the editorial pages -- even if it's only in which stories that they choose to cover?

I have called myself an "Activist Blogger" to more than one reporter. That is clear in the events that I choose to post and the issues and people that I choose to write about.

I have endorsed candidates -- but, then again, so do many MSM outlets.

The real difference between bloggers and "reporters" may be that with bloggers, you have no doubt what they really think about a particular candidate. Any "agenda" is right up in your face.

That does not mean, however, that I would post anything that I knew to be false, or that I was unclear whether or not was true.

It does mean, howerver, that if as PittGirl says a candidate is "very obliging in giving me fodder," I will be more than happy to use it on my blog.

I'm not saying that having my "agenda" out there for all the world to see somehow makes me better than a reporter who must not show any subjectivity.

I read blogs and I read the MSM.

I believe that there's a place for both of us.

Like most, I want reliability and credibility in both the blogs, as well as the newspapers, magazines and television stations that I frequent.

I believe that 2pj provides that.

And remember, when you believe that you find this blog doing otherwise, you always have the option to tell us and all our readers so in our comments section -- or start a blog of your own and have at us.

After all, that was how our first blog, Honsberger is a Liar, was born.


(h/t to Three Rivers Online for finding the fake newspaper generator.)

More on the Pelosi-Smear

Instead of paying attention to this story (about the Pentagon office allegedly shaping manipulating intelligence):

In a telephone interview Thursday, Levin said the IG report is "very damning" and shows a Pentagon policy shop trying to shape intelligence to prove a link between al-Qaida and Saddam.

"That was the argument that was used to make the sale to the American people about the need to go to war," Levin said. "And the idea that this separate intelligence assessment, which was wrong, which was distorted, which was inappropriate for the reasons given here (by the IG) is something which is highly disturbing."

Though if you were to look, the AP story is itself spun - it's not about whether the manipulation happened (it did and the IG report says it was "innapropriate") but about whether it was legal. Levin has something to say about that as well:

Levin also said it was a "red herring" to say that he or others in Congress claimed that any of Feith's activities had been illegal. Feith has said the accusation that he misled Congress was, by definition, a claim that he had acted illegally.

Between the lines, it's obvious that the report says the manipulation occured, but the MSM stenographers will (if they look at the story at all) insist it was OK, because the Pentagon, when investigating itself, found that it had done nothing illegal. Surprise, surprise, surprise.

That's if the media looks at the story at all.

No. Thanks to the rightwing smear machine and their friends in pliant media, we'll probably get more coverage of the debunked Pelosi plane story.

Debunked? But isn't she demanding an "Airforce III" so that she can fly all her political cronies wherever they want to fly? Isn't she demanding a extravagantly big plane so that she can fly home to get her hair done on an airport tarmac and stop commuter traffic just like Bill Clinton did in the early '90s?

Well no. From MSNBC:

The Air Force transport plane decried by Republicans as an extravagance for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was requested by the House sergeant-at-arms as a matter of security, he said Thursday.

“I regret that an issue that is exclusively considered and decided in a security context has evolved into a political issue,” Bill Livingood said in a news release. He said because Pelosi lives in California he was compelled “to request an aircraft that is capable of making non-stop flights for security purposes, unless such an aircraft is unavailable. This will ensure communications capabilities and also enhance security.”

The White House even chimed in. From yesterday's briefing:

Q You called the Pelosi plane issue a "silly story" this morning. Shortly thereafter the RNC put out a statement saying -- calling it "Pelosi's power trip" and that she's "non-stop Nancy seeks flight of fancy." Are you calling that --

MR. SNOW: Well, I'll reiterate our position. The question -- the RNC has put out a statement on Speaker Pelosi and travel arrangements, and I'll just repeat our position, which is, as Speaker of the House, she is entitled to military transport, and that the arrangements, the proper arrangements are being made between the Sergeant of Arms office in the House of Representatives and the U.S. Department of Defense. We think it's appropriate, and so, again, I think this is much ado about not a whole lot. It is important for the Speaker to have this kind of protection and travel. It was certainly appropriate for Speaker Hastert. So we trust that all sides will get this worked out. [emphasis added]

Even Newsmax quotes Snow:

The White House on Thursday defended House Speaker Nancy Pelosi against Republican criticism that her desire to fly in an Air Force transport plane is an extravagance.

"This is a silly story and I think it's been unfair to the speaker," White House spokesman Tony Snow said.

But there is an interesting wrinkle to this now-debunked story. Hastert's use of the DoD plane. And the rightwing smear machine's convenient blindness to his political use of his DoD plane. From The Hill:

When Hastert was under pressure because of the exploding Mark Foley page scandal last October, he ordered an airlift at government expense to fly a lawmaker to Washington for the sole purpose of getting him to a press conference to help bail Hastert out of the jam.

Remember the Mark Foley scandal? No need to go into all the republican dirt on that one right now.

On Sunday, Oct. 1, Hastert’s team was scrambling to contain the escalating fallout from the Foley page scandal.

That day, Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.), then the chairman of the page board, had gotten an urgent phone call from Stokke. The Hastert team wanted Shimkus to return to Washington immediately from his home in southern Illinois in order to appear at a press conference on Monday with the Speaker, and they did not want to deal with commercial flight schedules.

So at 8 p.m. that day, Shimkus arrived at the military side of the Scott Air Force Base near Belleville to board the Speaker’s jet that had been dispatched for him.
The plane then headed to an airport near Aurora, Ill., to pick up Hastert, who had been weekending at his home in Plano, before flying on to Washington.

But look at the text above. Hastert ordered aircraft at government expense to fly a lawmaker TO DC. And for a short while, Hastert wasn't even in the plane! All to get the guys to a news conference to discuss the resignation of a Republican Congressman found diddling teenage boys.

The media, of course, won't be mentioning that. Just the Republican spin on an already debunked story.

A Nation of Babies

"VAGINA, VAGINA, VAGINA, VAGINA, VAGINA"
(Click here to see why)


Doing this can still get you arrested in Pittsburgh, but
you'll be able to sue the city for some sweet, sweet cash!

On Pelosi's use of Military Aircraft

This story is making the rounds of conservative (can we really use that term when talking about Sean Hannity?) Radio and now it's hit MSNBC.

Of course the bloviators from wingnuttia and their stenographers in the MSM get the facts wrong.

Here's the gist of the story. Begun, like so many other right-wing rants do, at the Washington Times.

The office of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is pressing the Bush administration for routine access to military aircraft for domestic flights, such as trips back to her San Francisco district, according to sources familiar with the discussions.

The sources, who include those in Congress and in the administration, said the Democrat is seeking regular military flights not only for herself and her staff, but also for relatives and for other members of the California delegation. A knowledgeable source called the request "carte blanche for an aircraft any time."

And thus it began. The story's now at MSNBC.

Republicans on Wednesday assailed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's request for access to an Air Force transport plane as an extravagance, though former Speaker Dennis Hastert flew in a military jet as well.

Republicans are taking issue with the size of the plane. Pelosi and the Defense Department are discussing letting her fly in a C-32 plane, a military version of the Boeing 757-200.

Think Progress has the facts:

1) The House Sergeant at Arms, not Pelosi, initiated inquiries into the use of military aircraft. House Sergeant at Arms Wilson Livingood, who has served in his position since 1995, released a statement today clarifying the facts. He writes, “In December 2006, I advised Speaker Pelosi that the US Air Force had made an airplane available to Speaker Hastert for security and communications purposes following September 11, 2001.” Additionally, Livingood writes, “I offered to call the U.S. Air Force and Department of Defense to seek clarification of the guidelines [which governed Speaker Hastert’s use of a plane].”

2) A larger plane was requested because Hastert’s plane required refueling to travel cross-country. The Washington Times says a larger plane was requested to accomodate Pelosi, “her staff, other Members and supporters.” That’s not true. In fact, the plane used by Speaker Hastert was too small for Pelosi since it “needs to refuel every 2,000 miles and could not make the nonstop haul to California. ‘The Air Force determined that [Pelosi’s] safety would be best ensured by using a plane that has the fuel capacity to go coast-to-coast,’” a Pelosi spokesperson said.

But of course, none of this will matter to the wingnuts (just watch the comments section here).

Coverage in the City Paper

Hey take a look, we're in the City Paper!

Though I do have to correct Marty Levine on one minor point. Late in the piece he wrote:

While there may have been no bloggers invited on Air Force One during the run-up to the last presidential election, David DeAngelo of 2 Political Junkies was invited to the Washington, D.C., swearing-in ceremony of Rep. Jason Altmire. DeAngelo never inquired, but it was probably his blog posts on the freshman Congressman, and on Melissa Hart, whom he defeated, that landed him the invite.

Altmire has his own blog, hosted by the Post-Gazette, but it's not hard to see why he might have invited coverage from 2 Political Junkies. Few mainstream journalists would offer such reliably positive attention; the post previewing the congressman's first 100 hours ends with "Today is a good day in DC."

Marty should have checked a few other blog postings of that day. My use of the sentence "Today is a good day in DC" had more to do with the fact that the House was now in the hands of the Democrats.

There's this short blog-post . While I point out that the swearing in ceremony marked the beginning of Altmire's congressional career, it ALSO marked the end (let's all hope) of Melissa Hart's. That was what I was celebrating there. Ended the post with:

It's a good day in DC.

Then take a look here. It was my last blog-post for the trip to DC where I outline some final thoughts on the day. Didn't even mention Congressman Altmire. I did, though, end it with:

Still, it was a very good day in DC.

I'm just sayin'. Though I can see where Marty got the impression that he got. I promise the next time I'm invited to DC to watch the swearing-in ceremony of a local politico, I'll be clearer.

Anyway, it's a good article. A few of the usual suspects get mentions (Sue Kerr, Mike Woychek, the Carbolic Smokeball guys, etc).

And for the record: It was a good day in DC because the republicans no longer controlled the House of Representatives. I apologize for if my lack of journalistic clarity caused anyone to think otherwise.

Hahahahaha!

Some Good Burg News at USA Today

Last week, USA Today did an article on "green" buildings titled "Mayors unite on the 'green' front." While the article mentioned several cities' efforts on this front, it focused primarily on Pittsburgh. It also contained some nice quotes from City Councilman and mayoral hopeful Bill Peduto.

One must add that the timing of the article was most fortunate as it came out the week before the David L. Lawrence Convention Center's current problems.

Meanwhile, In Iraq

The AP is reporting:

More American troops were killed in combat in Iraq over the past four months — at least 334 through Jan. 31 — than in any comparable stretch since the war began, according to an Associated Press analysis of casualty records.

Not since the bloody battle for Fallujah in 2004 has the death toll spiked so high.
The reason is that U.S. soldiers and Marines are fighting more battles in the streets of the Iraqi capital, Baghdad, and other cities. And while hostile forces are using a variety of weaponry, the top killer is the roadside bomb.

In some respects it is the urban warfare that U.S. commanders thought they had managed to largely avoid after U.S. troops entered Baghdad in early April 2003 and quickly toppled the Saddam Hussein regime.

Tell me again. Why are we there?

Voices for Impeachment

It's been a while since I've written on the President's and Vice-President's Impeachment.

The last thing I posted (as far as I can tell) is this about a recent article from John Dean. Dean's rather pragmatic point was that since there's no chance the Senate would convict Bush/Cheney, why waste the time? Go after and impeach some lower level officials.

I can see his point about the Senate. Heck, the Republicans there won't even allow a debate a non-binding resolution on Iraq because it might embarras dubya. Those same folks wailing for an "up or down" vote on judicial nominees suddenly find the wisdom of the fillibuster when it comes to the protection of their embattled president. Partisanship at its worst.

Back to Impeachment. There've been a few other voices out there calling for Impeachment. We'll start with Howard Zinn. For those few who don't know, Zinn wrote A People's History of the United States.

Recently in The Progressive, he wrote:

Courage is in short supply in Washington, D.C. The realities of the Iraq War cry out for the overthrow of a government that is criminally responsible for death, mutilation, torture, humiliation, chaos. But all we hear in the nation's capital, which is the source of those catastrophes, is a whimper from the Democratic Party, muttering and nattering about "unity" and "bipartisanship," in a situation that calls for bold action to immediately reverse the present course.

These are the Democrats who were brought to power in November by an electorate fed up with the war, furious at the Bush Administration, and counting on the new majority in Congress to represent the voters. But if sanity is to be restored in our national policies, it can only come about by a great popular upheaval, pushing both Republicans and Democrats into compliance with the national will.

The Declaration of Independence, revered as a document but ignored as a guide to action, needs to be read from pulpits and podiums, on street corners and community radio stations throughout the nation. Its words, forgotten for over two centuries, need to become a call to action for the first time since it was read aloud to crowds in the early excited days of the American Revolution: "Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it and institute new government."

And some details:

Still, there seems to be a special viciousness that accompanies the current assault on human rights, in this country and in the world. We have had repressive governments before, but none has legislated the end of habeas corpus, nor openly supported torture, nor declared the possibility of war without end. No government has so casually ignored the will of the people, affirmed the right of the President to ignore the Constitution, even to set aside laws passed by Congress.

For Zinn, this leads to:

There is a logical next step in this development of an impeachment movement: the convening of "people's impeachment hearings" all over the country. This is especially important given the timidity of the Democratic Party. Such hearings would bypass Congress, which is not representing the will of the people, and would constitute an inspiring example of grassroots democracy.

I'm not sure it'll happen, but I'd be overjoyed if it did.

Robert Scheer makes a different case. He shares Zinn's cynicism about the Democratic Party. Take a look:

Not all lies are created equal. It is understood that there is a chasm of importance between little white lies and big black ones. Most would agree that lying about a consensual sexual affair, even by the president, is of significantly lesser concern than lying about the proliferation of nuclear weapons as an excuse to take the nation to war.

How then is it possible that a Republican-controlled Congress impeached President Bill Clinton over his attempt to conceal marital infidelity but that a Democratic-led Congress will not even consider impeaching this president for far more serious transgressions against the public trust? That is the question that arises from early revelations in the trial of Lewis “Scooter” Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney’s former chief of staff.

He puts the whole Libby trial in the broader context of dubya's ongoing deception of Congress.

Indeed it's the act of defrauding the Congress that's at the heart of Elizabeth De La Vega's case for Impeachment. She wrote it back in late 2005.

The Supreme Court has defined the phrase "conspiracy to defraud the United States" as "to interfere with, impede or obstruct a lawful government function by deceit, craft or trickery, or at least by means that are dishonest." In criminal law, a conspiracy is an agreement "between two or more persons" to follow a course of conduct that, if completed, would constitute a crime. The agreement doesn't have to be express; most conspiracies are proved through evidence of concerted action. But government officials are expected to act in concert. So proof that they were conspiring requires a comparison of their public conduct and statements with their conduct and statements behind the scenes. A pattern of double-dealing proves a criminal conspiracy.

And:

Finally, "fraud" is broadly defined to include half-truths, omissions or misrepresentation; in other words, statements that are intentionally misleading, even if literally true. Fraud also includes making statements with "reckless indifference" to their truth.

Here's a more specific example:

The PR campaign intensified Sunday, September 8. On that day the New York Times quoted anonymous "officials" who said Iraq sought to buy aluminum tubes suitable for centrifuges used in uranium enrichment. The same morning, in a choreographed performance worthy of Riverdance, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, Condoleezza Rice and Gen. Richard Myers said on separate talk shows that the aluminum tubes, suitable only for centrifuges, proved Iraq's pursuit of nuclear weapons.

If, as Jonathan Schell put it, the allegation that Iraq tried to purchase uranium from Niger is "one of the most rebutted claims in history," the tubes story is a close second. The CIA and the Energy Department had been debating the issue since 2001. And the Energy Department's clear opinion was that the tubes were not suited for use in centrifuges; they were probably intended for military rockets. Given the lengthy debate and the importance of the tubes, it's impossible to believe that the Bush team was unaware of the nuclear experts' position. So when Bush officials said that the tubes were "only really suited" for centrifuge programs, they were committing fraud, either by lying outright or by making recklessly false statements.

There's much more to the article. The NIE report of December, 2001 that starkly contradicted the administration's assertions that Iraq had a nuclear weapons program. Dubya said it did, the NIE said no.

Cheney claimed that the meeting in Prague between Iraqi Intelligence and Mohammad Atta was "pretty well confirmed" when it was nothing of the sort. And so on.

The de la Vega ends her article with this:

The evidence shows, then, that from early 2002 to at least March 2003, the President and his aides conspired to defraud the United States by intentionally misrepresenting intelligence about Iraq to persuade Congress to authorize force, thereby interfering with Congress's lawful functions of overseeing foreign affairs and making appropriations, all of which violates Title 18, United States Code, Section 371.

To what standards should we hold our government officials? Certainly standards as high as those Bush articulated for corporate officials. Higher, one would think. The President and Vice President and their appointees take an oath to defend the Constitution and the laws of the United States. If they fail to leave their campaign tactics and deceits behind--if they use the Oval Office to trick the public and Congress into supporting a war--we must hold them accountable. It's not a question of politics. It's a question of law.

IMPEACH.

Start Making Sense

According to an article on campaign expenditures in yesterday's Pittsburgh Post- Gazette: The suit Pittsburgh Mayor Luke Ravenstahl wore on "The Late Show With David Letterman" was paid for by campaign contributors. Ravenstahl appeared on Letterman on September 14, 2006 and announced his candidacy three months later on December 4, 2006. More importantly, as is pointed out in the comments section of this The Burgh Report post:

At that time the City's opinion was that he was Mayor until 2009.

It wasn't until Oct. 12, 2006 that Ravenstahl even knew that he would be running in 2007.

So this quote doesn't make any sense:

"He was representing the city of Pittsburgh, with clear intentions of running for election," said Damon Andrews, the mayor's campaign manager. "He bought the clothing to make the best possible impression."

Then again, perhaps Interim Mayor Ravenstahl just really likes to plan ahead. Though if our young mayor experiences a growth spurt between now and 2009, his judgment may be called into question.

Maybe that's why Common Cause/Pennsylvania Director Barry Kauffman called the expenditure "pretty unusual."

Happy Colin Powell Day

I picked this up via Atrios.

It's been 4 years since then-Secretary of State Colin Powell delivered his speech at the UN.

Here are some highlights. Early on in the speech, he said:

My colleagues, every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we're giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence. I will cite some examples, and these are from human sources.

And what else did he say?

Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent. That is enough agent to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets.

Even the low end of 100 tons of agent would enable Saddam Hussein to cause mass casualties across more than 100 square miles of territory, an area nearly 5 times the size of Manhattan.

A few moments later he said:

Saddam Hussein has chemical weapons. Saddam Hussein has used such weapons. And Saddam Hussein has no compunction about using them again, against his neighbors and against his own people.

And remember he said that they are "facts and conclusions."

A year and a half later he said this of the speech:

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell said Thursday his prewar speech to the United Nations accusing Iraq of harboring weapons of mass destruction was a "blot" on his record.

And now we all know that there were no WMD - it was all a lie.

Happy Colin Powell Day.

A Conservative Republican has More Second Thoughts

It's Dick Armey (and no, Stewie, his wife's name is NOT Vagina Coastguard!) again.

His Conservative bona vides are strong. House Majority Leader from 1995 to 2003, one of the architects of the so called "Republican Revolution" and chief author of the "Contract with America." Oh yea, for you social conservatives, remember he's also the guy who called Barney Frank, "Barney Fag" and then apologized, saying it was all a slip of the tongue. So we know he's a solid (if somewhat homophobic) conservative.

In a recent interview, he said - wait let's first get through the fun stuff. When he was asked whether the current Bush presidency is a "failed presidency" he answered:

I've said over the years that every president either ends up a pleasant surprise or a bitter disappointment. And we haven't had a pleasant surprise since Ronald Reagan. I don't see how anybody can look at the Bush presidency and say this was a success in public policy terms.

To Congressman Armey, dubya's a failure in public policy. Heck I've been saying that for a long time.

Now onto more serious matters. In the same interview,when asked about dubya's war, he answered:

I'm not sure that it was the right thing to do. You might say removing Saddam from power was a right thing to do. Maybe it was, but was that necessarily then our responsibility to do that? And was it our responsibility to do that by invading a country that had in no way declared any war on us?

"Maybe it was..."??? Wait a second, didn't Howard Dean get run over the coals when he said "I suppose it's a good thing" that Saddam Hussein was ousted?

Yes, yes he was. Where is the outcry from God's Own Party when Dick Armey says that taking out Hussein MAYBE was the right thing to do. Does he have doubts??

Anyway when reminded that he voted for the war, Dick Armey responded:

I did, and I'm not happy about it. The resolution was a resolution that authorized the president to take that action if he deemed it necessary. Had I been more true to myself and the principles I believed in at the time, I would have openly opposed the whole adventure vocally and aggressively. I had a tough time reconciling doing that against the duties of majority leader in the House. I would have served myself and my party and my country better, though, had I done so.

So what does Dick Armey believe? He believes that (at least partially) this president's a failure, he's not sure the war in Iraq was "the right thing to do" and that his own job pressures as Majority Leader got in the way of doing what was right for the country.

Dennis Roddy's Journal

For a change of pace, check out Dennis Roddy's Journal at the P-G today.

Beautifully written and heart-wrenching.

Bravo, Dennis.

Saturday Night Music Club

This is not work friendly, but what are you doing working at 10:00 PM on a Saturday night anyway? For that matter, what are you doing reading this blog at 10:00 PM on a Saturday night?

Also, please swallow anything you may be drinking before clicking on the video (you've been warned).



(h/t to driftglass)