Something STILL Smells Bad (In Case You Missed It)

An astute reader sent me a couple of links regarding the city's investigation of former city employee Dennis Regan.

The first is Jon Delano's interview with the guy who did the investigation - Acting City Solicitor, George Specter. Specter says some curious things to say about the City Hall Dennis-The-Menace. On the allegations that Catherine McNeilly raised, Delano's writes:

But, speaking out for the first time, the man who conducted that investigation says his view was not much different from Police Commander Catherine McNeilly whom the mayor gave approval for Police Chief Nate Harper to demote.

"She and I reached the same conclusions," said Specter. "I said the facts speak for themselves."

Specter said that in his report to the mayor but he also said he had no way to determine who was telling the truth -- the police or Regan.

Curious. So he and McNeilly reached the same conclusions, but he couldn't determine who was telling the truth, Regan or McNeilly? Sorry - something must be missing here. If he says "the facts speak for themselves" then why is any if it still in question?

Then there's this from Bob Mayo:

A: "...the allegation that he (Regan) had sought to pressure Chief Costa into better positions for Officer Rende. On that one, as you correctly noted, 'I said credence has to be given, despite Regan's stout denials, credence has to be given to what actually happened. Costa said 'he told me to do it, and I did it'."

Q: "So then, your next and closing statement is 'the facts speak for themselves.' And in that context, what do those facts say--about Chief Costa's assertions, about Dennis Regan's assertions?"

A: "The fact that Costa did this, and says that he did it at the insistence of Dennis Regan, coupled with the record of transfers during the Costa regime, tell me that something--that there was some interaction between them that led him to move Rende so often in a short period of time."

Q: "So, did your investigation provide, in light of that, quote-- 'no conclusive evidence'--unquote?"

A: "I thought there was substantial evidence, but you still had Dennis Regan saying 'I never said it'."

Q: "So in order for there to be conclusive evidence, there'd have to be an admission on Dennis Regan's part?"

A: "Something like that. to be absolutely conclusive. But you know what's interesting here, Bob? I in a sense came to the same conclusions as Cathy McNeilly did. Recall, she said that she had no absolute proof that Dennis Regan had done these things. But she looked at the big picture. I, on the other hand, said 'let the facts speak for themselves'. There's essentially no difference between those conclusions."[emphasis added]

I'm not sure I follow the logic here. If someone breaks a rule (whatever it is) and there's substantial evidence against that person, it's not absolutely conclusive unless he/she admits to it? I don't suggest ANYONE try that with a traffic violation.

But when pressed Specter deflects:

Q: "But the mayor had to act on that. He said 'no conclusive evidence'. Is that an accurate interpretation of the findings that you made to the mayor?"

A: "If you're using the word conclusive, yes it is. But look at the overall result. What you have is, as a result of this investigation and the mayor's action on it: Dennis Regan is no longer employed by the City of Pittsburgh. Cathy McNeilly remains employed. Albeit, she was demoted. That demotion has been vacated by the district court; she is now back as a commander. But if you look at the bigger picture here, and what has actually happened: Regan is gone and she is still here.

So that makes it all better. The wiggling doesn't matter because Regan's gone and McNeilly's still on the payroll.

But Mayor Luke's still on the record:

Again Regan denied the allegations and last week the mayor again said there was no proof of wrongdoing.

"There were no laws or rules broken," said Ravenstahl. [emphasis added]

Back to Jon Delano:

But Specter was aware that Regan used the title "Public safety director" to overturn the discipline of another police officer even though council had not yet confirmed Regan to that post.

"He had no right to do this," said Specter.

"Or to take the action he did because that's an action that could only be taken by the public safety director, and was contrary to the advice of the Law Department."

Whah? So how with what definition of "laws" and/or "rules" is Luke Ravenstahl functioning? Regan, contrary to the advice of the law department, did something the Acting City-Solicitor says he has no right to do, and Mayor Luke still says no rules were broken?

What planet does Mayor Luke live on? I know he's only in his late twenties, but still.

The other link is a piece by Andy Sheehan at KDKA.

The fallout continues from a federal judge's decision to reinstate a demoted city police commander.

That commander, Catherine McNeilly, says she blew the whistle on Mayor Luke Ravenstahl's public safety director nominee Dennis Regan.

Now, McNeilly's lawyers are criticizing Ravenstahl for disciplining McNeilly and exonerating Regan despite evidence of wrong-doing on his part.

KDKA Investigator Andy Sheehan reports it involves almost a dozen documents that have been submitted in McNeilly's case against mayor Ravenstahl and the city.

They're here, by the way. Of course, the Mayor has denied (repeatedly) that there's been any wrong doing so let's give the award for subtle sarcasm to Vic Walczak for this bon mot:

"(It's) very difficult to square the evidence with the mayor's assertion that there's no evidence," said Walczak.

Subtle.

This part - not so subtle.

Documents in the case also shed light on another incident we first brought to light: Regan's interceding on behalf of a Southside tire business cited for violations by another police commander, Rashall Brackney.

Regan went to see Brackney at the Southside zone station and found that she wasn't there but according to the sworn statements from the officers who were there Regan told them to give Brackney a message: "(expletive) rolls down hill, and she will be in the (expletive)."

The officers also quote Regan saying that Brackney would find herself "back walking a beat" if she didn't get with the program.

The (expletive) in use is the word "shit." Though according to memo the actual quotation attributed to Dennis Regan is:

Shit rolls downhill, and she'll be the one ending up being shit on.

Hey, maybe that's what stinks!

There's more at the Burghreport.

Peduto to Announce on Monday

The Post-Gazette's Early Returns column has City Councilman Bill Peduto to officially announce his candidacy for mayor this Monday.

Details:
Monday, January 22
7:00 - 9:00 pm
Union Project
801 N. Negley Ave. (map)
(Corner of Stanton Ave. and N. Negley Ave., Highland Park)
Pittsburgh, PA 15206

Refreshments will be served.
This event is free & open to the public.

Dubya's Numbers Post-TV Appearance

They ain't good. In a recent USAToday/Gallup poll done recently, data from before dubya's speech and after were compared.

• 47% said it is "certain" or "likely" the U.S. will "win" in Iraq, vs. 50% who said that before Bush's speech.

• 49% said it is "unlikely" the U.S. will win or "certain" it will not, vs. 46% who said that before Bush's speech.

• 29% said the president does have a "clear plan" for handling the situation in Iraq, vs. 25% who said that before the speech.

• 69% said the president does not have a "clear plan," vs. 72% who said that before the speech.

• 21% said Democrats in Congress have a "clear plan" for Iraq, vs. 25% who said that before the speech.

• 75% said Democrats in Congress do not have a "clear plan" for Iraq, vs. 66% who said that before the speech.

• Bush's overall "approval rating" stood at 34%, vs. 37% before the speech.

• The percentage who said they disapprove of Bush's performance as president was 63%, vs. 59% before the speech.

Ouch. So the numbers either inched downward or stayed the same. This is a failed presidency.

Josh Michah Marshall over at talkingpointsmemo.com explains things far better than I can.

President Bush is by any reasonable measure extremely unpopular. Not unpopular -- extremely unpopular. Mid-low forties is unpopular. Mid-low thirties is extremely unpopular. Almost, but not quite unprecedented in the modern era for such a sustained period of time. The Iraq War is one of the few things that rivals his unpopularity. And the public, after signaling deep opposition to the war at the polls, sees this extremely unpopular president come before them to announce that he's expanding the really unpopular war. And if that's not enough he has the quavering look of a degenerate gambler begging his wife, half cockily half desperately, for one more chance.

And something interesting thing that atrios points out - the mainstream media (OK, Hardball - but still) was actually discussing Clinton's resignation when his approval numbers were in the mid-40s.

More evidence of a liberal media, folks. When a Democratic president's poll numbers (inaccurately, as it turns out) dip below 50, one segment of the mainstream media is discussing his resignation. When the Republican's numbers are worse (indeed when his assaults on the rule of law are far worse and far more deadly) there is more or less silence.

Liberal media. Yea, right.

Bush Expands His War on The Constitution

In an editorial in today's P-G, we can read:

Continuing the Bush administration's disgraceful romp across Americans' privacy and civil liberties, we now learn that the Pentagon and the CIA are collecting the banking and credit records of thousands of Americans to compile in a database.

Last week we learned that President Bush had ruled that his administration has the right to open Americans' mail without a court-approved warrant. Earlier we had learned that Mr. Bush had decided that the National Security Agency did not need to respect the measures of the Foreign Intelligence and Surveillance Act requiring a court order before intercepting Americans' telephone conversations and reading their e-mails.

The latest outrage, described by The New York Times over the weekend, has the Pentagon and the CIA, both barred expressly by law from domestic law enforcement, collecting banking and credit information from banks and credit agencies on thousands of American citizens whom the Department of Defense or the CIA suspect of terrorism or espionage.

Here is the article from The Times. The editorial touches on something in the article that needs to be expanded upon. From the editorial:

Apart from specific legal prohibitions on Defense and the CIA involving themselves in domestic law enforcement, they sometimes apparently step on the toes of the FBI -- which is legally charged with that responsibility -- in their independent collection efforts.

And from The Times:

In the United States, the Federal Bureau of Investigation has complained about military officials dealing directly with local police — rather than through the bureau — for assistance in responding to possible terrorist threats against a military base.

F.B.I. officials say the threats have often turned out to be uncorroborated and, at times, have stirred needless anxiety.

The military’s frequent use of national security letters has sometimes caused concerns from the businesses receiving them, a counterterrorism official said. Lawyers at financial institutions, which routinely provide records to the F.B.I. in law enforcement investigations, have contacted bureau officials to say they were confused by the scope of the military’s requests and whether they were obligated to turn the records over, the official said.

Companies are not eager to turn over sensitive financial data about customers to the government, the official said, “so the more this is done, and the more poorly it’s done, the more pushback there is for the F.B.I.”

So it looks as though dubya's latest assault on the law might make actually things more difficult for the FBI to pursue real leads in investigating terror in the US.

And while the FBI's hands are not sqeaky-clean either,

Some Democrats have accused the F.B.I. of using the letters for fishing expeditions, and the American Civil Liberties Union won court challenges in two cases, one for library records in Connecticut and the other for Internet records in Manhattan. Concerned about possible abuses, Congress imposed new safeguards in extending the Patriot Act last year, in part by making clear that recipients of national security letters could contact a lawyer and seek court review. Congress also directed the Justice Department inspector general to study the F.B.I.’s use of the letters, a review that is continuing.

Even they don't like the new program:

Some F.B.I. officials said they were surprised by the Pentagon’s interpretation of the law when military officials first informed them of it. “It was a very broad reading of the law,” a former counterterrorism official said.

I'll give the P-G the last word:

Given that Vice President Dick Cheney has already endorsed these Defense and CIA activities on Fox News Sunday, it will take some effort on the part of the Congress to shut them down. One effective way to do so would be by holding hostage upcoming Pentagon requests to the Congress for $100 billion and for authorization to add 92,000 troops.

Tell the Pentagon in the legislation to start by taking the people currently working on its domestic surveillance program and put them instead to some legal purpose. Such specific action is clearly necessary if this further step toward an American police state, carried out by the U.S. military and the country's external intelligence service, is to be headed off. [emphasis added]

News Flash: Bush is Misleading - Again

This article is making its way through the ether. The McClatchy papers are what's left (after some buying and selling) of the Knight-Ritter chain. The Knight-Ridder chain, if I recall correctly, did some amazing work in the lead-up to dubya's war.

Here's how they begin the article:

President Bush and his aides, explaining their reasons for sending more American troops to Iraq, are offering an incomplete, oversimplified and possibly untrue version of events there that raises new questions about the accuracy of the administration's statements about Iraq.

It's good to finally see it in print, isn't it?

The article then goes on to quote (and then deconstruct) dubya's speech of this past week.

But the president's account understates by at least 15 months when Shiite death squads began targeting Sunni politicians and clerics. It also ignores the role that Iranian-backed Shiite groups had in death squad activities prior to the Samarra bombing.

Blaming the start of sectarian violence in Iraq on the Golden Dome bombing risks policy errors because it underestimates the depth of sectarian hatred in Iraq and overlooks the conflict's root causes. The Bush account also fails to acknowledge that Iranian-backed Iraqi Shiite groups stoked the conflict.

Same with Secretary of State Rice:

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice recited Bush's history of events on Thursday in fending off angry questioning from Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., about why Rice had offered optimistic testimony about Iraq during a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing in October 2005.

"The president has talked repeatedly now about the changed circumstances that we faced after the Samarra bombing of February `06, because that bombing did in fact change the character of the conflict in Iraq," Rice said. "Before that, we were fighting al-Qaida; before that, we were fighting some insurgents, some Saddamists."

She cited the version again in an appearance later that day before the House Foreign Affairs Committee. "This is a direct result of al-Qaida activity," she said, asking House members not to consider Iraq's sectarian violence as evidence that Iraqis cannot live together.

The article goes on to point out how the sectarian violence in Iraq began well BEFORE the Samarra bombing. For instance:

The concerns about Shiite militias grew after the Jan. 30, 2005, elections that brought the Shiite-led government of then-Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari to power. Journalists in Iraq, the CIA station, the U.S. Embassy and the U.S. military all reported throughout 2005 that evidence was mounting that Jaafari's government was incorporating Shiite militias and death squads into the Iraqi army and police.

And

By the summer, the tortured bodies of kidnapped Sunni clerics had begun turning up regularly on Baghdad's streets, and on Aug. 10, 2005, Knight Ridder correspondent Tom Lasseter wrote:

"A militant Shiite Muslim group with close ties to Iran has gained enormous power since Iraq's January elections and now is accused of conducting a terror campaign against Iraq's Sunni Muslim minority that includes kidnappings, threats and murders."

Lasseter identified the group as the Badr Organization and reported that Iraq's interior minister was associated with it.

And so on.

Beginning in 2002, the administration's case for a pre-emptive war in Iraq was plagued by similar oversights, oversimplifications, misjudgments and misinformation. Unlike the administration's claims about the Samarra bombing, however, much of that information was peddled by Iraqi exiles and defectors and accepted by some eager officials and journalists.

The best known of those pre-war claims was that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and had reconstituted his nuclear weapons program - Bush's primary stated reason for invading Iraq.

Administration officials and their allies also claimed that Saddam had trained terrorists to hijack airplanes; that a Saddam emissary had met with lead Sept. 11 hijacker Mohammed Atta in Prague; that Iraq had purchased aluminum tubes that could be used only to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons; that Iraq had attempted to buy uranium from the African country of Niger; that Iraqis would greet American troops as liberators; and that Iraqi oil revenues would cover most of the cost of the war.

The administration has continued to offer inaccurate information to Congress, the American people and sometimes to itself. The Iraq Study Group, in its December report, concluded, for example, that the U.S. military was systematically under-reporting the violence in Iraq in an effort to disguise policy failings. The group recommended that the military change its reporting system. [emphasis added]

And that would be a pretty good descritopn of all the things this administration said were true that turned out not to be true. It's an entry-level element of logic that if someone presents a statement as true when not knowing the "truth value" of that statement, that person is lying.

As I said, it's good to see it in print.

Mayor Luke Points The Finger at Bob O'Connor

Take a look.

Last night Jon Delano had a piece on KDKA about Mayor Luke's most recent "response" to his growing Dennis Regan problem.

"Everything that occured, uh, in regards to this case occurred before I became the Mayor."

Delano goes on to quote Mayor Luke:

Lately Mayor Luke Ravenstahl seems to blame the late Mayor, Bob O'Connor.
Claiming he-quote-inherited Dennis Regan from O'Connor.

Ah yes. It's all Bob O'Connor's fault as Dennis Regan was O'Connor's guy. So if Regan is a bad apple, don't look to Luke - look to Bob. That seems to be Luke Ravenstahl's story right now.

Classy, no?

Delano goes on to point out that after Ravenstahl "inherited" both the office of the Mayor and Dennis Regan, he actually increased Regan's influence over city government. So shifting the blame back to the dead Mayor seems to be yet another stumble.

Things just don't seem to be getting any better or easier for our young Luke.

John McIntire News

My friend Sue over at Pittsburgh Lesbian Correspondents wrote about this two whole days ago! Where the heck have I been?

Anyway in the P-G:

New ways of looking at conventional talk and music formats are the next wave in programming strategy. Locally, CBS Radio Pittsburgh has been busy revamping two of its four stations over the past year -- news/talk KDKA-AM (1020) and rock station WRKZ-FM (93.7).

In the coming months, Pittsburgh radio listeners can look forward to more local talk on FM. Scott Paulsen will host a new talk show on WRKZ, starting in April. And John McIntire, whose nightly talk show on KDKA has been dropped, is in talks to move to the FM sister station.

Whoever is on the new FM talk lineup, McIntire says, "The handcuffs will be off. The restrictions one might feel on KDKA will be lifted. And that's a really exciting prospect."

And Sue wrote:

Considering those handcuffs permitted him to repeatedly use the term "carpet muncher" in his bits satirizing the Bush/Cheney stance on homosexuality, it will be mighty interesting to see how far he can go on FM talk. Note: we don't object to satirical usage of seemingly offensive language to describe lesbians, especially when said satire is directed at our beloved leader.

The talking version of 93.7 is supposed to appeal to men it would seem between 25 and 50. Hmmm ....

I'm sorry. I can't stop thinking of it as B94 and remembering Quinn and Banana. Given Jim Quinn's litany of conservative hate spewing from the other end of the dial, its ironic that McIntire might fill his old slot. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Regardless, the lesbians say "Hurrah!" for the return of McIntire and his merry band.

While I am many things and have the potential to be many more, alas a lesbian I can never be (I think it has something to do the y chromosome I inherited from my dad). With that being said, let me also say "Hurrah" and cheer John McIntire's return to the airwaves of Pittsburgh.

Hurrah!

More Trouble For Mayor Luke

Check this aht. The report touted by Mayor Luke that said that there was no conclusive evidence showing Dennis Regan doing anything wrong (in dealing with Catherine McNeilly and Frank Rende) could itself be wrong.

Federal court documents throw doubt on the city Law Department's ruling that there was no conclusive evidence that former Pittsburgh mayoral aide Dennis Regan interfered in the operation of the police department.

Interfered? How? In a sworn statement by former Police Chief Dominic J. Costa, we find some innnnnteresting details. Costa said that Regan approached him in February about whether his housemate's brother (that would be Rende - the guy McNeilly had tried to discipline) was being passed over for some work by the department. No evidence of it.

Then in March, Regan asked Costa to promote Rende to detective. Costa said no, but he'd transfer Rende to a graffiti task force - to improve his overall work performance.

And finally:

On Aug. 16, after a meeting on another matter, Mr. Costa said Mr. Regan ordered him to promote Mr. Rende and two other officers to "graded detective" immediately. Mr. Costa said he and Mr. Specter explained that under the police contract that position no longer existed but the officers could be made acting detectives.

"I says, I can move them in a couple weeks," Mr. Costa said. "He said, 'No, I want them moved now.' "

Mr. Costa said he considered that a direct order and moved the men the next day.

And this guy was at the center of city hall politcs? Anyway, if all this is true, how do we reconcile that with something else Mayor Luke said:

As far as Mr. Regan's actions were concerned, the mayor said it would be improper for anyone in the mayor's office to influence police decisions, but he's not convinced Mr. Regan did anything wrong.

"There was no rule broken, no law broken," he said. "If anything, maybe bad judgment was used."

Mayor Luke really needs to pay attention to what he's saying. It's "improper" for someone in the mayor's office to influence police decisions (which Regan reportedly did - if he didn't then Chief Costa should be investigated for committing perjury. It was a sworn statement, right?), but dude, if it, like you know, did happen or whatever it's probably just "bad judgement."

The Trib has more - and from a slightly different angle.

Lawyers representing a Pittsburgh police commander said Thursday the city's top lawyer did not impartially investigate allegations that former Operations Director Dennis Regan engineered a promotion for a family friend and interfered in police operations.

Mayor Luke Ravenstahl denied suggestions that the investigation was flawed, or that there was wrongdoing in his office.

"I believe that the Mayor's Office acted appropriately throughout this endeavor, and it's not uncommon for the Mayor's Office to have interaction with the police department," Ravenstahl said yesterday. "No rules or violations took place in that regard."

And they point out a few other times when Regan "influenced" police matters:

According to a memo from Officer Christine Luffey to Cmdr. RaShall Brackney, Regan visited the South Side police station April 28 and told Luffey that Brackney would be "walking a beat" if officers didn't begin attending community meetings in Arlington, as he thought they should.

On Oct. 5, Regan overturned the firing of a police officer, and imposed a five-day suspension. He signed the order as the city's director of public safety, even though his appointment to that position wasn't confirmed by City Council. [emphasis added]

Oops. That's a no-no. Doncha think?

Another Reminder (In Case You Missed The First)

I'll be on OffQ tomorrow night at 7:30pm.

I'll be the guy sitting next to Fred Honsberger.

Keith Olbermann - "Mr Bush, This is Madness"

Keith Olbermann, tonight:

Only this president, only in this time, only with this dangerous, even messianic certitude, could answer a country demanding an exit strategy from Iraq, by offering an entrance strategy for Iran.

Only this president could look out over a vista of 3,008 dead and 22,834 wounded in Iraq, and finally say, “Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me” — only to follow that by proposing to repeat the identical mistake ... in Iran.

Only this president could extol the “thoughtful recommendations of the Iraq Study Group,” and then take its most far-sighted recommendation — “engage Syria and Iran” — and transform it into “threaten Syria and Iran” — when al-Qaida would like nothing better than for us to threaten Syria, and when Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would like nothing better than to be threatened by us.

This is diplomacy by skimming; it is internationalism by drawing pictures of Superman in the margins of the text books; it is a presidency of Cliff Notes.

And to Iran and Syria — and, yes, also to the insurgents in Iraq — we must look like a country run by the equivalent of the drunken pest who gets battered to the floor of the saloon by one punch, then staggers to his feet, and shouts at the other guy’s friends, “Ok, which one of you is next?”

Mr. Bush, the question is no longer “what are you thinking?,” but rather “are you thinking at all?”

“I have made it clear to the prime minister and Iraq’s other leaders that America’s commitment is not open-ended,” you said last night.

And yet — without any authorization from the public, which spoke so loudly and clearly to you in November’s elections — without any consultation with a Congress (in which key members of your own party, including Sens. Sam Brownback, Norm Coleman and Chuck Hagel, are fleeing for higher ground) — without any awareness that you are doing exactly the opposite of what Baker-Hamilton urged you to do — you seem to be ready to make an open-ended commitment (on America’s behalf) to do whatever you want, in Iran.

Our military, Mr. Bush, is already stretched so thin by this bogus adventure in Iraq that even a majority of serving personnel are willing to tell pollsters that they are dissatisfied with your prosecution of the war.

It is so weary that many of the troops you have just consigned to Iraq will be on their second tours or their third tours or their fourth tours — and now you’re going to make them take on Iran and Syria as well?

Who is left to go and fight, sir?

Who are you going to send to “interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria”?

Laura and Barney?

The line is from the movie “Chinatown” and I quote it often: “Middle of a drought,” the mortician chuckles, “and the water commissioner drowns. Only in L.A.!”

Middle of a debate over the lives and deaths of another 21,500 of our citizens in Iraq, and the president wants to saddle up against Iran and Syria.

Maybe that’s the point — to shift the attention away from just how absurd and childish this latest war strategy is, (strategy, that is, for the war already under way, and not the one on deck).

We are going to put 17,500 more troops into Baghdad and 4,000 more into Anbar Province to give the Iraqi government “breathing space.”

In and of itself that is an awful and insulting term.

The lives of 21,500 more Americans endangered, to give “breathing space” to a government that just turned the first and perhaps the most sober act of any democracy — the capital punishment of an ousted dictator — into a vengeance lynching so barbaric and so lacking in the solemnities necessary for credible authority, that it might have offended the Ku Klux Klan of the 19th century.

And what will our men and women in Iraq do?

The ones who will truly live — and die — during what Mr. Bush said last night will be a “year ahead” that “will demand more patience, sacrifice, and resolve”?

They will try to seal Sadr City and other parts of Baghdad where the civil war is worst.

Mr. Bush did not mention that while our people are trying to do that, the factions in the civil war will no longer have to focus on killing each other, but rather they can focus anew on killing our people.

Because last night the president foolishly all but announced that we will be sending these 21,500 poor souls, but no more after that, and if the whole thing fizzles out, we’re going home.

The plan fails militarily.

The plan fails symbolically.

The plan fails politically.

Most importantly, perhaps, Mr. Bush, the plan fails because it still depends on your credibility.

You speak of mistakes and of the responsibility “resting” with you.

But you do not admit to making those mistakes.

And you offer us nothing to justify this clenched fist toward Iran and Syria.

In fact, when you briefed news correspondents off-the-record before the speech, they were told, once again, “if you knew what we knew … if you saw what we saw …”

“If you knew what we knew” was how we got into this morass in Iraq in the first place.

The problem arose when it turned out that the question wasn’t whether we knew what you knew, but whether you knew what you knew.

You, sir, have become the president who cried wolf.

All that you say about Iraq now could be gospel.

All that you say about Iran and Syria now could be prescient and essential.

We no longer have a clue, sir.

We have heard too many stories.

Many of us are as inclined to believe you just shuffled the director of national intelligence over to the State Department because he thought you were wrong about Iran.

Many of us are as inclined to believe you just put a pilot in charge of ground wars in Iraq and Afghanistan because he would be truly useful in an air war next door in Iran.

Your assurances, sir, and your demands that we trust you, have lost all shape and texture.

They are now merely fertilizer for conspiracy theories.

They are now fertilizer, indeed.

The pile has been built slowly and with seeming care.

I read this list last night, before the president’s speech, and it bears repeating because its shape and texture are perceptible only in such a context.

Before Mr. Bush was elected, he said nation-building was wrong for America.

Now he says it is vital.

He said he would never put

U.S. troops under foreign control.

Last night he promised to embed them in Iraqi units.

He told us about WMD.

Mobile labs.

Secret sources.

Aluminum tubes.

Yellow-cake.

He has told us the war is necessary: Because Saddam was a material threat.

Because of 9/11.

Because of Osama Bin Laden. Al-Qaida. Terrorism in general.

To liberate Iraq. To spread freedom. To spread Democracy. To prevent terrorism by gas price increases.

Because this was a guy who tried to kill his dad.

Because — 439 words in to the speech last night — he trotted out 9/11 again.

In advocating and prosecuting this war he passed on a chance to get Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi.

To get Muqtada Al-Sadr. To get Bin Laden.

He sent in fewer troops than the generals told him to. He ordered the Iraqi army disbanded and the Iraqi government “de-Baathified.”

He short-changed Iraqi training. He neglected to plan for widespread looting. He did not anticipate sectarian violence.

He sent in troops without life-saving equipment. He gave jobs to foreign contractors, and not Iraqis. He staffed U.S. positions there, based on partisanship, not professionalism.

He and his government told us: America had prevailed, mission accomplished, the resistance was in its last throes.

He has insisted more troops were not necessary. He has now insisted more troops are necessary.

He has insisted it’s up to the generals, and then removed some of the generals who said more troops would not be necessary.

He has trumpeted the turning points:The fall of Baghdad, the death of Uday and Qusay, the capture of Saddam.

A provisional government, a charter, a constitution, the trial of Saddam. Elections, purple fingers, another government, the death of Saddam.

He has assured us: We would be greeted as liberators — with flowers; As they stood up, we would stand down. We would stay the course; we were never about “stay the course.”

We would never have to go door-to-door in Baghdad. And, last night, that to gain Iraqis’ trust, we would go door-to-door in Baghdad.

He told us the enemy was al-Qaida, foreign fighters, terrorists, Baathists, and now Iran and Syria.

He told us the war would pay for itself. It would cost $1.7 billion. $100 billion. $400 billion. Half a trillion.

Last night’s speech alone cost another $6 billion.

And after all of that, now it is his credibility versus that of generals, diplomats, allies, Democrats, Republicans, the Iraq Study Group, past presidents, voters last November and the majority of the American people.

Oh, and one more to add, tonight: Oceania has always been at war with East Asia.

Mr. Bush, this is madness.

You have lost the military.

You have lost the Congress to the Democrats.

You have lost most of the Iraqis.

You have lost many of the Republicans.

You have lost our allies.

You are losing the credibility, not just of your presidency, but more importantly of the office itself.

And most imperatively, you are guaranteeing that more American troops will be losing their lives, and more families their loved ones.

You are guaranteeing it!

This becomes your legacy, sir: How many of those you addressed last night as your “fellow citizens” you just sent to their deaths.

And for what, Mr. Bush?

So the next president has to pull the survivors out of Iraq instead of you?

A few Reactions to Dubya's Speech

Howard Fineman at Newsweek:

George W. Bush spoke with all the confidence of a perp in a police lineup. I first interviewed the guy in 1987 and began covering his political rise in 1993, and I have never seen him, in public or private, look less convincing, less sure of himself, less cocky. With his knitted brow and stricken features, he looked, well, scared. Not surprising since what he was doing in the White House library was announcing the escalation of an unpopular war.

And

What the voters saw on TV just now was a man struggling to come to grips with his own unwillingness to face facts. It's still a struggle. His acknowledgement of mistakes was oblique and not as brave as it sounded at first blush. Mistakes were made, and he said. "The responsibility rests with me," he said. What he meant to convey was that others had made the mistakes, but that he was stepped up to take the hit. Hoo-aw! He said that he had "consulted" congressional leaders of both parties before he came to a decision on sending more than 20,000 additional troops. He didn't really consult with members of Congress, and certainly not with Democrats, unless you consider Sen. Joe Lieberman a Democrat.

I noticed the rhetoric in the "mistakes" section of the speech, too. He never admitted to actually making any mistakes, only taking responsibility for the mistakes that were made.

Sneaky. And only a few years ago lotsa people thought Bill Clinton was sneaky, too.

Then there's Larry Johnson over at TPMCafe:

George Bush still does not get it. The war in Iraq is not and never has been about terrorism. The attacks, the vast majority of attacks carried out against U.S. troops and Iraqis, are not the work of foreign jihadists operating under the direction of Osama Bin Laden. The facts on the ground do not support it.

Although U.S. forces have killed the head of Al Qaeda in Iraq, Zarqawi, violence has soared unabated. The reason is simple and the solution complex. The U.S. presence in Iraq has unleashed a sectarian war that pits Sunni against Shia. The United States now finds itself confronted with equally unpalatable choices: 1) Back the Sunnis and piss of the Shias, or 2) Back the Shias and piss off the Sunnis.

Bush tonight signals that we are going to pitch our tent with the Shias except we also are going to fight the one Shia, Moktada al Sadr and his Mahdi Army militia, who are the most anti-Iranian of the Shia. Great! The one group of Shias not closely aligned with Iran are the ones we will attack. This is madness.

Johnson, by the way, is a former Intelligence officer with the State Department and the CIA.

Rudy Giuliani over on Roger Ailes' "news" channel:

Former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani said President Bush "did the right thing” in deciding to send additional U.S. troops to Iraq.

Appearing on Fox News Channel’s "Hannity & Colmes” after the speech, Giuliani said he agreed with the change in U.S. strategy in taking the fight directly to the terrorists.

And everyone know who Rudy is.

McNeilly Reinstanted

From the P-G:

The woman who was demoted from that senior rank in the Pittsburgh Police Bureau last month was reinstated yesterday after a federal district judge found that Cmdr. McNeilly acted in good faith by going to City Council with her concerns about the nomination of Dennis Regan to the position of public safety director back in October.

"The public interest is always served by disclosure of wrongdoing and undue and/or inappropriate influence by public officials in police department matters," said Chief U.S. District Judge Donetta Ambrose in granting Cmdr. McNeilly a preliminary injunction. A demotion for a good faith report of that wrongdoing has a "chilling effect," she continued.

But the bad news for Mayor Luke might be found in this paragraph:

Judge Ambrose said in her opinion she felt Cmdr. McNeilly had a reasonable likelihood of succeeding with her lawsuit. In addition to being reinstated to her former position, she is seeking unspecified monetary damages and attorney fees.

Uh-oh. Monetary damages and attorney fees.

For the two or three people in this city who don't know the details of this story, the Trib has a good summary:

[McNeilly] claimed Regan improperly interfered with police business several times, including with her attempt to discipline Officer Francis "Frank" Rende, whose sister is the mayor's executive secretary. To help prove her point, McNeilly attached a copy of a discipline request report she had submitted against Rende for a pattern of abusing sick time to work off-duty details [to an e-mail she sent to the City Council].

A city-led investigation determined McNeilly broke department policy by including the confidential personnel file, and Police Chief Nate Harper ordered the demotion.

But ...

Ambrose said McNeilly's actions were protected by the U.S. Constitution and Pennsylvania's Whistleblower Law.

"The public interest is always served by disclosure of wrongdoing and undue and/or inappropriate influence by public officials in police department matters," Ambrose said. "The chilling effect of discipline and demotion to a police officer who makes a good faith report of what she believes in good faith to be wrongdoing and inappropriate influence in government never serves the public interest."

Un-oh. Another oopsie for young Mayor Luke.

If anything this little episode should convince Mayor Luke that saying something doesn't necessarily make it so. Judge Ambrose said McNeilly's actions were protected by the Constitution AND Pennsylvania's Whistleblower law. Mayor Luke said in December that it wasn't.

Who do you think has a better idea of what's in the law? Mayor Luke either needs better lawyers (if he's following their legal advice) or he needs to follow their legal advice (if he's not).

Keith Olbermann Talkin' 'Bout Dubya Tonight

Earlier today, I asked (rhetorically, of course) if there was any reason to trust the current administration at all.

Lucky me - Keith Olbermann answered with a resounding, "uh no." Something else to keep in mind when pondering dubya's speech earlier tonight.

Via Crooks and Liars:

President Bush makes no secret of his distaste for looking backward, for assessing past results.

But in our third story on the Countdown tonight, and in his speech at the top of the hour, that will not be possible.

Any meaningful assessment of the president's next step in Iraq must consider his steps and missteps so far.

So, let's look at the record:

Before Mr. Bush was elected, he said he was no nation-builder; nation-building was wrong for America.

Now, he says it is vital for America.

He said he would never put U.S. troops under foreign control. Today, U.S. troops observe Iraqi restrictions.

He told us about WMDs. Mobile labs. Secret sources. Aluminum tubing. Yellow-cake.

He has told us the war is necessary…Because Saddam was a threat; Because of 9/11; Osama bin Laden; al Qaeda; Because of terrorism in general; To liberate Iraq; To spread freedom; To spread democracy; To keep the oil out of the hands of terrorist-controlled states; Because this was a guy who tried to kill his dad.

In pushing for and prosecuting this war, he passed on chances to get Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Muqtada al-Sadr, Osama bin Laden.

He sent in fewer troops than recommended. He disbanded the Iraqi Army, and "de-Baathified" the government. He short-changed Iraqi training.

He did not plan for widespread looting, nor the explosion of sectarian violence.

He sent in troops without life-saving equipment.

Gave jobs to foreign contractors, not the Iraqis.

Staffed U-S positions there, based on partisanship, not professionalism.

We learned that "America had prevailed", "Mission Accomplished", the resistance was in its "last throes".

He has said more troops were not necessary, and more troops are necessary, and that it's up to the generals, and removed some of the generals who said more troops would be necessary.

He told us of turning points: The fall of Baghdad, the death of Uday and Qusay, the capture of Saddam, a provisional government,the trial of Saddam, a charter, a constitution, an Iraqi government, ¤elections, purple fingers, a new government, the death of Saddam.

We would be greeted as liberators, with flowers.

As they stood up–we would stand down, we would stay the course, we were never 'stay the course',

The enemy was al Qaeda, was foreigners, terrorists, Baathists.

The war would pay for itself, it would cost 1-point-7 billion dollars, 100 billion, 400 billion, half a trillion dollars.

And after all of that, today it is his credibility versus that of generals, diplomats, allies, Republicans, Democrats, the Iraq Study Group, past presidents, voters last November, and the majority of the American people.

Yea, what he said.

Somethings to keep in mind

As dubya presents his case for escalation in Iraq:

From the USAToday The headline says it all:

Most say no to Iraq buildup

The piece includes links to Gallup that show how much opposition there is to dubya's escalation. First off he gets a low 37% approval rating (59% disapprove) for how he's handling his job. And then a screechingly low 26% approval rating (72% disapprove) for how he's handling things in Iraq.

Has this administration gotten anything right in Iraq? From the get-go, this illegal war's been one administration screw-up after another. And now he wants to send more troops in?

Is there any reason left to trust this administration? Any at all?

P-G Editorial Board: Gov't Opening Your Mail=Police State

Today's editorial in the P-G:

The Bush administration now appears to be "going postal" in a new assault on Americans' privacy and right to confidentiality in their communications, this time by mail.

President Bush declared last month that the administration has the right to open Americans' mail without a court-approved warrant. He has already arrogated to the government the right to intercept Americans' telephone calls and e-mails without benefit of a court order, in direct violation of a law setting out the rules for such action.

Mr. Bush announced what he considers to be government authority to invade citizens' privacy in another of his now more than 800 "signing statements." The statements, which are legally suspect, are declarations made by a president when signing a bill passed by Congress; the statements may expand on or alter whatever may be in the actual legislation.

When challenged on the mail-opening matter by the media, Mr. Bush's spokesperson, Tony Snow, said that this was not a new power the president was claiming, that the government had it all along and that it would open mail only in "exigent circumstances," to protect public safety.

"Exigent circumstances" means that the government will open citizens' mail only when it feels it necessary. There was no explanation of what those circumstances might be or who would make the decision that the circumstances were exigent. The White House also did not say how the Bush administration was able, without new legislation, to get around the legal requirement that government agents get a warrant to open first-class mail.

Another disturbing aspect is that Mr. Bush's statement on the subject now probably means the administration has already been opening Americans' mail.

No reasonable person would argue that a truly suspicious piece of mail shouldn't be inspected by relevant postal authorities. At the same time, just as with the National Security Agency's illicit wiretaps on American citizens, there is no reason not to require that a court order be obtained, in accordance with the law, to authorize the
interception and opening of mail in question. That means that another pair of nonpolitical eyes is aware of and considers the wisdom of the request, protecting the privacy of the correspondent.

This measure, new or not, is consistent with the state of fear the Bush administration consistently tries to foster among the public, using it as a justification for whittling away at Americans' freedoms. The problem is that a government reading the people's mail at will is one of the unmistakable traits of a police state.

Here's the law dubya signed. And here's what the White House said about it.

There are a couple of places where (again) dubya is placing himself above the law he just signed. For instance, section 3662 (page 20 of the 66 page pdf file) of the law outlines how and for what reason a complaint can be lodged with the Postal Regulatory Commission. Dubya's first paragraph of his signing statement says:

The executive branch shall construe sections 3662 and 3663 of title 39, United States Code, as enacted by section 205 of the Act, not to authorize an officer or agency within the executive branch to institute proceedings in Federal court against the Postal Regulatory Commission, which is another part of the executive branch, as is consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch and the constitutional limitation of Federal courts to deciding cases or controversies.

So if you find out that the government's opened your mail and you think that's illegal, you can't file a grievance.

Then there's the part everyone's talking about:

The executive branch shall construe subsection 404(c) of title 39, as enacted by subsection 1010(e) of the Act, which provides for opening of an item of a class of mail otherwise sealed against inspection, in a manner consistent, to the maximum extent permissible, with the need to conduct searches in exigent circumstances, such as to protect human life and safety against hazardous materials, and the need for physical searches specifically authorized by law for foreign intelligence collection.

This is where dubya says your mail can be opened. It's hidden in the "exigent circumstances" part.

Look carefully and you'll see that what the statement is saying is that, (as with the NSA's warrantless domestic surveillance) if the government wants to open your mail, all it needs to say is that it's for "foreign intelligence collection" and there's nothing you can do about it. You'll probably never even know. As dubya once said, "Freedom is on the march."

I'll end this by quoting Conan O'Brien:

President Bush is claiming that a new postal law gives him the authority to read anyone's letters without a warrant. If you're upset about the law, you can let Bush know by writing to your sister.

I don't even have a sister. But I do know that a free society shouldn't allow its government to open its mail without a serious amount of oversight.

Santorum News (The Gift That Keeps On Giving)

In case you didn't catch it.

Rick Santorum has FOUND A JOB.

From the AP:Former

U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum has joined a conservative Washington think tank, where he will found and direct a program called "America's Enemies."

The program will study "threats posed to America and the West from a growing array of anti-Western forces that are increasingly casting a shadow over our future and violating religious liberty around the world," according to a statement from the
Ethics and Public Policy Center, where he will be a senior fellow.

Some background on Ethics and Public Policy Center. From the Center's website:

Founded in 1976, the Ethics and Public Policy Center is Washington, D.C.'s premier institute dedicated to applying the Judeo-Christian moral tradition to critical issues of public policy. From the Cold War to the war on terrorism, from disputes over the role of religion in public life to battles over the nature of the family, EPPC and its scholars have consistently sought to defend the great Western ethical imperatives -- respect for the inherent dignity of the human person, individual freedom and responsibility, justice, the rule of law, and limited government.

Oh, goody, Rick's right at home. Except for the "limited government" (Terri Schiavo, anyone?) part and the "rule of law" part (NSA domestic surveillance?), "individual freedom and responsibility" part (PA cyberschooling?) and finally the "inherent dignity of the human person" part (Abu Ghraib?).

Yea, Rick's right at home.

But we wish him well, of course.

Some Surprising Details About Cheney's "Hunting" Trip

From The Trib:

The excursion was sponsored by Dan Cook, an investment banker who runs the Dallas office of Goldman Sachs. He had invited Cheney on a hunting trip in 2003 at Rolling Rock.

According to OpenSecrets, Dan Cook is a HUGE Republican donor. He donated $25,000 to the Republican National Committee in 2003 and again in 2004. There were also 2 $25,000 donations from a "Gail" Cook in the same years. Indeed at one point on the same day (4/13/2004). And according to this brochure from The Lamplighter School (a private school in Texas - where Dan Cook is from), Dan Cook's wife is named (now you guessed it) "Gail." Maybe it's a coincidence, but we're up to $100,000 so far.

Then there's another $20,000 over the past 4 years ($5,000 each) to the Club for Growth, Leadership for America's Future, National Republican Congressional Committee, and Republican National State Elections Committee.

That's $120,000.

Then there's the $14,5000 Dan and Gail have given to former Senator George ("macaca") Allen. I wonder if they regret it.

And then there's $2,000 to our own Rick Santorum. Which leads very nicely to the next paragraphs from The Trib:

Also in the hunting party were former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum; Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association; and Tom Hicks, CEO of Dallas-based Hicks Holdings, one of the groups that in December purchased Latrobe Steel Co. Hicks' group owns baseball's Texas Rangers and the Dallas Stars of the National Hockey League.

The group included Sam Fox, former state finance chairman of the Bush-Cheney campaign; Stephen Friedman, chairman of the President's Intelligence Advisory Board; Fred Eckert, a lobbyist and former U.S. representative from New York; L. Brent Bozell, president of the Media Research Center and a Tribune-Review columnist; and Dick Scarlett, CEO of United Bancorporation of Wyoming.

Secrecy was the watchword.

Of course it was.

I wonder if there was any talk about hunting safety from the executive vice president of the NRA. Stephen Friedman, by the way, was the guy who replaced Brent Scowcroft (after Scowcroft was fired) as chairman of the Intelligence Advisory Board. Scowcroft is no fan of dubya's war, in case you didn't know.

Brent Bozell was in Pennsylvania yesterday? That explains those whiffs of journalistic brimstone I smelled when the wind came from the east.

2PJ on QED!

I'll be on WQED-TV this Friday at 7:30pm

Yea, that's right. One of the 2 Political Junkies will be on OffQ.

It's even posted on the QED website and everything! Take a look:

Friday, January 12

Host Chris Moore is joined by regular panelists Fred Honsberger, Ruth Ann Dailey and Valerie McDonald Roberts...along with GUEST PANELIST: political blogger, David DeAngelo.

Neat, huh?

Look Out! Dick Cheney's A'Comin'!

From our friends at the Trib:

Vice President Dick Cheney is expected to arrive in Westmoreland County this morning for a day of hunting at the Rolling Rock Club in Ligonier Township, a White House spokeswoman said Sunday.

Katie, bar the door! Cheney's in town for some "hunting" so for God's sakes stay away from him if he has a shotgun in his hand! You may have to apologize to him if he shoots you.

An avid hunter, Cheney is no stranger to Rolling Rock. He has made several trips to the club since 2002. During a 2003 trip to Rolling Rock, he bagged more than 70 pheasants and mallard ducks.

Here's the P-G on that trip:

One of Washington's big guns came to Westmoreland County yesterday for a day's shooting at the Rolling Rock Club in Ligonier Township.

For the second time in two years, Vice President Dick Cheney arrived at daybreak at Arnold Palmer Airport in Latrobe. Air traffic was halted briefly at about 7 a.m. as Air Force Two landed and Cheney's security detail loaded him and his favorite shotgun into a Humvee and drove up U.S. Route 30 to the exclusive country club.

Dick Cheney with a shotgun and a Humvee - if that doesn't inspire general anxiety I don't know what will. Back to the trip from 2003:

Cheney shot more than 70 ringneck pheasants and an unknown number of mallard ducks. The birds were plucked and vacuum-packed in time for Cheney's afternoon flight to Washington, D.C.

That's some serious plucking. Do you think it was a gang-pluck? A cluster-pluck?

Scott Wakefield, a dog handler at the club, said about 500 farm-raised pheasants were released from nets for the morning hunt. The 10-man hunting party that included Cheney shot 417 pheasants. The vice president was set to hunt ducks in the afternoon.

Here's how the Humane Society saw that particular "hunting" trip:

Vice President Dick Cheney went pheasant shooting in Pennsylvania in December 2003, but unlike most of his fellow hunters across America, he didn't have to spend hours or even days tramping the fields and hedgerows in hopes of bagging a brace of birds for the dinner table.

Upon his arrival at the exclusive Rolling Rock Club in Ligonier Township, gamekeepers released 500 pen-raised pheasants from nets for the benefit of him and his party. In a blaze of gunfire, the group—which included legendary Dallas Cowboys quarterback Roger Staubach and U.S. Senator John Cornyn (R-TX), along with major fundraisers for Republican candidates—killed at least 417 of the birds. According to one gamekeeper who spoke to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Cheney was credited with shooting more than 70 of the pen-reared fowl.

By the way only about 266 American servicemen and women had been killed by the Time Cheney had this "hunt."

Ever wonder who's Congressional District encompasses the exclusive Rolling Rock Club? None other than our friend, the ethically challenged Tim Murphy. According to his website, his district covers both Ligonier Boro and Ligonier Township (can someone explain to me the difference?).

For those who don't remember Tim Murphy's issues, here's the rundown from the Wikipedia and from the City Paper.

Best of luck to everyone in Ligonier - here's to hoping YOU don't have to apologize to Dick Cheney if he shoots you. And of course, let's hope that Dick Cheney doesn't shoot you.

In the event you're curious, about 2,750 MORE American servicemen and women have been killed in Iraq since Cheney's last phake-pheasant hunt. So you know it's probably a good time for Cheney to blow off some steam and kill some birds.

Happy Monday everyone!

Mayor Luke Gets A Lance From The Trib

Every now and then (I think it's weekly - I really SHOULD pay attention!) the Trib publishes something called "Laurels and Lances." The Laurels are for those hearty souls who've done something the Trib's editorial board likes. The Lances are for those deemed worthy of criticism.

A donut to anyone who got the reference.

Seems our young Mayor's use of tax-payer money to fund defacto campaign literature is coming under fire AGAIN - this time in the Trib.

Not a new story. We've blogged on CP's story, some embarrassing (for Luke) billboards, and so on. This is what the Trib had to say this Friday:

To Luke Ravenstahl. The photo of Pittsburgh's mayor is featured prominently in a new four-page color newsletter listing the city's garbage- and recycling-collection schedule. Luke, Luke, Luke, Luke. Considering the mayor is up for re-election in four months, let's call it what it is -- a piece of campaign literature. The $38,335 cost is being split by state and city taxpayers. Mr. Ravenstahl's campaign should know better. And it should reimburse the taxpayers.

It's not often we agree with the Trib - but when they're right, they're right.