Spell Out IMPEACH in Reno and Tahoe - April 28th

As heard on the Thom Hartmann show today:

Reno:
Spell out the word "Impeach!" on the steps of the Bruce Thompson Federal Building in Reno (the corner of Liberty and Virginia). Saturday, April 28th, 1-3 PM. For more info, contact jpom22@myway.com. I'll try to get down there with a camera and take some photos.


South Lake Tahoe/Carson City:
Spell out "IMPEACH!" on El Dorado Beach, east of Sprouts Café and the hemp store, on Saturday April 28th (time not given). For more info, contact miss.heather@hotmail.com.


I got this information from A28 (link) and its ImpeachSpace (link).

~ Deep Blue

The Truth About the SURGE!

I've avoided this topic long enough, mostly because it's been beaten to death on the Bill Manders show (hell, they're re-running his Friday show on this topic today), but I couldn't resist once I saw his headline.

RGJ: Cheney Lashes Out at Harry Reid

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Vice President Dick Cheney accused Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada on Tuesday of pursuing a defeatest strategy in Iraq to win votes in the next election -- a charge Reid said did not warrant a response.

The two sparred hours after President Bush said he will veto the latest war spending bill taking shape in Congress, which includes a timetable for withdrawing from Iraq.

Cheney, after attending the weekly Republican policy lunch on Capitol Hill, lashed out at Reid.

"Some Democratic leaders seem to believe that blind opposition to the new strategy in Iraq is good politics," Cheney said. "Sen. Reid himself has said that the war in Iraq will bring his party more seats in the next election.

"It is cynical to declare that the war is lost because you believe it gives you political advantage," Cheney said.

Reid, D-Nev., dismissed Cheney's remarks later to reporters, but not before getting in his own dig at the vice president.

"I'm not going to get into a name calling match with the administration's chief attack dog," Reid said.

That last line killed me. I don't care if you're a Democrat or a Republican, but you have to admit that calling someone a name whilst saying that you don't want to enter a name-calling match is funny, even if Cheney is the administration's attack dog. If I were Harry Reid, I would've put a sarcastic spin on a term of esteem, such as "I'm not going to get into a name calling match with the always dignified, never unintelligent Vice President."

Cheney's assessment of the War on Iraq giving the Democrats seats in the next election is actually quite accurate, but also quite obvious. The Democrats don't really have to do anything to gain seats in the next election. But is political gain the main reason why Sen. Reid even uttered the words "the war is lost" in succession?

No. He said them because it's the truth, and as I always say, the truth has a liberal bias.

The truth is that Iraq has gotten really deadly, not just for Iraqis, but our soldiers as well. Larry Johnson, who "worked previously with the Central Intelligence Agency and U.S. State Department’s Office of Counter Terrorism" (so he knows a thing or two about terrorism and war), wrote on his blog last Wednesday that 364 Iraqis were killed between April 15th and April 18th (source). Yesterday he wrote that 9 American soldiers were killed and 20 more were injured "in a suicide car bombing against a patrol base northeast of the capital in Diyala province" (source, quoting an AP article). Read those articles and tell me that the SURGE! is going well.

Some people (including Manders) say that we liberals want the SURGE! to fail. We already know that it will fail, because this isn't the first SURGE!. Oh no, there've been other SURGE!s over the past 3 years. Does "Operation Together Forward" ring a bell? It should, because that was when we SURGE!d into Iraq between July and October 2006 (source). You know how Bush says that he listens to "the generals on the ground?" Well, he didn't listen to Major General William Caldwell, who said that Operation Together Forward "[did not meet] our overall expectations of sustaining a reduction in the levels of violence" (source). So even the generals on the ground didn't think that that SURGE! worked.

Further SURGE!s can be documented in the Brookings Institute's Iraq Index (PDF link). The table in question is on page 23, titled "Coalition Troop Strength in Iraq since May 2003," and that table was taken from tens of articles and statistical compilations. This table shows numerous other SURGE!s, such as the SURGE! that happened between September and November 2005 (22,000 additional troops with no long-term benefits), or the between November 2004 and February 2005 (12,000 additional troops with no long-term benefits), or even the SURGE! between January and May 2004 that happened during troop rotations (7,000 troops reduction followed by a 20,000 troop addition with no long-term benefits).

So the right-wingers won't tell you that there have actually been nearly as many troop SURGE!s as there have been Rocky movies. The only reason why this is news is because the Democrats are now in power, and President Bush isn't used to not getting his way. This story has spread throughout the Right Wing Talking Points Network, hitting just about every major conservative talk show in the country. I'm surprised that a petition hasn't been created to try and recall Reid. There sure has been enough talk of it on right-wing websites. That's just like the typical conservative: all talk and no walk.

It is in this vein that I urge you to call Senator Reid and tell him that you support his views. It's great Americans like him that will help get our troops out of a civil war in Iraq and actually working to capture the real bad guy from 9/11. Does anyone remember a guy named Osama bin Laden?

Reno Office: (775) 686-5750
Carson City Office: (775) 882-7343
Las Vegas Office: (702) 388-5020
Congressional Office: 1-866-SEN-REID (736-7343) (Nevadans only); (202) 224-3542

~ Deep Blue

Update (11:22 PM PDT): JWH over at The Blog Formerly Known as "No Gibbons" has the Reid quote listed above as "I'm not going to get into a name-calling match with somebody who has a 9 percent approval rating" in his latest post. This quoting comes from the New York Times. I am going to keep my quote as-is because the RGJ article still states it as above, although this alternate quote (additional quote?) is just as funny.

Tony Snow Has Colon Cancer Resurgence

The big story today is that White House Press Secretary Tony Snow's colon cancer has returned (source 2 3 4). Snow battled colon cancer two years ago successfully, but now a new crop of the same cancer has shown up in his liver. It was removed on Monday, and Snow is reportedly in good spirits, optimistic about his chances for survival.

Today, I urge all liberals, progressives, moderate-lefties and true patriots to stand with Tony Snow and send up your prayers to him and his family, just as we have done with Elizabeth Edwards last week. I feel like anything less would be hypocritical and inhuman, so please, think of him. This disease transcends political boundaries.

That being said, I decided to perform a little test to see how hard-core conservatives would react to a liberal offering good wishes to Tony Snow. I created a login name on freerepublic.com, the Freepers' domain, under Deep Blue Nevada. After acquiring my password (promptly changed), I posted a message of support for Snow on a thread (this one). It went a-little something like this:

Off the bat, I have to say that as a liberal, I may not agree with everything that you guys say most of the time.

However, my thoughts and prayers are now with Tony Snow. I wish all the best for him and his family, just as I have wished all the best for Elizabeth Edwards and his family. To do any less would be inhuman and soulless of me.

This disease reaches across the aisle, as it is a tragedy when anyone is afflicted with it, especially after previous occurrences. Having two family members that have died of cancer helps me identify with, and pray for, Tony and Elizabeth and anyone else suffering from it.

~ Deep Blue

I posted this message around 10:13 AM PDT on 3/27/2007. It told me that the post would be "reviewed," probably because of earlier abuse from other Freepers. Here is a picture of that page:

I then waited to see when it would show up and what the reaction would be. Five minutes went by. Then 10. Now it's been almost 25 minutes and my post hasn't shown up.

Now, it is their site and they can manage it anyway they please. But it will be a sad commentary on how they act if they decide that a liberal reaching across the aisle is not worthy of server time. I was not inflammatory (well, the first sentence could be), and I was not mean-spirited...I just wanted to show my support for Snow's battle. I haven't even called him by his nickname once in this post.

I will periodically check back to see if I've been approved, rejected, rebuked, and/or kicked off the site. I hope they lighten up over there.

~ Deep Blue

Update (10:58 AM PDT): My post still hasn't shown up, so I fired off an inquiry to the webmaster asking him if he could check on the status of my post to see where it went. I'll update ASAP.

Update (11:08 AM PDT): My comment was posted at 10:55 AM PDT on this page. I am post #480 on the page, shown here:

And now I play the waiting game...

Update (12:33 PM PDT): I received my first response from a Freeper who said that they went to Edwards' site and left them a message of prayer for them. I'm glad that the first response to my post was a positive one. Every word I said in that post was true and sincere, and I'm glad that I've at least got some people thinking about it. That's all I really wanted to do: show people that this disease knows no ideology, and that we should pray for recoveries for everybody. In some regard, it changes my admittedly preconceived notions about all Freepers.

Update (1:22 PM PDT): I just realized I made a typo when I posted my original message. I said "...Elizabeth Edwards and his family..." as opposed to "her family." My mistake. I will not correct it on this site because I cannot correct it on FreeRepublic. Stupid copy/paste and not proofreading...


Update (3:59 PM PDT): I got another positive response from a Freeper, saying that it took me a lot of courage coming in here. It really did...I had no clue what the response would be, just my aforementioned preconceived notions. I wish that more liberals would wish Tony Snow the best, in spite of his political leanings.

All my responses can be viewed here.

Zippy's Column

Gonzogate Update - March 22:

Tony "Zippy Longstocking" Snow is still defending President Bush's right to executive privilege in press conferences. This is in stark contrast to his opinion of President Clinton's right to executive privilege in a March 29, 1998 Detroit News column, as reprinted by the Chicago Tribune on March 21, 2007 (link). I've decided to take out all references to Clinton, exchange them for Bush references whenever possible (bolded), and reprint the article below. Enjoy:

From Day One, the chief challenge facing this White House has been to place maximum distance between George W. Bush and his behavior. That strategy has succeeded, but only with the help of mighty assaults on our common sense.

In order to exonerate the chief, aides have made fantastic claims: that they lied to their personal diaries, that Velcro-brained lawyers couldn't recall crucial incidents, that e-mails vanished or moved from one place to another as if by magic, that scores of people with nothing to gain from lying nevertheless perjured themselves, and that this contagion of amnesia, sloppiness and venality was just the gosh darnedest series of coincidences ever witnessed by man or beast.

The wall of separation between Mr. Bush and his deeds remains strong because minions have stuck to their alibis. But now comes an episode in which the Man from War stands alone. It is his recent attempt to claim executive privilege for Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove and former White House counsel Harriet Miers.

Mr. Bush can't blame his lawyers for this latest feint. He alone can assert the privilege. The maneuver places him at the heart of his administration's ongoing effort to use executive privilege as a way of concealing the truth about whether the president exposed himself. It is almost impossible to think of this as anything but a tactic to delay Congress long enough for Alberto Gonzales and other red-ant assailants to nibble at Congress and pump as much venom as possible into the political system.

Consider the key issues:

• Are former White House counsels subject to privilege?

*snip of Hillary Clinton material that doesn't sync up*

• What kinds of conversations does executive privilege protect?

The courts have said a president generally can shield communications that reveal fundamental deliberative processes. That includes communications between aides as they try to develop recommendations for their boss.

But protected conversations involve predictable categories: military, diplomatic or national security secrets or law-enforcement activities. Jurists haven't found a constitutional writ for protecting damage-control meetings involving allegations of using politics to fire attorneys. So unless Alberto Gonzales were ... advising the president on nuclear proliferation or the tobacco deal, the assertion of privilege seems highly suspect.

• What are the limits on privilege?

Earlier in the Clinton administration, then-White House legal counsel Lloyd Cutler decreed that the White House never would assert privilege in the face of a criminal investigation. He merely was reiterating long-standing executive-branch policy along those lines. President Ronald Reagan didn't invoke privilege in Iran-contra, and neither did President George Bush.

But precedent is gone, and Mr. Bush wants to protect conversations about subverting checks and balances. In so doing, he becomes the second president since Richard Nixon to use executive privilege in a criminal inquiry. (Deep Blue note on the "second": fair is fair)

Evidently, Mr. Bush wants to shield virtually any communications that take place within the White House compound on the theory that all such talk contributes in some way, shape or form to the continuing success and harmony of an administration. Taken to its logical extreme, that position would make it impossible for citizens to hold a chief executive accountable for anything. He would have a constitutional right to cover up.

Chances are that the courts will hurl such a claim out, but it will take time.

One gets the impression that Team Bush values its survival more than most people want justice and thus will delay without qualm. But as the clock ticks, the public's faith in Mr. Bush will ebb away for a simple reason: Most of us want no part of a president who is cynical enough to use the majesty of his office to evade the one thing he is sworn to uphold the rule of law.

Hypocrisy's a bitch, ain't it Zippy?

Aside from parts excluded about Hillary (which I almost could turn into a Harriet Miers comment if it weren't for the Kennedy Law), it translates perfectly.

Also of note is the comparison between Gonzogate and the -gate that started it all. In the 3,000 pages of e-mails released by the DOJ a couple of days ago, a 16-day gap was found, the loudest silence since the 18½ minute gap on the Nixon tapes. President Bush doesn't use e-mail (source), Alberto Gonzales doesn't use e-mail (source), and Harriet Miers has alleged that she doesn't use much e-mail (heard on Thom Hartmann show, 3-22-2007 9:17 AM PDT), so how do you think they communicated and why do you think the gap exists?

~ Deep Blue

Zippy Ruins a Bush Talking Point

Ellen Ratner of the Talk Radio News Service called the Thom Hartmann show on Air America Radio at 11:35 AM PDT today to give an update on the Ed Henry/Tony "Zippy Longstocking" Snow debacle. For back-story, what I didn't include yesterday in my Gonzogate post (because the news was coming so fast and furious) was that President Bush turned cowboy, making all sorts of veiled threats when the Democrats started threating subpoena power for his officials. The Democrats, spines intact, voted to allow subpoenas to be presented to White House officials today. Let's hope they don't wuss out.

Anyway, Zippy gave a press conference today saying that the decision to fire the attorneys wasn't made by President Bush or anyone in the White House but someone underneath him in the Executive Branch hierarchy. At this point, Henry asked "If the decision wasn't made by a White House official, why is the president using executive privilege to prevent White House officials from testifying under oath on these matters?"

Zippy's response was classic: "That's an intriguing question."

That's it. Four words long. And he never came back to it, according to Ellen Ratner.

This proves one of three things:

a. They're lying about not authorizing the attorney firings and they don't want to be found out.
b. They're telling the truth about not authorizing the attorney firings but don't want to reveal that they exerted influence on certain people.
c. They didn't have anything to do with Gonzogate but don't want this to set a precedent for subpoenas on, say, election fraud in 2000 or 2004, or misleading the country into Iraq, etc. ad infinitum.

It's not that they fear Gonzogate will be a media circus, it's that they fear their cronyism will be uncovered. Zippy showed that when he destroyed Bush's talking point on not allowing officials to testify under oath. The whole Executive Branch makes me sick.

I'm just glad the media is waking up from their post-9/11 slumber.

~ Deep Blue

Gonzogate Update

For those of you just tuning in, Alberto Gonzales just got bitch-slapped by the Senate. In a 94-2 vote, the Senate passed a bill that put the kibosh on a section of the Patriot Act, authored by the Justice Department, that allowed the embattled attorney general to fill vacant federal prosecutor seats without Senate confirmation and oversight (source). His resignation seems imminent (source).

Naturally, whenever any senior official is embroiled in scandal, President Bush gives out his "Heckuva Job" Award to that official before accepting (or forcing?) his resignation. This month, Gonzo joins Rummy and Brownie as the newest recipient (MSNBC source above).

The Justice Department, meanwhile, also released 3,000 pages of e-mails to congressional investigators, who will now sift through this material to determine wrongdoing on behalf of J.D. officials (MSNBC source above). I think it won't be long until they find something. Hell, they've already found a bunch of e-mails stating the original goal of firing all 93 prosecutors in one go, eventually reducing that number to 20% of prosecutors deemed to be "underperforming," keeping only the ones who were "loyal Bushies" (source).

The right-wing regressives are all up in arms over the Democrats' determination to bring this to light, whining on various sites (such as Free Republic) about all of the injustices that Democratic presidents did to the prosecutors when they were in office. For example, on one article called "Selective Amnesia on firing US Attorneys" (link), one Freeper pulls a reductio ad Clintonum, saying that Slick Willy fired them all (at the beginning of his term) and the mainstream media isn't mentioning it at all.

The problem with this logic is that while yes, Clinton did fire them all at the beginning of his term, so did Bush. This is the executive privilege that all presidents have. I and my liberal counterparts do not care that Bush and Clinton (and probably Bush Sr. and Reagan and Carter and…) fired the attorneys at the beginning of their terms. I don't even care that Bush did it 6 years in. That's not what matters.

What matters is why Bush fired only eight attorneys who had stellar performance reviews for investigating Republicans (such as with Duke Cunningham in California) and not investigating Democrats, according to congressional Democrats (source). What also matters is why Bush snuck in a provision in the PATRIOT Act saying that he can appoint any attorney without Senate confirmation. Bush hasn't seen a check-and-balance loophole he didn't like (why do you think he's using those signing statements all the time?), so naturally, he'd jump on the bandwagon on this one too.

I also like how rejected potential Supreme Court justice Harriet Miers was thrown under the bus again by the Bush administration, saying that she was the one who had initiated the program in 2005. Our old buddy Karl Rove also was accused of having a hand in this, because he does have a hand in lots of other scandals in Red Washington (source).

I really hope that when the Gonzales hits the fan for the Republicans that the Democrats grow a spine and do what we as a nation elected them to do: clean up our capitol. Right-wing corruption and cronyism appears systemic in the Executive branch, but apparently those held in GOP hypnosis in the Legislature are starting to wake up. The 94-2 majority to revoke the PATRIOT Act provision demonstrates that this is not a political issue but an ethics/morals issue.

The vote on the bill, S. 214, can be found here. Here are 2 that voted no and the 4 that didn't vote:

• Joe Biden (D-DE) - Did Not Vote


• Kit Bond (R-MO) - No


• Chuck Hagel (R-NE) - No


• Tim Johnson (D-SD) - Did Not Vote recovering from brain surgery


• John McCain (R-AZ) - Did Not Vote


• Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) - Did Not Vote

I'd like to know why Biden, Bond, Hagel, McCain, and Mikulski voted (or didn't vote) the way they did, especially McCain.

~ Deep Blue

Breaking News (12:00 pm PDT): Rove and Miers will be interviewed by committees probing the attorney firings, but not testify under oath., says Rep. Chris Cannon by way of CNN (source). Additionally, it will be behind closed doors with no transcripts, and "[a] representative of the Office of the Counsel to the President would attend these interviews and personal counsel to the invited officials may be present at their election" (source)

So they will once again sidestep the blame. Great, the same old song and dance. Why am I not surprised?

This cartoon from CNN's Bill Mitchell says it all:

Update (2:45 pm PDT): Patrick Leahy (D-VT) rejects the offer for interviews, stating that Rove needs to answer questions under oath and on the record, according to CNN's home page and MSNBC. I guess the Democrats are growing spines after all. Good on ya!

Is Tony Snow Dr. Evil?

Off-camera before a press conference today, Tony Snow lambasted the Democrats for supporting a so-called "Recipe for Defeat" for Iraq in the House today. Undaunted, CNN's Ed Henry decided to ask what the White House's corresponding "Recipe for Success" was. Snow, snotty and indignant, proceeded to ask Henry what his recipe for success was. Henry objected to the question, as it is not up to a reporter to define governmental policy, and repeated the question, where at that time Snow told Henry to "zip it" (source with video clip). Apparently, Snow revealed his true age to be five.

Snow eventually apologized and laid out the plan, which consisted of turning things over to the Iraqis at some point (without elaboration) but admitting "[y]ou don't know how things will play out" (same source).

Henry stated that it's the same thing that's been said for four years and one day now. I really wish that I had podcasting set up because at this point I'd play Sinatra's "Same Old Song and Dance" à la Bill Manders whenever he talks smack about the Democrats as of late. Put it on the to-do list, I suppose.

Which brings me to the question of the day: Is Tony Snow really Dr. Evil? I think I'm gonna start calling him "Zippy Longstocking" from now on. That's a great nickname.

~ Deep Blue