My Whatever World in Maine

Veterans for Wesley Clark

Isn't it funny how a politicain's military service is supposed to be off-limits to his or her opponent, as long as it's a right winger's military service? All the lunatic fringe bleating about Wesley Clark's remarks on "Face the Nation" yesterday seem incredibly contrived and more than a little disingenuous, considering the winks and nods from the Republican camp over the Swift Boaters' blatant misrepresentation of John Kerry's service record (which didn't get nearly the shocked response from the mainstream media that the Clark's remarks did, just another exhibit in the media love affair with John McCain) and the whisper campaigns about his medical and discharge records. Liars and hypocrites all.

Anyway, I got an email from an organization called VoteVets.org asking for my signature on a letter of support to the general. It put the remarks in perspective much better than I could, and without even swearing. 

General Clark,

We the undersigned thank you for speaking up forcefully and honestly about what it takes to lead this nation, and the kind of judgment we must look for. You were right to say that Senator McCain has not shown good judgment, despite his extraordinary service to America. Just in the past few years:

- Senator McCain's service and experience, both as a POW and as a Senator apparently hasn't infused him with a dose of good judgment.

- Senator McCain's experience hasn't led him to realize that the war in Iraq and it's continuance has empowered and emboldened Iran, and destabilized the region.

- Senator McCain's experience hasn't caused him to recognize that we're losing ground in Afghanistan, and Osama bin Laden is still out there, plotting.

- Senator McCain's experience didn't lead him to support the 21st Century GI Bill -- he opposed it. It didn't even make him feel the need to get back to Washington to vote on this -- one of the most important veterans' bills this Congress. He twice skipped votes on the GI Bill, to fundraise.

- Senator McCain's experience didn't help him empathize with troops are overstretched and overdeployed, when he voted against the bipartisan Webb-Hagel "Dwell Time Amendment," which would have given troops as much time at home as in the field.

We all honor Senator McCain?s service, as you said you do. But that does not mean that on matters of security, the military, and veterans that he is beyond reproach. Nor does it mean that his service trumps the poor judgment he has shown in some of the most important issues of our time.

Do not back down, and keep treating the American people like adults who can handle a real, honest, and blunt debate in these important times.

I concur, and so I signed.

The Rape of the DOJ

In the never-ending noise over the saga that is the Bush Iraq War disaster, the rape of the Justice Department-in my mind just as criminal, if less lethal, than the lies leading up to the war and it's subsequent bungled execution-too often gets overlooked.

Well, it's back, and in a big way. In a report released today by the Inspector General and Office of Professional responsibility, we now learn that not only did the DOJ inappropriately use a candidate's ideology to deny them employment-or, conversely, offer them employment for which they were not qualified-we find they did the same right down to their summer interns. Check this out:

"The evidence in our investigation-including the documentary evidence, the testimony of witnesses, and the analysis of the application of candidates who were selected fro interviews and who were deselected by the 2006 Screening Committee-supports the conclusion that political or ideological affiliations were used to deselect candidates from the Honors or the SLIP"

Here's a beaut:

"We found that SLIP candidates whose applications reflected liberal affiliations were deselected at a much higher rate (82%) than SLIP candidates who had conservative affiliations (13%) or neutral affiliations (39%)."

 And then there's this:

"We found that [Esther Slater, a Bush whore who comes in for particular abuse in this report] McDonald knew that using political and ideological affiliation was inapprorpiate, but did it anyway"

Any guesses as to what will be Keith's lead story tonight?

I'd like to know who the fuck these people think they are. Were they so drunk with their own little pot of power that they just thought they could recklessly break the law in the Justice Department and get away with it forever? Did they really buy so thoroughly into this "permanent majority" acid trip the administration was on right up until 2006 that they thought there would never be any accountability for this kind of criminal farce-or, like the rest of the Bushies, they thought they could just make up the law as they went along? Their own litle personal signing statements? Fuck them. 

The two most egregious offenders named in the report-the neocon cunt McDonald and her slimy, spineless boss Michael Elston-have thankfully left the DOJ but of course now have cushy private sector jobs, according to MSNBC. They're not even going to go to jail, the bastards. They should at least be stripped of their ability to practice law and put to work cleaning elephant shit-using only their hands-at the Philadelphia Zoo.

And still, the Bush administration answers for nothing. It used to drive me insane, and it still makes me very morose to realize that the only judgment passed on this murderous, lying fuck and his toadying cast of clowns will be by history. The Democrats, as usual, have proven themselves too spineless to even take on a guy with a 25% approval rating, when the country is practically begging them to do so. But my guess is that at this point, the Dems probably figure Bush is worth more to them alive than dead, that his presence in the Oval office is a never-ending reminder of the pain he has inflicted on his nation, and that gives them lots of opportunities to place McCain at his feet. 

But as this report shows, there's a whole lot of damage to be undone. More, I suspect, then we'll ever know.  

Your President Is a Liar

The report shows that there was no intelligence to support the two most frightening claims Mr. Bush and his vice president used to sell the war: that Iraq was actively developing nuclear weapons and had longstanding ties to terrorist groups. It seems clear that the president and his team knew that that was not true, or should have known it — if they had not ignored dissenting views and telegraphed what answers they were looking for.

Over all, the report makes it clear that top officials, especially Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, knew they were not giving a full and honest account of their justifications for going to war.

You can read the rest here. Of course, for the rest of the "liberal media," this report isn't even on the front page. I guess they figure it's stuff we already know, but now it's our government confirming it.

Richard Clarke is right. Somebody needs to be punished for this.

But in the end, even the NY Times turns out to be a weasel:

We cannot say with certainty whether Mr. Bush lied about Iraq. But when the president withholds vital information from the public — or leads them to believe things that he knows are not true — to justify the invasion of another country, that is bad enough.

The definition of a lie, per Merriam Webster: "To create a false or misleading impression." In other words, withholding vital information and leading people to believe that which is not true IS THE DEFINITION OF A LIE!

As Monty Python demonstrated, calling an amputation a flesh wound doesn't make it so. Let's all move beyond politics and denial and call a spade a spade here...and a liar a liar.

The Presumptive Nominee, Part II

Barack's victory speech last night:

No matter who you supported in this race, you cannot deny that Mr. Obama is an incredibly gifted speaker...I just watched his AIPAC speech on MSNBC, and it blew the audience and even the pundits away. If he just gets up to the podium every day, John McCain doesn't have a chance (and it's been fun watching the right wing piss themselves over this fact)...not that he deserves one even if his Democratic opponent were deaf and mute.

Full steam ahead, folks. It's time to come together.

Glenn Cummings Speaks at the Convention

Glenn Cummings, Speaker of the Maine House and professor of business at Southern Maine Community College, speaking at the convention as to why he supports Barack Obama:

Thanks for posting this, Kay.

Bob Nader?

“Could anyone look into the faces of (the founding fathers) and tell them it really doesn't matter that the president abused his power, lied to the American people, perjured himself and subverted the rule of law? Anyone who can answer yes to that question does not have the right to sit here today.” -Bob Barr, on the House floor in 1999

There is a guy I converse with occasionally on the RSFF who identifies himself as libertarian and never saw an article about Ron Paul he didn't cut and paste (yes, we talk about a whole lot more than baseball over there). In response to a question in a thread about who the veep candidates should be, here was his answer:

There is no way I would vote for Obama, Clinton, or McCain. Any candidate who doesn't advocate an immediate withdrawal fro Iraq and pulling all of our overseas troops home won't get my vote. Every great civilization has crumbled because they got into empire-building rather than taking care of home. I also would not vote for anyone who doesn't advocate overturning the Patriot Act, stopping Border fences, closing the Federal Reserve and getting the U.S. Government the hell out of our lives altogether.

This is how I've always generally thought of libertarians-the party of Ruby Ridge and Waco, xenophobes who essentially hate the government, don't pay taxes, and think they should be allowed to do whatever they damned well please whenever they damned well feel like it no restrictions whatsoever. (I realize that's a bit of a narrow focus, considering Mike Gravel is considered liberatarian by some.) Well, all that's fine. Libertarians have historically fielded a presidential candidate who has garnered no more than 3% of the vote, so it's no surprise that they are doing so this year. What is surprising-shocking, even-is their choice of candidates. Not stalwart Ron Paul-still technically running for the Republican nomination-or a Ross Perot type, but...Bob Barr.

Bob Barr? 

Excuse me while I die laughing. I'll have to find out if all those libertarians are interested in a rusty old bridge I have for sale in Brooklyn.

Barr supported the Iraq invasion, expanded governmental surveillance powers, the federal jurisdiction of the Terri Schiavo case, same-sex marriage bans, isolationist trade policies, constitutional amendments to undermine the separation of church and state (in fact has earned 100% rating from the Christian Coalition)...and none of this is remote, like Robert Byrd's Klan dabbling. His Iraq repudiation has spawned a new generation of ultrahubristic spin, and anybody who thinks differently is an idiot. And since he has built his career on this crap, he must be counting on the libs' short memories to sweep him onto office. Not to mention he is a breathtaking monument to hypocrisy and a pompous horse's ass.

In summary, Bob Barr is a liar and poor man's right wing lunatic fringer in the mold of Duncan Hunter and Sam Brownback, and that's exactly who he will appeal to in this race. John McCain, of the Double Talk Express and Olympic-level flip-flopping (I hate evangelicals, I love evangelicals, no, wait, I hate evangelicals...I hate lobbysits, I love lobbyists, no, wait, I hate lobbyists...) should be sweating bullets right now. Some comments I've been seeing around the web after the nomination was announced:

McCain supports big government, big government spending, big government spying on Americans. I am one Republican who will gladly vote for Bob Barr!

I would have held my nose and voted McCain were it not for Barr now running.

I think I'd like to make a donation to the Barr presidential fund.

Thoughts on Politics, Local and National

A new poll is out showing Barack Obama having a bit of a struggle amongst white people, trailing John Mccain by as much as 12 points. That doesn't surprise me, and I don't think it's likely to improve as time goes on-my guess is that there's a real sense of "who does he think he is" that is festering especially in the rust and bible belts, where a brilliant black man is not likely to be looked upon kindly while taking on an alzheimiac white former Vietnam POW. What this means is that minority voters are going to have to come out like never before, and the Democratic party is going to have to anticipate and strategize serious ways to combat the ugly GOP practice of minority voter disenfranchisement by any means possible.

The VP choice is apparently underway. There is talk of John McCain actually talking to that plastic phony animal torturer Mitt Romney about a place on the ticket, but I can't believe even McCain is that stupid. My guess? Fellow war monger Joe Lieberman. Man, Al Gore must be wondering what in God's name he was ever thinking. On the democratic side, I firmly believe that Barack Obama is going to have to pick a white guy with military credentials if he's serious about winning this election. My choice? Jim Webb of Virginia, a smart, tough guy who has already shown he can beat the lunatic fringe on their own turf. My friend Matt prefers Chuck Hagel, because he's an anti-war Republican with Vietnam credentials. While I appreciate the fact that Hagel despises the war AND George Bush, a lot of his positions are just too conservative for me on other issues.

I'm a big Keith fan, but I think he went over the line in his attack on Hillary Clinton last night, after her remarks about what could happen in a political primary in June ("You know, my husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. You know, I just don’t understand it.") I'm not defending the words themselves, and I admit when I heard them my jaw dropped and my first thought was, is she saying she should stay around in case Barack Obama is assassinated? It was stupid in the extreme (and evidently not the first time she'd made a similar observation, to which nobody seemed to take serious offense), but jesus, people, get a grip. I believe her when she says she was simply using it to mark a familiar time in history that everybody knew about to explain her position. Was it ill-advised? Yes. Was the apology a little too tepid? Yes. But it seems a bit opportunistic to use this to drive the final nail in her coffin. She made a mistake. She's human. George Bush didn't get this eviscerated for lying to Richard Engel, or for not knowing that any five year old with internet access could learn how to enrich uranium. I certainly agree that the Clintons have looooong overstayed their welcome at this party, but we are still going to need them if we want to win the election.

One race I haven't paid a lot of attention to is the primary race for Tom Allens' seat, coming up in just a few weeks. I've voted for both Chellie Pingree and Mark Lawrence in national elections before, but this time, I'm taking a serious look at a newcomer, Adam Cote. Call it a hunger for a change, maybe. I'm impressed by his military background and I agree with many of his issue stands. I'm thinking, though, that the race will probably go to Ethan Strimling because he's so impossibly good-looking.

    

A Sheep in Wolf's Clothing

Just in case you yourself didn't know, this is what George Bush and John McCain have accused Barack Obama of wanting to do. Just substitute "Israel" for "Czechoslovakia", and a Mahmoud Ahmandinejad wolf for the Hitler wolf and you get the basic idea:

I cannot say this enough times: Fuck you, George, and your whole murderous cadre of toadying liars.

Now, moving on, let's get one thing straight here: I don't like Chris Matthews usually-at least, not his style. But after this exchange last night, he gets a lifetime pass from me, ala Curt Schilling:

Talk about shooting fish in a barrel...what was great about this is not the fact that Matthews exposed Kevin James as a blowhard, because that's pretty obvious to even the most casual listeners of right wing talk radio. But Matthews, in a "you're no Jack Kennedy" moment, recognized he had an opportunity to expose not just the jaw dropping ignorance of one talk show host but the entire dogmatic culture of certainty house of cards upon which the whole right wing neocon movement is built. It's clear Kevin James-and, by extension, the rest of the Republican-sympathetic populace-didn't know what he was talking about, which is exactly what these fascists are banking on and have banked on for years-a pathetically ignorant, gullible electorate who never heard of the Munich Dictate but are lazily willing to agree that 2+2=5. If somebody had had the balls to do to Dick Cheney or Colin Powell in 2002 what Matthews did to James last night, we might not be in Iraq today.

Oh, and for the record, had Matthews pulled me off the street and into the studio...I would have known the answer to that very simple question-imagine that, Kevin, a liberal, underpaid state employee-and I don't even have my own talk show.

George's Personal Sacrifice

Keith was in rare form last night. You go, my friend.

Mr. Bush, at long last, has it not dawned on you that the America you have now created, includes "cold-blooded killers who will kill people to achieve their political objectives?" They are those in — or formerly in — your employ, who may yet be charged some day with war crimes.

You can see the rest below. (Golf, George? You gave up golf? Well, that's more than you've asked your friends to give up, for sure.)

Here's another, more direct version of what the Commander in Chief is saying to our troops:

Back at you, you miserable son of a bitch.

The Presumptive Nominee?

Perhaps. The timber of this campaign has taken a decidedly different turn since Tuesday, as Sen. Clinton seems to be on more of a farewell tour than a campaign stop these days. I'm wondering what role she has left to play in the days leading up to June 3rd. Clearly, she will do what is expected of her when the time comes, which is to stand on stage with Barack Obama and endorse him as her party's nominee, at which point the disparate factions that have splintered off during this nominating process need to come together. I don't worry too much about losing the votes of people who don't like African-Americans, because most people who wouldn't vote for an African-American for president also wouldn't vote for a woman, so clearly John McCain has the bigot vote sewn up. Congratulations on that score, Sen. McCain. I do worry somewhat about the vote of the over-65 crowd (especially the white women) that so clearly preferred Hillary as their nominee, but still, in the end, I don't see them breaking in great numbers for McCain because they are also some of the most ardent critics of perpetuating the illegal war, which is practically McCain's whole platform. Well, that and courting gay-baiting racists, of course-which is a big plus with looney, pseudo-Christian, gay-phobic Republican voters (most of the GOP base) but may not go over so big with Hillary's natural constituency.

(Just a reminder here of who John McCain really is and what he supports, or at least what he will swallow in order to get votes. I'd like to know why this hasn't been played on CNN 24/7. Maybe because a grandfatherly white "preacher" is less threatening to white Americans than a fiery black one, no matter how vicious and ugly the message? Hmmmm? Although I think that was pretty much confirmed by the ascent of Falwell and Dobson-merely far right political front men masquerading as men of the cloth-a long time ago. Unfortunately, I think the reason it hasn't gotten the play of Rev. Wright is that it really isn't news-this is simply what the news media and the American public have come to expect from the so-called evangelical Christian clergy and their devoted, braindead followers. Hate mongers? Check. Gay bashers? Check. Racists, war hawks, and hypocrites? Check, check, and check. So what's to report?)

The other thing I'm wondering is...what about Bill? Did he irreparably burn bridges with some of his most ardent supporters, or can he turn himself back into an asset in this campaign? My guess is that most of the country long ago forgave him his many faults, and they will forgive him this as well-we are, at heart, a Bill-loving nation and wish to remain so. It will be very nice, though, to hear him turn it back on the Republicans instead of the guy who has long been unofficially acknowledged as his party's nominee. And you know he will.

Finally, some advice to Barack Obama: please, please, please don't go the way of Al Gore in this campaign. Don't allow "consultants" to turn you into something you aren't. Please be yourself and tell your story and show us the FDR side of you that garnered you this nomination in the first place. At the same time, you have to learn that these people whom you are up against are ugly and hateful and prey on division, and are in unabated collective orgasm over the prospect of an African-American opponent. (the only thing that would make them more joyous is if we'd nominated Barney Frank.) Become intimately acquainted with the vicious, racist campaign run against Harold Ford (a Blue Dog Democrat) in Tennessee. You will need to go at them with both barrels if you are going to win this fight, or at least find yourself people who will. Take a hard lesson from Bob Kraft and Spygate, and from Sen. Kerry-the more you try to ignore and "not justify" the ugliest allegations, the worse it gets for you. Sen. McCain-no stranger to the smear campaign himself-learned that the hard way a long time ago. Now you need to understand it, too.