Thursday, September 15, 2005

Iraq 2.0

Bush sure does have good speechifiers (warning: movie file). Clinton and FDR would have been proud. If either one of them had given it, DeLay and Frist and Hastert and Gingrich and Hannity and O'Reilly and Rush wouldn't have been able to contain their disgust. Locally, Jonnie Caldara will have a conniption. Douglas Bruce has the dry heaves, and he's preparing briefs now to decertify the Constitution.

All their butt-licking-Bush-worshiping circuits must be in an

"Error S814-04 Unable to tabulate"

loop right now.

The era of the "small government", "fiscally conservative", "responsible Republican" lie machine is now over. How will they deal with the disconnect?

The speech.

The response.

The stupidest line: "We will stay as long as it takes." - actually, I thought he said "only" in there somewhere. Have to check the tapes. But that's the Iraq 2.0 statement. Maybe he did learn something from the catastrophic successes in Iraq. That would be a pleasant surprise.

And I hope he follows through. I hope the ideas work. That'll be the biggest surprise.

Then maybe he can apply some of the best ideas to Iraq. The ones they rejected in Iraq 1.0.

Shrinking Compassion

Dean nails it on Roberts: "Our Government today shrinks from compassion. In doing so they have first diminished America in the eyes of the rest of the world, and now they have diminished America in the eyes of our own people. This is a time for justice tempered with mercy and understanding. There is no evidence of either in Judge Roberts’s career. The President should be denied this nomination."

The plain and simple truth -- that's why so many of us love Howard Dean.

Watch Out New Orleans!

Rove to the rescue - all residents of New Orleans better lock up your valuables, check your bank accounts, and cover your childrens' eyes: "Republicans said Karl Rove, the White House deputy chief of staff and Mr. Bush's chief political adviser, was in charge of the reconstruction effort."

(Photo from DKos' highacidity.)

Partei über Alles

The party over all else - that is what it means to be a Republican in 2005.

Of course we knew this was their modus operandi: Tom DeLay, Grover Norquist (with the K Street Project), and others devised the scheme that was envisioned by Newtie. They've implemented it using campaign contributions, many illegal, and enforced it with threats of support for rival candidates and bribes on the floor of the House. During a vote. A vote that was extended long past tradition. A vote for a program which the White House threatened the Administrator with firing if he told the truth about the real costs.

Is it still possible no one has been investigated for that crime? Yep.

But that leads to a question: why aren't Republicans demanding accountability and personal responsibility for the obvious failures and crimes committed by this administration? They voted to kill an independent bipartisan commission to look at the failure that led to New Orleans' drowning.

They don't want accountability. They don't want responsibility. Those are vague ideas that they use during elections, or when the other party is in power, to pretend that they care.

If you want to let Wayne Allard know what a joke he is, you can do it here.

Once again the reality is exposed. Rules for thee but not for me. Do as I say, not as I do.

And the final question once again has to be asked: when will the general public realize that all the Republican talking points are a ruse to get votes, a distraction from their own failures, and a betrayal of the oaths they all take to protect and defend our republic?

We have 3 more years to find out. Until then, buckle up everyone.

Tuesday, September 13, 2005

Invisible


What George Bush doesn't want Americans to see: their fellow citizens who died on their own streets due to massive incompetence and cronyism.

Chief Justice Nominee John Roberts and Opus Dei

Today I have to draw your attention to a relatively small body of research. Robert Bork, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, a couple of (R) Senators, and columnist Robert Novak (remember the Plame leak? Novak leaked and never did jail time while others who did not publish Plame's name did) are connected to Chief Justice Nominee John Roberts in a rather unusual way; through an Opus Dei priest, Fr. C. John McCloskey III. "official" backgrounder, and Boston Globe backgrounder.

Since Opus Dei membership (whether supernumerary, numerary, associate or cooperator - the priestly members are listed openly) is secret, there is no direct proof (such as a membership card!) that Roberts is an Opus Dei member. However, because the threats of excommunication expressed as a result of the June 2004 letter from then-Cardinal Josef Ratzinger (who is now Pope Benedict XVI) to U.S. Catholic bishops specifying that "strong and open supporters of abortion be denied the Catholic sacrament for being guilty of a grave sin," are a clear attempt to influence an American presidential election, and because our own Colorado Catholic Bishop Michael Sheridan denied communion to any Catholic who voted or intended to vote for Kerry, the influence and requirements of Opus Dei membership become a very important topic, indeed. Especially when there have been rumors for many years that at least one direct OD member is on the Supreme Court already (Scalia: just Google it yourselves and decide; OD itself says it would "like to dispel once and for all the rumors..." Note the wording on that: a lawyer could easily argue that they do not actually deny the rumors, they simply say that they would like to dispel them. To be charitable, perhaps that's just an unintended loophole).

Here's the overview article, although there is plenty more out there: http://markcrispinmiller.blogspot.com/2005/07/is-judge-roberts-opus-dei.html

Miller is right to be worried, from a Constitutional perspective. A dedicated OD member on the Supreme Court would be ethically bound to recuse himself on decisions which have clear-cut implications for his faith, but "morally" bound not to. So, you ask, which is the higher authority - the Constitution and the law, or God? An OD member has already answered these questions quite definitively (see the Hanssen paragraph, below). This also explains why Bork is so interested in defending Roberts' nomination that he's increased his TV appearances drastically over the last few weeks on this topic. Scalia, Thomas -- and Roberts, too?

From Newsweek, March 9, 2001:

[Justice Antonin] Scalia is regarded as the embodiment of the Catholic conservatives. While he is not a member of Opus Dei, his wife Maureen has attended Opus Dei's spiritual functions [and the Harvard Crimson (2003) suggests that she is an OD member (although, being married and living with her husband, she would not be a numerary) -- DShe], [while their son], Father Paul Scalia, helped convert Clarence Thomas to Catholicism four years ago. Last month, Thomas gave a fiery speech to the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think-tank, to an audience full of Bush Administration officials. In the speech Thomas praised Pope John Paul II for taking unpopular stands.


When former FBI/sov double agent Robert Hanssen was exposed in 2001, Opus Dei briefly became a hot discussion topic in the press - Hanssen had confessed his spying to his OD priest (Robert P. Bucciarelli, Harvard '56) many years before, but the information was never revealed by Bucciarelli to the government, despite its incredible security implications, because of the concept of religious privilege between a priest and his parishioner. This demonstrates OD priorities unambiguously. However, what is admirable in a priest is inimical to our Constitution in a Justice. I suppose it's worth mentioning that the Scalias attend the same ultra-traditional Catholic church Hanssen did, St. Catherine of Siena, in Great Falls, VA (a tony tree-filled suburb just west of the capital). So does former FBI director Louis Freeh -- and Freeh's brother John was the director of an Opus Dei center in Philadelphia, although he's now in a small Catholic community in Bethlehem, PA while coordinating the local chapter of a school-voucher advocacy organization ("Citizens for Educational Freedom").

Monday, September 12, 2005

FEMA

FEMA, who knows what is means anymore. Here is a just a small sampling of the utterly moronic choices made by FEMA during the last two weeks, courtesy of DUer peabody71:

FEMA won't accept Amtrak's help in evacuations
FEMA turns away experienced firefighters
FEMA turns back Wal-Mart supply trucks
FEMA prevents Coast Guard from delivering diesel fuel
FEMA won't let Red Cross deliver food
FEMA bars morticians from entering New Orleans
FEMA blocks 500-boat citizen flotilla from delivering aid
FEMA fails to utilize Navy ship with 600-bed hospital on board
FEMA to Chicago: Send just one truck
FEMA turns away generators
FEMA: "First Responders Urged Not To Respond"

(That last one is a direct quote from the FEMA website.)

Brown is fired conveniently resigned today, but where does the buck stop?