Wednesday, March 15, 2006

Barr Feingold

Every now and again I find myself surprised shocked to be nodding in agreement with Pat Buchanan. You've gotta love this gnarly guy who is unafraid to take on all comers from the left... or the right.

He fearlessly defends the American majority reaction to the Dubai ports debacle against fellow conservative critics with an attack: "What Barnes calls paleo-conservatism is the conservatism of the common man, rooted in tradition and wisdom born of experience. It is not the Big Government, open-borders, free-trade, interventionist, globaloney of the neo-cons and their Rebel in Chief."
"Conservatives don't trash their countrymen, even if they think they're wrong. It is slander to say opposition to the Dubai deal exposed some deep, dark strain in the American soul.

"The cakewalk crowd doesn't understand America because it doesn't live there. It lives in an ideological world of its own creation, which, as it denies aspects of reality, is forever colliding with reality.

"And more collisions are coming.
'Nuff said, but never did I think I'd be reaching a hand out to conservative former Rep. Bob Barr of Georgia, who as Jesse Walker explains...
After entering the House of Representatives in 1995, Georgia Republican Bob Barr acquired a reputation as one of the most conservative members of Congress. It was Barr who in 1996 wrote the Defense of Marriage Act, which said states didn’t have to recognize gay marriages performed in other states; it was Barr who protested when he learned the military allowed soldiers to practice Wicca. A former federal prosecutor, a firm social conservative, and a strong supporter of the War on Drugs, Barr doesn’t fit most people’s image of a civil libertarian.
Barr started speaking out against domestic spying last year... “Here again, this is absolutely a bizarre conversation where you have a member of Congress saying that it’s okay for the president of the United States to ignore U.S. law, to ignore the Constitution, simply because we are in an undeclared war.”

Bob I know it's cold up nort hey... but there's this feisty Senator from Middleton that you seem to have a lot in common with. He calls himself a Progressive Patriot. And hey, this is the dairy state... We have more of the best organic whipped cream than any state in the Union.

Republican Splits
Bob Barr, Bane of the Right?

By Dana Milbank
Washington Post
Saturday, February 11, 2006

You could find just about everything at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference this week: the bumper sticker that says "Happiness is Hillary's face on a milk carton," the "Straight Pride" T-shirt, a ride on an F-22 Raptor simulator at the Lockheed exhibit, and beans from the Contra Cafe coffee company (slogan: "Wake up with freedom fighters").

As of midday yesterday, a silent auction netted $300 for lunch with activist Grover Norquist, $275 for a meal with the Heritage Foundation president and $1,000 for a hunting trip with the American Conservative Union chairman. But lunch with former congressman Bob Barr (R-Ga.), with an "estimated value" of $500, had a top bid of only $75 -- even with a signed copy of Barr's book, "The Meaning of Is," thrown in.

No surprise there. The former Clinton impeachment manager is the skunk at CPAC's party this year. He says President Bush is breaking the law by eavesdropping on U.S. citizens without warrants. And fellow conservatives, for the most part, don't want to hear it.

"You've heard of bear baiting? We're going to have, today, Barr baiting," R Emmet Tyrell, a conservative publisher, announced as he introduced a debate Thursday between Barr and Viet Dinh, one of the authors of the USA Patriot Act.

"Are we losing our lodestar, which is the Bill of Rights?" Barr beseeched the several hundred conservatives at the Omni Shoreham in Woodley Park . "Are we in danger of putting allegiance to party ahead of allegiance to principle?"

Barr answered in the affirmative. "Do we truly remain a society that believes that . . . every president must abide by the law of this country?" he posed. "I, as a conservative, say yes. I hope you as conservatives say yes."

But nobody said anything in the deathly quiet audience. Barr merited only polite applause when he finished, and one man, Richard Sorcinelli, booed him loudly. "I can't believe I'm in a conservative hall listening to him say [Bush] is off course trying to defend the United States ," Sorcinelli fumed.

Far more to this crowd's liking was Vice President Cheney, who stopped by CPAC late Thursday and suggested the surveillance program as a 2006 campaign issue. "With an important election coming up, people need to know just how we view the most critical questions of national security," he told the cheering crowd.

Dinh, now a Georgetown law professor, urged the CPAC faithful to carve out a Bush exception to their ideological principle of limited government. "The conservative movement has a healthy skepticism of governmental power, but at times, unfortunately, that healthy skepticism needs to yield," Dinh explained, invoking Osama bin Laden.

Dinh brought the crowd to a raucous ovation when he judged: "The threat to Americans' liberty today comes from al Qaeda and its associates and the people who would destroy America and her people, not the brave men and women who work to defend this country!"

It was the sort of tactic that has intimidated Democrats and the last few libertarian Republicans who question the program's legality. But Barr is not easily suppressed. During a 2002 Senate primary, he accidentally fired a pistol at a campaign event; at a charity event a decade earlier, he licked whipped cream from the chests of two women.

Barr wasn't going to get a lesson on patriotism from this young product of the Bush Justice Department. "That, folks, was a red herring," he announced. "This debate is very simple: It is a debate about whether or not we will remain a nation subject to and governed by the rule of law or the whim of men."

He invoked Goldwater and Reagan and even said he would support Bush's program if it had congressional support. But Barr was a prophet without honor in his own land. "Why does the FISA law trump the Constitution?" one woman demanded of him. "Why should a non-elected, non-briefed judge be able to veto our national security?"

Conservatives were sore that Barr put his disagreements with Bush in the pages of Time magazine. Another questioner scolded Barr for agreeing to introduce an Al Gore speech that was also sponsored by MoveOn.org. "I have nothing whatsoever to do with them," Barr pleaded.

Still, the old prosecutor managed to elicit a crucial concession from Dinh: that the administration's case for its program comes down to saying "Trust me."

"None of us can make a conclusive assessment as to the wisdom of that program and its legality," Dinh acknowledged, "without knowing the full operational details. I do trust the president when he asserts that he has reviewed it carefully and therefore is convinced that there is full legal authority."

The crowd was against him, but Barr, leaving the event, claimed the clear conscience of a conservative. "I just told them what they need to know," he said.

Barr elaborated on his conundrum. "It's difficult," he acknowledged. "It's not about sex, which was very easy to explain."

Love him or hate him, you have to give Barr high marks for consistency. "Whether it's a sitting president when I was an impeachment manager, or a Republican president who has taken liberties with adherence to the law, to me the standard is the same," he said.

And, besides, who cares about a little criticism?

"No more than normal," Barr reported.

Political researcher Zachary A. Goldfarb contributed to this report.

© 2006 The Washington Post Company

Sunday, March 12, 2006

Saddam's Secret Bunkers

I waited for months for the troops to uncork Saddam's secret bunkers. I remember the drawings that showed how this evil despot had created a whole city underground, safe against any form of attack... Too bad it was all BULLSHIT! Just like all of the other WMD, bio-terrorist, mushroom cloud crap that was peddaled from the White House.

Forcing myself to listen to FOX, I just learned about... secret bunkers just completed in Iran. It seems they were built at record-breaking speed, in a few weeks. Amazing! This is worse than Rocky II, III, IV. Will someone please turn off the river of crap that flows out of the Whitehouse?

Iran completed building of secrete bunkers near Tehran
12 Mar. 2006 14:08

Taking into account possibility of a war with the West, authorities of Iran have built a secret underground military headquarter centre near Tehran (APA).

According to the information of the Sunday Telegraph paper, the secret bunker was built in Abbasabad region of the capital and underground roads were constructed to main government buildings from the bunker. Representatives of the National Council of Resistance of Iran said that information about the secret bunker was obtained through sources in the government. According to the information of the sources, construction of underground bunkers aims to disable satellite tracking system to watch operation of some secret enterprises. Official Tehran has not expressed its attitude to this issue yet. The Minister of Interior of Iran Mustafa Pirmahammadi said that if the UN Security Council decides to apply sanctions on Iran, then Tehran will reduce volume of oil transported to the world market.


Now, guess who'e first to report this besides the FOX network...
London's Telegraph Group Limited: North Korea to help Iran dig secret missile bunkers
Followed closely by the Azeri Press Agency, Azerbaijan
Jerusalem Post, Israel
The Standard, Hong Kong

Calling Judy Miller... late breaking story alert!

If 6 Was 9

Hi Sam,
Thanks for that disturbing morsel (below). Here's my instant reaction...

Lately I have been suffering from a kind of mental phase-shift, unconsciously turning things inside out as I hear them, reversing the intended meaning to reflect the truth contained within a morsel of twisted news. Here's an example...

Nina Totenberg reports that (Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day) " O'Connor began by conceding that courts do have the power to make presidents, or the Congress, or governors..." then I had to stop and reverse tracks - after I read the rest of the sentence, realizing the phase shift. "...the power to make presidents, or the Congress, or governors, as she put it, really, really angry."

Now I get it!

Courts have the power to make legislators angry...

Nonetheless, this power of the WhoDo (as described above) can, in this rare instance, simultaneously include both Al Gore and George Bush - no matter which way my mind spins it.

You've got the power!
What power?
The power of the hoodo.
Hoodo?
You do!
I do what?
You've got the power!

This all started back when the Ministry of Truth (MT) started churning out gems of framing-art like a bill that reduces controls on air polluters, and then gets labelled "The Clear Skies Initiative," or the bill that allows forests to be clear-cut that's entitled "The Healthy Forests Act."

When we invaded the wrong country (and became terrorists) in the War on Terror and the WMD excuse was eventually re-written by the MT (empty) to claim we are there to spread Democracy (Patriot Act) and to rid one nation of an evil dictator (which one? this one? that one?) who tortures, imprisons and kills his own citizens (in Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo?)...

While Zogby polls show that 72% of the troops want the US out of Iraq in a year or less, shockingly, 85% of those questioned believe they are fighting in Iraq "to retaliate for Saddam’s role in the 9-11 attacks." Remember Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s Office of Strategic Influence?

In the immortal words of Condi Jimi Hendrix, "Excuse me, while I kiss this guy."
Deborah Schoeneman reports that it happens to the best of us... "At a recent dinner party hosted by New York Times D.C. bureau chief Philip Taubman and his wife, Times reporter Felicity Barringer, and attended by Arthur Sulzberger Jr., Maureen Dowd, Steven Weisman, and Elisabeth Bumiller, Rice was reportedly overheard saying, “As I was telling my husb—” and then stopping herself abruptly, before saying, “As I was telling President Bush.” Jaws dropped, but a guest says the slip by the unmarried politician, who spends weekends with the president and his wife, seemed more psychologically telling than incriminating."

Yin/yangly yours,
Steve

On 3/12/06, samclem wrote:O'Connor Decries Republican Attacks on Courts
March 10, 2006 from Morning Edition NPR

STEVE INSKEEP, host: Supreme Court justices keep many opinions private, but Sandra Day O'Connor no longer faces that obligation. Yesterday, the retired justice criticized Republicans who criticized the courts. She said they challenged the independence of judges and the freedoms of all Americans.

O'Connor's speech at Georgetown University was not available for broadcast, but NPR Legal Affairs Correspondent Nina Totenberg was there.

NINA TOTENBERG reporting:

In an unusually forceful and forthright speech, O'Connor said that attacks on the Judiciary by some Republican leaders pose a direct threat to our Constitutional freedom. O'Connor began by conceding that courts do have the power to make presidents, or the Congress, or governors, as she put it, really, really angry.

But, she continued, if we don't make them mad some of the time, we probably aren't doing our jobs as judges. And our effectiveness, she said, is premised on the notion that we won't be subject to retaliation for our judicial acts. The nation's founders wrote repeatedly, she said, that without an independent Judiciary to protect individual rights from the other branches of government, those rights and privileges would amount to nothing. But, said O'Connor, as the founding fathers knew, statutes and constitutions don't protect judicial independence, people do.

And then she took aim at former House GOP leader Tom DeLay. She didn't name him, but she quoted his attacks on the courts at a meeting of the conservative Christian group Justice Sunday last year, when DeLay took out after the courts for rulings on abortion, prayer and the Terry Schiavo case. This, said O'Connor, was after the federal courts had applied Congress' one-time-only statute about Schiavo as it was written, not, said O'Connor, as the congressman might have wished it were written.

The response to this flagrant display of judicial restraint, said O'Connor, her voice dripping with sarcasm, was that the congressman blasted the courts. It gets worse, she said, noting that death threats against judges are increasing. It doesn't help, she says, when a high-profile senator suggests there may be a connection between violence against judges and decisions that the senator disagrees with. She didn't name him, but it was Texas Senator John Cornyn who made that statement after a Georgia judge was murdered in the courtroom and the family of a federal judge in Illinois murdered in the judge's home.

O'Connor observed that there have been a lot of suggestions lately for so-called judicial reforms, recommendations for the massive impeachment of judges, stripping the courts of jurisdiction and cutting judicial budgets to punish offending judges. Any of these might be debatable, she says, as long as they are not retaliation for decisions that political leaders disagree with. I, said O'Connor, am against judicial reforms driven by nakedly partisan reasoning.

Pointing to the experiences of developing countries and former Communist countries, where interference with an independent judiciary has allowed dictatorship to flourish, O'Connor said we must be ever vigilant against those who would strong-arm the Judiciary into adopting their preferred policies. It takes a lot of degeneration before a country falls into dictatorship, she said, but we should avoid these ends by avoiding these beginnings.

Nina Totenberg, NPR News, Washington.