Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying

Through the race-stained lens of the Democratic nomination race I am a Brown American. I have many American friends. But today they are apparently White Americans, Black Americans, Brown Americans, Red Americans, and Yellow Americans. I do not have enough buckets to store and segregate my friends of many hues and many colors. Repeatedly and often I mix colors and leave out the qualifier and focus on my American friends.

It is not that I don’t see the colors. I do. I am often reminded - sometimes quite harshly - of my own color and my own place in the fabric of a society that, like other societies, is struggling to unify and coexist.

If you want to cut me up and label me, there are other favorites of the day. I am a Muslim American. I am an Immigrant American. Then there are others which don’t quite fit the stereotype. I am white-collar. I am college educated. I am a suburban elite.

I am a pollster’s dream. I can check off many boxes at one time. I am a cross-sample.

I am also a voter. Once I am in the voting booth, I am reduced once again to an American - no qualifiers. My vote counts - not one half, not three-fifths. I get one whole vote - the same vote as a  White American, Black American, Red American or Yellow American.

When the Democratic nomination battle whittled down to two, the Democrats had made history. For the first time in American history, either a woman or an African American would be the nominee of a major political party. The Democrats had two strong candidates and it felt like either way it would be a giant leap forward for this nation. It was also sobering. It was inevitable that when the Democrats finally fielded their nominee, sexism or racism would rear its ugly head. It would not be easy to push past this barrier in American public life. It would not be easy for either a woman or an African American to rise to the most powerful position in the world. However, if it happened it would be truly historic and a testament to the strength of American democracy.

I have great affection for President Bill Clinton. And I had similar affection for the former First Lady. So I was undecided as to who I would favor. All that changed after South Carolina.

What began as race baiting in South Carolina has reached its sad and tragic depths today. In trolling for votes in West Virginia, Hillary Clinton has chosen the path of division. It started with her surrogates on Tuesday night, and continued with her campaign strategists on Wednesday morning and has now reached its filthy bottom with the candidate herself. Hillary Clinton has declared herself the candidate of the White people - White Americans. The working, hard-working, White Americans. She said:

"I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on," she said in an interview with USA TODAY. As evidence, Clinton cited an Associated Press article "that found how Sen. Obama’s support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me."

"There’s a pattern emerging here," she said.

It is a deliberate strategy by the Clinton campaign. It is shameful.

I chose to support Barack Obama after South Carolina. All my life I have grown up searching for Bobby Kennedy - someone with the vision for a better tomorrow and with the intellect and the commitment to make that tomorrow happen. After South Carolina I found him. Here was a man who saw within our grasp a more unified nation, who had  the strength to lead this nation forward, and who had the strength to battle the inevitable challenges that would be thrown our way. His vision - a tomorrow that I want for my seven-year-old daughter - was that we are not White Americans, Black Americans, Brown Americans, Red Americans, or Yellow Americans; that we are not red states or blue states; that we are the United States of America.

Barack Obama envisioned an ideal for America that is basic and foundational - that inspired a movement and is now poised to change this nation and this world. Beyond the policy positions and the hard work of putting policy into action, Obama offered a unifying vision. I support his vision and his candidacy for the most selfish of reasons. I support it for my daughter and her future.

Barack Obama need not have had a monopoly on this vision. Hillary Clinton had the opportunity to also move this country in that direction. But, sadly, the arc of her candidacy went in the opposite direction. What could have been an inspiring campaign instead succumbed to the baser instincts of race baiting and the politics of division.

I do not want to live in Hillary Clinton’s America. I do not want my daughter to grow up in Hillary Clinton’s America. I want to live in the United States of America. As this country tries to move forward toward racial equality, I do not want a presidential candidate to pit White against Black - one race against another - for a few extra votes. I want a candidate who can inspire this nation to move toward its promise and its ideals, not away from them. Hillary Clinton has embarrassed herself as she desperately tries to hold on to a fantasy. She has become a race baiter on the biggest stage of them all - on the campaign trail for the presidency of the United States. She has embarrassed this country and debased its ideals.

This Brown American - this American - wants her to stop.

Martin Luther King, Jr. on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, August 28, 1963 (transcript, audio):

In a sense we’ve come to our nation’s capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the "unalienable Rights" of "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note, insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check, a check which has come back marked "insufficient funds."

But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation. And so, we’ve come to cash this check, a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice.

We have also come to this hallowed spot to remind America of the fierce urgency of Now. This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism. Now is the time to make real the promises of democracy. Now is the time to rise from the dark and desolate valley of segregation to the sunlit path of racial justice. Now is the time to lift our nation from the quicksands of racial injustice to the solid rock of brotherhood. Now is the time to make justice a reality for all of God’s children.

…

Let us not wallow in the valley of despair, I say to you today, my friends.

And so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal."

I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.

I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

I have a dream today!

I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of "interposition" and "nullification" — one day right there in Alabama little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.

I have a dream today!

I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, and every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight; "and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed and all flesh shall see it together."

Robert Kennedy’s remarks on the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr., Indianapolis, April 4, 1968 (transcript, audio):

I’m only going to talk to you just for a minute or so this evening, because I have some — some very sad news for all of you — Could you lower those signs, please? — I have some very sad news for all of you, and, I think, sad news for all of our fellow citizens, and people who love peace all over the world; and that is that Martin Luther King was shot and was killed tonight in Memphis, Tennessee.

Martin Luther King dedicated his life to love and to justice between fellow human beings. He died in the cause of that effort. In this difficult day, in this difficult time for the United States, it’s perhaps well to ask what kind of a nation we are and what direction we want to move in. For those of you who are black — considering the evidence evidently is that there were white people who were responsible — you can be filled with bitterness, and with hatred, and a desire for revenge.

We can move in that direction as a country, in greater polarization — black people amongst blacks, and white amongst whites, filled with hatred toward one another. Or we can make an effort, as Martin Luther King did, to understand, and to comprehend, and replace that violence, that stain of bloodshed that has spread across our land, with an effort to understand, compassion, and love.

For those of you who are black and are tempted to fill with — be filled with hatred and mistrust of the injustice of such an act, against all white people, I would only say that I can also feel in my own heart the same kind of feeling. I had a member of my family killed, but he was killed by a white man.

But we have to make an effort in the United States. We have to make an effort to understand, to get beyond, or go beyond these rather difficult times.

My favorite poem, my — my favorite poet was Aeschylus. And he once wrote:

Even in our sleep, pain which cannot forget
falls drop by drop upon the heart,
until, in our own despair,
against our will,
comes wisdom
through the awful grace of God.

What we need in the United States is not division; what we need in the United States is not hatred; what we need in the United States is not violence and lawlessness, but is love, and wisdom, and compassion toward one another, and a feeling of justice toward those who still suffer within our country, whether they be white or whether they be black.

So I ask you tonight to return home, to say a prayer for the family of Martin Luther King — yeah, it’s true — but more importantly to say a prayer for our own country, which all of us love — a prayer for understanding and that compassion of which I spoke.

We can do well in this country. We will have difficult times. We’ve had difficult times in the past, but we — and we will have difficult times in the future. It is not the end of violence; it is not the end of lawlessness; and it’s not the end of disorder.

But the vast majority of white people and the vast majority of black people in this country want to live together, want to improve the quality of our life, and want justice for all human beings that abide in our land.

And let’s dedicate ourselves to what the Greeks wrote so many years ago: to tame the savageness of man and make gentle the life of this world. Let us dedicate ourselves to that, and say a prayer for our country and for our people.

Vice President Dick Cheney was interviewed tonight on Larry King Live. In it, he confirmed that Alberto Gonzales lied last week to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Below is the exchange between Larry King and Dick Cheney:

Q Moving on to other areas. Alberto Gonzales — do you stand by him?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I do. Al is a good man, a good friend, in a difficult assignment.

Q Are you troubled by what appears to have happened — the appearance of him not telling the truth?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, I don’t want to get into the specifics with respect to his testimony and the questions that were asked. I know Al on a personal and professional basis, and I hold him in high regard.

Q You’re going to stand by him?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Yes, sir.

Q No doubt about that?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Correct.

Q In that regard, The New York Times — which, as you said, is not your favorite — reports it was you who dispatched Gonzales and Andy Card to then-Attorney General John Ashcroft’s hospital in 2004 to push Ashcroft to certify the President’s intelligence-gathering program. Was it you?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I don’t recall — first of all, I haven’t seen the story. And I don’t recall that I gave instructions to that effect.

Q That would be something you would recall.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I would think so. But certainly I was involved because I was a big advocate of the Terrorist Surveillance Program, and had been responsible and working with General Hayden and George Tenet to get it to the President for approval. By the time this occurred, it had already been approved about 12 times by the Department of Justice. There was nothing new about it.

Q So you didn’t send them to get permission.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I don’t recall that I was the one who sent them to the hospital. [Emphasis added by me.]

Larry King was asking Dick Cheney about "the President’s intelligence-gathering program". In response, Cheney confirmed that by the time the hospital confrontation occurred, "it" had been approved 12 times by the DOJ and there was "nothing new about it". The "it" being the "Terrorist Surveillance Program" as Cheney makes clear in the preceding sentence, even though Larry King had referred to it as "the President’s intelligence-gathering program". There you have it: confirmation from the Vice President of the United States that Gonzo confronted Ashcroft about the "Terrorist Surveillance Program".

In last week’s testimony, Gonzo claimed that the "dissent" and the subject of the hospital bed confrontation with Ashcroft was not about the "Terrorist Surveillance Program":

“The dissent related to other intelligence activities,” Gonzales testified at Tuesday’s hearing. “The dissent was not about the terrorist surveillance program.”

“Not the TSP?” responded Sen. Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y. “Come on. If you say it’s about other, that implies not. Now say it or not.”

“It was not,” Gonzales answered. “It was about other intelligence activities.”  [Emphasis added by me.]

Now, the man who apparently sent Gonzo on his late night errand is directly contradicting him. Time to resign, Gonzo.

[UPDATE (7/31/2007 10:50 PM): I cross-posted at the Daily Kos. The diary has hit the recommended list and there is a lively comment thread.]

[Update 2: TPMMuckraker has now picked up on Cheney’s little admission. Hopefully, the MSM will follow…]

Today the New York Times reports on the dispute in 2004 that led Alberto Gonzalies to rush to Attorney General John Ashcroft’s hospital room to intimidate a sedated and sick man. The Times explains Gonzalies’ lies:

A 2004 dispute over the National Security Agency’s secret surveillance program that led top Justice Department officials to threaten resignation involved computer searches through massive electronic databases, according to current and former officials briefed on the program.

…

Mr. Gonzales insisted before the Senate this week that the 2004 dispute did not involve the Terrorist Surveillance Program “confirmed” by President Bush, who has acknowledged eavesdropping without warrants but has never acknowledged the data mining.

If the dispute chiefly involved data mining, rather than eavesdropping, Mr. Gonzales’ defenders may maintain that his narrowly crafted answers, while legalistic, were technically correct. [Emphasis added by me.]

The Times is giving Gonzalies too much credit. It is true that Gonzalies tried to parse carefully to try and give the impression that there was no dissent about the so-called "Terrorist Surveillance Program", but he did not parse to separate data mining from eavesdropping. He initially tried to parse to separate the "program" from its "operational aspects", but lost his way last week and may have dug his hole deeper.

To understand this, let’s review Gonzalies’ public statements and testimony on the matter.

On December 17, 2005 George W. Bush publicly acknowledged during his radio address the existence of a NSA program to eavesdrop on calls to and from the United States. The program had previously been leaked to the New York Times. Mr. Bush said:

In the weeks following the terrorist attacks on our nation, I authorized the National Security Agency, consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution, to intercept the international communications of people with known links to al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations. Before we intercept these communications, the government must have information that establishes a clear link to these terrorist networks.

This is a highly classified program that is crucial to our national security. Its purpose is to detect and prevent terrorist attacks against the United States, our friends and allies. Yesterday the existence of this secret program was revealed in media reports, after being improperly provided to news organizations. As a result, our enemies have learned information they should not have, and the unauthorized disclosure of this effort damages our national security and puts our citizens at risk. Revealing classified information is illegal, alerts our enemies, and endangers our country.

The following Monday, on December 19, Alberto Gonzalies and General Michael Hayden briefed reporters at the White House about the NSA program. At the beginning of the briefing Gonzalies made this very important statement about what he was to discuss:

The President confirmed the existence of a highly classified program on Saturday. The program remains highly classified; there are many operational aspects of the program that have still not been disclosed and we want to protect that because those aspects of the program are very, very important to protect the national security of this country. So I’m only going to be talking about the legal underpinnings for what has been disclosed by the President. [Emphasis added by me.]

It is clear from Gonzalies’ statement that operational aspects of the program, such as data mining as described by the New York Times today and earlier revealed by the USA Today, are part of the NSA program, and not part of another program.

During the same briefing, a reporter asked Gonzalies about the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Council’s (OLC) legal rationale for this NSA program. Gonzalies side-stepped the question:

Q Judge Gonzales, will you release then, for the reasons you’re saying now, the declassified versions of the legal rationale for this from OLC? And if not, why not? To assure the American public that this was done with the legal authority that you state.

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: We’re engaged now in a process of educating the American people, again, and educating the Congress. We’ll make the appropriate evaluation at the appropriate time as to whether or not additional information needs to be provided to the Congress or the American people.

Q You declassified OLC opinions before, after the torture — why not do that here to show, yes, we went through a process?

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: I’m not confirming the existence of opinions or the non-existence of opinions. I’ve offered up today our legal analysis of the authorities of this President.

We of course learned earlier this year from former Deputy Attorney General James Comey that the OLC had raised serious objections about the NSA program.

Gonzalies was asked specifically about Comey’s and the OLC’s objections to the program by Senator Chuck Schumer during a February 6, 2006 appearance in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee. At this hearing Gonzalies parsed his words very carefully in order to give the impression that no such objections existed about the "program". It is also worth noting that Gonzalies was not under oath at this hearing after Arlen Specter, then Chairman, refused requests by Senators to have Gonzalies under oath. Following is the relevant exchange between Schumer and Gonzalies:

SCHUMER: I concede all those points. Let me ask you about some specific reports.

It’s been reported by multiple news outlets that the former number two man in the Justice Department, the premier terrorism prosecutor, Jim Comey, expressed grave reservations about the NSA program and at least once refused to give it his blessing. Is that true?

GONZALES: Senator, here’s the response that I feel that I can give with respect to recent speculation or stories about disagreements.

There has not been any serious disagreement — and I think this is accurate — there has not been any serious disagreement about the program that the president has confirmed. There have been disagreements about other matters regarding operations which I cannot get into.

I will also say…

SCHUMER: But there was some — I’m sorry to cut you off — but there was some dissent within the administration. And Jim Comey did express, at some point — that’s all I asked you — some reservations.

GONZALES: The point I want to make is that, to my knowledge, none of the reservations dealt with the program that we’re talking about today. They dealt with operational capabilities that we’re not talking about today.

SCHUMER: I want to ask you, again, about — we have limited time.

GONZALES: Yes, sir.

SCHUMER: It’s also been reported that the head of the Office of Legal Counsel, Jack Goldsmith, respected lawyer and professor at Harvard Law School, expressed reservations about the program. Is that true?

GONZALES: Senator, rather than going individual by individual, let me just say that I think the differing views that have been the subject of some of these stories did not deal with the program that I’m here testifying about today.

SCHUMER: But you were telling us that none of these people expressed any reservations about the ultimate program, is that right?

GONZALES: Senator, I want to be very careful here, because, of course, I’m here only testifying about what the president has confirmed.

And with respect to what the president has confirmed, I do not believe that these DOJ officials that you’re identifying had concerns about this program. [Emphasis added by me.]

Gonzalies again drew the distinction between "operational capabilities" and the "program". In his opening statement he made clear that his responses would not address "operational details" of the NSA program:

Before going any further, I should make clear what I can discuss today. I am here to explain the department’s assessment that the president’s terrorist surveillance program is consistent with our laws and the Constitution.

I’m not here to discuss the operational details of that program or any other classified activity.

The president has described the terrorist surveillance program in response to certain leaks, and my discussion in this open forum must be limited to those facts the president has publicly confirmed: nothing more.

Many operational details of our intelligence activities remain classified and unknown to our enemy. And it is vital that they remain so. [Emphasis added by me.]

So far, Gonzalies was side-stepping dissent about the NSA program by creating two artificial buckets - one bucket that was the description of the NSA program, and another bucket that was all the operational aspects of the program. By conveniently pushing all dissent into the "operational" bucket he had created the illusion that the "program", that is the description of the program (perhaps just the name), had not been the subject of serious dissent. Mr. Comey, however, in his May 2007 testimony clearly described significant dissent at the Department of Justice, testimony that has since been confirmed by FBI Director Robert Mueller.

Alberto Gonzalies however parsed a little too far last week when he testified that the "dissent related to other intelligence activities" and not the "terrorist surveillance program". Gone is the distinction between "operational aspects" and the "program" - he is now under oath asserting that what Comey testified to, what Director Mueller testified to, and what the Negroponte memo cited, were not about the "terrorist surveillance program" or "operational aspects" of the program, but belonged outside the program altogether. In doing so, he has lost the fine line that he had created and was walking in his earlier public statements and testimony about the NSA program. In last week’s testimony, he failed to stick to the strict parsing that he had maintained for more than a year and a half. In parsing in a different direction, he has undermined his previous parsing.

Alberto Gonzalies may have just parsed himself out of a job. However, to be fair to Alberto Gonzalies, he has only been the Attorney General and not privy to the "operational aspects" of the Attorney General program - or, to be more precise, other attorney general activities. So, although there has been dissent about the "operational aspects" of the attorney general, would it be fair to say that the attorney general should be fired?

 [Note: The image above is from today’s New York Times article. Interestingly, the image file is named "gonzo600.jpg".]

We are witnessing historic events in Washington. It is now indisputable that the Attorney General of the United States has perjured himself. It is now only a matter of time before Alberto Gonzales is forced to resign for his lying, dissembling and obfuscations. It is also now very likely that the chief law enforcement officer of the United States may himself be guilty of serious crimes.

FBI Director Robert Mueller, at a hearing in front of the House Judiciary Committee, directly contradicted Gonzo’s sworn testimony from Tuesday:

FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III has contradicted the sworn testimony of his boss, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, by telling Congress that a prominent warrantless surveillance program was the subject of a dramatic legal debate within the Bush administration.

Mueller’s testimony appears to mark the first public confirmation from a Bush administration official that the National Security Agency’s Terrorist Surveillance Program was at issue in an unusual nighttime visit by Gonzales to the hospital bedside of then-Attorney General John D. Ashcroft, then under sedation and recovering from surgery.

Mueller’s remarks to the House Judiciary Committee about that contentious meeting differed from testimony earlier in the week from Gonzales, who told a Senate panel that a legal disagreement aired at the hospital did not concern the NSA program. Details of the program, kept secret for four years, were confirmed by President Bush in December 2005, provoking wide controversy on Capitol Hill.

"The discussion was on a national–an NSA program that has been much discussed, yes," Mueller said in response to a question from Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-Texas). Mueller also told another lawmaker that he had serious reservations about the warrantless wiretapping program.

Director Mueller has also in his possession notes that he took to document the March 10, 2004 showdown in then Attorney General John Ashcroft’s hospital room. The director said that he took the notes because the episode was "out of the ordinary."

Gonzo’s lies began to unravel after former Deputy Attorney General James Comey provided dramatic testimony of Gonzo’s late night visit to the hospital to try and take advantage of a very sick man. It is a story worthy of mob movies like The Godfather. Yet, it was then White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales that was behaving in mafia-like fashion, quite likely at the direction of the President or Vice President of the United States. Today Gonzo is finally being held to account for his thuggish behavior.

This walking embarrassment to the Department of Justice must resign.

Below is James Comey’s dramatic testimony:

Below are relevant parts of FBI Director Robert Mueller’s testimony from earlier today:

Yesterday the Attorney General of the United States testified in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Today we find out that a US government document contradicts Gonzo’s sworn testimony. In other words, the chief law enforcement officer of the United States perjured himself:

Documents indicate eight congressional leaders were briefed about the Bush administration’s terrorist surveillance program on the eve of its expiration in 2004, contradicting sworn Senate testimony this week by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

…

Gonzales, who was then serving as counsel to Bush, testified that the White House Situation Room briefing sought to inform congressional leaders about the pending expiration of the unidentified program and Justice Department objections to renew it. Those objections were led by then-Deputy Attorney General Jim Comey, who questioned the program’s legality.

“The dissent related to other intelligence activities,” Gonzales testified at Tuesday’s hearing. “The dissent was not about the terrorist surveillance program.”

“Not the TSP?” responded Sen. Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y. “Come on. If you say it’s about other, that implies not. Now say it or not.”

“It was not,” Gonzales answered. “It was about other intelligence activities.”

A four-page memo from the national intelligence director’s office says the White House briefing with the eight lawmakers on March 10, 2004, was about the terror surveillance program, or TSP.

The memo, dated May 17, 2006, and addressed to then-House Speaker Dennis Hastert, details “the classification of the dates, locations, and names of members of Congress who attended briefings on the Terrorist Surveillance Program,” wrote then-Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte. [Emphasis added by me]

The "Terrorist Surveillance Program" did not come about until January 22, 2006, when it was coined by the White House - as late as January 4, 2006 the White House was calling the NSA program "the program to detect and prevent terrorist attacks". The memo that contradicts Gonzo was written on May 17, 2006. On March 10, 2004 the domestic spying program was not known as the "terrorist surveillance program".

On January 24, 2006 George W. Bush said the following at Kansas State University as the White House launched a propaganda campaign to brand the program the "Terrorist Surveillance Program":

Let me talk about one other program — and then I promise to answer questions — something that you’ve been reading about in the news lately. It’s what I would call a terrorist surveillance program. [Emphasis added by me.]

So, Gonzo’s defense will be this: the program during the meeting on March 10, 2004 was not the "terrorist surveillance program". When the program was modified to accommodate the dissent from Jim Comey and others after March 10, 2004 and then approved by the Department of Justice, it came to be known as the "terrorist surveillance program". So, technically Senator, he was not "lying".

Then Gonzo’s pants will burst into fire.

This man is a national disgrace. Behold the attorney general of the United States testifying today in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee. It’s time to resign.

Gonzo as Miracle Max:

Gonzo cannot recall deciding to send a man to his death:

Gonzo becomes self-aware:

Gonzo sets a new standard for crime and punishment:

Gonzo gets an FBI escort:

Gonzo as errand-boy:

Gonzo clarifies his clarification:

Gonzo as Donald Trump:

Gonzo gives the Vice President broadband access to the DOJ:

William Kristol continues to peddle his delusion today in the Washington Post. Kristol thinks that George W Bush will be remembered as a successful president. He cites "progress" in Iraq:

The fact is that military progress on the ground in Iraq in the past few months has been greater than even surge proponents like me expected, and political progress is beginning to follow.

I have to question whether Mr. Kristol’s definition of "progress" is the same as mine, or whether his definition of "progress" is in the national interest. However, whatever he is selling, its clear that George W Bush is buying. And to the detriment of the country and the presidency.

While the Democrats in Congress try once again to put muscle behind their words, Republican senators, most notably Richard Lugar of Indiana, are trying to lead the President toward a kinder gentler withdrawal by asking him to present a new strategy for Iraq in October. Neither strategy will work.

While it has been clear to many citizens from the very beginning, the Iraq Study Group report last December changed the conversation in Washington from how to win in Iraq to how best to salvage America from George W Bush’s blunder. George W Bush responded to the report like a petulant school boy - he did exactly the opposite of what was prudent and what was recommended. Instead of considering what was in the best interest of the country, he listened to the delusions of Fred Kagan and the amoral preachings of the likes of William Kristol.

Like his Secretary of Homeland Security, George W Bush sides with his gut over facts or evidence. In his defiant press conference earlier in the week in response to his own administration’s report of massive failure in Iraq, Mr. Bush laid to rest any notion that he was connected with reality:

I know some in Washington would like us to start leaving Iraq now. To begin withdrawing before our commanders tell us we are ready would be dangerous for Iraq, for the region, and for the United States. It would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to al Qaeda. It would mean that we’d be risking mass killings on a horrific scale. It would mean we’d allow the terrorists to establish a safe haven in Iraq to replace the one they lost in Afghanistan. It would mean increasing the probability that American troops would have to return at some later date to confront an enemy that is even more dangerous.

This kind of thinking leaves little room for nuance, as the Republicans in the Senate are hoping for. Still I have much sympathy for Senator Lugar’s approach. The alternative, the Democratic approach of cutting off funding for the troops, will undoubtebly lead to a constitutional showdown between the president’s article II commander-in-chief powers and the Congress’s Article I war making and funding powers. There is very little doubt in my mind that in this constitutional crisis the presidency will be the loser. The result of George W Bush’s intransigence and his assertion of vast executive authority will ironically be a weakened presidency. Under a different president, faced with such an outcome, the president would avoid this game of chicken for the sake of the country and the office he holds. A more enlightened president would take the escape hatch provided by Senator Lugar and the Iraq Study Group. But not this president.

So, it seems to me that we have really two options. We can let George W Bush run out the clock of his presidency by remaining in Iraq and continuing this fiasco, or we - through our elected representatives in Congress - can bring this war to an end by exercise of constitutional authority over the executive’s actions.

Letting this president run out the clock means the deaths of over a thousand more American soldiers and many more Iraqis, a further destabilization of the region, a further increase in hatred toward America - a hatred that will inevitably manifest itself in attacks against the homeland, and lasting damage to the balance of power in government. Letting this president run out the clock without challenge from the other co-equal branches of government means setting a precedent for authoritarian usurpation of executive power. America will lose, not only the Iraq war, but its own identity and way of life. Osama bin Laden will no doubt approve.

Bringing this war to an end by Congressional action will cause damage to the institution of the presidency by tipping the constitutional balance and injecting the Congress into the exercise of foreign policy. This institutional damage may be avoided by declaring this presidency, the presidency of George W Bush, as an aberration. It should be argued that Mr. Bush has himself damaged the presidency and the national interest by his orchestration and execution of this war -a high crime and misdemeanor. The conversation should not only be about how we get out of this war, but must also include how we got into this war. The former should be the basis for Congressional action to end this war, the latter should be the basis for the Congressional exercise of its Article I powers to impeach and remove the president from office. To balance Congressional action to defund this war, impeachment proceedings must begin. Impeachment will confirm that Congressional intervention was necessary to reign in this president and not the presidency.

It is a sad day in America when we must talk about the impeachment of a president. But the presidency and the nation is far more important than the political legacy of George W Bush. So, while William Kristol and his ilk spin to salvage Mr. Bush’s legacy, we the citizens through our elected representatives must act to salvage the constitutional office of the presidency from this president. In doing so, we will have ended a senseless war and the unnecessary and avoidable deaths of thousands.

Today the United States Supreme Court dealt a severe blow to the legacy of Brown v. Board of Education. In a 5-4 decision Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the following in an opinion joined by Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito (Justice Kennedy cast the deciding vote for the majority but did not sign on to Roberts’ opinion):

The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.

With those lines, the Supreme Court rolled back much of Brown v. Board of Education while claiming to have upheld it.

On May 17, 1954 the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in Brown v. Board of Education struck a death knell to the long era of racial segregation in America by overturning the 1896 Supreme Court decision in Plessy v. Ferguson. Plessy had upheld racial segregation and the doctrine of "separate but equal" as constitutional.

In writing for the majority in Plessy Justice Henry Billings Brown wrote on May 18, 1896 the following:

Legislation is powerless to eradicate racial instincts or to abolish distinctions based upon physical differences, and the attempt to do so can only result in accentuating the difficulties of the present situation.

Over a century after Plessy, Chief Justice Roberts’ words echo the words of Justice Henry Billings Brown. In Plessy, Justice Brown went on to write:

We consider the underlying fallacy of the plaintiff’s argument to consist in the assumption that the enforced separation of the two races stamps the colored race with a badge of inferiority. If this be so, it is not by reason of anything found in the act, but solely because the colored race chooses to put that construction upon it. … The argument also assumes that social prejudices may be overcome by legislation, and that equal rights cannot be secured to the negro except by an enforced commingling of the two races. We cannot accept this proposition. If the two races are to meet upon terms of social equality, it must be the result of natural affinities, a mutual appreciation of each other’s merits, and a voluntary consent of individuals.

…

If the civil and political rights of both races be equal, one cannot be inferior to the other civilly or politically. If one race be inferior to the other socially, the Constitution of the United States cannot put them upon the same plane.

It was the Supreme Court’s affirmation of segregation so plainly handed down in Plessy that Brown rejected, overturned and aimed to remedy. Today that changed by Justice Robert’s throwback to Plessy’s position that government’s attempts to counter segregation is in itself discrimination.

In a scathing dissent today, Justice Stephen Breyer wrote:

The lesson of history … is not that efforts to continue racial segregation are constitutionally indistinguishable from efforts to achieve racial integration.

The legacy of Brown vs. Board of Education is now in serious jeopardy after today’s ruling - the ruling today aims to effectively strip school boards of tools that they have used to counter racial segregation. In that we have returned to the days of Plessy, by turning Brown on its head.

In 1954, on behalf of the unanimous Supreme Court in Brown, Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote:

Today, education is perhaps the most important function of state and local governments. Compulsory school attendance laws and the great expenditures for education both demonstrate our recognition of the importance of education to our democratic society. It is required in the performance of our most basic public responsibilities, even service in the armed forces. It is the very foundation of good citizenship. Today it is a principal instrument in awakening the child to cultural values, in preparing him for later professional training, and in helping him to adjust normally to his environment. In these days, it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education. Such an opportunity, where the state has undertaken to provide it, is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms.

…

We conclude that, in the field of public education, the doctrine of "separate but equal" has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.

Today’s was a landmark decision that effectively rendered Brown toothless. Save for Justice Kennedy not signing on to Justice Roberts’ opinion, it would have been a complete overturning of Brown v. Board of Education.

The Vice President of the United States, Richard B. Cheney, should immediately resign from the President’s Cabinet. According to the White House web site, the President’s Cabinet is "drawn from Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution." The web site also states that the Cabinet consists of "the Vice President and the heads of 15 executive departments." To avoid any confusion that the Vice President is part of the Executive Branch, Dick should do the honorable thing and quit.

Earlier this week the Vice President asserted that he was exempt from an executive order requiring him to file reports on classification of records. Dick claimed that he was exempt because he was not strictly an executive branch official:

Vice President Cheney’s office has refused to comply with an executive order governing the handling of classified information for the past four years and recently tried to abolish the office that sought to enforce those rules, according to documents released by a congressional committee yesterday.

Since 2003, the vice president’s staff has not cooperated with an office at the National Archives and Records Administration charged with making sure the executive branch protects classified information. Cheney aides have not filed reports on their possession of classified data and at one point blocked an inspection of their office. After the Archives office pressed the matter, the documents say, Cheney’s staff this year proposed eliminating it.

…

The aggressive efforts to protect the operations of his staff have usually pitted Cheney against lawmakers, interest groups or media organizations, sometimes going all the way to the Supreme Court. But the fight about classified information regulation indicates that the vice president has resisted oversight even by other parts of the Bush administration. Cheney’s office argued that it is exempt from the rules in this case because it is not strictly an executive branch agency.

Oh really Dick?

The Executive Order that the Vice President takes exception to was issued on March 25, 2003. It was an order amending Executive Order 12958 that governs the handling of Classified National Security Information by the Executive Branch of the United States Government. This is the very Order that gives the Vice President his authority to classify documents in the first place. Without this Order, the Vice President has no authority to classify documents. To be clear, the Vice President, and that includes the incumbent, is given classification authority by the Executive Order specifically "in the performance of his executive duties." Section 1.3 of the Executive Order states:

Sec. 1.3. Classification Authority. (a) The authority to classify information originally may be exercised only by:

(1) the President and, in the performance of executive duties, the Vice President;

(2) agency heads and officials designated by the President in the Federal Register; and

(3) United States Government officials delegated this authority pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section.

The Vice President’s role as the President of the Senate, given to him in Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution, does not give him classification authority according to the Executive Order - it is his executive duties that give him authority in this Executive Order.

The Vice President has also started to use a new classification designation called "Treated as Top Secret/SCI". This is a new classification which is specifically prohibited by the Executive Order:

Sec. 1.2. Classification Levels. (a) Information may be classified at one of the following three levels:

(1) "Top Secret" shall be applied to information, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security that the original classification authority is able to identify or describe.

(2) "Secret" shall be applied to information, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause serious damage to the national security that the original classification authority is able to identify or describe.

(3) "Confidential" shall be applied to information, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause damage to the national security that the original classification authority is able to identify or describe.

(b) Except as otherwise provided by statute, no other terms shall be used to identify United States classified information.

So, either Dick Cheney has properly classified information that he wants to keep secret, and therefore is bound by this Executive Order, or all of the documents he has "classified" as "Treated as Top Secret/SCI" has not been properly classified. In trying to exempt himself from the laws, Dick Cheney may have jeopardized national security. Very clever, Dick.

The Vice President’s office has also claimed that Dick Cheney is not covered by the order because his office is not an "agency" as defined by the Executive Order. The Executive Order however defines "agency" as follows:

"Agency" means any "Executive agency," as defined in 5 U.S.C. 105; any "Military department" as defined in 5 U.S.C. 102; and any other entity within the executive branch that comes into the possession of classified information.

So unless Dick Cheney is storing all his "classified" information in his Senate office and unless all of that information was not gathered in the performance of executive duties, he is bound by this Executive Order.

The latest news out of the White House is that the President meant to exempt himself and the Vice President from the Executive Order, though he failed to spell it out in the Order itself. Of course the President of the United States may choose to clarify his position and issue an Executive Order exempting himself and the Vice President from the laws of the United States and from common sense. In that case, we the people may have to seek recourse to Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution.