brainiac conspiracy

In Praise of Moral Clarity, Except When It Isn't

From the WaPo today, the always-prescient Dan Froomkin focuses on the Mukasey hearings to succinctly distill, bottle and label the toxic brew of Bushian conservatism as accurately as anyone has done to date:

By refusing to acknowledge at his confirmation hearing that waterboarding is torture, Mukasey appeared to throw his lot in with those who embrace an authoritarian strain of moral relativism, one that excuses abhorrent and illegal policies as long as the president declares they're in the national interest.

Moral relativism? Hmmmm, where have we heard that descriptive before?

Oh, here . . . and here. And here. And a thousand other places where the denizens of the Whackosphere look to score ideological match points against people who don't subscribe to their particular worldviews. And yet, one need only examine their own totemic belief systems to see some rather odd, er, contradictions in logic. Or, one might say more snarkily, complete and utter lapses in logic.

To wit: The murder of unborn babies is unconscionable, but the torturing of persons not charged with any wrongdoing is not. Adultery by liberals is a stain on our moral fabric, yet adultery by conservatives . . . well, nothing to look at here, folks. The redistribution of wealth by government is evil, unless the money's being redistributed to Republican contractors and campaign contributors. The freedom of worship is one of our most cherished American ideals, but we should proclaim ourselves a Christian nation only. Importation of cheap labor from Mexico undermines our economy, but the exportation of cheap labor to India keeps our economy robust. Preemptively invading another country that poses no threat to you is imperative for your national security, unless somebody else is doing the preempting---say, Iraq invading Kuwait. And torture is only torture if we actually say it is torture. Combine all of these tangled and tortured (pun intended) policy positions, shake vigorously, and what do you get?

Of course . . . it's called moral clarity. And how many times have you heard that one?

---Vitelius

But Where is Buford Pusser When You Need Him?

From today's LA Times, a sometimes-hilarious backgrounder on the life and times of Gipper 2.0, Boy Prosecutor. The piece opens during the current presidential campaign:

[Thompson] was "attacking crime and public corruption," boasts a video played at his campaign events. During a candidate debate this month, Thompson said he spent three years "prosecuting most of the major federal crimes in middle Tennessee---most of the major ones."

But a review of the 88 criminal cases Thompson handled at the US Attorney's office in Nashville, from 1969 to 1972, reveals a different and more human portrait . . .

There were a few bank robbers and counterfeiters. But more than anything, Thompson took on the state's moonshiners and a local culture, rooted in Tennessee's hills and hollows, that celebrated the independent whiskey maker's battle against the government's revenue agents.

Twenty-seven of his cases involved moonshining---more than any other crime.

Good to know that Gipper 2.0 had the common sense to only go after the really important cases. What better way to exercise his burgeoning prosecutorial skills?

"I've seen a lot better lawyers," said Burton Moulder. the former sheriff whom Thompson prosecuted for selling a still from a county jail. "But he was very charming. He had a nice, clear voice."

Sounds a lot like modern-day candidate Thompson, too. And how well did these prosecutions play with the local US District judge, who presided over nearly all of Freddie's cases? Well, in one instance, he referred to Mr. Law & Order's conduct as "utterly incompetent." And overall, well . . .

Thompson easily won convictions for possession of moonshine, but Judge Gray was lenient in sentencing, rarely doling our jail time.

"It was a game," said [Gilbert] Merritt, the former US Attorney. "Gray didn't like these cases. He thought they were a waste of time, and he was right."

Judge Gray was probably right. After all, what do you call a US Attorney who has the time to file federal obscenity charges against some good ol' boy for talking dirty over his CB? Read the whole article---the Baron kids you not.

---Vitelius

Concern Troll of the Month

From today's Times, words of healing and reconcilation: Specifically, how to handle the hordes of illegals who were flushed out of the mountains, and from their fields, as a result of the San Diego brushfires:

The American Civil Liberties Union said it had received reports that people had been denied help at shelters because they lacked proper identification. Officials have been checking identification to prevent people not affected by the fires from taking advanatage of the free food, clothes and other services.

The concerns of the rights group drew a rebuke from Representative Brian P. Bilbray, a Republican who represents areas along the border.

"People are dying because we can't control our border," Mr. Bilbray said. "That's what they should be screaming about. Anyone who knows the land and the illegal activity in that rugged terrain knows there's no way we would avoid deaths in this."

You remember Bilbray. He's the former Congressman-cum-lobbyist who won the special election in 2006 to replace Duke Cunningham in Congress. To hear him tell it, groups like the ACLU should be less concerned with matters such as feeding and sheltering the undocumenteds than with making sure we finish the job of building our own 1,900-mile Berlin Wall on the Rio Grande. Because people are dying---dying, I tell you---because we haven't completed this vital mission. We are doing it for their own good, you see? If only these liberals in the ACLU would get with the program and stop coddling these criminals with, y'know, food and blankets and stuff.

In other words, those anonymous brownskins lurking at the border---unseen and invisible---are still deserving of our utmost compassion and understanding. As opposed to the flesh-and-blood Mexicans who show up at a disaster relief shelter without a driver's license. Those people? Fuck 'em. Kinda like the differences in how we should treat unborn babies vs. real live humans, huh?

Once again, Compassionate Conservatism in theory and practice.

---Vitelius

Making Progress, One Cover-Up at a Time

I believe this is called "running interference," no?

"Give [the Los Angeles Times] what we can and then dump the rest on Blackwater," one State Department official wrote to another in the e-mails, which were obtained by ABC News. "We can't win this one."

One department official taking part in a chain of e-mails noted that the "findings of the investigation are to remain off-limits to the reporter." Another recommended that there be no mention of the existence of a criminal investigation since such a reference would "raise questions and issues."

Questions and issues. And yep, we certainly mustn't let the taxpayers know how their money is being spent, eh?

What's truly remarkable about this LA Times story, however, is its timeline. The State Department was well aware of serious problems with Iraq War contractors three and a half years ago, yet seemed to be doing next to nothing about it. One can only wonder how many more Nisour Square incidents are buried in the bureaucracy, waiting to be dug up by the next administraton.

---Vitelius

Funny, I Could've Sworn it Was the Quds Brigade

From Think Progress the other day, an enlightening bit of repartee from the morning hosts of Fox and Friends, discussing potential causes of this week's SoCal wildfires. In case you missed it, here's the Mother of All Scoops: Al-Qaida did it!

Doocy: You're looking live at pictures from San Diego's Santiago, California, where the wildfires continue. We were talking earlier in today's telecast with Adam Housley and apparently police officers in a hovering helicopter saw a guy starting one of these fires. And Allison Camerota, an FBI memo from late in June of this year is popping up this morning and it is ominous.

Camerota: This actually has happened for many years in the past as well. An FBI sent out to local law-enforcement said that an al Qaeda detainee had given them some information that the next wave of terrorism could be in the form of setting wild fires. Adam Housley said lots of people on his block were asking him about it. Obviously this is something the FBI has looked into. They will continue to investigate it.

Carlson: If they have this person in custody it probably won't take long to be able to develop a link if there is one.

Kilmeade: A June 25 memo from the FBI's Denver offices reported three days ago, excuse me, five days ago, by the Arizona Republic, that is a newspaper, they have been carrying the story and they continue to expand upon it.

Doocy: Brian, the plot, they say, according to this detainee, and they don't know if the detainee is telling the truth. The plot was to set three or four wildfires. But they don't mention California. They mention Colorado, Montana, Utah, and Wyoming. We do know for a fact that a number of the fires in southern California are of a suspicious nature and they are investigating arson.

Now, putting aside the obvious fear-mongering, you really have to wonder what these bozos are thinking when they're peddling this malarkey over the airwaves. Forget the absurdity of it---instead, ask this: Okay, what if it is true? Because if it is, then, gee, "We're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here" is now a proven and abject failure, no?

---Vitelius

The Straight Talk Train Wreck

Courtesy of the AP today, the Baron only wonders how much more cynical you can get than the latest Hillary-sliming TV buy from the Straight Talker himself:

The commercial, set to air on New Hampshire television Thursday, decries a proposal, since scrapped, to spend $1 million for a museum in Bethel, N.Y., site of the August 1969 [Woodstock] rock festival. Clinton and her fellow New York senator, Chuck Schumer, had backed the plan.

The ad highlights McCain's criticism of excessive Washington spending, reminds voters of the Arizona senator's decorated war record and shows off his humor.

"A few days ago, Senator Clinton tried to spend $1 million on the Woodstock concert museum," McCain says in the ad, drawn from Sunday's debate on Fox News. "Now my friends, I wasn't there. I'm sure it was a cultural and pharmaceutical event," he says as images of the crowd and dancing concertgoers are shown.

Republican presidential rival Rudy Giuliani, his head thrown back, is shown laughing at the joke during the debate.

Then, the images shift to footage of McCain as a POW in Vietnam.

"I was tied up at the time," he says amid grainy black-and-white shots of a younger McCain strapped to a bed. A Navy pilot, McCain was shot down in 1967 and spent 5 1/2 years in a North Vietnamese prison.

All I can say is, wow.

Now, as a rule the Baron generally refrains from engaging in overt meanness on this site, but if the Straight Talker wants to play the POW card this way, as far as I'm concerned, he deserves whatever's coming. So here's the Archetypal Wingnut Riposte:

So what? If you'd been a better pilot, Johnny, you wouldn't have gotten shot down, now would you? You made poor choices and bad decisions in life, you betrayed your mission, and you trashed one of Uncle Sam's fighter jets to boot. You oughta be thankful we didn't court-martial you for dereliction, right then and there.

But back to the ritual debasement.

McCain then returns to his criticism of spending run amok, saying the museum plan is an example of what is wrong in Washington. "No one can be president of the United States that supports projects such as these," he says.

Ahh, but someone can be president by supporting a thrift-conscious program such as this, no? It's one the Straight Talker has supported wholeheartedly from Day 1.

The U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could cost taxpayers a total of $2.4 trillion by 2017 when counting the huge interest costs because combat is being financed with borrowed money, according to a study released on Wednesday.

Up until today, I had always at least managed to respect this man for his military service, for the sacrifices he was forced to endure as a prisoner of war, and for his indomitable perserverence in the face of unspeakable sufferings and privations. But today, he traded in his last shred of dignity, his one self-defining act of courage as a man, for a chance to take a cheap potshot at a political opponent who he'll never even see in a general election. In a word: Disgraceful.

---Vitelius

Madmen, Fools & (Rudy's) Henchmen

Over the Post today, the oft-maligned (and usually, for good reason) Richard Cohen weighs in with an appeal to the Giuliani campaign to tone down the sales pitch for its upcoming XBox game: Iran War, Payback '79, in stores everywhere starting January 2009. As such, it's a laudable piece, and as execrable as the Baron has often found this guy's past writings, we'll send him some love for this column. At least until the next one.

But this got me to thinking about another unitary executive from back in the day, another great patriot who used to regularly threaten hellfire and brimstone upon recalcitrant leaders from whom he was seeking concessions:

"I call it the madman theory, Bob," Richard Nixon said to Robert Haldeman . . . ''I want the North Vietnamese to believe," he went on, ''that I've reached the point that I might do anything to stop the war. We'll just slip the word to them that for God's sake, you know Nixon is obsessed about communism. We can't restrain him when he's angry, and he has his hand on the nuclear button, and Ho Chi Minh himself will be in Paris in two days begging for peace."

Now, in Nixon's case, the madman theory didn't work out as expected, but one can at least make the case for a little calculated brinkmanship every now and then. Rattle a saber at a weak and irresolute opponent, and there's no telling what kind of fruit you might be able to shake out of the tree. If President Bush, for example, had fully appreciated the theory, he could have preened and postured as he did in 2002 about axes of evil and mushrooom clouds and all the rest, but if his genuine ulterior motive had simply been to coerce Saddam into allowing UN weapons inspectors back into Iraq again---and left it at that---he would likely be hailed today as a master political chess-player on the global stage.

But of course, that was never the part of the equation for Team Bush. They weren't playing at madmen---they were simply mad.

The funny thing about Rudy is, for all of his (and his advisers') madman rantings on Iran, he seems to understand the general utility of the madman theory, as this recent interview strongly hints:

"Part of negotiating," Giuliani said, "is so somebody doesn't become too comfortable in their view and ability to protect you. Ronald Reagan was our most dominant President of the second half of the 20th century for a lot of reasons. One of the reasons he won the cold war was that he was a little unpredictable. It had an impact. You can never in negotiations be totally predicatble. The minute you're predictable, they're going to figure out how to take advantage."

Put aside the nonsense about St. Ronny slaying The Empire, and one can see how Rudy arrived at this understanding after years as a federal prosecutor. And this approach is all well and good when you're, say, trying to convince a low-level Jersey City hood to join the Witness Protection Program and flip a local capo in exchange. But Rudy isn't negotiating with the Iranians yet---for God's sake, he hasn't even won a primary election yet. And this begs the question: The whole point of the madman theory is to put the fear of God into foreign leaders you want concessions from, not to traumatize the very same people you're asking to vote for you. Nixon understood this: The madman theory only works when the levers of power are in your hands to wield. He campaigned for the presidency on a vague and mealy-mouthed "peace with honor" plank, then hauled out the heavy artilliery after he was elected. Does Rudy not get this?

Or, put it another way: If what we're seeing now is Rudy the consensus-seeker, what will Rudy the "unpredictable" executive be like?

---Vitelius

The Union of Concerned Citizens for Not Getting Ourselves Blown Up

Courtesy of the AP today, more great news! We're winning! By . . . uh, losing fewer soldiers, I guess:

October is on course to record the second consecutive decline in U.S. military and Iraqi civilian deaths and Americans commanders say they know why: the U.S. troop increase and an Iraqi groundswell against al-Qaida and Shiite militia extremists.

So, who are the US commanders who know why? Here's one:

Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch points to what the military calls "Concerned Citizens"---both Shiites and Sunnis who have joined the American fight. He says he's signed up 20,000 of them in the past four months.

"I've never been more optimistic than I am right now with the progress we've made in Iraq. The only people who are going to win this counterinsurgency project are the people of Iraq. We've said that all along. And now they're coming forward in masses," Lynch said in a recent interview at a U.S. base deep in hostile territory south of Baghdad. Outgoing artillery thundered as he spoke.

If this Lynch fella's name rings a bell, maybe it's because of quotes like this:

"If only the American people were informed properly," Lynch told reporters after he arrived home on leave, "I believe they will be supportive of the mission. But they're not getting the right story. As a result, they're anti the war."

Uh huh. As if the military has no control whatsoever over what those nattering nabobs of newspaperpeople report back to their home bureaus. Either way, the Baron wonders if the sudden decline in US troop deaths, while certainly a positive development, might equally be due to this, uhhh, latest campaign to capture Iraqi hearts and minds:

The US military has increased airstrikes in Iraq fourfold this year, reflecting a steep escalaton in combat operations aimed against Al-Qaida and other militants.

Coalition forces launched 1,140 airstrikes in the first nine months of this year compared with 229 in all of last year, according to military statistics.

Read the entire article. As Glenn Greenwald so pointedly notes today, everything about this initiative sounds not like some targeted offensive against a few thousand insurgents but more like a concerted effort to systematically terrorize and pacify a civilian population. That said, Rick Lynch might be telling the truth anyway. Heck, if you were lobbing Tomahawk missiles into my neighborhood every hour, I might come over to your side, too, just to get you to stop killing my neighbors and leave me the hell alone.

Naturally, one still wonders why we're taking this new tack in the War on Global Islamofascism, or whatever the heck it's called?

"This could have been done through the infantry,' said Ibrahim al-Khamas, a Samarra city council member."But the American Army prefers the easiest solution, which is the air bombardment."

Yeppers, it's not only easier, but it cuts down on, uh, the kind of casualty levels we suffer when platoons of Marines have to patrol unruly neighborhoods on foot. But it's working wonders for the locals, as al-Khamas observes:

"This airstrike was excessive, as usual, which led to the fall of civilians. People here are now carrying great hatred against the Americans after the raid. This airstrike turned their Eid to grief."

We'll let another satisfied local have the last word today:

Mohammed al-Samarrae, 34, said his pregnant cousin was killed in the bombing. He expressed a mix of dismay at her death and the weariness of life after more than four years of war. "Where can anybody be safe from Bush's democracy?" he asked. "Whenever we want to open a new chapter with the Americans, to forget the past and try all over again, they drag us into violence, weapons and fighting again. And to sympathize with al-Qaeda against them. All because of their inconsideration for our blood."

Where can anybody be safe from Bush's democracy, indeed. Sadly, the question only answers itself in piles of corpses and rubble.

---Vitelius

Who You Gonna Call?

If Karl Marx's famous dictum holds true that history repeats itself first as tragedy, then as farce, it would appear that we have arrived at the Terminal Yukfest Phase in our unfolding national narative. At least, that's what's suggested by the CIA's new "Terrorist Buster" logo. And no, I kid you not. Sometimes, you honestly can't make this stuff up.

Kudos to Attaturk for this "I wouldn't believe it if I hadn't seen it myself" item. Personally, I think McGruff the Crime Dog would kick this dude's ass.

---Vitelius

Just Your Typical Street-CornerMom 'n' Pop Mercenary Service

Once again from TPM, Spencer Ackerman reports on the latest developments in the Blackwater tax-exemption controversy that Henry Waxman is seeking to clarify. Turns out, well, shucks, that those Blackwater employees really are private contractors, not salaried employees, so there's been no tax evasion going on at all, nope, no sirree. Who says so? The Small Business Administration, that's who.

Which leads the Baron to ask: Does this mean that private companies holding government contracts in excess of one billion dollars can qualify for SBA loans? Just in case they need some new office furniture, or photocopiers, or . . . something.

--Vitelius

Let's Kill All the Founding Fathers!

Over at TPM today, Josh Marshall calls out a wonderfully witless quote from Mike Huckabee claiming that the majority of signers of the Declaration of Independence were clergymen.

As a matter of fact, nearly half of the signers---25 of them---were lawyers, a fact which led Gore Vidal to observe long ago, "already the blight had set in."

---Vitelius

With Friends Like These . . .

From Esquire this week, a lengthy and finely crafted account of the odyssey of fomer NSC staffers Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann, from Loyal Bushies to reluctant antiwar activists. It's well worth a read, but what's most notable about the piece is its portrayal of the president, who seems to be all but absent from virtually every crucial foreign policy discussion; who seems to have articulated no clear vision of what his government's approach to the Middle East should be, which hence finds teams at Defense and State working at cross-purposes; and who is astonishingly ill-prepared and tongue-tied when irate foreign leaders come calling to voice their concerns about his policy initiatives. For those who've delved into the workings of this administration in any detail, it's been glaringly obvious for quite some time that Bush has been one of the weakest and most ineffectual executives in the history of the Presidency. What's new to the equation, as outlined here, is the president's treatment of some of his most valued allies in the Global War on Terror®.

The story picks up in 2002, as various players in the Middle East scramble to cobble up a diplomatic breakthrough that might delay, perhaps indefinitely, the US invasion of Iraq:

Leverett plunged right into a dramatic new peace proposal floated by Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. Calling for "full normalization" in exchange for "full withdrawal" from the occupied territories, Abdullah promised to rally all the Arab nations to a final settlement with Israel. In his brand-new third-floor office at the Old Executive Office Building, a tiny room with a very high ceiling, Leverett began hammering out the details with Abdullah's foreign-policy advisor, Adel Al-Jubeir.

When Ariel Sharon said that a return to the '67 borders was unacceptable, Al-Jubeir said the Saudis didn't want to be in the "real estate business"---if the Palestinians agreed to border modifications, the Saudis could hardly refuse them. Al-Jubeir believed he had something that might actually work.

But the White House wasn't interested. Sharon already rejected it, Rice told Leverett.

At the Arab League meeting, Abdullah got every Arab state to sign his proposal in a unanimous vote.

The White House still wasn't interested.

Having risked so much political capital to gain these concessions from the Arab League, the Saudis decided to press the issue.

In the spring, Crown Prince Abdullah flew to Texas to meet Bush at his ranch. The way Leverett remembers the story, Abdullah sat down and told Bush he was going to ask a direct question and wanted a direct answer. Are you going to do anything about the Palestinian issue? If you tell me no, if it's too difficult, if you're not going to give it that kind of priority, just tell me. I will understand and I will never say anything critical of you or your leadership in public, but I'm going to need to make my own judgments and my own decisions about Saudi interests.

Bush tried to stall, saying he understood his concerns and would see what he could do.

Abdullah stood up. "That's it. This meeting is over."

No Arab leader had ever spoken to Bush like that before, Leverett says. But Saudi Arabia was a key ally in the war on terror, vital to the continued U.S. oil supply, so Bush and Rice and Powell excused themselves into another room for a quick huddle.

When he came back, Bush gave Abdullah his word that he would deal seriously with the Palestinian issue.

"Okay," Abdullah said. "The president of the United States has given me his word."

And what happened? Well, as we were reminded again tonight, the president is not exactly a man of his word. Read the whole article and see for yourself.

---Vitelius

A Crack in the Armor?

Well now. A prominent Republican---and a former Attorney General, no less---is set to testify next week that an ongoing DOJ prosecution of a controversial former Democratic officeholder in Pittsburgh is politically motivated:

Former Attorney General Dick Thornburgh will testify before a subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday about why he feels the prosecution of former Allegheny County Coroner Dr. Cyril Wecht is politically motivated.

Now, before we get too excited, we should have a peek at this Wecht fella's bio. Turns out he's got a reputation for being a somewhat combative figure in Allegheny County political circles, a guy who has managed to make enemies in both parties, and who has had some prior scrapes with the law going back to the 1980s. And as a special added bonus, Dick Thornburgh, who worked as a US Attorney back in the '60s, just might be seeking a little payback of his own from the current gang in the West Wing. Still, if you're looking for a character witness to vouch for your integrity in front of members of Congress, Thornburgh's a heavy hitter, and his testimony before the House next week should be well worth watching.

--Vitelius

Whoppers of the Day

Who else?

"In 1965, a researcher named Daniel Patrick Moynihan was troubled by an alarming statistic---approximately 25 percent of African-American children were born out of wedlock. Today, not 25 percent but 68 percent of African-American children are born out of wedlock." (Emphasis added.)

Er, not quite. The Centers for Disease Control's birth data for 2001
---the most recent year available for rates of out-of-wedlock births by race---lists an average 68 African-American births per 1,000 unmarried women aged 15-44. That, uh, takes it down to 6.8 percent.

Just a bit of a discrepancy there, doncha think? Probably just an innocent accounting error, yep.

And, for what it's worth, according to CDC, the rate of out-of-wedlock births among African-Americans has trended gradually downward since 1969. You can see all the numbers for yourself here.

Then again, I suppose this is to be expected from a candidate who would stake this position in what was billed as a major domestic policy address:

"One of the biggest threats to the fabric of our society is out-of-wedlock childbirth. Ann and I will use the bully pulpit to teach America's children that before they have babies, they should get married. It's time to make out-of-wedlock births out of fashion again." (Emphasis added.)

Earth to Mitt: They already are. The U.S. teen birth rate is at its lowest level in nearly 60 years.

---Vitelius

The Partnership for an Arts-Free America

Courtesy of the WaPo today, while Secretary Rice continues at the Lord's work in the Middle East, her employees back home are keeping America safe against . . . acrobats, or, uh, punk rockers, or uhhh . . . something:

Visas were recently denied to China's Golden Dragon Acrobats, who have toured the United States regularly for nearly 30 years, according to agent Art Fegan of Nashville. The group's latest tour was to start in September but has been held up because the acrobats "could not provide absolute proof that they would return home," Fegan said he learned from the U.S. Embassy in Beijing.

Funny. Back in the Cold War days, this would've actually been a good thing---visiting artists from Communist countries weren't merely welcomed but were encouraged to defect, not return to their Evil Godless Homelands. This still appears to be true for the usual bastions of totalitarianism such as Cuba, but since the Chinese could plunge the Federal government into default on a moment's notice, well, I guess we are seeing a certain adherence to Free Market Principles® at work here. Which is, of course, exactly as the Lord intends.

Read the entire Post piece and you'll learn, among other things, that foreign artists wishing to perform on our gentle shores should be prepared for a good ol' fashioned shakedown up front---y'know, the kind of treatment you'd expect from some impoverished Third World hellhole where you gotta slip the border guard a C-note to get in, even though your papers are in order, right?

First, presenters or agents must compile background documents and file a petition with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), which can takes weeks or months to approve unless the $1,000 "premium processing" fee is paid; the fear of delays makes this fee virtually mandatory.

---Vitelius

Further Proof That U.S. of A.Has Become a Banana Republic

Yes, the Baron knows it's only a prank, but heck, this medical breakthrough isn't much wackier than anything you might see on World Net Daily or Newsmax on any given day:

"We happened to be looking at the president's bloodwork from a recent physical," said the spokesman, Dr. Alvin Kunen of the University of Minnesota. "We found extremely high potassium levels, indicating a banana-rich diet rarely found in humans."

Prompted by the banana clue, scientists probed the president's DNA and found "no evidence" of the gene that enables humans to speak.

From the White House, the president had no comment.

(Kudos to J.R. for the link.)

---Vitelius

Diplomacy at the Department of Jesus

This is a subject that's been bugging the Baron for quite some time, but something that took place in the Holy Land™ this week really set me off. Specifically, Condi's tour of Bethlehem en route to the Mideast Peace Conference:

"Being here at the birthplace of my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, has been a very special and moving experience," said Rice, the daughter and granddaughter of Presbyterian ministers, after the tour. "It is also, I think, a personal reminder that the prince of peace is still with us."

Now, I realize that we've all become inured to hearing this kind of jibba-jabba emanating from the mouths of our political leaders, but is there anyone else out there who wonders if this is really the proper type of discourse for a Secretary of State to be engaging in---in a part of the world that's been embroiled in centuries of religious conflict, no less?

Look at it this way: While the Baron's no advanced student of international studies, I think I can safely say that one of the Secretary's most important functions is the cautious and measured practice of diplomacy. Religious advocacy, one would trust, would have no part in the proceedings---and considering the respective histories of the parties involved in Condi's diplomatic mission, one would think that any public pronouncement that ran even the remotest risk of drawing attention to something so delicate as the religious differences of said parties would of necessity be avoided at all costs.

Then again, this would assume that (a) Condi Rice is actually qualified to be Secretary of State, and (b) her bosses in Washington would hold her to a standard of diplomatic impartiality. And yes, I know she later tried to blur the lines of distinction with some boilerplate pap about the opportunity for interfaith healing that the upcoming talks will offer, but the bigger question is: Why bring up the subject at all? The Mideast Summit is going to be about issues of land, power and geopolitics, not faith and salvation.

But, er, that's a what a real diplomat would be concerned with. And Condi Rice . . . well, she plays one on TV, I guess.

Perhaps I am merely suffering from a certain degree of Jesus Campaign Fatigue. But for some reason, I have hard time imagining any genuinely experienced and qualified old-line diplomat---someone like, say, Warren Christopher, or Cyrus Vance, or even James Baker---spewing this kind of mindlessly polarizing crap on the eve of a summit between groups of Jews and Muslims who have been sworn enemies of each other for decades, and both of whom have, shall we say, no few historical axes to grind against certain members of the Christian community as well.

On the subject, it's been my belief for some time now that until the folks who run our foreign policy community can wrap their brains around the concept, however foreign it may seem, that for unwashed Abbasid revanchists such as Bin-Laden, the attacks of 9/11 represented payback for the Crusades, we'll never be able to truly "know," and hence have a chance of defeating, this enemy. But that's another post.

---Vitelius

Supporting the Troops, Except When You Don't

Courtesy of the AP, the Baron sure thanks his lucky stars he's not an Army recruiter these days:

The U.S. Army will continue to rely on an unpopular program that forces some soldiers to stay on beyond their retirement or re-enlistment dates, despite repeated pressure from Defense Secretary Robert Gates to reduce and eventually eliminate the practice.

Lt. Gen. Michael Rochelle, deputy chief of staff for personnel, said Thursday that the number of soldiers kept on duty has actually increased in recent months as a result of President Bush's orders to increase troop levels in Iraq this year to help quell the violence. The number of those being kept on beyond their commitment---through a program known as "stop loss"---is about 9,000 now, compared to about 7,000 before the troop buildup began in late January, he said.

"Until there is some reduction in the demand, we're going to have to rely, unfortunately . . . on stop loss," Rochelle told reporters. "Until the demand comes down a bit, we can't do it without it."

As recently as last month, Gates sent a memo to Army Secretary Pete Geren asking for quarterly progress reports on "reducing and ultimately eliminating the use of stop-loss as soon as feasible."

Rochelle added that when the expected withdrawal of troops from Iraq begins, the Army's reliance on the program will eventually decline.

Forgive the intemperate language, but what a crock of unmitigated horseshit. Memo to Bob Gates: You are running the show. You don't need to request quarterly reports of anything if you want to eliminate stop-loss: You simply order the Army to do it, effective immediately. It's really that simple. That is, if you really are intent on stopping this unjustifiable abuse of our soldiers, and not merely engaging in yet another round of message management and image control. You can't pawn off this policy as some Rummy legacy anymore---this is now your disgrace, and your President's.

--Vitelius

The Mukasey Meander

Over at TPM today, Paul Kiel interviews former US Attorney David Ygelisas, who admits he's impressed with Dear Leader's latest nominee for Attorney General:

"It appears to me that he gets it," he told me.

Well shucks, that's all well and good if it means we won't have to be bothered with any more silly voter fraud prosecutions, or any more firings of USAs for snooping into the shady dealings of Loyal Bushies™, but if today's exchange between Mukasey and the Senate Judiciary Committee is to be taken at face value, the man is either (a) a bald-faced liar, (b) astonishingly ignorant, or (c) intentionally evasive on the subject of, er, Cruel & Unusual Punishments:

"Is waterboarding constitutional?" he was asked by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, a Rhode Island Democrat, in one of today's sharpest exchanges.

"I don't know what is involved in the technique," Mr. Mukasey replied. "If waterboarding is torture, torture is not constitutional."

Oh please. This answer alone should be enough to disqualify the man from ever holding any prosecutorial position for any government agency in perpetuum. Perhaps he's not familiar with Article 3 of the Geneva Convention, either. Nobody else in this administration seems to be.

Mr. Whitehouse described Mr. Mukasey's response as a "massive hedge" since Mukasey refused to be drawn into a conversation over whether waterboarding, which has been used by the Central Intelligence Agency to question terrorist suspects, amounted to torture.

"It either is or it isn't," the senator continued. "Waterboarding is the practice of putting somebody in a reclining position, tying them down, putting cloth over their faces, and then pouring water over them to simulate drowning. Is that constitutional?"

Mr. Mukasey repeated his answer: "If it amounts to torture, it is not constitutional."

Mr. Whitehouse said he was "very disappointed in that answer. I think it is purely semantic."

"I'm sorry," Mr. Mukasey replied.

Semantic, my ass. The answer was purely evasive.

Seriously, this does not strike the Baron as a terribly thorny legal issue. While I'd defer to more knowledgeable folks such as Glenn Greenwald or Christy Hardin Smith on the particulars, it strikes me as a question that should be one of the simplest for anyone who has spent any time studying international and Constitutional law to answer, and while Sheldon Whitehouse could have taken a more direct route in his questioning (e.g., "Do you believe waterboarding constitutes cruel and unusual punishment as enumerated under Amendment VIII?" and/or "Do you believe the Military Commissions Act of 2006 is constitutional?"), it would merely have been rephrasing the obvious.

David Yglesias seems like a good square bloke, and I think he'd make a darn fine US Attorney, or even Deputy AG, in any honest presidential administration. But until the good judge is willing to offer up a firm and definitive answer to this most pressing and urgent of legal, ethical and moral questions, his nomination to serve as the highest ranking law-enforcement official in the land deserves to go absolutely nowhere, platitudes about DOJ nonpartisanship be damned.

---Vitelius

Nukeular Gnawledge, and How to Spread it

Mister 24, at today's unitary gaggle:

"We've got a leader in Iran who has announced that he wants to destroy Israel," [Bush] said. "So I've told people that, if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it
seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon."

Honestly. How do you "prevent" a technologically advanced nation of 60 million people from "having the knowledge" to make a nuclear weapon . . . especially when your own government has been caught already posting it on the Internets?

The Baron continues to be amazed that fully one-quarter of our sentient countrymen still find this person credible.

---Vitelius