brainiac conspiracy

Saturday Night One Nation Under a Bass Groove Blog

Get down with your situationally bad archetypal self:

The Baron is on the road for the next five days, so there's maybe not so much blog action coming next week. 'Til the next post, Happy Trancing.

---Vitelius

Notes from Another Alternate Universe

Your Tax Dollars at Work . . . or something like that:

Stockholm -- The Kiss Army fan club has an enthusiastic new recruit: Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

Rice was in the Swedish capital Thursday for an international conference on Iraq. Kiss had a sold-out concert to play Friday.

"I was thrilled," Rice said of her late-night encounter with Kiss frontman Gene Simmons and bandmates Paul Stanley, Eric Singer and Tommy Thayer in the executive lounge of the Sheraton Hotel where they signed autographs and handed out backstage passes and T-shirts to her staff.

---Vitelius

Notes from an Alternate Universe

While waiting for the Olbermann-McClellan interview on Countdown last night, I caught the last few minutes of Tweety's show and the following exchange, which had me looking at my calendar and wondering what year I was living in:

Matthews: We‘re back with the round table for more of the politics fix. It seems to me, Jeanne, even though Senator Clinton is fighting very courageously now to stay in this fight, and perhaps pull an upset this point, that Barack Obama and John McCain are basically crossing swords right now. Here, just the other day, in fact again today, John McCain is basically saying Barack Obama has no right to talk about Baghdad or what‘s going in Iraq under General Petraeus because he hasn‘t been there in the last two years. Therefore, he has no standing to talk. He better get his butt over there, is basically what he‘s saying. Is this a grownup discussion at this point.

Cummings: I‘m not sure if it‘s all played out in the most adult way. I do think that McCain scored some points today. I think he made Barack Obama go off his message. I think Barack Obama had to mention that indeed he might go visit Iraq. I think both of those things are wins for McCain, essentially because Barack Obama had to move over and start talking about what John McCain wanted to talk about today.

Matthews: I agree with you completely.

Zuckman: Also, this issue dove tails with the other issue of whether Senator Obama would meet the heads of these rogue nation states that they have been having this argument about. If all fits very nicely into the McCain campaign‘s bracket for Obama, which is that he‘s inexperienced and naive and really doesn‘t know what he‘s doing. Both of these issues together work to McCain‘s advantage.

Matthews: Jeanne, the point there is that, in addition to what you just said, Jill, is OK, he will sit down with Ahmadinejad in Bashar al Assad and all the bad guys over in that part of the world, but he won‘t sit down and meet with General Petraeus in the field or the other generals.

Cummings: Precisely. It becomes a very powerful argument. When you add in the timeline, I think the timeline is difficult for Barack Obama because it is pre-surge, post-surge. So the decision—McCain‘s accusations that he decided to quit on the war before he went to see what the surge had accomplished could have some legs out there.

Matthews: This is tactical. It‘s interesting, Wayne, when you see tactics playing a role. As Jill say, touche. It may not solve anybody‘s problem about Iraq, those who think the was a blunder and those who think it was swell and necessary, but it does show McCain‘s got the hot hand in terms of tactics. He says, look, get over there and see what‘s going on, if you're going to be such an expert.

Slater: Absolutely, there's only two choices that Obama has. One is to go over there or not go over there. He almost has to go over there under some terms to see that he‘s there. You know that old movie where John Travolta plays a trial lawyer and Robert Duvall says in the case of one potential witness, this witness must never testify before the grand jury. I have to think inside the Barack Obama campaign they're saying, Barack Obama must never appear in the same frame with John McCain in Baghdad, because he's diminished as a result. When he goes over there, he's damned if he does and damned if he doesn‘t. He goes over there, things are going fairly well, it undercuts his message. It‘s a very difficult thing, clearly a tactical win by the McCain side.

It is hard to know where to begin critiquing this surreally disconnected discussion, but one would assume on the face of it---if one didn't know any better---that running on the issue of the Iraq War is a tactical winning issue for John McCain, that Barack Obama is somehow "vulnerable" because he hasn't visited Baghdad recently since, after all, the surge has worked so magnificently and turned the streets of Baghdad and the nation of Iraq into a sea of calm and civic polity. One would never know that two-thirds of Americans---who, like Barack Obama, presumably have also not visited Iraq recently---are sick and tired of the war; that nearly the same number of Americans wants us out of of Iraq in the next two years; that the surge has done virtually nothing to change the level of opposition to the war over the past year, nor has it achieved its stated objective of political reconciliation. But I suppose we should not be surprised: in Matthews-Land, politics is, after all, mostly about preening and posturing, not actual matters of policy. It is the values-neutral netherworld of Inner Washington where GOP politicians like John McCain, who have been so utterly and demonstrably wrong on every strategic and tactical decision that's been made in Iraq are endlessly treated as credible, even admirable spokesmen for their cause; while a politician who has demonstrated actual far-sightedness in Iraq policy such as Barack Obama is forced on the defensive---not for being mistaken but for being correct---and branded a loser whether he visits the country or not.

What is truly, truly amazing is the idea that John McCain would actually want to remind anyone that he actually has visited Iraq in recent months since, after all, we know how swimmingly it went the last time he was there:

Oh, and, uh, Barack Obama has already been briefed---and thoroughly---on the surge by Gen. Petraeus without needing a field trip to Iraq. Someone remind Chris and his fellow amnesiacs next time. I guess this is what Scotty meant about living inside the Beltway Bubble.

---Vitelius

Passings

Hedley Lamarr, 1927-2008: Requiescat in Pacem.

---Vitelius

Restoring Dignity & Honor to Frat Houses Everywhere

Remember all that prattle a couple of weeks ago, about the Deciderer giving up golf to honor our troops, and not wanting to send undignified signals to all those grieving war widows and orphans out there? No?

Yeah, me neither. Must never have happened . . .

One wonders how long it will be before some future historian or a professor of forensics finds conclusive evidence of alcohol-induced lobar deterioration to conclude beyond doubt that our 43rd President was certifiably insane.

---Vitelius

None Dare Call It Dubya

Well now, nobody could possibly have anticipated this, now, could we?

McClellan: But the other defining moment was in early April 2006, when I learned that the President had secretly declassified the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq for the Vice President and Scooter Libby to anonymously disclose to reporters. And we had been out there talking about how seriously the President took the selective leaking of classified information. And here we were, learning that the President had authorized the very same thing we had criticized.

Viera: Did you talk to the President and say why are you doing this?

McClellan: Actually, I did. I talked about the conversation we had. I walked onto Air Force One, it was right after an event we had, it was down in the south, I believe it was North Carolina. And I walk onto Air Force One and a reporter had yelled a question to the President trying to ask him a question about this revelation that had come out during the legal proceedings. The revelation was that it was the President who had authorized, or, enable Scooter Libby to go out there and talk about this information. And I told the President that that's what the reporter was asking. He was saying that you, yourself, was the one that authorized the leaking of this information. And he said "Yeah, I did." And I was kinda taken aback.

Y'know, it's too bad it has taken so long for what has been obvious to many of us to finally be exposed to some cold, harsh light. But better late than never, and more grist for President Obama's Attorney General---Pat Fitzgerald?---to chew on in early 2009.

---Vitelius

Snark of the Day . . .

Gotta be the Scottster, uttering what many of us have been waiting to hear from a Serious & Reputable Political Observer™:

If anything, the national press corps was probably too deferential to the White House and to the administration in regard to the most important decision facing the nation during my years in Washington, the choice over whether to go to war in Iraq.

The collapse of the administration's rationales for war, which became apparent months after our invasion, should never have come as such a surprise. . . . In this case, the "liberal media" didn't live up to its reputation. If it had, the country would have been better served.

---Vitelius

The Company We Keep

Great news! The world's nations unite to make our planet a slightly more safe and humane place to live:

Dublin -- Delegates from 111 nations agreed Wednesday a landmark treaty to ban cluster bombs, Ireland's foreign ministry said, in a deal that lacks the backing of major producers and stockpilers of the lethal weapons.

And who might those evil merchants of death be? Oh . . . Friends in Freedom®, every one:

But crucially, the United States, Russia, China, India, Israel and Pakistan---all major producers and stockpilers of cluster bombs---were absent from the Dublin talks, and thus not part of the agreement.

---Vitelius

Beam Us (Lawyered) Up, Scotty

Needless to say, this couldn't be happening to a better bunch of people.

Now some fair amount has been written today trying to speculate why Scotty has chosen to break ranks with the Bushies while flaks like Fleischer and Snow have remained loyal. Guilt? Remorse? Revenge? Something else? I am guessing it boils down to plain ol' selfish interest.

Look at it this way: Scott McClellan is still a young man---presumably, with a family to look after, and a career ahead of him in Republican politics if he chooses to pursue one. Seems to me he decided some time ago---wisely, to his credit, and most likely sometime shortly after the Libby-Rove tète a tète he describes in his book---that there was no future advantage to be gained by hitching his wagon to a President who might very well be indicted on any number of charges, ranging from defrauding the US to outright treason to international war crimes, after he leaves the White House. At this point in the endgame, it's probably not a bad idea to jockey yourself into an early position to be a Witness for the Prosecution when the indictments start flying by the end of '09.

In the meantime, one hopes that Scotty takes plenty of time to a have a good long snoop at the undercarriage of his car, and beneath the hood, before turning the ignition key each morning.

---Vitelius

Yet Another Reason to Get This Religion Crap Out of Our Politics

Courtesy of Kagro X over at Angry Kos today, news that the junior senator from Connecticut will be the headliner at Pastor Hagee's boffo Apocalypse Now summit in Washington this summer.

But for those of us with longer memories, this is old news. Here's a gentle reminder from Glennzilla about last year's summit. Can anyone guess the identity of the speaker who said . . .?

Thank you for that kind introduction and that warm welcome. May I in turn greet you with the ancient words of welcome offered to pilgrims in Jerusalem---Bruchim Habaim B'Shem Hashem---blessed be those who come in the name of the Lord.

That greeting is especially fitting for you because you have come to Washington not just as men or women, Republicans or Democrats, conservatives or liberals. You are here as Christians United for Israel. You represent a powerful force of people of faith in America who have pledged to never forget thee, O Jerusalem. . . .

I begin by thanking your founder, Pastor John Hagee. I would describe Pastor Hagee with the words the Torah uses to describe Moses, he is an Eesh Elo Kim, a man of God because those words fit him; and, like Moses he has become the leader of a mighty multitude in pursuit of and defense of Israel.

You know his story---almost sixty years ago, a young John Hagee sat at his family's kitchen table in Channelview, Texas, heard the news about Israel's Declaration of Independence, and saw how moved his family was by it. Since then, he has been devoted to the defense of Israel, and to its vitality. He has done so because Israel's fight is his fight. Israel's values are his values. And Israel's hopes and dreams are his hopes and dreams.

Pastor Hagee, I pray that God will bless you with all that you pray for, and I do so with great confidence because I know what the Lord said to Abraham in Genesis 12:3. If ever there was a man who will be blessed because he has blessed Israel, Pastor Hagee, it is you.

You reject the temptation of moral relativism. You understand that there is a difference between good and evil, between eternal and temporal, between Israel and other nations.

In a literal sense, Christians United for Israel was founded a little more than a year ago, in February 2006. But in a larger sense, it began more than 4,000 years ago with the first words God spoke to Abraham in Genesis 12:1: "Now get thee unto the land that I will show thee, and I will make thee a great nation" . . . .

That was the covenantal promise God repeated to Isaac and Jacob and then to Moses, who, with God's help, delivered the children of Israel out of bondage to Mount Sinai where they received the Ten Commandments---their statement of national values and purpose---and then, 40 years later, brought them to the land that was promised to them, to the land of Israel.

This is the long odyssey that has brought us here tonight. By standing with Israel today, each of you has joined that journey and taken up the torch that was lit in God's promise to Abraham 4,000 years ago, and carrying it forward to spread that light.

I believe that Israel's rebirth in 1948 was divinely inspired by God, but I know that it was realized by the men and women here on earth who worked so hard to make it happen. Israel will be sustained by the work of men and women like you here on Earth. And I know you know how truly American is your support of Israel.

If we surrender to the barbarism of suicide bombers and yield the Middle East to fanatics and killers, to Al Qaeda and Iran, then all that our men and women in uniform have fought, and died for, will be lost, we will be left a much less secure and free nation, and our Middle East allies---including Israel---will be endangered.

Fortunately, you here tonight know that evil will not prevail if good people act. And I know you will not allow Iran and Al Qaeda to triumph over America and Israel. (Emphases added.)

It is indeed unfortunate the Constitution doesn't allow for the citizens of individual states to recall their federal elected officials. I can think of no better exhibit for a 28th Amendment, can you?

And it's good to know Joe is comforted by the thought that Christians United will be there for him, and for Israel. Until, of course, the Lord comes back and Israel---along with most of the rest of the world---is incinerated by our loving and merciful God. But hey, if we can just put it off until the 2012 elections, he's good for another six years in the Beltway.

---Vitelius

Streets of Baghdad: Safe. Streets of New York? Ehhhhh . .. .

You really can't make this stuff up, a you?

At the same time the Bush administration has been pushing for deep cuts in a popular crime-fighting program for states and cities, the White House has been fighting for approval of $603 million for the Iraqi police.

The White House earlier this year proposed slashing the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant program, which helps local law enforcement officials deal with violent crime and serious offenders, to $200 million in the next fiscal year, which begins October 1.

In 2002, the year before the Iraq war, the program received $900 million.

---Vitelius

Forget All That Hearts and Minds Stuff . . .

Shorter McCain: We should have started fighting the insurgency before there was an insurgency to fight.

--Vitelius

Remembering Our War Dead

The stage-managed Mourner-in-Chief:

Bush was at the White House through 3 p.m., the time he asked Americans to pause for a moment to remember the fallen. Then, he went to a Secret Service training facility in Beltsville, Md., just outside Washington, to ride his mountain bike for about 90 minutes.

---Vitelius

The Pinch-Hitter

Obama's commencement speech at Wesleyan today. Not too bad for a fill-in, but would we expect otherwise?

---Vitelius

Maybe I'll Fly Back On Another Carrier . . .

From our friends at Strange Maps, a view of the States as interpreted by Swissair. Among other things, Oakland has moved north of San Francisco a good hundred miles or so (tectonic shift?), the population of Chicago has relocated north of Green Bay, the city of Detroit has been renamed "Cleveland," and Pittsburgh has sunk to the bottom of Lake Erie.




Just in case you were booking travel plans for the summer.

---Vitelius

The Afghan Prigs, or, Why We Fight v4.1

Interesting article in the Post this morning about media censorship in the Muslim world's newest thriving democracy. Seems as though the Almighty's Gift of Freedom™ comes with---surprise, surprise---all kinds of caveats and disclaimers attached.

With elections due next year, media observers say, TV is likely to become a vicious battleground, with propaganda masquerading as news and free speech.

"These former warlords are putting out their viruses on the airwaves now. They are anti-democratic, but they want to use the media for their own purposes," said Shukria Barakzai, a journalist and lawmaker from Kabul. "We need to build an independent, professional media, but I'm afraid it will die before it has a chance to flower."

Well now, our government would never stand for such things in our own country. Unless, of course, it would.

The same contradictions are apparent in parliament, where liberals like Barakzai have far less influence than conservative Muslim politicians. This spring, the latter group introduced legislation that was almost identical to the old Taliban laws banning women's cosmetics, mixed-sex dancing at weddings, and animal fighting.

The proposal, unlikely to become law but indicative of the conservatives' growing clout, also included a broader ban on TV shows deemed un-Islamic and punishment for anyone who imports, distributes or buys "semi-naked" images in any form.

Can anyone remind me what the hell we are fighting for over there, exactly? I seem to recall hearing something about hunting down this guy once, but I guess that's just soooooo 2002, now, isn't it?

Wake me up in 2009, please---my head is about to explode, so I'm going back to bed.

---Vitelius

Memorial Day Poppies

Words of inspiration today from the Concern Troll-in-Chief:

The president said that as people "fire up the grill" and mark the unofficial beginning of summer, they need to honor the sacrifices that make freedom possible.

"No words are adequate to console those who have lost a loved one serving our nation," Bush said. "We can only offer our prayers and join in their grief. We grieve for the mother who hears the sound of her child's 21-gun salute. We grieve for the husband or wife who receives a folded flag. We grieve for a young son or daughter who only knows Dad from a photograph."

Awww. Pass me a hankie and I'll have a blow too.

Apologies for being such a damned cynic, but even today in a somber speech, the man's utter shallowness overrides whatever noble sentiments he attempts to to convey. Thousands of our bravest troops have made the ultimate sacrifice on this bozo's behalf, all of us will be paying for this fiasco for the next 20 years, and what are we being asked to sacrifice? One freakin' minute of our time? How about higher taxes and gas rationing instead? You know, like people do during real wars. Too severe? Okay, how about declaring Memorial Day a national day of fasting and prayer instead of reminding us all to fire up the grille and expect the trains to run a little late this weekend. Like that's anything new.

I quit playing golf a long time ago, so this weekend I am giving up petroleum instead. I welcome you to join me.

---Vitelius

Beginning of the End?

Well well well. If this doesn't spark a superdelegate defection en masse, I guess nothing will.

A day after a top supporter suggested Clinton was getting desperate and she compared a row over voided primaries in Michigan and Florida to the crisis in Zimbabwe, the former first lady sent new shock waves through the race.

Clinton told a newspaper board in South Dakota she could not understand calls for her to quit, arguing that history showed that some past nominating contests had gone on into June.

"My husband (Bill Clinton) did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary, somewhere in the middle of June, right?" Clinton said in an interview with the Argus Leader newspaper editorial board.

"We all remember, Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California, I don't understand it," Clinton said.

From Robert Mugabe to Sirhan Sirhan in only 24 hours. This is some kinda classy endgame we're playing out here, ain't it?

Update: I can't vouch for the sourcing here, but if this can be taken at face value, the super-surge may not be long in coming.

---Vitelius

Of Governors and Gropes

Over the Hullabaloo today, Digby waxes nostalgia-free:

I still can't stop laughing whenever our California Governor speaks (as he is this morning on CNN.). I know it's not fair. He can't help it that his entire career prior to becoming Governor was spent delivering stupid lines in a thick Austrian accent. I can't help associating him with them either.

I've never really gotten over the fact that this state actually voted for this man. Twice. It's not that he's any worse than most Republicans, but then that's a pretty low bar. It's just that they knowingly voted for a man's carefully crafted macho movie image as if that image was real---and didn't think there was anything wrong with that. He hadn't established his bona fides in any way other than creating a physical fitness program and marrying a woman from a political family and yet because he was a popular movie star he was catapulted into one of the most powerful political positions in the country. It was decadent and dumb. But then after George W. Bush was elected because people preferred to party with him, it wasn't entirely unpredictable.

Yep, I gotta admit that I still can't help chuckling every time I hear him speak either, even though it's not very polite as Digby notes. Maybe it's the very absurdity of our times that we're really giggling at, since Arnie provides us, at the very least, a more or less benign figure of ridicule in these most vicious and atavistic of eras. Then again, quite frankly, as a lifelong resident of the Golden State I've never been able to fully wrap my brain around the concept that anyone in his right mind ever voted for Reagan even once, let alone twice, or for George Deukmejian, or for Pete Wilson, or for any of the other sundry GOP dingbats our voters helped to install in statewide offices over the past 50 years (George Murphy? Max Rafferty? Sam Hayakawa? Mike Curb? Mike Freaking Curb?!?) .

The silliest thing about Schwarzenegger's rise to power, when you really think about it, is how little it honestly changed anything in state government. Through the summer and fall of 2003, we endured a great deal of hype and hoopla to replace a uninspiring centrist Democratic governor who was facing a looming budget shortfall with an uninspiring centrist Republican who . . . has been facing a series of budget shortfalls for the past five years. And if the backers of the Gray Davis recall intended for some kind of GOP "ripple effect" to flow through the electorate in the years following Arnie's installment, it certainly didn't materialize---both houses of the legislature, both Senate seats, nearly every statewide elective office and the state Congressional delegation are still firmly in the hands of the Democrats, as they were in 2003.

What's even sillier now is the fact that the hated Gray Davis wouldn't even be governor anymore, having been term-limited out after 2006. In retrospect, it's fair to ask: was ever such a massive voter recall effort launched to so little ultimate end?

One more thing: Given what we have learned, over the past couple of years, about various White House political operations to persecute Democratic officeholders around the country, has it ever been asked if anyone in the Oval Office might have had something to do with the movement to recall Gray Davis? Think about it---before the state economy went south after the dot-com bust and the Enron debacle, Davis was held in fairly high regard by the great bulk of the electorate: A bland and unthreatening centrist who had proven, at very least, his competency at government over 30 years spent in politics. He was a veritable Clintonian fundraising machine, well connected with every powerful Democratic constituency nationwide, and equally backed by schoolteachers, cops and prison guards. Facing term limits in 2006, he'd literally have had nothing to lose by making a run at the White House in '04---and as the governor of the nation's largest state, he would have embarked upon any national campaign, if he'd chosen to do so, from a formidable power base, with 50-plus electors already stuffed in his back pocket.

I don't know about you, but if I'm working in the White House political affairs office in early 2003, that kind of fella strikes me as a serious, serious threat to us in the 2004 elections. Should we just sit back and let things happen, or be a little pro-active instead?

Now having lived through the spectacle, I know the general origins of the recall effort, and the party-line narrative that the Bush people weren't supportive of the recall effort for fear that it could fail and cause an anti-GOP backlash. And surely, the Bushies could not have been too happy with Arnie's decision to throw his hat into the race---too much of a loose cannon and too likely to stray off message . . . but after all we've learned about this gang since 2003, from folks on the inside like David Iglesias and John McKay and Paul Charlton, from phone-jamming in New Hampshire and from the Don Siegelmann case in particular, I can't help but wonder if the prospect of a Gray Davis candidacy in 2004 might have been at least the subject of some, er, West Wing "discussions" in the spring of 2003. Just asking.

---Vitelius

Easy Answers to Complicated Questions

At Supreme Court, 5-4 Rulings Fade, But Why?

O'Connor out, Alito in. Next question?

---Vitelius