It seems like only yesterday that the country was enthralled with the president in his sexy flightsuit. Women were swooning, manly GOP men were commenting enviously on his package. But there were none so awestruck by the sheer, testosterone glory of Bush’s codpiece as Tweety:
MATTHEWS: Let’s go to this sub–what happened to this week, which was to me was astounding as a student of politics, like all of us. Lights, camera, action. This week the president landed the best photo op in a very long time. Other great visuals: Ronald Reagan at the D-Day cemetery in Normandy, Bill Clinton on horseback in Wyoming. Nothing compared to this, I’ve got to say.
Katty, for visual, the president of the United States arriving in an F-18, looking like he flew it in himself. The GIs, the women on–onboard that ship loved this guy.
Ms. KAY: He looked great. Look, I’m not a Bush man. I mean, he doesn’t do it for me personally, especially not when he’s in a suit, but he arrived there…
MATTHEWS: No one would call you a Bush man, by the way.
Ms. KAY: …he arrived there in his flight suit, in a jumpsuit. He should wear that all the time. Why doesn’t he do all his campaign speeches in that jumpsuit? He just looks so great.
MATTHEWS: I want him to wa–I want to see him debate somebody like John Kerry or Lieberman or somebody wearing that jumpsuit.
Mr. DOBBS: Well, it was just–I can’t think of any, any stunt by the White House–and I’ll call it a stunt–that has come close. I mean, this is not only a home run; the ball is still flying out beyond the park.
MATTHEWS: Well, you know what, it was like throwing that strike in Yankee Stadium a while back after 9/11. It’s not a stunt if it works and it’s real. And I felt the faces of those guys–I thought most of our guys were looking up like they were looking at Bob Hope and John Wayne combined on that ship.
Mr. GIGOT: The reason it works is because of–the reason it works is because Bush looks authentic and he felt that he–you could feel the connection with the troops. He looked like he was sincere. People trust him. That’s what he has going for him.
MATTHEWS: Fareed, you’re watching that from–say you were over in the Middle East watching the president of the United States on this humongous aircraft carrier. It looks like it could take down Syria just one boat, right, and the president of the United States is pointing a finger and saying, `You people with the weapons of mass destruction, you people backing terrorism, look out. We’re coming.’ Do you think that picture mattered over there?
Mr. ZAKARIA: Oh yeah. Look, this is a part of the war where we have not–we’ve allowed a lot of states to do some very nasty stuff, traffic with nasty people and nasty material, and I think it’s time to tell them, you know what, `You’re going to be help accountable for this.’
MATTHEWS: Well, it was a powerful statement and picture as well.
A Cod-piece can fool them all Make them think you’re large Even if you’re small Just be sure you don’t fool yourself For it’s still just imagination And to be sure it works like a lure And will raise a wench’s expectations But have a care you have something there Or the night will end in frustration
Klein: And, by the way, we’re very much well liked among the young, educated Iranians. But this is not Iraq we’re dealing with here. This is an ancient country, a very strong country, and a very proud country. And so, yeah, by all means, we should talk to them, but, on the other hand, we should not take any option, including the use of nuclea-….tactical nuclear weapons off the table.
Stephanopoulos: Keep that on the table?
Klein: It’s absolutely stupid not to.
Stephanopoulos: That’s insane.
Klein: Well I don’t think we should ever use tac-…I think that…
Stephanopoulos: Well, then why should they be on the table?
Klein: Why?
Stephanopoulos: Why do we want that specter of crossing that line?
Klein: Because we don’t know what the options on the other side…what their options are on the table.
Stephanopoulos: Well we know that they’ve got 40,000 possible suicide bombers but I also think that line is one that we have to be very, very careful to cross.
Klein: Listen. I don’t think. I think the use of force here would be counterproductive. But I think that when you’re dealing in a negotiation you can’t take stuff off the table before it starts.
A few weeks ago, I made a mistake while bloviating on the Sunday morning television program This Week With George Stephanopoulos. I said that all military options, including the use of tactical nuclear weapons, should remain on the table in our future dealings with Iran. I was wrong on three counts.
First, my words were a technical violation of a long-standing protocol: A diplomat friend tells me that while it is appropriate to say, “All options should remain on the table,” the direct mention of nukes — especially any hint of the first use of nukes — is, as Stephanopoulos correctly said, “crossing a line.” If George had asked, “What about nukes?” the diplomatic protocol would have been to tapdance: “I can’t imagine ever having to use nuclear weapons,” or some such, leaving the nuclear door open, but never saying so specifically.
In truth, I was trying to make the same point, undiplomatically — which comes easy for me: If the Iranians persist in crazy talk about wiping Israel, or New York, off the face of the earth, it isn’t a bad idea if we hint that we can get crazy, too.
One can easily imagine the unthinkable: a suitcase nuclear weapon, acquired from the former Soviet Union by Iranian agents, detonated in New York, London or Tel Aviv. A nuclear response certainly would have to be on the table then — and the military would be negligent if it weren’t studying all possible nuclear scenarios.
No, he was not making the same point as his diplomat friend, undiplomatically or otherwise. The friend said that one should say “I can’t imagine ever having to use nuclear weapons.” That is the oppsite of hinting that we are going to “act crazy.”
Now, not explicitly ruling out nuclear retaliation against a nuclear attack is not “crazy.” It’s called “deterrence.” It’s worked for decades.
But Klein is still talking about a tactical nuclear first strike:
But I can’t imagine a first use of nukes, and certainly not the unilateral use of nuclear weapons — or military force of any kind — against Iran by the Bush administration now. This was the second level on which I was mistaken: I failed to give the proper context for my remarks. I should have said, “Look, I believe the President has squandered our credibility in the world, and it would be disastrous for us to act unilaterally, given our unwarranted — and tragically incompetent — invasion of Iraq.” (I did get around to saying something like that a few sentences later.)
One can only assume by this statement that he believes that a more credible president could launch a first strike with tactical nuclear weapons. But then, doing that would actually be crazy, so that makes no sense either. That would make the invasion of Iraq look like child’s play.
(He does go on to write, “As a general principle, I’m opposed to the unilateral first use of U.S. force in all but the most extraordinary circumstances.” That’s reassuring.)
Here comes the “sorta”:
Let me give credit where it’s due: I probably would not be writing this were it not for all the left-wing screeching. The Stephanopoulos moment came and went ephemerally, as TV moments do, leaving a slight, queasy residue — I knew that I hadn’t explained myself adequately, but that happens a lot on television. So thanks, frothing bloggers, for calling me on my mistake. You can, at times, be a valuable corrective.
How touching. And a nice place to end this. But no:
At other times, though, your vitriol just seems uninformed, malicious and disproportionate. You seem to believe that since I’m not a lock-step liberal — and we can talk about what a liberal actually is some other time — I’m some sort of creepy, covert conservative. Of course, most conservatives consider me a liberal. I call myself a moderate — a radical or flaming moderate, take your pick — because in this witlessly overheated political environment, you’ve got to call yourself something. But the conservatives do have a point: I disagree with Ronald Reagan’s famous formulation, “Government is part of the problem, not part of the solution.” I believe that government action can, when judiciously applied, make life better for people — and that we, as a society, have a responsibility to provide equal opportunity for all. I’ve had some problems with the methods liberals use to accomplish those goals, especially when they do not recognize the corrosive effects of entrenched bureaucracies and special interests, like the public employees unions, on the lives of the poor. I’ve also had problems with the reflexive tendency of Democrats to oppose the use of U.S. military power, even when that power has been sanctioned by the UN or NATO; I have absolutely no patience for those who believe the United States is a malignant or immoral force in the world.
Ok. Let’s take this one step at a time.
Creepy, covert conservative? Why ever would we think that:
Hugh Hewitt: Joe, as I was reading the credits, because I love credits, and it seems that you don’t know any Republicans, but I love the credits anyway. You single out as your pals…
Joe Klein: (laughing) You think I don’t know very many Republicans?
HH: (laughing) Well, we got Elaine Kamarck, William Galston, Mandy Grunwald, Adam Walinksy, Richard Holbrooke, Leslie Gelb. They get the first paragraph. I said wow, you run in that East side circle that you talk about in here.
JK: Well, you know, I also run in the kind of faith based circle. In fact, one of Bush’s nicknames for me is Mr. Faith Based.
HH: Well, that’s good.
JK: And at the very end of the book, I acknowledge Bill Bennett as giving the best advice on how to judge a presidential candidate.
HH: At a Christian Coalition meeting. Yeah, it’s a great anecdote.
JK: And Bill’s a good friend of mine. But I’ve kind of got to give these guys cover.
You don’t want to be praised by what you call a traditional liberal, do you?
Traditional liberal? He writes in TIME:
I call myself a moderate — a radical or flaming moderate, take your pick — because in this witlessly overheated political environment, you’ve got to call yourself something.
“Radical” or “flaming” moderate is is a cute little appellation that means nothing. Moderate, by definition cannot be radical — or flaming. It is a perfectly respectable political position, but Klein doesn’t seem to be one. Moderates don’t support privatising social security, as Klein does. Nor do they hate public employee unions. Social conservatives, which Klein calls himself, are certainly not moderates.
When people say they don’t understand what Democrats stand for, it’s Joe Klein they are thinking of. Sadly, he and others like him speak for us in the media. That’s what’s killing us.
And I don’t actually see what Klein finds objectionable about Reagan’s famous dictum of the government being the problem. It’s boilerplate GOP bullshit and the same boilerplate GOP bullshit he spews all the time. For instance:
The Great Society was an utter failure because it helped to contribute to social irresponsibility at the very bottom.
Klein has “problems” with the methods liberals use to accomplish their goals, especially when “they do not recognize the corrosive effects of entrenched bureaucracies and special interests, like the public employees unions, on the lives of the poor.” Yet, the Great Society which lifted vast numbers of Americans out of poverty was a failure. (But hey, it makes for great cocktail party chatter by a “liberal” doesn’t it?)
I don’t know what this pernicious effect the public employee unions are having on the poor is, but I’ve read his critique of bureaucracies and it’s completely incomprehensible. He wrote:
In the Information Age, Clinton knew that the paradigm was the computer, that the government had to be more decentralized, that bureaucracies had to become more flexible, and that our social safety net had to reflect that–the fact that people had more information and have to have more choices about where they get their health care, where their money for their retirement is held, and so on.
Klein has never explained why the social safety net has to reflect the fact that people have “more information and more choices” about where their money is held for retirement or where they get their health care. You can use medicare anywhere, and most people are very happy to have part of their retirment income secured by the full faith and credit of the US treasury. It gives them some ability to take some chances with the rest of their money. Klein simply makes assertions that he seems to have formulated sometime around 1994 and never revisited after the tech bubble burst.
I have absolutely no patience for those who believe the United States is a malignant or immoral force in the world
I have to say that when the US starts “acting crazy” and torturing people and threatening to launch a nuclear first strike it is very hard to argue that it’s not becoming a malignant force.
Civilized people don’t talk about torture and nuclear war like they’re just another form of muscle flexing. That’s Dr Strangelove shit and the fact that gasbags like Klein throw this stuff around like it’s yesterday’s news is a big fat clue that this country has taken a wrong turn somewhere.
Are we a malignant force? Sometimes. Nobody’s perfect, not even the great USA. It’s not unpatriotic to admit that. Indeed, it’s necessary if we aren’t to be taken in by hucksters and despots like the Bush administration and their enablers in the press.
Klein winds up with a typical mushy centrist’s arrogant assertion that his politics are the only way anything ever gets done, which is total nonsense.
George W. Bush has proven that governing from the right can’t work; but governing from the left won’t work either. The only way that real change — a universal health-care system (along the lines enacted by Mitt Romney in Massachusetts), a real alternative energy plan, progressivity in taxation and entitlement reform, a cooperative non-toxic foreign policy—will come is through coalitions built from the center out.
You know, I’m pretty much a social conservative on a lot of stuff. I’m certainly opposed to late term abortion, and I think the deal to be made is morning after pill is legal, anything after that probably shouldn’t be…in the past year, I’ve stood for the following things. I’ve taken the following positions. I agreed with the President on social security reform. I supported his two Supreme Court nominees, and I support, even though I opposed this war, I support staying the course in Iraq, and doing whatever we have to do in order to stabilize the region.
Klein and his ilk have been hanging around the far right so long that it looks like the center to them now.
“one of the problems that I have with being called a liberal by someone like you is that there are all these people on the left in the Democratic Party who are claiming to be liberals, and I don’t want to be associated with them.”
That goes both ways. Guys like Klein give liberalism a bad name in my mind — meaningless, mushy, split-the-baby dreck with no intellectual consistency except an arrogant belief that those who muddy their hands in the daily dog-eat-dog of a partisan era we didn’t create are uncouth for fighting to survive. Klein’s ineffectual political style hasn’t been relevant for quite some time; it’s just that nobody’s called him on it until now.
Legal scholars say the scope and aggression of Bush’s assertions that he can bypass laws represent a concerted effort to expand his power at the expense of Congress, upsetting the balance between the branches of government. The Constitution is clear in assigning to Congress the power to write the laws and to the president a duty ”to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” Bush, however, has repeatedly declared that he does not need to ”execute” a law he believes is unconstitutional.
[…]
Far more than any predecessor, Bush has been aggressive about declaring his right to ignore vast swaths of laws — many of which he says infringe on power he believes the Constitution assigns to him alone as the head of the executive branch or the commander in chief of the military.
Many legal scholars say they believe that Bush’s theory about his own powers goes too far and that he is seizing for himself some of the law-making role of Congress and the Constitution-interpreting role of the courts.
Phillip Cooper, a Portland State University law professor who has studied the executive power claims Bush made during his first term, said Bush and his legal team have spent the past five years quietly working to concentrate ever more governmental power into the White House.
”There is no question that this administration has been involved in a very carefully thought-out, systematic process of expanding presidential power at the expense of the other branches of government,” Cooper said. ”This is really big, very expansive, and very significant.”
For the first five years of Bush’s presidency, his legal claims attracted little attention in Congress or the media. Then, twice in recent months, Bush drew scrutiny after challenging new laws: a torture ban and a requirement that he give detailed reports to Congress about how he is using the Patriot Act.
[…]
…Bush is according himself the ultimate interpretation of the Constitution. And he is quietly exercising that authority to a degree that is unprecedented in US history.
Bush is the first president in modern history who has never vetoed a bill, giving Congress no chance to override his judgments. Instead, he has signed every bill that reached his desk, often inviting the legislation’s sponsors to signing ceremonies at which he lavishes praise upon their work.
Then, after the media and the lawmakers have left the White House, Bush quietly files ”signing statements” — official documents in which a president lays out his legal interpretation of a bill for the federal bureaucracy to follow when implementing the new law. The statements are recorded in the federal register.
In his signing statements, Bush has repeatedly asserted that the Constitution gives him the right to ignore numerous sections of the bills — sometimes including provisions that were the subject of negotiations with Congress in order to get lawmakers to pass the bill. He has appended such statements to more than one of every 10 bills he has signed.
”He agrees to a compromise with members of Congress, and all of them are there for a public bill-signing ceremony, but then he takes back those compromises — and more often than not, without the Congress or the press or the public knowing what has happened,” said Christopher Kelley, a Miami University of Ohio political science professor who studies executive power.
At what point does this country begin to recognise that we are in the midst of a constitutional crisis?
Somebody asked Howard Dean the other day whether he thought Bush should be impeached and I wished that he had answered by pointing out that the Republicans lowered the bar so low that it’s difficult to see how he could NOT be impeached. Let’s take a trip down memory lane, shall we, and revisit what House Manager and head of the judiciary committee, Henry Hyde, had to say about the “rule of law” just eight years ago:
The rule of law is no pious aspiration from a civics textbook. The rule of law is what stands between us and the arbitrary exercise of power by the state. The rule of law is the safeguard of our liberties. The rule of law is what allows us to live our freedom in ways that honor the freedom of others while strengthening the common good.
[…]
Senators, the trial is being watched around the world. Some of those watching, thinking themselves superior in their cynicism, wonder what it’s all about.
But others know, political prisoners know, that this is about the rule of law, the great alternative to arbitrary and unchecked state powers. The families of executed dissidents know that this is about the rule of law, the great alternative to the lethal abuse of power by the state. Those yearning for freedom know this about the rule of law — the hard, one structure by which men and women can live by their God-given dignity and secure their God-give rights in ways that serve the common good.
Unless, of course, the president is a Republican who is creating a new constitutional theory of presidential infallibility. Henry doesn’t seem to have a problem with that. But then, he pretty much said it then:
Senators, as men and women with a serious experience of public affairs, we can all imagine a situation in which a president might shade the truth when a great issue of national interest or national security is at stake. We’ve been all over that terrain.
We know the thin ice on which any of us skates when blurring the edges of the truth for what we consider a compelling, demanding public purpose.
Morally serious men and women can imagine the circumstances at the far edge of the morally permissible when, with the gravest matters of national interest at stake, a president could shade the truth in order to serve the common good.
But under oath for a private pleasure?
That is what the leadership of the GOP believes. We are watching it in action. A president can be impeached for lying about a private sexual matter but “morally serious men and women” understand that a president could “shade the truth” in order to serve the common good.
Are we all clear on how this works now? Lying about fellatio leads to lethal abuse of power by the state. Flatly refusing to obey the laws he signed and lying about national security serves the common good. This is your modern Republican party in a nutshell: A dictatorship of puritanical busybodies.
As I watched the White House Correspondents dinner this morning, I couldn’t help thinking about all those shrieking harpies and stone faced journalists who spent months pursuing an impeachable crime in president Clinton’s pants. It was one of the most hallucinatory events in modern history — shocking, freakish and bizarre. They believed along with Henry Hyde that this was the most serious of offenses — so serious that it merited removal from office.
Here’s an example of how the White House press corps functioned during the 90’s when confronted with purported lawlessness on the part of the president:
According to Starr himself, when the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke on Jan. 21, 1998, Starr’s top deputy, Jackie Bennett, spent the day talking “extensively” with a handful of reporters, including ABC’s Judd, the one TV reporter on the shortlist at Starr’s office…On Jan. 25, 1998, Judd appeared on ABC’s “This Week” and reported, “Several sources have told us that in the spring of 1996, the president and Lewinsky were caught in an intimate encounter in a private area of the White House.” The revelation set off a month’s worth of cable TV chatter, but the report that Clinton and Lewinsky were found out proved to be fictitious.
Or how about Michael Isikoff who wrote:
“I was convinced Clinton was a far more psychologically disturbed individual than the public ever imagined.”
MATTHEWS: And also I’m told today that one of the reasons Republicans are voting for impeachment is that they know more than we do. There’s more in this report that’s over at the Ford Building on Capitol Hill that contains dirty stuff about this president that for whatever reason wasn’t formally released but is apparently infecting the thinking of a lot of Republicans and a lot of the borderline guys are gonna vote for impeachment tomorrow because of what they’ve read
MATTHEWS: Bob, can you promise that if the Democrats win the majority of House seats this fall, they get to the 218 magic number, that they will not use the subpoena power to go after the president?
Something is very wrong with our political system. And part of what is wrong is the political press corpse who are so insular and socially embedded with the players that they can’t see how this looks to us rubes outside the beltway.
I’m grateful that at least some reporters are coming around on this story. It’s long overdue (although I suspect that the administration’s antipathy for unapproved leaks might have something to do with it) But you really have to wonder why they were so rabidly and openly anti-Clinton, to the point of trying to affirmatively help the Republicans drive him from office, while this time trying to extract promises that the Democrats won’t hold Bush accountable for anything he has done.
Today we are in a real constitutional crisis and it seems the press are only belatedly beginning to focus. And, once again, the American people are way ahead of these elitist snobs who always seem to misjudge what they really care about.
At last year’s White House Correspondent’s dinner, you’ll remember that when the president joshed and giggled about not finding the weapons of mass destruction, the press laughed and laughed. They just love it when the president makes fun of himself. It reminds them of why they love him — and why they are better than he is.
I sorry to report that this year, in an alarming lack of decorum, Stephen Colbert went way over the line — he lampooned the press corps itself in such a way as to make it seem as if they might be partly responsible for why 70% of the nation feels the country is on the wrong track. Making fun of politicians is one thing. They are a slightly lower life form. But the press itself? Implying they are complicit in all this unpleasantness with war and what not? Well, that simply isn’t done.
I’m sure Joe Klein was appalled. Colbert, with his horrible little parody was no better than a left wing blogger from the fever swamp who doesn’t respect his betters. He even had the temerity to ask the question that dare not be asked in polite circles:
Why did we invade Iraq?
That will not do. Why if anyone asks that question the public might notice that the White House press corps behaved like bunch of lovelorn eunuchs until about 20 minutes ago — at which point their hilarious, down-home moron of a president began to threaten to throw them in jail.
All hail Stephen Colbert — the man who coined the word for what the Washington press have been feeding us for the last decade. The truthiness hurts, doesn’t it kids?
Crooks and Liars has the video. I think it may be one of the most revealing moments I’ve ever seen in American politics.
Peter Daou has some thoughts and recommends Eric Boehlert’s book “Lapdogs” which I’m sure is as popular as Stephen Colbert’s video with Helen Thomas — the only person with guts in a whole room filled with pearl clutching little old ladies.
Update: Atrios checks into the “Why did we invade Iraq?” question and finds that Bill Kristol’s answer to Colbert last week was truthiness. I’m stunned.
Please tell us again why the Spanish translation of the National Anthem is making wingnut heads explode when they all but genuflect at the waving of the Confederate Rebel flag?
Tell me please, which of these was meant to turn hearts to America, and which is meant to tear the country apart?
I don’t know the answer to that. Apparently honoring the confederate flag is ok because it’s a tribute to the heritage and culture of some Americans’ forebears.
But that’s the only culture and heritage to which Americans are allowed to pay such tribute. The one that seceded from the United States and created its own country.
Those whose forebears didn’t secede from the US to form their own country but rather came to America to become Americans should not be allowed to honor their culture in any way shape or form. That would be un-American.
If anyone has fantasies of what it would be like to see George W. Bush on the witness stand in his own trial, check out his good friend Kenny Boy’s performance:
Enron Corp. founder Kenneth L. Lay — Kenny Boy to his friend President Bush — is renowned for his courtliness, his philanthropy, his rise from a dirt-poor boyhood in the Missouri Ozarks to a nine-digit fortune.
Codefendant Jeffrey K. Skilling, who invented Enron’s most profitable business and ran the company during most of its heyday, also is known for getting in a bar fight while under indictment and for publicly calling an investment analyst by another name for a sphincter.
At the start of their federal fraud and conspiracy trial three months ago, the betting was that the volatile Skilling’s performance on the witness stand might drag Lay down, not the other way around.
Former Chief Executive Skilling, 52, shares some of the obsessiveness of Queeg, the Navy skipper of “The Caine Mutiny.” But unlike Queeg, Skilling didn’t unravel on the stand. Where mastery of Enron’s finances was at issue, he overpowered co-lead prosecutor Sean M. Berkowitz. When the nimble Berkowitz pushed certain buttons, Skilling showed flashes of anger and arrogance, but he generally kept his head.
For Lay, however, it’s been a rockier ride. Although nobody knows what the 12 Texans in the jury box are thinking, during his first four days on the stand, Lay, 64, has shown some attributes that clash with his reputation as affable, openhanded and shrewd.
His worst moment came Wednesday, when prosecutor John C. Hueston jolted Lay with questions about his attempts to reach actual or potential witnesses in the case — efforts that persisted even after Lay’s lawyers told him to stop.
“You’ve got to question the judgment of the person,” said Mark C. Zauderer of New York law firm Flemming Zulack Williamson Zauderer. “No lawyer would have his client in the dock calling potential witnesses. It could be very suspect in the minds of the jury.”
Lay probably didn’t help matters by responding to Hueston’s blitz with sarcasm. The jury of eight women and four men has hardly been immune to humor during the trial — even Skilling’s mordant wit sometimes connected — but nobody cracked a smile at Lay’s comebacks Wednesday.
Noting Lay’s $120,000 investment in a company whose main customer was Enron, Hueston asked whether he had made conflict-of-interest filings required by Enron’s code of conduct.
“I don’t know,” Lay shot back. “Have you checked it? I imagine you have. You guys are pretty thorough.”
After describing himself in early testimony as “more of a delegator” than a micromanager, Lay quickly proved himself adept at delegating blame. If something worked out, it was his idea. If it blew up, it was somebody else’s.
Asked to name his biggest mistakes at Enron, Lay unhesitatingly listed “hiring Andy Fastow” and promoting him to chief financial officer.
Andrew S. Fastow turned out to be a crook who secretly stole millions from Enron and allegedly helped cook the books. Lay didn’t mention it, but he had to know the jury would recall that hiring and promoting Fastow was entirely Skilling’s doing.
It wasn’t the only time Lay subtly undercut his codefendant. He cited Skilling’s surprise resignation in August 2001 as a source of uncertainty in the financial markets that set the stage for the investor and creditor panic that Lay said ultimately brought Enron down.
Moreover, by praising Skilling as an executive who “really gets into the details, the guts of how things work,” Lay may have signaled that Skilling, far more than Lay, would have grasped the intricacies of Enron’s accounting and financial reporting — the things at the heart of the criminal case.
Lay blamed two aides for what turned out to be one of the biggest PR gaffes of the century: rebuffing the Wall Street Journal in the fall of 2001 when the paper had questions about Fastow and his mysterious LJM partnerships — complex financial structures that the government says let Enron hide problem assets and falsely pump up profit.
With Enron offering only a brief statement written by its lawyers, the company lost any control over the debate and was powerless when the resulting stories eviscerated its stock. A livid Skilling even called from retirement to ask why Enron wasn’t defending itself.
In Lay’s view, his own instincts had been right all along. Stonewalling the Journal, he testified, went “against every bone in my body.”
One of the witnesses whom Lay admitted trying to reach was a former Enron risk manager named Wincenty “Vince” Kaminski. Jurors would remember him as a professor type with a Polish accent and a healthy ego who testified that he tried vainly to warn higher-ups that Fastow’s LJM partnerships were a stupid idea and that Enron shouldn’t be involved with them.
In testimony Tuesday, Lay seemed to impugn his former colleague’s courage. He acknowledged that Kaminski had been an early skeptic of the LJM deals, but added that it was only after the Journal stories hit and the partnerships blew up in scandal that “his level of dislike intensified.”
Can’t you just see Bush stabbing Cheney and Rove in the back and blaming them for all his troubles? Being snotty to the prosecutor? The whole thing sounds like a typical Bush press conference to me.
Just as a reminder, Kenny Boy Lay was Bush’s biggest contributor in 2000. His presidential campaign received $1.14 million from Enron. And Enron got its money’s worth until the whole thing imploded:
Shortly after taking office, President Bush waged a battle against the imposition of federal price controls in California that allowed Enron to price-gouge consumers by extending the energy crisis in California, costing the state billions of dollars. Enron reported increased revenues of almost $70 billion from the previous year.
Two peas in a pod, Lay and Bush. Arrogant losers who drove their organizations into the ground.
Prosecutors won’t immediately seek hate-crime charges against two white teens accused of brutally beating and sodomizing a 16-year-old Hispanic boy, who was clinging to life after being left for dead, authorities said.
The two attacked the boy after he tried to kiss a 12-year-old girl at an unsupervised house party Saturday night in suburban Spring, authorities said.
The attackers apparently were offended at the age difference between the victim and the girl, who is also Hispanic, and shouted racial slurs at him during the 10- to 15-minute attack, investigators said.
Authorities said the two dragged the boy from the party and into the yard, where they sodomized him with a plastic pipe from a patio table umbrella and poured bleach on him.
“After they got him down on the ground, they stomped his head with (steel-toed) boots,” Harris County Sheriff’s Lt. John Denholm said. “They actually kicked the pipe further into him with the boots.”
County prosecutor Mike Trent described the pipe as being sharpened at one end. At one point, the teens tried to carve something on the boy’s chest with a knife, he told CNN Friday.
“I don’t know that the very beginning of the attack was racial,” Trent said, “but there’s no question that they were venting quite a bit of hatred in their hearts.”
Oh really. He must have gotten the story from the young sadists themselves and bought their assertion that they were trying to protect this girl rather than the obvious fact that they are violent racists. And that is likely why they aren’t charging these predators with a hate crime. They actually feel some sympathy for these guys. “They have quite a bit of hatred in their hearts” they say. Do they have hearts?
Of course “the beginning of the attack” was racial. Did they just become racists half way through their brutal rape and beating? They are racist psychopaths who poured bleach on the victim and called him racial epithets, for crying out loud. I somehow doubt that they would have done the same thing to a white kid.
And once again, I have to ask about the forced sodomy. Is it that men were always raping other men with objects and nobody talked about it, or is this becoming more common? This particular form of violence is showing up everywhere from Abu Ghraib to the less physically brutal but equally terrifying “hazing” of grade school kids. And the common denominator in all of this is that it’s being excused by the rightwing moralists. What in the hell is up with this?
And don’t be surprised if we start seeing more of this racial violence toward Latinos. The wingnuts are getting their hate on and reviving some of their favorite propaganda techniques:
AN SIMON, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The creators of a video game called “Border Patrol” won’t win any awards for graphics or creativity, but could take home a prize for bad taste.
(on camera): This isn’t some expensive game for the Xbox. It’s simple, free and on the Internet and, according to the Anti-Defamation League, dangerous.
JONATHAN BERNSTEIN, ANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE: It puts in the mind of the player that they should be resorting to violence.
SIMON (voice-over): The objective? To shoot and kill Mexicans crossing into the U.S. The game’s targets? Mexican nationalists, drug smugglers and most outrageous, breeders, pregnant women running with children. The more you kill, the higher your score.
CRIS FRANCO, COMEDIAN/SATIRIST: You’re killing a pregnant woman, and if you can feel good about that, well, have at it.
SIMON: Sarcasm comes naturally to Latino comedian Cris Franco. All joking aside, though, Franco was concerned when we showed him the game.
FRANCO: What sort of makes it innocuous is sort of the thing that makes it so very dangerous, is that you might have kids getting up there and they’re killing Mexicans. You know? And now that’s a fun thing to do I gather, in our world. I think most people of conscience would not think this was a good way to spend your time.
You can see this “game” here on a CBS News affiliate web site. The blood spattering the pregnant woman with kids when the bullet hits is especially “fun.”
These video games and other violent racist paraphernalia are sure to be part of our culture forever, whether we like it or not. (In this post about rightwing “humor”, Maha provides some fine examples of the kind of “jokes” that used to be prevalent during Jim Crow.) But when you have major politicians race baiting you normalize this stuff — and that leads bigoted psychopaths to lose their inhibitions and feel that they have the support of the mainstream.
Neil Young’s Living With War. What a great album! And you can listen to the thing for free here. It’s everything rocknroll should be: angry, beautiful, dirty, dangerous, lyrical, sloppy, emotional, coldly-calculated, and indispensable for sanity in a world gone mad.
It’s on my must-buy list. Speaking of which, My Smart Spouse got me The Stuff That Dreams Are Made Of, a collection of genuine rarities from the 20’s and 30’s wrapped up in some great R. Crumb artwork. Perhaps the rare Son House tracks will convince you. Perhaps the reputation of the Georgia Potlickers. But as flat-out great as the individual cuts are, it’s the cumulative effect that’s so overwhelming. I’m more of a very knowledgeable amateur than a professional when it comes to folk music, but I’m certain that this is the finest compilation of real American folk music since The Anthology of American Folk Music. The Anthology, in case you don’t know it, is essential, and I mean that the way water and air are essential.
Getting back to Neil for a moment, be sure to see Jonathan Demme’s documentary about the old coot. It’s a great film. But best of all, it sets up Living With War perfectly because of the contrast with it. The concert is reflective, personal, country music (sort of). The album is uncompromisingly social, rocknroll (definitely).
Oooh. This is too good. Could Porter Goss be caught up in the developing Duke Cunningham hooker scandal? Justin Rood at The Muckraker thinks it’s possible.
Yowzah.
Actually, make that a double-yowzah: Remember that Goss is the one who plucked one of Wilkes’ old San Diego friends, the unusual and colorful Kyle “Dusty” Foggo, out of CIA middle-management obscurity to be his #3 at the agency. At the time of Foggo’s appointment, no one could figure out where he came from, or how Goss knew him.
But if Goss was at the “parties,” I wonder, was Foggo there too? Did they see each other? Is this where Goss had an opportunity to gauge Foggo’s abilities, and determine he was qualified for the CIA executive director post
Ken Silverstein at Harper’s blog describes the parties:
As to the festivities themselves, I hear that party nights began early with poker games and degenerated into what the source described as a “frat party” scene—real bacchanals. Apparently photographs were taken, and investigators are anxiously procuring copies.
My, my, my.
But there’s more to it than that. Remember what we have all heard about old Duke:
What you won’t read about in these mainstream press accounts is the other double life led by the closet case, Duke, the anti-gay conservative.
Cunningham, who is married with grown children, has admitted to romantic, loving relationships with men, both during his Vietnam military service and as a civilian. That was the remarkable story that this publication reported two years ago, when Elizabeth Birch, the former Human Rights Campaign leader, inadvertently outed Cunningham at a gay rights forum.
Birch never mentioned Cunningham’s name, but she talked about a rabidly anti-gay congressman who asked to meet privately with her in the midst of a controversy over his use in a speech on the floor of the House the term “homos” to describe gays who have served in the military.
Alone with Birch and an HRC staffer, the unnamed congressman shared that he had loved men during his life. In telling the story, Birch offered up a few too many details about the closeted congressman.
A few Google searches later, the Blade reported that it had to be Cunningham, whose career was pockmarked with bizarre gay pronouncements, including a reference to the rectal treatment he received for prostate cancer, something he told an audience “was just not natural, unless maybe you’re Barney Frank.”
There’s every reason to believe Birch’s inadvertent outing, even as Cunningham denied it through a spokesperson.
This is, after all, a man without principles, who could “love men” in private, all the while condemning gays in speeches and in congressional votes. Little surprise that he could live a second double life, in which he sold those unprincipled votes to the highest bidder
The Dukestir and Porter Goss can hire Jimmy Jeff Gannon and perform a country version of “I’m gonna wash that man right outta my hair” in the House gym for all I care. But the massive fraud and corruption involved are unacceptable. If the Dukestir takes Goss down it would be a beautiful bit of poetic justice. I have a feeling that there are plenty of people at the CIA who will be happy to help the FBI with anything they might need to prove that case.
Jane is righteously taking on the wingnut liars today (as she does every day) but this time on the subject of this dumb pissing match about liberal book sales. Just read it. it’s so ridiculous it makes you want to laugh.
As she points out, the right has subsidized these lousy writers and thinkers for decades. They buy their crappy books for their crappy book clubs (whining all the way about totalitarian leftists bookstore owners who refuse to sell their crappy crap) and give the impresion that they are successfully indoctrinating the country with their crappy propaganda. From the numbers of rightwing propagandists who are allegedly great authors and thinkers, you would think that the Republicans would rule with an 80% majority. The truth is they have always rigged the numbers.
As Jane points out, what has them upset is that we managed to push Greenwald’s book to number one on Amazon in a day. It drove them into such a tizzy that they are now outright lying about Kos and Jerome’s book sales in an attempt to discredit it. (Sigh. Why do I feel like I am dealing with kids all the time?)
“Crashing the Gate” is the most discussed book about Democratic strategy in decades. The review on the NYRB is almost ecstatic. Very influential people are reading and discussing it. Its sales are great and they are only half way through their book tour. It is, by all possible measures, a success. And it’s a success on its own merits. I don’t think George Soros and Barbra Streisand bought the book in bulk so that it will be selling for a dollar in remainder bins by the middle of summer. Real humans are reading the book.
If you haven’t yet bought CTG, do it. It’s an easy read, humble and insightful. Supporting liberal writers and thinkers like Kos and Jerome and Greenwald are one great way to make sure that our ideas penetrate the media industrial complex. And, if nothing else, it really seems to freak out the wingnuts. Consider it part of your entertainment budget.
Update: Patrick Neilsen Hayden has more on this. So does Greenwald.
Kos suggests a new marketing slogan and I think it’s brilliant: “Buy ‘Crashing the Gate.’ Make a conservative cry.”
