Arlen Specter Invokes Anita Hill “Drama”

Regarding the Attorney General’s former chief of staff Kyle Sampson’s testimony today, the New York Times quoted Senator Specter (R-PA). “I think it will be the most interesting testimony we have heard since Professor Hill,” Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, said as he recalled Anita F. Hill’s appearance in the confirmation hearing for Clarence Thomas for a Supreme Court seat. “I can’t think of anyone else who has quite the drama.” Why Specter would remind anyone, let alone the entire NYT readership of his role in the character assassination of Anita Hill is a mystery. In 1981, Anita Hill became Clarence Thomas’s assistant at the US Department of Education. She was subpoenaed and reluctantly testified at the Thomas confirmation hearings. She said Thomas had sexually harassed her. About Arlen Specter’s manner when he questioned her, Anita Hill wrote, “Specter began by assuring me that he was simply trying 'to find out what happened.' Nevertheless, in short order, any hope that Senator Specter would transcend the political was dashed. He began his questioning with an unmistakably prosecutorial tone. He used a familiar cross-examination tactic--a tactic common in sexual harassment cases. He ridiculed my reaction to Thomas' behavior, suggesting that I was being oversensitive, even to the point of misrepresenting my testimony.” It is of course possible that Specter is proud of himself for having had a hand in putting the worst and most stupid judge on the Supreme Court. It will be interesting to see how Specter will attempt to save Alberto Gonzales job during the Judiciary Committee hearings. Of this, we may be sure, he will not be fair or unbiased. Specter may be many things, but he is a loyal Bushie.

Let’s Hear It for the US Senate!

The Senate surprised everyone yesterday. By a 50-48 vote the Repub’s plan to cut any mention of a withdrawal date from the military spending bill was defeated. Senator John McCain (R-AZ) issued one of his more stupid remarks about the withdrawal date. McCain said, “A second-year cadet at West Point could tell you that if you announce when the end will be, it’s a recipe for defeat.” Dear Senator I’ll-Kiss-Any-Ass-To-Be-President McCain: The United States was defeated and lost the war in Iraq shortly after the war began because Doddering DOD head Donald Rumsfeld sent less than 100,000 troops to Iraq when 300,000 might have done the job, although even that figure would not have guaranteed victory. That’s what a second year cadet could have told you and George W. Bush had you been willing to listen, you numnut moron. Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) defected to the Democrat side, saying, “There will not be a military solution to Iraq…Iraq doesn’t belong to the United States. Iraq is not a prize to be won or lost.” However, the Prez keeps saying that the people of the United States and Congress should give his plan for a troop build-up in Iraq a chance to win the war. After four years of military blunders and agonizing defeat, after 3243 US soldiers have died, after as many as 650,000 Iraqis have been killed and over two million Iraqis have fled Iraq, why in the world would anyone even consider giving the Bush administration another chance at killing more US soldiers and doing more devastation in Iraq? If spending over $450 billion on this war has produced chaos, failure and civil war, how is deploying a puny 20- or 25,000 more badly equipped and worn-out soldiers going to turn this debacle around? Give the Bush administration another chance in Iraq? Why? And by the way, on another subject, I surely wish press secretary Tony Snow all the best and I hope he recovers fully and soon. Even one more day of listening to and watching White House deputy press secretary Dana Perino conduct the press gaggles is cruel and unusual punishment. Tony Snow is annoying and arrogant, but Dana Perino is a posturing and preening idiot!

And Condi-the-Arrogant Accomplished What?

NOTHING! NADA! ZIP!! The Washington Post said this morning, “Before leaving Washington, (Secretary of State Condoleezza) Rice had said she wanted to set up a parallel negotiating track that began to deal with the main issues thwarting the establishment of a Israel-Palestinian conflict. ‘My primary goal is to establish a mechanism, a common approach, that I can use with them in parallel so that we are addressing the same issues,’ Rice said Friday. ‘That's really the key right now.’” Little Condi Rice, Super-nanny to Little Georgie Bush had dinner with Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in order to...what was that again? “…she wanted to set up a parallel negotiating track that began to deal with the main issues thwarting the establishment of a Israel-Palestinian conflict.” And little Condi’s goal is to…let me hear that again. “My primary goal is to establish a mechanism, a common approach, that I can use with them in parallel so that we are addressing the same issues.” Oh dear! Silly little foot-stamping, clenched-hair Condi. Does she actually think those guys in Israel and Palestine are listening to her? Does she actually think they pay her any mind at all? Does she believe she has any standing, clout or say-so whatsoever in Israel and Palestine? Apparently, that’s exactly what she thinks. But to prove that Condoleezza Rice is merely an annoying piece of detritus that has landed in the lap of Israeli and Palestinian mahoffs, the Washington Post added, “But that idea largely faded after Rice held her first meeting with Olmert over dinner on Sunday, U.S. and Israeli officials said. Israeli officials said Olmert had problems with the "parallel" format and also balked at the scope of the issues Rice wanted to raise. He refused to put on the table the core issues of the conflict, such as borders, Jerusalem and the settlement of refugees.” Get over yourself Condi. Even if you had a pleasing personality, which you don’t; even if you didn’t act and sound like a schoolmarm, which you do; even if you were respected in the United States, which you aren’t; even if your voice didn’t grate on the ears like a car horn that can’t be turned off, which it does; even if all those negatives did not militate against your being taken seriously, you would not be taken seriously in Israel and Palestine because you represent the Bush administration. And Israel now knows, thanks to the Bush administration, the US cannot protect Israel from Iran or Syria. And Palestine thinks the US is pro-Israel and that the US will never help them get land back or have their own state. In addition to which, Palestine knows that the Bush administration is scared to death of Hamas, the majority party of Palestine, so what’s the point in thinking the Bushies will aid Palestine in anything anywhere? And neither Israel nor Palestine trust the Bush administration or believe a single word it says. But even if there were a flicker of hope that the US could bring Israel and Palestine together, and even if there was a remote possibility that the US really wants to bring Israel and Palestine together, Condoleezza Rice would be the wrong person to do anything positive in that regard. However, if the US wants to sabotage all efforts between Israel and Palestine, and destroy any possibility of accord between those two countries, then Condi Rice is the exact right person to send on the mission that the Bush administration has sent her on. Ponder that.

GOP Can’t Talk Straight to Save Its Life

Yesterday, on the Sunday morning talk shows, three Republican Senators were asked about the political future of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Senator Lindsay Graham (R-SC), Chuck Hagel, (R-NE) and Senator Arlen Specter (R. PA) all hedged and defended Gonzales, but Specter was the most blatant dissembler. Instead of stating flatout on “Meet the Press” that evidence now shows that Gonzales has been neither candid nor truthful and therefore should be fired or should resign, Specter said, “We have to have an attorney general who is candid, truthful. And if we find he has not been candid and truthful, that’s a very compelling reason for him not to stay on.” Dear Senator MagicBullet Specter: There is proof positive that Gonzales lied. You can’t explain away the evidence against Gonzales like you explained away evidence in the John F. Kennedy assassination by saying a single-bullet changed course many times. Graham said on “Face the Nation”, “I really do like Attorney General Gonzales, but he has been wounded…He’s going to have to come to the Senate and re-establish his credibility. He’s going to have to prove to us that there was a legitimate reason this was poorly handled.” Poorly handled? There is proof positive that the firings were politically motivated and that the AG lied. Perhaps Senator Graham means that Gonzales is going to have to lie more effectively to the GOP to get off the hook. Hagel said on “This Week”, “He (Gonzales) does have a credibility problem,” adding, “I think he’s going to have some difficulties.” Difficulties? It is a known fact that Gonzales LIED…that’s merely going to present “some difficulties”? Specter, of course, is the worst of the lot. He’s been in the Senate for 27 years. He will tell any lie the GOP wants him to tell. He will support any bogus claim the GOP wants him to support. Originally, Specter was a Democrat. When he worked on the Warren Commission (at the suggestion of then-Representative Gerald Ford) investigating the JFK assassination, there is documented evidence that he tried to force Jean Hill and Mary Moorman to change their testimony that they had heard four to six shots. He told Hill he would have her declared insane and have her put in a mental institution. She refused to cooperate. Specter changed her testimony that was presented to the Warren Commission to suit his version of the assassination anyway. Arlen Specter is a career Republican political toady. And he’s a malevolent, lying, mean-spirited toady at that. Watch Specter reluctantly, oh so reluctantly find that Alberto Gonzales has lied and therefore Specter will reluctantly, oh so reluctantly advise all the president’s men that for the good of the nation, Gonzales must resign.

Oh to Have Frank Rich’s Sources!

This morning, in his New York Times Op/Ed article Frank Rich nails Alberto “Fredo” Gonzales: “When Will Fredo Get Whacked?” It’s a beaut. And it spells out some of the more outrageous, illegal and sycophantic behavior of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales who was nicknamed “Fredo” by his long-time Texas crony George W. Bush. Rich’s answer to his own question is that Gonzales will be kicked to the curb when he can no longer protect George W. Bush. Now that the Gonzales lies are coming to light through documented evidence, the end of his usefulness to the Bush administration is sure to be sooner rather than later. And interesting as all these tribulations of the White House are, the issue I would love to be able to probe in depth is: Why is it important that the United States stay in Iraq? All of the ostensible reasons are bullshit. Perhaps it would be more pertinent to ask: To what country does the US owe such a debt, that when it demands we stay in Iraq, we must comply? We certainly don’t owe it to the people of the United States or to the American soldiers. To say killing more Americans is the only way we can support the alive and dead soldiers is ridiculous. And the people of the United States want us out of Iraq yesterday. And yes, we have ruined and devastated a whole country for no reason, but our continued presence in Iraq is only adding to that ruin and devastation. If we owe Iraq anything it’s reparations not troops. Now that the United States has caused the terrorist upsurge in Iraq, and since the civil war in Iraq can be laid right at the door of the United States, even our money is useless to the people of Iraq. But since the White House has always wanted to link 9/11 with the war in Iraq, what if there really is a link? And what would that link be? Saudi Arabia. What Middle Eastern dynasty has the Bush dynasty been in bed with for decades? Saudi Arabia. Who attacked the World Trade Center? The Saudis. What large group of people did the Bush administration spirit out of the United States the night of the WTC attack? Forty Saudi Arabians. Which country in the Middle East is deadly afraid of Iran’s nuclear capability? Saudi Arabia. Iraq is between Saudi Arabia and Iran. Which country would have benefited most if the war in Iraq had progressed the way the fools in the White House and Pentagon promised? Saudi Arabia. And my final rumination is this: Was the World Trade Center attack a warning that promises made had better be promises kept? Did Saudi Arabia and the United States have an understanding about the future of Iraq way before March 19, 2003? And was the United States about to reneg on that promise in 2001? It’s obvious why I say I wish I had Frank Rich's sources and resources for research.

The Courageous Edwards

We all knew the news would not be good when Democratic candidate for the presidency John Edwards and his wife Elizabeth said they would hold a press conference at noon yesterday. The rumors started on Tuesday when John Edwards cut short his trip in Iowa to fly back to North Carolina in a charter plane. Elizabeth Edwards had a bout of breast cancer in 2004, which had resulted in a clean bill of health from her doctors. John Edwards had said his bid for the presidency in 2008 depended on his wife’s continued good health. And the news yesterday was bad, as we knew it would be. Elizabeth Edwards’ cancer has returned in an “incureable but treatable” form. Along with the assumption that Elizabeth’s health was once again in jeopardy, many of John Edwards supporters also assumed he would drop out of the race for the presidency. But there was good news coming out of yesterday’s press conference. Elizabeth Edwards has insisted her husband stay in the race. And yes, all of the adjectives about the John/Elizabeth Edwards team are correct. They are courageous, they are strong, she is plucky, he is supportive, and they are fighters. God knows, they’ve had to be all of the above. The Edwards’ married life has not been easy. A son was killed in an auto accident. After deciding to undergo horrific post-menopause medical treatments so that she could bear two more children, Elizabeth contracted cancer. John Edwards was John Kerry’s running mate in the 2004 election and they lost the election. Had they won, the history of the world would have changed. But the latest decision to soldier on even though Elizabeth will be undergoing more cancer treatments is as much about her career as it is about being strong in the face of adversity. It seems very clear, at least to me, that Elizabeth Edwards is John Edwards partner in his political career. And she cannot sit back and watch from the sidelines. They are not just husband and wife, but they are a business team. There are those who will insist on placing this latest episode in the Edwards’ life in the familiar territory of a sentimental and tearful Oprah Winfrey show where fighting physical infirmities is equated with being indomitably positive, life-affirming and perky, and with being icons of cornball religiosity, And in fact, the life of John and Elizabeth Edwards may be all of that. But it’s more. And being more, it’s complicated. The Edwards’ have no life unless they work together in the family business. And the family business is politics. Rush Limbaugh has suggested that the Edwards team made “political” use of their press conference yesterday. In the sense that anything the Edwards do is about politics, Limbaugh is not wrong. The Edwards life is politics. And they will live and die in that life. A successful writer will tell you he/she has to write. Dancers “gotta dance”, an actor needs to be on-stage or on-camera or life is not worth living. Elizabeth Edwards and John Edwards are simply doing what they want to do and must do. But more importantly, they are doing what they have to do or they would cease to be. I’m all for giving the Edwards team all the kudos they are worthy of having. But let’s stop the sappy sentimental hand-wringing schmaltz and let them get on with their lives in politics. They need it and we need them.

Wee Georgie Says Don’t You Dare!

The Prez all but stamped his little foot on Tuesday when he delivered a few remarks on the dismissed US attorneys. Twice during his prepared comments he reminded his listeners that US attorneys serve at his pleasure. He laid out the terms under which he would "allow Key members of my staff to be interviewed by committee members to ascertain relevant facts”. Three times during his 855-word ultimatum, he used the word “reasonable” to describe his proposal for letting his staff testify regarding the firing of the US attorneys. And he repeated “reasonable” twice more as he became agitated and testy during the question and answer period. The Little Dictator was royally pissed off. “I have proposed a way for them to find out what took place,” he said. “My concern is, they would rather be involved with partisanship. They view this as an opportunity to score political points. The proposal we put forward is a good one. There really is a way for people to get information. We'll just fine (sic) out what's on their mind.” In other words the president said, like it or lump it, this is how it’s going to be done, or it’s not going to be done. “If the Democrats truly do want to move forward and find the right information, they ought to accept what I proposed,” the Prez said. “And the idea of dragging White House members up there to score political points, or to put the klieg lights out there — which will harm the President's ability to get good information is — I really do believe will show the true nature of this debate.” End of discussion. But of course, it’s not. When asked if he would “go to the mat” and take the matter “to court” if his proposal is not accepted, the president said, “Absolutely.” Oh what fun! The New York Times reported this morning, “A House panel authorized subpoenas Wednesday requiring Karl Rove and four other senior Bush administration officials to testify under oath in the inquiry into the dismissals of eight federal prosecutors.” On Tuesday, press secretary Tony Snow said, ”If they issue subpoenas, the offer is withdrawn,” Snow described Bush’s offer as “an extraordinarily generous offer.” According to the White House script, Little Mr. Wild West puts on his ten-gallon hat, hitches up his jeans and says, “Ahm the law in these here parts. Do as I say or git!” Did anyone give the Dems a copy of the script?

Four Years Ago the Idiot in Chief Attacked Iraq

Yesterday morning, on the 4th anniversary of the start of the most insane and ultimately most costly and unnecessary war in the history of the United States, President George W. Bush gave a “statement” to commemorate the day he launched “Operation Iraqi Freedom to remove Saddam Hussein from power”. It was a mercifully short eight-minute speech during which Bush said, “There's been good progress” in Iraq. And again, like a robot with a programming glitch, he linked 9/11 with the war in Afghanistan and Iraq. He said, “If American forces were to step back from Baghdad before it is more secure, a contagion of violence could spill out across the entire country. In time, this violence could engulf the region. The terrorists could emerge from the chaos with a safe haven in Iraq to replace the one they had in Afghanistan, which they used to plan the attacks of September the 11th, 2001. For the safety of the American people, we cannot allow this to happen.” In the face of the bitter truth that we lost the war in Iraq shortly after we invaded Iraq, President George W. Bush said, four years later, “We can win the war in Iraq.” Bush’s national security adviser Stephen Hadley had obviously read the speech because he mouthed the same ridiculous revisionist nonsense and fantasies on ABC’s “This Week” show this past Sunday. Hadley said, “The Iraqi people would say they are better off now than under Saddam Hussein." When confronted by the show’s host George Stephanopoulos with the negative results of last week’s poll of 2200 Iraqis conducted in partnership with ABC/BBC/USA Today and Germany’s ARD Network, Hadley said there was a reason why only 18% of Iraqis have confidence in US troops. And what is that reason Mr. Hadley? Hadley said, “It’s because the US presence hasn’t brought security to the Iraqi people.” But the people are better off? Pull your head out of your ass, or Bush’s ass, or wherever it’s been hiding for the past four years, Hadley. The Iraqi people have no jobs, they have no electricity, they have no water, and they have no sewer system. More than 60,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed. More than 2 million Iraqis have fled Iraq. Fifty-one percent of the Iraqi people overall have no confidence in the government foisted on them by the United States. One-hundred percent of the Iraqi’s in Baghdad have no confidence in the US troops. And yet, George W. Bush said in his speech on March 19th, “The operation is still in the early stages, it’s still in the beginning stages… there will be good days, and there will be bad days ahead as the security plan unfolds.” WHAT?!!!!!? It’s been FOUR YEARS, you ignorant lunatic. Your recent surge and pleas for patience are after four years of total failure, death, mayhem, chaos and destruction. And to compound the revisionist history as written by George W. Bush and Stephen Hadley, they say the war in Iraq was embarked on to rid the world of Saddam Hussein. On March 21 2003, then-press secretary Ari Fleisher answered a question about whether the President had thought of the innocent Iraqis who would be killed in Iraq. Fleisher said yes, the president had thought of that, but, he added, “The other portion of what the President remembers when he thinks about the innocents are the 3,000 innocents who lost their lives on September 11th in the United States. And if it were not for the worries that the President had about an Iraqi regime, in defiance of the United Nations, possessing weapons of mass destruction, which he fears could again be used against the United States, you might not see this developing.” And that’s how the Bush administration manipulated the US into waging war in Iraq. It was George W. Bush who was in defiance of the UN, not Iraq who was in defiance of the UN. Chief weapons inspector for the United Nations Hans Blix said, "I don't think it is reasonable to close the door on inspections (in Iraq) after three and a half months." It was because the Bush administration knowingly lied about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction that the US attacked Iraq. It was because the Bush administration falsely linked 9/11 to Saddam Hussein that the US attacked Iraq. It was because the Bush administration had decided the weakest nation in the Middle East was Iraq and that Iraq was the best place to start its plan to take over the Middle East's oil that the US attacked Iraq. The war in Iraq has never been about Saddam Hussein, regime change, or bringing democracy to the Middle East. And certainly, the war was not started in Iraq to protect the American people from terrorists. Because the terrorists did not have a foothold in Iraq until the US launched its attack. CNN’s legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin made a lovely Freudian slip last night on Lou Dobbs Tonight. The subject was whether Karl Rove and other Bush administration officials could be subpoenaed to testify in public about the firing of the US attorneys. Toobin made the point that it wasn’t like the old days when the Republicans were in power in Congress. He said, “This administration has had a docile Congress for six years, and now they're starting to learn what it's like to have some oversight. And it's been a pretty rocky on-the-john, er, on-the-job training for them.” I couldn’t have said it better myself. The Bush administration’s on-the-john training has come to an end.

Yo, Loyal Bushies! Mind What You Wish For!

The Bush administration desperately wanted and desperately needed a diversion to turn the world’s attention from the disastrous war in Iraq. And the Bush administration has gotten it, The “it” being the latest scandal coming out of the White House Insane Asylum: Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, White House senior presidential advisor Karl Rove, President Bush’s ex-White House Counsel Harriet Miers and the president himself have been found to be at the center of the firing for political reasons of 8 US attorneys who George W. Bush himself appointed during his first term. This morning, the Sunday talk shows will all be abuzz about whether the AG will resign (get fired) or not. However, even these juicy and disgraceful revelations can’t completely take the Iraq War off the front pages. One reason is that the war continues to spiral into the black hole of an unwinnable conflict that no one in his right mind can support or defend. Plus, we are entering the fifth year of this horrific travesty. On the eve of the fourth anniversary of President Bush’s illegal and unnecessary war in Iraq, Frank Rich, once again, has performed an invaluable service in his Sunday column in the New York Times. Today his article is titled, “The Ides of March, 2003. Rich offers “a chronology of some of the high and low points in the days leading up to the national train wreck whose anniversary we mourn this week [with occasional “where are they now” updates].” I would reprint the column in its entirety, but it’s very long. However, two sites have foiled the New York Times attempt to make readers pay through the nose to read its TimesSelect articles. You can download Frank Rich’s columns and other NYT op/ed page writers at: http://www.buzzflash.com/ http://welcome-to-pottersville.blogspot.com/ One of the quotes in Rich's column is from Dixie Chicks Natalie Maines. She told an audience in England, “We do not want this war, this violence, and we’re ashamed that the president of the United States is from Texas.” As Rich says, “Boycotts, death threats and anti-Dixie Chicks demonstrations followed.” Now, over 70% of the voters in the United States would agree with Maines: We are so ashamed of the president of the United States. The BBC’s Katty Kay on Chris Matthews TV show this morning said during the “Tell Me Something I Don’t Know” segment that the Republicans will have an even tougher road to hoe in trying to regain the majority in Congress in 2008. Kay said that 10 Republican members of Congress have decided not to run for re-election. Is there any good news for the GOP? Maybe. Ted Haggard, the New Life Church pastor who was a spiritual adviser to George W. Bush and had a secret gay life is coming out of rehab soon. Now that he is totally heterosexual, New Life says it will continue to pay Haggard’s salary of $130,000 through the end of 2007. In exchange, Haggard has agreed not to talk to the media and to leave town. So now Haggard can come to Washington, DC fulltime and ease the Prez through his rough times.

The White House MO

First, the Prez colludes with and supports an unethical action of one of his cronies and/or appointees. Then, because of that collusion and support, the crony gets in trouble. At which point the Prez gives the crony the kiss of death. The Prez says, as he recently said of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, “I have all the confidence in the world in Mr. Gonzales.” And then he gives the crony an unattainable task. In the case of Gonzales, after the Prez prated about having confidence in him, he talked about his displeasure at the way Gonzales and the Justice Department had handled the dismissals of the eight US attorneys. The president then gave Gonzales his Herculean task. The Prez said, “Al’s got work to do up there” to repair his relations on Capitol Hill, But good old Al Gonzales, the president’s great buddy from Texas who has lied and cheated and turned the Justice Department into a backroom den where unjust and iniquitous acts have trampled on the US constitution, cannot repair his relations on Capitol Hill because he’s got no one in his corner except the President. And the President doesn’t really want him to remain in office because the AG now is damaged goods and useless. Three Republicans have called for Gonzales to resign: Representative Dana Rohrabacher (CA), Senator John Sununu (NH) and Senator Jeff Sessions (AL). And press secretary Tony Snow just tightened the noose around Gonzales’s neck when Snow was asked if the President might have suggested firing the US attorneys. Snow said, "Anything's possible...but I don't think so...he certainly has no recollection of any such thing. I can't speak for the attorney general." That means sharpen up your sword Al, because you are expected to fall on it. Gonzales will resign. That’s the way it’s done in the Bush administration. But that won’t answer the pesky questions about when, how and why the White House fired US attorneys who weren’t “loyal” enough to the Bush administration. I can’t wait to hear the White House argument that testimony by Fat Karl, Harebrained Harriet, and a host of unnamed “White House officials” would jeopardize national security and harm our soldiers in Iraq.

Here’s The Thing (The Fired US Atty’s Thing)

The White House slime king, Fat Karl, keeps saying other presidents have fired US prosecutors when they took office, so what’s the big deal? And it is true. When a new president takes office, he has the right to fire the appointees of the previous president. Bill Clinton did just that. When he took office in 1993, he fired every U.S. attorney except one. But here’s the thing. Bill Clinton fired US attorneys that had been appointed by George Herbert Walker Bush. The precedent set for firing US attorneys is that it normally would be done at the very outset of a new president’s term in an effort to clean house of the former president’s appointees. The weird part in the present case of the Bush administration firing US attorneys is that it happened at the beginning of George W. Bush’s second term. The US attorneys that were canned had been appointed by George W. Bush during his first term in office. This morning the New York Times printed emails between Fat Karl and the Attorney General’s then-chief of staff Kyle Sampson. Even the AG’s chief of staff said it would be “weird” to oust US attorneys appointed by George W. Bush during his first term. Regarding the message to Rove from Sampson on January 6, 2005, the NYT said, “In the message, Mr. Sampson said, ‘The vast majority of U.S. Attorneys, 80-85 percent, I would guess, are doing a great job, are loyal Bushies, etc.’ “Even then”, the NYT goes on to say, “Mr. Sampson realized there might be a backlash caused by replacing a large number of prosecutors and said it would be ‘weird’ to remove prosecutors before they had completed a single four-year term. ‘I suspect that when push comes to shove,’ he wrote, ‘home state senator likely would resist wholesale (or even piecemeal) replacement of U.S. Attorney they recommended.’” The fact that Bush wanted to fire all the US attorneys he himself had appointed because they weren’t handing down rulings according to the White House playbook, and the fact that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales had targeted the ousted US attorneys and had used Justice Department intimidation against them is what this latest scandal is about. That’s the thing.

Brzezinski Says All is Not Lost… If….

Zbigniew Kazimierz Brzezinski was on Jon Stewart’s Daily Show last night. He was Jimmy Carter’s National Security Advisor from 1977 to 1981. This coming March 28th he will be 79 years old. He was considered a hawk when he was in the Carter administration. Brzezinski said on TDS, and I paraphrase: The fact that the Bush administration has seen itself as being morally superior has led the Bush administration to engage in immoral acts. One of which, Brzezinski said, was the “illegal and unnecessary” war in Iraq. Brzezinski has just published a book, “Second Chance”. It spells out how the last three presidents have goofed in leading America to be a real superpower after the Cold War. In the book, Brzezinski says GHW Bush was "a superb crisis manager but not a strategic visionary." He says Clinton was "the perfect symbol of a benign but all-powerful America," but Clinton was mesmerized by his vision of "globalization." Brzezinski says George W. Bush, has been a catastrophic leader whose war in Iraq "has caused calamitous damage to America's global standing". He says the war in Iraq has been “a geopolitical disaster" and it "has increased the terrorist threat to the United States." The next president of the United States, Brzezinski argues, will need to have a sense of the injustice of the human condition. If the US opts for another president who is self indulgent, who is unaware and uncaring about social issues and who is ignorant about the world (all of which attributes describe GWB), Brzezinski says the US will miss its second and perhaps last chance to become a superpower. I too, would like to believe that the United States has not irreparably damaged its reputation worldwide. I too would like to believe that catastrophic as the Bush administration has been regarding our ability to defend ourselves, all is not lost and that America can rise again to become a respected and respectable superpower. I too would like to once again feel pride about being an American. Right now, it’s up for grabs which one of the many candidates would fit Brzezinski’s idea of a good US president. But I can tell you who cannot measure up to the Brzezinski ideal. ANY REPUBLICAN who has already thrown his hat in the ring and ANY REPUBLICAN who may come out of the woodwork as a presidential candidate between now and the Republican National Convention in September 2008 is morally and ethically unfit and too tainted by association with the present White House to be President of the United States. All is not lost unless a Republican is elected president in 2008.

That Passive Voice Again

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales says “Mistakes Were Made” re the wholesale firings of US attorneys. Kyle Sampson who was the Attorney General’s ex-righthand man and now-fall guy resigned on Monday. Apparently it was Sampson who made the mistakes. The Prez is in Mexico selling the US down the river, but his apologist and counselor Dan Bartlett said, “The White House did not play a specific role in the list of the seven U.S. attorneys (who were fired).” According to Bartlett, George W. Bush’s role was “minimal”. Bartlett called a hurried and last-minute press conference from Mérida, Mexico to explain that the president of the United States is an idiot and knows nothing. Barlett also said the Prez has “all the confidence in the world” in Mr. Gonzales. Which pretty much guarantees Gonzales will be fired and will be awarded a Medal of Freedom. Bartlett added during his press conference that the whole mess was Harriet Miers fault. He said she had “signed off on the list (of US attorneys to be fired) ”. Harriet Miers resigned effective January 31, 2007. She is the President’s ex-counselor and now-fall guy. The Machiavellian plot that the president and attorney general know nothing about originated in the White House and was implemented in the Attorney General’s office. And the plan was simplicity itself. It required that US attorneys be fired so that the Prez could use Patriot Act authority to indefinitely appoint interim federal prosecutors without Senate confirmation who would follow White House orders. Either the Prez and the Attorney General are the powerful leaders and deciders they claim to be, or they are the lackeys and dupes we know they are. They can’t have it both ways.

SURPRISE! Bush and Gonzales Lied

The Prez and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales were up to their necks in compiling a hit list of US prosecutors to be fired. Until the story broke yesterday that the idea for dismissing US prosecutors originated in the White House, the WH had been saying that Bush’s aides approved the firings only after the hit list was compiled. However, back in February 2005, then-White House counsel Harriet E. Miers made a suggestion that was so stupid it absolutely guaranteed President George W. Bush would want her on the Supreme Court. Which he did. He nominated her for that high position in October 2005. It was Miers who told Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’s Chief of Staff D. Kyle Sampson that ALL 93 US prosecutors should be dismissed and replaced immediately and forthwith. That suggestion, of course, was called impractical and was rejected by Gonzales. But it led to the subsequent firing of seven US attorneys on December 7, 2006. One US attorney had been fired earlier with no explanation from the Justice Department. So what was the reason for these firings? Mainly, it was because the US attorneys weren’t heartily and enthusiastically kissing each and every Bush administration ass. But an ostensible reason was that the US attorneys were not prosecuting enough voter fraud cases. Now you may think that sounds right and proper. You may think that the US attorneys should have been getting to the bottom of the fraud that had put George W. Bush in the White House. But it wasn’t Republican voter fraud cases that Harriet Miers, Kyle Sampson and Alberto Gonzales believed needed to be prosecuted. Miers, Sampson and Gonzales were upset that voter fraud in the Democratic Party wasn’t being prosecuted. This morning’s Washington Post says, “Sampson sent an e-mail to Miers in March 2005 that ranked all 93 U.S. attorneys. Strong performers ‘exhibited loyalty’ to the administration; low performers were ‘weak U.S. attorneys who have been ineffectual managers and prosecutors, chafed against Administration initiatives, etc.’ A third group merited no opinion. “At least a dozen prosecutors were on a ‘target list’ to be fired at one time or another, the e-mails show.” The WaPo article went on to say: “In January 2006, Sampson sent to the White House the first list of seven candidates for dismissal, including four who were fired at year's end: Chiara, Cummins, Lam and Ryan. The list also recommended Griffin and other replacements, most of whom were edited from documents viewed by The Post. “In September, Sampson produced another list of firing candidates, telling the White House that Cummins was ‘in the process of being pushed out’ and providing the names of eight others whom ‘we should consider pushing out.’ Five on that list were fired in December; the others were spared. “Iglesias, the New Mexico prosecutor, was not on that list. Justice officials said Sampson added him in October, based in part on complaints from Sen. Pete V. Domenici and other New Mexico Republicans that he was not prosecuting enough voter-fraud cases. “Sampson also strongly urged bypassing Congress in naming replacements, using a little-known power slipped into the renewal of the USA Patriot Act in March 2006 that allows the attorney general to name interim replacements without Senate confirmation.” This morning the New York Times quotes from a Sampson e-mail: “’Prepare to Withstand Political Upheaval,’ he wrote in describing what to expect as a result of the firings. ‘U.S Attorneys desiring to save their jobs aided by their allies in the political arena as well as the Justice Department community, likely will make efforts to preserve themselves in office. You should expect these efforts to be strenuous.’” White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said White House political adviser Karl Rove had an early conversation with Miers about the idea of firing all chief prosecutors and did not think it was wise. Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) says if WH advisor Karl Rove does not appear voluntarily to testify re US prosecutor dismissals, Schumer will get a subpoena to force him to appear. Stay tuned re the United States attorney dispute. It will be aired on the Senate floor this week during the debate over rolling back an antiterrorism law provision that allows President Bush to appoint interim United States attorneys indefinitely.

Impeach Gonzales? Oh You Betcha!

By me, it would not be overzealous if US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales were ridden out of Washington, DC on a rail. I personally would support tar and feathering the man, but that’s just a refinement and is not absolutely necessary. Alberto Remora Gonzales was George W. Bush’s Counsel before he replaced John Ashcroft as US Attorney General on February 3, 2005. Prior to becoming White House Counsel he had been appointed by Bush to the Texas Supreme Court. Bush even threw the Gonzales name in the air as a possible US Supreme Court nominee but that was quickly shot down. Alberto Gonzales is an asskissing sycophantic toady who owes the Bush administration his political life. In order to say thank you, Gonzales has circumvented the rule of law, supported every move the Bush administration has made to increase the powers of the president and he has allowed the White House to trample the Constitution. He also has lied under oath. On Sunday on the CBS News program “Face the Nation,” Senate Democrat from New York, Chuck Schumer said Mr. Gonzales was more interested in carrying out President Bush’s agenda than in upholding the law and protecting the rights of citizens. Schumer went on to say, “Attorney General Gonzales is a nice man but he either doesn’t accept or doesn’t understand that he is no longer just the president’s lawyer but has a higher obligation to the rule of law and the Constitution, even when the president should not want it to be so.” Gonzales, of course, is not a nice man. He’s a hooligan. The reason the shit has hit the fan is that now that the Dems are in the majority in the Senate and in the House of Representatives, they have subpoena power and they are initiating investigations. The troubling fact that the Justice Department has seen fit to oust eight United States Attorneys and the FBI has been using its expanded surveillance powers (powers made possible by Gonzales) to improperly obtain personal records of citizens is now coming to light. On Sunday, Paul Krugman wrote in the New York Times, “What is surprising is how fast the truth is emerging about what Alberto Gonzales, the attorney general, dismissed just five days ago as an ‘overblown personnel matter’. “Sources told Newsweek that the list of prosecutors to be fired was drawn up by Mr. Gonzales’s chief of staff, ‘with input from the White House.’ And Allen Weh, the chairman of the New Mexico Republican Party, told McClatchy News that he twice sought Karl Rove’s help — the first time via a liaison, the second time in person — in getting David Iglesias, the state’s U.S. attorney, fired for failing to indict Democrats. 'He’s gone,' he claims Mr. Rove said." Krugman also said, “After that story hit the wires, Mr. Weh claimed that his conversation with Mr. Rove took place after the decision to fire Mr. Iglesias had already been taken. Even if that’s true, Mr. Rove should have told Mr. Weh that political interference in matters of justice is out of bounds; Mr. Weh’s account of what he said sounds instead like the swaggering of a two-bit thug.” Krugman ended his column by writing, “In other words, the truth about that 'overblown personnel matter' has only begun to be told. The good news is that for the first time in six years, it’s possible to hope that all the facts about a Bush administration scandal will come out in Congressional hearings — or, if necessary, in the impeachment trial of Alberto Gonzales.” Sounds good to me. I still like the idea of also riding Gonzales out of town on a rail.

Will Bush Pardon Libby?

As Frank Rich said this morning in his New York Times column ("Why Libby’s Pardon Is a Slam Dunk"), “Even by Washington’s standards, few debates have been more fatuous or wasted more energy than the frenzied speculation over whether President Bush will or will not pardon Scooter Libby. Of course he will.” And why is it a slam dunk? Again, to quote Rich: “The pardon is a must for Mr. Bush. He needs Mr. Libby to keep his mouth shut.” The Scooter, if you remember, founded the White House Iraq Group along with a few other select Republicans (Andrew Card, Karl Rove, Karen Hughes, Mary Matalin, James R. Wilkinson, Nicholas E. Calio, Condoleezza Rice and Stephen Hadley). The purpose of WHIG was to manufacture lies and fictions to justify the war in Iraq. If Bush doesn’t pardon Libby, it’s only a matter of time until Libby would publish a redhot expose. And what a tell-all that book would be! But one of the things I always think about when reflecting on murderers and serial killers (I include WHIG members in that group) is: What will the real effect be on the killers’ kids? Mary Matalin and James Carville have two daughters. The oldest will be thirteen this summer. At some point, one or both of these girls will start to do research on what their high-profile mommy did during the war. It’s one thing to believe in an ideology. It is quite another to lie and make up false data in order to support that ideology and in so doing kill thousands and thousands and thousands of innocent people. When young Matalin “Matty” Carville and young Emerson “Emmy” Carville start reading about their Mom, what will they be able to make of the truth they will inevitably find out? The books that the Carville girls may write would be at least as interesting as any book I. Lewis Libby might be threatening to write.

Off to God’s Country (Brooklyn, NY)

Bush Twin Jenna Has Written a Book

Jenna’s Granny Bar wrote a couple books. In 2003 Larry King interviewed Granny Bar after she published "Reflections: Life After the White House." King said a “Newsweek” article had indicated Mrs. Bush’s book had been heavily edited. Barbara Bush said the book had not been heavily edited. She wrote it from facts she had put into her diary. What happened was, Barbara Bush said, things had been taken out so she wouldn’t be sued. Words don’t have the same meaning for the Bush family as for us ordinary folks. Do I believe Jenna Bush actually wrote “Ana’s Story: A Journey of Hope”? No. Publisher HarperCollins says “'Ana’s Story' is about a 17-year-old single mother in Panama who is living with HIV.” According to the publisher’s hype, “it ends with a call to action”. Uh-huh. If you remember, HarperCollins published OJ Simpson’s book, “If I Did It, Here’s How It Happened”. So call me skeptical about Jenna Bush actually writing a book. But by me, it should be titled: “I Didn't Write It, But If I Wrote It, I'd Call It Ana's Story". It's been reported that 25-year-old Jenna Bush has had a job in Panama since September as an unpaid intern for UNICEF (which is located on a former US military base). But you have to wonder: Where did she find the time to write an inspiring tearjerker in six months while doing her job (whatever it is), while making secret hush-hush diplomatic trips to Paraquay for the US government and while scoping out retirement venues for her dad in Panama. In addition, Jenna and her fraternal twin Barbara have not been noted for their stunning intellects or social consciences. Nevermind. Apparently, Jenna has done a complete about-face from her bad old drinking-and-getting-arrested days. She says she will donate her earnings from the book to UNICEF and she "very, very modestly" hopes her book will have some of the same impact as “Diary of Anne Frank”. Yeah I know, only the unprincipled, insensitive, crass Bush family and HarperCollins would go there.

One Thing You Can Take to the Bank

If national security advisor Stephen J. Hadley or Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice say it, the opposite is true. Yesterday, Hadley was asked if Bush’s trip to Latin America this coming Thursday is an “anti-Chavez tour”. Hadley said, “It’s really not.” It’s really not? He also could have said, "Not really", and produced the same unconvincing impression. Of course the Bush trip is anti-Chavez. How could it be otherwise? For certain, the trip is not pro-Chavez. And the Bush administration is assuredly not neutral about Venezuela’s president Hugo Chavez. Last November 18th, Chavez said at a meeting of Venezuelan and Brazilian business executives in Caracas, “The planet's most serious danger is the government of the United States. ... The people of the United States are being governed by a killer, a genocidal murderer and a madman.” So Bush’s trip isn’t anti-Chavez? Please! Bush will first go to Brazil where he will bolster president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva’s contention that Brazil is the power country in South America, not Venezuela. Then the Prez will go to Uruguay to commemorate with President Tabare Vazquez the 2002 money crisis that the United States helped Uruguay avoid. Vazquez and the Prez are expected to discuss how Uruguay can expand its trade agreements. Needless to say, Vazquez is anti-Chavez. The main point of the Bush trip, which is the longest foray into South America Bush has ever made, is to promise American support and assistance to South America in order to counteract the assistance and military support Chavez has been giving to Bolivia and other South American countries. Bush will also make stops in Colombia and Guatemala. He will end his trip in Mexico. Bush actually has two reasons for this trip: 1) to try to convince South American leaders that the United States can help South American countries with their fiscal problems better than Hugo Chavez or any other fire-breathing leftist leader. Which, in Chavez’s case will be a big challenge because of Chavez’s deep pockets due to his oil wealth. According to the New York Times this morning, Bush is even expected to consider including workers’ rights guarantees in US trade accords with South American countries. In other words, George W. Bush will be very pro-America and very anti-Chavez. And 2) When Bush gets to Mexico, he will sell out the United States of America when he meets with President Felipe Calderón in Mérida in the Yucatan peninsula (a site picked to avoid huge protests against Bush in Mexico City) where he will give away the store (again) in his immigration discussions. The NYT quoted the president of Inter-American Dialogue Peter Hakim saying, “there is a sense that things are not going well for the U.S. in the region (Latin America)…there has probably never been so much anti-Americanism and so little confidence in U.S. leadership since the cold war.” The Bush administration put Latin America on the back burner after 9/11, and now it is attempting to buy it back with promises of economic assistance and arms, if need be. Promises…promises. All Latin American countries should be very mistrusting of any promises George W. Bush makes. The NYT said, “There are doubts about Congress’s willingness to approve free trade agreements that have been signed with Colombia, Peru and Panama.” And there are even more doubts in Congress and the general public about anything Ms Rice or Mr. Hadley has to say on any subject.

Mr. Ratfucker Has A Theory About March 11th

Mr. Ratfucker believes Daylight Saving Time is a stupid idea and has been a stupid idea since Benjamin Franklin thought it up in 1784. Franklin’s brain wave was not made law until 1918. Mr. Ratfucker would like to mention that Daylight Saving Time was such a dumb idea and so unpopular that it was repealed in 1919. Rewriters of actual facts are fond of saying that people got up earlier and went to bed earlier back then and the law was unnecessary. However, Mr. Ratfucker believes people have not changed since 1918 and everyone has consistently thought Daylght Saving Time was dumb no matter when they got up or went to bed. President Franklin D. Roosevelt made Daylight Saving Time a year-round phenomenon. From February 2, 1942 to September 30, 1945 Daylight Saving Time was called “War Time". At least there was no switching back and forth and disrupting everyone’s life every six months. Daylight Saving Time has always been a so-called Energy Saving plan. It is based on the idea that people won’t get up an hour earlier just because the government thinks it will save energy, so people need to be fooled into thinking it’s an hour later than the sun tells them it is. Mr. Ratfucker has never understood how turning on the lights in order to get dressed in predawn stygian darkness saves energy. From 1945 to 1966, Daylight Saving Time was in total chaos. States and local municipalities could go on DST or not, willy-nilly. Up until 2006, a town in Indiana might observe DST while an adjacent town did not. Although, Mr. Ratfucker admits that using Indiana as an example is a bit foolish. In Indiana, folks say, “That’s a good ideal”, while the rest of the country says, “That’s a good idea.” Hoosiers may have thought Daylight Saving Time was a good ideal but saw no reason to practice it. President Nixon signed the “Emergency Daylight Saving Time Energy Conservation Act of 1973”. Clocks were set ahead for a 15-month period through April 27, 1975. From 1975 to 1986, the DST plan again was a hodgpodge of local and state noncompliance. Some states went along with the so-called Energy Act but the people in some time zones in some states exempted themselves It was in 1986 that legislation was enacted which made Daylight Saving Time begin at 2:00 a.m. on the first Sunday of April and end at 2:00 a.m. on the last Sunday of October. So why does Daylight Saving Time begin on March 11th this year? In 2005 the Bush administration decided to extend DST in 2007. Congress enacted the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and it decreed that DST would start at 2:00 a.m. on the second Sunday of March and end at 2:00 a.m. on the first Sunday of November, beginning in 2007. Why? Ostensibly, the White House Insane Asylum believed that the energy saved during those extra weeks would be monumental and of epic proportions. How? The WHIA is not completely sure. In fact, Congress retained the right “to revert to the 1986 law should the change prove unpopular or if energy savings are not significant”. Mr. Ratfucker believes that the WHIA knew in 2005 that when the fourth anniversary of its illegal and ridiculous war in Iraq comes up on March 19, 2007, it would need a diversion. Mr. Ratfucker suggests that the WHIA changed the Daylight Saving Time start date to a week before the anniversary in order to throw computers into agida mode. Mr. Ratfucker believes the WHIA dearly hopes that bank transactions will fail and business deals will spiral into disorder and thereby folks will forget all about the Bush administration's disaster in Iraq. None of which will happen of course. But to the WHIA, any diversion is a good diversion. In any case, Mr. Ratfucker would like to point out that in most of the countries of Western Europe, including members of the EU, Daylight Saving Time starts on the last Sunday of March and ends on the last Sunday of October, the way it's been since 1986.

Some Can Call Iraq Deaths a Waste, Some Can’t

Democrat potential presidential candidate from Illinois Senator Barack Obama apologized for saying American lives had been wasted in Iraq. But it’s true. American lives have been wasted. For Obama to use that word does not diminish the courage and sacrifice of the people who have been killed in Iraq. However, Obama apologized anyway, just in case any military families felt he was diminishing our soldiers’ courage and sacrifice. He said that right after he’d made the statement he realized he had “misspoken”. But he hadn’t misspoken. He had uttered a statement of fact. It was embarrassingly politically correct for Obama to apologize. I wish he had not said he’d used the word "wasted" inappropriately. When Barack Obama said our soldiers lives had been wasted, it was an entirely appropriate word for him to use. Anyone putting a negative spin on Obama’s word usage is a person who is looking to find fault with Obama. Obama has never supported the war in Iraq. He can call soldiers lives wasted if he wants to. They have been wasted. However, potential Republican presidential candidate Senator (R-AZ) John McCain should not have used the word “wasted” when referring to American lives lost in Iraq, McCain said "Americans are very frustrated, and they have every right to be. We've wasted a lot of our most precious treasure, which is American lives.” That was a terrible gaffe. McCain is a neocon. He has always supported the war in Iraq; he has always said president Bush was right to attack Iraq. McCain intends to run his campaign for Republican nominee for president on the premise that the US must stay in Iraq as long as it takes to be victorious. He is fighting tooth and nail for more American soldiers to go to Iraq and be killed. John McCain and his fellow neocons in the Bush administration are the reason US soldiers are being killed in Iraq. Only when McCain’s poll numbers started to drop, did he suddenly express the belief that the lives of American soldiers in Iraq were wasted. Words have power. And some people can rightly use certain words and some people cannot. However, in these days of everyone striving for politically correct rhetoric, a person can be forgiven for fondly looking back at the days when President Harry S. Truman published the following letter on December 6, 1950 in the Washington Post to Music critic Paul Hume. Hume had given a bad review to Truman’s daughter’s singing concert. (Incidentally, Hume was 34 years old at the time, and Truman had publicly called columnist Westbrook Pegler “a rat”.) “Mr Hume: I've just read your lousy review of Margaret's concert. I've come to the conclusion that you are an "eight ulcer man on four ulcer pay. It seems to me that you are a frustrated old man who wishes he could have been successful. When you write such poppy-cock as was in the back section of the paper you work for it shows conclusively that you're off the beam and at least four of your ulcers are at work. Some day I hope to meet you. When that happens you'll need a new nose, a lot of beefsteak for black eyes, and perhaps a supporter below! Pegler, a gutter snipe, is a gentleman alongside you. I hope you'll accept that statement as a worse insult than a reflection on your ancestry. H.S.T.” Ah, the good old days.

Rice Asks Eliot A. Cohen to Be Her Counselor

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has filled the position vacated by Philip D. Zelikow earlier this year by tapping Eliot A. Cohen to be her “counselor”. The Washington Post characterizes Eliot Cohen as “an outspoken critic of the administration's postwar occupation of Iraq”. WaPo goes on to say: “Despite Cohen's sometimes caustic views on administration policies, officials said he has impressed both Rice and President Bush with his writings.” HaHaHaHaHa! If it can be proven that Bush has actually read with his own eyes anything Eliot Cohen has written, I promise to watch Fox News for one hour. Cohen's 2002 book “Supreme Command” was about the relationship between civilian commanders in chief and their military leaders. WaPo says, “The counselor position is unique to the State Department. It was once one of the top jobs at Foggy Bottom -- formerly held by such luminaries as George F. Kennan, Robert Lansing and Helmut Sonnenfeldt -- but it laid dormant during Bush's first term until it was resurrected by Rice. Zelikow played a critical role for Rice as an intellectual sounding board, operating as a one-person think tank who churned out policy papers on a variety of issues and took on special tasks while unencumbered with managerial responsibilities.” Eliot A. Cohen signed William Kristol’s Project for the New American Century Statement of Principles in 1997. He believed then and believes now that the US should preemptively invade nations just to let them know who’s boss. Eliot A. Cohen, whose premise in “Supreme Command” is that politicians and not generals should make the major strategic decisions in wars, now can “churn out policy papers on a variety of issues and take on special tasks while unencumbered with managerial responsibilities”. The Secretary of State has a dandy new “one-person think tank”. In 2005, when Cohen’s son was being deployed to Iraq, Cohen said that he believed the decision to invade Iraq had been “sound”. Cohen had a problem with what he called "cockamamie schemes" and the "under-planned, under-prepared and mis-manned Coalition Provisional Authority." But Eliot A. Cohen never questioned for a moment the wisdom and rightness of the Bush administration’s illegal and unnecessary war in Iraq. If newspapers are touting in their lede paragraphs that Eliot A. Cohen is an outspoken critic of the administration's postwar occupation of Iraq, as WaPo would have it, let it be known that Eliot A. Cohen still believes the preemptive attack on Iraq was right, that he still is a neoconservative hawk, and that he was very critical of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group report. WaPo says the job of Rice’s counselor does not require Senate confirmation and that Cohen is expected to formally take the post in April, but he will begin working as a consultant to Rice before then. If the Bush administration needs a politician to shout for war with Iran against the soberer opinions of generals, they’ve got their man: Eliot A. Cohen.