Did you miss this nugget in yesterday's Midday Open Thread?

Abdul Tawala Ibn Ali Alishtari pled not guilty in a Manhattan federal court last Friday, denying charges that he's a terrorist financier. But that's a matter in some dispute, and not just by the prosecutors. According to The Blotter at ABC News.com, the indictment charges that he arranged for $152,000 worth of bank transfers to fund a terror training camp. But if that doesn't convince you he's a funding terrorists, maybe this will: Alishtari also gave 10% of that total to the National Republican Congressional Committee.

Ten percent? Now that's what I call a tithing program! Those Republicans really have the faith-based fundraising thing down pat!

And true to form, the GOoPers aren't letting the money go easily. In fact, the NRCC hasn't yet been able to sputter out a line on what it intends to do with those funds. My guess? Same as they're doing with the rest of their funds: fighting the rest of America on the escalation, and trying to kill as many troops as they can before Murtha gets them armored up and trained.

But there's more to the story than just one embarrassing donation. It's a symptom of a thoroughgoing Republican sociopathy.

Responsibility (note to Republican readers: duck!) for this woeful, but likely inevitable tale has to be laid as much at the feet of Tom DeLay as at George Bush's. Tom's still dragging down the rotted out corpse of the Republican Party he and George smothered with their greed, even as The Hammer himself languishes somewhere beyond the political grave.

How so? Let's begin with a cite to TPMmuckraker:

Josh, looking into Abdul Tawala Ibn Ali Alishtari (aka Michael Mixon), the New York businessman indicted last week for terrorist financing and bilking investors of millions of dollars, notes that Alishtari, in addition to doling out thousands to the National Republican Congressional Committee, also claims in an online CV to be a member of the "White House Business Advisory Committee" and at having been a "National Republican Congressional Committee [New York State] Businessman of the Year" in 2002 and 2003.

Looking into the situation, Paul Kiel of the Muckraker finds pretty much what I did when I looked into these NRCC trinkets back in April of 2005. As Kiel puts it:

As ABC's new ace investigative reporter Justin Rood reports today in his story on Alishtari, "the NRCC 'Businessperson of the Year' fundraising campaign, which gave such 'awards' to at least 1,900 GOP donors, has been derided as a telemarketing scam by political watchdogs."

He goes on to note that "the calls frequently featured a recording of ex-Majority Leader's Tom DeLay (R-TX)," and that the program traces its roots back to at least 1998.

A more in-depth look at this and similar programs (including the "Physician of the Year" award), like the 2005 story from ABC's old ace investigative reporter Brian Ross, reveals that DeLay's involvement went well beyond providing the voice track:

The Republicans, under the direction of DeLay, came up with the idea for the awards five years ago as a means of helping to raise funds for the congressional campaign efforts for their party.

And now we see the natural consequences of the Bizarro World created when the sick visions of Tom "I am the federal government" DeLay and George "Money trumps peace" Bush are thrown together: Republicans happily gripping and grinning at fundraisers, raking with sweaty palms at huge wads of cash, even as they claim that the money and the donors are inextricably linked to the terrorism they delight in accusing others of being "soft" on.

Who knows where Alishtari might have landed himself next, waving all that oh-so-irresistible Republican cash around? Bush can thank his lucky stars that there was a federal prosecutor on his toes up in New York, or he might have had Al Qaeda bunking the Lincoln Bedroom before too long.

Whew!

Sound crazy? Well, not too long ago, Dubya had this nutbar in the White House with him:

Which nutbar is that? The one on the right. That's Ayham Sameraei, and he's there in his former capacity as Iraq's electricity minister. But today, he's traded that in for the glamorous life of an international fugitive:

A Sunni Arab who claimed ties to the insurgency, Sameraei was arrested in August of this year and charged with a dozen counts of misallocating millions of dollars in Iraqi government money. He was sentenced in October to two years' imprisonment. At that time, security contractors took him to the U.S. Embassy before he could be jailed, but U.S. officials handed him over to Iraqi authorities.

A U.S. Embassy spokesman confirmed Monday that Sameraei was no longer in prison. He said U.S. officials scrambled into the evening to locate him.

An Arab financial criminal with ties to the insurgency terra! In the White House? Heavens to Betsy!

But there's no way that could ever happen... again. Right?

Right?

Wonder how long before Abu Gonzales fires that prosecutor?

By all rights, this should be a mortal wound to the Strong Daddy Security Party. The Party of the 1% Doctrine.

But there are no "rights" -- and certainly precious little justice -- in the country run by these "deciders" and bullshit artists. Scaring the daylights out of people with constant threats of "terra! terra!" and fueling xenophobia for political profit, even while they secretly feast on what they themselves say is Arab, terrorist-connected money.

They're spying on Quakers and tapping your phones, but can't figure this one out until it's "too late" and the checks are cashed?

Republican USA: You've been played for suckers. Again.

From the GREAT STATE OF MAINE...

Today you're just a number to me

Every so often we raid the mold-infested archives (generously maintained by the Walter Reed outpatient staff) to answer the question: "What'cha thinkin'?" Here's what we gleaned from recent C&J polls:

36 percent of Kossacks have written a diary, 11 percent plan to write one, and 51 percent say they're content just to read 'em.

60 percent gave the Iraq Study Group Report a grade of 'C' or better.

Of all the House committee chairs, Henry Waxman (Government Reform, 58%) and John Conyers (Judiciary, 23%) are the ones you're most eager to see in action. In the Senate, the top vote-getters were Patrick Leahy (Judiciary, 37%) and Barbara Boxer (Environment, 21%).

Only 18 percent think the military's Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy "definitely" or "probably" will be lifted in 2007.

18 percent of you blog more on weekends while 35 percent blog less.

62 percent think George W. Bush will take another stab at privatizing Social Security before he leaves office.

Kossacks would much rather have a drink with Jon Stewart (68%) than Stephen Colbert (24%).

50 percent of you didn’t think there would be any shocking revelations during the Scooter Libby trial.

When Fidel Castro dies, 38% think relations between Cuba and the U.S. will get better, 38% think they'll stay the same, and 13% think they'll get worse.

And 27% have never tried Maine lobster while 3% have tried it and hate it. Those people have been banned from this site.

Cheers and Jeers starts in There’s Moreville... [Swoosh!!] RIGHTNOW! [Gong!!]

This weekend, when a two-part story in the Washington Post revealed that Walter Reed Army Medical Center, the "crown jewel of military medicine," is a rodent infested bureaucratic nightmare, where physically and psychologically wounded soldiers and their families are forced to fend for themselves, the outrage was immediate and overwhelming.  And yesterday the White House officially weighed in.

Q The administration's mantra for a long time has been "support the troops." What is the reaction, then, when you read this series of stories in The Washington Post...What's the President's reaction?

MR. SNOW: There are a couple of things. First, it's not a mantra. I would really choose words carefully. It's a commitment to support the troops.  And the President, as you know, has visited the wounded many times at Walter Reed and we are concerned about it.

Bearing in mind the administration's commitment to support the troops, and in the interest of not using this to, somehow support positions out in America, political views, I'll let snippets from Tony Snow's press briefing speak for themselves, beginning with, what did the President know and when did he know it?  

Q Were you aware?

MR. SNOW: We are aware now, yes.

Q So you're saying the President learned about this from The Washington Post?

MR. SNOW: I don't know exactly where he learned it...  

Q But is there any evidence that it was even looked at before the paper printed its two stories?

MR. SNOW: Yes.  

Q You responded to me a moment ago that the administration was aware of this before the articles appeared in the paper.

MR. SNOW: That is my understanding.  

Q Was the President aware of it? Was the White House aware of it?

MR. SNOW: I am not certain --

Let's recap:  The White House is now aware, though they don't know when they became aware, but they were aware before this weekend as they understand it, although they're not sure.  Moving on to the concern:

Q Tony, can I follow on that? As Bob Dole might ask, where's the outrage?

MR. SNOW: There's plenty of outrage.

Q Is there?

MR. SNOW: Yes.  

Q The White House doesn't want to be on record with a more emphatic expression of amazement and upset about this?

MR. SNOW: No.  

Q Is the system working?

MR. SNOW: Well, I'll tell you what -- is the system working? Yes. Is it working perfectly? No.

Q Do you think the President is going to say something about this later?

MR. SNOW: No.

Q Has he given any new orders?

MR. SNOW: No.

And what about the President's commitment?

...this is something where I'd suggest you give DoD a call, because I know they've taken a good, hard look at it.  

And at this point I would refer you to the Department of Defense.

But this is why I'm telling you if you want a more direct answer about this, you do need to talk to the people at the Department of the Army --

Well, yes, because what I'm telling you is that it is something that falls under the providence of the Department of the Army.  

I'm telling you, those are the people to talk to, the DoD.

We are trying to get to the bottom of it, and the people who are responsible for getting to the bottom of it work on the other side of the river.

So you might want to talk to them.

And here's the punchline:

I can tell you that the President feels passionately about them, and you should have no doubt about it -- you've been at enough events where when he looks these people in the eye there is a commitment, a strong, profound emotional commitment to the people who serve this country. And it is one where the President is committed to doing right by the men and women who serve. There should be no doubt about that.

Yes, the White House reaction to this outrage was practically dripping with passionate, profound, and emotional commitment.  

Cheney today:

Standing aboard the USS Kitty Hawk in Yokosuka harbor, Cheney said, "I want you to know that the American people do not support a policy of retreat."

The American people last week:

Poll: 63% want all troops home by end of '08

By Susan Page, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — Americans overwhelmingly support congressional action to cap the number of U.S. troops in Iraq and set a timetable to bring them home by the end of next year, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds....

The vice president seems to have caught a case of Rove’s THE Math.

(Tonight’s selections are brought to you courtesy of the Rescue Rangers. SusanG)

A bumper crop of good and thoughtful diaries tonight! Please be sure to check out jonah in nyc's excellent treatise on effective blogging in particular. Of course the rest are great too.....I might even take my free trip to Europe, I need a crown! Please keep all limbs inside the car as the ride starts, and hold on to your hats!

(Tonight's diary harvesters are jennyjem, Got a Grip, my global conscious, dannyinla, BentLiberal and jennyjem again on a double shift! buhdydharma as editor)

• People are still dying in the genocide in Darfur and Alegre wants you to know how you can help. BREAKING: Janjaweed Militias Massing in Sudan (w/ Resource Guide) is a comprehensive collection of Darfur-related links. (dannyinla)
• As the 2008 election season heats up, more and more people will be itching to blog. jonah in nyc has some Tips for being an amateur blogger. (dannyinla)
• In Blogger scoops NY Times on Iraq Oil Law, diarist deepblade asserts that a permanent military occupation of Iraq is the only way the US will be able to keep Iraq's new oil law in place; a law which the diarist contends gives complete control over Iraq's oil to western oil companies. (BentLiberal)
• Welshman writes A Diary of Little Substance, which turns out to be anything but. (jennyjem)
• Diarist rawls is a veteran who wants heads to roll over the mess at Walter Reed, but thinks it may be a mistake to lay sole blame on a bureaucrat. Instead, in My Frustration with the Walter Reed Story, the responsibility lies squarely with the Bush tax cuts that have left the army underfunded at home and abroad. (dannyinla)
• It's said that those who are ignorant of their history are doomed to repeat it, and these two diaries speak to that truth. First, Ciretose writes about a book which Donald Rumsfeld should have read back in 1996 in McNamara and Iraq. And former Naval officer, RoddieH, writes his view on peace in the middle east in Beirut in 1983 and Iraq Today: A Veteran's Perspective. (jennyjem)
• The Angry Rakkasan shows us How Democrats Can Utilize the Nine Principles of War to take the offensive on the rhetoric and the handling of the war. (BentLiberal)
• Roy Eidelson outlines how the few Presidential loyalists who are left may lead to perceiving everyday Americans as an obstruction in Beware the Wounded Bear. (my global conscious)
• BentLiberal wants to make sure the GOP retains proper ownership of Bush/Cheney et al. in Dems Must Counter GOP Strategy of Bashing Bush. (jennyjem)
• malangale shows us how Orbitz can give us cheaper healthcare in Fly Free to Europe (another healthcare Republican tale). (my global conscious)
• Ralph Neas, President of the People For the American Way, graces us with a wonderful diary on two bills which will start us on the road to meaningful election reform, and I am honored to rescue Holt and Obama Bills Lead the Way on Election Reform. (jennyjem)
• Ever wonder how different the current incarnations of the Democratic and Republican Parties are to their predecessors? myhistorycanbeatupyourpolitics gives us the historical tour in How Much Have Parties Changed Over Time?. (Got a Grip)
• Sometimes a picture is worth more than a thousand words. Chimes of Freedom gives us a pictorial tour of New Orleans' 9th Ward in Katrina: No Mardi Gras for you. (Got a Grip)
• Ash Wednesday is a different kind of diary...and that's a good thing. Diarist deepfish makes us laugh as a young schoolmate gains third grade immortality by re-doing his Ash Wednesday smudge to look like Fred Flintstone. Later we cry at the plaintive words of a young Iraqi girl: "I pretended to be dead ... and he did not know about me," explaining why she's the only member of her family left alive. Politics, Prayers and Catholic nuns give this diary depth and spirituality. (BentLiberal)
• What does George Bush's continuing war in Iraq have in common with a game of golf? exmearden explains all in Play it as it lays - and replace your divot, please. (Got a Grip)

Top Comments are brought to us by emeraldmaiden.

Add your favorite diaries from the past 24 hours and use as an open thread.

Tigerhawk, Prof. Lloyd Christmas and, God help me, even Doughbob Loadpants are right about something: the practice of “extraordinary rendition” has its roots in the Clinton/Gore administration. The criminal prosecution of terrorist suspects has not been a priority for the Bush Administration, which has focussed, rather, on preventing additional attacks. But some people who have been [...]

Tony Snow and "real journalists" finally agreed on something tonight at a roundtable held for very serious people at the National Press Club: Blogs suck. They’re mean. And ... and ... and ... they actually expect reporters to do their jobs!

We’ll skip Tony Snow. Who cares? But via Think Progress, a couple of journalists had some interesting things to say, kind of opening a door into the higher minds that are raised so far above the rest of us.

NBC News’ David Gregory bemoaned how political coverage has "become so polarized in this country...because it’s the internet and the blogs that have really used this White House press conferences to somehow support positions out in America, political views."

Can you imagine that? The nerve! People actually use White House press conferences to form and support political views! And then they write about those views! Where anybody can read and see and respond and argue and fact-check them! And they haven’t been seen – not once! – at a cocktail party in DC. Next thing you know, they’ll start thinking regular old ordinary people have a right to opinions or something.

And then there’s this:

Newsweek’s White House correspondent Richard Wolffe added, "[Bloggers] want us to play a role that isn’t really our role. Our role is to ask questions and get information. ... It’s not a chance for the opposition to take on the government and grill them to a point where they throw their hands up and surrender."

That’s it? Ask questions and get information? No context, no analysis, no pointing out that what Tony Snow says this morning was contradicted by what he said last week? Gotcha. I guess that relegates any role beyond being a human tape recorder to the blogs.

By the way, Mr. Wolffe? Thomas Jefferson had a few thoughts on the American people forming opinions and what that meant for the government:

"The force of public opinion cannot be resisted when permitted freely to be expressed. The agitation it produces must be submitted to. It is necessary, to keep the waters pure." -- Thomas Jefferson to Lafayette, 1823.

I kinda like that as a blogging motto: Keeping the waters pure. But I sure can see how that threatens people sitting around at a National Press Club roundtable talking about very important things like how we are ruining political discourse in this country by letting just any old Joe (or Josephine) have a voice.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled 2-1 today that 400 foreign nationals detained at Guantanamo don't have the right to challenge their imprisonment, ruling that the Military Commissions Act passed last fall in a tour de force of Rubber Stamp dereliction of duty by Congress blocked the detainees right to appeal their indefinite imprisonment without charges.

Among the analysis that are particularly interesting are by Big Tent Democrat at Talk Left and Marty Lederman at Balkinization. Both touch on the door left open by the Court for potential of U.S. citizens captured outside of U.S. territory to be held without recourse to habeas corpus. (Text of decision here [pdf].)

Big Tent Democrat:

The decision is an exercise in disengenuity. It accepts as undisputed fact, without the merest discussion - that the detainees do not have Constitutional habeas rights because (1) Guantanamo is outside of the control of the US government (contradicting the Supreme Court holding in Rasul) and that (2) the detainees are "enemy aliens" for habeas purposes (though that is "irrelevant", see paragraph below.)

The DC Circuit concedes at [footnote] 8 that in fact the detainees are NOT enemy aliens, but that it does not matter anyway - thus standing Eisentrager on its head. And this is not insignificant - for the reasoning could be read to allow the Executive to detain American citizens outside US territory as well.

Consider this language from the DC Circuit opinion at [footnote] 8.:

[U]nder the common law [habeas corpus], the dispositive fact was not a petiotioner's alien enemy status, but his lack of presence within any sovereign territory.

Thus, the issue is not at all who the petitioner/prisoner is, but where he was caught. So had Jose Padilla been caught in, say, Afghanistan, he'd be held in Guantanamo indefinitely, without recourse. Lederman expands this thought:

4. Although the holding of Judge Randolph's opinion apparently extends only to aliens held abroad, the logic of his opinion at page 16 suggests that even U.S. citizens held abroad would not be entitled to constitutional habeas protections:

When agents of the Crown detained prisoners outside the Crown’s dominions, it was understood that they were outside the jurisdiction of the writ. See HOLDSWORTH, supra, at 116-17. Even British citizens imprisoned in "remote islands, garrisons, and other places" were "prevent[ed] from the benefit of the law," 2 HENRY HALLAM, THE CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND 127-28 (William S. Hein Co. 1989) (1827), which included access to habeas corpus, see DUKER, supra, at 51-53; HOLDSWORTH, supra, at 116; see also Johan Steyn, Guantanamo Bay: The Legal Black Hole, 53 INT’L & COMP. L.Q. 1, 8 (2004) ("the writ of habeas corpus would not be available" in "remote islands, garrisons, and other places" (internal quotation marks omitted)).

Among all of the problematic elements of this decision (can they really argue that Guantanamo doesn't count as U.S. sovereign territory for purposes of the rule discussed?), this one is potentially the most dangerous. We already know whate the U.S. Attorney General believes about the Constitutional right of U.S. citizens to habeas corpus. Now we might find out what Chief Justice Roberts and Scalito think about it.

I got in trouble during last year's YearlyKos when, exhausted and with my guard down, I told a Seattle alt weekly reporter that Maureen Dowd was a "catty, insecure bitch". I shouldn't have called her a "bitch", but she was catty and insecure while interviewing me (the subject of her catiness and insecurity was the old Wonkette -- Ana Marie Cox -- who had just scored a gig at Time.com).

In a private email, Dowd claimed I had misinterpreted her anti-Cox cattiness. I responded by saying that perhaps she was right, and could settle the whole matter by releasing the tape she made of the interview. Of course she refused. She simply wasn't happy someone turning the table on her.

Her subsequent column predictably mocked attendees to YearlyKos and me, which was fine. But she also took a gratuitous swipe at Bill Richardson which really pissed me off. In typical Dowd fashion, she mocked him for saying "I'm for space" at a breakfast at the convention, conveniently ignoring the fact that the space industry is now a billion-dollar industry in New Mexico and he was talking about the importance of economic and scientific development. In Dowd's column, she made him sound like an airhead.

She was no different when she started the narrative of Gore being boring, or Kerry being elitist, or Hillary raking in illegal gifts. Have any of us forgotten her oft-quoted story in 2004 accusing Kerry of saying, at a NASCAR rally, ""Who among us doesn't like NASCAR?" It was a complete fabrication. Tapes of the event proved Kerry never said such a thing. Not that Dowd cared.

So it's no surprise that it's Obama's turn.

As a campaigner, Sen. Barack Obama is angry and overwhelmed.

That was the unflattering takeaway from Maureen Dowd's catty column (subscription required) last week about the Illinois senator's foray onto the presidential campaign trail, as Dowd traipsed out to the heartland to watch the Democratic sensation up close. But as is her custom, Dowd fixated on personality and stagecraft, not substance, as the poison-penned, Wednesday/Saturday columnist for The New York Times painted a relentlessly unflattering portrait of the senator.

In the eyes of Dowd, Obama was out of his element on the national stage: "testy," "irritated," and "conflicted."

Follow the link for Eric Boehlert's full takedown of Dowd's anti-Obama column. Then compare the "testy", "irritated", and "conflicted" claims with factual reports from the event.

Washington Post:

He took on a relatively serious tone for much of his first days on the campaign trail. He gave lengthy and substantive answers to policy questions from audience members, at times bringing crowds to a hush as he laid out his political philosophy [...]

His more subdued approach came as a surprise to some in the audiences along the way. "I think a lot of people realize there's been a lot of rock star-ness about him up to now," said Grant Sovern, an immigration lawyer from Madison, Wis., who came to see Obama speak in Cedar Rapids on Saturday. "I think you can see he's trying to bring things down and talk about issues more." [...]

When he was first available to the media, on Sunday, Obama faced a crush of reporters and cameras. He calmly answered questions [...]

Des Moines Register:

After shedding his suit jacket, Obama sat on a stool for a relaxed question-and-answer session that touched on improving education, enlarging federal grants for college students, raising teacher pay, insuring those who have no health care, lowering health care costs for all Americans, ending poverty, dealing with global warming, and ending the country's dependence on foreign oil through the development of alternative fuels.

So how does Dowd get from the clear consensus that Obama was "calm/relaxed", to "testy", "irritated" and "conflicted"? She doesn't offer any evidence for her negative characterizations. And while it would be too much for her to talk about the issues Obama discussed, why the hell would she invent an Obama that no one else seems to have noticed? Is it because Obama took an impetuous swipe at the press:

Perhaps the most memorable moment came when he needled the press corps about an emerging story line on his candidacy [...]

"The problem is not that the information's not out there. The problem is that that's not what you guys have been reporting on. You've been reporting on how I look in a swimsuit." He was referring to a People magazine photograph of him while vacationing in Hawaii several weeks ago.

Fair enough, but in the rarified air in which Dowd apparently lives, that was apparently unacceptable. As Boehlert writes:

Rule Number 1: Celebrity Beltway journalists don't like to be upstaged in public; especially not by newcomers. Just ask Howard Dean, who, when declaring his presidential candidacy on June 23, 2003, asked rhetorically, "Is the media reporting the truth?" Not smart. The press corps quickly labeled Dean an angry kook.

Jim Wallis:

So Kos, let’s made a deal. How about if progressive religious folks, like me, make real sure that we never say, or even suggest, that values have to come from faith – and progressive secular folks, like you, never suggest that progressive values can’t come from faith (and perhaps concede that, in fact, they often do). If we progressives, religious and secular, could stop fighting among ourselves (shooting ourselves in the foot) and join together on some really big values issues – like economic fairness, health care, and a more just foreign policy – think of the difference we could make. How about it?

Here's what I said:

If a candidate sincerely gets his or her values from religion, then that's fine. The Bible is a wonderfully liberal text. And when it's sincere it doesn't come across so grating, so imposing. Compare Obama's talking about religion to Bush's "favorite philosopher" b.s.

But religious values are no more superior than the values I learned from my abuelita (and most Latinos will get a good sense of what my value system looks like just by referencing the word "abuelita"). They are no more superior than the values Tester learned on the farm from his farmer father and grandfather. Or the values that Webb learned while proudly wearing his uniform. Or the values someone might learn by contemplating the great philosophers. Or whatever.

I have no idea what Wallis is talking about. Isn't his point exactly what I wrote? Maybe I'm missing something, but it's as if Wallis didn't bother reading my post and merely heard about it second-hand.

Pastor Dan and Atrios have more.

Does this mean that Air America will be hosting a Republican presidential debate?

Fox News Channel will host an August 2007 Democratic Debate in Reno, Nevada.
The network is working with the Nevada Democratic Party and the Western Majority Project to host the debate, "which is expected to attract the top Democratic contenders for President," the press release says. It will air live on FNC and FNR on Aug. 14 in Reno.

"Fox News is proud to be a leader in coverage of the 2008 campaign season and a co-host of this important presidential debate. We look forward to working with the Nevada Democratic Party and the Western Majority Project," Roger Ailes says...

50 demerits for any Democrat who participates in a debate sponsored by the conservative machine's propaganda arm. Seriously. There's no need to further legitimize and enable the GOP's mouthpiece.

I know several of the candidates are worried about the crowded debate schedule already forming. Well, they now have the perfect excuse to skip this one.

Oh, and a slap in the face to the Nevada Democratic Party for ever thinking this was a good idea.

The child is the father of the man.

The brilliant maneuvers and influence peddling of certain elites to avoid military service in the Vietnam war left two ugly legacies that do grave damage to American troops today.

First, they learned young that wars are meant to be fought by certain classes, which they are above. They grew up with the entitlement spirit of the elite. The privileged classes send the others to fight the wars.

George Herbert Walker Bush a star athlete in college. George W. Bush was the cheerleader.

In politics, that translates in adulthood into a refusal to admit they were wrong and a refusal to take responsibility for their mistakes. The war hero protects the band of brothers. The wimp blames the subordinates.

read more

About that "War on Terror":

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A New York man accused of trying to help terrorists in Afghanistan has donated some $15,000 to the House Republicans' campaign committee over three years.

Abdul Tawala Ibn Ali Alishtari pleaded not guilty Friday in U.S. District Court in Manhattan to charges that include terrorism financing, material support of terrorism and money laundering.

From April 2002 until August 2004, the man also known as "Michael Mixon" gave donations ranging from $500 to $5,000 to the National Republican Congressional Committee, according to Federal Election Commission reports and two campaign donor tracking Web sites, http://www.politicalmoneyline.com and http://www.opensecrets.org

I thought the terrorist wanted the Democrats to win? Alishtari has proclaimed himself a member for life of the National Republican Senatorial Committee’s "Inner Circle Leadership Committee." The DSCC has some information on the benefits that membership entails:

1. Two Annual National Meetings in Washington, DC
2. Exclusive Life Member-Only, Private Receptions, and Photo Opportunities with U.S. Senators at each Meeting
3. Private Life Member Induction Ceremony
4. Specially Reserved Seating at Events
5. Invitations to the NRSC's Republican Senate Dinner in Washington, DC
6. Personal Life Member Representative
7. Election Updates, Newsletters, and Quarterly Interactive Conference Calls with U.S. Senators and VIPs

Excellent. The GOP handed an alleged terrorist sympathizer members-only access to the corridors of power. $15K is a pretty cheap price for all that.

While Bush and his Republican allies fight to escalate the war in Iraq, Tony Blair will announce a huge withdrawal from the country -- reportedly 1,500 of 7,200. The US is increasingly left without allies willing to shoulder even a sliver of the load.

No link, I'm watching CNN at the airport terminal at Dulles, waiting for a late flight home.

And it's not a good day for Republicans on the cable network -- Cheney got slammed on Plame, Republicans got slammed on their terrorist funder (and funny enough, Republicans have discovered "due process" for alleged terrorists), the administration (and Pentagon) got slammed for the unacceptable conditions for recovering vets at Walter Reed, and the Justice Department was accused of falsifying Iraq War intelligence.

Don't worry about Bush, however. Some idiot beltway gasbag will inevitably proclaim how great all of this is for Bush. Maybe even David Broder.

“A hegemon is nothing more or less than a leader with preponderant influence and authority over all others in its domain. That is America's position in the world today.... [P]eace and American security depend on American power and the will to use it... American hegemony is the only reliable defense against a breakdown of peace and international order. The appropriate goal of American foreign policy, therefore, is to preserve that hegemony as far into the future as possible.”
-- William Kristol and Robert Kagan

"Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
-- Lord Acton

With the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991, the United States became the sole remaining super-power. Many saw this extraordinary situation as an opportunity at last for world disarmament, a concerted attack on poverty and disease, and global harmony under a rule of international law.

Not the neo conservatives.

read more

This month the Catholic priest who runs the national association of Catholic charities condemned the Bush Administration budget as a moral failure. He said it "weaken(s) family life" and fails to address "the dignity of the human person," and he called on Congress to change it. Also this month, fringe rightwing activist Bill Donohue attacked two fairly low-level bloggers working for the Edwards campaign by claiming their writings were "anti-Catholic."

Which story do you think got more play in the media?

read more

• Anonymous Liberal notes the unintended consequences of Instapundit's proclamation that America is -- and has been since 1979 -- at war with Iran. Namely: the arms sales wrapped up in the Iran-Contra scandal now officially constitute high treason. Oopsies!
• Abdul Tawala Ibn Ali Alishtari pled not guilty in a Manhattan federal court last Friday, denying charges that he's a terrorist financier. But that's a matter in some dispute, and not just by the prosecutors. According to The Blotter at ABC News.com, the indictment charges that he arranged for $152,000 worth of bank transfers to fund a terror training camp. But if that doesn't convince you he's a funding terrorists, maybe this will: Alishtari also gave 10% of that total to the National Republican Congressional Committee. The NRCC won't say what it intends to do with those funds. My guess? Continue to fight America on the escalation, and try to kill more troops before they get their armor.
• Matt Taibbi positively explodes (and who wouldn't?):

  On the same day that Britney was shaving her head, a guy I know who works in the office of Senator Bernie Sanders sent me an email. He was trying very hard to get news organizations interested in some research his office had done about George Bush's proposed 2008 budget, which was unveiled two weeks ago and received relatively little press...

  Sanders's office came up with some interesting numbers here. If the Estate Tax were to be repealed completely, the estimated savings to just one family -- the Walton family, the heirs to the Wal-Mart fortune -- would be about $32.7 billion dollars over the next ten years.

  The proposed reductions to Medicaid over the same time frame? $28 billion.

• New entrants in the Worst Predictions Ever sweepstakes, from Not Larry Sabato:

  From the day "macaca" broke:

  #1) WaPo:  "Virginia Commonwealth University politics professor Robert Holsworth called Allen's comments a gaffe that probably wouldn't change the Senate race but could hurt his presidential ambitions.

  "This doesn't turn the race around at all," Holsworth said. "But for a guy running for president, this is likely to be regularly aired this year and maybe beyond.""

  #2-  Virginia Virtucon:  "My only question is, why is the Webb campaign wasting money sending a staffer around to videotape George Allen on the stump when they don’t have and never will have enough money to buy any real advertising to show any of it on. What are they going to do? Put it up on Webb’s "Born Yesterday" (or whatever it is being called now that he has dropped "Born Fighting") website?"

In the February issue of Harpers Magazine, there appears an article by Edward Luttwak entitled "Dead End: Counterinsurgency Warfare as Military Malpractice." In the article, Luttwak argues that there is no way that the United States, despite its superior military power, can prevail against an insurgency such as is ongoing now in Iraq-at least no way that's consistent with American values (and that stops short of the brutal tactics used by the ancient Romans and by the Nazis).

I've been reading Luttwak's writings occasionally for about thirty years, and I have found his thinking to be exceptionally brilliant in his field, which generally involves matters of military strategy. It would be interesting to go back over all his writings and tally up how often history has borne out his analyses, but I virtually always find his thinking to be lucid and persuasive.

In the present article about the counter-insurgency efforts of the United States, Luttwak's analysis seemed to me as lucid and persuasive as always. And I commend that article to your attention. (The article does not appear to be available online.)

The article raised a couple of questions in my mind.

read more

Following yesterday's coordinated attack on a U.S. combat outpost, killing two American soldiers and wounding at least 17, the the attacks go on:

Violence continued in Baghdad today, as a bomb in a truck carrying chlorine gas killed at least five people and injured many more, including many women and children poisoned by the gas, police said.

A car bomb near a food market in southeast Baghdad killed 5 and wounded 20. And another car bomb in southeast Baghdad killed 3 and wounded 14, near a gas station hit by a car bomb two weeks ago.

Insurgents have been able to shoot down more helicopters through coordinated assaults, captured documents suggest, and American and Iraqi military officials say they are concerned that militants are moving to areas where the American troop presence remains thin.

The insurgents didn't take long to figure out how to respond to Bush's surge plan, and are doing so with what appears to be increasingly sophisticated planning. Including using chlorine trucks as dirty bombs.

A source at police headquarters said the chlorine truck was rigged with explosives, suggesting it was a dirty bomb employing a readily available substance used to purify water. A second police source also said the bomb was on the truck.

It hasn't yet appeared in English language stories, but the Dutch press is reporting on what might be a trend:

Security forces have obtained information that there are four similar trucks/tankers in the area around Ramadi.  They are reported to be hijacked by foreign suicide bombers [terrorists]. (Translation by our correspondent from The Netherlands, Plutonium Page.)

The attacks are getting more sophisticated, from bringing down helicopters and lying in wait to ambush the rescuers, to attacking military outposts, to using readily available materials as chemical warfare. It appears that there's an increasing resolve among the insurgents to inflict as much damage on the U.S. troops as on fellow Iraqis. This escalation can do nothing to quell that trend and can only serve to exacerbate it. We must get our troops out of Iraq.

During a whistle stop in South Carolina, trailing in John McCain’s wake I suppose, Hillary Clinton offered this nugget of insight:

“I personally would like to see (the Confederate Flag) removed from the Statehouse grounds.”

Not a bad idea, however irrelevant it may be. The South did lose the American Civil War. And the “Dukes of Hazzard” has been off the air since 1985 (not a fan, I just looked it up; I swear).

But is this what voters are waiting with baited breath to hear from the next POTUS? Take down the Confederate Flag?

Probably not.

Although, I don’t see this as a tactical error on the part of Clinton. Why not take a shot at South Carolina’s abominable affectation for flying the old Stars and Bars. Stir the pot. Be a rabble rouser. And avoid substantive issues like Iraq and taxation and the deficit, and above all avoid talking about the 2002 vote to give Bush 43 the power to wage war in Iraq.

read more