1 Boring Old Man

When you think about it, this is the most amazing set of pictures imaginable. Anyone who matters at the Justice Department has now resigned. Six or so months ago, the U.S. Attorney Plan became public, and now everyone involved is gone with the wind. George W. Bush is standing in front of a microphone red faced, claiming that Alberto Gonzales’ name was dragged through the mud for political reasons – indignant. What really happened was simple. Karl Rove and friends had a scheme. Intimidate Minority voters in key areas and control the vote by bringing voter fraud cases. It didn’t work, and now the lot of them are gone from government – three from the White House and the top ten from the Justice Department.

No one’s been charged with anything. All they had to do was testify. And down they came. Each one is some mother’s child – a person of Great Expectations who had risen to places of high authority. Now they’re disgraced because of their part in a scheme, the full dimension of which remains murky. Don’t be fooled by the fact that they’re all college graduates [except for Rove]. Don’t be surprised that they’re all Law School graduates [except for Rove]. They really aren’t our best and brightest. They aren’t even the Republicans’ best and brightest. But [except for Rove and Schlozman] they’re probably not rats or bottom feeders. They’re just people who didn’t know who they worked for. A lot of their best and brightest are also gone – James Comey, and the eight plus who were fired as part of the scheme.

In its scope, this is one of our government’s greatest scandals ever. We’re just still too close to realize its full depth.

LIMBAUGH: Here’s [caller] in Lake Orion, Michigan. Thank you for calling. Great to have you on the EIB Network.
CALLER: Hey, Rush. It’s great to talk to you. I talked to you once before. I’ve been listening to you for a couple of years now, and I think I’m getting brighter, but there’s a lot to be learned. I know I’m no expert in foreign affairs, but what really confuses me about the liberals is the hypocrisy when they talk about how we have no reason to be in Iraq and helping those people, but yet everybody wants us to go to Darfur. I mean, aren’t we going to end up in a quagmire there? I mean, isn’t it – I don’t understand. Can you enlighten me on this?
LIMBAUGH: Yeah. This is – you’re not going to believe this, but it’s very simple. And the sooner you believe it, and the sooner you let this truth permeate the boundaries you have that tell you this is just simply not possible, the better you will understand Democrats in everything. You are right. They want to get us out of Iraq, but they can’t wait to get us into Darfur.
CALLER: Right.
LIMBAUGH: There are two reasons. What color is the skin of the people in Darfur?
CALLER: Uh, yeah.
LIMBAUGH: It’s black. And who do the Democrats really need to keep voting for them? If they lose a significant percentage of this voting bloc, they’re in trouble.
CALLER: Yes. Yes. The black population.
LIMBAUGH: Right. So you go into Darfur and you go into South Africa, you get rid of the white government there. You put sanctions on them. You stand behind Nelson Mandela – who was bankrolled by communists for a time, had the support of certain communist leaders. You go to Ethiopia. You do the same thing.
CALLER: It’s just – I can’t believe it’s really that simple.

In fact, Darfur is a human tragedy of epic proportions, happening right now before our eyes, and pretty much nobody, certainly not the political class of either party, is much interested in it. So let’s just set that aside.

The hideous, racist assumptions in that little "analysis" are so blatant that it’s startling, even from the disgusting Limbaugh. The charge that African American voters vote on the basis of African politics is so bizarre I don’t even know how to deal with it. And anyway, even if it were true, the fact that the Republicans are a bunch of racist pigs who insisted on supporting apartheid until the bitter end would likely have been the motive, especially since those same Republican racists couldn’t stop talking about welfare queens and running their political campaigns based on thinly veiled racist attacks. While I’m sure black Americans care about Darfur and South Africa as much as the next decent human being, they know very well that the Republican party is filled with racist haters like Limbaugh who despise them. Voting for the Democrats isn’t really that complicated in light of that.

And apparently, the only reason he and his bigoted ditto-head listeners can imagine that anyone would oppose apartheid in South Africa or be horrified at the genocide in Darfur is their own craven political interests. I’m afraid that says more about him than it does about Democrats.

In a way, I expect my reaction [and Digby’s] is part of the script. I pass. Invitation to go crazy with Rush declined…

The kids on the street gathered, and someone would say, "Let’s play like … …" – proposing some pretend scenario. Either it was a go, or someone would counter, "No, let’s play like…" Once an acceptable game situation was proposed, it might go on for days – maybe all summer.

I was thinking, let’s play like Karl Rove quit because he saw that there was no way that the Republicans can pull it off 2008. And let’s play like Bush is afraid to take on Iran, even though Dick Cheney still wants to. And let’s play like Alberto Gonzales has given up with the voter fraud thing and is just riding out his time because Bush is afraid to replace him. And let’s play like Petraeus knows the Surge can’t really work and is awaiting the pull down order. And, let’s play like BushCo finally almost over. And let’s play like the Democrats know how to get us pointed in the right direction.

Childhood was easier… 

Gayle and I, along with Alex (16) and Elliott (14) have decided to move into the Phoenix Dream Center on October 1st. The Phoenix Dream Center is a half-way house for the homeless, those coming out of prison, recovering alcoholics, drug addicts, prostitutes, and other broken people. I identify. The building is sponsored by Phoenix First Assembly, our new church home, but the workers are volunteers. The Dream Center also houses a church called "The Church on the Street." I met the pastor and he asked me if I would be willing to counsel some of the men and to teach the group from time to time. The woman directing the ministry to women invited Gayle to teach and minister to the women. Gayle and I spoke to the boys about it, and after a series of discussions with several leaders and our pastor, Tommy Barnett, we decided to serve the dream center in whatever capacity asked, whether it’s cleaning the building, hosting a visiting group, attending a meeting, or facilitating a study. In order to increase our availability to serve, we have decided to move and live in the Dream Center. As a result, the Phoenix Dream Center team is creating an apartment for our family by combining a small, one-bedroom apartment with an adjacent room so our boys will have their own rooms. Even though Alex and Elliott’s drive to school is quite a distance every day, we think it is worth it to be given the privilege of service. Now, however, we need to raise our own support. In preparation for the future, Gayle and I are both enrolled at the University of Phoenix at their main downtown campus. Gayle is in the undergraduate program studying psychology. I am pursuing my master of science in counseling degree, which means we are both full time students. Alex and Elliott are both attending a local Christian school. Elliott is playing 8th grade football this fall. Everyone is busy! It looks as though it will take two years for us to have adequate earning power again, so we are looking for people who will help us monthly for two years. During that time we will continue as full time students, and then, when I graduate, we won’t need outside support any longer. But for the next two years, we will need support. Between now and the end of the year, we have to find the people who want to help us transition into our future. So I am starting today to let friends like you know that we are raising money for support as we move into the Phoenix Dream Center. Would you be willing to help us find people who can give a one time gift or make a commitment to help support us monthly for two years? If so, that would be a blessing. If people want to support us directly, they can mail checks to Ted and Gayle Haggard, 9699 N. Hayden, Suite 108, PMB 180, Scottsdale, AZ 95259. This is a private mail box address that we have been using since we moved to the Phoenix area. If any supporters need a tax deduction for their gift, they can mail it to Families With a Mission at P.O. Box 63125, Colorado Springs, CO 80962. The supporters would need to write their check to "Families With A Mission" and put a separate note on it that it is for the Haggard family, then Families With a Mission will mail us 90% of the funds for support and use 10% for administrative costs. Thank you so much. We feel our move into the Dream Center is the next step God would have us take. Any help we can get with this will be greatly appreciated and, I believe, rewarded in heaven. Please feel free to forward this to anyone you think might have an interest. Any assistance we receive will be greatly appreciated. Thank you. God bless,   Ted Haggard "Preparing" P.S. Our handicapped son, Jonathan (20) has been taken care of financially by Victory Church (Mike Ware), Church of the Highlands (Chris Hodges) and New Life Church in Colorado Springs since November of 2006. It’s our prayer that these churches will continue helping Jonathan while we’re in this stage of our lives. We are so grateful for their assistance. Their faithfulness to Jonathan and consequently our family has given us room to heal. We are all very thankful for their prayers, love, and kindness

Ted Haggard Appeals for Funds

He sent an e-mail to reporter Tak Landrock of ABC affiliate KRDO—and from the way it appeals to “friends like you,” it sounds like it was sent to a lot of people. KRDO has posted the letter as a Microsoft Word document, which you can download from here.

The news was also covered by the Colorado Springs Gazette and the Associated Press.

The letter raises three issues:

First, the e-mail blindsided the group of overseers charged with seeing Haggard through his time of repentance, recovery, and restoration. The Gazette quoted Mike Ware:

“We will review that his statement was premature, and we will talk to him about that. It is not an official release from us,” Ware said. Ware wouldn’t comment on the propriety of Haggard’s plea for money but said he felt it was premature of Haggard to release the statement without first consulting the overseers.

So the first issue is simply that Haggard seems to be operating indepently and ahead of those who were appointed to be his spiritual guardians.

The second issue is the address Haggard’s letter gives where “friends like you” should mail your donations. According to watchdogs in the blogosphere (see this for a start, which has been linked on multiple other blogs), it is a defunct charity whose mailing addresses belong to a sex offender from Hawaii. Curioser and curioser.

The third issue is raised by Haggard’s assets. I’m sure he can use donations, but he wasn’t exactly poor to start with. And many people who need to start over in midlife use home equity and other assets to tide them over their straitened circumstances. Some even take out student loans.

According to the Gazette:

Haggard received a salary of $115,000 for the 10 months he worked in 2006 and an $85,000 anniversary bonus before the scandal broke, according to church officials. The church’s board of trustees gave him a severance package that included a year’s salary ($138,000). He also collects royalties on his many book titles. Haggard owns a home in Colorado Springs that has been for sale. It has a market value of $715,051, according to records from the El Paso County assessor.

Haggard says he needs your dollars. You decide.

Overtrhowing Maliki? Is That a Democratic Value?

Democratic Senators who are calling for the ouster of Iraqi’s Prime Minister are betraying their constituents and assuming responsibility for Bush’s failed war. From the LA Times:

Like most of the problems the U.S. faces in Iraq, there is no solution to this one. Of course, the United States could engineer Maliki’s ouster, even without resorting to a crude coup. It need only withhold aid until the teetering government in Baghdad collapses. Perhaps merely the calls by Sens. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) for Maliki to resign or be replaced by the Iraqi parliament, combined with President Bush’s tepid support, are sufficient to doom Maliki. But beware what you ask for: Maliki’s successor could well be worse. Many U.S. analysts believe the man most likely to come to power if Maliki falls is Muqtada Sadr, the radical anti-American Shiite cleric and militia leader with deep ties to Iran.

Who do they plan to put in place? Do they imagine there can be an election? Or are Levin, Clinton and Feinstein in on the coup that the Bush administration is trying to push?

Take a look at the Rolling Stones article, The Great Iraq Swindle.

and [from joyhollywood] Larry Johnson‘s post on Preparing the Environment for the Next War.

After Iraq Trip, Unshaken Resolve

When Rep. Jan Schakowsky made her first trip to Iraq this month, the outspoken antiwar liberal resolved to keep her opinions to herself. "I would listen and learn," she decided.

At times that proved a challenge, as when Deputy Prime Minister Barham Salih told her congressional delegation, "There’s not going to be political reconciliation by this September; there’s not going to be political reconciliation by next September." Schakowsky gulped — wasn’t that the whole idea of President Bush’s troop increase, to buy time for that political progress?

But the real test came over a lunch with Gen. David H. Petraeus, who used charts and a laser pointer to show how security conditions were gradually improving — evidence, he argued, that the troop increase is doing some good.

Still, the U.S. commander cautioned, it could take another decade before real stability is at hand. Schakowsky gasped. "I come from an environment where people talk nine to 10 months," she said, referring to the time frame for withdrawal that many Democrats are advocating. "And there he was, talking nine to 10 years."

The trip gave Schakowsky a good look at the challenge that Democrats face next month, when Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker travel to Washington to testify before Congress, presumably with similar charts and arguments that the U.S. military is making strides in Iraq, and that withdrawal dates would be reckless and wrong.

The lack of political progress among Iraq’s rival factions and Petraeus’s estimate of the time needed to stabilize the nation left Schakowsky all the more convinced that Democrats must force Bush to begin bringing troops home.

I wonder how many leaders over the course of human social experience have decided they can to change the course of history. There’s a fantasy in Washington that there’s something called "stabilizing Iraq." It didn’t occur to them before we invaded. They set out to have a "regime change." Getting rid of the old regime [Saddam Hussein and the Bathist Party] was a walk in the park. It only took a few months. They had a deck of cards with the pictures of the guys they wanted to get rid of – remember?

So they got rid of that government and awaited the predicted "open arms" of the liberated Iraqis. I think they thought they could install Amhad Chalabi and his Iraq National Congress as the government as we had done with the Shah of Iran long ago. Well it didn’t exactly work out like they’d planned. Now, they’re going to stabilze the warring factions, I guess sort of like Saddam Hussein had stabilized Iraq – by force. It never was going to happen. Tito tried something like that in Yugoslavia. It didn’t work very well either – lasting only as long as he lasted.

American Foreign Policy has traditionally been about Defense. And the 2002-2003 campaign to invade Iraq was advertised to be about National Defense. That was a deliberate, bold-faced, lie. We all know that now. So the current campaign cannot be about the original goal – National Defense – as it was spoken about in 2003. They’ve kind of eased it into a new version of National Defense – "stabilize Iraq" because they’re now so angry at us that they might be dangerous to us in the future. So, how is staying there killing more Iraqi people and messing with their internal politics going to help us with this new version of National Defense? How’s our track record of manipulating foreign countries working for us over time? Not so well in my humble opinion.

National Defense = Defending our Nation 

Mr. William Kristol would have you believe that  our  my opinion of this war, and  our  my previous opinion of the Viet Nam War are distorted by  our  my other "Liberal" views. He links this belief in the individual rights of others – minorities, the mentally ill, the impoverished – to the idea that National Defense doesn’t mean interferring in the internal workings of other countries. I fail to see his connection. I was all for the war in Afghanistan. I would have been pleased as punch had we supported it completely. I wouldn’t have been opposed to chasing Bin Laden into Pakistan until we found him. Bin Laden attacked our Nation. In that endeavor, I’m a Hawk – an unashamed Hawk. But invading Iraq seemed unjustified and stupid in 2002 when Bush brought it up. It seemed ludicrous in 2003 when he did it. And it seems crazy now. Continuing the failed endeavor seems self-destructive. Mr. Kristol’s sarcastic, demeaning pronouncements don’t change what I feel. I’ve got nothing to say about him. He’s a well dressed, nice looking fellow who says nasty, irresponsible things. That’s his business.

Well, here it comes – the pre-Semptember Administration campaign to sell us on the idea that Bush’s Surge is working. We know about the ad campaign using Ari Fleischer. Then there was Bush’s speech about the comparisons with Viet Nam, bolstered by the usual sarcastic Weekly Standard commentary from William Kristol ["Like a pig in muck, the left loves to wallow in Vietnam. But only in their ‘Vietnam.’ Not in the real Vietnam war."]. Even the Pentagon is getting into the act. Michael O’Hanlon [of O’Hanlon and Pollack who wrote the very suspect op-ed supporting the Surge] is defending their spin. And it’s all leading up to General David Patreas‘ report [coming on September 11].

Notice, the criticism of the War and the Surge is attributed to "the left." As always, it’s tempting to jump into things and argue with what they’re saying when they mount one of these campaigns. This time, I’m not willing to do that. Their Viet Nam argument is kind of silly. We should have stayed longer? What is the evidence for that? Were that true, seems like they’d have brought up the point a long time ago. But it’s not the content of the ad campaign that matters. It’s that they have an ad campaign at all. Now they’re blaming Viet Nam on Liberals. They’re evoking a new permutation of their tired "cut and run" Talking Point from last year. They’re doing the nth iteration of divisive polarization [Left vs. Right] to justify following the same course they’ve always followed. They’re mounting a media blitz to have it their way. Can you imagine what it has come down to? An ad campaign to set American Foreign Policy? Next year they’ll probably give a free iPhone and a bamboo steamer to the first 1000 people who vote for a Republican…

Bush’s Vietnam Blunder

Desperate presidents resort to desperate rhetoric — which then calls new attention to their desperation. President Bush joined the club this week by citing the U.S. failure in Vietnam to justify staying on in Iraq.

Bush’s comparison of the two conflicts rivals Richard Nixon’s "I am not a crook" utterance during Watergate and Bill Clinton’s "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky," in producing unintended consequences of a most damaging kind for a sitting president.

It is not just that Bush’s speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars convention on Wednesday drew on a shaky grasp of history, spotlighted once again his own decision to sit out the Vietnam conflict, and played straight into his critics’ most emotive arguments against him and the Republican Party.

More important, Bush has called attention to the elephant that will be sitting in the room when his administration makes its politically vital report on Iraq to the nation next month. For Americans, the most important comparison will be this one: As Vietnam did, Iraq has become a failure even on its own terms — whatever those terms are at any given moment.

That is, the administration has constantly shifted its goals in Iraq to avoid accepting failure and blame — only to see the new goals drift beyond reach each time. Liberation of Iraqis became occupation by Americans, democracy became an unattainable centralized "national unity" government and this year’s military surge has become a device for achieving political reconciliation among people who do not want to reconcile…