As reported today on the nationally broadcast Ed Shultz Show part of the Jones Radio Network, former U.S. Weapons Inspector, Scott Ritter declared that the Bush administration helped subvert and manipulate the recent heralded election in Iraq. According to Ritter, who made the original charges in a joint appearance with journalist Dahr Jamil in Washington state, the Bush administration was determined to control the outcome of the Iraq vote at all costs. "The U.S.cooked the election in Iraq," claimed Ritter. Ritter went on to explain how the victory of the Shia was a forgone conclusion to Administration members.What wasn't a foregone conclusion was the percentage of victory. A majority victory of the Shia would give them control of the Parliament and under current Iraqi law allow the Iranian-influenced Mullahs to draw up the new Constitution. read on

The Raw Story interviewed Ritter and has more.

This story reads like something out of a hard boiled, detective novel.

He met her in the bar of the swank hotel and invited her to his room. Once there, the woman fixed the drinks and told him to get undressed. And that, the delegate to the Republican National Convention told police, was the last thing he remembered. When (Gabriel Nathan Schwartz) awoke, the woman was gone, as was more than $120,000 in money, jewelry and other belongings.

The thief's take stunned cops. "It's very, very, very rare," Minneapolis Police Sgt. William Palmer said. "I can think of a couple of burglaries where we had that much stolen, but it's the first time I've heard of this kind of deal."

"It's embarrassing to admit that I was a target of a crime. I was drugged and had about $50,000 of personal items stolen, not the inflated number that the media is reporting from an inaccurate police report," he said.

Those Republicans sure know how to get involved in some very wild sexual situations. I'm changing my mind now and think that Republicans should go to Hollywood and make movies. They have very active imaginations. Schwartz was interviewed repeatedly and was a real wise guy.

During the convention, Schwartz wasn't shy about talking to the media. In an Associated Press article about Sen. John McCain's acceptance speech, Schwartz was quoted as saying that as far as oratorical skills go, McCain "has more experience in his little pinkie" than Democratic nominee Barack Obama.

In an interview filmed the afternoon of Sept. 3 and posted on the Web site LinkTV.org, Schwartz was candid about how he envisioned change under a McCain presidency. "Less taxes and more war," he said, smiling. He said the U.S. should "bomb the hell" out of Iran because the country threatens Israel.

Asked by the interviewer how America would pay for a military confrontation with Iran, he said the U.S. should take the country's resources. "We should plant a flag. Take the oil, take the money," he said. "We deserve reimbursement.

Sure, just bomb Iran and take their oil. Just brilliant. Well for brilliant republicans like him, there happened to be a story book ending.

A few hours after the interview, an unknown woman helped herself to Schwartz's resources.

Texas GOP Promises To Stop Committing Crimes

The Texas Republican Party has struck what might be the sweetest deal in the criminal justice system since Al Capone went to jail for income tax evasion:

The Republican Party of Texas avoided prosecution Thursday by agreeing to stop using corporate money in several ways being investigated by Travis County Attorney David Escamilla.

Escamilla's investigation, which is similar to allegations being pursued by Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle against U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay and the Texas Association of Business, is put on hold through March 31, 2007. In return, the Republican Party agrees to stop using corporate money the way it did during the 2002 election. The party's administrative expenses spiked five-fold to about $5.6 million that year.

State law generally prohibits corporate money being spent in connection with campaigns. The law allows political parities to spend corporate money to run their conventions and on administrative overhead. Escamilla had studied some 27,000 GOP documents, but his investigation in the end focused on three instances of using corporate money. [Austin American Statesman

Here's how this works: If the Republicans promise to stop breaking the laws they broke in 2002, the DA won't prosecute them for the 2002 infractions until after the 2006 elections.
By Lindsay Beyerstein of

Another "catastrophic success" for the Bush Regime. USA Today reports that while we've watched Iraq get blown to bits Afghanistan is slowing burning to the ground and stalemated and we've all but forgotten about it.

The adversary faced this year by the Desert Eagles and other American units fighting in Afghanistan has defied military predictions that the Taliban and al-Qaeda were fading. "It's absolutely true that the insurgency has become more effective and the insurgency has moved into more areas," says Peter Tomsen, a former special envoy who helped organize the anti-Soviet Afghan resistance in the 1980s. According to the Desert Eagles: • The insurgency never intended to disrupt Afghan parliamentary elections in September. The plan was to conserve military resources and wait for U.S. and Western allies to withdraw. "They had to deceive us that the elections were successful," Toolan said, "that we would be duped into a false sense of victory and leave earlier, so that they would have that ripe environment to move into open guerrilla warfare." • Candidates linked to the insurgency ran for parliament seats. "We took United Nations candidate lists and we took a list of (insurgent) targets, and we overlaid those," Toolan said. "There were matches."

Bush had the nation pretty much united behind the Afghanistan campaign and if the had stuck to actually completing that mission properly he would reap the political rewards. But nooooooooooooo! He had to launch an imbecilic invasion of a country not at all affiliated with Al Qaeda (until we invaded of course) at the cost of the Afghanistan campaign and the hunt for Bin Laden. Republicans can use the reptilian aspects of their brain for the next three years all they want; but history has already judged Bush over how he has handled the so-called "War on Terror". That judgment will have him fighting it out with James Buchanan for worst President ever. My money is on Buchanan, that crooked-necked boob packed a mean "cockpunch". Posted (hopefully properly "the Radio" is quite aggravating) by Attaturk of www.rising-hegemon.blogspot.com.

U.S. House Majority LeaderTom DeLay's visit to Reliant Park thismorning offered him a glimpse of what it's like to be living inshelter.The congressman likened their stay to being at camp and asked,"Now tell me the truth boys, is this kind of fun?"

Other fun activities Tom Delay should try. *starving, *freezing,*drowning, *crying,*toxic burning, *sexually assualted, *beinghomeless, * looking for lost family members...

AG REPORT Tapped
Spencer Ackerman has an article out on recently released documents that give us the military's lawyer's view of U.S. interrogation policy:

The JAGs were commenting on the report of a Pentagon working group, convened in January 2003, to review interrogation policy changes. But a common theme in their memos is the concern that the legal rationales employed by the working group were imported wholesale from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC)--whose writing on the question of torture was memorably described by Yale Law School Dean Harold Koh as "perhaps the most clearly legally erroneous opinion I have ever read." (What the Justice Department lawyers actually gave to the Defense Department remains, inexplicably, classified, despite months of congressional demands.)

Major General Thomas Romig, the Army JAG, essentially concurred. He denounced OLC's central contention--that any law restricting the president's ability to wage war is unconstitutional--writing caustically: "I question whether this theory would ultimately prevail in either the U.S. courts or in any international forum. ... This view runs contrary to the historic position taken by the United States Government concerning such laws and, in our opinion, could adversely impact DOD interests worldwide."

Brigadier General Kevin Sandkuhler, the Marine JAG, was more specific about how adopting OLC's argument would harm the military:

Spencer Ackerman has an article out on recently released documents that give us the military's lawyer's view of U.S. interrogation policy:

The JAGs were commenting on the report of a Pentagon working group, convened in January 2003, to review interrogation policy changes. But a common theme in their memos is the concern that the legal rationales employed by the working group were imported wholesale from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC)--whose writing on the question of torture was memorably described by Yale Law School Dean Harold Koh as "perhaps the most clearly legally erroneous opinion I have ever read." (What the Justice Department lawyers actually gave to the Defense Department remains, inexplicably, classified, despite months of congressional demands.)

Major General Thomas Romig, the Army JAG, essentially concurred. He denounced OLC's central contention--that any law restricting the president's ability to wage war is unconstitutional--writing caustically: "I question whether this theory would ultimately prevail in either the U.S. courts or in any international forum. ... This view runs contrary to the historic position taken by the United States Government concerning such laws and, in our opinion, could adversely impact DOD interests worldwide."

Brigadier General Kevin Sandkuhler, the Marine JAG, was more specific about how adopting OLC's argument would harm the military: "Comprehensive protection is lacking for DOD personnel who may be tried by other nations and/or international bodies for violations of international law."

"U.S. Armed Forces are continuously trained to take the legal and moral 'high road' in the conduct of our military operations regardless of how others may operate," wrote the Air Force's deputy JAG, Major General Jack Rives. "Approving exceptional interrogation techniques may be seen as giving official approval and legal sanction to the application of interrogation techniques that U.S. Armed Forces have heretofore been trained are unlawful." Sandkuhler starkly warned about a breakdown in uniformed "pride, discipline and self-respect."

You can see the memos themselves here and Marty Lederman has further commentary on the subject.

Th "Comprehensive protection is lacking for DOD personnel who may be tried by other nations and/or international bodies for violations of international law."

"U.S. Armed Forces are continuously trained to take the legal and moral 'high road' in the conduct of our military operations regardless of how others may operate," wrote the Air Force's deputy JAG, Major General Jack Rives. "Approving exceptional interrogation techniques may be seen as giving official approval and legal sanction to the application of interrogation techniques that U.S. Armed Forces have heretofore been trained are unlawful." Sandkuhler starkly warned about a breakdown in uniformed "pride, discipline and self-respect."

You can see the memos themselves here and Marty Lederman has further commentary on the subject.

Th. They are written by JAGs from the Air Force, Navy, Army and Marines. As Senator Graham put it on Monday, these folks "are not from the ACLU. These are not from people who are soft on terrorism, who want to coddle foreign terrorists. These are all professional military lawyers who have dedicated their lives, with 20-plus year careers, to serving the men and women in uniform and protecting their Nation. They were giving a warning shot across the bow of the policymakers that there are certain corners you cannot afford to cut because you will wind up meeting yourself."

It is fair to say that these accounts reflected sustained, uniform and passionate opposition to the OLC legal theories that were being foisted upon the military. Indeed, the tone of the memos is one of barely concealed incredulity, and outrage--disbelief--that a young legal academic from DOJ could sweep right in and so quickly overturn decades of carefully wrought military policy, using legal analysis that almost certainly would not withstand scrutiny outside the Administration and around the world. ...

Department of "Huh?" Brad DeLong
The U.S. government doesn't already offer protection to foreign diplomats in Iraq? Why not?
WSJ.com - U.S. May Offer Protection To Foreign Diplomats in Iraqe memos are extraordinary. They are written by JAGs from the Air Force, Navy, Army and Marines. As Senator Graham put it on Monday, these folks "are not from the ACLU. These are not from people who are soft on terrorism, who want to coddle foreign terrorists. These are all professional military lawyers who have dedicated their lives, with 20-plus year careers, to serving the men and women in uniform and protecting their Nation. They were giving a warning shot across the bow of the policymakers that there are certain corners you cannot afford to cut because you will wind up meeting yourself."

It is fair to say that these accounts reflected sustained, uniform and passionate opposition to the OLC legal theories that were being foisted upon the military. Indeed, the tone of the memos is one of barely concealed incredulity, and outrage--disbelief--that a young legal academic from DOJ could sweep right in and so quickly overturn decades of carefully wrought military policy, using legal analysis that almost certainly would not withstand scrutiny outside the Administration and around the world. ...

Department of "Huh?" Brad DeLong
The U.S. government doesn't already offer protection to foreign diplomats in Iraq? Why not?
WSJ.com - U.S. May Offer Protection To Foreign Diplomats in IraqThe U.S. military is considering offering protection to foreign diplomats in Baghdad after al Qaeda agents killed three Arab envoys this month, the American ambassador said Thursday. "Coalition forces.. are planning to look at this problem and see what could be done to fix the security for the diplomats," Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad told reporters. "It's very important for foreign diplomats who come here to have a sense of security."...

More Like an Orchard                Discourse. Net
The ‘few bad apples’ canard took another blow Wednesday with the revelation that, Abu Ghraib Dog Tactics Came From Guantanamo.",0]);D(["ce"]);D(["ms","8eef"]);//-->: The U.S. military is considering offering protection to foreign diplomats in Baghdad after al Qaeda agents killed three Arab envoys this month, the American ambassador said Thursday. "Coalition forces.. are planning to look at this problem and see what could be done to fix the security for the diplomats," Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad told reporters. "It's very important for foreign diplomats who come here to have a sense of security."...

JAG Memos Revealed Discourse.net

Marty Lederman has an important post about the torture scandal, The Heroes of the Pentagon's Interrogation Scandal -- Finally, the JAG Memos
. As Marty says, "These memos reveal the JAGs as the real heroes of this story."

The memos are extraordinary. They are written by JAGs from the Air Force, Navy, Army and Marines. As Senator Graham put it on Monday, these folks "are not from the ACLU. These are not from people who are soft on terrorism, who want to coddle foreign terrorists. These are all professional military lawyers who have dedicated their lives, with 20-plus year careers, to serving the men and women in uniform and protecting their Nation. They were giving a warning shot across the bow of the policymakers that there are certain corners you cannot afford to cut because you will wind up meeting yourself."
It is fair to say that these accounts reflected sustained, uniform and passionate opposition to the OLC legal theories that were being foisted upon the military. Indeed, the tone of the memos is one of barely concealed incredulity, and outrage--disbelief--that a young legal academic from DOJ could sweep right in and so quickly overturn decades of carefully wrought military policy, using legal analysis that almost certainly would not withstand scrutiny outside the Administration and around the world. ...

In particular, these memos eloquently warn of the grave harms that could result from such a radical shift in policies and legal understandings--harms not only to the prospects for nation's efforts to stop terrorism, but also to military interrogators and officers who could face domestic and international prosecution for engaging in such conduct, and, most importantly, to U.S. forces who are themselves detained in this and future conflicts.

He's also got the text of six key JAG memos. Essential reading.

It is fair to say that these accounts reflected sustained, uniform and passionate opposition to the OLC legal theories that were being foisted upon the military. Indeed, the tone of the memos is one of barely concealed incredulity, and outrage--disbelief--that a young legal academic from DOJ could sweep right in and so quickly overturn decades of carefully wrought military policy, using legal analysis that almost certainly would not withstand scrutiny outside the Administration and around the world. ...

In particular, these memos eloquently warn of the grave harms that could result from such a radical shift in policies and legal understandings--harms not only to the prospects for nation's efforts to stop terrorism, but also to military interrogators and officers who could face domestic and international prosecution for engaging in such conduct, and, most importantly, to U.S. forces who are themselves detained in this and future conflicts.

He's also got the text of six key JAG memos. Essential reading.

democracyarsenal.org

The editorial “Off Course in Iraq," published in the New York Times on July 20 was particularly disheartening. After being disillusioned about the invasion of Iraq and U.S. failures at efforts to reconstruct and bring peace to the country, I thought that at least my efforts working with Iraqi women in the new political system may prove to be a one bright spot in the otherwise dark and dangerous days of the post-Saddam era.

It seems now that even the hollow justification for the intervention in Iraq—to free people from the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, and in particular the women of Iraq—is just an excuse reminiscent of invading because of the Saddam’s nuclear arsenal. In question is the insertion of sharia law into the new constitution. Although there are supposed to be separate provisions depending on your religion, women would be stripped of their right to choose their own husbands, inherit property on the same basis as men and seek court protection if their husbands tire of them and decide to declare them divorced.

Wingnuttery Hall of Fame (So Far)   Sadly, No!

There've been tons of great suggestions for the Wingnuttery Hall of Fame so far. Let's take a look at the highlights...Continue reading "Wingnuttery Hall of Fame (So Far)"

well sir I believe THAT would be crossing the line into the realm of improbability        Fafblog!

Oh, this can't be true!

Spying on you at the library, indefinite detainment, torture, preventive wars on the wrong country, oh sure I can see that. ButRead on...