Mojo - September 2006

3 in 10 Republicans Want Giuliani in 2008

| Mon Sep. 11, 2006 11:33 AM PDT

Via Angus-Reid Consultants (and The Note):

Many Republican Party supporters in the United States would like Rudy Giuliani to run for president, according to a poll by Opinion Research Corporation released by CNN. 31 per cent of respondents would support the former New York City mayor in a 2008 primary.

Arizona senator John McCain is second with 20 per cent, followed by former House of Representatives speaker Newt Gingrich with 12 per cent. Support is lower for former Virginia senator George Allen, Tennessee senator Bill Frist, Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, New York governor George Pataki, and Kansas senator Sam Brownback.

I assume the percentage of Republican primary voters backing Guiliani would be a good bit lower. But, for what it's worth, here's the breakdown from the CNN poll.

Rudy Giuliani: 31%
John McCain: 20%
Newt Gingrich: 12%
George Allen: 7%
Bill Frist: 5%
Mitt Romney: 5%
George Pataki: 4%
Sam Brownback: 1%

Advertise on MotherJones.com

Top Ten Favorite Bush Moments

| Mon Sep. 11, 2006 10:53 AM PDT

bush_10.png

From Letterman, via YouTube, the top ten favorite (videotaped) George W. Bush moments. Watching these, you wonder if you might even miss the guy after he leaves office (or I do, before thinking better of it). They're all here -- the Trip, the Butt-Slap, the Helicopter Head-Bump, the Left-Right confusion, and -- my favorite -- the "PARK IN BOTSWANA!!!" And five other indelible classics. Click on the screen grab.

If Cheney Had a Do-Over? "We'd Do Exactly the Same Thing"

| Mon Sep. 11, 2006 10:05 AM PDT

For the first time in three years Vice President Dick Cheney appeared on NBC's Meet the Press yesterday, going head-to-head with Tim Russert. Questions ranged from WMDs, to detentions, to the lack of any "robust congressional hearings," Russert never letting Cheney duck for cover. The VP again and again reverted to his predictable position, that America is safer because we are in Iraq, because we are detaining terrorists, and that he would do it all over again if he had the chance.

Five years since the start of the War on Terror, Russert strung together a litany of clips since where Cheney, in dire-dictator mode, asserted what are now known to be, if not lies, then woeful inaccuracies.

Russert showed the now infamous clip from August 26, 2002 where Cheney says: "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction." (To which Cheney makes no humble apology.)

Russert follows the clip by asking the VP about the new Select Committee on Intelligence report (released on Friday, of course), which reveals that "U.S. intelligence analysts were strongly disputing the alleged links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda while senior Bush administration officials were publicly asserting those links to justify invading Iraq."

Cheney said he hasn't read the report. And that's okay, that he skips out on his reading from intelligence analysts?

Instead, maybe Cheney should have prepped for the session reviewing film like athletes do-- records of his former gaffs that continued to appear. Four days before the war began, March 16, 2003, on Meet the Press:


VICE PRES. CHENEY: Now, I think things have gotten so bad inside Iraq from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is, we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators.

MR. RUSSERT: If your analysis is not correct, and we're not treated as liberators, but as conquerors, and the Iraqis begin to resist, particularly in Baghdad, do you think the American people are prepared for a long, costly and bloody battle with a--significant American casualties?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, I don't, I don't think it's likely to unfold that way, Tim, because I really do believe we will be greeted as liberators.

Cheney also skirted the Prague question, yet again, the supposed meeting between Mohammed Atta and Iraqi officials that Cheney dangled over and over, it turns out without evidence, as the link between Iraq and al Qaeda. Yesterday he still refused to say it didn't happen, saying "nobody's been able to confirm it." I mean, no one has been able to confirm that Cheney wasn't aiming for Harry Whittington's face with that spray of birdshot either.

And in regards to the invasion of Baghdad, Cheney insists that even in the face of intelligence failures now known: "It was the right thing to do and if we had it to do over again, we'd do exactly the same thing."

Oh, and Russert, asked about hunting too; whether Cheney has hung up his rifle. When he said no, that he would continue to hunt, Russert asked:

MR. RUSSERT: "Should I be relieved you didn't bring your shotgun in today?"

VICE PRES. CHENEY: I wouldn't worry about it. You're not in season.

MR. RUSSERT: Mr. Vice President, I hope I never am.

Judge Rules Against ACLU In Georgia Prayer Case

| Fri Sep. 8, 2006 5:35 PM PDT

U.S. District Court Judge Richard Story has ruled that prayers that refer to Jesus Christ do not violate the U.S. Constitution and may continue to be offered at the Cobb County, Georgia county commission meetings.

Judge Story did affirm that repeated sectarian prayers given at meetings do violate the Constitution, but that such a violation did not occur with the Cobb County commission meetings. The plaintiffs in the case, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, filed suit a year ago because they believed that the council's prayer selection process showed a preference of one religion over the other. Judge Story said that it did not, but he also ruled that the selection of the Cobb County planning commission in 2003 and 2004. In January, Judge Story ruled against the plaintiffs' bid for a preliminary injunction to halt the prayers.

The ACLU also filed suit last year to force Cobb County schools to remove warning labels from science books that advised that evolution is a theory, not a fact. A U.S. District judge then ordered the county to pay the ACLU's attorney's fees.

The Knee-Slapping Hilarity of Republican Satire

| Fri Sep. 8, 2006 3:22 PM PDT

Those fun-loving pranksters over at the RNC have cooked up a satirical newspaper from the future to show what life will be like under the Democrats. In September 2007, the paper reports, the Democratic majority in the House and the Senate will be busy repealing tax cuts, dismantling the missile defense system, and cutting funding to faith-based programs.

And who will be cheering them on? "Regular Americans" like "Judy Smith-Walker, a New York graphic designer," "Stefan, a 28-year-old full time student in San Francisco," and "aspiring Hollywood screenwriter Rex Star." Note the oh-so-subtle stereotyping at work. Given the level of humor of the whole exercise (Ted Kennedy's proposed legislation is entitled, "Leave Education For Teachers" or LEFT ACT), I'm surprised the rapier wits of the RNC didn't just come out and call them Judy Feminazi and Foreign McFagfag.

9/11: What Changed Is What We've Done to Ourselves

| Fri Sep. 8, 2006 3:08 PM PDT

There's a good piece by Jonathan Raban in the Independent on what really changed after 9/11.

"Since September 11..." we say, as if the attacks were what changed everything. The month is right but the day wrong, because the real metamorphosis has arisen not so much from what Mohamed Atta and his co-conspirators did to us on September 11 as what we've subsequently done to ourselves - and continue to do, today, tomorrow, and in the foreseeable future (incredibly foreshortened though that has become). On September 12, still in shock at the extraordinary injury inflicted on the US, we woke to essentially the same world we'd been living in before the phones began to ring. The death toll - then estimated at 10,000-plus - was horrifying, on the scale of a major earthquake or tsunami, but the globe continued to revolve on its accustomed axis, as it does after even the most devastating seismic killers. ...

Not 9/11, he argues, but 9/18 is "the real date to circle."

That day, Congress rushed through its Authorisation For Use of Military Force (AUMF), entitling the President, as the nation's commander in chief, to "use all necessary and appropriate force" against "those nations, organisations, or persons" that "he determines" were responsible for the September 11 atrocities, "...in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organisations, or persons." It's the "such" that's the key, the inclusion of nations, organisations, or persons "of that sort", which nicely covers, for instance, the invasion of Iraq, the arrest and detention of most of the prisoners now languishing in Guantanamo Bay, possible future military action against Iran, or Syria, or both, and heaven knows what else, since "such" is a term of potentially limitless capacity to make hitherto unguessed-at likenesses and connections.

The sloppily-worded AUMF endowed the administration with unique and wide-ranging powers. It has become the licence for the executive branch to wave at Congress and the judiciary whenever its actions are questioned or censured. On September 18 2001, the delicate balance between the three branches of government, as laid out in the American constitution, was thrown severely out of whack; since that day, one branch, the presidency, has enjoyed an unprecedented primacy over the others, and we've been living with the consequences of AUMF ever since.

Worth reading in full. Also worth a look is this interview with Raban about his book, My Holy War.

Advertise on MotherJones.com

Transparency Bill Passes Senate

| Fri Sep. 8, 2006 2:23 PM PDT

One chapter in the long, strange saga of the Federal Accountability and Transparency Act is over. Last night, the anti-pork legislation, which would create a "Google for government spending," was unanimously passed by the Senate and now moves on for consideration in the House. Up until now its fate has been uncertain, as at least two senators, Ted Stevens and Robert Byrd, had placed temporary holds on the bill, preventing it from a floor vote.

John Hart, a spokesman for Senator Tom Coburn, one of the bill's co-sponsors, told Mother Jones he expects only "minor modifications from the Senate bill" in the House. From here on, he believes, the legislation will pass quickly.

Building on the Transparency Act's momentum, Coburn, along with Senators Barack Obama and Frank Lautenberg, have expressed interest in drafting legislation that will bring greater transparency to the nation's very opaque tax code.
-- Carl Gutierrez

Death, Destruction, and Orderly Traffic in Iraq

| Fri Sep. 8, 2006 12:14 PM PDT

US hands over control of Iraq's armed forces command to the country's government. (AP)

Roadside bombs have risen to record numbers as warning tips from Iraqis have dropped. (WP)

The body count in Baghdad nearly triples. (WP)

Iraqi traffic officers enforce a bit of order in a city full of chaos and corruption. ("The traffic law is the only thing nowadays that functions correctly," says one Iraqi.) (LAT)

Bolton Nomination Dead?

| Fri Sep. 8, 2006 11:36 AM PDT

Steve Clemons reports:

Several well-placed sources close to the Bolton nomination process have reported to me that the Bolton confirmation process is now dead.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee is "highly unlikely" to reconsider Bolton's confirmation again as things now stand.

One insider reported, as far as the Committee is concerned, "we consider the confirmation over. It's dead."

Good news for a change--and on a Friday at that!

Senate Report on Iraq Intelligence: No Zarqawi/Qaeda-Saddam link

| Fri Sep. 8, 2006 10:47 AM PDT

A Senate report on prewar intelligence on Iraq finds no evidence that Saddam Hussein had a relationship with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and his Al Qaeda. Specifically, the CIA found in 2005 that Saddam "did not have a relationship, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi and his associates."

This is the latest blow to the adminstration's (remarkably successful) 5-year effort to conflate Al Qaeda and Saddam in the public mind. Recall -- with the aid of our handy timeline of prewar intel -- the following:

  • The day after the 9/11 attacks, according to Richard Clarke's book, "Against All Enemies," Bush collared Clarke and and said, "I know you have a lot to do and all, but I want you, as soon as you can, to go back over everything, everything. See if Saddam did this. See if he's linked in any way." Clarke responds, "But, Mr. President, Al Qaeda did this." Bush tells him, "I know, I know, but -- see if Saddam was involved. Just look. I want to know any shred...."

  • On September 19, 2001, President Bush, according to Ron Suskind, told CIA chief George Tenet, "I want to know about links between Saddam and al Qaeda. The Vice President knows some things that might be helpful." Vice President Cheney tells Tenet about a report that one of the hijackers, Mohammed Atta, met with senior Iraqi intelligence officials in Prague. Tenet promises to investigate. Two days later, Tenet reports back: CIA's Prague office thinks the Atta story "doesn't add up." Moreover, the intelligence community knows that Atta's credit card and phone were used in Virginia during the period in question. Cheney, however, will continue to cite the alleged meeting in public appearances.

  • On September 21, 2001, President Bush was informed in a highly classified briefing that the US intelligence community could not link Saddam Hussein to the 9/11 attacks and that there is little evidence pointing to collaborative ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

  • On September 25, 2005, President Bush told journalists, "You can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror."

  • On September 27, 2002, Donald Rumsfeld called the link between Iraq and al Qaeda "accurate and not debatable."

The report confirms (reconfirms, I'd say), in the words of the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, that "the Bush administration's case for war in Iraq was fundamentally misleading."

Full Senate report here. (PDF)