Wednesday’s Mini-Report

December 13, 2006

Today’s edition of quick hits.

* Oh to have been a fly on the wall when the Saudis read Cheney the “riot act.” (thanks to E.T. for the heads-up)

* The ethics complaints raised by the AP’s John Solomon against Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) have been found to be — surprise, surprise — baseless. The Senate Ethics Committee cleared Reid yesterday.

* Americans believe that history will not be kind to George W. Bush. I have a hunch they’re right.

* Sen. Pat Leahy (D-Vt.) delivered a very impressive speech at Georgetown University Law Center today. “We have a duty to repair real damage done to our system of government over the last few years,” Leahy said. “This administration has rolled back open government laws and systematically eroded Americans’ privacy rights…. “It has brazenly refused to answer the legitimate oversight questions of the public’s duly elected representatives, and it has acted outside lawful authority to wiretap Americans without warrants, and to create databanks and dossiers on law-abiding Americans without following the law and without first seeking legal authorization.”

* The Swiftboat liars are about to be $300,000 poorer, as a result of playing fast and loose with campaign finance law.

* James Carville, explaining one reason why Hillary Clinton can win the general election in 2008, argued yesterday that the New York senator can win Florida and the state’s 27 electoral votes.

* Does anybody have a good explanation for why the Saudi ambassador to the United States just resigned his post and left the country on a day’s notice? Josh Marshall has some thoughts.

* If the DHS really conducted an immigration raid by separating people based entirely on their skin color, somebody better lose their job over it.

* Just call him Tony “I Don’t Know” Snow.

* I think it’s safe to say the House Ethics Committee’s report on the Mark Foley scandal didn’t impress anyone.

* And the Abramoff indictments keep on coming. (thanks to AYM for the tip)

* I get the distinct impression that the Bush gang will end up hating Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) more than anyone else in the country.

* Quote of the day: “I never understand that question, you have a President that’s in deep shit. He got us into the war, and all the reasons he gave have been proven invalid, and the whole electorate was so pissed off that they got rid of anyone they could have, and then they ask, ‘What is the Democrats’ solution?'” — Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.)

* The criminal justice process in New Orleans in the wake of Hurricane Katrina suffered from very serious shortcomings.

* Those anthrax-probe questions still deserve answers.

* And in a very pleasant surprise, we’ve finally found something that the 109th Congress was good at: naming post offices. CNN reported this morning, “Of the 383 pieces of legislation that were signed into law during the two-year 109th Congress, more than one-quarter dealt with naming or renaming federal buildings and structures — primarily post offices — after various Americans.”

If none of these particular items are of interest, consider this an end-of-the-day open thread.

President Bush said Wednesday he’s “not going to be rushed” into a decision on a strategy change for Iraq,

Isn’t that just great. Three and half years latter he decides to take his time in making a decision on Iraq.

  • Does anybody have a good explanation for why the Saudi ambassador to the United States just resigned his post and left the country on a day’s notice?

    Goodness CB, you mean you didn’t believe the suggestion that he’s off to be with his sick brother? How cynical of you. [/snark]

    That set off my “Uh-oh” alarm yesterday. I relaxed a bit when I learned that it was just the ambassador. If the entire embassy had made tracks I’d be jittery.

  • Remember last summer in Britain, the famous “liquid bombs” threat and whoop-de-doo? Well, the chap the Brits fingered to Pakistan as “the ringleader” had all his “terrorism” charges dismissed by a Pakistani judge, who said that there was no evidence to prosecute under any terrorism statutes, and sent Rashid Rauf’s case to another court where he faces lesser charges concerning forgery.


    UK ‘plot’ terror charge dropped
    A Pakistani judge has ruled there is not enough evidence to try a key suspect in an alleged airline bomb plot on terrorism charges.
    …
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/6175427.stm
    Several of those who were rounded up by Brit coppers and intelligence operatives were also earlier let go for lack of evidence, and it seems more and more likely that whatever “case” the Brits want to press against those still under suspicion or detention will never see the light of day.
    When do you reckon the TSA/HS will rescind those moronic “3oz of shampoo in a 1L Ziplock bag” bullshit “security” regs?

  • * Oh to have been a fly on the wall when the Saudis read Cheney the “riot act.” (thanks to E.T. for the heads-up) — CB

    Yeah, well… It may have seemed like a “riot act” to all directly concerned. But what’s the odds that Bush will now say we *cannot* leave Iraq, ever, and we *cannot* talk to Iran, because that would mean betrayal of our friends, the Saudis?

    The way I see it, this just gives him the excuse to do what he’s been wanting to do from the word go — ignore the ISG report, ignore what the people in the US might want and continue with the “stay the course” “strategy”.

  • The Senate Ethics Committee clearly Reid yesterday.

    Yeah, but the House Ethics Committee cleared Hastert & Co. in the Foley mess. So what’s that worth?

  • Americans believe that history will not be kind to George W. Bush.

    (WARNING! The following is a reply-esque prediction of what the Reich blogs will be saying about “Dear Leader” in the not-too-distant future.)

    Actually, Americans will go totally freakazoid-ballistic medieval on Georgie. They’re going to open a great big can of whoop-a** on his sorry hide.

    Why?

    Because—at least unofficially—the Iraq War is over, and Bush just handed America a butt-ugly military defeat.

    Yessiree—good ol’ George went and lost us a war. Did it in record time, too!

    Rumor has it that we’re close to losing Afghanistan as well….

    Is it any wonder why this bipedal infestation of a commander-in-chief wants to associate Iraq as a “comma?” Because no president in the history of the Republic has lost 2 wars, period—let alone two wars at the same friggin’ time….

  • Cheney read the riot act by Faud. Told not to back the Shia in Iraq.
    Josh Marshall thinks the neocon nuts want to sign up with the Shia. A nice little conundrum for for Boy George. Ambassadors exit abruptly When a) there’s problems at home or b) when their country is roundly pissed at the host country. Either way it’s as one commentator said “a uh oh moment.” The best choice: Step back and let them fight it out.

  • The Tao of Henry Waxman:

    Waxman said he has little interest in revisiting Bush administration failures he said are already well known, such as Iraq war intelligence.

    He wants to do it all with the help of Republicans.

    “We want to return to civility and bipartisanship,” Waxman said. “Legislation ought to be based on evidence, not ideology.”

    Evidence, not ideology? ShrubCo will indeed hate that. Oh Boy!

  • If the DHS really conducted an immigration raid by separating people based entirely on their skin color, somebody better lose their job over it.

    And, if the person who said that didn’t understand that the supposed grouping was not based on skin color but was based on something else, then this is just a smear. But, in that case, this site will probably not speak of it again.

  • Re the Cheney / Saudi story:

    A senior U.S. official said the conversation between Cheney and King Abdullah reflects the “anxiety about the situation” and the Saudi concern about being left “high and dry” if the United States leaves Iraq.

    But the official said leaving Iraq is a “doomsday scenario” that will not happen because the United States isn’t going to withdraw.

    So I guess the message of Nov 7th hasn’t quite registered yet in some minds. Fine. Maybe the message of 2007 will.

    I find it unsurprising that the Iraqi Shiites are seeking revenge on the Sunnis who have dominated them for the last several decades, and slaughtered them mercilessly in 1992 after Bush Sr tricked them into revolting against Saddam (and then allowed them to use their helicopters to kill the Shiites). We now can see why Bush Sr did that, allowing the Shiites to succeed would have precipitated the exact crisis we have today with Saudi Arabia (aka our heroin dealer).

    The Saudis are going to have to do something drastic if Iraq falls to the Shiites, because their major oil facilities are inside areas of northeast Saudi Arabia where Shiites make up a strong majority, and if Iraq goes to the Shiites, these Saudi Shiites could become very troublesome. If the the Saudi monarchy had historically treated them with more respect, this might not happen, but Wahhabis don’t cut Shiites any slack, so it may be payback time there as well as in Iraq. Imagine the effect of a mortar attack on a large refinery. At the very least it would raise the fear premium on oil, and inspire further moves toward replacement fuels (a scenario the Saudis cannot afford to have happen).

    This is going to blow into a regional war soon IMO, because we can’t keep a lid on the violence and Americans will not let their kids die for oil indefinitely. We pull out, the wider war erupts.

    But why do we need to be there? The answer, of course = OIL. Our economy would crash and burn without oil. But there are alternatives, for about $300 B we could replace all the oil we consume with biodiesel from algae. After that initial investment, we would be energy independent, and all the money we spent on fuel would stay here in the US.

    See this link for the full analysis of algae biodiesel:

    http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html

  • “Non-Latinos and people with lighter skin were plucked out of line and given blue bracelets.
    The rest, mostly Latinos with brown skin, waited until they were ”cleared” or arrested by ”la migra,” the popular name in Spanish for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), employees said. ”

    Hmm, sounds like they based it on skin color, and not “something else”.

    “But, in that case, this site will probably not speak of it again.”

    True, but that’s because the daily fuckups of the Bush administration usually trumps other news.
    But I agree, hopefully we here will keep this story on the radar scope.

  • I hate to agree with the right-wing troll, but reading the immigration article, it appears that the agents had a list of known or suspected illegal workers, all of whom, apparently, were Hispanic. I can’t see how it’s irrational or discriminatory in any pejorative sense of the word to filter out the obvious non-Hispanics (who ipso facto are not targets of the raid) in order to narrow the group to a more manageable number before checking individuals. Unfortunate and perhaps embarrassing for the legal Hispanic workers, obviously, but since the article indicates that the legal workers were not detained, I really don’t see a problem here.

    • Comments are closed.