Sloppy Contradictions

Posted on by

Frank Rich in tomorrow’s New York Times (outside the firewall here):

…for all the sloppy internal contradictions, the most incriminating indictment of the new White House disinformation campaign is to be found in official assertions made more than a year ago. The press and everyone else seems to have forgotten that the administration has twice sounded the same alarms about Iranian weaponry in Iraq that it did last week.

In August 2005, NBC News, CBS News and The Times cited unnamed military and intelligence officials when reporting, as CBS put it, that “U.S. forces intercepted a shipment from Iran containing professionally made explosive devices specifically designed to penetrate the armor which protects American vehicles.” Then, as now, those devices were the devastating roadside bombs currently called E.F.P.’s (explosively formed penetrators). Then, as now, they were thought to have been brought into Iraq by members of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard. Then, as now, there was no evidence that the Iranian government was directly involved. In February 2006, administration officials delivered the same warning yet again, before the Senate Intelligence Committee.

So why are the Bushies hyping this stuff again now?

After General Pace rendered inoperative the first official rationale for last Sunday’s E.F.P. briefing, President Bush had to find a new explanation for his sudden focus on the Iranian explosives. That’s why he said at Wednesday’s news conference that it no longer mattered whether the Iranian government (as opposed to black marketeers or freelance thugs) had supplied these weapons to Iraqi killers. “What matters is, is that they’re there,” he said. The real point of hyping this inexact intelligence was to justify why he had to take urgent action now, no matter what the E.F.P.’s provenance: “My job is to protect our troops. And when we find devices that are in that country that are hurting our troops, we’re going to do something about it, pure and simple.”

Darn right! But if the administration has warned about these weapons twice in the past 18 months (and had known “that they’re there,” we now know, since 2003), why is Mr. Bush just stepping up to that job at this late date? Embarrassingly enough, The Washington Post reported on its front page last Monday — the same front page with news of the Baghdad E.F.P. briefing — that there is now a shortfall of “thousands of advanced Humvee armor kits designed to reduce U.S. troop deaths from roadside bombs.” Worse, the full armor upgrade “is not scheduled to be completed until this summer.” So Mr. Bush’s idea of doing something about it, “pure and simple” is itself a lie, since he is doing something about it only after he has knowingly sent a new round of underarmored American troops into battle.

The real goal is to provoke war with Iran, of course.

See also Derrick Jackson, “The Wrong World War.”

The Senate’s Turn

Posted on by

Let’s do a little live blogging — I’m waiting for the Senate Iraq War resolution vote and listening to Senators of both parties, all of whom seem a bit ragged today. The Republican point of view seems to be —

1. A nonbinding resolution will have no effect. However,

2. This same resolution will defund the war, leave our soldiers stranded and helpless in the Middle East, and enable an Islamofascist takeover of the United States.

They seem to be having some sort of procedural squabble. The Republicans are whining that they aren’t being allowed a “fair debate.” Please …

Harry Reid is speaking now; he is accusing Senate Republicans of trying to stop a vote on a nonbinding resolution that might embarrass President Bush. Party loyalty is asking too much, Reid says.

A week ago the Senate Dems were complaining that Republican maneuvering had stopped a debate. Margaret Talev, Renee Schoof and Steven Thomma write for McClatchy Newspapers (February 9):

Having banked on the promise that Democrats would force a change of course in Iraq if they won control of Congress, some of the people who helped the Democrats get there are growing impatient.

They’re frustrated that Democrats sank so much energy into a nonbinding resolution then dropped the bipartisan plan of Sens. John Warner, R-Va., and Carl Levin, D-Mich., like a hot potato when Republican leaders who support President Bush maneuvered them into a corner.

All the finagling has gotten in the way of a formal debate or vote in the Senate on Bush’s plans for Iraq. …

… Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., said her constituents thought Republicans were trying to protect Bush “from the embarrassment of a public way of saying `you’re wrong’ in a bipartisan fashion.”

But she’s frustrated by a Senate rule that lets the minority party put the majority in a corner because 60 of the 100 members must agree to force a debate or a vote. …

Many Republicans say the Warner-Levin resolution is pointless and that without the force of law it could demoralize the troops. They say the president’s troop increase in Iraq should be given a chance.

So they said they’d block consideration of the resolution unless Democrats also debated a resolution by Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., that would support the troops and take no position on a troop increase.

Democrats saw a trap: If they backed Gregg’s resolution, then didn’t get 60 votes on Warner-Levin, the only formal statement out of the Senate would voice no opposition to the troop increase. If they rejected Gregg’s, opponents would run ads accusing them of hurting the troops.

Their decision: Hold off on a formal debate. Senators who are critical of Iraq policy have been waiting a long time for a debate, though, which they couldn’t get when Republicans were in charge.

That was last week. Now they’re having a roll call vote on whether to close debate on the resolution so they can go forward to the vote.

Lieberman voted with the Republicans against cloture. Susan Collins voted with the Democrats for cloture.

Chuck Hagel voted yes, also.

This isn’t the resolution vote, remember. They’re just voting on whether to close the debate.

A bobblehead on CNN is saying that there don’t appear to be enough “yes” votes to close debate.

A talking head on MSNBC says that the Dems will probably fall four votes short. Forty-nine Dems (probably) will vote yes for cloture (Lieberman voted no; Tim Johnson is still in the hospital).

Yes, they are four votes short; 56 votes yes; 34 votes no. They needed sixty. Reid is saying a majority in the Senate just voted against the surge, although of course that’s not official. Ten Republicans didn’t bother to show up. Seven Republicans voted for cloture. I’ll try to find a list and post it later.

Update: What Oliver Willis says.

Drooling Idiot Alert

Posted on by

Nothing like slapping down some drooling idiot first thing in the morning to get the juices flowing. I caught a fat one this morning in this old post about the Bush Administration firing US attorneys in mid-term without cause.

As I explain in the post, it is standard practice for an incoming president to ask for the resignations of US attorneys appointed by his predecessor. He then appoints new attorneys, who serve a four-year term. When George W. Bush became president he replaced all of Bill Clinton’s attorneys, for example.

However, back in 1993 when the Clinton Administration asked for the resignations of the Bush I US attorneys (who knew full well they’d be asked to resign), the Right-Wing propaganda machine went into overdrive ginning up a phony controversy to whip their drooling, knuckle-dragging followers into an anti-Clinton frenzy. As I wrote in the old post,

I dug an article about this episode out of the New York Times archives. On March 24, 1993, Attorney General Janet Reno demanded the resignation of all United States Attorneys. At the time, this prompted accusations from the Right that the Clinton Administration was trying to save the political career of Rep. Dan Rostenkowski. (If that was the plan, it didn’t work.)

In any event, I went to great pains to explain in the post (titled “U.S. Attorneys: It’s the Replacing, Stupid”) that presidents do have the authority to fire US attorneys whenever they like. However (1) it is highly unusual for US attorneys to be fired and replaced in mid-term except in cases of gross misconduct; and (2) the real issue is a provision in the Patriot Act that allows the White House to circumvent the constitutional requirement to have the appointee confirmed by the Senate. This is explained in detail in the post.

Lo, this morning some drooling idiot literacy challenged individual named Jim Quinn added this comment:

hmmmm. this has a familiar ring to it. let’s see, wasn’t it 1993 when the Clintons fired EVERY us attorney except one to cover for getting rid of the one (whose name escapes me) who was hot on their little whitewater trail?

I advised Mr. Quinn that he had just violated commenting rule #8 — commenting on a post without bothering to read it first. But if he wants to make a public fool of himself, who am I to get in the way?

Here’s the latest on Attorneygate — Laurie Kellman writes for the Associated Press:

Senate Republicans blocked a bill Thursday that would curb the Justice Department’s power to fire and replace federal prosecutors. Democrats had sought to give the courts a role in the appointments of U.S. attorneys, to GOP opposition.

The objection by Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., to the proposal was long anticipated. So Democrats used the occasion to complain anew about the firings of at least seven prosecutors, some without cause, under a little-known part of the Patriot Act.

Democrats say Attorney General Alberto Gonzales used the law to get around the Senate confirmation process and install Republican allies. …

… Democrats contend that prosecutors were forced to resign to make way for Republicans’ political allies and that the White House slipped the provision into the Patriot Act to permit such indefinite appointments.

As Paul Krugman wrote in the January 19 New York Times, “the Bush administration is trying to protect itself by purging independent-minded prosecutors.” Obviously.

However, ultimately the Senate must revoke that part of the Patriot Act that allows the White House to appoint “interim” attorneys who can serve indefinitely without Senate confirmation. (If they want to revoke the rest of the Patriot Act while they’re at it, I wouldn’t mind.)

A couple of days ago Marisa Taylor of McClatchy Newspapers reported that several of the US attorneys fired by Bush II had good performance reviews. And their replacements are being selected from the inner circle of the Bush Administration.

The Bush administration has said that six U.S. attorneys were fired recently in part because of “performance-related” issues.

But at least five of them received positive job evaluations before they were ordered to step down. …

… The decision to fire the U.S. attorneys came under scrutiny late last month after Senate Democrats discovered a change in the Patriot Act that allowed Gonzales to appoint interim U.S. attorneys for indefinite terms without Senate approval.

In testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee last week, McNulty conceded that H.E. Cummins, the former U.S. attorney in Arkansas, wasn’t fired because of how he handled his job. Rather, McNulty said, administration officials wanted to make room for Timothy Griffin, a former aide of presidential adviser Karl Rove.

Cummins was involved in the federal investigation into Missouri’s license fee offices, an investigation first revealed by The Kansas City Star. His office was asked to determine if Gov. Matt Blunt’s administration had improperly awarded the sometimes lucrative offices to political supporters.

Last October, before he officially resigned but apparently after he was asked by the Justice Department to step down, Cummins issued a statement clearing the Blunt administration of wrongdoing.

Here is a list of the US attorneys known to have been asked to resign, although there could be more we don’t yet know about.

  • Carol Lam, the U.S. attorney in San Diego, who successfully prosecuted former Republican Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham, now in federal prison. Her last day in office was Thursday.
  • Bud Cummins, the U.S. attorney in Little Rock, Ark., resigned Dec. 20 and was replaced by former Karl Rove assistant Timothy Griffin.
  • Paul Charlton, the U.S. attorney in Arizona, announced Dec. 19 that he was resigning at the end of January.
  • John McKay, the U.S. attorney in Seattle, said he was ordered by the Justice Department on Dec. 7 to resign.
  • Kevin Ryan, the U.S. attorney in San Francisco, announced his resignation Jan. 16. Ryan was overseeing investigations into steroids use by major league baseball players and the backdating of stock options by Apple Inc., and other firms.
  • Daniel Bogden, the U.S. attorney for Nevada, announced Jan. 18 he will resign effective Feb. 28.
  • David Iglesias, the U.S. attorney for New Mexico. An assistant announced Iglesias’ resignation Dec. 19.

    • See also: “Speedy Gonzales“; “The Purge.”

    Update:     Paul Kiel writes at TPM that former Karl Rove assistant Tim Griffin, who was appointed to replace Bud Cummins, the U.S. attorney in Little Rock, has decided he won’t go forward with the Senate confirmation process because he thinks the Senate will be mean to him. Kiel quotes the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette:

    “I have made the decision not to let my name go forward to the Senate,” Griffin said Thursday evening….

    Griffin on Thursday blamed “the partisanship that has been exhibited by Sen. [Mark ] Pryor [D-Ark. ] and other senators on the Senate Judiciary Committee in the recent hearing” for his decision to bow out….

    Griffin said Thursday that if he were to go through the confirmation process, “I don’t think there is any way I could get fair treatment by Sen. Pryor or others on the judiciary committee.”

    Poor baby. Kiel continues,

    It’s been a rough couple weeks for Griffin, who was the most egregious case among the seven prosecutors purged in December. Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty admitted to the Senate last week that Griffin’s predecessor had been forced out for no other reason than to make room for Griffin. And this morning, The New York Times revealed that Griffin had been installed as per the wish of White House counsel Harriet Miers.

    There does seem to be some question, though, as to why Griffin is bowing out…

      Pryor’s spokesman, Michael Teague, told the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette on Thursday, after Griffin said he was withdrawing his name from consideration, that [Attorney General Alberto] Gonzales himself had called Pryor earlier Thursday “and told the senator he was not going to submit Tim Griffin’s name.”

    It seems clear that the threat of Senate confirmation ended Griffin’s tenure — but who it spooked more, the administration or Griffin himself, is not so clear.

    The only reason Griffin was facing Senate confirmation at all, Constitution or no Constitution, was pressure from the Senate and the press. However, Thanks to that pesky Patriot Act Griffin can still hold the job indefinitely.

    Deliberations

    Posted on by

    Jeralyn’s explanation of what the Libby jury might be thinking gave me flashbacks to The Dumbest Trial of the Century. Here Jeralyn explains what some of the “dumbest trial” commenters were too thick to grasp:

    Scooter Libby is not required to prove he didn’t lie or obstruct justice. All he has to do is raise a reasonable doubt in the mind of the jurors that he did.

    The test for reasonable doubt is not a simple weighing of the evidence, after which the jury decides which side to believe more. That’s the test in a civil case where the standard of proof is a mere “preponderance of the evidence.”

    In layman’s terms, in a criminal case, if both sides’ theories and arguments sound plausible, that alone is a reasonable doubt and the jury should acquit.

    To which a commenter astutely replied,

    … in the end, a trial is not about “what is the truth” but rather what limits are there on the power of the state to take away liberty.

    Toward the end, the “dumbest trial” comment thread devolved into my trying to explain “burden of proof” to an impossibly stupid commenter. In a criminal trial, the burden of proof is on the prosecution (the government, a.k.a. “the people”). The “dumbest trial” judge explained to us that, strictly speaking, the defendant didn’t have to prove anything. Further, criminal trials usually require a unanimous verdict. Obviously, the reason for this is to discourage the government from throwing citizens into jail on phony charges. In other words, it’s to put limits on the power of the state to take away liberty.

    (The defendant’s lawyer in the “dumbest trial” demonstrated that at least some of the evidence against the plaintiff had been fabricated by one of the detectives. This screamed “reasonable doubt” to eleven of us jurors. Essentially, the guy who hung the jury was unable to wrap his head around the concepts of “reasonable doubt” and “burden of proof.”)

    Jeralyn says that she wouldn’t be surprised if the jury acquits, because she could see how they might decide they have “reasonable doubt” of Libby’s guilt. And, of course, if the jury acquits, the Right will conclude the entire Joe Wilson Saga was a fantasy of the Left.

    But, of course, this trial wasn’t about Joe Wilson or Valerie Plame Wilson or the Iraq War or the weapons of mass destruction. It was about whether whether Scooter Libby lied to FBI agents and the grand jury and thereby obstructed justice.

    However the jury decides, I agree with Jane that the testimony had vindicated Murray Waas. If you want a roundup of the real issues, read Waas’s two most recent reports for National Journal: “CIA Leak Probe: Inside The Grand Jury” (January 12) and “Cheney’s Call” (today).

    In brief: Dick the Dick is the instigator of the whole mess. Scooter was just following orders.

    See also: “For Liberal Bloggers, Libby Trial Is Fun and Fodder.”

    What Lincoln Said

    Posted on by

    Glenn Greenwald points to this Washington Times column by Frank Gaffney, in which Mr. Gaffney wistfully looks back to the good old days in which government officials who dissented during times of war could be hanged. Gaffney begins his column with a quote attributed to Abraham Lincoln but which in fact is a fabrication.

    Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged. — J. Michael Waller

    I put J. Michael Waller’s name there because he admitted the words are his, not Lincoln’s, but he insists the false attribution was the fault of a copyeditor. See Glenn’s post for details.

    Anyone who knows anything about Lincoln ought to know he wouldn’t have said that. In fact, Lincoln was a war dissenter in his early political career. As a congressman in 1848, Rep. Abraham Lincoln (Whig – Illinois) gave this speech on the House floor, in which he criticized President Polk’s war with Mexico. I wrote about this speech in March 2003, back when everybody and his uncle were shushing dissent from the plan to invade Iraq.

    Lincoln began by acknowledging it was controversial to speak out against a war already in progress:

    When the war began, it was my opinion that all those who, because of knowing too little, or because of knowing too much, could not conscientiously approve the conduct of the President, in the beginning of it, should, nevertheless, as good citizens and patriots, remain silent on that point, at least till the war should be ended. Some leading democrats, including Ex President Van Buren, have taken this same view, as I understand them; and I adhered to it, and acted upon it, until since I took my seat here; and I think I should still adhere to it, were it not that the President and his friends will not allow it to be so.

    From there, Lincoln reviewed Polk’s claims and justifications for war, and finds them flimsy and possibly fabricated. Rep. Lincoln also introduced a resolution calling for President Polk to be held accountable for the claims he made to get the U.S. into the war.

    (James Polk shook a declaration of war against Mexico out of Congress by claiming Mexican troops had advanced into U.S. soil. In fact, as an eyewitness wrote many years later, the Mexicans were deliberately provoked so that Polk could have his war. See Personal Memoirs of Ulysses S. Grant, chapters 3-7.)

    Good think nobody hanged Mr. Lincoln back in 1848, huh?

    In his post, Glenn Greenwald quotes Theodore Roosevelt:

    The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole.

    Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile.

    To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else.

    I like that quote so much I put it on a T-shirt some time back. Anyway, as Glenn says — it’s Frank Gaffney and his ilk who are the real traitors.

    Update: See also Digby, the Carpetbagger, Roger Ailes.

    Mostly Bad News

    Posted on by

    Bad news first — Melissa McEwan has resigned from the Edwards campaign also. Lane Hudson reports that Melissa and Amanda have received death threats.

    At Salon, Frances Kissling, head of Catholics for a Free Choice, talks about Bill Donohue:

    Well, the unfortunate thing is the resignation. That’s the most unfortunate aspect because it only emboldens him. Because Donohue won. And that makes me furious.

    It’s also like Mara Vanderslice; she worked for the Kerry campaign as his religious outreach person and Donohue discovered that she had once been in a demonstration with [AIDS activist group] Act Up, and he then went after her, with exactly the same kind of language: “I’m going to get her fired,” etc. She didn’t lose her job and didn’t get fired, but she was totally isolated within the campaign; she couldn’t make public statements or be used well anymore. And he writes about how “I got her.”

    There is something about this man and his attacks on women that is frightening. There was a while when I refused to go on air with him [for television appearances] because — you know I am a very strong person — but I felt physically threatened by this man. He never physically threatened me, but I felt like I was in the presence of an abuser. So for a long time I just refused because it was too degrading to be in his presence. I got over it eventually and have done a few things with him since. I understand that he is so offensive that he does himself damage; as long as I can maintain my equilibrium with him attacking me in the most vicious ways possible — that only does me credit and makes him look like the abuser that he is. But the glee with which he went after Vanderslice and the glee with which he has gone after these women marks him as an abuser.

    From his Wikipedia biography, I take it Donohue never married. That’s a good thing. Bill Donohue is one sick puppy.

    The Edwards campaign is definitely taking a hit over this. However, there are many months of the campaign to go, and Edwards has lots of time to rehabilitate himself. However, I hope the various Democratic presidential hopefuls hold off on hiring any more campaign bloggers for a little while. The righties have tasted blood, and if a blogger hire is announced in the next few days that blogger will be ripped to shreds. It doesn’t matter how inoffensive his or her archives might be.

    (Note to Wes Clark: When you are ready to hire a blogger, I’m still available.)

    So what’s the good news? Bryan at Hot Air writes that “there will be fewer potty mouthed bigots among the blogs.” Does that mean Michelle Malkin will hang up her keyboard? She may not use cuss words, but she’s unsurpassable in the bigot department.

    Pandagon Under Attack

    Posted on by

    Pandagon is under attack and has been pulled off line. Amanda has set up a redirect site and has posted about the hate mail she has received from “Christians.”

    Kevin Hayden suggests we all publish Amanda’s post so that the haters can’t follow her everywhere. The problem with this is that the hate mail contains words I do not publish here on Mahablog. From anybody. Well, here’s most of it:

    Whenever the site is up, we get slammed and it goes down. I have to suspend the site until the fervor dies down. At this point, I think it might be a few hours before the Lookie Lous give up refreshing the site. In the meantime, here’s the latest post I wrote about all the “Christians” who have written me in the past week:

    Update: To correct misinformation in the comments, I was not “fired”. I offered my resignation and it was accepted.

    Because I had the nerve to be critical of the Catholic church’s stance on birth control and abortion—nevermind their political opposition to distributing condoms to fight HIV, a stance that has helped usher thousands and possibly millions to their untimely deaths—I’ve gotten a number of letters from people who call themselves “Christians”, as Bill Donohue also calls himself. Christians are people who are supposed to follow the behavior and teachings of Jesus Christ. I mention this, because it seems to me that therefore, when Christians are contemplating an action that is morally questionable, it appears they should consult the Bible before acting.

    Luckily, I happen to have a Bible laying around this house, because even though I’m not a Christian, I was an English major, and it is important to Know Your Ancient Mythologies if you are reading poetry. And I flipped to this passage that seems to have solid advice on what to do if you’ve got some asshole dragging a woman in front of an angry crowd and yelling, “SINNER!”:

      The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst they said to him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?” This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.” And once more he bent down and wrote on the ground. But when they heard it, they went away one by one, beginning with the older ones, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. Jesus stood up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more.”

    Granted, I don’t think criticizing the church for policies that hurt families and even get people killed is a “sin”, but my letter writers do. But I thought I’d bring up this story for two reasons. One, I’ve always been impressed by the subtext of the story. I suspect, strongly, that this story is part of the reason that Christianity was so attractive to women in its early days, because this sort of random misogynist scapegoating is all too real in a patriarchy, and this story must have touched a lot of women at the time, who would be impressed with Jesus’ unwillingness to play into such misogyny. In fact, from everything I understand, much of the history of Christian misogyny is one 2,000 year long backlash against early female power in the church.

    I’m also impressed by how so many people who claim to follow Jesus have basic reading comprehension problems when they regard this story. (Not all—for instance, some fellow Pandagonians take their faith seriously enough to read the Bible and try to follow its precepts.) From my mailbag:

      I pray that I had some small part to play in your “resigning” from the Edwards campaign you libelous fraud!

    That’s from a Vivian Thomas, who also wants me to know that I’m a worthless hag.

      Catholics are concerned about killing unborn children, you stupid bitch. Chop away if it suits you, but we don’t
      have to accept that as moral. That’s why it’s called a religion. Look into it.

    Frankly, if I were a churchy person, this “Look into it” thing would insult me, since R.R. from Tallahassee, FL is all but saying that religion is his excuse to declare his misogyny “moral” so he doesn’t actually have to think and decide what his morality is for himself.

      Amanda,

      after reading your vile screed against Catholics and the Holy Spirit, I just had to see what you looked like. (I envisioned you eyebrow-less, with no visible pupils, and a blank, dead stare.) I see I was correct about the blank, dead stare, but other than that you’re not too bad. I then thought maybe you were mad at God (and by proxy Catholics) for making you ugly, but now I’m figuring you’re just mad at him for making you a woman.

    Annette D’Amato is somewhat right, that I’m angry—but not that I’m a woman, but that people like her have such uncalled for contempt for women. But I am impressed that I gave her a small bit of education. Contrary to what people have been telling her, feminists are not demons without eyebrows (she missed the boar’s teeth and snakes on our heads), but human beings.

    Andy Driggers from Dallas, TX was also so moved by my criticisms of religious anti-choicers, that he wrote:

      Problem with women like you, you just need a good fucking from a real man! Living in Texas myself, I know you haven’t found that real Texan yet. But once your liberal pro feminist ass gets a real good fucking, you might see the light. Until then, enjoy your battery operated toys b/c most real men wouldn’t want to give you the fucking you deserve b/c the shit that would come out of you ears.

    Reminder: Donohue was claiming to be so hurt by my “bigotry”. Yet, for some reason, his supporters write me and they are more interested in telling me that my womanhood is repulsive to them. Interesting—almost as if his claims to speak for Catholicism were in fact dog whistles to scare people about women’s equality.

    As I told some close friends in the days that Donohue was on the news, spraying code words about “get the feminists” (which explains why he roped Shakespeare’s Sister into this, even though she really had nothing to do with any of this—except she’s pro-equality, which is what is really what offends Donohue and all the people who gave that anti-Semite airtime), a good half of my hate mail could be summed up, “You have a pottymouth, you stupid [bleep].” An example, from Paul Bernard of Scottsdale, AZ:

      i like the way you trash talk i don’t particularly want to have sex with you but i would like a blow job.

    Right wingers right now are pretending like sexism has nothing to do with me, which is an argument that works if you think a) men get emails about how they need to suck a dick on a regular basis and b) that there’s nothing whatsoever sexist about allowing men to curse but hitting the fainting couch if a woman does.

    Bud Phelps, another person who opposes “bigotry”, as defined by right wing shill Bill Donohue.

      It’s just too bad your mother didn’t abort you. You are nothing more than a filthy mouth slut. I bet a couple of years in Iraq being raped and beaten daily would help you appreciate America a little. Need a plane ticket ?

    Time to wake up and smell reality—real bigots follow the siren call of the fascist right wing. Why would they even bother with liberals and all our equality and human rights and other tedious ideas?

    Romanco De Leone was also moved by Donohue’s poignant claims about insulating the Catholic church from legitimate criticisms.

      [bleep bleepity-bleep]

    But I shan’t belabor the point. I haven’t even begun to scratch the surface of the hate mail the Bill Donohue’s “Christian” campaign against me has inspired. This is all stuff from days ago—I’ve gotten more than 100 since. Hell, from the looks of my email from last night, I’ve had more than 100 in the past 12 hours from self-proclaimed Christians who want me to know that I have hurt their feelings and this has nothing, nothing whatsoever to do with their own misogyny and tendency to witch hunt.


    Update:     Gordon Meacham forwarded something else posted at Pandagon before the attacks — “a tongue and cheek template for a IRS form, providing reference to the specific section of the tax code that Mr Donahue has probably violated with his recent actions.” See it here.

    Enabling

    Posted on by

    E.J. Dionne writes about the hypocrisy of much public discourse on abortion:

    Our political system has created strong incentives for candidates to be less than candid about what they really think.

    To begin with, candidates are rarely willing to say outright what’s true for so many of them: that they do not consider abortion the most important issue in politics and that it is not the reason they entered public life. …

    … Plenty of Democrats entered politics primarily because of a mix of commitments related to social justice, poverty, labor rights, health care, civil rights and the environment. Many equally principled Republicans were animated largely by skepticism of government interference in the marketplace, support for lower taxes and, in many cases, a belief in an assertive foreign policy.

    Yet politicians who acknowledged that abortion was not one of their driving concerns would be denounced, oddly enough, as unprincipled.

    From time to time liberal writers and bloggers break out in a rash of discussion about how to discuss abortion. Not what we think about it, as we pretty much settled that years ago. No, we ask ourselves how to talk about it, because the crims (e.g., people who want to criminalize abortion) are eternally carping on our alleged insensitivity to “life.” I take it the crims are not staying awake at night worrying about offending us, however.

    Anyway, I take it we’re supposed to acknowledge that terminating a pregnancy is a bit sad when you think about it, but we can’t go too far in that direction because that would be admitting abortion is bad. Yet the crims are never put on the spot to consider the desperate measures women take to abort —

    “Most commonly, they ingest a whole bottle of quinine pills, with castor oil…we try to get them to the ER before their cardiac rhythm is interrupted…Sometimes they douche with very caustic products like bleach. We had a patient, a teen, who burned herself so badly with bleach that we couldn’t even examine her, her vaginal tissue was so painful….”

    “Our local hospital tells me they see 12-20 patients per year, who have already self-induced or had illegal abortions. Some make it, some don’t. They are underage or poor women mostly, and a few daughters of pro-life families…”

    I find that terribly sad. Yet it’s OK for crim activists to scream hatefulness at abortion clinic patients.

    I’ve noticed over the years that one cannot interact directly with a psychologically challenged person. Instead, you interact with their disorder, whatever it is. A common example is the manager with an explosive temper; the employees quickly learn how not to set off that temper. People with behavioral or character disorders are difficult people, and when they can’t be avoided most of us almost instinctively cater to their craziness to keep them from getting even crazier. This is why enabling is so common. It’s a lot easier to tip-toe around Uncle Frank’s alcoholism than to try to get him to stop drinking.

    Today there is much discussion all over the blogosphere about Amanda M.’s resignation from the Edwards campaign. Although there is much criticism flying in many directions, the bottom line is that Amanda was hounded out of the job by a bigoted whackjob, Bill Donohue. In a rational world, nobody would give a hoohaw what Donohue thinks.

    Seems to me we’re all being held hostage by whackjobs. In spite of overwhelming public opinion against the war, too many Dems are tip-toeing around ending it because whackjobs will call them soft on national security. This is irrational, because the war in Iraq is hurting, not helping, national security. Yet craziness must be catered to. Bill Kristol comes to mind; the man is nuttier than a peanut farm, yet no one in professional media (except maybe Keith Olbermann) is willing to say so.

    I don’t have a solution to this, except to suggest we all stop being enablers.