Romney Will Win Iowa While Many Focus On...

Put An Iso Camera On Mary Matalin

To Blitzer on CNN: “I’m not particularly interested in running for president,” admitted Thompson. “But I think I’d make a good president...I have the background, capability, and concern to do this and I’m doing it for the right reasons.”

Translation: I don't feel like taking time to actually do the work of campaigning, I just wanna be President. Sound familiar? This is the same Fred Thompson who wanted to be a U.S. Senator without doing any legislative work. It's so hard to tell how he was pegged as lazy.

Are Giuliani and Thompson Running For President?

Question: Other than an announcement, what evidence do we have that Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson want to be President of the United States? Just as he was in the U.S. Senate, Thompson is less than energetic after the ridiculously overhyped period before he announced he was running. Giuliani on the other hand, has decided Iowa and New Hampshire are no big deal. But it has to be asked: Is it that Iowa and New Hampshire are no big deal or is it that Thompson and Giuliani simply didn't feel like spending the money and the time there?

Keep in mind the rap on Thompson when he was in the Senate was he was lazy. So far he's done nothing to alter the perception. Giuliani on the other hand appears to be avoiding the hard campaigning of Iowa and New Hampshire to hang out in sunny Florida and appear frequently in New York. So while Edwards, Romney, Clinton, Obama, Huckabee and the gang complete 16 hour days with five and six events a day -- Rudy and Fred appear to be taking it easy. Is anyone really suppose to believe that they are enthusiastic about convincing voters they should be elected to the highest office in the land?

We Torture

NYT - 12/30/07 :
Mr. Helgerson completed his investigation of interrogations in April 2004, according to one person briefed on the still-secret report, which concluded that some of the C.I.A.’s techniques appeared to constitute cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment under the international Convention Against Torture. Current and former officials said the report did not explicitly state that the methods were torture.

The Giants Game Will Be Interesting But All I Know Is...

... the New England Patriots had one of the easiest schedules in the National Football League this year. Yeah, yeah they are a good team but if the Cowboys or the Colts had the same schedule they would be going for 16 and O also. The Patriots had the Jets twice, the Dolphins twice, the Bills twice, the Ravens once, and the Bengals. I don't care if the Jets played them tough. That was, in essence, EIGHT games handed to them. They started the season 8 and 0 with that schedule. The only certifiably great teams on the sched: Colts, Chargers, Eagles, Giants, Cowboys, and Steelers. The Redskins and Browns are a week to week mystery. The Patriots will lose BEFORE the Super Bowl. Now is the time in the season when every week you play a real team. Another reason to wish for a Patriot loss: We get to avoid Bill Belichick's monotone press conferences. Somebody pie him.

Huckabee Blows Up: Mighty Hunter Misses Big

Like the wild-eyed video that use to play over and over of Saddam Hussein shooting a rifle with one hand (and it's sister video, of him slamming a sword on a podium) we have Mike Huckabee. Mike Huckabee who keeps showing us he can poficiently kill birds. That's what you NEED in a President right? I like his health care plan but can he kill ducks?

All he had to do was relax and keep his mouth shut until January 3. But no. We already know Iowans on the GOP side are changing their minds every 15 seconds. Mike Huckabee has put his foot in his mouth bigtime with a late in the game inaccurate rant regarding mysterious Pakistani's who cross the border into the U.S. via Mexico. Bet you didn't know about that problem huh? It was bad enough he had two days of alpha male foolishness with this whole "hey everyone look at me I have a rifle," skit by shooting birds in front of the press. No, he had to marry the Huck-the-macho scene with a nutty statement. Now you have your shotgun wielder video with your silly statement voice over. Yeah, I bet he thinks it will play great in South Carolina and Florida. And with that we're about to find out 5 things on January 3rd:

1. How popular hunting is in Iowa.
2. How unpopular it is (or isn't) to be a Mormon.
3. Exactly how important immigration is to Iowans.
4. How much voters care about foreign policy knowledge.
5. How important organization and money is. Mike has none. Mitt has plenty.

Huckabee has played the religion issue brilliantly against Romney -- albeit with an undertow of religious bigotry. However voters usually don't vote for a candidate who says dumb things and have a whiff of instability -- no matter what religion they are. Romney - flip flopper or no -- gives a feeling of stability. He may be robotic. He may look like Max Headroom. But Romney stiff executive plays better than the wild eyed hunter act Huckabee has been showing over the last few days.

Burkefile Predicts IOWA

IOWA Democrats
1. Hillary Clinton
2. Barack Obama
3. John Edwards
4. Chris Dodd
5. Joe Biden
6. Bill Richardson
7. Dennis Kucinich

IOWA Republicans
1. Mitt Romney
2. Mike Huckabee
3. John McCain
4. Rudy Giuliani
5. Ron Paul
6. Fred Thompson
7. Tom Tancredo

Benazir Bhutto Talks with Frost on Prior Murder Attempt

Former Prime Minister of Pakistan Benazir Bhutto speaks to Sir David Frost about the first suicide attempt on her life in October 2007. She mentions that she asked current PM Pervez Musharraf to investigate specific people in his government in the event of her assassination.

Clemens Attorney to Lauch Investigation

Like O.J. looking for the 'real killers' the latest moment of communication from camp Clemens is to have attorney Rusty Hardin investigate facts omitted from the Mitchell Report. So let me see if I have this right: Clemens' attorney will investigate his own client, Roger Clemens. Did Hardin use to work at the Justice Department or something? Who believes that Roger Clemens' own attorney is going to arrive at any other conclusion than that his client did not take performance enhancing drugs?

One can assume this is the same Hardin who advised Clemens to respond to what they claim is a big lie in the Mitchell Report by: 1. Issuing a statement, 2. Issuing a second statement, and then, dramatically on Christmas Eve, 3. Issuing a video response denial. Still no Clemens taking Q&A from all comers and screaming his innocence from the highest hill. Which begs the question: If you were considered a shoe-in for the hall of fame, a sports legend and one of the best pitchers in baseball history and you were staring in the face of it all being blown to smithereens would you not have a quick strong response?

The report was released on December 13. Finally we see Clemens himself in video form (above) for the first time responding on December 24. Like John Kerry reacting to the wingnut swifties, response has been slow to arrive. And if you are innocent why? You would think that wild horses would not be able to stop him in racing to the microphones to inform on how big a lie has been told. On January 6, 60 Minutes will air his talk with Mike Wallace. This will be the first time he will be questioned in detail. If it's all just a big misunderstanding Wallace's questions will reveal that. Wallace of course will ask the "why not go in front of Congress under oath," question. Unless of course media communications genius Rusty Hardin screws the interview(s) up with a bunch of restrictions.

Merry Christmas!

Romney: The Monitor Hits Mitt on Flip-Flop Issue

Concord Monitor: "When New Hampshire partisans are asked to defend the state's first-in-the-nation primary, we talk about our ability to see the candidates up close, ask tough questions and see through the baloney. If a candidate is a phony, we assure ourselves and the rest of the world, we'll know it," they said. "Mitt Romney is such a candidate. New Hampshire Republicans and independents must vote no."

Ow. Wow. This is no conservative paper but still. Why wouldn't they just write "Go John McCain go," or something and move on? This is more punishing language than the guys who write the movie reviews for the New York Post. Man.

More from the editorial: The old Romney assured voters he was pro-choice on abortion. "You will not see me wavering on that," he said in 1994, and he cited the tragedy of a relative's botched illegal abortion as the reason to keep abortions safe and legal. These days, he describes himself as pro-life.

There was a time that he supported stem-cell research and cited his own wife's multiple sclerosis in explaining his thinking; such research, he reasoned, could help families like his. These days, he largely opposes it. As a candidate for governor, Romney dismissed an anti-tax pledge as a gimmick. In this race, he was the first to sign.

People can change, and intransigence is not necessarily a virtue. But Romney has yet to explain this particular set of turnarounds in a way that convinces voters they are based on anything other than his own ambition.

In Search of George Romney

Among the big fat photography books I have are two on the Civil Rights movement. The books are: Powerful Days, The Civil Rights Photography of Charles Moore, and King, A Photobiography of Martin Luther King, Jr.

Flip the pages and I see who I would expect. Ralph Abernathy. Andrew Young. John Lewis. A. Phillip Randolph. I see Dr. King with Averell Harriman, Tony Bennett, Joan Baez, Benjamin Spock, and Jimmy Hoffa. I see Jesse Jackson, Marlon Brando, Charlton Heston, Roy Wilkins, Burt Lancaster, Sammy Davis Jr, and several Catholic priests and nuns. There's even a impromptu 1962 picture of Bob Hope showing Rev. King a golf club at an airport.

But I can't find George Romney. Does it mean he wasn't there? No. Is the "I saw my dad march..." statement the latest case of truth thief Willard the Embellisher striking again? I don't know but why a dude who was a CEO of a successful company who attended Stanford and graduated in the top 5% of his Harvard Business School class needs to exaggerate life details I have no clue.

Keep in mind Rev. King was photographed a lot — and not just as Dr. King civil rights leader. Here he is with the kids, in a hospital after being stabbed with a letter opener, swimming, having a smoke in an airport, being hustled into a police station in cuffs, at the dinner table with Coretta. Good times, bad times. You name it. And a lot of people were photographed with him. Still no George Romney.

During the heyday period of the civil rights movement George Romney was chairman of American Motors from 1954 to 1962. He then was the governor of Michigan from 1963 to 1969. If he was there one would think an image would turn up. On Dec 17 the New York Times put up a beauty of a slide show as part of a feature piece on Mitt Romney. Looks like the family was good about preserving family images. Romney is pictured with The Supremes at the 1965 World's Fair and two Black blue collar workers in Detroit in 1961. More incoming...

Dave and Dick

CIA Tapes destroyed? Somehow do you get the feeling it will all lead back to you know who. Remember this installment of the WP series on the Vice President. Once it was revealed David Addington was involved in the tape discussion what did that tel you? What side do you think he argued on? (photo of Cheney on Capitol Hill on 4/24/07 by lvb)

Judge Kennedy to Wainstein: Report?

During the hearing, Judge Kennedy asked a question that I was sure the courtroom would bust out laughing on. Then I remembered: Not everyone in the packed courtroom were journalists. He asked/suggested/thought out loud in the direction of the Justice Department attorneys, in a moment during his opening comments, if there was a possibility that Kenneth Wainstein would issue a report at the end of his inquiry. This so that your honor could have an idea of how the DoJ findings might effect any ruling he might make? Say what? What did he say...?
I can tell him the answer to that one right now: No.

And this fantasy request points to one of the problems with the Wainstein/Helgerson "preliminary inquiry": They are under absolutely no obligation to reveal ANYTHING in public. A report from Wainstein at the end of the inquiry? I thought Judge Kennedy was making a joke but when I looked up from taking notes his face was serious. We'll be lucky if we can get AG Michael Mukasey to comment on this. Everyone involved is duty PR bound to hide behind the "... this is an ongoing investigation so I can't comment..." jazz and a year later someone will mention that they "inquiry" has concluded. Or maybe, if Mukasey reports to Bush we might get comment after that. But what in the history of DoJ investigations tells us that anything will be publicly revealed? We can't even get Dana Perino to break away from windup toy answers like "... I would refer you to the Justice Department on the matter..." And as witnessed yesterday, we can't even get the President of the United States to comment in a general sense on the matter. Forget answers to specific questions.

This is one of the reasons why Congressional involvement is so unwelcomed by DoJ. Members of Congress hit the mics and tell people stuff. (photo: DoJ attorney Jody Hunt on Dec. 21, 07 and U.S. Attorney Kenneth Wainstein/lvb)

11:44AM - Bush Lawyer Jody Hunt - Brief and to the Point

MAHMOAD ABDAH, et al., Petitioners, v. GEORGE W. BUSH, et al., Respondents. Even though when I initially walked through the courtroom doors I figured the government had a thin case, hold everything, here comes Joseph "Jody" Hunt (at right, walking from the courthouse with assistant AG Carl Nichols, at left/photo by lvb). Forty-four minutes into the hearing he took the lectern with a pointed ten minute presentation. Yes, we've heard it all before, that, 1. Any involvement by a Judge Kennedy propelled inquiry would lead to confusion and hellfire for DoJ regarding other investigations, and 2. that the tapes content had zip to do specifically with Guantanamo detainees as we do our torture in Indonesia.

What Hunt did more effectively that Remes didn't was focus on what Judge Kennedy wanted to know about. When the hearing started the Judge asked for specific questions to specific issues. Hunt gave him the answers quickly and more pointedly than Remes did. Though I will say this: When the Judge asked Remes what an inquiry into the matter, "sought to accomplish..." Remes answered with a series of scenarios listed in the last post that will have reporters in the court room sleeping on cots in the courthouse hall.

One thing for certain: Judge Kennedy should play poker. He sat with his hands clasped together at his face as if in prayer and staring lawyers right in the eye but revealed little about which side he might rule on. He'd slowly turn his chair sideways occasionally but that was it.

"I'll Take These Issues Under Advisement..."

MAHMOAD ABDAH, et al., Petitioners, v. GEORGE W. BUSH, et al., Respondents. The Perry Mason/Law & Order sterotype I had in my mind of Judge Henry Kennedy clearing the deck with the government lawyers regarding the CIA tape destruction didn't happen. The judge questioned detainee attorney David Remes (fyi: pronounced REEMS) more -- a hell of a lot more actually. The Judge took him to task for extending the subject matter of his original motion and plunging into the vast territoy of depositions, other evidence possible destroyed, etc. and so on. He also seemed more interesting in making Reems explain his positions in far more depth and at greater length. Though the responses Remes gave were to the point the Judge seemed to be saying, "tell me why I should get involved in this mess..." more than saying, "I can't believe the government destroyed evidence after I specifically told them not to..." I figured we'd at least get a little speech at the top from Judge Kennedy directed at the defense table with regard to evidence destruction. Nope.

At one point Remes not only extended his arguments but detailed out possible future events such as calling witnesses in such an inquiry should Judge Kennedy decide to go that route. Future events included depositions and witnessed being called ie: David Addington, Harriet Miers, and Alberto Gonzales, among many others he named. He then asserted that if government would destroy interrogation tapes that could mean they are up to whole host of other unlawful acts. "Where there is smoke there's fire..." he said to Judge Kennedy. If I had to guess I would say Judge Kennedy is going to let it be. Even though predicting the behavior of a federal judge is harder than predicting tonight's Powerball numbers you have to believe that if he split today without a decision that may mean he came into court undecided. He coolly ended the hearing with the words, "I'll take these matters under advisement..." and glided out the door to his left like the silver slider.

"Until I Find Out All the Facts..."

QUESTION: Mr. President, there's ambiguity in the statement that you have no recollection about the existence and destruction of the CIA interrogation tapes. Why can't you say yes or no about the tapes and their destruction? And regardless, do you think the destruction of the tapes was a responsible thing to do?

THE PRESIDENT: It sounds pretty clear to me when I say I have -- the first recollection is when Mike Hayden briefed me. That's pretty clear. Secondly, I am confident that the preliminary inquiry conducted by the AG and the IG of the CIA, coupled with the oversight provided by the Congress, will end up enabling us all to find out what exactly happened. And therefore, over the course of these inquiries and oversight hearings, I'm going to reserve judgment until I find out the full facts. I know I'm going to be asked about this question a lot as time goes on. I'm just going to prepare you; until these inquiries are complete, until the oversights are finished, then I will be rendering no opinion from the podium.

Bush says nothing... a quiz question: What does it mean that President Bush would make no comment "until I find out all the facts," regarding CIA interrogation tapes destroyed in November 2005?

A. That yes, right along with the CIA Director at the time (Porter Goss), he knew zip about the tapes being destroyed until current Director Hayden told him. Hey, he's learning right along with the rest of us.
B. That White House counsel got to him and advised him to use the phrase "no recollection," with regard to knowledge of the tapes as a ass cover in the even he later suddenly "recalls."
C. That Gorge Tenet doesn't have the big bragadocious mouth we thought.
D. That he has no interest as fact finder and is simply waiting fot Helgerson/Wainstein to phone or Hoekstra/Reyes to hit the microphones.
E. All of the above.

And they jumped on Hillary over that driver's license answer?

CIA Interrogation Tape Never Reached USA?

The NYT reports in its December 19 story that the CIA interrogation tapes that were destroyed in November 2005, never reached the United States. That would mean that no one in the WHite House giving advice on the tapes destruction never saw them. Also, in a Dec. 19 hearing of the Senate Judciary Committee to talk to the Deputy AG Mark Filip, Sen. Ted Kennedy happen to mention that Inspector General Helgerson HAD seen the tapes destruction, so either he...
1. Flew to Indonesia.
2. Viewed a tape made of the tapes being destroyed.

Yet Another Clemens Statement

Why does Roger Clemens keep releasing statements through the arms length communication tool of an attorney rather than simply walking to a microphone? Why not in person? If you within yourself know the truth and never used steroids EVER why not just say it live and in person? Stop listening to your 17 attorneys and your agent and look people in the face and talk. And he may get his chance - in front on the U.S. Congress. Let's see what happens when it gets real and the threat of perjury is on the table. (At left Rep. Henry Waxman swears-in Blackwater CEO Erik Prince/lvb).

Four White House Attorneys Knew of CIA Tapes

So if these four knew, from left John Bellinger, Harriet Miers, David Addington, and Albert Gonzales, of the CIA interrogation tapes it becomes easy to think that the following people may have been aware of them also: President Bush, Vice President Cheney, George Tenet, Condi Rice, and Stephen Hadley. The NYT piece also mentions that the tapes never found their way in physical form to the CIA HQ in Langley. If that is accurate then the whole scene where we have then CIA Director Tenet showing President Bush the tapes in the oval is D.O.A. One would think that Tenet would have viewed the tapes however. Article also points to the possibiliy that these were not the only four important advisors involved in discussions on the tapes.

Strom Lives: Gordon Smith Just Had to Revisit Thurmond Moment

Saxby Chambliss of Georgia didn't feel the need to do it. Neither did Jeff Session of Alabama or any other Senator. But no.

In a tribute speech to Sen. Trent Lott, who is on his last two days as a Senator, Oregon Sen. Gordon Smith recalled Lott's burning need in 2002, during Strom Thurmond's 100th birthday party, to recall the good 'ol days of the late 1940's. It was a moment of reminiscence that would cost Lott his leadership position. Of all the things Sen. Smith could have talked on he decided to revive this golden tribute to America's foremost segregationalist Presidential candidate.

Go ahead, read the Lott 2002 quote one more time slowly: "When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We’re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn’t have had all these problems over the years, either."

Remember this is a man who ran for president to further apartheid in America. Thurmond never denounced his early political views (ala George Wallace) later in his career. However, he did hire Black staffers, support several Black judges for the Federal bench, and support the Voting Rights Act extension and the Martin Luther King holiday. Funny because Gordon Smith and Trent Lott have managed not to do any of the above.

Smith on the Senate floor: “I was celebrating my re-election and on vacation. I watched over international news as his words were misconstrued, words which we had heard him utter many times in his big warm-heartedness trying to make one of our colleagues, Strom Thurmond, feel good at 100 years old.” Smith went on: “We knew what he meant. But the wolf pack of the press circled around him, sensed blood in the water, and the exigencies of politics caused a great injustice to be done to him and to Tricia. It was a wrong, but a wrong that was righted.” Oh we knew what he meant alright. And what was that? "Words which we heard him utter many times..." Well I guess that blows the theory that Lott was caught up in the moment.

Why Smith couldn't simply keep his mouth closed or just avoid evoking this tour into segragationist America is anyone's guess.

Here Comes The Judge

Well that didn't take long... Judge Henry Kennedy has ordered a hearing on the CIA tapes this Friday. You know, the Friday before Christmas. I guess the quickest way to get a Federal judge involved is to tell him to get lost which is what the Bush Administration did on Friday, December 14. It only took Kennedy a week to call everyones ass into court after being told to mind his own business. Also notice that WH spokesperson Dana Perino is playing a tape to all who question her on the matter : "I refer you to the Justice Department..." It doesn't matter if the question refers to the White House in some way, "I refer you to the Justice Department..."
This is the typical problem. No comment will come out of the White House now until the next Bush press conference.
.......................................................................................
Recall the White House briefing on Dec. 7, 2007:

Q: Thanks. On these CIA videotapes, did either the President or Vice President or Condoleezza Rice, when she was National Security Advisor, or Steve Hadley, see them before they were destroyed?

MS. PERINO: I spoke to the President, and so I will have to defer on the others. But I spoke to the President this morning about this. He has no recollection of being made aware of the tapes or their destruction before yesterday. He was briefed by General Hayden yesterday morning. And as to the others, I'll have to -- I'll refer you to the Vice President's office and I'll see if I can get the others.

Q: Was there any White House involvement in approving or commenting upon their destruction?

MS. PERINO: As I said, the President has no recollection knowing about the tapes or about their destruction, and so I can't answer the follow-up.

Michael Vick's address

I just wanted to put Michael Vick's address up so all the baseball players mentioned in the Mitchell Report could have someone to get advice from on how to deliver a real apology. Don't put anything foolish in the envelope or everyone will get excited. Also: No polaroids and no unusually large envelopes. And put your return name and address in the upper left corner. I read the regs just do it.

Michael Vick
c/o Northern Neck Regional Jail
P.O. Box 1060
Warsaw, Virginia 22572

ps : The best attorney in the United States, Billy Martin, says Vick is suffering from depression so keep it positive. It's Christmas time, send him a card. Yeah, yeah I know he screwed up but what would Jesus do?

Whoops. Judge Royce Lamberth Speaks

White House visit logs are public information.

I wonder why the White House is so secretive on everything across the board? Does it really matter who was on the White House visitor log? Who are they meeting with that they would rather not have us know about. Well, Judge Royce Lamberth (photo at left by Beverly Rezneck) left, had to waste his time making a ruling on the obvious. I wonder if he and Judge Kennedy are chatting in chambers about the interrogation tapes?

4th Amendment? What's that?

I see why the wingnuts go crazy hating on the New York Times. Without them we would know absolutely nothing. We would have never known about the government bugging our phones without warrant and we would know nothing about the CIA taping it's interrogation sessions only to destroy the tapes later. Remember it all starts with a person on the inside, a whistleblower, who has the sense something is wrong. Thankfully Chris Dodd has made a stop in Washington away from the campaign trail to hold up the idea of giving phone companies who have been spying on us RETROACTIVE amunity. NYT on FISA bill: “For the last six years, our largest telecommunications companies have been spying on their own American customers,” Mr. Dodd said. “Secretly and without a warrant, they delivered to the federal government the private, domestic communications records of millions of Americans — records this administration has compiled into a data base of enormous scale and scope.” Keep in mind as you read how un-American and unpatriotic it was for the New York Times to reveal the government was doing this.

“I have seen six presidents — six in the White House — and I have never seen a contempt for the rule of law equal to this,” Mr. Dodd asserted.

Lieberman Endorses McCain

And what is the big surprise here? The only question left is when Lieberman will pull a Jeffords and switch parties in the Senate (photo by Harry Hamburg for the New York Daily News).

Hillary Will Win Iowa and New Hampshire

The pundits are wrong every four years. So are the polls. The Iowa Caucuses and the New Hampshire Primary are to be believed only after the vote count is done. Before that it's all noise. And if John Edwards is still around for South Carolina I'll jump out a window. Pundits talk about the lack of experience on Obama and Clinton but Edwards? He was a trial lawyer, not a prosecutor -- repeat: a trial lawyer -- a dubious profession to say the least, then he was in the U.S. Senate for one term. That's it. Foreign Policy experience? Edwards barely has domestic experience. He couldn't even knock off Mr. Excitement John Kerry. What chance does he have against Barackstar and HRC?

But back to the front runners. I predict Clinton will win Iowa and New Hampshire. Is Barack a better speaker? Yes. Is he running a better campaign? Yes. Can he win Iowa? Yes. Will he win? No. He'll come in a close second.

Hoekstra No TapeGate Hoax

House Intelligence ranking Republican Peter Hoeksta has finally blown up completely and in public at the CIA. On Fox News Sunday: "You've got a community that's incompetent. They are arrogant. And they are political. And they don't believe that they are accountable to anybody. They don't believe that they're accountable to the president." Wowwie wow wow. "(The CIA) Is not giving us the information we need to make good decisions." And: "They were wrong on WMD's, they were wrong on the two NIE's on Iran, we had Valerie Plame and now the tapes." Chairman Silvestre Reyes need say nothing.

ABC News.com further reports: Meeting later with other reporters, Hoekstra also made a not-very-veiled-threat, noting that if the CIA does not cooperate, Congress could withhold funds: "We have funding options." Holy smokes. So I guess the articles that started with the phrase, "Democrats are pushing for an investigation..." will now disappear. Additionally on CNN's Late Edition Senate Intel ranking member Kit Bond stated he wanted Congress to move forward with their oversight duties even though the Justice Department is urging them to back off. The only hedge seemed to be that Senate Intel may only call CIA counsel John Rizzo and not J-Rod. We'll see what big J-Rock has to say about that idea.

Chairman Reyes Rolls Out the Subpoenas

Tonight we learn that House Intel Chairman Silvestre Reyes and ranking member Hoekstra is rolling with the subpoenas for J-Rod and Rizzo. Will Judge Henry Kennedy, left, roll out a hearing even though the Bush Admin. has asked him to stay out of it. Somehow I have a feeling it's unlikely this Princeton-Harvard educated Clinton appointee is gonna roll over and play dead. (photo by Beverly Rezneck)
NYT SUN: "Lawyers representing 12 Yemeni prisoners held at the American prison camp at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, have asked District Judge Henry H. Kennedy to look into whether, in light of the destruction of the C.I.A. tapes, the government is obeying his order to preserve evidence in their case. Similar motions have been filed in several other cases."

Steroid Silence

Finally, after two days, Andy Pettitte becomes the first player of 89 mentioned in the Mitchell Report to respond on his use of performance enhancing drugs, in his case HGH. And yes, because this is baseball and the players union has these guys trained like zombies, of course the apology is painfully half-assed. And, needless to mention it is delivered in cowardice behind the shield of an attorney. The Lou Gehrig era this ain't.

"If what I did was an error in judgement I apologize." Huh what was that? Was HGH a banned substance in MLB at the time he used it or not? Pettitte says he used HGH after an elbow injury. I wonder how far that argument would have gotten sprinter Marion Jones? Injury? So what. Athletes endure injury 24/7. "I accept responsibility for those two days." Is it difficult to tell a lawyer had something to do with this lame B.S.? You pay a guy 16 million dollars and you can't even get a straight clear eyed apology at a microphone. And you know what price he, and the 88 others in the Mitchell Report will pay: None. We can't even get a statement at a microphone much less real punishment.

I have no clue as to why I'm sitting here surprised. We haven't gotten a clear apology from one single MLB player yet. Giambi was the closest and that was word game city. Rafael Palmeiro lied in front of a Congressional committee. Bonds: Nothing. Remember the Michael Vick apology? Remember Marion Jones? Those were live and in person. At least Mark McGuire was smart enough to simply sit there and keep his mouth shut.

Eighty-nine players and not one is running to the microphones eager to tell everyone how false and misleading the Mitchell Report is. Why? Because it's all true. The Mitchell Report is accurate. All the hedging by Donald Fehr and President Bush that we should refrain from jumping to conclusions and that the future may reveal different facts is fantasyland. Falsely accused people tend to find a microphone or a reporter really quickly.

Love how Roger Clemens put out a statement through his attorney as well. I'm sure that will really convince everyone this is all a big misunderstanding. Where is Clemens on Saturn? He's had no trouble finding a mic before. Imagine just for a moment if these people were to receive the same punishment "disgraced U.S. sprinter" Marion Jones did for her use of steroids. Imagine that.

Another set of interrogation tapes?

NPR's Tom Gjelten tells all on PBS's Washington Week that another set of CIA interrogation tapes is out there.

Gwen Ifill: "Do we know that those were the only tapes that existed, just the tapes that their were out that were destroyed now?"

Gjelten: "We know that they weren't the only tapes. The CIA says that they were the only tapes that they produced. But they've also since acknowledged that there were tapes that quote 'came into their posession' that they still have and they have not destroyed. And -we can only guess where those came from. The best most likely explaination is that when prisoners were sent to other countries for interrogation those other agencies, other foreign governments, made videotapes of the interrogations, gave them to the CIA. Those exist. They have not been destroyed.

Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

Read this: "The right of the people to be secure in their person, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable seaches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, or the persons or things to be seized." Now think of your government's domestic surveillance program.

Now read and notice how we move (in paragraph three) from defending against terrorism to spying on drug trafficers : http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/16/washington/16nsa.html?hp

Be Careful What You Wish For

We should have known we had trouble when AG nominee Mike Mukasey towed the administration line and wouldn't declare that waterboarding was torture. That was our clue. Our hint. Not even the great Alberto Gonzales would tell the CIA not to cooperate with the U.S. House of Representatives during the course of an investigation. Now today we find that new Attorney General Michael Mukasey may in fact be a more problematic character than Gonzales. House Intelligence Chairman Silvestre Reyes AND ranking member Peter Hoekstra: "We are stunned that the Justice Department would move to block our investigation," Reyes and Hoekstra said. "Parallel investigations occur all of the time, and there is no basis upon which the Attorney General can stand in the way of our work. ... It's clear that there's more to this story than we have been told, and it is unfortunate that we are being prevented from learning the facts. The executive branch can't be trusted to oversee itself."

Obama and HRC vote then sprint to Iowa.

Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama voted in the Senate today (they did last Thursday as well). Photographic evidence is at left. Sen. Clinton greeted Sen. Mary Landrieu on her way in. This is actually news because it's rare to find them off of the campaign trail. They, along with Joe Biden who also voted, flew to Iowa to join the Des Moines Register debate. (exclusive photos by lvb)

Waterboarding Is Like Swimming

From the Newshour on PBS tonight. Gwen Ifill to Sen. Kit Bond: "Do you think waterboarding constitutes torture?"
Sen. Kit Bond: "There are different ways of doing it. It's like swimming. Freestyle, backstroke. If the a- if it - waterboarding could be used almost to define some of the techniques that our trainees are put through -- but that's besides the point - it's not being used. There are some who say that in extreme circumstances if there is threat of an imminate major attack on the United States it might be used but I certainly would not favor it in any circumstance even then." Interesting. And just when I was getting happy that the disengaged Bush Administration robot Pat Roberts wasn't on Senate Intelligence anymore.

Enter Chertoff?

Interesting, Michael Chertoff happen to be at a press conference with AG Michael Mukasey (at a news conference that was held to highlight U.S. and European Union law enforcement partnerships) at the Justice Department. Mukasey clearly hasn't attended his Bush Administration "how to handle the press" sessions yet. The new AG answered several questions in a direct way and gave the impression that if further action by Justice was required on the matter of the destroyed interrogation tapes he would pursue it. He wasn't doing cartwheels but he tossed in a flat I understand "the intense interest" he said. But the more interesting moment may have come out of Chertoff. Former-assistant-attorney-general-in-charge-of-criminal-cases and now Secretary of Homeland Security Chertoff actually got a question regarding whether he knew anything about the tapes during the time he was at Justice. He refused to answer. He gave two non-answers to one direct question and a stiff followup. It was odd because as I listened I assumed that he would just say, "I knew nothing," and the questions and attention would swing back over to Mukasey. If he knew nothing of the tapes why not just say that?

CIA Director Hayden speaks... a little. Says a lot.

To the shock of the press gathered at Hart 219 Michael Hayden actually spoke. Even more amazing: He spoke on his way into the closed meeting with Senate Inelligence Committee and on his way out. Usually the way this works is that no one ever says a word. He was quite brief but the few words he did say were of interest. “There are other people at the agency who know about this far better than I,” Hayden as he left. You can just see Porter Goss and George Tenet rounding the corner now.

226 Dirksen at 10AM: 775 detainees. 1 conviction.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, one of the Senate's best questioners, held a hearing on the legal rights of Guantanamo detainees. More to the point: Do they have any rights and if so what are they. This protester at left (probably a member of Code Pink but that's not confirmed) showed up along with many others at the Senate Judiciary Committee's subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology, and Homeland Security. Col. Morris Davis, who was appointed to serve as the third chief prosecutor in the Guantanamo military commissions but resigned in October, was supposed to testify. The Bush Administration ordered him not to. Presumably they didn't want to hear his reasons for resigning aired publicly. He quit in opposition to using evidence gained by torture to prosecute Gunatanamo detainees. Funny as they didn't stop him from talking to NBC News where he appeared tonite. In Davis' place was Brig. Gen. Thomas Hartmann. Hartmann is the administration's little girl on the issue. That said, Hartmann put up one of the best and most stongly presented defenses regarding the way the detainees are treated with regard to their legal rights and it was straight out of Ollie North. He didso in a sharp exchange with Sen. Ben Cardin. Unfortunately for him Cardin wasn't his last challenger and Sen. Dick Durbin delivered Hartmann his lowest moment. Durbin asked him how many convictions - out of 775 detainees - have come out of Guantanamo. Answer: One. And that was a plea bargain.

Anybody heard of this?

In common law countries, habeas corpus (Latin: [We command] that you have the body) from is the name of a legal action, or writ, through which a person can seek reliefunlawful detention of themselves or another person. The writ of habeas corpus has historically been an important instrument for the safeguarding of individual freedom against arbitrary state action.

Jay to Mike: See you Tuesday.

In one of the quickest calls to Capitol Hill CIA Chief Michael Hayden will be in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee on Tuesday. Wash Post reports that the Dems knew about torture years ago. Of course this is off of the issue of whether they knew about the tapes being burned. Were they shown the tapes and then asked? But why should anyone be surprised. We are for torturing people. Period. Slowly but surely Sept. 11, 2001 has become the reason to justify any decision.

http://www.voanews.com/english/Africa/2007-12-09-voa23.cfm

"In Places You Don't Talk About at Parties..."

Let's look the facts in the eye and admit it: the United States is in favor of water boarding and torture. It' just that no one wants to actually say that on the record in a clear sentence. If taped evidence was destroyed of an actual waterboarding session what does that tell us? That there was probably something going on that we would not be proud to see. Or, that the CIA figured out that others seeing their interrogation techniques would be embarrassing. If everyone is so convinced that these are the techniques that we must use to get bad people to talk and prevent another Sept. 11, then shouldn't they be making an argument in favor or waterboarding. On November 5, 2007 in front of the Department of Justice an anti-war group put on a waterboarding demonstration. They timed it for the week of the vote in the Senate to confirm Michael Mukasey to be the next Attorney General. In doing so, what the demonstrators did was provide stills and video of something that had been long talked about but that no one had ever seen demonstrated. Who would have thought that there was a real video out there displaying the real thing.

"I found it hard. It was hard to find. Oh well, whatever, nevermind."

Come on out and and say it. It's OK. Say what you believe and what you are really thinking. I George Bush, the President of the United States, believe in torture. I believe that torture is a good idea in an effort to get information out of a terror suspect that could prevent another Sept. 11, 2001. I believe water boarding is a technique that is OK to use in this effort. Torture is now the official policy of the United States and we will no longer pay attention to the Geneva Conventions. We realize this may someday come back to haunt us but this is a high stakes game. You've been dying to say it. Why continue to play games and dance around. Everything we know about the treatment of detainees and possible informants tells us this has already been the defacto policy. Who are we kidding? Moral high ground? Let's just just do it and get it over with.

What Say You J-Rod?

"The Geneva Conventions consist of four treaties formulated in Geneva, Switzerland in 1949, that set the standards for international law for humanitarian concerns. They chiefly concern the treatment of non-combatants and prisoners of war." (Wikipedia)

Jose Rodriguez ordered the tapes burned in November 2005 and didn't tell anyone. Not even CIA counsel John Rizzo. J-Rod just spit from this job in August 2007. Did he violate international law and destroy the evidence? The only question is which Congressional committee will get the first shot and the investigation. One would think it would be a good idea for President Bush to get out in front and make a statement on the situation.

Hoekstra on the Destroyed Tapes

Get the klieg lights out. NYT: “I think the intelligence committee needs to get all over this,” said Mr. Hoekstra, who has been a strong supporter of the C.I.A. detention and interrogation program. “This raises a red flag that needs to be looked at.” "Democrats call for investigations...?" Isn't Pete Hoekstra a Republican? Anyway, it's being widely reported that WH Deputy Counsel Miers advised against destroying the tapes. So the WH Counsel knew of the tapes and the idea of destroying them but Pres. Bush didn't know? The next question is: Did he know there were tapes at all? If he has "no recollection" this points to a change in the future on this answer. You have to think also that if Miers knew she could not have been the only person in the West Wing who did. Condi Rice? Stephen Hadley? Cheney? Addington? Is it possible that she knew about the tapes and no one else did?

...............................

Q Thanks. On these CIA videotapes, did either the President or Vice President or Condoleezza Rice, when she was National Security Advisor, or Steve Hadley, see them before they were destroyed?

MS. PERINO: I spoke to the President, and so I will have to defer on the others. But I spoke to the President this morning about this. He has no recollection of being made aware of the tapes or their destruction before yesterday. He was briefed by General Hayden yesterday morning. And as to the others, I'll have to -- I'll refer you to the Vice President's office and I'll see if I can get the others.

Q Was there any White House involvement in approving or commenting upon their destruction?

MS. PERINO: As I said, the President has no recollection knowing about the tapes or about their destruction, and so I can't answer the follow-up.

........................

Mike Huckabee

He's authentic. He doesn't speak like a windup toy. He lost 110 pounds. He can play bass in a band and it isn't embarassing. He doesn't answer questions with a look on his face that suggests he's thinking of what answer he can give to please everyone.

Dick, Don, Dick, Woods, Bush

Pres. Nixon it's like you never left us though you have been gone for 13 years. Your political stylings remain. And we have Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney to remind us. And now we have tapes again. Tapes that were in some way destroyed. At least this time they knew to destroy the entire tape and not just 18.5 minutes.

"...in line with the law..."

"What matters here is that it was done in line with the law." -- CIA Director Michael Hayden on why the interrogation tapes were destroyed. The very fact that he felt the need to clarify that the tape destruction was lawful tells you all you need to know: That he is worried that the tapes destruction may be viewed as unlawful. Gee, what would give us that idea.

Common Threads and Mass Shootings

ABC News.com has a good piece related to the Omaha Mall shooting entitled "Common Thread of Shooters' Desperate Isolation Suggests Need for Early Intervention." There appears to be yet another common thread: An adult who was handed a big fat hint - or a series of hints - and missed it. Of course no one is clairvoyant BUT.... If the wayward 19 year-old living in your home showed you a Russian AK47 like the one pictured above in the hands of Robert Hawkins shouldn't that peak your curiosity? Just a little?

Bush Has "no recollection"

President Bush “has no recollection of being made aware of the tapes or their destruction before yesterday,” the chief White House spokeswoman, Dana Perino, said today.

So that makes two people : The then-CIA Director and the President of the United States.

Goss Knew Nothing?

The unspectacular reign of former Rep. Porter Goss' directorship of the CIA includes one spectacular fact: he knew nothing about the interrogation tapes being destroyed until after it was all over.

So to recap: Pres. Bush doesn't remember if the tapes were destroyed or not. Rep. Jane Harman knew beforehand and Sen. Jay Rockefeller says he didn't know until now - after initially saying he did know in 2006. So wait, Rep. Harman knew but CIA Dir. Goss didn't know?

CIA Destroys Tapes

The CIA videotaped interrogations of two terror suspects in 2002. They destroyed the tapes in 2005. Senate Intelligence knew nothing until November 2006. Why do we know this? Because the New York Times found out and CIA Director Michael Hayden was forced to tell staff before they read it in Thursday's paper. The cherry on top: Porter Goss knew zip until after.

Romney's religion

Mitt Romney: "Americans tire of those who would jettison their beliefs, even to gain the world." How ironic that political chameleon Romney would use this line. We Americans also tire of politicians who jettison their past beliefs to win the current office they are running for.

How is it that in a speech on religion he only mentions his own one time? Whatever. That is besides the point anyway. The most important thing to take from the Romney speech is that he felt he had to make it. Does it bother anyone that in 2007, fifty years after John F. Kennedy was made to feel he had to explain his Catholicism, that Mitt Romney has to explain his religion? That people would proudly tell a pollster, or anyone else for that matter, they wouldn't vote for someone simply because of their religion should scare everyone.

Interesting, Romney never explores in any detail some of the more provacative aspects of the Church of Jesus Christ and Latter-day Saints which unfortunately means he will continue to get questions on the trail regarding it. But here is the question: Why should he have to explain anything? If bigtime Christian George Bush doesn't have to explain Commandment #6, (you know the one : Thou Shalt Not Kill) and its relationship with his Iraq War policy then why should Mitt Romney be required to explain a thing?