Guess What Happens if Rove is Convicted

You gotta love John Conyers. I mean, this guy is working his ass off. If you're in the Detroit/Dearborn Michigan district that he represents and you're into things like responsibility, accountability, asking questions, and fighting for justice, you may want to drop Johnny C. an email and thank him for all of his work.

When we last left our Super-Congressman, he was one of the only members of the House or Senate sticking his political neck on the line to organize, draft a petition and hold an investigation into the Downing Street Memo. Over 500,000 signed the petition which was frog-marched literally to the front door of 100 Pennsylvania Ave. Bush was well into his afternoon nap and was therefore unable to get the doorbell, but we're assuming one of his aids left it on his desk to absorb his coffee mug rings.

Although the top story according to the liberal media on this sweltering July day will be, "It's hot in July," John Conyers took another significant step in gaining back some of the respect politicians have lost in the Western world by making another important move: he wrote a letter to President Bush asking him not to pardon Karl Rove before his potential trial.

Now, as Scott McClelan would say nothing short of 32 times in a twenty minute press conference, "this is an ongoing investigation." We know Scott, we know.

And to be honest, everything people are saying about the specific 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act Rove may or may not have violated makes it sound like Rove could have been videotaped following Plame around while holding a cardboard sign that says "UNDERCOVER!!!----->" and still may not be successfully prosecuted. In fact, only one known case in the past 23 years has sent anyone to jail for the crime.

Nevertheless, I think Conyers' letter to Bush about any forthcoming pardons is well founded, and he has every reason to think Bush may squeeze the Rove slime through the cracks of justice.

Why? Because when it comes to pardoning traitors, those connected to anyone named George Bush tend to get pardoned more than Eric Rudolf in a Fox News Interview.

Want proof? Remember the 3-month funeral coverage the media had several months back when Reagan died, championing him as a hero of all heroes (that wacky liberal media!)? Well if memory serves you correctly, you'll recall those convicted in Reagan's Iran-contra scandal were for the most part, pardoned.

"But Jeremy, every president pardon's someone for something!" you might be shouting through your cupped hands at the monitor. Maybe so.

Here however, is what should bother you about all this. The Right constantly takes the stance of More Patriotic Than Though. They are all equipped with a big orange "traitor" whistle around their necks and they'll throw the proverbial yellow flag at anyone they feel disagrees with their policy. I'm looking at you, Ann slut-face Coulter. I'm looking at you Spencer Bachus, (R-AL). I'm looking at you Counterbias.com. I'm looking entirely at you angry, white Christian middle-aged, male dominated, Bible-hugging, Republican National Committee.

With this in mind - with the Republicans wrapping themselves in the flag as if it was only theirs to claim, how ironic is it that when it comes to actual crimes against America - actual deals, negotiations and sweet, sweet love for nations who sponsor terrorism - it's actually those on the Right who not only tend to commit those crimes, but actually get away with it.

From this picture, to this scandal, to this shining moment in American history, to images like these, to articles like this one, Republican cooperation with unelected dictators and terrorist regimes is more than well documented - it's getting to be expected.

So why did Conyers write his letter? Maybe he thought Bush's son would do what his dad did, the last time America had to deal with traitors in the White House. Let's take a look:

Elliott Abrams -- Pleaded guilty October 7, 1991, to two misdemeanor charges of withholding information from Congress about secret government efforts to support the Nicaraguan contra rebels during a ban on such aid. U.S. District Chief Judge Aubrey E. Robinson, Jr., sentenced Abrams November 15, 1991, to two years probation and 100 hours community service. Abrams was pardoned December 24, 1992.

Alan D. Fiers, Jr. -- Pleaded guilty July 9, 1991, to two misdemeanor counts of withholding information from Congress about secret efforts to aid the Nicaraguan contras. U.S. District Chief Judge Aubrey E. Robinson, Jr., sentenced Fiers January 31, 1992, to one year probation and 100 hours community service. Fiers was pardoned December 24, 1992.

Clair E. George -- Indicted September 6, 1991, on 10 counts of perjury, false statements and obstruction in connection with congressional and Grand Jury investigations. George's trial on nine counts ended in a mistrial on August 26, 1992. Following a second trial on seven counts, George was found guilty December 9, 1992, of two felony charges of false statements and perjury before Congress. The maximum penalty for each count was five years in prison and $250,000 in fines. U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth set sentencing for February 18, 1993. George was pardoned on December 24, 1992, BEFORE SENTENCING OCCURRED.

Robert C. McFarlane -- Pleaded guilty March 11, 1988, to four misdemeanor counts of withholding information from Congress. U.S. District Chief Judge Aubrey E. Robinson, Jr., sentenced McFarlane on March 3, 1989, to two years probation, $20,000 in fines and 200 hours community service. McFarlane was pardoned December 24, 1992.

Duane R. Clarridge -- Indicted November 26, 1991, on seven counts of perjury and false statements about a secret shipment of U.S. HAWK missiles to Iran. The maximum penalty for each count was five years in prison and $250,000 in fines. U.S. District Judge Harold H. Greene set a March 15, 1993, trial date. Clarridge was pardoned December 24, 1992 BEFORE HIS TRIAL DATE.

Caspar W. Weinberger -- Indicted June 16, 1992, on five counts of obstruction, perjury and false statements in connection with congressional and Independent Counsel investigations of Iran/ contra. On September 29, the obstruction count was dismissed. On October 30, a second indictment was issued, charging one false statement count. The second indictment was dismissed December 11, leaving four counts remaining. The maximum penalty for each count was five years in prison and $250,000 in fines. U.S. District Judge Thomas F. Hogan set a January 5, 1993, trial date. Weinberger was pardoned December 24, 1992 BEFORE HIS TRIAL DATE.

Stick that in your pipe and smoke it, Ann Coulter.

Disposable Heroes

From time to time I see bumper stickers on cars that boldly declare, "Military families for Bush!" to which I just shake my head and wonder if these people will ever see the cartoon arrow with the flashing word SUCKER superimposed above, following their car in video game-like fashion.

From pinning the blame of Abu Garib on low-level Army Reserves such as Lynndie England, to closing Veterans Hospitals and cutting VA benefits, to never attending the funeral of a fallen soldier, to not providing adequate armor to our troops and responding to it only when it became national news, to allowing no-bid contractors like Halliburton serve dirty food to the troops, to using them as props in press conferences, this administration has been nothing but shameless when it comes to it's use of the military as pawns for their wars in Iraq.

While the administration may have their reasons and Karl Rove-molded responses to those allegations above, they really don't have much to say to the families of two of the most famous American soldiers in the middle East: Pat Tillman, and Jessica Lynch.

The Jessica Lynch Story

What the Pentagon told us:
A pretty, blonde soldier ambushed by the Iraqis, courageously firing until her ammo runs out, shot and stabbed and carried off by the enemy who, after taking time out to rape her, deposit her unconscious body in a hospital, where she is slapped around by evil medical staff, then, nine days later, is rescued in a daring, nighttime raid that is videotaped and can be shown repeatedly around the world and who, as soon as she recovers, will tell what it's like to be an all-American hero.

What really happened according to Lynch:
Jessica Lynch unfortunately never fired a shot. Her gun jammed. She was never sexually assaulted by anyone and was in fact knocked out cold after her Hummer crashed. The Iraqi staff at the hospital couldn't have been nicer. There was no resistance and no dramatic rescue. The hospital staff even gave Jessica's "rescuers" a key to get in the building.

What does Lynch have to say about this?
The Pentagon "used me to symbolize all this stuff," Lynch told a fawning Diane Sawyer on ABC's Primetime Live. "It's wrong."

The Pat Tillman Story

What the Pentagon told us:
Tillman encountered enemy fire, ordered his team to dismount and then maneuvered the Army Rangers up a hill near the enemy's location. As they crested the hill, Tillman directed his team into firing positions and personally provided suppressive fire. Tillman's voice was heard issuing commands to take the fight to the enemy forces.

What really happened according official reports:
Tillman's platoon had to split up because of a broken Humvee. Tillman's half went ahead toward the town. When the second half of the platoon followed through the canyon, it reportedly came under enemy fire. Tillman grabbed another Ranger and the Afghan soldier and got into position to lend fire support. When the second half of the platoon rounded a corner, they mistook the trio as foes.

Pat Tillman was killed by friendly fire. His last words, according to official pentagon documents quoting the Ranger nearest to him were, quoted him as saying, "Cease Fire! Cease Fire!Friendlies!" The documents also show that officers made erroneous initial reports that Tillman was killed by enemy fire, destroyed critical evidence and initially concealed the truth from Tillman's brother, also an Army Ranger, who was near the attack on April 22, 2004, but did not witness it.

What does Tilman's Family have to say about this?

Patrick Tillman Sr., a San Jose lawyer, said he is furious about what he found in the volumes of witness statements and investigative documents the Army has given to the family. He decried what he calls a "botched homicide investigation" and blames high-ranking Army officers for presenting "outright lies" to the family and to the public. "After it happened, all the people in positions of authority went out of their way to script this," Patrick Tillman said. "They purposely interfered with the investigation, they covered it up. I think they thought they could control it, and they realized that their recruiting efforts were going to go to hell in a handbasket if the truth about his death got out. They blew up their poster boy."

Just to be clear right from the get go, considering conservatives take it upon themselves to be the Patriot Police and accuse anyone who debates, questions, or thinks about government policy during a time of war to be traitorous - because god forbid we raise our voice when a family member dies - I'd like to make the following statement: I think all voluntary and professionally enlisted service men and women, in the military, in law enforcement, in the capacities of medical and fire should be appreciated by all of us, given that they serve with honor and integrity - and I feel the same way about the families going through it with them. Sometimes their jobs are thankless and just slapping a magnet on your car to say you support them is literally the least you can do.

Which is why I feel when that support is truly abused - ESPECIALLY by those who cower behind these servicepeople and use them as patriotic shields and invoke their names purely for political gain - it really pisses me off.

So while the Right-wing of the Republican party is outraged - absolutely beside themselves - over artists exercising free speech, you really aren't going to hear much from their side about the Pentagon lying to the press and the public about how Pat Tilman died.

And that's precisely the point, and what makes liberals want to lash out at conservatives. The Right focuses on acts against the symbols of America and the exercises of free speech; flag-burning and Bill Maher's show are perfect examples. What makes the left react, on the other hand, is the abuse or denial of the freedoms those very symbols represent. We say, "Go ahead, burn that cloth. We won't lose one single Constitutionally protected freedom because of it...but don't you dare censor free thought."

I happen to agree with that philosophy. One of my coworkers doesn't have a single American flag on his car - but he volunteered at his local polling center this past election, and for that he showed his patriotism by participating in democracy, rather than through a $1.39 donation to Wal-Mart.

Of course, both can be done at the same time. It's just that the Right is so quick to call someone unpatriotic just because they disagree with them, or voted against a sitting president which is not only completely misguided, it dismisses the sacrifices that individual does make for their country - and places a higher value on the actions that are much more shallow by comparison.

Look at what the swift boat liars did to John Kerry.

Look at what Karl Rove did to Max Cleland, who lost 3 of his limbs in Vietnam being compared by to Osama bin Laden by those on the right simply because he's a Democrat.

Look at how Rove and Bush treated John McCain during the 2000 primaries.

Yet somehow Karl Rove outing a CIA gets a free pass.

Oh, and here's a quiz for all of you out there who, like sheep to the angry white God of the Republican party, still get brainwashed into thinking there is actually a liberal media bias.

Please identify which of the storylines below got 1,500% more media coverage than the other choice.

1). The false stories intentionally painting Pat Tillman and Jessica Lynch as war heroes
2). The stories exposing that media coverage of choice #1 was inaccurate

I'll let you think about this one for a while. See if you can come up with the answer before Jessica Lynch gets her apology letter from Don Rumsfeld.

Ask the CIA About PlameGate

Today there was some testimony regarding the PlameGate controversy of which one Karl Rove is responsible. The proceedings were held in an unofficial manner at an unofficial location, because the House and Senate Republicans refuse to properly or even officially investigate this unbelievable breach of national security. The Democrats are starting to get good as using the basement of the Capitol building to have their hearings, and may eventually get a regular spot on CSPAN 12.

Anyway, one of the more powerful statements was given by CIA veteran James Marcinkowski. I would like for you to think about this testimony when you hear Republicans try to spin this issue as non-important, or by calling Plame a paper-pusher with the CIA, or by discrediting Joe Wilson.

You won't here this testimony on your Nightly News, and you're probably going to have to dig past the Hummer sales and JC Penny Bra ads to find the story in your local paper, so I thought I'd let you read it here:

"Each time the leader of a political party opens his mouth in public to deflect responsibility, the word overseas is loud and clear--politics in this country does in fact trump national security.

Each time a distinguished ambassador is ruthlessly attacked for the information he
provided, a foreign asset will contemplate why he should risk his life when his information will not be taken seriously.

Each time there is a perceived political "success" in deflecting responsibility by debating or re-debating some minutia, such actions are equally effective in undermining the ability of this country to protect itself against its enemies, because the two are indeed related.

Each time the political machine made up of prime-time patriots and partisan ninnies display their ignorance by deriding Valerie Plame as a mere "paper-pusher," or
belittling the varying degrees of cover used to protect our officers, or continuing to play partisan politics with our national security, it is a disservice to this country. By ridiculing, for example, the "degree" of cover or the use of post office boxes, you lessen the level of confidence that foreign nationals place in our covert capabilities.

Those who would advocate the "I'm ok, you're ok" politics of non-responsibility, should probably think about the impact of those actions on our foreign agents. Non-responsibility means we don't care. Not caring means a loss of security. A loss of security means a loss of an agent. The loss of an agent means the loss of information. The loss of information means an increase in the risk to the people of the United States.

There is a very serious message here. Before you shine up your American flag lapel pin and affix your patriotism to your sleeve, think about what the impact your actions will have on the security of the American people.

Think about whether your partisan obfuscation is creating confidence in the United States in general and the CIA in particular. If not, a true patriot would shut up.

Those who take pride in their political ability to divert the issue from the fundamental truth ought to be prepared to take their share of the responsibility for the continuing damage done to our national security.

When this unprecedented act first occurred, the president could have immediately
demanded the resignation of all persons even tangentially involved. Or, at a minimum, he could have suspended the security clearances of these persons and
placed them on administrative leave.

Such methods are routine with police forces throughout the country. That would have at least sent the right message around the globe, that we take the security of those risking their lives on behalf of the United States seriously. Instead, we have flooded the foreign airwaves with two years of inaction, political rhetoric, ignorance,
and partisan bickering. That's the wrong message. In doing so we have not lessened, but increased the threat to the security and safety of the people of the United States."

Fight Them Over There So We Don't Have to Fight Them in...London?

Today, London England (not sure if that’s Old Europe or New Europe Rummy, can you help me out with that?) faced it's second attack in as many weeks on it's transportation systems. While this attack doesn't seem sophisticated enough to be al Al Qaeda group, British officials can't say for sure who is responsible (although by the time you read this, we'll probably know for sure...ahh, such is the dated world of Blogging).

I'll tell you one thing that is for sure, however - the Bush administration continues to lose credibility each time there is an attack somewhere in the Western World.

Think about it -- here's the entire picture Bush sets up regarding the war in Iraq:

"Evil-doer terrorists who hate freedom have decided to all gather in Iraq, and make Iraq the central headquarters for terrorism. We have sent our soldiers there to keep killing each one, until they give up the fight, our troops hand the country over to the Iraqis, and terrorism and the world becomes a safer, more democratic place as terrorism declines sharply. " (Please note some black & white, monosyllabic, Texas-Speak words that would have been smirked out of Bush's mouth were replaced with more sophisticated, textured vocabulary that us Middle School graduates use from time to time).

In other words, fight them there so we don't have to fight them here at home. Well George, I have one favor to ask. Define "home."

Indonesia?
Madrid?
London?
I ask again, London?
Next?

The problem is that our 43rd president faces with his logic is that while we may be killing Iraqi insurgence, as well as Iraqi civilians at the same time, Al Qaeda has become more of a "brand" or signature, rather than a tight network of communicating religious fanatics. Put another way, saying we'll fight them there so we won't have to fight them here assumes 3 major falsehoods:

1. That there are a finite number of terrorists, located in finite areas, and we need to continue killing them until there are no more terrorists, bad guys, evil doers, or people who hate America.

2. That as we are displaying to the international community the very freedom they hate us for visa vies Abu Garib, Guantanimo Bay, Nation-invading, and the real hallmark of free society, fake journalism, there are not new recruitments, new terrorists, and most importantly, new anger replacing that of which we are killing off.

3. That terrorists are a card-carrying, organized breed who are all marching toward Iraq, instead of developing and training within cells from Sudan to Syracuse.

The analogy I've heard used best was by Arianna Huffington earlier this year. She said that the Bush administration is a person in the middle of the woods, swatting mosquitoes, who represent the terrorists. Sure, one may swat 30 or 40 mosquitoes each minute, but because the conditions are perfect for swamps to form, more mosquitoes are breeding, more are biting, and simply swatting them off is a fruitless lesson in futility. In other words, get after the conditions that are causing the swamps to form breeding grounds to the mosquitoes, and they eventually go away.

See, one of the things on an endless list that Bush and the neocons who advise him need to learn is that terrorism is a tactic, not a fixed, recognized army of soldiers who always coordinate and move together as one entity. As long as people feel hopeless, as long as there is government sponsored oppression, as long as people are brainwashed by ANY religion (you'd better be clicking that link to the left Mr. and Mrs. Joe Christian) there will always - ALWAYS be people willing to kill innocent people to get their voice heard. Always.

Since Saddam Hussein (as you'll recall, one of the major causes of terrorism) has been removed from power, and now that we're fighting evil doers 'over there,' terrorism hasn't decreased. In fact, it's tripled. Swamps are forming everywhere, and we don't understand why.

Karl Rove scoffed at the fact that liberals try to understand the enemy after the 9/11 attacks. He was right, we did. Except, we weren't trying to understand them to like them, or to know what to get them on their next birthday. We do it to understand how to defeat them, deflate them, and defend against them. If you don't understand what is breeding the mosquitoes and why they're coming for you, they'll still be hanging around long after you're gone.

Bush's Not-So-Supreme Pick

So, I was listening to Air America yesterday (and you should have been too), specifically the best show on the network, the Randi Rhodes Show, and she said something I had to chuckle at. She said, "while all of the press has been focusing on the new Supreme Court Nominee being Edith Hollan Jones, I guarantee you it will not be her. It will be someone more controversial, and much less moderate."

What, praytell was Randi's reasoning for this? What did she know that most of the corporate press didn't know? Everyone was sure it would be the judge from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans. It was the worst kept secret in Washington! You might even say it was LEAKED to the press (yeah Karl Rove, I'm looking at your doughy face when I say that).
Randi when on: "Bush is not going to pick someone moderate because he needs some type of media and public distraction from the Karl Rove case - he'll pick someone much more controversially conservative."

Then last night the nomination, oddly covered in the Prime Time News media, saddened progressives and made conservatives fire up the 'ol Cross-on-the-Lawn in celebration. Bush's pick? Jacques Chirac of France.

Just kidding. As everyone knows by now, John G. Roberts "Joonya" is Bush's conservative, reproductive rights-hating nominee. Attention women: a note has just been passed from your brain to your uterus, and has been intercepted. The note says, "hey, our relationship was fun while it lasted, but you're on your own now kid. You don't need me anymore when you've got the government telling you what to do."

Ahh yes, the Republican conservatives, who swear up and down they're for less government, won't let those with breasts (man-boobs excluded) decisions about their own reproductive health that will dramatically effect the rest of their lives. They also won't let you die when your time has come either...which basically means they're pro-life before you're born and as you're about to go, but to all of us stuck 80 years or so in between - well those silly constitutionally protected rights have been flushed right out your feeding tube.

In terms of what Americans feel is important to them relating to the Supreme Court, nothing gets more attention than abortion. Flag burning? Who cares?. The Death Penalty? Hey I don't plan on killing anyone, doesn't affect me. Affirmative action? Hell my name is John Anglosaxon Whitey - the number of black and hispanic students getting into law school isn't even on my radar. What's that you say though? The 15 year old part-time syrup girl at IHOP decided she couldn't afford to bring an underweight child into this world and made a decision on her own? To that I say her and her doctor get the same death penalty I just said I didn't care about!

Of course when Bush got on tv last night, and turned to the enemies on his political left as well as those in the center, and gave them the finger...I mean, announced his nominee, people on both sides jumped all over the opportunity to denounce or give raucous applause to the target of his appointment, and the jeers or cheers centered all around fetuses.

So what does our new, devilishly handsome jurist have to say about women's reproductive rights as it concerns Roe v. Wade?

"We continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled." -- Roberts, in a 1991 Supreme Court brief he co-wrote for the first Bush administration, while he was principal deputy solicitor general. He has also said abortion rights have, "no support in the text, structure, or history of the Constitution."

Aww, cute. Doesn't he just make the ladies swoon?

But wait, there's more. His wife, Jane Marie Sullivan Roberts was the former vice president of the women's "Anti-Choice Feminists" group (they really call themselves pro-life feminists, but on this web site we cut through the bullshit - everyone is pro-life, no one living is really against life otherwise they wouldn't be living anymore. Pro-life is just code for, "government gets to say who lives or dies, you and your doctor do not"). Since being a feminist and stripping away a woman's right to govern her own reproductive decisions based on what's best for her is a complete oxymoron, I really wasn't aware this group existed, until I did some research on them. But I'll save that for another blog, since this is about Junior, not his wife.

And, to confuse things, during Roberts' confirmation as an appeals judge, he also stood by the fact that Roe v Wade is the law of the land, and it's not up to him to overrule what's on the books. So let's combine what he said in 2003, with what he said in 1991, with where he and his family are coming from ideologically, as well as the fact that all the conservatives are rallying around this guy, to make one complete statement about how Roberts feels about abortion:

"While the interpretation of the law as it concerns Roe v. Wade has been settled, I disagree with the ruling, and the philosophy behind it. I don't have the power to overturn it unless of course, I'm casting the deciding swing vote on the highest court in the land...one court so Supreme in it's decisions, it can change the law for everyone and no one can dispute it. But alas, I'm simply an appeals judge. Hey, can someone tell me if my 'abortion is murder' lapel pin is crooked?"

If you're now saying to yourself, "you know what, abortion is wrong, and I don't mind stacking the court with others who think so as well," AND you happen to have sex once in a great while, think of this as well: most people and ideologies surrounding the abortion issue almost directly correlate with birth control issues.

That's right. Those nasty, sex-deprived, brown-tie wearing, closet cross-dressing conservatives from the South and the MidWest with the 'abortion stops a beating heart' bumper sticker 3 inches away from their "W in '04" car magnet are the same people - the same groups and the same mindsets that stop cold the development of new forms of contraception, want legislation to do away with the existing ones, and make it harder to find, purchase, and hence use said contraception once the laws do sneak through the cracks.

Does that sound a bit much for you to believe? Am I using snarling, Cheneyesque scare tactics? Ever read stories like this (BC story) or like this (RU486) in the news? Well you'd better get educated, Miss 2-times-a-week-sexual-relations-soccer-mom.

The simple fact of the matter is at the most optimistic, the Supreme Court with O'Conner was 6-3 upholding Roe v Wade, and 5-4 with her knitting away in some Nursing Home. In all likelihood Roe v Wade is not going to be overturned anytime soon. Even considering 65% of Americans don't want it overturned, doing so certainly wouldn't be legislating from the bench anyway, now would it Mr. Bush?

No, it's far more likely you'll see the Right gnawing away at the little things - birth control rights, parental consent, sex education, stem cell research, completely bogus medical terms like "partial birth abortion," all with the "except if the woman's life is in danger" crossed off the list of exceptions. Because remember - conservatives love fetuses and people in vegetative states, but if you're somewhere in the middle, somehow they're just not looking out for you.