Not only was President Bush’s latest prime-time TV speech a flop in ratings, it may have had the opposite effect to what he intended. According to a Zogby poll, Bush’s job approval rating remains in the tank at 43%. And worse, the idea of impeachment is catching on.

In a sign of the continuing partisan division of the nation, more than two-in-five (42%) voters say that, if it is found that President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should hold him accountable through impeachment. While half (50%) of respondents do not hold this view, supporters of impeachment outweigh opponents in some parts of the country.

Strangely, the question apparently didn’t ask whether Bush “lied to” or “misled” the public — simply whether he “didn’t tell the truth,” intentionally or no. Even the “bad intelligence” excuse falls under this category.

Link via Think Progress, who note that that’s one point higher than support for Clinton’s impeachment in 1998.

As you’ve probably heard, the Supreme Court handed down two separate decisions on the constitutionality of Ten Commandments being posted in courts. Nothing terribly exciting — basically upholding an older “secular purpose” test, and adding in a couple more details. One boulder in Texas (a promotional item from the Cecil DeMille/Charlton Heston movie) was kind of grandfathered in, while a couple of plaques in Kentucky were banned because they were obviously part of a recent campaign to promote Christianity using the state.

In my opinion, the relevant question should be: Who cares? We have a war going on, an enormous public debt, etc., and this is supposed to be a big deal? Give me a break!

Instead, this whole ordeal — the rending of the garments, the apocalyptic wails — is simply a set piece for the larger culture war, just like the “Christmas Under Siege” campaign we wrote about last December. I find it truly hard to believe that anybody’s faith is at risk when they don’t get to put up their sacred texts all over government buildings.

But sure enough, our modern culture warriors were shocked to the very core of their being:

[Family Research Council lawyer Pat] Trueman says the Kentucky decision is particularly ominous because of what it has established. “Religion and non-religion are on equal footing – and that’s dangerous,” he adds.

Trueman’s comrade at FRC offers a biblical metaphor. “The court came down somewhere between Mount Sinai and the golden calf,” says FRC president Tony Perkins. “The one case, in Texas, saying the display was okay; but in the other case showing a growing hostility – not neutrality, but hostility – toward religion, in particular Christianity.”

Let’s see — you can practice your religion all you like, and you can promote loudly in all manner of public forum. You can – successfully! – lobby this Congress to push most of the political views you derive from your religious perspective.

But when the courts draw the line at making the government institutionally endorse your religion, that’s hostility?

A few years ago, the culture warriors talked up the idea that “liberals” were too “politically correct” — so that, you know, conservatives weren’t allowed say things without offending us. Now, I hope, the reality is clear: culture-war conservatives are way too sensitive, or at least they’re faking it pretty good. And it’s not so much that anybody is diss’ing them or their beliefs — no, the real offense is when other people fail to explicitly recite their slogans. For example, when a store says “Happy Holidays” instead of “Merry Christmas,” or now, when the government doesn’t specially, actively commemorate the Ten Commandments.

In a FoxNews.com story woefully titled “Commandments decision saddens Bible Belt” (you can almost feel the tears streaming down their faces) activists who sought, but were denied, this municipal endorsement indicated the dark places their hearts were in today:

“I’m heartbroken,” said former McCreary County Judge-Executive Jimmie Greene. “I’m devastated, to be honest with you.”

That sentiment was no doubt felt elsewhere in the country. Christian conservatives who believe the Founding Fathers saw the Ten Commandments as the basis for American law have been fighting what they see as a “hostility” to faith in the U.S. courts.
[…]
At the height of the controversy, residents of the two counties — both of which forbid sales of alcohol — took to planting blue-and-white Ten Commandments markers on their front lawns to show their support.

“They take prayer out of schools, they take the Ten Commandments down and they wonder what’s wrong with our society. It’s just wrong,” said Joe Kidd, who was working at a fireworks stand in Whitley City.
[…]
“There are consequences to this that people don’t realize. When you distance yourself from God and you say this nation can’t recognize God, you give up inalienable rights,” [said Roy Moore, the Alabama Chief Justice who was dethroned over a commandments boulder two years ago].

I believe these activists are sincere in their stated belief that the nation is morally “fallen” or whatever, and needs some churching up. But really — “devastated” that a courthouse has been prevented from commanding its visitors to avoid graven images, a commandment these activists are welcome to promote themselves any time of day or night? It’s not the end of the world.

Where it get really weird is in Scalia’s dissent, joined by Thomas and Rehnquist, which actually begins with the words “On September 11, 2001 …” (Reductio ad septembereleventhum, a rhetorical technique developed by Sean Hannity.) The crux of his bizarre “originalist” screed is that our government is not only meant to endorse religion over “nonreligion,” but that certain religions are allowed to be favorites.

Besides appealing to the demonstrably false principle that the government cannot favor religion over irreligion, today’s opinion suggests that the posting of the Ten Commandments violates the principle that the government cannot favor one religion over another. … With respect to public acknowledgment of religious belief, it is entirely clear from our Nation’s historical practices that the Establishment Clause permits this disregard of polytheists and believers in unconcerned deities, just as it permits the disregard of devout atheists. …

The three most popular religions in the United States, Christianity, Judaism, and Islam–which combined account for 97.7% of all believers [versus “of all citizens “—E.K.] — are monotheistic. All of them [i.e., the three religions, according to Scalia, not believers themselves—E.K.], moreover (Islam included), believe that the Ten Commandments were given by God to Moses, and are divine prescriptions for a virtuous life. Publicly honoring the Ten Commandments is thus indistinguishable, insofar as discriminating against other religions is concerned, from publicly honoring God. Both practices are recognized across such a broad and diverse range of the population–from Christians to Muslims–that they cannot be reasonably understood as a government endorsement of a particular religious viewpoint. [refs. removed]

That’s right — as long as your religion (or more specifically, your God) is popular enough, there’s no need to worry about the First Amendment! (Come to think of it — Why bother with individual rights at all, since the majority must always prevail?)

Jack Balkin thoroughly and eloquently draws out the meaning of these new distinctions. “one effect of Justice Scalia’s theory is that he is willing to enshrine a notion of first class and second class citizens based on religion– first class citizens can have government acknowledge their religion in public pronouncements and displays, while second class citizens cannot. Well, who said that the Constitution prohibited different classes of citizens, anyway? The Fourteenth Amendment? Who cares about your stinking Fourteenth Amendment! ” (Read the rest.)

See also the learned discussion at SCOTUSblog, and this 2002 article by Marci Hamilton called “Ten Commandments in Court: Power and its Abuse”, about the totally obvious religious purpose of the tablets.

There’s a beautiful piece at Alternet this week about Walter Jones, the Repug Rep from North Carolina who was originally among the staunchest of war supporters back in 2003. That whole “freedom fries” gaffe notwithstanding (as well as some other varied and sundry overreligious wierdness), Mr. Jones seems to be, as they say, growing a conscience – and a heart and a mind – regarding the increasingly sad, sad, sad situation in Iraq.

His personal revolution has even taken political form, another beautiful thing to watch. He’s linked arms with none other than Kucinich and Abercrombie, those most unapologetically liberalish of liberals, in order to come up with some leglislation that will pin the Preznit down for a withdrawal date. Why? What could account for such a dramatic change in a career Republican’s thinking? Jan Frel says

…Iraq has subsumed Jones’ political and private life on the Hill and in his district, a consequence of the ubiquitous military presence there. Perhaps more than any other politician in Washington, Jones has witnessed exactly what the Iraq policy he helped shape has done to the lives of the people he’s supposed to represent.

A congressional staffer who works closely with Walter Jones’ office right now told me that Jones changed his mind about Iraq after some “difficult soul searching,” and that the “growing gap” between the truth about Iraq that plays out in his district and the Republican party line he’s supposed to tow in committee hearings has taken a “terrible toll on him.” When I asked Jones’ press secretary what led to the shift, she told me it was a combination of “the top-secret briefings, researching the issues, and talking to families.”

Jan also nicely debunks the Mainstream Right’s characterization of Jones’ change in position as some kind of pre-campaign maneuvering. His new views won’t be popular in his district, likely not at all, come mid-terms. His constituency consists of a huge number of vets, active duty personnel, and people who benefit enormously from the money Cherry Point Marine Corps air station pumps into their economy every year – $500 million.

Interestingly enough, though, this isn’t the first time Jones has shaken a big stick at his Party. He hasn’t liked that stupid prescription drug bill, or CAFTA, either. Smart man. But he really did let the sacred cattle out of the corral by questioning the precious war policies, and they are of course sparing no effort to now make him look ridiculous. But if Walter Jones has become ridiculous, and emotional, and “soft” on the war, then that’s what I want to be too.

…Jones hangs photographs of the fallen soldiers from his district at the entrance to his congressional offices, and their eyes meet his every time he enters the offices. More than 100 Marines from Camp Lejeune have lost their lives; Jones has written letters to the 1,300 family members who survive them. Mix in the closed-door sessions he attends with generals and intelligence experts telling him every single thing is going wrong, the despair of wives and children on the bases who have seen tours of duty extended, and the disquiet, misery and injuries of the returned combat veterans. Jones still talks about the funeral he attended two years ago of Sgt. Michael Bitz, who never saw the birth of his twin sons.

The Raleigh News and Observer article that broke the story in May about Jones’ switch on Iraq also reveals that he “is quicker to tears than to laughter” and that he’s been trying to build a memorial to the dogs that have helped U.S. servicemen in war:

He flips through a book dog handlers gave him, leafing past stylized drawings of animals leading their masters through danger. He starts to read, then catches himself. “I better not read this now,” he says. “I never get through it without crying.”

It isn’t just the book about war dogs, it’s anything at all. This isn’t about politics; it’s personal, and utterly emotional. Walter Jones can’t lie about Iraq anymore. He’s worked in the beating heart of this rotten American war effort for almost three years, and he’s complicit in all of it. It’s enough to make a congressman cry.

This intro bit from ABC New’s The Note says too much:

Would you rather be known as the party of Michael Moore and MoveOn, or known as the party of decisiveness and strength?

If you have to indignantly assert that you are just as patriotic as the other party, from where does that mean you started the debate?

If you think the President “used” 9/11 and the GWoT to distract the American people from the “real” issues in the last election — and you think that’s how/why he won — what exactly is your strategy in this round, and why would it be any more successful than it was last year?

From the Daily Show, courtesy of Kos and Crooks and Liars.

A couple of weeks ago, this would have been more an unveiling and less a debunking of Bush-brand lies, but those little meeting minutes that should have, as of their first publication on 5/1/05, created major media frenzy and didn’t, are finally gaining the dialogic momentum they so obviously and richly deserve. Perhaps the American press thought readers would be bored by strong evidence in the “Downing Street Memo,” showing that during talks between administration officials for those evil twins, Bush and Blair, which took place in July of 2002 (war: March 2003), our President frankly didn’t give a damn if Saddam was a threat to anyone (much less us) or not. And darn it, he would spoonfeed us our war.

Today Bush denied having pushed the agenda regarding Iraq that a British official reported him as having pushed. Tony Blair somehow kept a straight face. Oh well, so what? We’ve got other sources. Not that we really need them. But in March of 2002

…a group of Republican and Democratic Senators went to the White House to meet with Condoleezza Rice, the President’s National Security Adviser. Bush was not scheduled to attend but poked his head in anyway-and soon turned the discussion to Iraq. The President has strong feelings about Saddam Hussein (you might too if the man had tried to assassinate your father, which Saddam attempted to do when former President George Bush visited Kuwait in 1993) and did not try to hide them. He showed little interest in debating what to do about Saddam. Instead, he became notably animated, according to one person in the room, used a vulgar epithet to refer to Saddam and concluded with four words that left no one in doubt about Bush’s intentions: “We’re taking him out.”
Dick Cheney carried the same message to Capitol Hill in late March. The Vice President dropped by a Senate Republican policy lunch soon after his 10-day tour of the Middle East-the one meant to drum up support for a U.S. military strike against Iraq. As everyone in the room well knew, his mission had been thrown off course by the Israeli-Palestinian crisis. But Cheney hadn’t lost focus. Before he spoke, he said no one should repeat what he said, and Senators and staff members promptly put down their pens and pencils. Then he gave them some surprising news. The question was no longer if the U.S. would attack Iraq, he said. The only question was when. “We’re taking him out.”
Daniel Eisenberg. Time. New York: May 13, 2002.Vol.159, Iss. 19; pg. 36, 3 pgs

Again, remember. War: March 2003. And shortly after Eisenberg’s article

Richard Haass, the former director of policy planning at the State Department who is now the president of the Council on Foreign Relations, recall[ed] going to see Ms. Rice in July 2002, well before the president began making a public case for ousting Mr. Hussein, to discuss with Ms. Rice ‘’the pros and cons'’ of making Iraq a priority. ‘’Basically she cut me off and said, ‘Save your breath – the president has already decided what he’s going to do on this,’ ‘’ Mr. Haass said.
“A Partner in Shaping an Assertive Foreign Policy,” Elisabeth Bumiller. New York Times. (Late Edition (East Coast)). New York, N.Y.: Jan 7, 2004. pg. A.1

Still need more convincing? Okay. For the absolute motherlode of support for the validity of these types of impeachable transgressions, check out this handy dailykos post, in which the Downing Street Memo is only No. 23 out of 43 such corroborating sources.

And then do something about it all, here, and here.

Be sure and stay tuned for more on Memogate. It’s just getting started, if we can help it. And think about it: break-ins and burglaries ain’t nothin’ next to body counts.

Sadly obviously, the Bush Team is cooking the books again. From today’s NYT:
Bush Aide Softened Greenhouse Gas Links to Global Warming

A White House official who once led the oil industry’s fight against limits on greenhouse gases has repeatedly edited government climate reports in ways that play down links between such emissions and global warming, according to internal documents.

Economic guru Joseph Stiglitz on creating incentives for conservation.

It’s a good start, but what about drastically decreasing the use of fossil fuels, while increasing conservation, and the development of renewable, clean energy sources?

“Watergate does not bother me, does your conscience bother you?” - Lynard Skynard

“When you look back at it, what was Watergate all about? A black bag job at Larry O’Brien’s place like the ones “hero” Felt used to run for Hoover. Liddy and Hunt on an escapade to get Daniel Ellsberg’s file from his shrink, which probably would have been too heavy to carry anyway. And, oh yes, 200 pizzas Segretti sent with those 30 African ambassadors in native costume to Ed Muskie’s D.C. fund-raiser.” (Pat Buchanan, “Completing the Watergate Picture,” NewsMax.com, June 5, 2005)

Seems like Pat Buchanan has taken to using Lynard Skynard for article ideas.

As the disinformation campaign on judicial nominations continues, unabated by the supposed compromise, it’s important to keep up with correct information. A May 10 speech by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) provides an excellent history not only of the use of the floor filibuster to block judicial nominations, but of the myriad other ways as few as one senator could block a nominee.

Dozens of Clinton’s nominees were “pocket filibustered” by as little as one Senator who, in secret, prevented the nominees from receiving a hearing in Committee, or a mark-up, or a floor vote. One Senator without debate or reason has stopped many Clinton nominees.
[…]
I begin with Clarence Sundram. Clarence Sundram was the chairman of the New York Commission for the Mentally Disabled. He was nominated on September 29, 1995. He had hearings on July 31, 1996, and June 25, 1997. There was no committee vote. There was no floor vote. He was simply killed in committee by a filibuster of one or two, or the chairman’s decision not to bring the nomination to the floor. He was supported by both home State Senators Moynihan and D’Amato. On seven occasions, Senator Leahy spoke on the Senate floor urging that a vote be taken on Sundram, but no vote was ever taken.

James A. Beaty, Jr., was nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit on December 22, 1995, and renominated on January 7, 1997. He did not receive a hearing and was not voted on in committee. His nomination languished for more than 1,000 days; almost 3 years without any action being taken. He was nominated by President Clinton to be a judge on the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. He was confirmed by the Senate in 1994.

Before that, he spent 13 years as a judge in the North Carolina Superior Court. He was blocked by Senator Helms. On November 21, 1998, National Journal reported that Senator Helms wanted President Clinton to name to the Fourth Circuit one of the Senator’s proteges, Terrence W. Boyle, whose nomination to that bench was killed when the Democrats ruled the Senate and George Bush was President, but the Clinton White House refused and Senator Helms made it clear that President Clinton would not get Beaty confirmed until he nominated Boyle.

Then Senator Helms supported Beaty when he was nominated for his current position as a U.S. district court judge. But this shows how things worked, where one person could deny a nomination.

And she goes on to list 60 of Clinton’s nominees who were blocked – successfully – by committee rules and anonymous holds, all without that sacred “up-or-down vote.”

(Thanks to Angry Bear for the link.)

In making his absurdist case for Social Security privatization, Bush usually employs a divide-and-conquer tactic: tell seniors its none of their business, and tell young people they can be rich (under his plan) or get nothing (under the current system).

But what do we know about retirement? As you might expect, not a whole lot. Can you blame us? First — we looking at a long time down the road, and we expect to make much more money as we get older, anyway. (And we’re still trying to pay off those student loans!) Second — politicians love to tell us it’s doomed!

According to USA Today [7/28/00], as a congressional candidate in 1978, George W. Bush was claiming “Social Security would go broke in 10 years” - 1988. (David Sirota)

Today, young workers who pay into Social Security might as well be saving their money in their mattresses. (George Bush, 5/2/01))

Combine that was a disinformation campaign and an incompetent news media ("math is hard"), and you get misinformed youth. According to a recent Harris Poll (via Mark Thoma):

* Only half of all adults know that Society Security guarantees payment for life.

* Only a quarter of adults know that Social Security guarantees protection against inflation.

* Only about half of all adults know that Social Security provides life and disability coverage for spouses or children of workers who die or are disabled.

* Only about one adult in every six know that Social Security has lower administrative costs than private pension and retirement plans.

* Almost half of adults do not know that Social Security has never failed to pay benefits.
[…]
Knowledge and ignorance are strongly correlated with age. The older people are, the more likely they are to be knowledgeable. Comparing people under 25 to those aged 65 who are well informed increase with age:—

* Those who know that Social Security guarantees payment for life, increase from 28 percent to 71 percent.

* Those who know that Social Security guarantees protection against inflation, increase from 11 percent to 42 percent (but only 42 percent, even people over 65).

* Those who know that Social Security provides disability insurance coverage, increase from 27 percent to 64 percent

* Those who know that Social Security has never failed to pay benefits, increase from 23 percent to 80 percent.

And of course, the president loves this misinformation:

We got folks saying I’m comfortable when I get my check. And we got taxpayers saying, I don’t think I’m ever going to see one. As a matter of fact, somebody told me one time, a poll – I didn’t see the poll, generally don’t pay attention to them, but nevertheless, it said that young people think it’s more likely they’re going to see a UFO than get a Social Security check. (George Bush, 3/4/05)

“Generally don’t pay attention to” polls? Haw haw haw!

Even right wing Newsmax.com couldn’t ignore this:

WASHINGTON — John R. Bolton flew to Europe in 2002 to confront the head of a global arms-control agency and demand he resign, then orchestrated the firing of the unwilling diplomat in a move a U.N. tribunal has since judged unlawful, according to officials involved.

A former Bolton deputy says the U.S. undersecretary of state felt Jose Bustani “had to go,” particularly because the Brazilian was trying to send chemical weapons inspectors to Baghdad. That might have helped defuse the crisis over alleged Iraqi weapons and undermined a U.S. rationale for war.

Story Continues Below

Bustani, who says he got a “menacing” phone call from Bolton at one point, was removed by a vote of just one-third of member nations at an unusual special session of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, at which the United States cited alleged mismanagement in calling for his ouster.

The United Nations’ highest administrative tribunal later condemned the action as an “unacceptable violation” of principles protecting international civil servants. The OPCW session’s Swiss chairman now calls it an “unfortunate precedent” and Bustani a “man with merit.”

“Many believed the U.S. delegation didn’t want meddling from outside in the Iraq business,” said the retired Swiss diplomat, Heinrich Reimann. “That could be the case.”

Bolton’s handling of the multilateral showdown takes on added significance now as he looks for U.S. Senate confirmation as early as this week as U.N. ambassador, a key role on the international stage, and as more details have emerged in Associated Press interviews about what happened in 2002.

A spokeswoman told AP Bolton, keeping a low profile during his confirmation process, would have no comment for this article.

Bolton has been criticized for supposed bullying of junior U.S. officials and for efforts to get them fired. Bustani, a senior official under the U.N. umbrella, says Bolton used a threatening tone with him and “tried to order me around.”

The Iraq connection to the OPCW affair comes as fresh evidence surfaces that the Bush administration was intent from early on to pursue military and not diplomatic action against Saddam Hussein’s regime.

An official British document, disclosed last month, said Prime Minister Tony Blair agreed in April 2002 to join in an eventual U.S. attack on Iraq. Two weeks later, Bustani was ousted, with British help.

In 1997, the Brazilian arms-control specialist became founding director-general of the OPCW, whose inspectors oversee destruction of U.S., Russian and other chemical weapons under a 168-nation treaty banning such arms. The agency, based in The Hague, Netherlands, also inspects chemical plants worldwide to ensure they’re not put to military use.

In May 2000, one year ahead of time and with strong U.S. support, Bustani was unanimously re-elected OPCW chief for a 2001-2005 term. Colin Powell, the new secretary of state, praised his leadership qualities in a personal letter in 2001.

But Ralph Earle, a veteran U.S. arms negotiator, told AP that he and others in Bolton’s arms-control bureau grew unhappy with what they considered Bustani’s mismanagement. The agency chief also “had a big ego. He did things on his own,” and wasn’t responsive to U.S. and other countries’ positions, said Earle, now retired.

‘Leaped on It’

Both Earle and career diplomat Avis Bohlen, who retired in June 2002 as a top Bolton deputy, said the idea to remove Bustani did not originate with the undersecretary. But Bolton “leaped on it enthusiastically,” Bohlen recalled. “He was very much in charge of the whole campaign,” she said, and Bustani’s initiative on Iraq seemed the “coup de grace.”

“It was that that made Bolton decide he had to go,” Bohlen said.

After U.N. arms inspectors had withdrawn from Iraq in 1998 in a dispute with the Baghdad government, Bustani stepped up his initiative, seeking to bring Iraq — and other Arab states — into the chemical weapons treaty.

Bustani’s inspectors would have found nothing, because Iraq’s chemical weapons were destroyed in the early 1990s. That would have undercut the U.S. rationale for war because the Bush administration by early 2002 was claiming, without hard evidence, that Baghdad still had such an arms program.

In a March 2002 “white paper,” Bolton’s office said Bustani was seeking an “inappropriate role” in Iraq, and the matter should be left to the U.N. Security Council — where Washington has a veto.

Bolton said in a 2003 AP interview that Iraq was “completely irrelevant” to Bustani’s responsibilities. Earle and Bohlen disagree. Enlisting new treaty members was part of the OPCW chief’s job, they said, although they thought he should have consulted with Washington.

Former Bustani aide Bob Rigg, a New Zealander, sees a clear U.S. motivation: “Why did they not want OPCW involved in Iraq? They felt they couldn’t rely on OPCW to come up with the findings the U.S. wanted.”

Bustani and his aides believe friction with Washington over OPCW inspections of U.S. chemical-industry sites also contributed to the showdown, which went on for months.

In June 2001, Bolton “telephoned me to try to interfere, in a menacing tone, in decisions that are the exclusive responsibility of the director-general,” Bustani wrote in 2002 in a Brazilian academic journal.

He elaborated in an interview with the French newspaper Le Monde in mid-2002, saying Bolton “tried to order me around,” and sought to have some U.S. inspection results overlooked and certain Americans hired to OPCW positions. The agency head said he refused.

Bustani, now in a sensitive position as Brazil’s London ambassador, indicated to the AP through an intermediary that he would have no additional comment.

The United States went public with the campaign in March 2002, moving to terminate Bustani’s tenure. On the eve of an OPCW Executive Council meeting to consider the U.S. no-confidence motion, Bolton met Bustani in The Hague to seek his resignation, U.S. and OPCW officials said.

When Bustani refused, “Bolton said something like, `Now we’ll do it the other way,’ and walked out,” Rigg recounted.

In the Executive Council, the Americans failed to win majority support among the 41 nations. A month later, on April 21, at U.S. insistence, an unprecedented special session of the full treaty conference was called.

Addressing the delegates, Bustani said the conference must decide whether genuine multilateralism “will be replaced by unilateralism in a multilateral disguise.”

Only 113 nations were represented, 15 without voting rights because their dues were far in arrears. The U.S. delegation had suggested it would withhold U.S. dues — 22 percent of the budget — if Bustani stayed in office, stirring fears of an OPCW collapse.

This time the Americans, with British help, got the required two-thirds vote of those present and voting. But that amounted to only 48 in favor of removing Bustani — and seven opposed and 43 abstaining — in an organization then with 145 member states.

Bustani appealed the decision to the Administrative Tribunal of the International Labor Organization in Geneva, a judicial body to which agencies in the U.N. family submit personnel cases. The OPCW, meanwhile, named a new director-general, Rogelio Pfirter of Argentina.

In a stern rebuke issued in July 2003, the three-member U.N. tribunal said the U.S. allegations were “extremely vague” and the dismissal “unlawful.” It said international civil servants must not be made “vulnerable to pressures and to political change.”

Noting that Bustani did not seek reinstatement, it awarded him unpaid salary and 50,000 euros, or $61,500, in damages. He said he would donate the damages to an OPCW technical aid fund for poorer countries.

Reimann, the former OPCW conference chairman, says he looks back with sadness at what was done.

“I think there’s no doubt Bustani wanted to serve the organization, to get wider membership and all these things,” the Swiss diplomat said. “He was fighting very bravely to make it work.”

© 2005 Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

So the shit-rag Newsmax.com has the following teaser on its front page:

Howard Dean May Be Out of DNC Job
New figures reveal that Dean has done a woeful job of raising money for the party since he became party chief. After essentially matching the Republicans in fund raising in 2004, the Democratic National Committee raised $14.1 million in the first quarter of 2005, while the Republicans raised $32.3 million, according to the Federal Election Commission. Dean attracted about 20,000 new donors while the Republican National Committee picked up 68,200.

Now those idiots will probably take this down in a day or so, as it does not link to a full story (just an ad for their mailing list). The right wing nutbags pull shit like this all the time. They put up deceiving headlines that don’t match their links.

Is Dean on the outs as DNC Chair? There is no evidence to suggest that at all right now. Check out our latest politics debunker: Red state party chairs reportedly are happy with Dean’s performance as chair so far. So is DSCC chair Chuck Schumer.

Where are these droves of Democrats who are trying to remove Dean? And why have they only been talking to Newsmax.com and not real journalists?

Anyone get a load of this crap Pat Buchanan is spewing about Mark Felt? Check this out: http://newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/6/4/143020.shtml

And we thought that KKKPat only longed for the days of segregation. Looks like he also misses Richard Nixon dearly. Next thing you know Pat and G Gordy are going to be crying over the fact they can’t bomb the Brookings Institution.

But seriously, Buchanan actually writes the following:

When you look back at it, what was Watergate all about? A black bag job at Larry O’Brien’s place like the ones “hero” Felt used to run for Hoover. Liddy and Hunt on an escapade to get Daniel Ellsberg’s file from his shrink, which probably would have been too heavy to carry anyway. And, oh yes, 200 pizzas Segretti sent with those 30 African ambassadors in native costume to Ed Muskie’s D.C. fund-raiser.

What a goofball!

This week’s Debunkers -

Judges & the filibuster
Hatch and Frist can’t remember their judge-blocking days in the 1990s. With the Senate on break, the non-stop nuclear circus has abated somewhat. But that doesn’t mean the right wing wants to ease up – their absolutist mission requires a constant barrage of counterfactual, inflamed rhetoric.

Foreign matter
Let’s get this straight: the gulag comment was bad. But once again, we’re not going to let the loudmouth media obfuscate the blatant crimes of this administration by tarring another liberal scapegoat. Don’t change the topic. It’s not the comment, it’s the treatment of detainees (prisoners) that’s the problem.

The Bush economy, and its deficits
The earth is flat, deficits are ok, and down is up. MYTH: The US trade deficit is not a problem—it is just like buying food at your local grocery.

That crazy liberal media
Why isn’t Robert Novak in Jail? But besides Novak, we think protecting journalistic sources is a cornerstone of any free and independent press, which is a bulwark against tyranny. No wonder they’re against it. Just ask John Dean.

Social Security
Beware the dealmakers. Plus: WWJD to privatize pensions? The past few weeks, the president’s red hot privatization boondoggle has managed to slip from the news cycle, as the filibuster fiasco and the Downing Street Memo drown out Bush’s pet project. Even the right-wing commentariat, normally reliable for repeating the privatization talking points, have let things slide.But Bush won’t let his disastrous plan die in peace. In fact, he is continuing his permanent campaign, wandering around the nation with a bull-whip, looking for dead horses.

Politics
Let’s get this straight already, Howard Dean is right, and David Horowitz is a lying wacko. Honor and smear. Canonize and smear. Honor and smear. Once again, the conservative smearocracy has spent the week heaping glory upon their own and smearing the Democrats.

Stem Cells
Stop impeding research. The stem cell research bill the House of Representatives passed last week would expand federal stem cell research funding and allow parents to donate their unused, soon-to-be-discarded embryos to the cause. What would the anti-stem cell people rather have happen? Would they rather these embryos be discarded or for the embryos to help solve some of the world’s most debilitating illnesses and diseases? Which option places a higher value on human life?

Fringe bytes
Gays are responsible for gentrification:

A pro-family leader says families have been driven out of San Francisco, California, because of the high cost of living and the increasingly family-unfriendly culture itself. According to an Associated Press report, San Francisco’s 18-and-under population is just 14.5 percent – the lowest percentage of children for any major city in the United States.

Robert Knight, director of the Culture and Family Institute, believes a major reason for this statistic is that San Francisco’s dominant subculture is prompting families to flee the city. That subculture, Knight contends, is largely made up of childless adult singles and couples – many of them homosexuals – who live well and who live mainly for themselves. “The homosexuals have enormous influence,” he says. “It’s a very artsy city, and everything’s very expensive. That’s one reason families can’t afford to live there anymore. It’s all geared toward either the single life or the two-income adult life without kids. […]

“The homosexual lifestyle is about pleasing oneself,” the CFI spokesman asserts, “not planning for the future, not setting aside money for kids, not trying to create a situation where the generations come together. It’s about having fun. It’s about indulging in whatever desire you want at any given time.” ("Pro-family advocate: Selfish homosexual subculture has annexed Frisco,” 6/2/05)

Visit our home page!

Human Events, a conservative magazine that considers itself high-minded, has published on their website a list entitlted “The ten most harmful books of the 19th and 20th centuries.”

Of course there are the usual suspects — Marx, Hitler, Betty Friedan — and at the end they throw in John Maynard Keynes ("a recipe for ever-expanding government") who the editors inexplicably blame for the national debt.

But the real choice selections are the “Honorable mentions” — Margaret Mead, Ralph Nader, Theodore Adorno, John Stuart Mill, and — lo and behold! — Charles Darwin. Twice, for Descent of Man and Origin of the Species.

To that, I can only put on my best Sean Connery accent: “It tells me that goose-stepping morons like you should try reading books instead of burning them.”

I’m curious what the president of the United States is supposed to do with his days. I have some ideas — prosecuting a war, say, or cleaning up cronyism in executive bureaucracy. But I guess I’m wrong. According to this president, his job is permanent campaign.
The New York Times reports:

When President Bush’s Social Security plan first ran into headwinds, the White House began a 60-cities-in-60-days tour to drum up political support that could be used in Congress.

That approach proved insufficient. So Thursday, in Hopkinsville, Ky., Mr. Bush described his next tactic: the endless Social Security tour.

After explaining that he was going to visit his ranch in Crawford, Tex., he said:

“But after that I’m going to head back out again, and I’m going to spend time talking about Social Security every week until something gets done - because that’s my job.”

And, like the last 2+ months, the BS rolls on …

At the “town hall” meeting in Kentucky, Mr. Bush sought to emphasize the benefits of his Social Security plan for rural populations, part of a strategy to win over specific groups of voters to using personal accounts as part of an overhauled program of retirement benefits for younger workers. […]

“[The surplus] money has gone to government programs. And so all that’s left in the Social Security trust is a file cabinet full of I.O.U.’s.”

“When those I.O.U.’s come due, somebody has to pay for them, either through reduced benefits or greater taxes,” he said to an enthusiastic crowd.

He’s really milking that file cabinet for all it’s worth, isn’t he?

Eric Brewer at BTC News has a curious find:

On May 10, Raja Nawaf Farhan al-Mahalawi, the newly appointed governor of Iraq’s Anbar province, was kidnapped by insurgents.

Five days later, according to news reports, he was freed.

But today, more than two weeks after he was freed, he was “found dead along with his militant captors after a clash with U.S. forces.”

Notice anything unusual in this chain of events? You do? No one in the media did.

Read on.