Calling Bush a Liar

This is a good editorial in The New York Times -

This is the last section -

"It wasn't surprising when the right foamed at the mouth during the Clinton years, for conservatives have always been quick to detect evil empires. But liberals love subtlety and describe the world in a palette of grays — yet many have now dropped all nuance about this president.

Mr. Bush got us into a mess by overdosing on moral clarity and self-righteousness, and embracing conspiracy theories of like-minded zealots. How sad that many liberals now seem intent on making the same mistakes. "

You really have to read the whole thing to get what he is saying, but I think he really has a good point.

Mr. VP

From the Washington Post -

The exchange ended when Cheney offered some crass advice.

"Fuck yourself," said the man who is a heartbeat from the presidency.

Leahy's spokesman, David Carle, yesterday confirmed the brief but fierce exchange. "The vice president seemed to be taking personally the criticism that Senator Leahy and others have leveled against Halliburton's sole-source contracts in Iraq," Carle said.

As it happens, the exchange occurred on the same day the Senate passed legislation described as the "Defense of Decency Act" by 99 to 1.

SD Pension Problem

Just when you thought the San Diego Pension system couldn't get any worse, the Pension Board starts doing tricky things....

The Union Tribune -

"...a bizarre vote absolving some trustees of conflicts of interest that might violate state law.

The conflict-of-interest resolution raised more questions than it answered.

Board President Frederick Pierce IV said little more than that it was crafted "out of an abundance of caution" and was "appropriate."

The speed with which it hit took some trustees by surprise.

"Can anybody explain to me what the purpose of this is?" asked trustee Richard Vortmann, president of the National Steel and Shipbuilding Co. "I'm kind of in the dark here."

Pierce's reply: "No."

Trustee Ray Garnica asked who wrote the resolution. "A resolution does not come out of thin air," he said.

He got no answer.

Trustee Diann Shipione blasted the move, calling it in a memo "the next step down the slippery slope of irresponsible and illegal actions taken by this board," and saying it "would be a joke if it were not so dangerous."

..."

Dosn't sound to good to me....

San Diego City Budget

From the Union Tribune -

"The City Council also relieved the Convention & Visitors Bureau of its responsibility for marketing the San Diego Convention Center – a job it shares now with the San Diego Convention Center Corp., which operates the Convention Center.

Ewell proposed that change in an effort to increase accountability. The Convention Center Corp. is an arm of the city, while the bureau is a private, nonprofit agency.

The bureau relies on public funds for 86 percent of its budget. A recent city audit found that the city has paid thousands of dollars for alcoholic drinks and pleasure trips for bureau employees in recent years."

I would say that isn't the greatest use of our tax dollars...

Congressional Oversight

From the Washington Post -

"Okay. It took eight months. But Rumsfeld fully agreed to allow Congress to see the documents. Just a couple of teensy restrictions. The Pentagon, not Congress, will decide which documents the lawmakers can see.

Oh, and the senators, along with a "limited number" of Senate Armed Services Committee staff members, must schlep over to a special room in the Pentagon and can look at the documents for only six hours a day, for five days. No copying permitted. No note-taking, either.

One other thing, Rumsfeld said. The senators will not, alas, be able to see any documents related to the tanker-leasing deal that mention him, or the deputy defense secretary, or the president, or anybody who works for the president's executive office or the Office of Management and Budget, or the Pentagon's attorney, or that discuss budget options or base closings. "

Is this really the way government is run?

Torture Continued

From the Washington Post -

"If a government defendant were to harm an enemy combatant during an interrogation in a manner that might arguably violate criminal prohibition, he would be doing so in order to prevent further attacks on the United States by the al Qaeda terrorist network," the draft states. "In that case, DOJ [Department of Justice] believes that he could argue that the executive branch's constitutional authority to protect the nation from attack justified his actions."

Before you torture someone you don't know what they know, so how do you know you are preventing further attacks? So really you only know if you should torture someone after you already torture them. So even if the ends justify the means, the means include the possibility of torturing people who may not know anything. So in a way we are saying it is okay to torture people because some of those people MAY help stop further attacks.

Torture

From the WSJ -

"In order to respect the president's inherent constitutional authority to manage a military campaign ... (the prohibition against torture) must be construed as inapplicable to interrogations undertaken pursuant to his commander-in chief authority," the report asserted. (The parenthetical comment is in the original document.) The Justice Department "concluded that it could not bring a criminal prosecution against a defendant who had acted pursuant to an exercise of the president's constitutional power," the report said. Citing confidential Justice Department opinions drafted after Sept. 11, 2001, the report advised that the executive branch of the government had "sweeping" powers to act as it sees fit because "national security decisions require the unity in purpose and energy in action that characterize the presidency rather than Congress."

Makes you stop and think...Maybe we do have a monarchy