"Speaking as a woman, and listening to the women who called into my radio show, seeing President Bush get out of that plane, carrying his helmet, he is a real man. He stands by his word. That was a very powerful moment."
And while that is an infuriating remark, and I am very tempted to shoot back with something about how Bush doesn't have a dick worth anything, or how Ingraham should put her foot in her mouth, I can't. Because Ingraham was right about one thing - women would decide the 2004 election. Indeed. And they went for the jerk over the Bostonian with no swagger. And that, in retrospect, shouldn't have surprised anyone. It didn't surprise this Bostonian.
When I think of the term 'real man,' I think of iconic movie stars (yes, I know they are not real, but they simulate real men). I think of stars who were a 'man's man.' I think of American stars like Washington, Bogart, Clooney, Lancaster, DaFoe, Poitier, Peck, Braugher, and Penn. But they have nothing on an asshole from Texas with a rich daddy.
If only Howard Dean had won the 2004 nomination. If only the media didn't destroy his campaign. If only Dean had whipped Bush in those debates. He damn would have, if he was given that chance.
If only...
I cannot wait for Olbermann to speak tonight.
UPDATE: I had forgotten how the President was fetishized by his PR stunt. We need to remind people of the codpiece. His crotch seemed well stuffed.
I wonder how my fellow U Mass alum, Bill Pullman felt about his Independence Day character being the inspiration for Bush's carrier landing. And why didn't he go all the way and ride an F-18? Too risky? How much more risky than a trainer? It would have been more bad-ass.
And irony is not dead. Because he didn't take-off or land the plane, but rather steered the plane during flight, Bush mimicked some of the actions of the 9/11 hijackers. Welcome to the club, Dubya.
It's a gossip topic so hot, even Wonkette is being very cautious about it. But for the second time in two months, the rumor that the First Couple is separated has hit the mainstream web. Laura Bush is on a tour, giving commencement addresses for the next month (she spoke at Pepperdine University yesterday). But when she returns to Washington, she allegedly has a room at the Hay-Adams Hotel. The story goes that Dubya is obviously drinking again (I always thought he kept his drinking to weekends at Camp David with Condi, but apparently he is drinking a lot more often these days).
This rumor is in its early stages, but it is connected by a dotted line to the brewing highbrow Beltway prostitution scandal. Both stories relate to privacy. If the mainstream press want to pursue the list of men who used the service (and let's keep the spotlight on the men, not the women, please), then maybe they should follow the fresh lead about the First Couple's private life as well. It's all fair game and America loves stories about sex, right?
It's the world premiere, in fact. I thought I recognized the city - that's Old Panama City. The director, Jose Antonio Nagret, has personal experience with relatives being kidnapped in Colombia. I suspect this story will not end well, but it looks very well produced, photographed, and edited. The story begins with the son of a banker being kidnapped when he visits his hometown of Bogota from New York. Through flashbacks, we learn about him and his family, and how he came to be in a life & death situation. Meanwhile, his parents in the US arrange for a daring covert operation to rescue him, and we get to know them as well as the officials putting their lives on the line to rescue their son. All collide in the end in what promises to be a thrilling climax. I'm hoping it is the thinking persons action movie it promises to be.
Seven losses in a row. They have a Mr. April, but without him, what are the Yankees? In deep trouble, and at the bottom of the AL East. I have tried so hard not to say anything until after this current series is complete on Sunday. I know the Red Sox probably won't sweep the Yankees in the Bronx. However, I feel something needs to be said tonight. The Red Sox have taken Mariano Rivera out of the game in the top of the 9th inning. He is yet to save a game this season.
Of course the Yankees will not stay in the cellar all season. But I am saying it now: they are not going to win the AL East.
Julio Lugo was the man of the game with a single, double, and home run. And he was el hombre. And Michael Kay had no choice but to stop his tangents about the Red Sox' weaknesses, and focus on the Yankees' problems. I have to give him credit. After the 6th inning, he shut up about how inferior Boston is. Maybe he checked the standings and realized he's the biggest asshole in sports broadcasting. Nahhhhh. His mouth will be back tomorrow at 4pm.
The irony is wonderful. In less than 30 seconds, Dana Perino accuses the Democrats of being cynical, not playing fair, and pulling a PR stunt in passing the latest Iraq funding bill, complete with a non-binding withdrawal timetable. Excuse me?
From this morning's Press Gaggle in the WH Briefing Room:
Helen Thomas: Do you think -- what do you think about the effort to time this with the fourth anniversary of the President's declaration of the end of major combat?
MS. PERINO: Well, I noticed that yesterday there are anonymous Democratic sources who are saying that this was their strategy and that an on-the-record quote from the Senate Majority Leader's spokesman saying that that is preposterous. I wonder which one is accurate. And I think that if it is the case that they withheld money for the troops in order to try to play some ridiculous PR stunt, that that is the height of cynicism, and absolutely so unfortunate for the men and women in uniform and their families who are watching the debate -- and you would hope that that is not true, although it does make you wonder, why did the House wait so long to appoint conferees? There were no conferees appointed during that two-week break.
So does this mean that the Democrats have stooped down to the President's level? Because no one has been more disrespectful of the troops than his administration. And cynical? Wasn't the construction of the Pat Tillman and Jessica Lynch narratives a cynical use of their blood to bolster support for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq?
So what if the Democrats did time this bill to within a week of the 'Mission Accomplished' speech anniversary? You know Keith Olbermann is going to deliver a special comment on May 1st. You know that many congressmen and senators will put out a statement on that day. Ditto with anti-war groups. Even the mainstream press will re-visit that speech on the flight deck of the USS Lincoln. In fact, they have already begun.
But Ms. Perino continues, and tries her best to re-spin that speech, just as Scott McClellan did in the fall of 2003:
And I would just remind you that I know that our opponents for years have tried -- have misconstrued that speech. I would encourage anybody who's actually going to write about this to go back and read that speech and what it was about and what the USS Abraham Lincoln was doing, how long they had been gone, way past their six-month deployment. I think they were gone nine to 10 months. They were expanded, and their mission was accomplished. The President never said "mission accomplished" in his speech.
And I would just hope that the cynicism on the Hill doesn't run that deep, but I wouldn't put it past them.
Excuse me while I chuckle. And then I get really mad.
Nice try, Ms. Perino, but fuck you.
See, this:
was a PR stunt. And it was elaborately staged in front of this:
"In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed."
"The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on Sept. 11, 2001, and still goes on."
I think I see the word victory above. His words, plus a vinyl banner from the white house, equals a war victory speech. Not a victory for the crew of the Lincoln. He was talking about Operation Iraqi Freedom. Stop spinning it because you will lose the argument. I'll give you credit: Scotto was a good teacher. You learned from the best.
And you will just make this May 1st more painful for the White House, and the right-wing bloggers, which I wouldn't mind at all.
Only he said it in about 1,300 words. And what wonderful words they were last night. This was Keith's first great special comment in 2007. It was worth waiting for:
Finally tonight, a Special Comment about Rudolf Giuliani's remarks at a Lincoln Day Dinner in New Hampshire last night.
Since some indeterminable hour between the final dousing of the pyre at The World Trade Center, and the breaking of what Senator Obama has aptly termed "9/11 Fever," it has been profoundly and disturbingly evident that we are at the center of one of history's great ironies.
Only in this America of the early 21st Century could it be true, that the man who was president during the worst attack on our nation, and the man who was the mayor of the city in which that attack principally unfolded, would not only be absolved of any and all blame for the unreadiness of their own governments, but, more over, would thereafter be branded heroes of those attacks.
And now, that Mayor - whose most profound municipal act in the wake of that nightmare was to suggest the postponement of the election to select his own successor - has gone even a step beyond these M.C. Escher constructions of history.
"If any Republican is elected president - and I think obviously I would be best at this - we will remain on offense and will anticipate what (the terrorists) will do and try to stop them before they do it. "
Insisting that the election of any Democrat would mean the country was "back… on defense," Mr. Giuliani continued: "But the question is how long will it take and how many casualties will we have. If we are on defense, we will have more losses and it will go on longer."
He said this with no sense of irony, no sense of any personal shortcomings, no sense whatsoever.
And if you somehow missed what he was really saying, somehow didn't hear the none-too-subtle subtext of 'vote Democratic and die,' Mr. Giuliani then stripped away any barrier of courtesy, telling Roger Simon of Politico.Com, quote…
"America will be safer with a Republican president."
At least that Republican President under which we have not been safer… has, even at his worst, maintained some microscopic distance between himself, and a campaign platform that blithely threatened the American people with "casualties" if they, next year, elect a Democratic president - or, inferring from Mr. Giuliani's flights of grandeur in New Hampshire - even if they elect a different Republican.
How dare you, sir?
"How many casualties will we have?" - this is the language of Bin Laden.
Yours, Mr. Giuliani, is the same chilling nonchalance of the madman, of the proselytizer who has moved even from some crude framework of politics and society, into a virtual Roman Colosseum of carnage, and a conceit over your own ability — and worthiness — to decide, who lives and who dies.
Rather than a reasoned discussion — rather than a political campaign advocating your own causes and extolling your own qualifications — you have bypassed all the intermediate steps, and moved directly to trying to terrorize the electorate into viewing a vote for a Democrat, not as a reasonable alternative and an inalienable right… but as an act of suicide.
This is not the mere politicizing of Iraq, nor the vague mumbled epithets about Democratic 'softness' from a delusional Vice President.
This is casualties on a partisan basis — of the naked assertion that Mr. Giuliani's party knows all and will save those who have voted for it — and to hell with everybody else.
And that he, with no foreign policy experience whatsoever, is somehow the Messiah-of-the-moment.
Even to grant that that formula - whether posed by Republican or Democrat - is somehow not the most base, the most indefensible, the most Un-American electioneering in our history - even if it is somehow acceptable to assign "casualties" to one party and 'safety' to the other - even if we have become so profane in our thinking that it is part of our political vocabulary to view counter-terror as one party's property and the other's liability… on what imaginary track record does Mr. Giuliani base his boast?
Which party held the presidency on September 11th, 2001, Mr. Giuliani?
Which party held the mayoralty of New York on that date, Mr. Giuliani?
Which party assured New Yorkers that the air was safe, and the remains of the dead, recovered - and not being used to fill pot-holes, Mr. Giuliani?
Which party wanted what the terrorists wanted - the postponement elections - and to whose personal advantage would that have redounded, Mr. Giuliani?
Which mayor of New York was elected eight months after the first attack on the World Trade Center, yet did not emphasize counter-terror in the same city for the next eight years, Mr. Giuliani?
Which party had proposed to turn over the Department of Homeland Security to Bernard Kerik, Mr. Giuliani?
Who wanted to ignore and hide Kerik's Organized Crime allegations, Mr. Giuliani?
Who personally argued to the White House that Kerik need not be vetted, Mr. Giuliani?
Which party rode roughshod over Americans' rights while braying that it was actually protecting them, Mr. Giuliani?
Which party took this country into the most utterly backwards, utterly counter-productive, utterly ruinous war in our history, Mr. Giuliani?
Which party has been in office as more Americans were killed in the pointless fields of Iraq, than were killed in the consuming nightmare of 9/11, Mr. Giuliani?
Drop this argument, sir. You will lose it.
"The Democrats do not understand the full nature and scope of the terrorist war against us," Mr. Giuliani continued to the Rockingham County Lincoln Day Dinner last night. "Never, ever again will this country be on defense waiting for (terrorists) to attack us, if I have anything to say about it. And make no mistake, the Democrats want to put us back on defense."
There is no room for this.
This is terrorism itself, dressed up as counter-terrorism.
It is not warning, but bullying - substituted for the political discourse now absolutely essential to this country's survival and the freedom of its people.
No Democrat has said words like these. None has ever campaigned on the Republicans' flat-footedness of September 11th, 2001. None has the requisite, irresponsible, all-consuming, ambition. None is willing to say "I Accuse," rather than recognize that, to some degree, all of us share responsibility for our collective stupor.
And if it is somehow insufficient, that this is morally, spiritually, and politically wrong, to screech as Mr. Giuliani has screeched… there is also this: that gaping hole in Mr. Giuliani's argument of 'Republicans equal life; Democrats equal death.'
Not only have the Republicans not lived up to their babbling on this subject, but last fall the electorate called them on it.
As doubtless they would call you on it, Mr. Giuliani.
Repeat, go beyond Mr. Bush's rhetorical calamities of 2006.
Call attention to the casualties on your watch, and your long, waking slumber in the years between the two attacks on the World Trade Center.
Become the candidate who runs on the Vote-For-Me-Or-Die platform.
Do a Joe McCarthy, a Lyndon Johnson, a Robespierre.
Only, if you choose so to do, do not come back surprised nor remorseful if the voters remind you that "terror" is not just a matter of "casualties." It is, just as surely, a matter of the promulgation of fear.
Claim a difference between the parties on the voters' chances of survival — and you do Osama Bin Laden's work for him.
And we — Democrats and Republicans alike, and every variation in between — We — Americans — are sick to death, of you and the other terror-mongers, trying to frighten us into submission, into the surrender of our rights and our reason, into this betrayal of that for which this country has always stood.
Franklin Roosevelt's words ring true again tonight.
And, clarified and amplified, they are just as current now, as they were when first he spoke them, 74 years ago.
"We have nothing to fear but fear itself" — and those who would exploit our fear, for power, and for their own personal, selfish, cynical, gain.
She can squirm and claim that she is too busy globetrotting or catching Broadway shows, but Congressman Waxman has made a compelling case for Dr. Rice to appear before his committee and explain the Niger yellowcake intelligence. We have not had closure on the story of how the yellowcake report got added to the President's 2003 State of the Union Address. It is not a mystery, but there are gaps that need to be filled. Waxman believes (correctly) that Dr. Rice can provide the necessary details. She played a key role in promoting the invasion of Iraq, and we think that she approved the report being referenced in the President's speech. So it has become necessary to subpoena her to appear before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
A 19 year-old convict was accidentally released on April 6th when the prison received a fax from one of his cronies (sent from a nearby grocery store). The fax was rife with grammatical errors and had no cover page. I was just thinking what the fax might have looked like. I wish Slate or TPM would get their hands on it. Keith Olbermann will probably share this tonight in his Oddball roundup.
Ever since the roast pig incident in Germany last July, Bush has been acting more and more strange. Here he is yesterday in Ohio. He was supposed to talk about the importance of the troop surge and the GWOT, but it ended up like this -
Bush muses on marriage, chicken-plucking By DEB RIECHMANN, Associated Press Writer Thu Apr 19, 6:13 PM ET
Strange things sometimes come out of President Bush's mouth. "Polls just go poof." "Remember the rug?"
When Bush went to Ohio on Thursday to talk about terrorism, he ended up musing about marriage and chicken-plucking plants, the agony of death and his Oval Office rug, which resembles a sunburst.
About his legacy, Bush said historians are still assessing George Washington, the nation's first leader. "My attitude is, if they're still writing about (number) one, 43 doesn't need to worry about it."
On being married: "A good marriage is really good after serving together in Washington, D.C."
Maybe the president just felt like jabbering at the town hall-style event in Tipp City, Ohio. He began talking about terrorism and ended 90 minutes later after chattering about everything from life after the White House to Vietnam War and the brutal Khmer Rouge regime.
Some highlights:
_"Politics comes and goes, but your principles don't. And everybody wants to be loved — not everybody. ... You never heard anybody say, `I want to be despised, I'm running for office.'"
_"The best thing about my family is my wife. She is a great first lady. I know that sounds not very objective, but that's how I feel. And she's also patient. Putting up with me requires a lot of patience."
_"There are jobs Americans aren't doing. ... If you've got a chicken factory, a chicken-plucking factory, or whatever you call them, you know what I'm talking about."
_"There are some similarities, of course" between Iraq and Vietnam. "Death is terrible."
_"I've been in politics long enough to know that polls just go poof at times."
As he has before, Bush told the story about how his first presidential decision was to pick a rug for the Oval Office, a task he quickly cast to his wife. He told her to make sure the rug reflected optimism "because you can't make decisions unless you're optimistic that the decisions you make will lead to a better tomorrow."
Later, when he talked about his hope for succeeding in Iraq, Bush said, "Remember the rug?"
09:45 EDT In his opening remarks, Senator Specter pretty much said it right out: Gonzales has this one chance to re-establish his credibility. If he doesn't, then he is finished.
"This is your opportunity Mr. Attorney General to meet a high burden of proof to re-establish your credibility." - Senator Specter
This is going to be so much fun. Gonzo has already started squinting. This is a slow, public execution. ------------------------------------------- 09:51 EDT "I believe you have come a long way from saying that this is an overblown personnel matter. This is as important a hearing that I can recall, short of a Supreme Court Justice confirmation hearing. This is more important than your own confirmation hearing." - Senator Specter ------------------------------------------- 09:57 EDT Alberto Gonzales is sworn-in. He is now reading his statement, parts of which were already released to the press and will soon appear on the Senate Judicial Committee website. ------------------------------------------- 10:06 EDT Leahy gets Gonzo to testify that Karl Rove and Senator Pete Domemici asked that US Attorney Iglesias be added to the termination list. Gonzales says that Iglesias' name was added to the list sometime between October 17th and November 15th 2006.
"Mr. Iglesias lost the confidence of Senator Domenici in the fall of 2005 when the senator called me and said that Mr. Iglesias was in over his head." ------------------------------------------- 10:14 EDT Leahy tags Specter. Specter now gets a chance to beat-up Gonzo. And he will.
"I prepare for all my hearings, senator."
"Do you prepare for all your press conferences?"
"Senator, I've already said, I misspoke."
Wow.
------------------------------------------- 10:27 EDT Ted Kennedy takes-over. I am watching him, Leahy, Feinstein, Schumer, and Feingold very closely. ------------------------------------------- 10:42 EDT Gonzales is being asked by Senator Brownback to give a reason for termination, name by name. ------------------------------------------- 10:57 EDT Orrin Hatch provides comfort to Gonzales. This is a good opportunity to take a pee break. ------------------------------------------- 11:05 EDT Feinstein gets him and then we take a 15-minute break. Feinstein has 3 great questions:
1. Whose idea was it to amend the Patriot Act to give the AG the power to fire US Attorneys without Senate approval? Gonzo does not recall.
2. Who was the decider to terminate the US Attorneys effective December 7th 2005? Gonzo admits that he was the decider and he did it without looking at the performance reports.
3. Did anyone who was involved in the group firing ever look at the performance reports prior to building the termination list? Gonzo says he doesn't know. ------------------------------------------- 11:10 EDT Feinstein ends her questions by pinning-down Gonzales on the issue of Carol Lam. Lam was a rockstar. She was the best-known US Attorney besides Patrick Fitzgerald. She had glowing reviews. She took-down big offenders in organized crime, illegal gun sales, and immigration. Gonzales ties in vain to explain that despite her being a star attorney, the performance of her district still needed to be improved, and she had to be let go after four years.
Time for a 15-minute recess. This should resume shortly after 11:30. ------------------------------------------- 11:35 EDT Feingold is up. Gonzales tells him to look at the facts before drawing conclusions.
"This overall problem here has led to many unfortunate thoughts about the situation, whether they are true or not." - Russ Feingold
He's being diplomatic and careful not to declare that the firings were politically-motivated.
Now he moves-on to ask Gonzales about what Kyle Sampson told him during the termination process (the creation of the list, keeping the White House informed, etc.). Gonzales does not recall in response to most of Feingold's questions. I think I just counted six "I do not recall."
"You really had no basis to tell the American people in your USA Today op-ed on March 7th that the fired US Attorneys had lost your confidence. ....That's inexcusable." - Russ Feingold
------------------------------------------- Damn.
I am being pulled to the other side of the river for a meeting. Well, I do have a day job, I guess. It's just so difficult to do it on a day like this. And the Red Sox play at 12:30! maybe I can resume blogging at 14:00.
Many many thanks to the new visitors who looked at my site today. I run a blog mainly for myself and my friends in New York and Boston. I seldom get more than 20 different visitors a day. If you want real take-downs of wingnuts, please visit http://SadlyNo.com or http://Driftglass.blogspot.com. Those guys are my inspiration and they show how to really run a small blog with a sharp bite. ------------------------------------------- 13:51 EDT I'm back.
I guess I missed Chuck Schumer nailing Gonzo again. Apparently I did miss another breakthrough thanks to Senator Schumer. To quote from Janet on the comments page at Crooks & Liars:
"Schumer says that after this testimony the Reagan and Bush I WH would have a new AG. This WH doesn't care about anyone but themselves and that's the difference. WOW"
Hearing will resume at 14:30. ------------------------------------------- 14:35 EDT Senator Chuck Grassley has arrived and is now mildly grilling Gonzales. From his tone, it would seem that Grassley is not going to defend the AG. He wants to know who initiated the review of US Attorneys. Gonzales tells him it was his idea. ------------------------------------------- 14:45 EDT Senator Benjamin Cardin goes after Gonzales. C-SPAN3 reminds us that this is still the first round of questioning. We're going to be here well after 17:00. Good.
"Looking at all the information we now know, you still stand by your decision, that this was the right thing to do?"
"Do you disagree with the perception that is out there? [Gonzales: Yes] So what would stop you from doing it again?" ------------------------------------------- 15:00 EDT Senator Tom Coburn tells Gonzales that he should resign, because there should be consequences for his mistakes.
"It is my considered opinion that the same standards be applied to you in judging how this was handled."
Coburn says that the US attorneys were terminated due to what the AG described (to Brownback) as poor leadership and management skills. Coburn tells Gonzales that the same standard should be applied to him to determine his fate.
"The best way to put this behind us is your resignation." ------------------------------------------- 15:10 EDT Senator Shelly Whitehouse: "I think you set the bar way low for yourself....if you hang a US Attorney once in a while just to discourage the others, you have to admit that it would be improper."
"It's more than a management issue. it's an issue about the structure through which justice is administered in this country." ------------------------------------------- 15:15 EDT Senator John Kyl filibusters and asks questions about Internet gambling for minutes... ------------------------------------------- 15:22 EDT Leahy takes the wheel. Whew.
He asks Gonzales which version of events the committee should focus on:
His February testimony to the Judicial Committee? His March press conference? His March op-ed in USA Today? His written statement submitted to the committee this week? or His testimony to the Judicial Committee today?
That pretty much sums it up. ------------------------------------------- 15:38 EDT The Red Sox have defeated Toronto, 5-3. The Yankees are now losing to Cleveland, 5-2. The Red Sox host the Yankees tomorrow evening. It's going to be sweet. ------------------------------------------- 15:39 EDT Diane Feinstein is up. Specter just spent 7 minutes filibustering. Arlen is done, but we're not.
Feinstein: "I would like to know who selected those individuals on that [termination] list. Mr. Sampson testified he didn't."
Gonzales: "Mr. Sampson had been involved in filling senior leadership positions at the DOJ and so he had experience in making personnel decisions."
Feinstein: "How could you say three weeks ago that the White House played no role in adding or deleting names [on the list]?"
"I have a hard time with you telling me to this day that you don't know how top-ranked prosecutors were added to this list."
"If I were you, I'd want to know who selected [the names]."
She ends with the Carol Lam issue. Feinstein received a letter two months before Lam was fired stating that her performance had been satisfactory, and that Lam had no idea that her bosses in Washington were planning to fire her. The firing seemed 'out of the blue.' Well put, senator. ------------------------------------------- [Then Senaotor Whitehouse brings a chart and a topic that probably deserves its own separate post. It was that good.] ------------------------------------------- 16:30 EDT
Schumer just dropped the biggest hammer you can drop. He asked Gonzo to get the hell out, now.
"I don't see any point in another round of questions."
"I urge you to re-examine your performance, and for the good of the department, and the good of the country, step down."
"...the burden is on you to give a full, complete and convincing explanation as to why.....so sir, in my view...when you fire people who have good evaluations...the burden of proof lays on the person..who took responsibility for the firing." ------------------------------------------- 16:47 EDT The Yankees have come back to win 8-6. It sucks. But now come to daddy. ------------------------------------------- Committee adjourned. What will become of Gonzales? What is his fate? This won't end well, no matter how it goes down.
Charles Schumer: "The bottom line is, it may not have been a knockout punch, but he took 20 steps backwards."
Gonzales' time is limited now. How long will he twist in the wind?
Sandy Belle really supports the troops. She addresses not only the grunts, but also the seamen, if you know what I mean.
"We'll be getting freaky like in Abu Graib." At that point, I realized that it is a parody. But it is somewhat brilliant (the cell phone in the underwear bit). The fact that it took a lot of people a while to realize it was parody shows just how twisted the real wingnuts and red-staters are.
More brilliance - it is sung to the riff (sample) of Carrie Underwood's, Jesus Take the Wheel. Double-wow.
As expected, the Supreme Court upheld the first federal law that prohibits a certain type of abortion procedure. It may be expected, but it is still almost unprecedented that the Supreme Court would rule against three Federal appeals courts, which ruled the law unconstitutional. The ruling also goes against previous Supreme Court rulings on the constitutionality of abortion. Who are the "activist judges' now?
First of all, it is not 'partial birth' if it is done between 12 and 22 weeks. ACOG does not recognize the term. But that's another story.
This decision is infuriating. Loosely interpreted, the law prohibits a fetus from being evacuated if it has a beating heart. But like many laws, there are several ways around it. Going forward, some doctors will inject a drug that stops the fetus' heart before evacuation (a fetus more than 12 weeks old would have a heart). This exposes the patient to a drug that has not been thoroughly studied. This also lengthens the surgical abortion procedure (called a D&E). It does not stop abortions being performed between 12 and 22 weeks, but it does complicate things a great deal.
D&E's are not as "rare" as the news reports linked here would have us believe. They are performed daily by doctors on patients more than 14 weeks pregnant. By my fuzzy math, they comprise about 10% of all abortions performed in America. That's 100,000 operations.
This is madness. We have activists, politicians, and judges -most of whom with no medical background- telling doctors how they should be doing medical procedures. They have no idea what they are doing. And soon the proponents of this illogical law will realize that they made surgical abortion more complicated, and possibly put women's lives at risk, rather than reduce the number of abortions. So they will come back again with state laws that further restrict what doctors can do, or more laws that send doctors to prison. We are supposed to be a world leader in medical technology. What have we become?
Those of us on the pro-abortion side need to fight harder to keep it legal. Abortion is a legitimate medical procedure. Pushing it into the hands of illegal clinics and amateurs is not a viable solution. Making it a medical procedure only for the wealthy and well-traveled is not a solution, either. We need to fight back, and fight harder. We are not going back to pre-1973...ever.
They brought it on. We need to do the same. --------------------------------------------------
Supreme Court upholds law banning some abortions Wed Apr 18, 2007 12:01PM EDT By James Vicini
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A closely divided U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld the first nationwide ban on a specific abortion procedure, restricting abortion rights in a ruling on one of the nation's most divisive and politically charged issues.
By a 5-4 vote, the high court rejected two challenges to the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act that President George W. Bush signed into law in 2003 after its approval by the Republican-led U.S. Congress.
The decision marked the first time the nation's high court has upheld a federal law banning a specific abortion procedure since its landmark Roe v. Wade ruling in 1973 that women have a basic constitutional right to abortion.
In a defeat for abortion rights advocates, the court's conservative majority with two Bush appointees upheld the law adopted after nine years of hearings and debate. The law has never been enforced because of court challenges.
The majority opinion written by Justice Anthony Kennedy rejected arguments the law must be struck down because it imposes an undue burden on a woman's right to abortion, it is too vague or too broad and fails to provide an exception for abortions to protect the health of a pregnant woman.
The court's four most liberal members -- Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, John Paul Stevens, David Souter and Stephen Breyer -- dissented.
Ginsburg, who called the decision alarming, took the rare step of reading parts of her dissent from the bench.
"In candor, the Partial Birth Abortion Act and the court's defense of it cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to chip away at a right declared again and again by this court -- and with increasing comprehension of its centrality to women's lives," she said.
The upheld law makes it a crime for a doctor to perform an abortion when the "entire fetal head" or "any part of the fetal trunk past the navel" is outside the woman's uterus.
The procedure, which often occurs in the second trimester of pregnancy, is known medically as intact dilation and extraction.
The two cases, widely viewed as the most important of the court's 2006-07 term, had been closely watched as tests of whether Bush's two conservative appointees, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, would restrict abortion rights. Both voted to uphold the law.
Roberts and Alito as U.S. Justice Department lawyers in the 1980s and early 1990s opposed the 1973 abortion ruling. Abortion was a central issue in their Senate confirmation hearings, when neither Roberts nor Alito would divulge how he would vote on abortion cases.
Abortion rights advocates who challenged the law denounced the ruling.
"This ruling flies in the face of 30 years of Supreme Court precedent and the best interest of women's health and safety," said Eve Gartner of Planned Parenthood Federation of America.
"Today the court took away an important option for doctors who seek to provide the best and safest care to their patients. This ruling tells women that politicians, not doctors, will make their health care decisions for them," she said.
The Supreme Court by a 5-4 vote in 2000 struck down a similar Nebraska law for failing to provide an exception to protect a pregnant woman's health.
But moderate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who cast the decisive vote in 2000, has retired and was replaced by the more conservative Alito.
So while you are all tucked-away and all cozy tonight watching steel-eyed Anderson Cooper lament endlessly about Blacksburg, or if you are watching Nancy Grace analyze Cho Seung-Hui, or if you are voting for Sanjaya (I'll admit it, I am), or if you're watching the fetching Naveen Andrews play a token Iraqi character on that atrocious, pointlessly dark and quasi-Christian Disney TV show, try to remember it was just another bloody day in Baghdad. We broke that country, and we can't put it back together. Hope you're fucking happy.
I know I don't like Michael Bloomberg. I will never forgive him for inviting the RNC to hold their convention here and allowing the NYPD to give over 1,000 young residents a taste of life in a wartime detention center. Yes, he wants the doctors of our city hospitals to know how to perform surgical abortions (bravo). And he banned smoking in bars and restarants (bravo, again). But he's still a Republican Putz. He'd rather fly a helicopter to work than ride the 6 Train, but he does it so he can show that he can tolerate low-lifes like me (gee, thanks, I guess).
But he has mentioned illegal guns coming from Virginia before. And here, Michael Daly of the NY Daily News provides an excellent summary of NYC's relationship to guns that originate in the Commonwealth of Virginia.
Ready to admit that it's madness for any psycho to be able to saunter into a gun shop and acquire firepower capable of killing 32 innocents?
Feel different now that the blood is the blood of so many of your most promising young people?
You've been shrugging for decades as illegal guns from your state plague our city, killing and maiming and terrorizing New Yorkers by the thousands, at one point comprising 47% of the guns our cops recovered.
You even yukked it up with a "Bloomberg Gun GiveAway" raffle at a gun shop that sold at least 22 guns used in crimes in New York.
You went into a tizzy when Mayor Bloomberg sued some of your gun shops after undercover agents made fraudulent "straw purchases."
Your idea of gun control has been to pass a law making it illegal for undercover agents like those Bloomberg sent South to make such buys.
You seemed to think it was no big deal when an aide to your junior U.S. senator got caught carrying an automatic pistol into the Capitol, you having voted Sen. James Webb into office as an avowed opponent of gun control.
You had a big debate this year about whether Virginia Tech was wrong to discipline a student who was caught carrying a licensed pistol to class.
Never mind that a Virginia gun license is not half as hard to get as a driving license.
Never mind that there are so many guns lying around that an escaped jailbird managed to get hold of one and kill a cop and a security guard at the edge of the Virginia Tech campus at the start of the school year.
Yesterday, the shooting was in the heart of the campus, which suddenly felt like the bleeding heart of the whole nation.
We certainly have enough parents in New York who know all too well what the families of Virginia Tech will be suffering.
We also have cause anew to give thanks for the bravery of Auxiliary Police Officers Eugene Marshalik and Nicholas Pekearo, who died stopping a crazed gunman in Greenwich Village in March.
We have reason to remember Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly saying that the two brave auxiliaries and the equally brave cops who then killed the gunman may well have prevented a massacre. Our psycho certainly had enough bullets.
When we listened to yesterday's gunshots as recorded by a cell phone video, we assumed the police we saw holding back had been ordered to watch the perimeter while other cops charged through the chained doors toward the gunfire. We hoped they had not hesitated as the cops did during the massacre at the Columbine High School in 1999.
We replayed yesterday's video and listened to those gunshots again, each the hyper-real sound of a gun doing exactly what it is engineered to do no matter who is holding it, no matter who it is pointed at, be they on a New York street or in Norris Hall at Virginia Tech.
Today, Virginia Tech will hold a public convocation in the wake of the carnage. President Bush has said he will attend, but his spokeswoman assures us he remains a firm believer in the right to bear arms.
Also expected to be there is Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine, who is returning early from an overseas trip. He recently signed Bill 2106, the anti-Bloomberg legislation that forbids undercover agents from making straw purchases.
Not even the worst campus massacre in American history is about to stop Bob Moates Sports Shop of Midlothian, Va., from going ahead with its big Bloomberg Gun GiveAway. The winner will receive a Para-Ordinance Model 1911 .45 automatic, silver and no less deadly than the black pistol a witness says the Virginia Tech psycho used. The 1911 is part of the company's new line of "Gun Rights" pistols, which carry the guarantee the company will donate $25 to the National Rifle Association for every one sold.
"The drawing is April 19," a man at Moates said yesterday.
No wonder some of our cops up here in New York say the bumper stickers down there should really read, "Virginia Is for Gun Lovers."
I poured through the Tribeca Film Festival listings two weekends ago, and I don't recall seeing this documentary. Tom Tomorrow makes a strong case for seeing it. Taxi to the Dark Side appears to be a comprehensive look at how we officially became a torture state. And thanks to director Alex Gibney (The Smartest Guys in the Room), it is polished and well constructed.
Showtimes and locations: Saturday April 28th, 20:30, Clearview Chelsea Sunday April 29th, 21:45, AMC 34th Street Tuesday May 1st, 18:30, AMC 34th Street Thursday May 3rd, 15:00, AMC Kips Bay
Thanks to the Tribeca Film Festival for making all trailers available through Brightcove (which I now realize is slicker than YouTube), and encouraging bloggers to embed the trailers on their sites. This is how a film festival should promote itself.
Room number and C-SPAN channel are subject to change. This post will update if there are changes.
UPDATE, 09:29EDT: C-SPAN confirms that it will be broadcast on C-SPAN 3. Los Tres! And the hearing will be held in Hart room 216. Line-up early, kids. Just 24.5 hours before Gonzo swears-in.
Anonymous Liberal has an outstanding outline of questions for Alberto Gonzales that need to be asked tomorrow.
