Huckabee flubs NIE test - again

Steve Benen, Crooks and Liars: One of the principal benefits of Mike Huckabee’s campaign is that he’s managed to reach the top tier of the Republican field with almost no scrutiny at all. But there’s a downside –now that the race has reached crunch time, and Huckabee is a credible challenger for the nomination, all of the scrutiny comes at once.

The question, then, is how Huckabee responds to the pressure, and handles unpleasant questions. So far, I think he’s struggling pretty badly.

This week, for example, Huckabee was asked for his thoughts about the National Intelligence Estimate on Iran, arguably the biggest foreign policy news in months, if not the year. Huckabee said he’d never heard of it. This morning, on MSNBC, he tried to rationalize his ignorance.

“Well, I don’t blame my staff. It is a situation where a report was released at 10:00 in the morning, the president hadn’t seen it in four years and I’m supposed to see it four hours later.”

That’s utter nonsense, and actually makes Huckabee look even dumber. As Kevin Drum explained, “The NIE was released Monday morning. He was asked about it Tuesday evening. That’s two days. Two days in which the NIE was on the front page of every newspaper; it was blanketing cable TV, talk radio, and the blogosphere; and the president of the United States addressed its conclusions in a press conference. It was blockbuster news on one of the most important foreign policy issues of the campaign and Huckabee didn’t even know about it.”

The phrase “not ready for prime-time” was practically custom made for a guy like this.

Countdown Special Comment: The NIE Reflects An “Unhinged, Irrational Chicken Little Of A President”

(Click on the pic for the vid.) Transcript:

Finally, as promised, a Special Comment about the President’s cataclysmic deception about Iran.

There are few choices more terrifying than the one Mr. Bush has left us with tonight. We have either a president who is too dishonest to restrain himself from invoking World War III about Iran at least six weeks after he had to have known that the analogy would be fantastic, irresponsible hyperbole, or we have a president too transcendently stupid not to have asked — at what now appears to have been a series of opportunities to do so — whether the fairy tales he either created, or was fed, were still even remotely plausible. A pathological presidential liar, or an idiot-in-chief. It is the nightmare scenario of political science fiction: a critical juncture in our history and, contained in either answer, a president manifestly unfit to serve and behind him in the vice presidency, an unapologetic war-monger who has long been seeing a world visible only to himself.

After Ms Perino’s announcement from the White House late last night, the timeline is inescapable and clear now. In August, the President was told by his hand-picked Major Domo of intelligence, Mike McConnell, a flinty, high-strung-looking, worrying-warrior who will always see more clouds than silver linings, that what “everybody thought” about Iran might, in essence, be crap.

Yet on October 17th the President said of Iran and its president, Ahmadinejad: “I’ve told people that if you’re interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from have the knowledge to make a nuclear weapon.”

And as he said that, Mr. Bush knew that at bare minimum there was a strong chance that his rhetoric was nothing more than words with which to scare the Iranians.

Or was it, sir, to scare the Americans? Does Iran not really fit into the equation here? Have you just scribbled it into the fill-in-the-blank on the same template you used to scare us about Iraq?

In August, any commander-in-chief still able-minded or uncorrupted or both, sir, would have invoked the quality the job most requires: mental flexibility. A bright man, or an honest man, would have realized no later than the McConnell briefing that the only true danger about Iran was the damage that could be done by an unhinged, irrational Chicken Little of a president, shooting his mouth off, backed up by only his own hysteria and his own delusions of omniscience.
Not Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Mr Bush. The Chicken Little of presidents is the one, sir, that you see in the mirror.

And the mind reels at the thought of a Vice President fully briefed on the revised intel as long as two weeks ago — briefed on the fact that Iran abandoned its pursuit of this imminent threat four years ago — a Vice President who never bothered to mention it to his boss.

It is nearly forgotten today, but throughout much of Ronald Reagan’s presidency, it was widely believed that he was little more than a front-man for some never-viewed, behind-the-scenes string-puller. Today, as evidenced by this latest remarkable, historic malfeasance, it is inescapable, that Dick Cheney is either this president’s evil ventriloquist, or he thinks he is. What servant of any of the 42 previous presidents could possibly withhold information of this urgency and this gravity, and wind up back at his desk the next morning, instead of winding up before a Congressional investigation — or a criminal one?

Mr. Bush — if you can still hear us — if you did not previously agree to this scenario in which Dick Cheney is the actual detective and you’re the Remington Steele you must disenthrall yourself. Mr. Cheney has usurped your constitutional powers, cut you out of the information loop, and led you down the path to an unprecedented presidency in which the facts have become optional, the intel is valued less than the hunch, and the assistant runs the store.

The problem is, sir, your assistant is robbing you — and your country — blind. Not merely in monetary terms, Mr. Bush, but more importantly, robbing you of the traditions and righteousness for which we have stood, at great risk, for centuries: Honesty, Law, Moral Force.

Mr. Cheney has helped, sir, to make your administration into the kind our ancestors saw in the 1860’s and 1870’s and 1880’s — the ones that abandoned Reconstruction, and sent this country marching backwards into the pit of American Apartheid. Grant, Hayes, Garfield, Arthur, Cleveland… Presidents who will be remembered only in a blur of failure, Mr. Bush. Presidents who will be remembered as functions only of those who opposed them — the opponents whom history proved right.

Grant, Hayes, Garfield, Arthur, Cleveland… Bush.

Would that we could let this President off the hook by seeing him only as marionette or moron.
But a study of the mutation of his language about Iran proves that though he may not be very good at it, he is, himself, still a manipulative, Machiavellian, snake-oil salesman. The Bushian etymology was tracked by Dan Froomkin at the Washington Post’s website and it is staggering.
March 31st: “Iran is trying to develop a nuclear weapon…”

• June 5th: Iran’s “pursuit of nuclear weapons…”
• June 19th: “consequences to the Iranian government if they continue to pursue a nuclear weapon…”
• July 12th: “the same regime in Iran that is pursuing nuclear weapons…”
• August 6th: “this is a government that has proclaimed its desire to build a nuclear weapon…”

Notice a pattern? Trying to develop, build or pursue a nuclear weapon.

Then, sometime between August 6th and August 9th, those terms are suddenly swapped out, so subtly that only in retrospect can we see that somebody has warned the President, not only that he has gone out too far on the limb of terror — but there may not even be a tree there.
McConnell, or someone, must have briefed him then.

• August 9th: “They have expressed their desire to be able to enrich uranium, which we believe is a step toward having a nuclear weapons program…”
• August 28th: “Iran’s active pursuit of technology that could lead to nuclear weapons…”
• October 4th: “you should not have the know-how on how to make a (nuclear) weapon…”
• October 17th: “until they suspend and/or make it clear that they, that their statements aren’t real, yeah, I believe they want to have the capacity, the knowledge, in order to make a nuclear weapon.”

Before August 9th, it’s: “Trying to develop, build or pursue a nuclear weapon.” After August 9th, it’s: “Desire, pursuit, want… knowledge, technology, know-how to enrich uranium.”

And we are to believe, Mr. Bush, that the National Intelligence Estimate this week talks of the Iranians suspending their nuclear weapons program in 2003 and you talked of the Iranians suspending their nuclear weapons program on October 17th.

And that term "suspending" is just a coincidence?

And we are to believe, Mr. Bush, that nobody told you any of this until last week? Your insistence that you were not briefed on the NIE until last week might be legally true — something like “what the definition of ‘is’ is” — but with the subject matter being not interns but the threat of nuclear war.

Legally, it might save you from some war crimes trial, but ethically it is a lie. It is indefensible.
You have been yelling threats into a phone for nearly four months, after the guy on the other end had already hung up.

You, Mr. Bush, are a bald-faced liar.

And more over, you must have realized that John Bolton, and Norman Podhoretz, and the Wall Street Journal Editorial board, are also bald-faced liars. We are to believe that the Intel Community, or maybe the State Department, cooked the raw intelligence about Iran, falsely diminished the Iranian nuclear threat, to make you look bad? And you proceeded to let them make you look bad?

You not only knew all of this about Iran, in early August, but you also knew it was all accurate.
And instead of sharing this good, calming news with the people you have obviously forgotten you represent, you merely fine-tuned your terrorizing of those people, to legally cover your own backside, while you filled the factual gap with sadistic visions of — as you phrased it on August 28th: a quote “nuclear holocaust” — and, as you phrased it on October 17th, quote: “World War III.”

My comments, Mr. Bush, are often dismissed as simple repetitions of the phrase “George Bush has no business being president.” Well, guess what? Tonight, hanged by your own words and convicted by your own deliberate lies, you, sir, have no business being president.

Good night, and good luck.

CIA destroys incriminating interrogation tapes

Steve Benen, Crooks and Liars: Given the last seven years, expectations are already low for the administration that’s never seen justice it didn’t want to obstruct. But intentionally destroying evidence of a possible crime, in the midst of ongoing legal inquiries, suggests the Bush gang’s contempt for the rule of law can’t get much worse.

The Central Intelligence Agency in 2005 destroyed at least two videotapes documenting the interrogation of two Qaeda operatives in the agency’s custody, a step it took in the midst of Congressional and legal scrutiny about its secret detention program, according to current and former government officials.

The videotapes showed agency operatives in 2002 subjecting terrorism suspects —
including Abu Zubaydah, the first detainee in C.I.A. custody — to severe interrogation techniques. The tapes were destroyed in part because officers were concerned that video showing harsh interrogation methods could expose agency officials to legal risks, several officials said. […]

The destruction of the tapes raises questions about whether agency officials withheld information from Congress, the courts and the Sept. 11 commission about aspects of the program.

Indeed, it arguably does more than just “raise questions”; it may point to actual criminal wrongdoing, intended to cover up more criminal wrongdoing. As Sullivan put it, “What defines [a banana] republic? How about an executive that ignores the rule of law, commits war-crimes and then destroys the actual evidence? … We live in a country where the government can detain indefinitely, torture in secret, and then secretly destroy the tapes of torture sessions to protect its own staff.”

Time for the Justice Department to launch a criminal investigation? Marcy Wheeler explains: “AG Mukasey has a mighty big headache on his hands, a clear case of obstruction of justice involving Goss and a bunch of other people. I guess we won’t have long to wait to see whether he’s willing to spike investigations for the Unitary Executive.”

FYI: Destruction Of Tapes Was ‘In Line With The Law’ Because Torture Advocate Rizzo Said So (ThinkProgress.org) Yesterday, the New York Times revealed that, in 2002, the CIA videotaped its own officials administering harsh interrogation tactics against two al Qaeda operatives, but three years later, destroyed at least two videotapes documenting the incidents. One of the videotapes may have contained evidence of an al Qaeda operative being waterboarded.

The Times reports the destruction of the tapes occurred in the wake of the Abu Ghraib scandal and “CIA officers became concerned about a possible leak of the videos and photos.” In his agency’s defense, CIA Director Michael Hayden said, “What matters here is that it was done in line with the law.” As proof, he cited internal CIA legal decisions:

The decision to destroy the tapes was made within CIA itself. […]

As part of the rigorous review that has defined the detention program, the Office of General Counsel examined the tapes and determined that they showed lawful methods of questioning.

The man in charge of this “rigorous review”? John Rizzo — the Acting General Counsel of the CIA. Recall, Rizzo was nominated by President Bush last year to become CIA General Counsel. At his confirmation hearings, Rizzo unapologetically stood behind his approval of the “Bybee memo,” which defined torture as “serious physical injury, such as organ failure.” When asked whether he still agreed with that decision, Rizzo answered, “I honestly — I can’t say I should have objected at the time.” Watch it:

After a coalition of human rights and advocacy groups and members of the Senate Intelligence Committee voiced strong objections to his nomination, the White House backed down and withdrew his nomination.

Rizzo effectively signed off on the destruction of evidence that may have proven that his original legal opinion was in violation of U.S. law and the Geneva Conventions. And now, Hayden is citing Rizzo’s signature as proof that the video destruction “was done in line with the law.”

White House Obstructing Plame Investigation

Sam Stein, HuffingtonPost.com: The Bush Administration is actively blocking Congress' investigation into the outing of once-covert CIA agent Valerie Plame, according to House Oversight Committee chairman Henry Waxman.

In a letter sent today to Attorney General Michael Mukasey, Waxman notes that "White House objections are preventing Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald from disclosing key information to investigating officials." Among the documents being withheld are interviews taken from White House officers during Fitzgerald's investigation into the leak of Plame's identity.

"Over the summer, Mr. Fitzgerald agreed to provide relevant documents to the Committee, including records of interviews with senior White House officials. Unfortunately, the White House has been blocking Mr. Fitzgerald from providing key documents to the Committee," Waxman writes to newly appointed Mukasey. "I ask that you personally look into this matter and authorize the production of the documents to the Committee without any further delay."

Waxman's letter provides one of the first tests for Mukasey, who stressed during his confirmation hearings that he would operate independently from White House directive. The letter also provides greater insight into the extent of collaboration between Fitzgerald and the oversight committee.

Read the full letter here. Emptywheel has more here.

LSB: Who (except, perhaps, the brown-noses at FAUX News) has been unaware all these months (and now years) that the White House was impeding this investigation? Remember in those first days, before Cheney et al clued in Bush as to what they had done, when Bush stood up and said that he'd fire anyone involved in the outing of a CIA agent? How can anyone believe anything this President says? They lie and obstruct about everything.

Australia Tells Bush to “Fuck Off” and Ratifies Kyoto Protocol

From the Left: Australia has ratified the Kyoto Protocol. Prime Minister Kevin Rudd signed the instrument of ratification of the Kyoto Protocol in his first act after being sworn in this morning. The ratification will come into force in 90 days.

“This is the first official act of the new Australian government, demonstrating my government’s commitment to tackling climate change,” Mr Rudd said in a statement.

The Kyoto Protocol was crafted in December 1997 and has been ratified by 175 countries except the United States.

Cafferty: If Iraq Is So Corrupt, Why Does U.S. Still Drop Billions Into It?

Logan Murphy, Crooks and Liars: Monday on The Situation Room, Jack Cafferty reads to a new report that shows that out of 185 nations, Iraq is the third most corrupt country in the world, which begs the question — why are we still pumping billions of dollars into its failed and corrupt government? [Click the pic for the vid.]

Intelligence Puts a Crimp in Dick’s War-Mongering

emptywheel: You've no doubt heard the news that the NIE on Iran's nuclear ambitions judges (with moderate certainty) that Iran has no active nuclear weapon program.

That's great news. But I'm just as interested in the back story of why we got this news in the first place. As the NYT reveals (h/t Danger Room), the Deputy Director of National Intelligence released the NIE to make sure it was accurately represented.

In a separate statement accompanying the N.I.E., Deputy Director of National Intelligence Donald M. Kerr said that given the new conclusions, it was important to release the report publicly “to ensure that an accurate presentation is available.”

Shorter Mr. Kerr: Stephen Hadley's already madly spinning this result wildly, and I wanted to make sure he didn't do worse.

But that makes me mighty curious about the timing of this decision. Take a look at the timing in this key judgment.

We assess with moderate confidence Tehran had not restarted its nuclear weapons program as of mid-2007, but we do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons. [emphasis added]

In other words, the most important key judgment in this NIE (in terms of impeding Dick's war-mongering, at least) comes from mid-2007. That's pretty fascinating timing, given the time line of Dick's attempts to stifle the key judgments on Iran. Here's a time line taken excerpted from this article.

• November 2006: NIE "completed."
• January 5, 2007: John Negroponte resigns as DNI, reportedly because of fight over NIE.
• February 2007: NIE completed; Cheney objecting to content.
• April 26, 2007: Thomas Fingar announces NIE will be delayed due to Ahmadinejad's demagoguery.
• June (?) 2007: Information collected that supports claim Iran's nuclear program remains suspended.
• Early October 2007: BushCo considers spiking the NIE.
• October 27, 2007: David Shedd reveals Mike McConnell has made it harder to declassify NIE judgments--leading most observers to believe the Iran NIE would not be released.
• Early November 2007: Administration decides to release NIE, but not publish judgments.
• November 22, 2007: Mohammed el Baradei states Iran is cooperating, though IAEA still has questions about its nuclear program.
• December 1, 2007: Mohammed el Baradei states that bombing Iran would ensure it gets the bomb more quickly.
• December 3, 2007: NIE key judgments released.

Now, I don't know what to make of that timeline. How is it, after over a year of squabbling, the DNI suddenly releases a report that absolutely guts all of Dick's warmonger claims? Did the mid-2007 information verifying Iran still had no active program come in response to Ahmadinehad's demagoguery, or was it an attempt to shut Cheney up? In any case, how did DNI decide not only not to kowtow to Cheney's attempts to politicize intelligence (again), but even release these results? Kudos to the IC.

Kevin Drum thinks it might be pressure from Congress. But I wonder whether Baradei wasn't able to mobilize pressure internationally that gave some folks in this country more room for leverage?

Update: Amanda collects all the war-mongering Bush and Cheney have been doing in recent months, after the mid-2007 intelligence proved that they were wrong.

“So I’ve told people that if you’re interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from have the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon. I take the threat of Iran with a nuclear weapon very seriously.” [Bush, 10/17/07]

“Our country, and the entire international community, cannot stand by as a terror-supporting state fulfills its grandest ambitions. … The Iranian regime needs to know that if it stays on its present course the international community is prepared to impose serious consequences.” [Cheney, 10/21/07]

“We talked about Iran and the desire to work jointly to convince the Iranian regime to give up their nuclear weapons ambitions, for the sake of peace.” [Bush, 11/7/07]

“We’re in a position now, clearly, especially when we look at Iran, where it’s very, very important we succeed in our efforts, our national security efforts, to discourage the Iranians from enriching uranium and producing nuclear weapons.” [Cheney, 11/9/07]

Any bets whether anyone besides Helen asks why they've been lying to us for six months?

UPDATE: Countdown: Bush’s Nukyular Credibility Meltdown. MSNBC’s David Shuster filled in for Keith Olbermann today on Countdown, and spoke with Air America Radio’s Rachel Maddow about the revelations today from the NIE report that Iran halted its nuclear program back in 2003. As Shuster and Maddow point out [vid here], the Bush administration has no shame, which is why they had no problem trotting out National Security Adviser, Stephen Hadley, to float the ridiculous notion that the report wasn’t completed until Tuesday of last week and that President Bush only learned that Iran halted its nuclear program four years ago — the following day. This story has been spun three ways from Sunday, and unfortunately bogus and misleading headlines now litter the internets. You have FOXFacts at FOXNews (yes, it goes to their site), hackery from the Associated Press, a statement from Senate Democrats and a few Democratic presidential candidates have weighed in on the matter with varying degrees of spin. President Bush is holding a press conference tomorrow, this should be interesting…

US rendition not just for terrorists

Libby Spencer, The Reaction: I didn't think it was possible to be more stunned by the hubris of this White House than I have been up to now. I was wrong. This development leaves me almost speechless. Our government has now claimed the right to kidnap any citizen, of any country, from anywhere in the world if Washington suspects them of commiting a crime. No point in wasting time with treaties and 'quaint' conventions like legal extradition, when they can cut out the middleman and just snatch their designated bad person off the street.

A senior lawyer for the American government has told the Court of Appeal in London that kidnapping foreign citizens is permissible under American law because the US Supreme Court has sanctioned it. [...]

The American government has for the first time made it clear in a British court that the law applies to anyone, British or otherwise, suspected of a crime by Washington.

Legal experts confirmed this weekend that America viewed extradition as just one way of getting foreign suspects back to face trial. Rendition, or kidnapping, dates back to 19th-century bounty hunting and Washington believes it is still legitimate. [...]

Jones replied that it was acceptable under American law to kidnap people if they were wanted for offences in America. “The United States does have a view about procuring people to its own shores which is not shared,” he said.

He said that if a person was kidnapped by the US authorities in another country and was brought back to face charges in America, no US court could rule that the abduction was illegal and free him: “If you kidnap a person outside the United States and you bring him there, the court has no jurisdiction to refuse — it goes back to bounty hunting days in the 1860s.”

Oh good, the turn back civilization to the days of the 'wild West' rationale. I suppose they would like to bring back the genocide of native Americans, lynchings and using duels as accepted manner to settle differences too.

Cernig has reaction from the UK and Heretik adds his inimitable commentary along with the usual brilliant photoshop. Meanwhile, Radley reminds us that this is already happening.

I realize the first thing people think of with extraordinary rendition is terrorism, and getting terror suspects out of countries with unfriendly governments. But don’t forget, this is the same administration that’s snatching up the foreign executives of online gambling companies at airports, then trying and imprisoning them, despite the fact that online gambling is perfectly legal in the countries where they operate, and where they are citizens.

Seems to be the only difference between this policy and terrorist kidnappings in Iraq is that the administration hasn't found a way to justify beheadings as an appropriate 'alternative punishment' — yet.

60 Minutes: Reverend Canon White says: The situation is clearly worse in Iraq now for Christians

Logan Murphy, Crooks and Liars: Scott Pelley’s disturbing report on 60 Minutes shows just one angle of the carnage that continues in Iraq despite the surge — the cleansing of Iraqi Christians. Pelley interviews Andrew White, a minister who suffers from Multiple Sclerosis and runs one of the few remaining Christian churches left in the country. (Click for the 60 Minutes vid.) Transcript:

"The situation now is clearly worse” than under Saddam, White replied.

“There’s no comparison between Iraq now and then,” he told Pelley. “Things are the most difficult they have ever been for Christians. Probably ever in history. They’ve never known it like now.”

“Wait a minute, Christians have been here for 2,000 years,” Pelley remarked.

“Yes,” White said. “And it’s now the worst it has ever been,” Pelley replied.

White is forced to hold his services underground (you won’t see many adult males as they have all been killed or driven from the country) and risks his life every day to help his parishioners and says life for Iraqi Christians is infinitely worse now than under Saddam. Many Christians who are lucky enough to make it out of the country alive end up in Syrian ghettos, still fearing for their lives and with little hope for the future.

The Bush administration and our liberal media tell us the surge in Iraq is working, but the world knows that is a lie. The surge may be helping with security in some parts of the country, but it has come with immeasurable costs to the people of Iraq in the form of ethnic cleansing and a humanitarian crisis for many millions of people, that should anger and sicken us all. Of course, the plight of Iraqi Christians are just part of this appalling tragedy. Iraqis of all faiths are still being slaughtered and driven from their homes and country daily, by a civil war we allowed to happen and continues to rage on, uninterrupted by the surge.

BIG STORY: More gay men describe alleged sexual encounters with U.S. Sen. Craig, in detail, on tape

John Aravosis (DC), AmericaBlog.com: Oh my God, look what the audio files include:

• Listen to David Phillips' account of being led into a house on Capitol Hill by Larry Craig on a late afternoon in 1986 and their engaging in oral sex.
• Listen to David Phillips' account of Larry Craig performing anal sex on him and how Craig's mood changed when the act was complete.
• Listen to male escort Mike Jones describe having sex with Larry Craig.
• Listen to male escort Mike Jones describe the end of his encounter with Larry Craig.
• Listen to Greg Ruth describe his encounter with then-Rep. Larry Craig in a men's room at a Republican convention in Coeur d'Alene in 1981.

From the Idaho Statement. The article even has a warning label:

Audio clip disclaimer: Some of the audio interview excerpts contain explicit descriptions of sex not appropriate for children and listeners who find such content offensive. The Statesman provides the excerpts so Idahoans can hear these accounts and decide for themselves about accusations against Sen. Craig...

David Phillips is a 42-year-old information technology consultant in Washington, D.C., who says Craig picked him up at a gay club in 1986 and that they subsequently had sex.

Mike Jones is a former prostitute who told the world he had sex with the Rev. Ted Haggard last year. The former Colorado Springs evangelist at first denied it but eventually confessed. Jones says Craig paid him for sex in late 2004 or early 2005.

Greg Ruth was a 24-year-old college Republican in 1981 when he says he was hit on by Craig at a Republican meeting in Coeur d'Alene.

Tom Russell, now 48, is a former Nampa resident who lives in Utah. Russell said his encounter with Craig occurred at Bogus Basin in the early 1980s.

A fifth gay man, who is from Boise but who declined to be named for fear of retaliation, offered a recent and telling account: He was in a men's restroom at Denver International Airport in September 2006 when the man in the next stall moved his hand slowly, palm up, under the divider. Alarmed, the man said he waited outside the restroom and then identified the man in the adjoining stall as Craig, whom he had met in Idaho.

(Photo of Larry Craig and Mike Jones)

Republican Party Disbands

Steven Reynolds, AllSpinZone.com: Isn’t that a headline you expect to see, after all the sex scandals, from Foley through the restroom solicitation of Larry Craig, after the Abramoff scandals, the corruption of the Republican Party during the Bush Administration, the trashing of our civil liberties and constitution, the abject incompetence on the part of the Republican Party under George Bush. Wouldn’t you expect that, at some point, given all this, that we’d come to a point where no Republican had the gumption to serve this diseased party? Well, it’s happened, albeit on a local level near Green Bay, WI. The Republican Party there has disbanded.

It would be easy to blame this on Brown County GOP Chairman Donald Fleischman, who was caught a while back plying a 16 year old boy with alcohol and marijuana. This is a story about Republicans, so you know the rest of the story — sordid sexual contact ensued. From RawStory, October 14, 2007:

The boy was found by police in Fleischman’s home on two occasions in late 2006 while being sought as a runaway from Ethan House, a home for at-risk youth. Now 17, he says he stayed with Fleischman at his house and a cabin, where he was provided with alcohol and cannabis, and regularly fondled.

On November 19, 2006, according to a September 7th complaint obtained from the WisPolitics Courtwatch Blog, the boy in question was found hiding in a bedroom closet, and a pipe was found in the house, which tested positive for THC. Shortly after, on December 8, 2006, Fleischman said he was trying to convince the boy, discovered again in the home, to turn himself in as a runaway.

It would be easy to blame Brown County’s Republican Party disbanding on Donald Fleischman resigning, and nobody wanting to sit in the chair he once sat in. I guess they probably thought there were cooties there or something. But Fleischman was not convicted, and the charges have been dropped. The boy will not testify.

As the Wisconsin State Journal notes, Brown County is a Republican bastion. This isn’t a case of them being beaten by Democrats so long that they can’t find anyone with the gall to lead a failed party. But they did get beaten in the 2006 mid-terms. It seems Mr. Bush’s failures, whether with Katrina or Iraq, had an effect up in the thumb of Wisconsin. Still, I’ll not discount the sex crime angle.

This is encouraging, I think. Evidently we’ve got some Republicans out there in the heartland who are embarrassed by their party. Sure, it might just be the sex crimes they’re embarrassed about, but it could also be that they are embarrassed by the ethics of their party, or by the runaway spending, or by the incompetence. I hope even more Republicans show they are human and develop a similar sense of shame.

Rudy's Thugs

The Daily Dish: The small man in search of a balcony, like all two-bit bullies, has the usual thuggish security detail. And he doesn't like being forced to respond to allegations about his shady past:

“We’ve already explained it,” he said, walking past reporters after a town hall meeting. Giuliani, who is normally friendly to reporters, bristled past them, and campaign staffers were unusually physical in keeping the press away. Several campaign aides told campaign reporters to return to the press area, and some of his security detail manhandled reporters.

If his goons act like this on a minor issue in a primary campaign, can you imagine how he'd handle his police powers as president?

Dick Polman gives a run-down of Giuliani's explanations for mistress-security-money. All five of them, at last count.