From a recent post by Gina Cobb:

What we have here — and we will miss it when it is gone — is a president whose kindness is not rationed out in proportion to the decency of his rivals. In his prepared speeches, he makes a conscious choice to speak as kindly of his rivals as is humanly possible. His graciousness is more noticeable when the vitriol from his rivals reaches its apex — or at a time when his approval rating seems to be in free fall. What we have here is a decent man who takes the dignity and responsibility of the presidency seriously.

Hmmm, let’s review…

October 30, 2006:

President Bush said terrorists will win if Democrats win and impose their policies on Iraq, as he and Vice President Cheney escalated their rhetoric Monday in an effort to turn out Republican voters in next week’s midterm elections.

From Tucker Carlson in 1999:

In the week before [Karla Faye Tucker’s] execution, Bush says, Bianca Jagger and a number of other protesters came to Austin to demand clemency for Tucker. “Did you meet with any of them?” I ask.
Bush whips around and stares at me. “No, I didn’t meet with any of them,” he snaps, as though I’ve just asked the dumbest, most offensive question ever posed. “I didn’t meet with Larry King either when he came down for it. I watched his interview with [Tucker], though. He asked her real difficult questions, like ‘What would you say to Governor Bush?’ “
“What was her answer?” I wonder.
“Please,” Bush whimpers, his lips pursed in mock desperation, “don’t kill me.”

Now, of course, Karla Faye Tucker was not a “rival” as described in the original quote above. Nevertheless, this is a president who can no longer express a single concept without an infuriating smirk. Despite one moment that might have once been described as “presidential,” this president probably wouldn’t know gravitas if it came up and bit him somewhere sensitive.

I suppose someone who desperately wants to see decency in the man can find examples to prove their point, just as I can find examples to prove the opposite. But can anyone find a recent example of something decent he has done? Something meaningful, so the Ashley Faulkner incident does not count. Sure, it was a nice thing to do, but I am more interested in what he has done to make things right.

I

do

not

give

a

crap

what

President

Bush

says

any

more.

Liz Cheney – Retreat Isn’t an Option – washingtonpost.com

Sigh. Where do I start?

Confirming what I think I already knew, here’s how I scored on the World’s Smallest Political Quiz:

I guess that makes me way liberal on personal issues and kinda conservative on economic ones. I still don’t get how a lot of “conservative,” “anti-big government” people (no, I won’t name names) can also approve of that same government poking its red-tape encrusted head into everyone’s bedrooms. Anyway, that’s all for today.

Think Progress » Gonzales: ‘There Is No Express Grant of Habeas Corpus In The Constitution’

Chilling words from Alberto Gonzales, and some props earned by Arlen Specter:

Yesterday, during Senate Judiciary Committee hearings, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales claimed there is no express right to habeas corpus in the U.S. Constitution. Gonzales was debating Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) about whether the Supreme Court’s ruling on Guantanamo detainees last year cited the
constitutional right to habeas corpus. Gonzales claimed the Court did not cite such a right, then added, “There is no express grant of habeas in the Constitution.”
Specter pushed back. “Wait a minute. The constitution says you can’t take it away, except in the case of rebellion or invasion. Doesn’t that mean you have the right of habeas corpus, unless there is an invasion or rebellion?” Specter told Gonzales, “You may be treading on your interdiction and violating common sense, Mr. Attorney General.”

As Article I, Section 9, Clause 2 of the Contitution says: “The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”

I tend to prefer reading the language of the Constitution as plainly as possible. This isn’t like the Bible, which has gone through so many translations and interpretations that anyone cann read anything into it. We have the Constitution with the exact language the Founding Fathers used in 1787. All I see here is a prohibition against government suspension of habeas corpus–how can the government be expressly prohibited from suspending a right if that right does not actually exist? Is this really how Mr. Gonzales sees the Constitution: that the People have no express rights unless such rights are specifically granted to them by the Constitution?

It may be instructive to take another look at the Bill of Rights–all emphases and bracketed additions are mine.

• Article I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
• Article II. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed [by the government].
• Article III. No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
• Article IV. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated [by the government], and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
• Article V. No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime [by the government], unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
• Article VI. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
• Article VII. In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
• Article VIII. Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted [by the government].
• Article IX. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
• Article X. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

See where I’m going with this? The Bill of Rights does not grant rights to the People. It withholds rights from the government.

The Blog Steve Young: The President Wants War with Bigger Tits The Huffington Post

That has to be the best post title I’ve seen in quite some time.

That’s all.

The Blog Jane Smiley: Not Only the Worst President, but the Worst Possible President The Huffington Post

What we saw the other night, when he proposed more war against more “foes” was the madman the last six years have created. This time, in his war against Iran, he doesn’t even feel the need for minimal PR, as he did before attacking Iraq. All he is bothering with are signals–ships moving here, admirals moving there, consulates being raided in this other place. He no longer cares about the opinions of the voters, the Congress, the generals, the press, and he especially disdains the opinions of B/S/and B. Thanks to Gerson, he identifies his own little ideas with God (a blasphemy, of course, but hey, there’s lots of precedent on this), so there’s no telling what he will do. We can tell by the evidence of the last two months that whatever it is, it will be exactly the thing that the majority of the voters do not want him to do, exactly the thing that James Baker himself doesn’t want him to do. The propaganda that Bush’s sponsors and handlers have poured forth has ceased to persuade the voters but succeeded beyond all measure in convincing the man himself. He will tell himself that God is talking to him, or that he is possessed of an extra measure of courage, or he that he is simply compelled to do whatever it is. The soldiers will pay the price in blood. We will pay the price in money. The Iraqis will pay the price in horror. The Iranians will pay the price, possibly, in the almost unimaginable terror of nuclear attack. Probably, the Israelis will pay the price, too.

I really do wonder if he has lost his mind.

The small pathologies of Bush the candidate have, thanks to the purposes of the neocons and the religious right, been enhanced and upgraded. We have a bona fide madman now, who thinks of himself in a grandiose way as single-handedly turning the tide of history. Some of his Frankensteins have bailed, some haven’t dared to, and others still seem to believe. His actions and his orders, especially about Iran, seem to be telling us that he will stop at nothing to prove his dominance.

I’ll be hiding for a while, in case anyone needs me…

Blogs for Bush: The White House Of The Blogosphere: The Widening War

Read the above post. Read Bush’s speech. Read every single freakin’ puff piece that has been written about Bush and his war for the past however many years. If anyone can find an actual definition of “victory” that bears some semblance of reality, please let me know. Does Bush expect to have Osama bin Laden seated on the deck of the Abraham Lincoln to sign an unconditional surrender? Moqtada al Sadr? The ghost of Zarqawi? People keep saying that opposing whatever ideas dribble out of Bush’s mouth is tantamount to opposing “victory” needs a dictionary, or they need to write to the Merriam-Webster with a new proposed definition. Anyone?