Democracy for New Mexico

Don't Bite on Domenici's Cosmetic Makeover on Iraq

Sen. Pete Domenici's sudden pubilc acknowledgement that there are serious problems with the Bush-Cheney strategy being employed in Iraq is, of course, noteworthy. After all, he's been zealously supportive of the BushCo line since before the invasion of Iraq, and among the true believers who felt entirely comfortable casting critics of Bush and the war as terrorists-lite. If nothing else, his newfound concern represents his handlers' realization that any candidate who continues to support the debacle will be in serious jeopardy of being tossed out in 2008.

However, if you actually read the so-called "Iraq Study Group Recommendations Implementation Act" (S 1545) that  Domenici is now supporting, you'll encounter a myriad of obstacles to troop withdrawal rather than effective, binding ways to get it done. In reality, the legislation is designed to keep our troops on the ground in Iraq while appearing to do otherwise -- it's nothing more than another example of the toothless sleight of hand we've seen in the past. To understand just how false and misleading the Salazar-Alexander bill is, check the analysis by AMERICAblog.

Bottom line: the bill would "keep US troops in Iraq indefinitely. What's worse, they're claiming that the legislation implements the recommendations of the bipartisan Iraq Studgy Group, when in fact, the legislation codifies George Bush's current failed policies in Iraq ... Probably the most offensive thing about the legislation is that it outright calls for the continuation of the status quo policy of keeping US troops in Iraq until the day that Iraq is 100% ready to stand on its own - namely, never." More:

Specifically, the legislation buries a little nugget on page 18 of the bill. In a section entitled "Sense of Congress on Redeployment of United States Forces from Iraq," the legislation spells out the following preconditions to withdrawing US troops:

1. A massive list of suggested policies need to first be accomplished before the US withdraws. These include transferring the Iraqi National Police to the Ministry of Defense, reorganizing the Iraqi security forces, upgrading Iraq's police communications equipment, establishing courts, training judges, prosecutors and investigators, drafting oil legislation, implementing metering at the oil pipelines, reorganizing the entire Iraqi oil industry, and more. But that's not all that has to happen before our troops are permitted to withdraw from Iraq. Oh no. Read on.

2. Additional Iraqi brigades need to deployed. Meaning, the exact same policy we have now under George Bush. No withdrawal until the Iraqi security forces are up to par. And our military people on the ground in Iraq say this could take 40 to 50 years, if ever.

3. The eventual withdrawal of US forces is "subject to unexpected development in the security situation on the ground." Meaning, if things don't get better, we don't leave. That's the current policy. And things aren't getting better.

The legislation then says that if ALL of those things I listed above are met, THEN we can possibly consider to maybe redeploy some of the troops next spring, 2008.

Are they kidding?

Oh but that's not all. The legislation also says that the Iraq Study Group never ever said that we should actually withdraw from Iraq by next year. And put aside the fact that the entire legislation is written as a "sense of the Congress" - meaning, it has the same legal weight as National Ice Cream Day.

What we're really seeing is the formation of a cowardly coalition of fearful, "moderate" Dems and dishonest Repubs who want to appear to be doing something meaningful to end the Iraq occupation when they're really just into treading water and donning masks. We all know that's not nearly enough and that in order to gain support for REAL CHANGE in Iraq, bogus bills like Salazar-Alexander will have to be defeated. We see through you, Pete.

Public Down on Libby Commutation, Up on Impeachment

As reported at Pollster.com:

A new American Research Group national survey of 1,100 adults (conducted 7/3 through 7/5) finds:

• 31% approve of "President George W. Bush commuting the 30-month prison sentence of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby while leaving intact Mr. Libby's conviction for perjury and obstruction of justice in the CIA leak case;" 64% disapprove.

• 11% favor a complete presidential pardon for Libby; 84% oppose.

• 45% favor "the US House of Representatives beginning impeachment proceedings against President George W. Bush;" 46% oppose.

• 54% favor "US House of Representatives beginning impeachment proceedings against Vice President Dick Cheney;" 40% oppose.

Then you've got General William Odom, Reagan's NSA Chief, suggesting a way to get Bush to get out of Iraq that is based on a threat of impeachment for the "high crime" of sacrificing the lives of troops for "his own personal interest":

As reported on Think Progress:

Reagan’s NSA Chief: Withdraw funds, pull out, impeach. Gen. William Odom, the former head of the National Security Agency under President Reagan, writes that Congress should begin cutting off funds for Iraq and must force Bush to begin a withdrawal before he leaves office:

To force him to begin a withdrawal before then, the first step should be to rally the public by providing an honest and candid definition of what “supporting the troops” really means and pointing out who is and who is not supporting our troops at war. The next step should be a flat refusal to appropriate money for to be used in Iraq for anything but withdrawal operations with a clear deadline for completion.

The final step should be to put that president on notice that if ignores this legislative action and tries to extort Congress into providing funds by keeping U.S. forces in peril, impeachment proceeding will proceed in the House of Representatives. Such presidential behavior surely would constitute the “high crime” of squandering the lives of soldiers and Marines for his own personal interest.

Say What, Pete? NM Dem Party Chair Challenges Domenici to Clarify Confusing Iraq Stance(s)

Dick Knipfing of Albuquerque's KRQE News 13 interviewed Sen. Pete Domenici yesterday about his election season conversion on Bush's Iraq strategy. Click for video of the interview. In response, Democratic Party of New Mexico (DPNM) Chairman Brian S. Colón says he's disappointed by the senior senator’s confusing statements. According to Colón, Domenici’s main objective appears to be propping the door open for other vulnerable Republicans to distance themselves from previous positions.

“It’s about time Senator Domenici realized the error of his ways concerning Iraq, but his public statements sent so many mixed messages,” said Colón. “The more I think about what Senator Domenici is saying, the more confusing his position becomes.  New Mexicans deserve clarity on matters of conscience.”

When asked during a live interview yesterday on KRQE-TV, “what are you calling for and why?” New Mexico’s senior senator delivers a rambling hodge-podge of statements that never address the original question. Chairman Colón is asking Senator Domenici to clarify:

• What do you mean when you say the President “will never lose the war (in Iraq)”?
• What on earth makes you think that the new Secretary of Defense could become a hero as a result of the Bush Administration’s colossal failures in Iraq?
• What relevance is your feeling that President Bush “is a very close friend”?
• Besides blaming the Iraqis for their country’s misfortune, do you plan to take responsibility for facilitating the mismanaged war, the loss of over 3500 American lives and $440 billion, and the undermining of the nation’s domestic priorities (i.e. expanded health care access, improved education, and a safer and more secure environment)?

Will zealous Bush loyalists Rep. Heather Wilson and Rep. Steve Pearce be the next NM Republicans to try and spin a new, more politically palatable position on the Iraq occuation? Stay tuned. Anything's possible with Bush's approval ratings dipping lower than Nixon's during the Watergate era.

You can see and read other KRQE News coverage of Domenici's sudden awareness of the realities of the Iraq war here.

For our previous posts on Domenici and the 2008 Senate race in New Mexico, visit this archive.

Isn't It Time to Impeach Cheney?

Learn More and Sign the Petition

ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT FOR CHENEY
From HR 333 Introduced in US House of Representatives

ARTICLE I. Fabricated threat of Iraq WMD.
Cheney has purposely manipulated the intelligence process to deceive the citizens and Congress of the United States by fabricating a threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction to justify the use of the United States Armed Forces against the nation of Iraq in a manner damaging to our national security interests.

ARTICLE II: Fabricated ties between Iraq and al-Qaeda.
Cheney purposely manipulated the intelligence process to deceive the citizens and Congress of the United States about an alleged relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda in order to justify the use of the United States Armed Forces against the nation of Iraq in a manner damaging to our national security interests.

ARTICLE III: Threatening Iran.
Cheney has openly threatened aggression against the Republic of Iran absent any real threat to the United States, and done so with the United States proven capability to carry out such threats, thus undermining the national security of the United States.

Dozens of supporting documents for all three articles of impeachment can be found here.

The complete H.Res 333, Articles of Impeachment Against Vice President Richard B. Cheney, is available here.

The Washington Post's 5-part series on the Cheney Vice Presidency.

Wikipedia has the history of H.Res 333.

A thorough archive of Cheney's distortions and deceptions on Iraq is available from Rep. Henry Waxman's office .

Go on now, DO SOMETHING!

Coalition:

14 Representatives support H. Res. 333, Articles of Impeachment Against Dick Cheney: Yvette Clarke William Lacy Clay Keith Ellison Bob Filner Jesse Jackson Jr. Hank Johnson Dennis Kucinich Barbara Lee Jim McDermott Jim Moran Jan Schakowsky Maxine Waters Lynn Woolsey Albert Wynn

A28.org AfterDowningStreet Backbone Campaign BradBlog Brave New Films BuzzFlash Code Pink Democracy Rising Democrats.com Grass Roots America 4 Us HipHopCaucus ImpeachBush.tv Impeach For Peace.org ImpeachSpace.com The Nation National Lawyers Guild OpEdNews.com People's Email Network Progressive Democrats of America United for Peace and Justice Velvet Revolution World Can't Wait

NM Dem Response to Domenici Turnabout on Iraq

From the Democratic Party of New Mexico in response to Sen. Domenici's announcement today about his sudden change in position on Iraq (or at least the appearance of one):

Albuquerque – Today, Pete Domenici’s election season political makeover began in earnest at a press conference where Domenici argued that he is changing his position on the disastrous war in Iraq.

“Bush's War in Iraq continues to be a colossal mistake based on misleading information and false pretenses.  Why did over 3500 American military servicemen and servicewoman, including more than 30 of New Mexico's own, need to die?  Why was $440 billion spent before Senator Domenici could acknowledge what Senator Bingaman and Congressman Udall realized more than four years ago?” asked Democratic Party of New Mexico Chairman Brian S. Colón.”

Chairman Colón continued, “I have another important question for Senator Domenici to add to the list of our concerns to which he has failed to respond in the past:  When the U.S. Senate reconvenes, will your rhetoric be backed by meaningful legislative action, or is this just another attempt at a re-election conversion in response to your lowest poll ratings in decades?"

The 75 year old Domenici, mired in a scandal resulting from the politically-motivated firing of the U.S. Attorney in New Mexico, is facing the toughest re-election campaign in his lifetime.  He refuses to answer questions, is enduring a precipitous drop in his approval ratings, has hired a high-powered criminal lawyer to defend his actions before a U.S. Senate ethics investigation and is rumored to be considering retirement.

Pete Domenici has been a loyal rubberstamp of the Bush Administration and in issue after issue has voted for the misplaced Republican priorities over the interests of New Mexicans.

Editor's Note: See our previous post on this story.

Election Jitters? Domenici Backing Off Support for Iraq Occupation

Las Cruces blogger Heath Haussamen broke the story on Sen. Pete Domenici's partial change of heart on the Iraq occupation, which was revealed in an announcement by the NM Senator in Albuquerque this morning. Domenici has decided to sign on as a cosponsor of Sen. Ken Salazar's (D-CO) and Sen. Lamar Alexander's (R-TN) SB 1545, a bill to implement the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group.

This seems to be the new fall back position for Republicans (and some "centrist" Dems) who are becoming increasingly jittery about their prospects and those of their party in the 2008 election due to the Iraq debacle. In recent days Repub defense heavy hitters Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN) and Sen. George Voinovich (R-OH) changed course and said they could no longer support waiting until September to see if the "surge" is working. Even Sen. John Warner (R-VA) has positive words about Lugar's statement.

KRQE News has the text of Domenici's press release. Excerpt:

"I have carefully studied the Iraq situation, and believe we cannot continue asking our troops to sacrifice indefinitely while the Iraqi government is not making measurable progress to move its country forward," Domenici said. "I do not support an immediate withdrawal from Iraq or a reduction in funding for our troops.  But I do support a new strategy that will move our troops out of combat operations and on the path to coming home."

... The bill is intended to create conditions that could allow for a drawdown of American combat forces in Iraq by March 2008. Under S.1545, the U.S. military could maintain a long-term but more limited presence in Iraq-focused on protecting American personnel and interests, training and advising Iraqi forces, and carrying out counterterrorism and special operations missions.

Domenici indicated that the provisions in S.1545 could be debated as part of the FY2008 Defense Authorization Bill that the Senate will take up next week

Although Repubs were generally very critical of the Study Group's analysis and suggestions when they were released, more and more are apparently seeing it as a politcally useful tool -- one that can give them an out on the war and possibly increase their popularity given that two thirds of Americans want our troops out ASAP, and only hard core Bush loyalists still approve of the president and his Iraq strategy. It seems the Repub rats in Congress are starting to line up to abandon Bush's sinking ship. As we know, the devil will be in the details of any such bill on Iraq, but it seems clearer by the day that the momentum is growing for Repubs to distance themselves from the failed presidency and foreign policy of King George.

Back in April, Domenici's stated views on the occupation during the debate on the Iraq emergency supplemental bill included these quotes:

“It is irresponsible for Congress to operate this way. With the provisions in this bill, Congress is deserting our commitments to our military leaders and telling them that none of it matters, the war is over and your mission is done. Congress, with this bill, is reneging on the war and sending our men and women in uniform a demoralizing message. I am committed to giving our military, led by General Petraeus, time and resources to try to calm Baghdad.

“I understand the deep national unrest over the course of the war. I do not support an open-ended commitment in Iraq. The Iraqi government must do more. But effectively abandoning our military effort at this time poses a treacherous threat to the United States and the region. We should do right by our troops, give them the resources they need and work with the Iraqis toward solutions that will bring our Armed Forces home at an appropriate time,” Domenici said.

He's certainly changed his tune now that his latest approval rating is only 51% in New Mexico. I guess you could say he was for the Iraq quagmire based on lies before he was against it. I wonder what explanation he would offer the loved ones of our troops who have been killed or maimed since he refused to take action to get them out of harms way this Spring. And what he will tell those who will have to wait until next March or later to get the hell out of Iraq because of the foot dragging of Domenici and his fellow Bush followers.

Perhaps most hypocritical is Domenici's claim that his abandonment of Bush's policy is due to his being swayed by recent talks with military families who want the troops to come home. Pete claims he hadn't heard that kind of plea previously. I wonder where's he's been all these months and years.

According to the Friends Committee on National Legislation, SB 1545 includes these provisions:

* affirms that the ISG recommendations must be implemented as a comprehensive package in order for them to succeed;

* calls for the U.S. to make clear that it does not seek to establish permanent military bases in Iraq and does not seek to control Iraq’s oil resources;

* stresses the central need to carry out the ISG’s “New Diplomatic Offensive” to deal with the problems of Iraq and of the region, including the need to engage directly with Iran and Syria, and build an “Iraq Support Group” composed of neighboring states and others;

* envisions an early transition of the U.S. military role from combat to training and states, as the ISG report did, that barring “unexpected developments in the security situation” most U.S. combat troops “could be redeployed from Iraq by the first quarter of 2008” except those needed for force protection, training, counterterrorism, and special operations;

* conditions continued U.S. political, military and economic support for the Iraqi government on progress in meeting national reconciliation benchmarks on constitutional reform, revising de-Baathification, equitably distributing oil revenues, holding provincial elections, and protecting the rights of women and minorities;

* encourages transparency in the oil sector by posting all oil contracts, volumes and prices on the Internet; and

* establishes significant congressional oversight by requiring the president to report every three months on actions taken to implement most of the provisions of the bill.

An identical bill, HR 2574, was introduced in the U.S. House by Rep. Mark Udall (D, CO-02) and has 57 cosponsors, including a number of "centrist" Dems.

Also see our later post with the response to Domenici's statement by Democratic Party of New Mexico Chair Brian Colón.

When In the Course of Human Events ...

Olbermann Special Comment: Bush, Cheney Should Resign
Keith Olbermann, MSNBC Countdown
Tuesday 03 July 2007

Text version:

"I didn't vote for him," an American once said, "But he's my president, and I hope he does a good job."

That - on this eve of the 4th of July - is the essence of this democracy, in 17 words. And that is what President Bush threw away yesterday in commuting the sentence of Lewis "Scooter" Libby.

The man who said those 17 words - improbably enough - was the actor John Wayne. And Wayne, an ultra-conservative, said them, when he learned of the hair's-breadth election of John F. Kennedy instead of his personal favorite, Richard Nixon in 1960.

"I didn't vote for him but he's my president, and I hope he does a good job."

The sentiment was doubtlessly expressed earlier, but there is something especially appropriate about hearing it, now, in Wayne's voice: The crisp matter-of-fact acknowledgement that we have survived, even though for nearly two centuries now, our Commander-in-Chief has also served, simultaneously, as the head of one political party and often the scourge of all others.

We as citizens must, at some point, ignore a president's partisanship. Not that we may prosper as a nation, not that we may achieve, not that we may lead the world - but merely that we may function.

But just as essential to the seventeen words of John Wayne, is an implicit trust - a sacred trust: That the president for whom so many did not vote, can in turn suspend his political self long enough, and for matters imperative enough, to conduct himself solely for the benefit of the entire Republic.

Our generation's willingness to state "we didn't vote for him, but he's our president, and we hope he does a good job," was tested in the crucible of history, and earlier than most.

And in circumstances more tragic and threatening. And we did that with which history tasked us.

We enveloped our President in 2001. And those who did not believe he should have been elected - indeed those who did not believe he had been elected - willingly lowered their voices and assented to the sacred oath of non-partisanship.

And George W. Bush took our assent, and re-configured it, and honed it, and shaped it to a razor-sharp point and stabbed this nation in the back with it.

Were there any remaining lingering doubt otherwise, or any remaining lingering hope, it ended yesterday when Mr. Bush commuted the prison sentence of one of his own staffers.

Did so even before the appeals process was complete; did so without as much as a courtesy consultation with the Department of Justice; did so despite what James Madison - at the Constitutional Convention - said about impeaching any president who pardoned or sheltered those who had committed crimes "advised by" that president; did so without the slightest concern that even the most detached of citizens must look at the chain of events and wonder: To what degree was Mr. Libby told: break the law however you wish - the President will keep you out of prison?

In that moment, Mr. Bush, you broke that fundamental compact between yourself and the majority of this nation's citizens - the ones who did not cast votes for you. In that moment, Mr. Bush, you ceased to be the President of the United States. In that moment, Mr. Bush, you became merely the President of a rabid and irresponsible corner of the Republican Party. And this is too important a time, Sir, to have a commander-in-chief who puts party over nation.

This has been, of course, the gathering legacy of this Administration. Few of its decisions have escaped the stain of politics. The extraordinary Karl Rove has spoken of "a permanent Republican majority," as if such a thing - or a permanent Democratic majority - is not antithetical to that upon which rests: our country, our history, our revolution, our freedoms.

Yet our Democracy has survived shrewder men than Karl Rove. And it has survived the frequent stain of politics upon the fabric of government. But this administration, with ever-increasing insistence and almost theocratic zealotry, has turned that stain into a massive oil spill.

The protection of the environment is turned over to those of one political party, who will financially benefit from the rape of the environment. The protections of the Constitution are turned over to those of one political party, who believe those protections unnecessary and extravagant and quaint.

The enforcement of the laws is turned over to those of one political party, who will swear beforehand that they will not enforce those laws. The choice between war and peace is turned over to those of one political party, who stand to gain vast wealth by ensuring that there is never peace, but only war.

And now, when just one cooked book gets corrected by an honest auditor, when just one trampling of the inherent and inviolable fairness of government is rejected by an impartial judge, when just one wild-eyed partisan is stopped by the figure of blind justice, this President decides that he, and not the law, must prevail.

I accuse you, Mr. Bush, of lying this country into war.

I accuse you of fabricating in the minds of your own people, a false implied link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11.

I accuse you of firing the generals who told you that the plans for Iraq were disastrously insufficient.

I accuse you of causing in Iraq the needless deaths of 3,586 of our brothers and sons, and sisters and daughters, and friends and neighbors.

I accuse you of subverting the Constitution, not in some misguided but sincerely-motivated struggle to combat terrorists, but to stifle dissent.

I accuse you of fomenting fear among your own people, of creating the very terror you claim to have fought.

I accuse you of exploiting that unreasoning fear, the natural fear of your own people who just want to live their lives in peace, as a political tool to slander your critics and libel your opponents.

I accuse you of handing part of this Republic over to a Vice President who is without conscience, and letting him run roughshod over it.

And I accuse you now, Mr. Bush, of giving, through that Vice President, carte blanche to Mr. Libby, to help defame Ambassador Joseph Wilson by any means necessary, to lie to Grand Juries and Special Counsel and before a court, in order to protect the mechanisms and particulars of that defamation, with your guarantee that Libby would never see prison, and, in so doing, as Ambassador Wilson himself phrased it here last night, of becoming an accessory to the obstruction of justice.

When President Nixon ordered the firing of the Watergate special prosecutor Archibald Cox during the infamous "Saturday Night Massacre" on October 20th, 1973, Cox initially responded tersely, and ominously.

"Whether ours shall be a government of laws and not of men, is now for Congress, and ultimately, the American people."

President Nixon did not understand how he had crystallized the issue of Watergate for the American people.

It had been about the obscure meaning behind an attempt to break in to a rival party's headquarters; and the labyrinthine effort to cover-up that break-in and the related crimes.

And in one night, Nixon transformed it.

Watergate - instantaneously - became a simpler issue: a President overruling the inexorable march of the law of insisting - in a way that resonated viscerally with millions who had not previously understood - that he was the law.

Not the Constitution. Not the Congress. Not the Courts. Just him.

Just - Mr. Bush - as you did, yesterday.

The twists and turns of Plame-Gate, of your precise and intricate lies that sent us into this bottomless pit of Iraq; your lies upon the lies to discredit Joe Wilson; your lies upon the lies upon the lies to throw the sand at the "referee" of Prosecutor Fitzgerald's analogy. These are complex and often painful to follow, and too much, perhaps, for the average citizen.

But when other citizens render a verdict against your man, Mr. Bush - and then you spit in the faces of those jurors and that judge and the judges who were yet to hear the appeal - the average citizen understands that, Sir.

It's the fixed ballgame and the rigged casino and the pre-arranged lottery all rolled into one - and it stinks. And they know it.

Nixon's mistake, the last and most fatal of them, the firing of Archibald Cox, was enough to cost him the presidency. And in the end, even Richard Nixon could say he could not put this nation through an impeachment.

It was far too late for it to matter then, but as the decades unfold, that single final gesture of non-partisanship, of acknowledged responsibility not to self, not to party, not to "base," but to country, echoes loudly into history. Even Richard Nixon knew it was time to resign

Would that you could say that, Mr. Bush. And that you could say it for Mr. Cheney. You both crossed the Rubicon yesterday. Which one of you chose the route, no longer matters. Which is the ventriloquist, and which the dummy, is irrelevant.

But that you have twisted the machinery of government into nothing more than a tawdry machine of politics, is the only fact that remains relevant.

It is nearly July 4th, Mr. Bush, the commemoration of the moment we Americans decided that rather than live under a King who made up the laws, or erased them, or ignored them - or commuted the sentences of those rightly convicted under them - we would force our independence, and regain our sacred freedoms.

We of this time - and our leaders in Congress, of both parties - must now live up to those standards which echo through our history: Pressure, negotiate, impeach - get you, Mr. Bush, and Mr. Cheney, two men who are now perilous to our Democracy, away from its helm.

For you, Mr. Bush, and for Mr. Cheney, there is a lesser task. You need merely achieve a very low threshold indeed. Display just that iota of patriotism which Richard Nixon showed, on August 9th, 1974.

Resign.

And give us someone - anyone - about whom all of us might yet be able to quote John Wayne, and say, "I didn't vote for him, but he's my president, and I hope he does a good job."

[emphasis mine]

A Long Train of Abuses and Usurpations ...

San Francisco Chronicle columnist Mark Morford provides our Independence Day rant:

So there you have it. Bush shrugs and smirks and then commutes the easy soft-focus sit-on-your-ass-all-day-and-knit white-collar prison sentence of a hollow political lackey who, in turn, took a bullet for his sneering mafia thug of a boss, Dick Cheney, who in turn was complicit (along with lead flying monkey Karl Rove) in the appallingly illegal outing of a CIA operative, which itself was a tiny but particularly nasty link in the giant chain of lies and deceptions undertaken to lead our wary and tattered nation into an unwinnable impossible costly brutally violent war that will now last, if current estimates are correct, until the goddamn sun explodes.

You have to laugh. You have to laugh because if you do not laugh you will likely be overcome with a mad desire to stab yourself in the eye with a sharp feral cat and/or shoot yourself in the toe with a high-powered staple gun, over and over again, all while tearing out pages of the United States Constitution and crumpling them into tiny little balls and hurling them into the smoldering firepit of who-the-hell-cares as you shiver in the corner and swig from a bottle of Knob Creek and wail at the moon. Or maybe that's just me

... Bush actually ambled forth and said that, while he "respects the jury" in the Libby case, the 2.5 year sentence was simply "too harsh." Baby, if 30 months in a comfy well-stocked rape-free Martha Stewart-decorated facility for compromising national security is too harsh, I've got a draconian little thing called the Patriot Act to sell you, cheap.

Here's a swell side note: You know who gets harsher sentences than 30 months in white-collar prison, George? Pot dealers. That's right. The average sentence for a convicted marijuana dealer in California is 3.3 years. In real prison, George, not that namby-pamby Club Fed where Scooter would've played badminton and sipped tea for two years. Hell, in places like Oklahoma and Alabama, you can get a life sentence for possessing a single marijuana bud, which is ironic indeed, given how if you live in Oklahoma or Alabama, there is nothing that would serve your miserable id better than to be deeply and thoroughly stoned every single day and twice on Sunday. But that's another column.

Be sure to read the rest of Mark Morford's column, "Scooter Libby In Hell: What do Dick Cheney, Paris Hilton, "The Sopranos" and colon spasms have in common? Find out here."

Public's Iraq War Support Continues Dive

77 percent: Number of Americans who believe the Iraq war is going badly, according to a new CBS News poll. The disapproval level is a new high, “up from 66 percent just two months ago. Nearly half, 47 percent, say it’s going very badly.” (h/t Think Progress)

Guest Blog: Dem Senate Candidate Jim Hannan on Don Wiviott

This is a guest blog from Democratic Senate candidate Jim Hannan:

Don Wiviott has announced he wants to run against Pete Domenici for the US Senate as a Democrat. I've been talking to Don for several months about the race. I have a concern about Don. In 2006, Don contributed the maximum allowable, $2,100, to David Pfeffer. David Pfeffer was running as a Republican against Jeff Bingaman.

As you know, 2006 was a critical year for Democrats. We all worked hard to take back Congress. During that time period, I was contributing money to the DCCC, and walking door to door for Patricia Madrid.

David Pfeffer was running against Jeff Bingaman as a hard right conservative. He was a very vocal supporter of the invasion of Iraq. In 2006, the centerpiece of his campaign was to support the Minutemen camped out on the border of New Mexico and Arizona. 

I told Don that by supporting David, he had positioned himself to the right of Pete Domenici on the immigration issue.

I also raised my concern with Democratic Party of New Mexico Chair Brian Colon and the State Party's current Executive Director, Matt Farrauto.  I told Don Wiviott that he should talk about this issue with his campaign supporters. The fact that Don still decided to run means that they don't think it's an important issue. I guess I differ.   

Editor's Notes: This is a guest blog by Jim Hannan. Click to visit his campaign website. Guest blogs provide our readers with an opportunity to express their opinions on political issues, and they don't necessarily represent our views. If you'd like to submit a post for consideration as a guest blog, contact me by clicking on the Email Me link at the upper right-hand corner of our main page.

Click to read DFNM's earlier post on the candidacy of Don Wiviott.