Glenn's working on it but the problem seems to be as constitutionally intractable as it is insurmountable.

As one of his final acts before leaving office Bush issued an executive order expressly forbidding the public disclosure of the name of his successor.

Glenn did get a primary court hearing in his attempt to force the Executive to reveal the name of the President, hereto forth and thereafter, to be called the Chief Executive Officer of America but due to a lack of standing the case was thrown out. The short court exchange went as follows.

"What do you want?"

"I'd like to know them name of the next President of America please your honour."

"Who's asking?"

"I'm Glenn Greenwald of Salon.com."

"Never heard of you. Now piss off out of my face before I call security."

And that is where the case rests until greater legal brains can work out another way to use court process to force the Executive to reveal the identity of the latest one eyed man who is presumptuous enough to believe that only he can lead the nation of the blind.

was that a yes?

James Bovard at antiwar.com's blog:

Israeli foreign minister Tzipi Livni announced today that the Palestinian civilians killed by the IDF in Gaza were “a product of circumstance.”

Livni recognizes that the carnage may present a public relations problem for the Israeli government: “These matters will present us with a complicated task … The consequences, in the context of civilians casualties, are something we have to deal with, among ourselves and in facing the world.”

Livni need worry little about either the U.S. Congress or the bulk of the American media. Her “product of circumstance” explanation will be taken as sufficient absolution regardless of how many hundreds of corpses of dead women and children are uncovered in Gaza in the coming days and weeks.

And whatever Rules of Engagement the IDF used will be irrelevant. It wouldn’t be fair to blame the Israeli military for “circumstances,” after all.

Incredible heru-ur, quite incredible. And this comes from the same Friedmam who recommends that American troops burst into Iraqi homes uninvited and demand that the occupants instantly adopt the extraordinary stress position where by they are both expected to go fuck themselves and suck on this at one and same time.

The man is an utter clown. I knew he thought shit but before now I didn't know he talked it as well.

"Remember Friedman’s take on Bush’s Iraq policy? “It’s OK to throw out your steering wheel,” he wrote, “as long as you remember you’re driving without one.”

Makes all the difference I suppose just before you hit the wall.

"The first rule of holes is when you’re in one, stop digging. When you’re in three, bring a lot of shovels.”

Matt Taibbi then asks:

"First of all, how can any single person be in three holes at once?"

As it happens I can answer that one. You get the government to sling millions of dollars and mutual back slapping sweetheart deals at NIST and give them plenty of time.

Seven years later they'll come out with a ten thousand page explanation so incredible it could only pass muster with Thomas Friedman and the Easter Bunny. But unlike Friedman it would only pass muster with the Bunny if the Bunny was rat-arsed when it read it.

Kiss those records G'BYE!

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Court_Puhttp://rawstory.com/news/2008/Court_Public_VP_records_to_be_0119.htmlblic_VP_records_to_be_0119.html

A federal district court judge has ruled that outgoing Vice President Dick Cheney, who leaves office on Tuesday with an approval rating of just 13 percent, will be the sole determining authority on the public release of his vice presidential records...

RawSewage.com also reports that due to injury Cheney will attend the Inauguration a la Dr Strange Love. That is, in a wheelchair.

It seems inconceivable to me that Bush's attorneys and the DOJ attorneys did not advise Bush that he was setting himself up for possibly prosecution under the Torture Convention.

Surely they must have warned him about this--that is the whole pupose of giving legal advice, to protect your client from adverse outcomes.

So the warnings must have been secret, and maybe he decided to go ahead regardless, believing that it was necessary to save the United States from something unthinkable like a dirty nuclear weapon in Manhattan or poisoning of the water supplies of major cities.

Would this make sense? No, but then Bush is not the sharpest knife in the drawer, so isn't it entirely feasible that he would have made boneheaded decisions imagining himself to be a hero willing to put his own personal freedom at risk?

And whatever Rules of Engagement the IDF used will be irrelevant. It wouldn’t be fair to blame the Israeli military for “circumstances,” after all.-- heru-ur

Actually it wouldn't. If one doesn't bomb Israelis, Israelis won't bomb in return. It's a pretty simple relationship. But if you're a Palestinian apologist, killing Jews is OK.

Yes, he most certainly is a clown. But, he is a very dangerous clown.

He has always sided with the Zionist belief that all Palestinians should be exterminated so that the greater Israel could be cleansed for the "chosen people". But he does it in ways that seem reasonable on first reading to the average low-information American.

He is a professional, and he does his job well. (I just don't like the job he does)

Actually it wouldn't. If one doesn't bomb Israelis, Israelis won't bomb in return. It's a pretty simple relationship. But if you're a Palestinian apologist, killing Jews is OK.

Once upon a time, you could say the same thing about the US with a straight face.

Not any more.

I had the same puzzlement a few years ago when WMD were not found in Iraq. Bush and Blair made many statements about that issue. And in all of the both said that ultimately it didn't matter, THEY WOULD HAVE STILL ATTACKED IRAQ ANYWAY.

I but it in bold because right there in front of us repeatedly they were in fact telling us that the WMD thing had all along been just an excuse used to sucker us suckers. The war we supported was raging at that time that was the fact on the ground. What they I think were doing was challenging us to do something about them knowing full well that we both wouldn't and couldn't. Right there and then we the people became accessories after the fact, if some of us hadn't already been so that is.

Then when the elections came and we voted those we by then knew to be war criminals back into power we the people sealed our fate with theirs. The complicity was then complete.

And that complicity they hope will now protect them from being prosecuted for war crimes.

As to them now admitting to torture I think they might be playing the same game. they had discussed the interrogations methods with many people inside the Establishment. They had to varying degrees acquiesced either willingly or having been coersed.

Sneakily, of course, they didn't perhaps use the word torture when seeking agreement. But now they do blatantly to frighten those that did acquiesce. Now afraid for their own skins these pawns will now protect the king from being taken lest they themselves are taken as well.

Cute eh?