Odd thought tonight: Couldn't the Bush Administration neutralize Dick Clarke's revelations by using the, "Sept. 11 changed everything line"? This may be turning into a case of the coverup being the scandal, not any decision itself. Why isn't Condi testifying? Why don't the Bushies say nobody could have prevented Sept. 11 because it was unimaginable? Instead, it's deny and confront -- all front page fodder that plays directly into the Snowboard-in-Chief's hands. I'm not sure what happened, but the Bush team has fallen apart in the past six months. Such is the harsh light of the truth.

Are they trying to prove the president's advisors hype positives and minimize negatives for the president? There's a revelation... when are arrest warrants going to be issued?

This all adds up to one thing: DESPERATION

That's the name of Al Franken's new radio show.

That's fucking awesome.

Crossfire yesterday:

NOVAK: Congressman, do you believe, you're a sophisticated guy, do you believe watching these hearings that Dick Clarke has a problem with this African-American woman Condoleezza Rice?

EMANUEL: Say that again?

NOVAK: Do you believe that Dick Clarke has a problem with this African-American woman Condoleezza Rice?

EMANUEL: No, no. Bob, give me a break. No. No.

What's not in the transcript is the shock registering on everyones face as Novak accused Clarke of being a racist- in fact, Novak had to repeat the question because Emanuel (even armed with a TiVo I had to run it back to make sure...) didn't believe what he was hearing.

Novak is a tired old man, he drools his way through a couple episodes of Crossfire a week- it's time for CNN to lose this guy, he's a senile old man who's dementia has obviously destroyed any sense of judgment or decency he had- assuming he had any to begin with.

Fire him.

From the opening statement:

I welcome these hearings because of the opportunity that they provide to the American people to better understand why the tragedy of 9/11 happened and what we must do to prevent a reoccurance.

I also welcome the hearings because it is finally a forum where I can apologize to the loved ones of the victims of 9/11.

To them who are here in the room, to those who are watching on television, your government failed you, those entrusted with protecting you failed you and I failed you. We tried hard, but that doesn't matter because we failed.

And for that failure, I would ask -- once all the facts are out -- for your understanding and for your forgiveness.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I'll be glad to take your questions.

To formerly anonymous background briefings:

THOMPSON: Mr. Clarke, in this background briefing, as Senator Kerrey has now described it, for the press in August of 2002, you intended to mislead the press, did you not?

CLARKE: No. I think there is a very fine line that anyone who's been in the White House, in any administration, can tell you about. And that is when you are special assistant to the president and you're asked to explain something that is potentially embarrassing to the administration, because the administration didn't do enough or didn't do it in a timely manner and is taking political heat for it, as was the case there, you have a choice. Actually, I think you have three choices. You can resign rather than do it. I chose not to do that. Second choice is...

THOMPSON: Why was that, Mr. Clarke? You finally resigned because you were frustrated.

CLARKE: I was, at that time, at the request of the president, preparing a national strategy to defend America's cyberspace, something which I thought then and think now is vitally important. I thought that completing that strategy was a lot more important than whether or not I had to provide emphasis in one place or other while discussing the facts on this particular news story.

The second choice one has, Governor, is whether or not to say things that are untruthful. And no one in the Bush White House asked me to say things that were untruthful, and I would not have said them.

In any event, the third choice that one has is to put the best face you can for the administration on the facts as they were, and that is what I did.

I think that is what most people in the White House in any administration do when they're asked to explain something that is embarrassing to the administration.

...and don't forget the Bush's response (or lack thereof) to the Cole bombing:

CLARKE: I suggested, beginning in January of 2001, that the Cole case was still out there and that by now, in January of 2001, CIA had finally gotten around to saying it was an Al Qaida attack, and that therefore there was an open issue which should be decided about whether or not the Bush administration should retaliate for the Cole attack.

Unfortunately, there was no interest, no acceptance of that proposition? And I was told on a couple of occasions, "Well, you know, that happened on the Clinton administration's watch."

I didn't think it made any difference. I thought the Bush administration, now that it had the CIA saying it was Al Qaida, should have responded.

If you didn't see it, read the transcript.

The Supreme Court is hearing arguments today about the Pledge of Allegiance- specifically the phrase, "under God" which was added to the pledge in the '50's so our kids wouldn't turn in to soulless commies.

My thinking is this: A certain percentage of people in this country don't believe in God. When their children are instructed by their school to recite a pledge daily that goes against their religion, (or lack thereof) it's an undeniable violation of their first amendment rights. The opposing argument goes that a specific religion isn't endorsed- well, "God" or "No God" is as specific as it needs to get- if you don't believe in God and are told to repeat that we are one nation under the-thing-you-don't-believe-in you can see where there's an undeniable religious component.

The Bush administration's argument on this issue has been that the reference to God isn't religious, it's an "official acknowledgment of our nation's religious heritage." Unfortunately this argument doesn't hold much weight- you don't have to look far to see the founding father's opinions on religion.

The French are banning religious head scarves warn by Muslim students in schools. That's going way too far- and that's something religious people are worried about happening here- stomping out of all religion. That type of thing can't happen here because of the first amendment. It's a two way street.

The bottom line is this- when you mix religion and government you're asking for trouble. Religion has caused more war and unnecessary death than any other cause in the history of man. It's an unfortunate, yet undeniable fact.

Treat everyone as you'd like to be treated. Our government doesn't need God to tell us that, it's common sense. God has her place, but it's not overseeing the Federal government (specifically dictating foreign policy to the president.)

Though it may be unpopular, restoring the pledge to its original form is the only logical option to the Supreme Court. If the Court reverses the lower court's decision it will provide further proof of this court's obvious corruption.

Quack quack.

WASHINGTON – Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, who painted an unflattering portrait of President Bush in a book in January, received 140 government documents for the book that should not have been released after he left office, the Treasury Department's inspector general says.

The report Monday from Jeffrey Rush Jr. said that no federal laws had been violated in the release of the documents but that Treasury needed to improve the way it handled sensitive documents.

Read the book. You're not breaking federal law.

According to the White House, Richard Clarke was "out of the loop" on terrorism, but none the less, the White House acted on all of Clarke's recommendations.

Claiming Clarke was out of the loop on terrorism when he was the top counter-terrorism official at the White House is more of an indictment of the administration than Clarke. Cheney implied yesterday on the Limbaugh show that Clarke had been demoted, working in Cybersecurity instead of being the head man who would have been involved in general terrorism. How could Clarke know anything about 9/11 if he was working on Cyberterrorism? Simple- he didn't switch jobs until well after 9/11. Limbaugh's followers are now left with the mistaken impression that Clarke was demoted when Bush took office. Certainly one of many pieces of misinformation Limbaugh's listeners were fed yesterday.

The most obvious (and laughable) result of this declaration is that they can no longer scape-goat Clarke for 9/11 because he was out of the loop, right?

Calling Clarke's book a partisan attack doesn't wash either- he worked for two Republican White Houses before he worked for Clinton. He was a registered Republican. He would have been shooed out the door with the Clinton administration if it had been any other way.

The funny thing is, with all the bluster from the White House- those of us who have been paying attention knew all this stuff already. Clarke is just adding more detail.

We knew that the White House wanted to take Saddam out from day one
We knew September 11th was a convenient excuse to invade Iraq.
We knew Iraq wasn't a threat to us.
We knew the White House couldn't prove a connection between Saddam and Osama.
We knew they were lying the whole time.

Can the Bush White House keep all these deceptions from the American public past the November elections? I keep seeing these things months before they're printed in the Times or the Post- why the hell is that? When a steady stream of lies is just a way of life at the White House it's time to clean house.

How many lives will we allow the White House to destroy in order to keep their dirty laundry under wraps?

As they try to destroy Clarke it's worth noting that the White House delayed publication of his book for three months and now is complaining about the "suspicious timing" of it's release. These guys have no shame.

This is about the freedom to be left alone. Ask yourself, is it okay that you can be stopped on the street and accosted by government agents demanding that you identify yourself to them for no reason? If that's okay is it all right if we just go ahead and implant RF chips in everyone's heads at birth? That way the authorities won't even need to ask... They'll just know where you are at all times, never a need to ask you for ID again- think about the convenience! You go, Supreme Court! It's going to take the court's cooperation to get us to that Orwellian future we've all been looking forward to!

It's about a constitutional watershed and here's why: Hiibel was, you'll remember, the drunken cowboy parked alongside a Nevada highway who refused to reveal his identity to a policeman, after being told plainly that the cop was "investigating an investigation." Actually, the police had received a call describing Hiibel's truck and location and saying that a couple were apparently having a fight inside. So, yes, the policeman had a reasonable suspicion when he approached Hiibel. But he didn't share that information with the suspect.

The question for the Supreme Court this month is whether the police could demand Hiibel's identity, and without more than his refusal, arrest the cowboy for obstructing their work. Lithwick says, in effect, if the police could have frisked Hiibel on reasonable suspicion, which they probably could, then what's in a name, and why not arrest him for refusing to give it? She also chides the "hysterical" friend-of-the-court briefs on both sides, which see this as an apocalyptic constitutional moment.