The YouTube Video of the Year

Ok. Lots of people have seen this, but if you haven't, I defy you to watch this jaw-dropping video and tell me there's a better candidate for YouTube Video of 2007. Watch and listen as our Vice President explains in 1994 why the U.S. didn't go on to invade Iraq after Desert Storm.

These people aren't really completely stupid. Did you ever really believe they were? Dick Cheney has been in and out of politics all his life. He was very well versed on the complexities in Mesopotamia, as he eloquently proves below. So, remove any remaining doubt that the war planners were surprised by the difficulties they encountered in Iraq. They knew exactly what they were getting into, and they knew the approaches they were taking would not be successful.

The most difficult thing to hear is Cheney's calculus regarding how many American lives Saddam Hussein was worth. What I wouldn't give to hear Cheney's frank reformulation of that equation in 2003. And you're not allowed to use the phrase "9/11". That wasn't Iraq!!!

The other little tidbit worth mentioning is, of course, Karl Rove's resignation, but barring further developments, it's not really worth worrying about where Karl is, it's what he is, so that's a secondary issue for now.

And nothing tops this video!

A Letter

I have sent an email to Congress, expressing my views for the impeachment of President George Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. The text of my message is reprinted here:

I confess I do not know the correct addressing with which to begin my comments, but I assure you I write this with respect and friendship:

I have lived my life as best I can, and have humbly tried at all times to follow my best and purest instincts in my words and actions. In recent months, I have been much involved in closely following the words and actions of the 110th Congress, and I am honored to be able to address you as individuals who are working so hard for the things that really matter to all Americans.

Because I see so much good in you, and because I have faith that there is sufficient concern on your part that someone, at least, will read my stammerings, I must open my heart to you at this time.

I listened to the lies that led us here, and tried to speak out against them. I have seen the framework of Democracy chipped away, and have protested. I have wept at the deaths of thousands, yet more die needlessly. I am moved now to the edge of fear, but I will not cower. I am watching the hopes and dreams of average Americans stolen from them while they sleep, and I say that outrage is not enough.

History has a very long memory. I am absolutely firm in my conviction that history will look upon the Bush Presidency as the nadir for American Democracy up to now. In that context, anything less than the most stern application of the law of this land can only be viewed as moral cowardice, to such a degree that our children's children, those who might still be free and have access to the lessons of their past, will find utterly repugnant.

It is perhaps true that many Americans still sleep despite the very personal violations inflicted upon them, but I can see that the very honorable members of Congress whom I now address are fully alert, and I am grateful for your vigilance. But who will absolve us if we continue only to jab obliquely at what must, by moral imperative, be diametrically opposed?

Most of the time, we see the world in shades of grey, and I have myself been described as one who tries to address contrasting perspectives. But today, July 20th, 2007, we are confronted with such perniciously absolutist attacks on our ideals that we must respond appropriately.

Most assuredly, it will matter very much to history which side is successful in this confrontation. I submit that it will matter just as much whether we tried. I would be greatly relieved if it were found that my stance is hasty and unwarranted, but I know in my heart that it is not, and I believe you know it, too.

Congressman John Conyers has said: "I have a choice. I can either stand by and lead my constituents to believe I do not care that the president apparently no longer believes he is bound by any law or code of decency. Or I can act." This expression of the choice before us is inarguable, its conclusions inescapable. I implore you to, without further delay, make this valiant stand against the forces that press against us, or we may indeed fall.

Thank you for your time.

Time for comics! This Modern World, by Tom Tomorrow.

Quid Pro Quo

Quid pro quo, an ancient Latin phrase meaning "something for something", was originally used to describe an offering to the gods. Romans, being very pragmatic people even in their religions, expected that the gods would respond, quid pro quo, to the offering. On Monday, Scooter Libby's gods answered his prayer.

It did seem so odd, during Libby's trial, with all the hushed expectation that star witnesses -- Libby's boss, Dick Cheney, among others -- would be called upon to testify on behalf of the Scooter. But the big names were never called to the stand. In what seemed a precipitously abrupt change of course by the defense team, the case for the defense was terminated, leaving Libby to the mercy of the court, and a jury who had heard a never-ending stream of damning testimony against him. His conviction was a foregone conclusion.

The Scooter showed little emotion beyond a faint smile. It was hard to imagine he had suddenly become resigned to his fate. Unless, of course, he knew he didn't have to worry.

Most presidents have loved giving out pardons. Clinton seems to have enjoyed it. So did Bush 41. Bush 43 has been less enamored of this presidential power than his predecessors, and even on Monday, offered only commutation of the sentence, reserving the right, it should be noted, to fully absolve the Scooter at some later date.

But sometimes, even a President can't have any fun. Like when the President is under a cloud of suspicion related to a crime. As Thom Hartmann pointed out today on AirAmerica radio, there was an earlier President who dabbled in this kind of quid pro quo behavior -- and it became a primary element in the articles of Nixon's impeachment.

The President cannot take this kind of action to aid in obstructing an active, ongoing investigation. This has been tried before, and it didn't go well. There will, in fact, be an investigation into this very matter by Congress next week.

I watched Dan Rather Reports this morning on HDNet. He was holding a round table discussion on the current Constitutional crisis. At the end of the show, in summarizing, he stressed that we're examining, not just the constitution and the law, but "who we are as a people." And his voice broke. He teared up pretty good, and I wasn't sure if he could continue. But he toughed it out, and closed the show.

I'm feeling like I've been through all this before. Except this feels worse.