hypocalypse

Like a bad smell, this doesn't seem to be going away. Not only does Attorney General Alberto Gonzales acknowledge that mistakes were made for the way eight federal prosecutors were fired, but ...

"In early 2005, Ms. Miers, then the White House legal counsel, asked a Justice Department official whether it would be feasible to replace all United States attorneys when their four-year terms expired, according to the Justice Department. The proposal came as the administration was considering which political appointees to replace in the second term, Ms. Perino said.

Ms. Miers sent her query to D. Kyle Sampson, a top aide to Mr. Gonzales, the Justice officials said. Mr. Sampson, who resigned Monday, replied that filling so many jobs at once would overtax the department. He suggested replacing a smaller group, according to e-mail messages and other memorandums compiled by the Justice Department."

It's impossible that all the attorneys could have performed so poorly that a mass firing was in order. Isn't this America where merit supersedes preferential treatment based on loyalty? Sure feels like a devolution toward corruption. Looks like were picking up only the bad habits of our conquered. Keep politics out of the Justice Department. That's how it was always meant to be: to ensure fair and impartial administration of justice for all Americans.

It looks like Gonzalez may be next on the chopping block. That's where my money is, anyway.

So it seems that the trial is going very well - the Libby trial, that is. Every morning on NPR I catch a snippet of Nina Totenburg's commentary on the progress, and this morning's was quite telling. After an apparently "dramatic" plea from defense lawyer Wells to not "sacrifice Scooter Libby - other people leaked - he wasn't the Leaker-in-Chief, as it were - why is he being treated differently than the people who did leak? - don't sacrifice him just because you disagree with the policy on Iraq, or you don't like the Bush administration - he's a good man, a man with a wife and two children - he's been under my protection for the last month - I give him to you now, just give him back to me" (the last statements made while choking and tearing-up). Fitzgerald's rebuttal: "There was a cloud over the White House and the Vice President's office. Don't you think that the Grand jury and the American public deserved a straight answer about who leaked classified information and whether it was done intentionally? But Mr. Libby said I'm gonna tell a story to make this go away. He stole the truth from the Judicial System. Give The Truth back." And now, it's in the hands of the jurors.

If there's one thing that Americans from all political stripes can agree on, it's that there's a lot wrong with America today. From my perspective, the debacle in Iraq, prefaced by the total dereliction of duty that allowed 9/11 to happen, are perhaps the most glaring of late. But amongst the things that are right with America is our Judicial system. While it's not impervious to corruption and manipulation, it's as robust as it gets. And as odd as it sounds, I really do take pride in serving Jury Duty. Trial by Jury of Peers, the Sixth Amendment to our Bill of Rights, just makes sense. Maybe that's a chicken-and-egg argument, being born and raised in a country where it's the law of the land. But maybe it isn't, as I also have one foot firmly planted in my Arab heritage, along with personal, albeit indirect, acquaintance with the arbitrary and regularly abused rule of law in modern Arab societies. I've seen the bad. I've seen the better.

Libby's trial is an act of accountability for someone who was part of a neocon cabal that has held itself above the law. The results of this trial will be yet another litmus test of this administration's complete abuse of power. It's either Libby or The Truth - one will be given back. Will we allow our leadership to take us astray once again? Or has the tide truly turned? Is America finally brave enough to snap out of its psychosis of fear? I'm guessing yes... but, maybe that's just the beer talking.

Today, there were articles abound fluffing the effectiveness of dialog with North Korea over its nuclear rights (spoilers not withstanding). I still don't understand why our mighty military didn't invade when our "intelligence" was actually right on North Korea -- long-range missiles launched into the sea of Japan on July 5, 2006 and a successful nuclear test on October 9, 2006. But then, nothing like this is expected to make sense in a state of "lead by dolt".

Don't think Iran isn't paying close attention. I'll bet anything that they move up the date of their anticipated April nuclear announcement. After all, this could be reason three driving them toward their nuclear goals: not only do you not get attacked when you actually do have a nuclear capability, but you get free stuff to boot.

The latest report from Serge Brammertz, the head of the UN commission investigating the murder of Rafiq al-Hariri, is out and it seems like some progress has been made.  With Bolton's recent resignation, I'm wondering if he had a preview of the report and decided that yet another card was stacking against him and his ilk, prompting his unexpected resignation, dismaying his boss.  Remember that is was Bolton who was pining for Syrian regime cooperation (on his terms).  Bolton got what he wanted:

Brammertz said Syria's cooperation with his investigators "remains timely and efficient'' though he criticized 10 other countries - which he did not name - for failing to respond to 22 requests from the commission. 

But maybe not what he expected?

Investigators are looking at numerous motives including assassination by an extremist group because of Hariri's links to other states in the region and in the West, before his possible success in May 2005 elections, because of his likely expose of a bank fraud, and as "a convenient cover'' to cast suspicion on others.

Could that possibly refer to the logic of the Syrian regime that they are the ones who stood to lose the most from the murder, and therefore are the least likely to have committed the crime?  Maybe.  And what of those 10 other countries who aren't cooperating, while Syria's cooperation "remains timely and efficient"? Getting closer to the truth, hopefully.

At least Brammertz is showing his professionalism in not leaking anything that could prejudice the trial.  Something Mehlis specifically didn't do.

So the largest anti-government protest in Leabnon's history took pace today, and it barely garnered mention in top US news outlets. Not surprising, really. Also not surprising is the treatment of the rally as being "Pro-Syrian" when a major support for it comes from Aoun's Free Patriotic Movement - about as "Anti-Syrian" as they get. Nor is it surprising when CNN's coverage includes this picture next to its report:

Classic really. Poor english. Hijab. That's CNN's subtle spin of the mass demonstrations against the government's anti-Lebanon actions during the summer war with Israel. It screams "ignorant Muslim". God forbid that a picture like that of the following Hizballah supporter make it through CNN's spin cycle:

What do you think your average CNN reader would think if they saw this picture instead? Or what about this one, or this? My guess is that it would not quite be the same thought. They may actually question the inconsistency between the content of the article and the image of a Western-palatable "look".

An American convert to Islam arrested shortly after the Madrid bombings, whose fingerprint was allegedly identified as being on a blue plastic bag containing detonators found in a van used by the bombers, won a settlement from the US government for $2 million.

According to the article:

A Justice Department statement released Wednesday said Mayfield was not targeted because of his Muslim faith...

Yeah... right. Bullshit. Keep on abusing that power you have. What comes around, goes around.

The settlement should have been for $200 million. But at least it came with a written apology.  And, he and his attorneys said the settlement will allow him to continue the portion of his lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the Patriot Act.  Aint that poetic?

Michael Young represents so much of what is wrong with Lebanonese society. Maybe all, in fact. Here, he makes reference to the "majority":

Hizbullah doesn't need to break heads or burn property to make things very difficult for the majority.

And here, he goes out of his way to not address why this same "majority" refuses to hold a census, overdue since 1932. (Look near the end the linked text, in his response to "Lebanon is the problem" where he admits rambling on and on in his response, eloquently rebutting every point except the one regarding the census.)

The fact of the matter is, the Shi`a of Lebanon are illegally under-represented, per Lebanon's law, in their own government. Article 24 of Lebanon's constitution addresses directly this issue:

...the distribution of seats [of the Chamber of Deputies] is according to the following principles:
a. Equal representation between Christians and Muslims.
b. Proportional representation among the confessional groups within each religious community.
c. Proportional representation among geographic regions.

Aside from the baffling precept that Lebanon is a "democracy" with a minority Christian population receiving more than its fair share of representation, subsections (b) and (c) of the article above spell it out quite clearly. Without a current census, can the proportions of the population be accurately deduced? No, it can't.

Muslims are the majority in Lebanon. And the Shi`a are a majority of that majority. And yet, of the 128 seats, the main Shi`a parties hold but 29. So let's crunch a few numbers. What would equal representation between Christians and Muslims be: 128/2 = 64. Now let's say that the Sh`ia majority is the slimmest possible at 51%: 64 x 0.51 = 32 (rounding down). That means that, by Lebanon's constitution, the Shi`a are disenfranchised by, at the very least, three seats in the Chamber of Deputies.

That is, if you believe the assumptions above to be true. If you don't, it's understandable. But if you're honest with yourself, then unlike Michael Young, you should be calling loudly for a census, as each advocate of democracy, advocate of Lebanon, should.

Or, at the very least, stop calling Lebanon a "democracy". And stop - just stop - referring to the "majority", because no-one seems to know what that means.

Poor, poor Saad Hariri. He can only see the world through the prism of the death that befell his father. Anything that happens in Lebanon can't but be Syria's fault:

"The Cedar Revolution is under attack...Today one of our main believers in a free democratic Lebanon has been killed. We believe the hand of Syria is all over [this]," he told CNN.

No facts. No time to investigate. A conclusion drawn not long after Israel raped his country, made every effort to sow discord amongst its people. Just an immediate reaction that is oh so dangerous, for oh so many. His coveted tribunal will fail because of this. His rush to "justice" without a solid case will be his demise. And then the true killers of his father will get away with their crime.

But one cannot blame him -- only feel sorry for him. The sands on which he built his legitimacy are quickly shifting. With the Republicans in Washington losing most of their power, Saad's rule is coming to a close. The new crowd sees fit to begin the thaw in relations with Syria, start talking civil.

March 14 has had its day.