William Rivers Pitt is officially blogging now, and I couldn't be happier. If I guessed that I'd mentioned him sixty times in the past year, I would bet that would be an underestimation. When Will speaks, I listen. And now I can listen - every day.
"Four years ago, members of the Congressional Black Caucus ran deliberately and vociferously into a brick wall when they chose to stand and protest the deplorable election calamity in Florida. They sought the name of one Senator, just one, which they could append to their complaints. Had they gotten that one name, a debate and discussion on what happened in Florida would have taken place in the House and the Senate. No Senator came forward, and the debate never happened.
Now, four years later, another election has come and gone. Now, four years later, there are rafts of evidence which point, once again, to overwhelming disenfranchisement of minority voters. Now, four years later, members of the Congressional Black Caucus, along with several other House members, plan to stand once again and protest an election that failed to live up to the standards required of participatory democracy. Now, four years later, they seek a Senator to stand with them.
This time, a Senator must answer the call."
At the American Street, there is word that Sen. Barbara Boxer has indicated she will stand with Congressman John Conyers in questioning the electoral vote (it only takes one rep and one senator) if she receives enough feedback.
This is very important news. See the related Daily Kos diary, which urges you to call Boxer's office if you care.
Gutting the Old CIA
America strays further from truth
I am quoting Laura Rozen on this entry (see below). Her recent post is telling you that the old CIA has recognized and communicated, all along, the folly of the Bush administration's disastrous foreign policy toward Iraq. It's because they know it that they are getting the axe from new director Porter Goss. How is that supposed to make us feel, as Americans? Since when does the act of our government overtly closing their eyes to crucial/bitterly honest truths bring about any positive/realistic outcomes?
Former CIA station chief Haviland Smith, writing in the WaPo:
Given the way the Bush White House has handled intelligence during the past three years, it makes sense that it is angry at the clandestine service. The officers in that service are often required to give their opinions about policies in advance of their implementation. It is unlikely that any clandestine service officer, having spent a career in the Middle East, would see our current policy there as flawless. Thus many in the White House probably see the clandestine service as a nest of enemies. They might just want to consider an alternative possibility: that the service is made up of professionals who would like to save their country from the further embarrassment and potential difficulties of a truly flawed and dangerous Iraq policy...
Given his dogged adherence to the righteousness of that policy, it makes sense that the president would be angry with the clandestine service. It seems quite possible that the service is being punished for having been right... The agency's statutory responsibility is to speak the truth, whether the truth supports the president's plans or not. It would appear that this concept is not shared by this administration.
'Cutting off our nose to spite our face,' is how Smith sums up Porter Goss's White House ordered purge of the clandestine service underway.