Truth Commission

Would you like Freedom Fries with that pound of flesh?

Now that it's official, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence finally releasing the last two reports of "Phase II" of its inquiry about the Administration lying about the pre-war threat from Iraq and the Fixing of Intelligence by Doug Feith's office at the Pentagon (PDF's here and here), and in light of the confessions of Scott McClellen confirming everything and more said by Paul O'Neill, Richard Clarke, Thomas E. Ricks, and so many other men and women of conscious who raised the alarm that the Bush administration was committing grave crimes against the world and shredding the Constitution, what do we do about it.

From the moment Nancy Pelosi stated that impeachment was "off the table," we knew that the Democrats, even if they gain all the levers of power, are not interested in getting even, in justice, so much as they are interested in getting power for themselves, wresting it from the criminals now in charge (a good thing in and of itself) and fixing what is broken -- but have no stomach for making anyone pay for what they did.

Except for Dennis Kucinich and hints from John Edwards, I don't recall much along the lines of a desire to prosecute anyone from the presidential candidates either. And no doubt George W. Bush will issue blanket pardons for anyone remotely involved in his breathtaking racket before he leaves office, leaving only him as a possible defendant in American Courts. I seriously doubt President Obama will consider initiating such a politically charged prosecution in keeping with his mission to heal the nation and move forward, undoing the madness of the last eight years. It probably wouldn't seem something that would help his reelection prospects or help maintain and expand the Democratic majorities in Congress either.

I disagree, but then again they don't pay me millions of dollars as a political consultant giving bad advice to candidates. But that's another story.

Rachel Maddow speaks for many, myself included, insisting that there is a difference between relying on flawed intelligence and "deliberately telling the American People something you know is not accurate" (ie. lying us into war) is "worthy of a prosecution or two." However her boss at Air America, Mark Green has another idea. Four actually:

1. "Vote Big" giving the Democrats a large mandate and sending the GOP a clear message. Of course herding cats is an easier task, and probably more fun.


2. "Shame 'em" challenging the the media to do it's job. Good luck with that.


3. "Sue" "Hit them in the pocketbook." You can kinda tell Mr. Green isn't a lawyer. While going after Halliburton may be worthwhile, government officials have qualified immunity from prosecution when excercizing and acting within their legally defined areas of discresion. The Iraq war, for all the fraud involved in gaining permission to use force from Congress, that permission was granted by folks like John Kerry, John Edwards and Hillary Clinton voting with the GOP majority for the AUMF back in 2002.


4. "Create a Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC)" In essence, this would be a national confessional, a catharsis for those of us who at least desire truth above consequences. Not quite the Nuremberg trials, but public acknowledgment that atrocities were committed even if no one is punished.

Richard Clarke expressed similar desires to see a Truth Commission modeled on post-Aparteid South Africa on Countdown last night. And some true optimists out there in blogtopia (y!sctp) believe that much like the example of post WWII Germany, the people of the United States would not be completely consumed by such a circus as parading all the perpetrators that have been involved in the litany of high crimes before cameras to confess their sins.

Somehow I doubt it. Our uniquly tabloid culture , where a minor celebrity's double-murder trial can take over the national consciousness and expose the tenuous seams that divide us more than unite us, would gorge itself on the spectacle. I know I wouldn't miss a minute of this show.

However, it would be cathartic. The alternative is to wait for history's verdict, which might then not even be the resolution we need. My Armenia friend Ara could enlighten you much further on why sometimes just waiting on history to decide who was wrong and who was right can fester instead of heal.

The government of Turkey continues to call for Truth and Reconciliation of the horrific events they still refuse to officially call the Armenian Genocide of 1915-23, yet critics argue that an Historian's Commission telling "both sides" (no better that the first drafters of history we have today on every talking head program) would amount to a whitewash, or worse -- elevating the lies and coverups to be valid viewpoints.

I don't think we can await history's verdict. I know I don't want to. But what I want is to see every son of a neocon creep locked up while they wait upon history.

Whores

Today I learned several things about whores. For instance, Allison Kilkenny thinks John McCain is a Big F*cking Whore.

That wasn't really news, but she helpfully provided a dictionary definition that went beyond prostitution or promiscuity, but also included male prostitutes and just about anyone who generally engages in "venal or unscrupulous" behavior.

McCain's a big time war hero, so he tells us, and should be able to take that kind of insult in stride since he's well known to dish it out with a vengeance. Generally I've found that ladies take it much more personally when they are called whores than men do, for pretty obvious reasons. So when Randi Rhodes called Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi Big F*cking Whores, you just knew there was going to be some fallout.

Yep, she's suspended. Indefinitely from what I can tell. (That means fired Gerry, so as Bill says, "just chill.") I'd expect this kind of disciplinary action against an on-air personality who puts her network and it's affiliates at risk of getting a fine from the FCC for vulgarity.

What's that? She wasn't on the air but at public appearance in San Francisco? Is that right? In fact, it was something she said two weeks ago? Odd. I'm still learning I guess.

Purely from a free speech viewpoint, regardless of how obnoxious Randi can be, this reeks if you can get canned for something you said off the air even if it was at an Air America sponsored public event.

Dem on Dem violence, even rhetorical, sucks. But politics is hard-ball. You just know she'd be congratulated on calling the President of the United States any assortment of names even if he is our legally empowered overlord, miserable fucking dick-face that he is.

Frankly, Air America's Chairman's lame statement is just too vague and pantie-waist to pass the smell test.

"Air America encourages strong opinions about public affairs but does not condone such abusive, ad hominem language by our Hosts,"

Spare me, Okay? You damn well do too. It just so happens that these F*cking Whores were Chairman Kireker's F*cking Whores.

Randi could have (and surely has) said similar things about any number of Wingnut Fascists currently running our government. Her targets had "D's" after their names and the boss got pissed off. The guy's got no balls, especially if he was too much of a weenie to give Rhodes fair warning to knock off bashing Democrats, since she's been on Clinton's case for months.

I'm by no means a big fan of Randi Rhodes. I love Stephanie Miller, rarely miss Big Eddie Schultz since I'm in the car when he's on, picking up kids from assorted schools. Randi's pretty angry, that's her schtick, and always on the cutting edge of "taking it to the man," even if it's a woman. Sometimes she's awesome, hilarious even. Sometimes she goes too far, or at least further than any of the other folks at Air America.

I know this: Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh could have said the exact same things about the exact same women and never been touched. Bill O'Reilly could have said it on the air and the network would have bought him a new falafel.

Randi's only real screw up here was thinking that doing what they always paid her to do would be something they would continue to pay her to do. I know what I just wrote made no sense at all, but neither does firing the most notoriously caustic host on your network make any sense when what she said wasn't even broadcast and completely within her character.

Name the politician out there that hasn't engaged in "venal or unscrupulous" behavior. They're all Big F*cking Whores. From where I sit, Rhodes was fired not only for pissing off the boss and voicing her opinion (for which she is contracted to do), but also for telling the truth.

Now before you start telling me about polite society, the First Amendment, party loyalty, or how you hate/love/don't-care-for Randi/Hillary/Nancy or Obama (or why John McCain really doesn't take it up the ass for lobbyist money), save for a few ridiculous Clinton bloggers where was the outrage when Tina Fey told her SNL audience that Hillary was a bitch? Randi got fired for the same reason she was hired -- she's Randi Rhodes, a Huge Bitch if ever there was one.

Legally, I think Air America ought to offer to buy out Randi's contract and throw in some extra severance pay. They don't want this to go to court, and they don't want to lose, which I think is a distinct possibility. They don't want a judge and jury to listen to a montage of all the nasty stuff that has come out of their network over the years, especially if they get into the Janeane Garofalo archives. Whew.

It's not like she said anything about Hillary or Nancy's hair, like it was too stringy or ... nappy.

Yeah, AA could win the eventual lawsuit. A lot depends on the ethics/morals clauses in the contract which usually would justify the Network's actions. They really don't want to though, do they? This really needs to go away, so just send Randi away with a check in her pocket and call it a learning experience. I am.