My kids (adults) keep asking me if the Obama campaign, the universal appeal, the energy is like it was with Bobby. It couldn’t be MY Bobby moment, I had already had mine, but was it theirs. Honestly, we would have a much better world if we all lived Bobby moments (the good parts) every election, everyday. If we ever get back in the right track we can have a lifetime of Bobby moments.

That being said, it was a different time, a different place, different circumstances for all there are some similarities. I was not yet 24 years old, expecting my second child and hopeful for the future because my husband had finally found a good job. That hope grew to be hope for the country and for my children’s future with the entrance of Bobby Kennedy to the presidential race. Follow me below the fold for a snapshot of history and my take on if is possible for lightening to strike twice in one person’s lifetime.

When Robert Francis Kennedy was assassinated June 6, 1968 the heart was ripped from my body, I gave up any real political involvement other than continuing to vote, for 26 years. It is still painful for me to look back and remember, I know I am not alone.

1968 was an interesting year, the war in Vietnam droned on, Johnson was running for re-election and Bobby said he wouldn’t enter the race for the Presidency. The story goes it was the author Pete Hamill who wrote Bobby a letter in early 1968 asking him to reconsider a run. In the letter he reminded Bobby that pictures of his brother hung in the homes of millions of poor people and he needed to honor the promise they saw in JFK. Until then Bobby altho asked to run as an anti-war candidate had not been interested.

Eugene McCarthy was running against Johnson, it was thought then and probably still is trying to unseat an incumbent President is a pretty impossible task but in the New Hampshire primary Johnson barely edged out McCarthy much to everyone’s surprise. It was within days of the New Hampshire primary Bobby announced his candidacy.

“I do not run for the Presidency merely to oppose any man, but to propose new policies. I run because I am convinced that this country is on a perilous course and because I have such strong feelings about what must be done, and I feel that I’m obliged to do all I can.”

McCarthy wasn’t happy and Johnson decided to unrun for another term and was less happy about Bobby entering late as what he considered a spoiler. Hubert Humphrey another good man then joined Bobby and McCarthy and it was game on. Humphrey had entered so late he wasn’t on the primary ballots however he did have the endorsement of Congress and major politicians and basically was an inside candidate. McCarthy and Bobby would battle for the votes and the delegates while Humphrey thought he would get the nomination by aclaimation on the floor of the Convention.

Eugene McCarthy  was anti-war, a man of integrity, but Bobby was more.

For Bobby it wasn’t just about the war. Bobby spoke for those who’s voice had not been heard since FDR. It was about racial and economic justice, ending poverty. He wanted to engage young voters in the process because they were our future. He had a non-aggressive foreign policy, no more Vietnams. He was honest and direct in his interaction with the country.  I thought he wanted to engage America in a partnership that could bring about necessary change and better the lives of all of us.  Not empty promises but a partnership of energy and ideas to move us into a much better future.

He did JFK proud. It was a time of real hope in this country. A time of real involvement by young and old and everyone in between. It was a rolling revolution fueled by stops in towns and cities where he actually talked with people, not just giving stump speeches but engaging us all.  Letting us believe, giving us something to believe in.

And so this wonderous revolution went to California where we were all so sure he would emerge the undisputed candidate for the Presidency of the United States.

Sounds like Obama? Sounds like Edwards too. Understand Bobby wasn’t the great orator, no really soaring rhetoric, his speeches read better. He was an ordinary speaker with extraordinary ideas and an extraordinary way of connecting with people.

His now famous speech in Indianapolis announcing the death of MLK April 4, 1968.

Race to the Whitehouse

His speech at the Ambassador Hotel after the California Primary win.

Part 2

Part 3 And it was over, if indeed it ever been our time and our candiate to lead our country.

As much as I want, I can’t allow this to be another Bobby moment, because Bobby the President never would have happened. I need this to be the real deal, the Bobby moment we hold in our hearts, the way we hoped it would be the first time we took the thrilling ride on the hope and change train. If our time has come so has the time come for Bobby’s dreams to be realized.

The decision to pursue the death penalty against Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and a number of other suspects creates a situation that no doubt was thought through by the Bush administration more than whether to actually use torture against these people in the first place.  I haven’t seen this angle discussed too much in depth but if it has, please forgive me.

Regardless of whether anyone thinks that the death penalty is a just punishment, is “cruel and inhuman”, or just plain doesn’t agree with it, I want to at least (for now) leave that out of this post.  If Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (“KSM” to make it easier for me) is guilty of masterminding the 9/11 attacks, or if he is guilty of any other crimes that can be proven, then he should receive the justice that he deserves.  This is not about whether he should or should not pay for his crimes.

I don’t think there are many people who would say that he does not deserve punishment (whatever the maximum punishment that can be meted out would be) for planning these attacks.  But, and here is the rub – the fact that his trial will be largely based on evidence that is obtained by torture will forever cloud his trial – if not in the eyes of Americans then most certainly in the eyes of the world .

Thus, the second part of this conundrum – the argument that “liberals would rather let an evil terrorist mastermind go free than receive justice for his role in killing thousands of Americans” which no doubt would be trotted out.  But this is, to me, something that was done purposely.

To have as many legal memos that talk about torture being justified, about “enemy combatants” being outside the Geneva Conventions, the “interrogation techniques” that were personally approved by Rumsfeld, the debate going on among those who support torture and the rest of the civilized world about whether waterboarding is “technically” torture, the news that Bush personally ordered waterboarding – all of this was done to make sure that KSM could be prosecuted for his role and actions, even if the only way that the CIA can get information out of him is by torturing him.  

Or because Mister Bush is a sadist.  But either way, there was a long discussion and debate on a number of occasions that would have Mukasey waffle on whether waterboarding is illegal even though he said that it would be torture if it was done to him and that torture is illegal.  Or that would have Scalia, a number of republican Senators (including John McCain) vote against outlawing waterboarding.  Or that would have waterboarding ONLY used if Bush himself ordered it.

The end result of all of this is a situation where someone whose actions (if true) nobody can defend, and is the most unsympathetic figure outside of Osama bin Laden in the eyes of Americans is now at the center of yet another fork in the road for this country.

Choose option 1 and we have a precedent whereby evidence can be obtained by torture and used as primary evidence in a prosecution that could carry the death penalty as a punishment.  Option 1 also further reduces America’s reputation in the global community.

Choose option 2 and we have a situation where someone that very well may have had a huge hand in the biggest attack on American soil can not be prosecuted because the primary evidence against him was obtained via torture.  Or that the prosecution is tainted because of the evidence obtained by torture, and is not viewed as legitimate to the vast majority of the world (and many in this country).  Option 2 also results in the “why do you hate America” nonsense that detracts from the fact that (1) that is total crap and a distraction from reality, (2) one of the chief architects of the 9/11 attacks either goes free or is prosecuted in what will be known as a kangaroo court proceeding and most importantly, (3) this is all due to willful and premeditated acts by the highest levels of the US government.

The road chosen will go a long way towards either repairing our reputation in the world or reinforcing that we do not care about the rule of law that this administration preaches about.  Unfortunately, we as a country have been put in this position (once again) by our own government, and these people will look to point fingers instead of actually thinking of the ramification of their actions.

And I am sure that many people will say (as I have heard before) that it really doesn’t matter that he is tortured if he was actually guilty.  But that isn’t the point.  If he was actually guilty, then he shouldn’t have to be tortured in order to be prosecuted.

Once again, Mister Bush and his cohorts have put this country in a horrible position with two bad choices.  This time, the ramifications are the justification for torture and the use of it to obtain evidence for a prosecution.

That is a door that should never have been opened.  Thanks, once again, George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Alberto Gonzales, Jay Bybee, John Yoo, John McCain, Michael Mukasey and everyone else who allowed and enabled this country to reach yet another new low.

when it comes to personal problems. They’re difficult to write about. And I know there are folks who’ve far worse problems and who are in far worse shape and in far worse situations than I am. And I’m grateful that I’m not in their shoes.

And more important things are going on in the world–things about which I’ve often been writing and will be writing more. So I’m not a whiner.

But currently I’m in a situation where I can use some support and friendly advice…

About a month ago, I lost my job. Others were also let go. But I got a bad write-up at the end of 2007 that said in effect that I hadn’t been fitting in well, hadn’t been doing my job right or in a timely manner or following directions well, hadn’t been showing much creativity (when this had been the sort of job you couldn’t show much creativity in–if you did, you weren’t following directions!) And that I hadn’t been showing a positive attitude or been pleasant or shown an optimistic outlook. Or been playing well with others. (O.K.–the last is made up, but you get the picture.)

This was all news to me because I’d worked at that company for 20 years. While it wasn’t the perfect job and I hadn’t been perfect, I hadn’t thought I’d been that bad, either. I’d never heard or gotten any complaints. The write-up I got at the end of 2006 had been much better.

I’ve been wondering if some of the problems in the latest write-up at my old job could have been due to untreated depression and/or bipolar symptoms. I’ve been at least mildly depressed for much of my life–though I’ve never had it looked into or been treated for it. Or I may be bipolar–I’m not sure because I can be at times irritable and impatient, not have much tolerance for frustration, and get angry easily. In fact I nearly got into trouble (by almost being kicked out of a group I’d enjoyed participating in) because I’d blown up. While I most often feel “down,” I’ve occasionally felt very “up”–not the sort of mania you hear about where one runs out and buys a flashy sports car and does other wild things–but just enough to be feeling unusually good.

For about the past 2 1/2 years up to now, the depression has been at its worst. This is due to the emotional impact on me of a certain event and its aftermath with which I’ve been obsessed and that I want to go into in more depth at another time when I feel up to it, because it’s a separate diary in itself that will be difficult to write. I hadn’t seen anyone for this problem when I was working because I doubted that the company’s health plan would have covered mental health treatment. And now I don’t have any sort of health insurance.

I also have AD/HD, which had been diagnosed in the Dark Ages of the late 60’s when it was called a “learning disability” Interestingly, cases of bipolar can be confused with AD/HD and vice-versa, because of similar symptoms such as low frustration tolerance, irritability, and impulsivity. Or one could have both. As Jon P Bloch, Ph.D, writes in ….The Everything Health Guide To Adult Bipolar Disorder,

Frequently, bipolar children are misdiagnosed as having AD/HD. What makes this especially unfortunate is that the medication often prescribed for this are stimulants that exacerbate the bipolar symptoms. It is also possible for a child to be both bipolar and to have AD/HD.

Ritalin didn’t work  for me so I was prescribed Dilantin and phenobarbital for it for about six years. And I’ve mild cerebral palsy that makes my speech sound strange and affects my motor skills. I often have trouble with pain and fatigue. In spite of these things, I managed to hang in there at my old job, where accommodations had been made for me and most of my co-workers had been kind and understanding–but I guess I hadn’t been doing as well as I’d thought I was.

Now I feel physically and emotionally wiped out. I just haven’t been feeling up to the stress of job hunting (nobody around here with the sort of work I can do is hiring, anyway.) or the demands of a full-time job. Low energy. When I had been working, I’d come home with so little energy left I often didn’t even feel up to making myself dinner–all I felt up to doing was reading or watching TV or a DVD.

I also don’t think I’d be very good at a new job because of some of the symptoms (besides having a short fuse, I’ve lost it by crying over little things or nothing. This has happened pretty often lately.) So I’ve been wondering what there is out there (about 2 1/2 hours from Chicago) when it comes to getting disability or other sorts of help after my current means of support (details confidential) runs out after a few months.

I also wonder–how legitimate are those websites there are ads for that offer work online? I don’t own my own computer–are they worth investing in a computer for? Can one really make a decent living from them, or are they the equivalent of those envelope-stuffing and other work-at-home ads you used to see in magazines?

Also, I recently started a blog and once in a while have been seeing this little ad that says you can earn extra money from having them place advertising on your blog. I don’t recall the company name offhand–in fact, when I tried to have it come up, it didn’t. But “Google” was part of it. Is it really affiliated with Google,” or a soundalike company? Also, how well does something like that pay, if the blog doesn’t get much traffic? I mean, I don’t think anybody’s been reading my blog because nobody’s posted comments or anything. And since my daily computer time is limited, I haven’t had time to add too much to this blog yet. It’s only about three weeks old.

Well, thanks so much for reading this far. I hope I haven’t bored you–at least, this isn’t yet another campaign diary. Hoping for some good suggestions, advice and ideas….

1. TPMmuckraker reports the House Passes Contempt Resolution against White House Officials. “The House passed the contempt resolution against White House chief of staff Josh Bolten and Harriet Miers, 223-32. Most Republicans, having staged their walk out, did not vote. So now the ball’s in Attorney General Michael Mukasey’s court. He’s expected to decline to enforce the citation of contempt… The resolution included both a criminal contempt citation and the authorization for the House Judiciary Committee to sue the White House if Mukasey refuses to enforce the citation.”

   The Hill has more in House finds Bolten, Miers in contempt of Congress. “The matter will now be referred to the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia. If the fight comes to a head without a compromise having been reached, it could pit Congress’s power to hold White officials in contempt against the president’s right to assert executive privilege. Democrats passed two resolutions through the adoption of a single rule, a procedural tactic that limited the time of debate, angering Republicans. One resolution holds Bolten and Miers in contempt. The second sets the stage for a civil suit the House would file against the administration to compel it to force Bolten and Miers to testify.”

2. TPMmuckraker is also reporting on the testimony of Steven Bradbury, head of the Office of Legal Counsel before the House Judiciary subcommittee in CIA Waterboarding Was Subject to “Strict Limitations”. “The CIA’s use of waterboarding was legal and not torture, a Justice Deparment official argued this morning, because it was a “procedure subject to strict limitations and safeguards” that made it substantially different from historical uses of the technique by the Japanese and the Spanish Inquisition… [Bradbury] argued that what the CIA did bears ‘no resemblance’ to what torturers in time past have done.”

   Earlier in his testimony today, Bradbury stated waterboarding isn’t currently legal. As TPMmuckraker states it is part of the Bush administration’s waterboarding PR campaign.

3. The Guardian reports Total human impact on oceans mapped for the first time.

   Fishing, climate change and pollution have left an indelible mark on virtually all of the world’s oceans, according to a huge study that has mapped the total human impact on the seas for the first time. Scientists found that almost no areas have been left pristine and that more than 40% of the world’s oceans have been heavily affected…

   Human impact is most severe in the North Sea, the South and East China Seas, the Caribbean, the Mediterranean, the Red Sea, the Gulf, the Bering Sea, along the eastern coast of North America and in much of the western Pacific.
   The oceans at the poles are less affected, but melting ice sheets will leave them vulnerable, researchers said.

   Different ecosystems have been affected to differing degrees: the study found that almost half of the world’s coral reefs have been heavily damaged. Other areas of concern are seagrass beds, mangrove forests, seamounts, rocky reefs and continental shelves. Soft-bottom ecosystems and the open ocean fared best, but even these were not pristine in the majority of locations…

   Highlighting examples of action, the researchers said that, for example, no-fishing zones have been shown to protect sensitive ecosystems, as has re-routing shipping lanes.

There’s a bonus dinosaur beneath the fold… Follow the link to dig up the ol’ fossil. Or if you’re not into dinosaurs, there’s a spy satellite to shoot down too. Click to launch missiles…

4. According to The New York Times, the Pentagon to shoot down spy satellite. “The Pentagon plans to shoot down a disabled 5,000-pound spy satellite before it enters the atmosphere in early March… The official said the operation was expected to be carried out from a Navy cruiser that would fire a missile specially fitted for the mission. Other details on the timing and location of the operation were not available, pending a Thursday afternoon briefing at the Defense Department. Navy ships routinely carry missiles to shoot down aircraft. It was not immediately known if the operation was prompted by fears that the satellite’s debris would pose a danger if the satellite were allowed to tumble back into the atmosphere on its own; by reasons of secrecy, or by some combination of factors.” Could be the Pentagon just likes blowing stuff up too.

5. The Independent reports ‘Fierce-eyed’ grandfather of T-rex found in Sahara. “The remains of two meat-eating dinosaurs have been unearthed in the Sahara desert where they once terrorised their prey. The fossilised bones of the two dinosaurs were excavated during an expedition in 2000 but it is only now that scientists have been able to identify and name them as a newly discovered pair of carnivorous species that lived 110 million years ago. One of the new dinosaurs is a short-snouted creature that grew to about 25 feet long. Scientists have called it Kryptops palaios, or ‘old hidden face’, because of the horny covering on its snout.”

Happy Valentine’s Day!

Up until this month, the Bush administration refused to talk about waterboarding. The talking points were always the same. ‘We cannot talk about specific techniques‘ and ‘Whatever techniques we did use were within the law.’ The Senate was told they were being unfair to Michael Mukasey for asking about the technique because he had not been briefed on its use.

Now the Bushies cannot stop talking about waterboarding.  

The latest comments come from Steven Bradbury, the acting head of the Office of Legal Counsel.

“The set of interrogation methods authorized for current use is narrower than before, and it does not today include waterboarding.”

“There has been no determination by the Justice Department that the use of waterboarding, under any circumstances, would be lawful under current law.”

– Source

The wording is a little vague, but implies that waterboarding is not legal under current laws. The wording is almost identical to that used by CIA Director Michael Hayden in testimony before the House Intelligence Committee last week.

“In my own view, the view of my lawyers and the Department of Justice, it is not certain that that technique would be considered to be lawful under current statute.”

– Source

After the groundhog saw its shadow, the Bush administration suddenly loosened it lips. The unitary executive opened the flood gates when he authorized CIA Director Michael Hayden to speak publicly about its use. Since that time, the administration has been willing to admit it was used on three detainees. They have also been very careful to say that it was ‘legal’ when it was used.

Michael Mukasey has now been fully briefed on waterboarding. He was quite clear that the Office of Legal Counsel, now headed by Steven Bradbury, had issued an opinion that it was legal in 2002-2003 when waterboarding of detainees was used and made available for the private amusement of the Bush administration. Because of that ruling, Mukasey was comfortable in lecturing Rep. Conyers and the rest of the House Judiciary Committee that there was no basis for an investigation. Mukasey ruled out an investigation by the Department of Justice. According to Gonzales’ replacement, it is a clear case of Catch-22-me-if-you-can: “That would mean that the same department that authorized the program would now consider prosecuting somebody who followed that advice.”

Mukasey was mum about who in the Office of Legal Counsel issued the original opinion that waterboarding was legal to use and the specific contents of that opinion. However, Steven Bradbury was responsible for authorizing its use in 2005 before the Congress made it illegal with the McCain Detainee Treatment Act of 2005.

Bradbury in 2005 signed two secret legal memos that authorized the CIA to use head slaps, freezing temperatures and waterboarding when questioning terror detainees.

– Source

Of course, when the unitary executive signed that bill, he scribbled in crayon under his signature that “it would be enforced in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch and as Commander in Chief.”  And now that the annoying legislative branch has again infringed upon the rights of the “unitary executive branch” by specifically forbidding the use of waterboarding, Bush promises to get out his special veto pen.  

So why are the Bushies now talking openly about waterboarding? I can see only one obvious reason. They want to execute the three detainees that were waterboarded.

It would be most inconvenient for the Bush administration to execute these three detainees they waterboarded confessions out of if waterboarding was not legal at the time. To make sure the American people, the nattering nabobs of the House and Senate Judiciary Committee, and civil rights groups are not tempted to challenge the use of tortured confessions in our courts, Bush sent out Mukasey and Bradbury to reinforce the legality of waterboarding when it was used.  It is just another bit of insurance that Bush will get his executions.

Step one. Make sure the videotapes of these waterboarded confessions have been destroyed by the CIA. Now there is no record of what the detainees confessed to while being waterboarded.

Step two. Claim it was legal to use waterboarding when those confessions were obtained. Repeat often to deflect public opinion.

Step three. Make sure the trials are conducted outside the United States using military tribunals and military legal representatives.

Step four. Include the waterboarded confessions as part of the evidence against the detainees. Since the context of the confessions no longer exists, there is no basis for pesky legal challenges.

Step five. Conduct the trials swiftly to limit international outrage.

Step six. Send out a vile, subhumanoid monster by the name of Scalia to defend the use of torture as constitutional, preferably while wearing his Supreme Court costume.

“To begin with the constitution… is referring to punishment for crime. And, for example, incarcerating someone indefinitely would certainly be cruel and unusual punishment for a crime.”

Translation: Death Penalty Good, Life Imprisonment Bad.

“I suppose it’s the same thing about so-called torture. Is it really so easy to determine that smacking someone in the face to determine where he has hidden the bomb that is about to blow up Los Angeles is prohibited in the constitution?”

“It would be absurd to say you couldn’t do that. And once you acknowledge that, we’re into a different game.

“How close does the threat have to be? And how severe can the infliction of pain be?”

Translation: Torture ok. Constitution should be amended to include Jack Bauer provision.

Step seven. Set up the execution chamber, stick in the intravenous lines, put on the blindfolds, pour the beer and pretzels for the unitary executive branch, flip the switch, and let the fun begin.

So yeah…Democrats….Republicans.

If you want to look at it from one perspective there is no difference. From THAT singular perspective you will get no argument from me.

They are The Powers That Be.

You can lump them all in, as far as I’m concerned…from that perspective. Throw in the Bankers and the Insurance Cos and the Oil Cos ad the Defense Cos too. Throw in the 1%, the hyper-rich. Throw in the cops, who protect them. How far do you go? Where do you stop? Throw in everyone who works for one of these entities? Throw in anyone who sells something to them? Throw in anyone who consumes something they make? Throw in everyone who does not spend every waking hour, every minute, every breath out in the streets opposing them?

As long as we are generalizing, there are two kinds of people in this world, the rebels and those they rebel against.

Anyone wish to hazard a guess which side the demographic of this website comes down on, lol?

But it is slightly less of a generalization to break it into four groups:

The Rebels

The Content

The Powers that think they are helping the oppressed

The Powers that are actively oppressing

If you notice, the Rebels are slightly outnumbered, there. Always have been, always will be. Fighting the Power is not a new thing, it is as old as history, as old as human nature. Older even, since at its core is the urge to burst free from all constraints and create something new. See: The Big Bang.

There has always been The Power….and there has always been that which fights against it. In that way, from THAT perspective, they are one. Not only have they always existed together, but more importantly for our purposes, they evolve together. Which returns us to the intro of this essay and the question…where do you stop?

The question then, is not whether we Fight The Power. Or even what or who The Power is, that we are fighting. It is in our nature. And from THAT perspective ….It doesn’t matter who is President, who is in Congress. If they were all angels of perfection and light…we would just move on and find other powers to fight against.

No, the question is not why or who or which….the only real question is …how.

As I stated, the Rebels and the rebelled against evolve together. They do something heinous (since they always do!) and we figure out a way to stop them. Then they figure out how to defeat the strategy and tactics we used to fight them and take measures against it. Then we come up with something new…etc. etc. etc.

Just as Reagan learned from Nixon and Bushco learned from Reagan. WE learned from Ghandi and then from King and then learned to use the system and get our people elected. See: The Progressive Caucus.

Guess what, my ragged band of tattered Rebels? As if you did not all painfully know and feel deep in your rebel souls, we have lost the last few battles. It is our turn to evolve. And it will have to be a damn good evolution.

The Democrats, Congress itself? Nothing but tools, cat’s paws to use to try to further the Eternal Rebellion. The advent of the web and the emergence of Daily Kos and the Left Blogosphere seemed/seems like that evolution…a way to influence and use Dem politicians as our tools for change. It didn’t work in 2006. Mainly because the politicians that were already there had been terrorized by The Powers That Be. Politicians after all…are by nature, nothing more than weather vanes, blowing in the direction of whatever wind is prevailing. But even weather vanes are useful, if utilized correctly. And that’s what we are, for now, trying to do.

Influence them, by educating and influencing the public and public opinion.

In another month or so, when we stop fighting ourselves, we will have someone else we can try to influence. Someone who needs our votes and our money and our work as volunteers. We can try to influence a Power that will Be.

It won’t work to our satisfaction of course, nothing ever does, since we are never satisfied…but that is the next frontier. Influencing and lobbying the nominee…AND….working down ticket to elect more progressives. This is the next frontier. Those are our new tools.

While we wait for the quantum leap we all would like to see, that is the HOW we have to work with. We need to maximize that how.

How do we do that?

cross posted from The Dream Antilles

The Original Edgar Bergen and Charlie McCarthy

This is really fascinating.  And short.  Whoever is playing Edgar Bergen has apparently temporarily lost control of his sockpuppet Charlie McCarthy.  The story is that the voices of Bushco apparently don’t agree today on the legality of waterboarding torture.

Join me on stage.

The New York Times blog pulls it all together:

Steven G. Bradbury, the acting head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, seemed set to shake up one of the fiercest debates in Washington today by offering a clear and concise statement about the controversial interrogation technique known as waterboarding, which simulates drowning.

”There has been no determination by the Justice Department that the use of waterboarding, under any circumstances, would be lawful under current law,” he says in prepared remarks for a House hearing today that were obtained in advance by The Associated Press.

The administration’s current interrogation rules are “narrower than before” waterboarding was used five years ago by the C.I.A., he said. Earlier this week, Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey said that “in order for it to become part of the program, its legality would have to be passed on.”

Sounds like Bradbury, who hasn’t been confirmed, says that waterboarding is not legal under current law.  Hmmm.

But then there’s this:

About two weeks ago, Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey wrote a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee saying that the technique was not clearly illegal, as The New York Times reported:

“But with respect, I believe it is not an easy question,” he said. “There are some circumstances where current law would appear clearly to prohibit the use of waterboarding. Other circumstances would present a far closer question.”

The letter did not define any of the circumstances.

“Not clearly illegal” means “sorta legal?”  Or illegal but not totally? incompletely illegal?

And that’s not all:

Last week, Gen. Michael V. Hayden, the director of the Central Intelligence Agency, said the legality of waterboarding was “not certain … under current statute,” a view he attributed to himself and lawyers at the C.I.A. and the Justice Department.

When legality is “not certain” it means maybe it’s legal, maybe it’s illegal, I don’t know?

What is next?  Retractions all around?  Retractions called “clarifications” all around?  A more “nuanced” response from some/all of the talking heads?  A gag order from Edger Bergen?  Stay tuned.

♥ ~ ♥ ~ ♥ ~ ♥ ~ ♥ ~ ♥ ~ ♥ ~ ♥

  Happy Valentines Day!!

♥ ~ ♥ ~ ♥ ~ ♥ ~ ♥ ~ ♥ ~ ♥ ~ ♥  

Hello, my love

I heard a kiss from you

Like a fool, I fell in love with you,

Turned my whole world upside down

Changing my life with the wave of a hand

Nobody can~ deny that there’s something there

All you need is love

love is all you need

And all the nights magic seems to whisper and hush

And all the soft moonlight seems to shine in your blush

Every now and then the things I lean on lose their meaning,

And I find myself careening

Try as I may I could never explain

What I hear when you don’t say a thing

And I trust in your love

Never fallin’ down…

It’s a love that lasts forever

It’s a love that had no past

You’re driving me mad…

You’re the best I ever had

Oh just to be with you

is having the best day of my life

And in the end the love you take

is equal to the love you make

♥ ~ ♥ ~ ♥ ~ ♥ ~ ♥ ~ ♥ ~ ♥ ~ ♥

Thanks for stopping in, so glad you’re here …. (yes, YOU!)

Add Your favorite love song below

O &… Please don’t rec the pony party, another will trot up in a few hours.

(^.^)

 ♥ ~ ♥ ~ ♥ ~ ♥ ~ ♥ ~ ♥ ~ ♥ ~ ♥