The rising costs of imported fireworks, local budget crunches, “high fuel and transportation costs,” and the tight economy have canceled fireworks shows across the country.

What you may not see tonight:

In an interview last March with Bloomberg’s Judy Woodruff, the late conservative scholar William F. Buckley said President Bush’s legacy would be judged purely on Iraq. He stressed, “It’s important that we acknowledge in the inner councils of state that it (the war) has failed, so that we should look for opportunities to cope with that failure.”

In an interview with Bloomberg TV yesterday, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was unable to acknowledge the failure of Iraq. Woodruff presented Buckley’s argument to Rice that Bush’s legacy will be Iraq. “That’s just fine,” said Rice.

“We tend to forget very quickly what Saddam Hussein meant. … In the post 9/11 environment, you couldn’t let a threat to international peace and stability like that remain.” She added:

Yes, it’s been very, very tough. But I know that great historical events go through difficult phases and often emerge with the world left for the better. And I am proud of the decision of this administration to overthrow Saddam Hussein. I am proud of the liberation of 25 million Iraqis.

Watch it:

Rice tends to forget what she thought of Iraq prior to 9/11. In July 2001, Rice said on CNN: “In terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let’s remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.” (See the video.)

Digg It!

The Buffalo News reports that former Vice Presidential candidate John Edwards will debate Karl Rove on Sept. 26 on the campus of the University of Buffalo as part of the school’s Distinguished Speakers Series. In the midst of the U.S. attorney scandal, Edwards called on President Bush to “fire Karl Rove.” When Rove announced he was resigning from the White House, Edwards released a statement that simply read “Goodbye, good riddance.”

Jesse Helms, a North Carolina Republican known as “Senator No,” died today at the age of 86. Helms left the Senate in 2003 after serving five terms. The Heritage Foundation credits Helms with establishing “the conservative movement and became a powerful voice for free markets and free people.” During his political career, Helms “became a symbol of a particular brand of uncompromising, racially tinged social conservatism.” In his 1990 campaign for the Senate, Helms defeated the former African-American mayor of Charlotte, Harvey Gantt, with the help of this ad that preyed on people’s fears about affirmative action:

“It dealt with people’s worst fears,” Gantt later said of the ad. “In one sense, we thought the ad was political genius. In the other sense, we couldn’t believe that someone in 1990 would run an ad like that.”

UPDATE: Fox News phoned former Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS) for his reaction to Helms’ passing. “He had a philosophy, had principles he believed in, and he stood and fought for them,” Lott said, adding that he admired that Helms accomplished his work without being “mean-spirited and disrespectful.” Lott added:

Senator Helms did it by sometimes supporting things that surprised people. But if you looked at it, if you looked at his faith and principles he believed in, it made sense.

Watch it:

UPDATE II: Steve Benen highlights David Broder’s analysis of Helms’ legacy.

In April, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) waived at least 30 key environmental laws and regulations it claimed were impeding the completion of 670 miles of border fence. Environmental groups subsequently protested the decision.
Border residents have sued DHS for “hoodwink[ing] landowners into waiving their property rights.”

The El Paso Times reported yesterday that the environmental impacts of the fence were so severe that even the Environmental Protection Agency criticized it, reportedly voicing “serious concerns about how barrier fencing would affect habitat, animals and communities.”

According to documents obtained by the Sierra Club, the EPA warned DHS about the severe implications of extending the border fence. One official rated the project in the Lower Rio Grande Valley as “EC-2, Environmental Concerns-Insufficient Information“:

The draft Environmental Impact Study contains insufficient information for an adequate review. Of particular concern to EPA is the potential for long-term adverse environmental and ecological habitat impacts in the study area.

The EPA reported to DHS several deleterious impacts of the fence which DHS did not adequately consider:

– No mention of “how the wall would impact water quality.”

– No discussion of the “fence’s potential impact on migratory species or impact to their home range, in particular, large mammal species (e.g., deer or carnivores) or birds.”

– Maps created by DHS show that “the fence could run straight through houses and backyards.”

– “The fence could also cut off farmers from prime farmland close to the water.”

The EPA urged the Border Patrol to “consider alternative locations for fence placement that will result in the least impacts.” Ultimately, however, Chertoff issued “the biggest use of legal waivers since the administration started building the fence.” “From the EPA’s comments, it was clear they weren’t going to get any kind of go ahead anytime soon,” the Sierra Club noted.

Ironically, when pushing for the construction of the border fence in 2007, Chertoff remarked, “Illegal migrants really degrade the environment.”

Yesterday, the House Oversight Committee released documents revealing that the Bush administration knew in advance that a major Bush donor’s oil company, Hunt Oil, was trying to sign a contract with the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) to develop oil fields in the Kurdish region of Iraq in 2007. At the time, the State Department claimed it had “actively warned Hunt Oil” against the deal and President Bush said he “knew nothing about the deal.”

In the White House press briefing today, White House Press Secretary Dana Perino tried to spin the dissonance between the administration’s 2007 public comments and the documents released yesterday:

QUESTION: Who in the White House was aware of the negotiations between the Hunt Oil Company and the Kurdistan government?

PERINO: As far as I know, I don’t know of anybody who was aware of it, as we had said before. But the State Department had said that they had been aware of it and they had raised questions about it, and that’s what they’re maintaining today. So I don’t know of anybody in the White House who was aware of it.

Watch it:

Perino’s description of what happened in Sept. 2007 is selective and misleading. According to the documents released by the Oversight Committee, it actually appears that “State Department officials raised no objections to the contract.”

Three days before the oil deal was signed, Hunt’s general manager informed the State Department’s Regional Reconstruction Team that “Hunt is expecting to sign an exploration contract.” According to the general manager, no State Department officials said Hunt should “not pursue” the contract:

There was no communication to me or in my presence made by any of the 9 state department officials with whom I met prior to 8 September that Hunt should not pursue our course of action leading to a contract. In fact there was ample opportunity to do so, but it did not happen.

Unprompted, Perino brought up Hunt Oil CEO Ray Hunt’s letter to the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, informing them that “he would be traveling overseas.” She dismissed it as “routine.”

But Perino neglected to mention that more than a month before he informed the board of his travel plans, he sent a separate letter “making clear his intentions to pursue oil exploration in Kurdistan.”

Transcript: (more…)

A recent Department of Justice inspector general report found that starting in 2002, DOJ officials illegally used “political or ideological” factors in its hiring practices, choosing conservative credentials “over more qualified candidates with liberal-sounding résumés” and weeding out “candidates for career positions whom they considered “leftists.’” The LA Times reports today that one of the former applicants, who had actually worked at the department, is suing:

[O]ne of the applicants rejected for a position is suing for $100,000 in damages. Sean Gerlich has filed a class action suit. Gerlich says he was rejected because of his liberal affiliations, which officials dug up through Internet searches. […]

Daniel Metcalfe, Gerlich’s attorney and a Washington College of Law professor at American University, says his client was upset at being turned down in 2006 because he had received good marks during his previous stint as a Justice summer intern. In fact, Metcalfe says, his client was a law clerk to an unidentified chief in one of the department’s 40 components.

In honor of the upcoming Fourth of July holiday, this morning on her radio show, Diane Rehm hosted a segment on patriotism in America and asked her guests to give their personal meaning of the term. Author and journalist Haynes Johnson stated, “I don’t like people who beat their chests and say they’re more patriotic than their fellow Americans.” But conservative columnist Tony Blankley disagreed, saying one person can be “more patriotic” than another and even suggested that environmentalists are not patriotic:

BLANKLEY: I would take it [to] another area where I think patriotism is slipping…people who have views on the environment may feel that they’re more loyal[] to the environmental principle than they do to American advancement. We see this very specifically on the question of the Kyoto treaty.

Listen here:

Transcript: (more…)

During a Washignton Post online chat today, war and intelligence correspondent Dana Priest ridiculed the idea that Bush might attack Iran before he leaves office, dismissing as “an accepted notion in liberal circles” that has “no foundation“:

“Going to war with Iran” has become an accepted notion in liberal circles and every kernel of news gets fanned by people who believe — with no foundation in my opinion — that it’s only a matter of time before Bush pulls the proverbial trigger.

Americans hardly need to “fan” “every kernel of news” to come to the conclusion that Bush might be gearing up for an attack — or at least encouraging its ally, Israel, to attack in its stead. After all, neocon allies of the Bush administration — not liberals — strive constantly to make it clear that an attack is still very much a possibility:

John Bolton: The Isrealies attacking Iran “during President Bush’s term makes a lot of sense.”

Bill Kristol: When asked if “there’s any chance” Bush will attack Iran, Kristol replied, “I don’t think it’s out of the question.”

Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT): “I wish that this administration would specifically and clearly warn the Iranians that…unless they stop it, we’re going to take action. … They ought to believe that we’re going to hit those training camps.”

Daniel Pipes: Pipes said that the U.S. should tell Tehran to “watch out” for “an American attack,” adding, “Should the Democratic nominee win in November, President Bush will do something.”

Liz Cheney: “The time for diplomacy here is rapidly coming to an end.“

New reports indicate that the U.S. has already begun cross-border operations into Iran. Is it really so crazy for Americans to worry that Bush could launch a pre-emptive strike against a country that had not attacked us?

Yesterday, the House Judiciary Committee received a letter from Karl Rove’s attorney Robert Luskin, stating that his client refuses to testify before a House subcommittee, despite a congressional subpoena. He reiterated his offer to have Rove appear for an off-the-record interview, not under oath, about the prosecution of formerly Alabama governor Don Siegelman only. In a response to Luskin, Reps. John Conyers (D-MI) and Linda Sanchez (D-CA) reject the offer:

We want to make clear that the Subcommittee will convene as scheduled and expects Mr. Rove to appear, and that a refusal to appear in violation of the subpoena could subject Mr. Rove to contempt proceedings, including statutory contempt under federal law and proceedings under the inherent contempt authority of the House of Representatives.

Your letter states that Mr. Rove will not attend the hearing because he is “obligated” to disregard the subpoena as a result of the White House’s claim of immunity for former advisors. In fact, precisely the opposite is true. As a private party, Mr. Rove is “obligated” to comply with the subpoena issued to him and, at the very least, appear at the July 10 hearing.

In addition to the Siegelman matter, the committee has also asked Rove to testify on the politicization of the Justice Department, including the U.S. attorney scandal.

Today, the right-wing American Family Association (AFA) announced a boycott of McDonald’s. According to AFA, Ronald McDonald and his gang are part of giant gay agenda:

What the boycott of McDonald’s IS about

It is about McDonald’s, as a corporation, refusing to remain neutral in the culture wars. McDonald’s has chosen not to remain neutral but to give the full weight of their corporation to promoting the homosexual agenda, including homosexual marriage.

AFA is upset at McDonald’s for refusing to condemn Vice President of Communications Richard Ellis’s decision to serve on the Board of Directors of the National Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce (NGLCC). AFA President Donald Wildmon said the situation is “strange” because “it’s the family that McDonald’s appeals to — children’s playland, you know, all the little toys, all of that. And they are promoting a lifestyle that would utterly destroy the traditional family.”

So far, McDonald’s is holding strong, writing a letter to Wildmon on May 29 and rebuffing his attacks:

We treat our employees and our customers with respect and dignity, regardless of their ethnicity, religious beliefs, sexual orientation or other factors. We support our employees’ personal involvement in organizations of their choice.

Although AFA tries to make clear that it is NOT protesting McDonald’s “hiring homosexuals” or “homosexuals eating at McDonald’s,” as Good As You notes, “Whether it’s a direct attack on gay customer or employees or an attack on particular employees role in a pro-gay capacity, this situation is still about the company supporting diversity (something the AFA resists at every turn).”

AFA has a long history of silly, offensive boycotts against, among others, Wal-Mart (for selling “Brokeback Mountain” DVDs), Ford Motor Company (for advertising in gay-friendly publications), and the American Girl dolls (because the maker contributed to a youth organization that was pro-choice and supported the acceptance of lesbians). In 2005, it called off its unsuccessful nine-year boycott of Disney (for its “embrace of the homosexual lifestyle“).

McDonald’s should follow Disney’s lead and ignore the right-wing protests. After all, during the nine years AFA was boycotting Disney, the company saw record profits.

Digg It!

A few weeks ago, the site 23/6 made a parody of the “You Can’t Have Alex” MoveOn.org ad. The parody featured Laurie Kilmartin, who explained today, “We called it ‘John McCain, Meet William,’ with me as the mom and my son as ‘William.’” But on right-wing radio host Monica Crowley’s June 21 radio show, Crowley took credit for Kilmartin’s parody ad, claiming she made the ad to make fun of MoveOn.org:

She began tearing apart the MoveOn ad and she played our parody ad as she went to commercial, without crediting us. … When Monica came back from commercial, she played our parody again but this time she claimed she created it. “We put together a little spoof there of that MoveOn.org where the woman holds up her baby…”

As Kilmartin notes, this isn’t the first time Crowley has been caught “stealing.”

Some allies of President Bush are expressing frustration with how “the White House seems to be wasting Bush’s time on frivolous events” in the middle of an economic crisis, according to Political Bulletin:

“Look at the schedule for Monday,” says an outside Bush adviser. “A highlight of his day was witnessing a tee ball game. … He is being reduced to child’s play.” … There is growing concern among Bush allies that the Democrats will effectively portray the President and GOP candidate John McCain as out of touch.

(HT: Atrios)

On ABC’s Good Morning America, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) explained his recent trip to Colombia by noting his concern over “the continued flow of drugs from Colombia through Mexico into the United States.” “Drugs is a big, big problem in America,” said McCain. Watch it:

But as Politico’s Avi Zenilman points out, McCain’s dedication to fighting the “continued flow of drugs from Colombia” creates a “sticky problem” with his pledge to end earmarks as president.

The McCain campaign has previously pointed to the Congressional Research Service’s (CRS) definition of earmarks when explaining how it would cut $65 billion in earmarks from the federal budget. But as Center for American Progress Action Fund Senior Fellow Scott Lilly pointed out in April, CRS’s definition includes some foreign aid to countries like Israel and Colombia:

The answer is that there is very little that CRS counts as earmarks above and beyond those found by OMB or Taxpayers for Common Sense that McCain would want to be associated with cutting. Assistance for Israel is only the most obvious example. It is doubtful that McCain would choose to start his presidency by terminating drug eradication funds for Colombia, the long standing assistance program to Egypt and Jordan, or humanitarian aid to Haiti.

When pressed by ABC’s George Stephanopoulos about how his budget plans suggest he would cut aid for Israel, McCain said “Of course not. I’m not cutting aid to Israel.”

Is his position the same for Colombia’s drug eradication funds? If so, this is just another example of how McCain’s budget proposals are a “fantasy war on earmarks.”

Digg It!

In his Wall Street Journal column today, former Bush political guru and current informal McCain adviser Karl Rove criticizes Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) for using “his money advantage to launch the air war,” claiming that this “may not be as smart as it appears”:

Mr. Obama has used his money advantage to launch the air war. Starting June 20, Mr. Obama spent $4.3 million for 10 days of a televised, biographical ad covering 18 states. Mr. McCain countered on Monday with roughly $2.1 million for a week of ads in 11 states. Mr. Obama has now volleyed back, expanding his buy to 21 states for two additional weeks at a cost of $15 million – half for his original bio ad and half for a new ad on welfare reform.

But Rove’s analysis ignores the simple fact that it was actually Sen. John McCain who went on the air first. As the New York Post wrote on June 7th, McCain unveiled “the first major ad of the general-election campaign.” View the “launch of the air war” here.

Digg It!

Last night on his CNN show, Glenn Beck hosted failed GOP presidential contender — and ardent supporter of Sen. John McCain’s (R-AZ) presidential campaign — Rudy Giuliani. During the segment, Giuliani recycled the old thoroughly debunked GOP talking point that the U.S. needs to start drilling for off-shore oil because China is doing it off the coast of Cuba. But this time, Guiliani included a special twist in his argument — that China is taking “American oil“:

GIULIANI: And you look at — you look at Cuba … Cuba is going to allow China to drill for oil within 80 miles of Florida. And Florida had a 300-mile limit. So in essence, we have China drilling for American oil. […] An American company would do it much more carefully. It would be regulated better. We`ve got to open up all these other things.

Watch it:

Yesterday, the Washington Post’s Ben Pershing said the China/Cuba oil drilling claim is the GOP’s “myth that keeps on giving,” calling it “just too juicy not to repeat.” TPM has been keeping a fairly solid list of the large number of conservatives hyping the false story.

At a separate part of last night’s interview, Beck — a stringent global warming denier — tried to get Giuliani on board, asking: “You don’t buy into global warming, do you?” But Giuliani wouldn’t bite, responding, “Well, I do.” An astonished Beck quickly said, “Wait…do you believe that man is causing it?” Giuliani still wouldn’t take the bait: “I think there is more evidence that man is contributing it to than not.”

So it seems that while Giuliani actually believes that humans are causing global warming, his desire to keep drilling for more oil indicates that he has no interest in doing anything about it.

Digg It!

The White House announced this morning that Deputy Chief of Staff Joe Hagin will be leaving his job this month. “The President said that he thanks Joe for his service to the White House, that Joe’s been a loyal friend, and that he is excited about the next chapter in Joe’s life,” said Press Secretary Dana Perino. “Hagin sent an email to friends this morning, announcing he is leaving to take a private sector job.”

Earlier this week, Politico reported that Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) switched his vote and opposed an increase in Medicare payments to doctors, after he made a deal with the White House. Officials promised Specter, who has been diagnosed with Hodgkin’s disease, “an administrative fix to increase Medicare reimbursements for oncologists.” Yet at least one medical association, the American Society of Clinical Oncology, is “horrified” by Specter’s actions and assured Hill staff yesterday that it did not lobby him for the deal.

The monthly Labor Department jobs report released this morning says “payrolls dropped by 62,000” while the unemployment rate held steady at 5.5 percent. June marks the sixth month in a row that the economy has lost jobs. According to the Joint Economic Committee, nearly 440,000 jobs have been lost in 2008.

“Declaring that there will not be ‘another colonization of Iraq,’ Iraq’s foreign minister” indicated yesterday it was unlikely a security deal with the U.S. would be reached this year, “and that if one was, it would be a short-term pact.” American officials are no longer optimistic about reaching a quick agreement.

A federal judge said yesterday that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act established by Congress “was the ‘exclusive’ means for the president to eavesdrop on Americans.” Judge Vaughn R. Walker, the chief judge for the Northern District of California, “rejected the government’s claim that the president’s constitutional authority as commander in chief trumped that law.”

The Justice Department is currently considering “letting the FBI investigate Americans without any evidence of wrongdoing, relying instead on a terrorist profile that could single out Muslims, Arabs or other racial and ethnic groups.” The ACLU criticized the announcement, saying that the FBI could begin investigations simply “by assuming that everyone’s a suspect, and then you weed out the innocent.”

The Bush administration and the two major presidential campaigns are beginning “an unprecedented attempt to prevent the transfer of power in January from disrupting defense and counterterrorism efforts.” The Obama and McCain campaigns are compiling lists of potential nominees for counterterrorism positions so that they “can be vetted and confirmed as quickly as possible.”

On the trail today: Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) plans to hold a conversation with veterans in Fargo, ND, followed by a “family fun day” in Montana with his wife and daughters to celebrate July Fourth and his daughter Malia’s 10th birthday. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) is in Mexico to discuss free trade and the eradication of illegal drugs. (more…)