Republicans love to whine about those "activist" judges. It was the mantra of the right wing crazies every time a judge somewhere stood up for the rights of a minority, or a disenfranchised litigant. Former President GEORGE BUSH parroted the phrase thousands of times during his reign.

Ironically, it was a conservative Supreme Court, in a blatant demonstration of activism, that installed him as President, putting an end to vote counting in Florida that would have seen AL GORE elected had state law, and the process thereunder been allowed to proceed to conclusion. It was a stunning decision without precedent, and curiously, without any future ramifications. In the opinion, the Court held the decision was "limited to the present circumstances" and not to be cited as precedent in future cases. Indeed, it hasn't, much less even discussed, as if to be banished from even the memory of those who witnessed what amounted to a "coup" by the REHNQUIST court.

Fast forward to the ROBERTS court and one finds another activist decision, by another conservative Chief Justice, who promised us in his confirmation hearings, that he would not be an activist judge. Remember JOHN ROBERTS in those hearings in 2005, likening himself to a baseball umpire, merely calling strikes and balls. In a written response to the Judicial Committee's questions in this area, ROBERTS wrote this:

"It is difficult to comment on either “judicial activism” or “judicial restraint” in the abstract, without reference to the particular facts and applicable law of a specific case. On the one hand, courts should not intrude into areas of policy making reserved by the Constitution to the political branches. As Justice Frankfurter has noted, “Courts are not representative bodies. They are not designed to be a good reflex of a democratic society.” In our democratic system, responsibility for policy making properly rests with those branches that are responsible and responsive to the people. It was precisely because the Framers intended the judiciary to be insulated from popular political pressures that the Constitution accords judges tenure during good behavior and protection against diminution of salary. To the extent the term “judicial activism” is used to describe unjustified intrusions by the judiciary into the realm of policy making, the criticism is well-founded."

One could hardly imagine an intrusion into policy more daring than the decision last week by ROBERTS and the 4 other conservative members of the Supreme Court to allow corporations the free speech rights of individuals, and to allow them to pour unlimited amounts of money into political campaigns. EJ DIONNE of THE WASHINGTON POST called the decision by ROBERTS "reckless" and today writes:

"The Supreme Court's 5-4 decision last week giving American corporations the right to unlimited spending was an astonishing display of judicial arrogance, overreach and unjustified activism. Turning its back on a century of practice and decades of precedent, a narrow right-wing majority on the court decided to change the American political system by tilting it decisively in favor of corporate interests."

The decision is not an isolated one. In a ruling this month on the controversial District Court case in San Francisco on gay marriage and proposition 8, the Supreme Court took the extraordinary measure of intervening to stop that case from being televised, albeit in a limited manner, via a small network of other court houses in the area. The ruling was astonishing, in that the high court rarely involves itself in the domestic "housekeeping" matters of the individual district courthouses, particularly in an ongoing trial.

But more disturbing was the level of sensitivity and concern the very same conservative block of 5 justices had for the foes of same-sex marriage in this case. The justices agreed with the appellants in this matter-Proposition 8 defenders-that "irreparable harm will likely result" if video coverage of the proceedings, and more importantly, of witnesses testifying in support of the taking of marriage rights from homosexuals were to be disseminated to the public.

It should be noted that those witnesses are for the most part, professionals, and expert witnesses being paid handsomely foe their testimony. The act of giving this testimony is the very nature of their professions, and it is something they are used to doing on an everyday basis. These are not the types of witnesses who would be intimidated, or unlikely to proceed, merely because their participation might not be well received by the viewing of such testimony by the public.

Yet ROBERTS and his conservative cohorts thought strongly enough to weigh in on this trial, in this early stage, and to deny the public in California, where Proposition 8 has stirred so much interest, the ability to see this trial as it proceeds. The ultimate irony here is that President BUSH, and opponents of gay marriage have used the "judicial activism" nonsense to oppose gay marriage from the beginning. It was the activist judges in Massachusetts that started this whole mess, if we are to believe conservatives.

But it is the activist Supreme Court, and Chief activist JOHN ROBERTS who are showing their true colors at this time.

The corporate free speech decision has the possible effect of altering the 2010 midterm elections in a major way. It would mark the second time in a decade that the Supreme Court stepped into the political fray of electing the legislative body, in a way that couldn't be further from the republican ideal of "interpreting the law, not making it."

It was a humble JOHN ROBERTS who told the judicial committee before his appointment, "The proper exercise of the judicial role in our constitutional system requires a degree of institutional and personal modesty and humility."

Where has it gone, JOHN?

The Democrats are mourning the loss of their filibuster proof majority in the Senate today, as a result of the stunning upset in Massachusetts by SCOTT BROWN over hapless MARTHA COAKLEY. If you saw her concession speech last night it was painfully clear why she lost to the republican in independent's clothing. She was listless, and apparently clueless, taking a vacation to the Bahama's as BROWN gathered momentum in the weeks before the election.

But the defeat was a blessing in disguise for President OBAMA and the equally hapless democrats.
Or, at least it better be, on this anniversary of OBAMA'S inauguration.

Think about it. Just what has this filibuster proof majority done for liberal, democratic causes in the year since OBAMA took office?

It has elevated Senator LIEBERMAN to a position of power in the democratic party which he hardly deserves. Senator LIEBERMAN should be banished from any positions of power in the democratic party. Especially now. His power is seriously depleted by the election of a 41st republican senator. Force him to change parties and caucus with his own kind, and get him out of policy making for liberal, progressive causes.

Likewise Senators NELSON and SNOWE have been given too much influence. This is the Democratic party! Senators BOXER and FEINGOLD should be given as much, if not more sway than so called blue dogs and moderate republicans. How about giving independent BERNIE SANDERS more clout?

Filibuster proof has resulted in little significant legislation. No BUSH tax cuts. No reform of bankruptcy laws. No ban of stem cell research. All BUSH legacies passed with less than 60 votes. Much less.

Where was the democratic filibuster threat for the 8 years that W had his way with this nation's well being, right out in the open? The democrats mustered no perceivable obstacles to the railroading done by BUSH, CHENEY and RUMSFELD, despite holding significantly more seats than republicans do now.

How is it, relative lightweight, first-term Senator JIM DeMINT can hold up the nominee of TSA, over the issue of unionizing, at a time of national security for this country? Are we not at war? Where is the bully pulpit on this issue? Is this not treasonous? Nearly every objection democrats raised in the 8 years of BUSH/CHENEY was in some way a threat to the security and well being of our country, but DeMINT'S actions are exempt?

The American public was not even aware that republicans were holding this seat, and numerous others up, in an act of blatant political gamesmanship, until the Christmas Day incident exposed a glaring vacancy at the head of the TSA. That republican ploy nearly saw some 300 Americans killed. Nevertheless, it is republicans on this day, who are seen as the watchdogs of the American people. Come on!

It is republicans who are wary of too much "liberal" spending. That is why SCOTT BROWN beat MARTHA COAKLEY. Give me a break! These same republicans that nearly drove this country over a cliff allowing wall street and the banks to rob the American people blind. The very same republicans who did nothing on health care in 16 years since they retook congress in 1994, but who now are winning elections because of the democrats handling of the issue. Game over man.

Democrats barely got a moderate, wise Latina seated on the Supreme Court with nearly 2-1 majorities in both houses of congress, but BUSH got 2 conservative idealogues onto the court with nary a threat of a filibuster from the pliable Democrats, and considerably less advantage on Capital Hill.

For health care reform to go down on the vote of the Republican replacement for the seat of the late Senator EDWARD KENNEDY is a disgrace beyond comprehension. Senator KENNEDY spent his entire illustrious career fighting for this kind of legislative accomplishment. The irony would be funny if it were not so tragic. Yet, unless the President, and the Dems grow some big ones, and fast, that is how this is going to go down.

It's time for the Democrats to take control of this country. Elections have consequences, right? Who are they afraid of offending? The independent voters? Newsflash-they are already offended, and perhaps lost for good. Forget about them.

Progressives, liberals, democrats have 3 years, 2 of which may be without control of one or both houses of congress the way things are going. Pass healthcare by way of the reconciliation process, including enacting a strong public option. Get on to job creation, and fast. Push through reforms of the banking industry, the credit industry, environmental abuse, immigration reform, and any other important liberal causes before it is too late. The time for bipartisanship is gone. It was never here.

Next time around be prepared to use the filibuster option, for real. Oddly enough, Democrats might have another chance, much sooner than expected, to redeem themselves in this area.

President OBAMA made a bell ringing metaphor last week on the occasion of the passage of The Hate Crimes Bill. He recalled President JOHNSON who made the reference when he signed into law comprehensive civil rights legislation for minorities in 1968. "We can be proud that that bell rings even louder now and each day grows louder still," the President boasted.

On Tuesday, the GLBT community had its bell rung, by the majority of voters in Maine, who believe, as a minority group, gays and lesbians are not entitled to marriage, are not entitled to live in recognized families, and are not entitled to equality in this country. Voters in Washington state, by a slim margin, allowed civil unions to exist there, but nevertheless, gays and lesbians who seek to live in same-sex relationships even there are still second class citizens.

President OBAMA was silent on the referendums in Maine and Washington, just as he was not to be heard in the battle over Proposition 8 last year in California, where the majority stripped gays and lesbians of the right to marry. That right had been decided, by the state's Supreme Court months earlier, only to be rescinded by a simple majority vote of the people. Can you imagine what President OBAMA'S reaction might have been if, say, Louisiana put up for a majority vote, whether blacks could marry white's in that state? Or, say, if Arizona, decided to have a public election on whether Latinos could buy property in that state? I would say he would have weighed in on the issue. A lot of leaders would have weighed in. Bells would be going off like crazy.

But this is not OBAMA'S fight. In the campaign in 2008 he did not support gay marriage. As a result, church groups in California used his stated positions to convince people that he was in favor of the passage of Proposition 8. He never voiced opposition to the prospect that those rights could be taken away from Californians. And likewise, he did not voice disapproval of the citizens of Maine denying gays and lesbians there to marry, despite passage of the law in that state's legislature, and a signing by that state's governor. The case of Maine was not about "judicial activism", as some conservatives like to dissemble on this issue. It was enacted by the people's representatives, in a law signed by the state's chief officer. No matter.

If President OBAMA is indeed to be our bell ringer, he needs to say the following, fast, and loud, and often, and with feeling:

1. MARRIAGE IS A CIVIL RIGHT

2. CIVIL UNIONS and DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIPS ARE LIKE RIDING IN THE BACK
OF THE BUS. NO, THEY ARE LIKE RIDING IN A DIFFERENT BUS, WITHOUT A/C OR
WINDOWS. NO, THEY ARE LIKE WALKING. THEY ARE NOT EQUAL, PERIOD.

3. THE MAJORITY IN THIS COUNTRY IS NOT ABLE TO VOTE, BY A SIMPLE
MAJORITY, OR BY ANY MARGIN FOR THAT MATTER, FOR THE REMOVAL, DENIAL, OR ABRIDGEMENT IN ANY
WAY OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS OF CITIZENS OF THIS UNITED STATES.

4. CIVIL RIGHTS ARE NOT DETERMINED STATE BY STATE.

5. I WILL NOT STAND BY RINGING SILLY BELLS WHILE CANONS AND BOMBS ARE
GOING OFF IN THE GLBT COMMUNITY PERPETUATING THEIR TREATMENT AS SECOND CLASS CITIZENS.

6. FOR ONCE AND FOR ALL, GAYS, LESBIANS AND TRANSGENDERS ARE EQUAL
CITIZENS OF THIS COUNTRY, PERIOD, AND WE NEED TO START TREATING THEM ACCORDINGLY.

Until then, all the effort and best intentions on signing hate crimes legislation, fine tuning AIDS and immigration policy, adopting regulations that ban discrimination in federal hiring, approximating equality with regard to spousal benefits for gay and lesbian federal employees, referencing gays and lesbians in Family Day and Adoption Month proclamations, appointing gay ambassadors, and including gay families in Easter egg hunts is just a lot of bell.

San Francisco Mayor GAVIN NEWSOM pulled out of the governor's race Friday, issuing the following statement on his website:

"It is with great regret I announce today that I am withdrawing from the race for governor of California. With a young family and responsibilities at city hall, I have found it impossible to commit the time required to complete this effort the way it needs to — and should be — done.

This is not an easy decision. But it is one made with the best intentions for my wife, my daughter, the residents of the city and county of San Francisco, and California Democrats.

When I embarked on this campaign in April, my goal was to engage thousands and thousands of Californians dedicated to reforming our broken system and bringing change to Sacramento.

I would like to thank those supporters, volunteers, and donors who have worked so hard on my behalf. I have been humbled by their support and am indebted to their efforts. They represent the spirit of change and determination essential to putting California back on the right track.

I will continue to fight for change and the causes and issues for which I care deeply — universal health care, a cleaner environment, and a green economy for our families, better education for our children, and, of course, equal rights under the law for all citizens."

Speculation is that he was not able to raise the money needed to pull into contention with Attorney General JERRY BROWN, who is up by as much as 20 points in early polls. NEWSOM has ever been fundraising, and it's estimated he was in need of $5 million in the short term to make his campaign viable.

NEWSOM had embarked on a schedule that saw him reaching out to gays and lesbians, as well as minorities and "greenies" across the state, trying to capitalize on his strong positions on equal rights, immigration reform and recycling and green energy policy. He was recently grand marshal of LA and Long Beach Prides, tirelessly greeting spectators along the respective parade routes, as if he were at home on Market Street.

And he appeared with former President CLINTON at his side, at a rally for education funding in East Los Angeles on October 5, 2009.

President OBAMA may not be moving fast enough on issues important to GLBT people, but he is progressing on a number of issues that are no less important.

On the issue of drug policy, the administration took more steps towards a rationale drug enforcement policy, and continued the move from the draconian policies of the BUSH administration in this area.

Attorney General ERIC HOLDER announced today policies aimed at easing on the blanket crackdowns on medical marijuana dispensaries, in California, and the 13 other states where voters have decriminalized marijuana use in therapeutic circumstances.

"It will not be a priority to use federal resources to prosecute patients with serious illnesses or their caregivers who are complying with state laws on medical marijuana, but we will not tolerate drug traffickers who hide behind claims of compliance with state law to mask activities that are clearly illegal...This balanced policy formalizes a sensible approach that the Department has been following since January: effectively focus our resources on serious drug traffickers while taking into account state and local laws."

How refreshing, given the knee-jerk, out of touch policies implemented under BUSH and then Attorney General JOHN ASHCROFT. The full policy guidelines can be had at the Justice Department's website, http://blogs.usdoj.gov/blog/archives/192.

This move follows a series of others, including the naming of former Seattle police chief R. GIL KIRLIKOWSKE as the country's drug czar. KIRLIKOWSKE is a longtime proponent of reshaping the drug laws against enforcement against the user, and emphasizing treatment and education-a more practical approach favored by a growing number of progressive thinkers and realistic administrators. We are simply not winning the "war" on drugs, and "just say no" is pure folly, meanwhile supply continues to be available despite countless dollars being poured down the drain, or worse yet, into the hands of the drug cartels.

Last week the administration introduced legislation that would even up the disparate treatment afforded crack cocaine offenders, who are usually low income and/or minorities, and cocaine violators, which tend to be white-collar criminals, and get much less, if any jail time.

All this, while lifting the economy, managing the health care reform and processing 2 wars. Elections have consequences, and sometimes those consequences really do make a difference, a change, for the better.

Keep it coming Mr. President. Keep it coming!

Newsom known for his support of same-sex marriage had Clinton as guest of honor at a private fundraiser, where tickets were priced up to $50,000.

Clinton said the mayor “walked the walk” by making San Francisco one of the greenest cities in the nation.


Clinton has history with one of Newsom’s expected rivals for the Democratic nomination, current California Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown, whom Clinton ran against in 1992 for the Democratic presidential nomination.

for more info go to: http://www.gavinnewsom.com

Since leaving office by what most would describe as a tunneling out a rabbit hole-public approval in the teens, ostracized by the president, liked by nearly no one-Vice President DICK CHENEY has been running free, out in the open, valiantly trying to rewrite history. Someone has to do it, and President GEORGE W. BUSH has all but disappeared from the public stage. No doubt he is keeping up that reading list of his.

And God knows, history, for W and CHENEY needs to be revised if either is to have a legacy more elevated than a murderous despot or war criminal, or both.

CHENEY has been given platform after platform to espouse his Alice in Wonderland fantasies about what happened during the 8 years of the BUSH administration, but on Sunday he was really over the top. In a warm and snugly chat with CHRIS WALLACE on FOX NEWS SUNDAY from his ranch in Wyoming, CHENEY once again blasted the OBAMA administration for its decision to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the practices of the CIA during the BUSH/CHENEY reign. In doing so, the vice president accused OBAMA of using his Justice Department to politicize the issue.

Now if that isn't the Pot Pol calling the kettle black. No pun intended. If ever there was a Justice Department that was a political tool of a president, or in this case, a vice president, it was JOHN ASHCROFT and ALBERTO GONZALEZ serving at the pleasure of BUSH/CHENEY. And they wanted to get HARRIET MIERS into that job. Can you just imagine? She was "the most qualified" lawyer in the country, according to W. Then again, compared to BERTO...

Oh, sure, NIXON and ROBERT BORK did some shocking things in the midst of Watergate, but that charade was quickly righted and NIXON was eventually forced to resign in disgrace and shame. ROBERT BORK got his, in large part, thanks to now deceased Senator EDWARD KENNEDY, who reminded him of his discretions on his waltz to be named Supreme Court Justice. Payback is a bitch.

But BUSH and CHENEY ran a corrupt Justice Department, out in the open, for the full 8 years of their administration . They thoroughly politicized the department, and brazenly attempted to use it to paper over the many laws and abuses which they had committed. It was more like the management division of the White House than the lawyer for the people.

And now, CHENEY is out in the open, flaunting it in public. Shouting it from the rooftops, or at least on FOX, where he is something of a patron saint. It's about time for this guy to face a grand jury. Then we can let him off the hook to shrink down his rabbit hole in Wyoming, never to be heard from again. Just like his cohort. Who knew BUSH was so smart?

President OBAMA didn't want to reopen that can of worms. He didn't want his administration to spin out of control through the looking glass of BUSH/CHENEY schemes and indiscretions. After all, OBAMA doesn't have the time to police all the laws BUSH and CHENEY broke; he's too busy fixing all the things they just screwed up really badly, without ever really breaking any laws. That alone could doom OBAMA to one term.

When it was clear that BUSH or CHENEY, or both condoned water boarding in violation of US and international law, OBAMA announced it was not his intention to hold CIA employees responsible for following the policies set by the president and vice president. They, after all, got prominent lawyers in the Justice Department, to cover their asses with legal opinions concluding it was lawful to water board. Those two, JAY BYBEE, now a federal judge in a full circle case study of the politicization of the justice system, and JOHN YOO, an embattled law professor at UC BERKLEY, are perhaps feeling some heat. CHENEY forecast that the OBAMA administration may prosecute them for their opinions, which might indicate he knows something is coming. Or, it could just be CHENEY, politicizing the media the way he has done since leaving office. In reality, it would seem extremely difficult to prosecute either BYBEE or YOO.

But when further information came out about the treatment of prisoners in the US and outside of our soil, information like electric drills and threat of rape of prisoners mothers or children, and other atrocities, ERIC HOLDER, President OBAMA's independent Attorney General, had little choice but to open an investigation. CHENEY thinks it "outrageous" and "intensely partisan", "an outrageous political act." It "offends the hell out of me, frankly."

If only. CHENEY needs the hell taken out of him, but good. What is outrageous and political is DICK CHENEY, and everything he had his hands in for the last 8 years.

This investigation is one of dozens, any one of which should result in the veep and perhaps even potus himself, to be perp-walked off to jail like BERNIE MADOOF, for 150 years. Maybe more. Pick your high crimes or misdemeanor. These guys were quite good at it. Nearly every day in office they were involved in some scandal that was potentially illegal. Was it the secretive energy meetings CHENEY held in his first days in office that might have shaped the need to go to war? Or maybe it was purely financial gain for Haliburton and other of CHENEY's friends. There were the illegal wire taps, the fear tactics associated with the color coded homeland security warnings, timed so closely to the 2004 election. Renditions. How in the world are those legal. Or the assassinations farmed out to defense department contractors. How about the firing of US Attorneys for not prosecuting democrats in tight election races? How many people were "murdered" by this administration after Hurricane Katrina swept through New Orleans? Don't forget the Valerie Plame firing. If that wasn't treason, what is? There was the fraud perpetrated on the UN and the entire planet to precipitate the war in Iraq which is still ongoing. How many soldiers died from negligent administration of that war? Don't forget, CHENEY was once Secretary of Defense. Negligent homicide will get you a date on the cot with Bubba every night, just the same as first degree murder. The list goes on and on. What about stealing the election in 2000? That's when this crime saga began.

Just for fun, CHENEY refused to say if he would cooperate with the investigation. "It will depend on the circumstances and what I think their activities are really involved in," CHENEY told WALLACE. He also said he would have no problem had the interrogators gone beyond even the torturous activities proscribed by the outlandish legal opinions of Justice Department lackeys BYBEE and YOO. When WALLACE asked, "So even those cases where they went beyond the specific legal authorization, you're OK with it?"

CHENEY replied "I am."

In a final flourish, the vice president indicated he disagreed with President BUSH in that he thought we should bomb Iran before they left office to thwart that countries efforts to develop nuclear weapons.

Now there's the coup de grace! What kind of mess would we be in with 3 wars going now, including a war in Iran? Or would that be 1 war, us against the entire Middle East? In an interview where he railed about his concerns for America's security under the OBAMA administration, CHENEY revealed his own desires to obliterate the planet. It's our only hope. Yeah, that'll keep us safe.

So will disgracing this man, and President GEORGE W.BUSH, and illuminating for history what kinds of criminals they really were. Let the investigations go forward. Seat the grand jury. Appoint a dozen prosecutors. Who knows? Maybe we'll find W wasn't that bad a guy after all. He was just held slave for 8 years, but allowed to sleep in a nice house, instead of a makeshift shanty behind the vice president's mansion.

Vice President Dick Cheney speaking in Los Angeles in 2004 before the World Trade Council.

photos by: Mike Skiff

A MESSAGE FROM PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA:

"Bill -- Michelle and I were heartbroken to learn this morning of the death of our dear friend, Senator Ted Kennedy. For nearly five decades, virtually every major piece of legislation to advance the civil rights, health and economic well-being of the American people bore his name and resulted from his efforts. His ideas and ideals are stamped on scores of laws and reflected in millions of lives -- in seniors who know new dignity; in families that know new opportunity; in children who know education's promise; and in all who can pursue their dream in an America that is more equal and more just, including me. In the United States Senate, I can think of no one who engendered greater respect or affection from members of both sides of the aisle. His seriousness of purpose was perpetually matched by humility, warmth and good cheer. He battled passionately on the Senate floor for the causes that he held dear, and yet still maintained warm friendships across party lines. And that's one reason he became not only one of the greatest senators of our time, but one of the most accomplished Americans ever to serve our democracy. I personally valued his wise counsel in the Senate, where, regardless of the swirl of events, he always had time for a new colleague. I cherished his confidence and momentous support in my race for the Presidency. And even as he waged a valiant struggle with a mortal illness, I've benefited as President from his encouragement and wisdom. His fight gave us the opportunity we were denied when his brothers John and Robert were taken from us: the blessing of time to say thank you and goodbye. The outpouring of love, gratitude and fond memories to which we've all borne witness is a testament to the way this singular figure in American history touched so many lives. For America, he was a defender of a dream. For his family, he was a guardian. Our hearts and prayers go out to them today -- to his wonderful wife, Vicki, his children Ted Jr., Patrick and Kara, his grandchildren and his extended family. Today, our country mourns. We say goodbye to a friend and a true leader who challenged us all to live out our noblest values. And we give thanks for his memory, which inspires us still.

Sincerely,

President Barack Obama"

click here to view Senator EDWARD KENNEDY's last speech in Los Angeles.

DICK CHENEY sat with BOB SHIEFFER Sunday morning for another one of his mind-boggling exit interviews on the performance of the BUSH administration.  It was a bit of a love fest, with SHIEFFER starting out the interview recollecting his first interview with CHENEY more than 35 years ago, when the vice president was a lad of 32.

CHENEY continued his rewriting of history, failing to admit many failures, touting the administration’s efforts to keep the country safe, and vowing to do it all over again given the chance.  He even went as far to say OBAMA and future administrations should follow the very same policies.

“We were very careful, we did everything by the book, and in fact, we produced very significant results.  I would hope for the sake of the nation that this administration (OBAMA’S) and future administrations will continue those policies.”

Yeah right!

By the book?  What book would that be? 

Very careful?  The post war planning in Iraq was about as textbook careless and bungling in negligence as to astound.  And that is just a drop in the bucket that spills over to a flood of the mess that BUSH and CHENEY have wrought.  But he wants OBAMA to do more of the same.

When asked about Guantanamo, CHENEY continued his farce, “Guantanamo is there to hold people we believe are unlawful combatants that were captured in the war on terror, many of them members of Al Queda.  They are well treated…”

What! 

Hello BOB.  Are you listening to this?

Well treated?  Is it well treatment to be captured, incarcerated, held without charges, denied legal representation, or redress before a legal tribunal, indefinitely?  In what book does that qualify as being treated well?

Today’s New York Times outlines the story of one MUHAMMAD SAAD IQBAL.  It is largely uncorroborated, but that is by design of our US government rather than lack of journalistic effort.  If even a fraction of it is accurate, it’s clear the detainees held at Guantanamo were anything but well treated.

Mr. IQBAL was arrested in 2002, not in Iraq, or Afghanistan, but in Indonesia.  He was not so much a “combatant” as he was a teller of tales.  He was taken not from some battlefield in the bustling city of Jakarta, but from his 1-room apartment in the city.  He was supposedly detained for bragging several days earlier about knowledge of how to make a shoe bomb.  That’s it.

For that, he was held, without charges, without representation, and without recourse for 6 years.  Along the way he was renditioned to Egypt where, if his story is true, he was tortured, deprived of sleep, left standing for days at a time and kept in a small dirt cell for upwards of 6 months before being moved to Guantanamo.

Once at the Cuban “resort” IQBAL was treated so well he tired to commit suicide twice, went on 3 hunger strikes, lost the ability to walk without assistance, nearly lost hearing in an infected ear, and became addicted to a cocktail of pharmaceuticals and anti-depressants?  Is this the treatment of which CHENEY speaks?

How many others have similar, or worse stories?  One can only imagine, until the books are written. 

How in the world could BOB SHIEFFER sit there and listen to CHENEY spew this crap, and on FACE THE NATION.  I had respect for this show, respect for BOB.  No more.

Will CHENEY, and BUSH for that matter, ever really face the nation?
One can only hope, BOB SHIEFFER notwithstanding.