In hammering away at, and finally finishing off, the Alzheimer's-like Alberto Gonzales, the Democrats (and Arlen Specter) were well on their way to bringing the Administration down. Gonzo's strategic importance is shown by the fact that the President himself risked exposure in personally directing Gonzo to write notes that the IG, Glenn Fine, believes might have been fabricated at the President's own direction.

This immediately brings to mind Ron Suskind's allegation that Bush and/or Cheney ordered CIA officials to fabricate evidence that Saddam was in cahoots with Osama bin Laden. Of course this explosive revelation has been all but forgotten, since no one wants to consider what the Constitution prescribes for such cases. Barton Gellman's report that Cheney lied to Dick Armey, then House Majority Leader, was even more shocking, and prompted some, whom one would think sober thinkers, to consider what would be done, did we presently have a Congress that was other than what it was, and that did what it is supposed to do when lied to about matters of war.

Now one wonders whether, as a result of the President's approval rates sinking to new lows, and Election Day fast approaching, Republicans eager to distance themselves from Bush will be less interested in letting these latest suspected "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" go; and, among Democrats who have finally learned how to call a Republican a liar, there is any interest at all in finding the truth.

One thing is clear: If our Congress suddenly discovers new powers of self-assertion, and decides to appoint a Special Prosecutor, they will have an enormous obstacle in Attorney General Michael Mukasey.

The reason Bush went so far as to implicate himself directly in what might become a criminal matter was that he could rely on Gonzo to guarantee that Bush would never have to face a Special Prosecutor.

It was apparent from the beginning that Mukasey saw his role as chief law officer of the nation as merely cover for his making sure that Bush remained a law unto himself. Had Gonzo's departure not been followed by Mukasey's prompt installation, we might have seen whatever a Congresionally-appointed  Special Prosecutor might have been able to turn up, and then who knows what might have happened?

Bush has reason to be grateful to Sens. Feinstein and Schumer, his Democratic co-conspirators in evading the law and the consequences of his actions. The nation has reason to be outraged at all three.

But unfortunately, we still have one in D.C.

Specifically, this is how Drone No.2 reacted to the loss of Drone No.1:
-------
"Your words have been very strong about Pakistan's sovereign right and sovereign duty to protect your country, and the United States wants to help," Bush said.

------

Sovereign. So that is the word this drone knows that will, according to his programmers in the NSA or the sixteen other top-secret organizations, some of whose acronyms are even State Secrets, soothe irate Pakistanis. 

These agents may be well-hidden, and they may be pioneering Artificial Intelligence (hmm, that's a thought, our intelligence agencies can be reclassified "artificial intelligence" agencies, or AIA), but artificial is not necessarily better. In fact, having a prosthetic brain is not yet an advantage over natural ones, since common sense and a proper updating system are not yet present in these machines.

This Pakistani drone incident is the ideal illustration. Bush's diplomats have been robotically mouthing this sovereign phrase, no doubt because our diplomatic corps is programmed in Langley (or wherever) by NSA spooks whose ignorance of human nature rivals their ignorance of the "facts on the ground" in South Waziristan (where this drone came down).

If only these insular programmers had read this editorial
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2008\09\21\story_21-9-2008_pg3_2 where this astute Pakistani editorialist takes Bush's emissaries to task for this meaningless word, sovereign:
---------
"The current tension in Pak-US relations was defused by the visit to Islamabad of Admiral Michael Mullen, Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff. On September 17, he reiterated US “commitment to respect Pakistan’s sovereignty”.

Within hours of Adm Mullen’s departure from Islamabad, an Afghanistan-based US drone launched a new missile attack in North Waziristan, killing six people. This gave rise to yet another controversy in Pakistan about the divergence between Adm Mullen’s statement and the actions of US military authorities in Afghanistan."


-------------
Dr. Rizvi, the astute writer of this editorial, has located the crux in this issue of drones, which are after all not devices which think for themselves: The Americans' words are meaningless, and they love to mouth a multisyllable, sovereignty:

--------

"US statements from civilian and military officials regarding Pakistan often contradict each other. The typical pattern is that an American official defends military operations in the tribal areas but at the same time talks of respect for Pakistan’s sovereignty, maintaining that the US wants to work with Pakistan on countering terrorism."

--------

But Dr. Rizni does not press his reasoning further, and consider that it was not just a drone that violated Pakistani sovereignty, but also a drone that came to argue, bizarrely, that we upheld the same.

So, having cut short his reflections prematurely, on the nature of those syllable-mouthing Americans, Dr. Rizni draws the natural, but in this case incorrect, inference, that we are hypocrites of the first order, and I have no doubt he speaks for many, many others in Pakistan.

But we are not hypocrites. We are simply drones.

(This post originated as a response to clearthinker's post here http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/09/ripper-gets-it-wrong-again-the.php
and subsequent comments, specifically one of Ripper McCord's comments:

"I certainly agree that we are depleting our energy resources, but it is an overabundance of unpriceable debt, not a shortage of oil or other energy sources, that is causing financial institutions to fail."


 Its main inspirations, besides their comments, are caffeine and wikipedia, with the caffeine by far the predominant element, and a desire not to clog another thread with probably off-target ruminations. I am, however, eager to be educated in this matter, but few may have the patience to do so, or the "insights" herein may have derailed me so thoroughly that I am incorrigible.)

Aren't the increase in unpriceable debt, and the shortage of natural resources, two aspects of the same phenomenon?
My simplistic (mis)understanding is that during the Great Depression, money became 'trapped' in pockets and could not sustain the economic structure needed to keep monetary exchange flowing, so due to this collapse of monetary transit, productivity fell and this produced of a vicious cycle of monetary uselessness because it could not be exchanged properly.
In contrast, it seems that rather than money being trapped and so losing its ability to be properly exchanged, the opposite is happening: The economic highways are working too well, and money is overly 'dispersed,' not 'trapped.' In other words, it is spread too thinly, not clumped and immobilized. The lack of any standard helped create this problem because standards (gold, oil, etc.) change hands less quickly than money itself and act as a brake on currency's movement.
And of course it takes resources to propel money. Propelling money too fast causes loss of control of the money AND the rapid draining of the engine that keeps it moving. Our resources are not equal to the propulsion, so this economic infrastructure is worthless to us(a highway with no drivers). And the infrastructure was itself our main resource, which we spent great sums constructing!

This bailout is cause for alarm for many reasons, but one is surely its concern to make sure lawbreakers within the Government, who were instigating this behavior, will never be sued, and their own roles (which would enrage ordinary Americans, if they became known) will stay hidden forever,  by railroading Congress into becoming complicit:

 

Should it survive, the judicial-bypass provision likely would prevent a recurrence of the lawsuit flurry that followed the government's 1989 bailout of the troubled savings and loan industry. Investors and thrifts filed more than 120 suits, claiming regulators broke promises of special regulatory treatment.

``One of the reasons they want the nonreviewability provision is they got bogged down in lawsuits for a decade or more after they stepped in to take over the savings and loans that were insolvent,'' Pritchard said.

The suits collectively sought tens of billions of dollars in damages from the government.



Lawsuits, of course, are about more than money. They are a means of bringing facts to light, which is anathema to this Government.

I think Pakistanis suspect us of... not being candid with them. Bush's good friend Musharraf, who had the same enlightened views about laws that Bush himself did (i.e., he ignored them), faced a consequence fortunately laughable here, a threat of impeachment, and was sent on his way. The Bush Administration expressed deep regret that was the heartfelt expression of sympathy for this one man who had defied the will of so many....

Now there is an attempt to restore the rule of law in Pakistan, and predictably, this does not bode well for us(does it ever?). The new leaders are venting at us, and this editorial
nicely captures their newfound disgust with what they see as our incredible hypocrisy.

Now, we are bombing their Tribal Regions, and no doubt our laser-guided strikes are guided by the infallible knowledge that anyone who lives in a place called South Waziristan is a terrorist, because that is where terrorists live.

Now, a rational nation, unencumbered by the rule of law, might demand that we bomb more in these backwater Tribal Regions, seeing that what happened to the Marriott Hotel is an object lesson in not sending enough Anmerican bombers to kill terrorists before they bomb anyone themselves.

But Pakistan, perversely, doesn't see it this way. And while I have seen disturbing reports that maybe Pakistanis aren't on our side  these days, I will ignore those for now, and attack their willful misunderstanding of our policy. The cardinal axiom of the GWOT is If terrorists don't follow the law, no one else should , either.
Since that is the express policy of our President, and furthermore affirmed by our Congress, we have to assume Pakistanis are aware of it.

But since neither terrorists nor Americans follow laws, what makes us better than them?

Try this: We respect national sovereignty. Bush's press secretaries love to say this (the irate Pakistani editorialist: "The White House spokesperson also continues to engage in double-talk."). And our diplomatic corps, apparently, has been trying to get the message across that our bombs falling on their territory, and our respect for their sovereignty, don't contradict each other.

What is sovereignty, but the established right of a nation to enforce its own laws over its own territory, as it pleases? But the GWOT removes this provision, and sovereignty means whatever we say it means now. Maybe the best way, in fact, since we are in new semantic territory (and I can only guess at the new reality here), for us to uphold a nation's sovereignty, is to bomb it.

(But, not bomb it like terrorists do. That means, if there was a Marriott hotel in South Waziristan, we would not bomb it. That shows we respect sovereignty, unlike the terrorists.)

Who is to say Pakistanis, who sent a once sovereign leader, Musharraf, packing, know what it means to be sovereign, more than we do? (After all, if they had only rigged their elections a little better [we, I admit, are somewhat at fault here, since we sent Harriet Miers for this purpose, instead of Karl Rove, not realizing that she might have had a slight conflict of interest], this dispute about sovereignty wouldn't even be happening.)

Pakistanis accuse us of being Orwellian double-speakers, when in fact GWOT has been a war on meaning itself.

I don't see what's so hard to understand about that.