Uh-oh, someone emailed us this editorial from the Rutland Herald, published on August 16, 2001, while Howard Dean was still Governor. Before commenting, we'd like to hear Dr. Dean's response. We reprint it in it's entirety:

For the Defense

Dean chose not to reappoint Appel for a third four-year term as defender general, the state official who heads the state’s public defender program. In appointing Valerio, of Proctor, the new defender general, Dean had kind words for Appel. But Appel had clashed with Dean on numerous occasions in his efforts to secure for his office the resources necessary to fulfill his duties conscientiously.

Just two years ago Dean tried to prevent Appel from accepting a $150,000 federal grant aimed at assisting defendants with mental disabilities. For Dean to block a government agency from receiving federal money was unusual in itself. But Dean’s openly expressed bias against criminal defendants provided a partial explanation.

Dean has made no secret of his belief that the justice system gives all the breaks to defendants. Consequently, during the 1990s, state’s attorneys, police, and corrections all received budget increases vastly exceeding increases enjoyed by the defender general’s office. That meant the state’s attorneys were able to round up ever increasing numbers of criminal defendants, but the public defenders were not given comparable resources to respond.

It's time for an update on LA Police Chief William Bratton. The LA Times reports that the LAPD is trying a softer touch in its approach to gang violence in South Central LA. While not everyone in the community agrees, we continue to give Bratton high marks:

Chastened by a history of aggressive tactics that backfired, Los Angeles police are trying a softer, more sophisticated approach in their latest efforts to crack down on gang-related street violence. They are being more careful about whom they go after, they say, and more mindful of how they are perceived.

As Police Chief William J. Bratton rolls out new programs designed to suppress violence in time for the summer's hottest months, he says people should notice a change....

With respect to some recent raids,

Rather than saturate neighborhoods with police to intimidate gangs — tactics that once earned the LAPD a reputation for indiscriminate harassment and the moniker of an occupying army — officers tried to tread lightly this time.
They carried warrants — zeroing in on only a few individuals rather than conducting mass sweeps — and tried to show more consideration for law-abiding residents. They tried to do more explaining and display more courtesy.

The new way, Chief Bratton said, is for anti-gang tactics to be more focused. "We are not going to repeat the mistakes of the past and line up every black and Latino kid against a wall just because they are dressed like a gang member," he said.

The San Francisco Chronicle has some new details in the possible sexual assault charge against Kobe Bryant. The DNA test results could be announced Monday. The Colorado Bureau of Investigation all but confirms the case is a "he said, she said" by this comment:

We're looking for any exchange of bodily fluids. The idea is to shed some light on the victim's story or the suspect's story and corroborate either one, " said Pet Mang, deputy director of the Colorado Bureau of Investigations.

No one really knows what the 19 year old woman's job was at the Cordillera Lodge. That may be because the lodge is so small that everyone "multi-tasks."
The Chronicle alleges that Kobe and the woman were "flirting" when he checked in--and that later, she was "apparently summoned" to Bryant's room.

Gary Hart writes about Bush and the War in Iraq in light of the uranium fiasco and the lack of progress in the terror war:

Meanwhile, what happened to the vaunted “war on terrorism”? No Osama bin Laden, “dead or alive”. Almost two years after 9.11 our States and cities are not prepared for the next attack. The suddenly silent John Ashcroft is managing to make more and more Americans nervous. The CIA has, once again, been made the fall guy for an administration’s excesses. George Tenet accepts responsibility for not taking key words out of a presidential speech? That’s not the question. The question is: Who put those words in?

...The American people have given the Bush administration great leeway to combat terrorism. So far they have given the President the benefit of the doubt. But our tolerance is being strained and our credulity sorely tested. I sense we're reaching the "tipping point" where it all starts going south.

More is at stake than George Bush's future or partisan advantage. The honor and reputation of the United States is now at stake. We cannot claim to be "the world's leading democracy" and commit the power of the United States to a war that, so far, has been justified on false grounds. The wheels of justice grind exceeding fine. And judgment day is coming.

We were out of town and missed our good pal Skippy's first anniversary. He's taking comments, so go over and wish him many more. Skippy is one of the most generous linkers out there, and has a unique, extremely upbeat blogging voice. We bet if you submitted five blog entries to us, we could pick Skippy's out every time. (no money on the bet though.) Anyway, congrats, Skippy, and thank you for your many kind words about TalkLeft during the past year.

Sen. Joe Biden's 'Rave Act' (renamed the Illicit Drug Anti-Proliferation Act of 2003) is still drawing well-deserved criticism. Biden slipped the Act into the Amber Alert bill that became law on April 30, 2003. Critics charge that the law

... could not only throw innocent promoters in jail, but also scare off property owners from renting out halls, clubs and fields for any event - from concerts to political rallies - where someone might use an illegal drug. That, they say, could violate Americans' rights to free speech and free assembly.

"The law is so wide open that it could shut down anything, like a Rolling Stones concert, a hip-hop show, any kind of show," says Alex Virasayachack, a Cleveland promoter and disc jockey. "It's a pretty Draconian thing," says Marvin Johnson, a counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union. "Owners and promoters can go to jail for something that they have no control over."

As evidence of their charge, critics point to the DEA's actions in Montana last month which resulted in NORML cancelling a benefit.

The Drug Enforcement Administration has acknowledged that an Eagles Lodge in Billings canceled a May 30 concert scheduled on its property after a DEA agent showed up that day with a copy of the new law and suggested the lodge could be held liable if concertgoers used drugs. The concert was a money-raiser for the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws. Ed Childress, a DEA spokesman in Washington, said the incident appears to have resulted from a misinterpretation of the law by the local DEA agent.

The DEA says it has drawn up guidelines for the enforcement of the Act.

Prosecutions will be aimed, he said, at people holding events "for the intended purpose of promoting" drug use or sales. The agency also has directed agents to coordinate any enforcement of the law with headquarters, he said.

....The real targets of the law, he said, are people who promote electronic-music dance parties known as "raves" in a way that makes clear that drugs like Ecstasy will be available.

The assurances of the DEA that concert promoters and business owners won't be charged just because patrons illegally use drugs at a concert is somewhat reassuring. But, these are guidelines only, which means they could be revised. Guidelines are not law. The law still needs to be amended to make this point clear. [link via What Really Happened]

The Guardian has an extensive report on the Bush Administration's marketing of the Iraq war, Trading on Fear, by public relations analysts analysts Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber.

From the start, the invasion of Iraq was seen in the US as a marketing project. Selling 'Brand America' abroad was an abject failure; but at home, it worked. Manufacturers of 4×4s, oil prospectors, the nuclear power industry, politicians keen to roll back civil liberties - all seized the moment to capitalise on the war.

Our favorite part is the description of the Administration's assault on civil liberties since 9/11:

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld appeared on Meet the Press this morning. He said we should expect more Iraqi attacks on U.S. troops this summer--that we are still at war--and that our troops will be there "for the forseeable future." Currently, there are about 150,000 U.S. troops in Iraq.

Since May 1, when Bush declared the end of major combat in Iraq, 31 U.S. soldiers have been killed and "scores have been wounded in hit-and-run attacks."

Sixth Circuit Appeals Court Judge Gilbert Merritt is in Iraq studying documents as one of 13 experts selected by Department of Justice to help rebuild Iraq's judicial system. He writes in The Tennessean that he has come across a "List of Honor" published in November, 2002 in the Babylon Daily Political Newspaper, run by Uday Hussein. The list contains the names of 600 people deemed to be regime persons.

Judge Merritt writes:

Halfway down the middle column is written: ''Abid Al-Karim Muhamed Aswod, intelligence officer responsible for the coordination of activities with the Osama bin Laden group at the Iraqi embassy in Pakistan.''

Judge Merritt then reports:

At the same time this was published, Saddam was denying that he had any relationship with Osama. Therefore Saddam had all the papers confiscated, and he ordered that publication of the paper be stopped for 10 days.

From this, Judge Merritt concludes:

I believe that President Bush was right when he alleged that Saddam was in cahoots with Osama and was coordinating activities with him.

It does not prove that they engaged together in any particular act of terror against the United States.

But it seems to me to be strong proof that the two were in contact and conspiring to perform terrorist acts.

Instapundit takes this as extremely significant proof of the Saddam/Osama connection. We don't think anyone ever denied there is a relationship between Saddam and Osama. But where is the proof they "conspired to commit terrorist acts?" We think the critical sentence in Judge Merritt's article is this one:

It does not prove that they engaged together in any particular act of terror against the United States.

There still has not been any evidence that we are aware of that Saddam was a part of 9/11 or any specific terrorist act against the U.S. We take Judge Merritt at his word, but we don't think this information in any way establishes the need for a preemptive strike against Iraq.

In fact, the Associated Press reported yesterday:

"There was no significant pattern of cooperation between Iraq and the al-Qaida terrorist operation," former State Department intelligence official Greg Thielmann said this week. Intelligence agencies agreed on the "lack of a meaningful connection to al-Qaida" and said so to the White House and Congress, said Thielmann, who left State's Bureau of Intelligence and Research last September. Another former Bush administration intelligence official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, agreed there was no clear link between Saddam and al-Qaida. "The relationships that were plotted were episodic, not continuous," the former official said.

Update: SKBubba has this priceless gem about the Osama-Saddam connection. Too funny.

Michael Kramer of the New York Daily News explains why Bush could be a one-termer.

Update: The latest Washington Post-ABC News poll shows support for Bush is declining. Daily Kos has analysis of the poll here. We find this aspect of the poll significant:

And for the first time, slightly more than half the country -- 52 percent -- believes there has been an "unacceptable" level of U.S. casualties in Iraq, up eight points in less than three weeks.

It's only going to get worse for Bush as casualties increase and Saddam remains at large.

Kos also examines the latest Newsweek poll which finds the Dems are now evenly matched against Bush.

This is not good news for Dog the Bounty Hunter, also known as Duane "Dog" Chapman. We also wonder whether Puerto Vallarta has a rabid prosecutor on its hands.

Marco Roberto Juarez, a state prosecutor in Puerto Vallarta ... wants to slap Chapman with organized-crime charges and is preparing to ask for his extradition. "We are going to make this a precedent to show that you can't just come here and do this kind of thing with impunity," Juarez said.

Organized crime offenses? Talk about trumping up charges...

[comments now closed]

The Democrats vying for the presidential nomination are going after Ashcroft. Our favorite quotes:

Richard Gephardt: "In my first five seconds as president, I would fire John Ashcroft as attorney general."

John Edwards: "We can not allow people like John Ashcroft to take away our rights and our freedoms."

John Kerry: "When I am president of the United States, there will be no John Ashcroft trampling on the Bill of Rights."

Kerry advisor Chris Lehane, who was Al Gore's press secretary, chimes in: "He is a living, breathing troglodyte who happens to run the Justice Department."

Even Republicans are getting in the act:

Some Republicans expressed concern about potential damage the often unvarnished Mr. Ashcroft might cause this president. "None of those Democrats can beat George Bush, but John Ashcroft can," said one Republican strategist.