On Tuesday May 1st, the United States will mark the fourth anniversary of President Bush's declaration of "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq. But as the carnage continues and the war funding debate rages, President Bush and allies in the conservative amen corners can only offer the American people new and recycled talking points to sell his catastrophically ill-conceived war without end.

Here, then, is a look back at four years of wartime marketing gone bad. What follows below is by no mean an exhaustive list of the talking points, sound bites, slogans and rallying cries the President and the Republicans used to justify their war, demonize Saddam Hussein and tar the Democratic Party.

Perhaps most disturbing among this catalog of deceit is the Republicans' continued reliance on claims long since proven untrue. This Sunday, for example, Secretary of State Condi Rice tried to parry the George Tenet book by clinging to the "imminent threat" canard, three years after the Iraq Survey Group concluded Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction. Just two weeks ago, Vice President Cheney reiterated the demonstrably false claim "Saddam harbored Al Qaeda," based on the pre-war presence of Zarqawi in Kurdish-held areas beyond Baghdad's control. And President Bush continues to warn that the Iraqi insurgents will "follow us home," despite the total rejection of that premise by U.S. intelligence analysts and former counter-terrorism czar Richard Clarke.

The following GOP Iraq talking points appear to still be in use:

• "Surrender Date"


• "White Flag"


• "Micromanage the War"


• "Embolden the Enemy"


• "How Can Congress Confirm General Petraeus But Oppose His Mission?"


• "Don't Tell the Generals How to Run the War"


• "Handcuffing Our Generals"


• "Follow Us Home"


• "Islamofascists"


• "Mixed Messages (to Syria)"


• "Mixed Messages (to the Troops)"


• "Mixed Messages (to Iraq)"


• "Slow Bleed"


• "Surge"


• "The World is Safer Without Saddam"


• "Saddam Killed His Own People"


• "Pre-9/11 Worldview/Mindset"


• "Cut and Run"


• "As They Stand up, We'll Stand Down"


• "Govern Itself, Defend Itself and Sustain Itself"


• "Better to Fight Them There Than Here"


• "It's Hard Work"


• "Slam Dunk"


• Al Qaeda Link: "Al Qaeda was Present in Iraq"


• "Freedom is God's Gift to Humanity"


• "Iraq is the Central Front in the Global War on Terror"

Many other Iraq sound bites of yore, however, have mercifully ended up on the dustbin of history.

• "We're Making Progress"


• "Augmentation"


• "New Way Forward"


• "Adapting to Win"


• "Stay the Course"


• "Turning the Corner"


• "Fresh Eyes"


• "Last Throes"


• "Purple Fingers"


• "Rewriting History (is Irresponsible)"


• "(Saddad Was) An Ally of Al Qaeda"


• 9/11 Link: "Pretty Well Confirmed (Atta Went to Prague)"


• "Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism"


• "Uranium in Africa"


• "Pay for Itself"


• "Mission Accomplished"


• "Imminent Threat"


• "Gathering Threat"


• "Greeted as Liberators"


• "Smoking Gun, Mushroom Cloud"


• "Weapons of Mass Destruction"


• "Axis of Evil"

For a look back at the changing Top 10 GOP sound bites over time, visit the archives here. And to access a repository of all the key Iraq war intelligence documents, commission reports, key memos, essential analyses and other required reading, visit the Perrspectives Iraq WMD and Intelligence Resource Center.

The Bushboard list of Top 10 GOP Sound Bites has seen another week of movement at the top of the charts. The Iraq war funding debate, the PurgeGate implosion of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and last week's landscape-changing Supreme Court decision combined to produce a new crop of omnipresent Republican talking points.

Rocketing to #1 is "Surrender Date." That haunting ballad from George Bush, Dana Perino and Mitch McConnell is just the latest smash hit from the GOP's double-platinum Iraq Remix LP. "Micromanage the War" and "Slow Bleed" held firm at number three and four, respectively. Holding firm at #2 is Alberto Gonzales' poignantly pathetic solo effort, "I Don't Recall" from his Eight is Enough release. And with the ruling in the so-called partial birth abortion case, the classic "Culture of Life" returned to #5 in the rankings.

For previous lists of the Top 10 GOP Sound Bites, visit here.

With each passing day, the scandal-plagued Bush White House more and more resembles a 2000 episode of The Simpsons. During a check up, the nuclear power tycoon Mr. Burns is informed by his doctor that "you are the sickest man in the United States. You have everything." (See a video clip here.) But the doctor reassures Burns that the news isn't all bad and that he will survive because "all of your diseases are in perfect balance."

In fact, George W. Bush may be hanging on because of, and not despite, the staggering epidemic of scandals enveloping his administration.

There are many factors explaining why this scandal-ridden presidency with a 28% approval rating even has a pulse at all. One is simply the "crowding out" effect. That is, the sheer number of scandals, probes, inquiries and convictions prevents the media - and the American people - from focusing on any given one. In the absence of a smoking gun in, for example, PlameGate or the U.S. attorneys purge, the scandals compete for air time and attention. The complexities of the illegalities and misdeeds surrounding the project for a permanent Republican majority fade, disappearing into the haze. While terminally-ill, the Bush presidency has yet to suffer a death blow.

Its surprising resilience is of course aided by the American 24/7 media industry for whom politics is now mere theater, just another form of entertainment. There is no journalistic search for objective truth. Instead, all controversies are presented as ideological clashes morality plays with two sides. In that format, the "best" entertainers are the loudest, most aggressive and most theatrical. Whether the issue is Jack Abramoff, Tom Delay or the CIA leak case, the result is the same. Bill Kristol, Robert Novak, Tom Delay, Sean Hannity and their fellow goose-steppers in the conservative amen corner comically protest "the criminalization of politics." In reality, of course, it is the Republicans who are trying to politicize crime.

To gauge the crowding out effect of competing scandals, you can start with the Bush White House. The list is mind-boggling. The Abramoff scandal. The student loan imbroglio. The 2003 Medicare budget fraud and threats to chief actuary Richard Foster. The outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame. NSA domestic surveillance. The political purge of U.S. prosecutors. Doctoring environmental reports. The "Reading First" fraud. The K Street Project. Dick Cheney's secret energy task force. $9 billion in missing Iraq reconstruction funds. GOP hacks running the Iraq Provisional Authority. Halliburton war profiteering. Blocking FDA approval of Plan B. Lying to the American people about regulating CO2 emissions. The GSA's violations of the Hatch Act. Bypassing federal records law by using RNC email servers. Undermining the Voting Rights Act. The Hurricane Katrina response. And, of course, the fabricated case for Iraq WMD.

As Rahm Emanuel detailed, the Bush administration "Hall of Shame" of the criminal, the suspect and the ridiculous is long as well. David Safavian. Scooter Libby. Karl Rove. Thomas Sculley. Lurita Doan. Alberto Gonzales. Kyle "Dusty" Foggo. Bernard Kerik. Kyle Sampson. Monica Goodling. Claude Allen. Matteo Fontana. Stephen Griles and Sue Ellen Wooldridge. Phillip Cooney. Gail Norton. Michael Brown. Jim O'Beirne.

Many of President Bush's GOP friends in Congress are also among America's most wanted. The rap sheet of Banana Republicans past and present on the Hill starts with Tom Delay, joined in wrong-doing by his wife and former aides Edwin Buckham and Tony Rudy. Mark Foley (R-FL). Duke Cunningham (R-CA), Brent Wilkes and MZM. Katherine Harris (R-FL) and MZM. Bob Ney (R-OH) and his aide Neil Volz. Bill Frist (R-TN). John Doolittle (R-CA). Rick Renzi (R-AZ). Pete Domenici (R-NM) and Heather Wilson (R-NM). Jerry Lewis (R-CA) and Richard Pombo (R-CA). Don Young (R-AK) and his aide Mark Zachares. Tom Feeney (R-FL). And who could forget the Midas touch of Jack Abramoff and his cohort Michael Scanlon?

Of course, the Republicans' proud record of corruption extends to the states as well. The list includes Kentucky Governor Ernie Fletcher and former Ohio chief Bob Taft. Taft aide and Bush ranger Tom Noe finds himself in prison. Born-again Christian turned born-again Abramoff accomplice Ralph Reed. And in California, there's cronyism and conflict of interest aplenty with Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.

A thorough accounting of the crimes and ethical failings of George W. Bush and his Republican allies would make the Encyclopedia Britannica look like cliff notes in comparison. The mind reels and eyes glaze over in contemplating all the wrong-doing of the Bush years. Which is exactly why his presidency still stands, even though the fog.

In that classic Simpson's episode, Montomery Burns' physician explains that his myriad diseases are actually good news, ensuring his health by balancing each other out. "Here's the door to your body, see?" the doctor says, continuing, "Here's what happens when they all try to get through the door at once. We call it, 'Three Stooges Syndrome.'" To which Mr Burns replies, "So what you're saying is, I'm indestructible."

At best, the Three Stooges is also a good metaphor for the presidency and party of George W. Bush. But it appears President Bush too, like Mr. Burns, may be indestructible.

Among the more enduring mysteries of the current American political scene is the continued popularity of First Lady Laura Bush. For the third time in just under a year, Mrs. Bush insulted our troops and their families. Appearing on the Today Show, the First Lady offered the American people this shining nugget of detachment and tone-deafness:

"No one suffers more than their President and I do."

Laura Bush's shocking callousness today is hardly her first offense. As Perrspectives reported back in February, the First Lady cautioned Americans against being disheartened by the occasional blast in Baghdad:

"Many parts of Iraq are stable now. But, of course, what we see on television is the one bombing a day that discourages everybody."

That calming assessment was just the latest from the consistently upbeat - and seemingly medicated - First Lady. Last May, Mrs. Bush casually dismissed the consensus negative view of Iraq shared by the American people:

"I don't really believe those polls. I travel around the country, I see people, I see their response to my husband, I see their response to me...A lot of people come up to me and say, 'Stay the course.'"

Sadly for the First Lady, her husband disagrees about his suffering over Iraq. On December 14, 2006, President Bush assured the nation, "I must tell you, I'm sleeping a lot better than people would assume." Then again, the calm judgment of the Bubble Boy should be taken with a grain of salt. After all, President Bush has expressed "full confidence" in both his soon-to-be former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and embattled World Bank head Paul Wolfowitz.

As for Laura Bush, she can be forgiven for her disgusting disregard for the concerns of the American people. After all, it runs in the family.

(For more on that theme, see: "The Beautiful Minds of the Bush Family.")

Among today's least surprising developments is President Bush's latest expression of support for his embattled Attorney General. Despite Alberto Gonzales' near-death experience before the Senate Judiciary Committee last Thursday, the President proclaimed that his long-time friend "increased my confidence." What is even less surprising, of course, is that George W. Bush continues to make a mockery of his cynical campaign 2000 pledge to ask "not only what is legal but what is right."

As you'll recall, candidate Bush presented himself as the ethical antidote to the misdeeds real and imagined of the Clinton administration. At the Republican National Convention in August 2000, Bush pompously declared:

"So when I put my hand on the Bible, I will swear to not only uphold the laws of our land, I will swear to uphold the honor and dignity of the office to which I have been elected, so help me God."

That October, then-Governor Bush introduced his soon-to-be aborted "what is right" standard of White House ethics:

"In my administration, we will ask not only what is legal but what is right. Not just what the lawyers allow, but what the public deserves."

As it turns out, not so much. As President Bush showed once again today with his comically aggressive support of Alberto Gonzales, that was then, this now.

"As the hearings went forward, it was clear the attorney general broke no law, there's no wrongdoing. This is an honest, honorable man, in whom I have confidence."

This is not, of course, that President Bush concluded that cowardice was the better part of valor when it came to the criminality and ethical wrong-doing of his administration. The outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame similarly demonstrated the malleability of Bush's "what is right" standard.

Early on, the President contended that the leaker who ended the career of Valerie Plame and jeopardized U.S. intelligence assets worldwide would have no place in his administration. On September 29, 2003, press secretary Scott McClellan announced that:

"He's made it very clear to people in his administration that he expects them to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. If anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration."

But with Karl Rove and others in his braintrust coming under scrutiny for their roles in the retaliation against the Wilsons, President Bush just a week later signaled the lowering of the ethical bar:

"I don't know if we're going to find out the senior administration official. Now, this is a large administration, and there's a lot of senior officials. I don't have any idea. I'd like to. I want to know the truth."

The rest, of course, is history. "Involvement in" the leak became "indicted for" the leak. After pronouncing the innocence of Bush team players including Karl Rove, Scooter Libby and Elliot Abrams on October 1 and October 7, 2003, the White House assumed its permanent position of not commenting on an "ongoing investigation."

Fast forward to today and the U.S. attorneys scandal. President Bush expresses his "full confidence" in Alberto Gonzales, just as he did with Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld, Harriet Miers, John Snow, Bernard Kerik and even Vladimir Putin. An unidentified Bush aide now says of Gonzales, "he's staying."

Apparently, that is now "what is right" for George W. Bush.

If April showers bring May flowers, then this month's torrential downpour of Republican gaffes and guffaws promises a rosy future for Democrats. The implosion of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales over the U.S attorneys scandal, the missteps of 2008 GOP presidential contenders, criminality from a new crop of Banana Republicans and the continuing entropy in Iraq combined to produce an endless supply of punchlines. And as usual, President Bush contributed his own words of wit and wisdom.

Here, then, are the latest GOP Quotes of the Week:

Alberto Gonzales and the U.S. Attorneys Purge

"He may be an idiot, I don't know."
Rush Limbaugh, on Alberto Gonzales, April 20, 2007.

"He is our No. 1 crime fighter."
Dana Perino, on Alberto Gonzales, April 20, 2007.

"I believe you ought to suffer the consequences that these others have suffered, and I believe the best way to put this behind us is your resignation."
Senator Tom Coburn, (R-OK), April 19, 2007.

"The moment I believe I can no longer be effective, I will resign."
Alberto Gonzales, April 19, 2007.

"I don't think you're going to win a debate about your preparation."
Arlen Specter (R-PA), to Alberto Gonzales, April 19, 2007.

"Senator, that I don't recall remembering."
Alberto Gonzales, April 19, 2007.

"I recall making the decision. I don't recall when the decision was made."
Alberto Gonzales, April 19, 2007.

"We screwed up and we're trying to fix it."
Dana Perino, on White House's handling of staff's RNC emails, April 12, 2007.

"When I said a handful I was asked based on something that I didn't know."
Dana Perino, White House spokesperson, on revelations that up to 50 Bush aides used external RNC email accounts for official business, April 12, 2007.

The Republican Culture of Corruption

"If there is anything that we should have learned from the Duke Lacrosse case, it is that the destruction of the reputations of innocent people can occur when the government, the press and the public jump to unfounded conclusions."
Rep. John Doolittle, (R-CA), April 20, 2007.

"I'm presently under indictment for laws that don't exist in Texas by a Nifong of Texas called Ronnie Earle, undermining our justice system here in Texas."
Tom Delay, April 16, 2007.

"We've got issues we need to work through."
Dick Cheney, asked about White House credibility problems, April 15, 2007.

The Verbal Incontinence of George W. Bush

"Putting up with me requires a lot of patience."
President Bush, April 19, 2007.

"Death is terrible."
President Bush, April 19, 2007.

"If you've got a chicken factory, a chicken-plucking factory, or whatever you call them, you know what I'm talking about."
President Bush, April 19, 2007.

"Running a country is no fun at all."
Laura Bush, reading to children on Easter, April 11, 2007.

Chaos in Iraq

"I think it was Osama bin Laden's."
Karl Rove, on whose idea it was to launch a pre-emptive invasion of Iraq, April 19, 2007.

"The very fundamental issue is, they don't know where the hell they're going."
Retired Marine Gen. John J. "Jack" Sheehan, on why he turned down the role of Bush "war czar," April 11, 2007.

"It was just like any open-air market in Indiana in the summertime."
Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN), April 4, 2007.

GOP White House Hopefuls Watch

""My response is, lighten up and get a life."
John McCain, responding to criticism of his "Bomb Iran" performance, April 20, 2007.

"Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran."
John McCain, responding to a question on Iran by singing to the tune of the Beach Boys' "Barbara Ann," April 19, 2007.

"I know what's best for the security of this nation."
John McCain, April 17, 2007.

"Our party has to get beyond issues like that."
Rudy Giuliani, on abortion, April 16, 2007.

"Thank youse all very much for invitin' me here tuh-day, to this meeting of the families from different parts'a California."
Rudy Giuliani, imitating the Godfather while on the stump, April 14, 2007.

"I'm in the private sector and for the first time in my life I'm earning money. You know that's sort of part of the Jewish tradition."
Tommy Thompson, April 16, 2007.

"You have to ask yourself, the first black man is running for president and nobody's afraid of him, because everybody's afraid of Hillary."
Dick Morris, April 10, 2007.

Miscellaneous Conservative Psychosis

"I hope it's your family members that die when terrorists strike."
Rep. Dana Rohrbacher, (R-CA), to members of the EU regarding U.S. practice of extraordinary rendition, April 20, 2007.

"The President believes that there is a right for people to bear arms, but that all laws must be followed."
White House spokesperson Dana Perino, on President Bush's reaction to the massacre at Virginia Tech, April 16, 2007.

"Who's the master and who's the slave in that relationship."
Indiana Republican Secretary of State Todd Rikita, on African-Americans' 90% support for Democrats, April 16, 2007.

"I am hesitant to see Southern Methodist University welcoming the institute of a Methodist who has been so contrary to the teachings of the Methodist Church."
Reverend C. Joseph Sprague, on proposed George W. Bush presidential library at SMU, April 13, 2007.

"He has the same sense of humor that Imus has."
Mary Matalin, on her former boss Dick Cheney, January 24, 2005.

For an archives of conservative ditties past, visit here.

With the exploding scandals at the Justice Department and the World Bank enveloping his administration, President Bush voiced "full confidence" in Alberto Gonzales and Paul Wolfowitz this week. But as history has shown, there is no more certain confirmation of the criminality, ethical-wrong doing or imminent departure of a Bush team player than the President's expression of confidence in him.

By that standard, the prospects are not bright for Attorney General Gonzales and World Bank president Wolfowitz. On April 19, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino announced the Bush kiss of death to each. In the wake of Gonzales' disastrous appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding the U.S. attorneys scandal, Perino declared, "As I've said many times, the President has full confidence in the Attorney General." President Bush similarly stood by his man following the Attorney General's calamitous March 13 press conference, proclaiming "I do have confidence in Attorney General Al Gonzales."

World Bank head and Bush Iraq war architect Paul Wolfowitz also received the President's reverse Midas touch this week in the wake of revelations he arranged for promotions and high-priced consulting gigs for his girlfriend. On Thursday, Perino held the line, "As we've said before, the President has confidence in Paul Wolfowitz." Just three days earlier, she similarly stated that "the President does have full confidence in Paul Wolfowitz."

As former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld can attest, however, such expressions of support can accompany a knife in the back from this President. Despite calls in April 2006 from six retired generals that he sack Rumsfeld, President Bush emphatically voiced his support, "I have strong confidence in Don Rumsfeld." (Bush also famously added that "I'm the decider, and I decide what is best.") In the run-up to November's mid-term elections, President Bush offered strong support for the embattled defense chief in the face of criticism from worried Republicans. Just days before Americans went to the polls, Bush praised the "fantastic" job Rumsfeld was doing, and said of his work in Iraq, "I'm pleased with the progress we're making." As it turned out, President Bush was lying, and replaced Rumsfeld for the "fresh perspective" of Robert Gates literally the day after the Republican mid-term fiasco.

When it comes to stirring rhetorical support, President Bush is an equal opportunity employer, offering protection and air cover to the criminal, the unethical, the ineffectual and incompetent alike. Of the indicted House Majority leader, Bush said in March 2005, "I have confidence in Tom DeLay's leadership, and I have confidence in Tom DeLay." As rumors of Karl Rove's involvement swirled during Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation of the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame, the President offered "Turd Blossom" his protection. In June 2005, Bush said that "He adheres to the ethical rules of our government and he's done a great job on behalf of the American people," reiterating in August that "Karl's got my complete confidence. He's a valuable member of my team."

The list goes on and on, with the President vouching for the good character of his friends and allies even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. In the spring of 2006, President Bush voiced support for Treasury Secretary John Snow, even as he was actively looking for his replacement. Residents of New Orleans, of course, will never forget his post-Katrina praise for now ex-FEMA chief Michael Brown, "Brownie, you're doing a heckuva job." Of his disastrous Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers, Bush said, "I know her heart." Bush reassured Americans about Russian born-again autocrat Vladimir Putin, "I looked the man in the eye. I was able to get a sense of his soul." The President similarly lauded his aborted choice to head Homeland Security, Bernard Kerik. Of Kerik, now facing likely prison time for tax fraud and ties to mob figures, Bush crowed "He has demonstrated a deep commitment to justice, a heart for the innocent, and a record of great success." (Just two weeks later, Bush said regretfully, "I was disappointed that the nomination of Bernard Kerik didn't go forward...I think he would have done a fine job as the secretary of homeland security.")

So as the death spiral continues for the public careers of Paul Wolfowitz and Alberto Gonzales, expect more expressions of confidence from President Bush. As the record shows, if President Bush proclaims them ethically beyond reproach, they almost surely are not. And if he tepidly claims he is committed to keeping them on, they are as good as gone.

The Attorney General's recent op-eds show his dilemma. While claiming to have played no role in the evaluation of the fired attorneys, Gonzales claimed they lost his confidence nonetheless:

"While I am grateful for the public service of these seven U.S. attorneys, they simply lost my confidence." (Alberto Gonzales, March 6th, USA Today Op-Ed)

"During those conversations, to my knowledge, I did not make decisions about who should or should not be asked to resign." (Alberto Gonzales, April 15, Washington Post Op-Ed)

It's no wonder Senators Feingold and Kennedy took exception to Gonzales' statement this morning that the firings were "justified and should stand." Feingold quizzed Gonzales as to how the USAs lost his "confidence." An incredulous Kennedy asked:

"Since you apparently knew very little about the performance about the replaced United States attorneys, how can you testify that the judgment ought to stand?"

Given the looming checkmate waiting for him this morning, Attorney General Gonzales prepared a possible out. In essence, the AG alerted the Committee in his formal statement released Sunday that he would know less about the scandal than the members themselves:

"The Committee should also know that, to ensure the independence and integrity of these investigations, and the investigations of congressional committees, I have not spoken with nor reviewed the confidential transcripts of any of the Department of Justice employees interviewed by congressional staff. I state this because, as a result, I may be somewhat limited when it comes to providing you with all of the facts that you may desire. I hope you understand that, to me, it was absolutely essential that the investigative work proceeds in a manner free of any complications by my efforts to prepare for this testimony."

Gonzales "know nothing" strategy is reflected throughout his prepared remarks. The expressions "I do recall" or "I do not recall" occur 14 times in 25 pages. And no doubt, today's testimony will generate dozens more.

Ultimately, the parallels between Alberto Gonzales and Sergeant Schultz are fitting. Schultz, after all, was repeatedly duped by those on his watch. And at the end of the day, Schultz lost the war.

From the moment he entered the White House, President Bush proclaimed the "doctor-patient relationship" the centerpiece of his policies when it comes to Americans' health care. Just not, as it turns out, for American women. As today's Supreme Court decision upholding the 2003 Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act shows, President Bush and his Republican allies don't care much at all about the doctor-patient relationship when it comes to women's reproductive health and safety.

A quick look back shows that "protecting the doctor-patient relationship" has been the Republican Party mantra for selling the full range of its health care privatization schemes. In May 2006, President Bush told an RNC gala:

"Ours is a party that understands the best health care system is when the doctor-patient relationship is central to decision-making. That's why we're strong believers in health savings accounts...And so we reformed Medicare. We said to our seniors, we trust you; we trust you to make decisions that meets your needs."

That same drumbeat has provided the rhythm for the entire Bush presidency. In March 2001, the President told the American College of Cardiology, "I want to talk about protecting the doctor-patient relationships with a patients' bill of rights." In 2004, the President Bush pushed for malpractice liability reform, claiming that "one of the most vital links of good medicine is the doctor-patient relationship." In February 2006, the White House introduced its ill-fated proposal "Reforming Health Care for the 21st Century" by claiming its intent to "strengthen the doctor-patient relationship." Pitching his plans two months later for association health plans, medical savings accounts and malpractice litigation curbs, President Bush declared:

"The best way to reform this health care system is to preserve the system of private medicine, is to strengthen the relationship between doctors and patients, and make the benefits of private medicine more affordable and accessible for all our citizens."

Government has a role to play...We have a major role to play in strengthening and reforming this health care system, but in a way that preserves the doctor-patient relationship."

But when it comes to the reproductive choices of American women, not so much.

From the beginning, the Republican war against so-called partial birth abortion sought to preclude American doctors from utilizing the extremely rare intact dilation and extraction procedure. Used to protect the health of the mother in only about 2500 of the 1.25 million pregnancies terminated annually, the viscerally gruesome procedure became a strategic marketing weapon for abortion foes to whittle away the reproductive options available to American women and their doctors. As President Bush erroneously claimed:

"As Congress has found, the practice is widely regarded within the medical profession as unnecessary, not only cruel to the child, but harmful to the mother and a violation of medical ethics."

The evidence, of course, as well as the American medical establishment, makes precisely the opposite point. For example, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists opposed the 2003 law, arguing its members must have the flexibility to choose the intact D&E procedure in those extremely rare cases when it is necessary:

"The intact variant of D&E offers significant safety advantages over the non-intact method, including a reduced risk of catastrophic hemorrhage and life-threatening infection. These safety advantages are widely recognized by experts in the field of women's health, authoritative medical texts, peer-reviewed studies, and the nation's leading medical schools."

During oral arguments before the Supreme Court on November 9, 2006, Planned Parenthood Federation of America's Eve Gartner concurred. "What Congress has done here is take away from women the option of what may be the safest procedure for her," Gartner said, adding "this court has never recognized a state interest that was sufficient to trump the women's interest in her health."

In her emotional dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginburg laid bare the Bush administration's unprecedented disruption of the relationship between a woman and her doctor:

"The Court's opinion tolerates, indeed applauds, federal intervention to ban nationwide a procedure found necessary and proper in certain cases by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. For the first time since Roe, the Court blesses a prohibition with no exception protecting a woman's health."

Sadly, Justice Kennedy's majority opinion joined the Republican Party in substituting the views of abortion opponents for those of a patient's doctor. Kennedy rejected that the 2003 Act "imposes an undue burden on a woman's right to abortion based on its overbreadth or lack of a health exception," adding:

"The Act is not invalid on its face where there is uncertainty over whether the barred procedure is ever necessary to preserve a woman's health, given the availability of other abortion procedures that are considered to be safe alternatives."

But as Planned Parenthood's Gartner protested, "This ruling tells women that politicians, not doctors, will make their health care decisions for them."

Which is to say, exactly the kind of decision to be made in the doctor-patient re.lationship President Bush and his amen corner claim to protect.

UPDATE: A Perrspectives' reader notes that President Bush no longer seems concerned that "too many OB/GYNs aren't able to practice their love with women all across this country."

On its face, today's Supreme Court decision in Gonzales v. Carhart is a victory for abortion foes seeking to ban one rarely used but seemingly horrific procedure. But in the bigger picture, the Court's validation of the 2003 Partial Birth Abortion Act is a landscape-changing triumph for conservatives' slippery slope campaign to chip away at the reproductive and privacy rights of American women.

That's because anti-abortion forces never really cared about intact dilation and extraction, a rare practice used in extreme late-term cases perhaps 2500 times annually. No, as its own advocates freely admit, the so-called partial birth abortion was all about marketing.

For example, in 1996, John Jakubczyk, the general counsel of Arizona Right to Life, stated that "by going after partial-birth abortions, we're trying to show the extreme radical view of the pro-abortion lobby. But no, that procedure isn't what we care most about. Our goal is to stop the killing of unborn children at any stage of development."

Jakubczyk was far from alone in bluntly expressing the strategic significance of their two-decade battle to ban the procedure. As NARAL documented during the bill's debate in 2003, the mouthpieces of the anti-abortion movement were singing from the same hymnal:

"(The) partial-birth abortion ban is a political scam but a public relations goldmine...This bill, if it becomes law, may not save one child's life...The major benefit of this bill is the debate that surrounds it."
- Randall Terry, Founder, Operation Rescue), News Release, September 15, 2003.

"The partial-birth abortion strategy was designed to: a) emphasize the horror of partial-birth abortion to the general public by, b) introducing legislation to outlaw it, thus c) exposing pro-abortion legislators who would oppose the legislation for the brutes that they are, causing them to be unseated. This was a sure win (so we were told), and once partial-birth abortion was outlawed, then we could move on to outlawing other forms of abortion."
- Matt Trewhella (Director of Missionaries to the Preborn, Milwaukee), Life Advocate, January/February 1998.

"This week we will make history in the House of Representatives. Now we will begin to focus on the methods (of abortion) and declare them to be illegal."
- Representative Chris Smith (R-N.J.) USA Today, November 1, 1995.

"They (pro-choice groups) have always been able to demonize us with the hard cases -- the incest and rape cases. We've never been able to do that (until today)...It's a huge victory (the House override of Clinton's veto of H.R. 1833). It's the first time since Roe v. Wade that Congress is poised to outlaw an abortion procedure and the first time the pro-choice side has had to defend the indefensible."
- Ralph Reed (then-Executive Director, Christian Coalition) The Dallas Morning News, September 20, 1996.

As I noted in 2004, we've been here before and will be here again. (Just consider the debate in South Carolina over a proposed ultrasound requirement for abortion patients.) The much longer and protracted debate over partial-birth abortion showcases the conservatives' slippery-slope formula for sabotaging the American consensus for abortion rights. First, highlight a viscerally gruesome medical procedure (as in the case of intact dilation and extraction) that evinces a powerful gut-level reaction or a case that generates natural feelings of sympathy (such as Laci Peterson). Second, play on and publicize apparent majority support for banning the practice in question. Last, brand the practice using a term, such as "partial-birth" or "unborn victim," which makes opposition virtually impossible.

As with the "Unborn Victims of Violence" bill, the forces aligned against abortion rights were clear about their intent. It's just too bad so many Democrats believed their marketing.

In a calamitous setback for the reproductive rights of American women, the Supreme Court upheld the 2003 Partial Birth Abortion Act. In its 5-4 ruling, the Court handed Republican conservatives a major victory in their "slippery slope" campaign against choice. Sadly, the history shows that many Congressional Democrats were complicit in today's disastrous outcome.

As I wrote back in 2004, significant numbers of Democrats in the House and Senate wavered when it came to protecting the health and safety of American women against a law specifically designed to recognize the importance of neither. Democratic leaders past and present, including Harry Reid, Tom Daschle, Pat Leahy and Evan Bayh, backed the Bush administration:

President Clinton held the line against this approach, twice vetoing partial-birth legislation in the 1990's. While Republican majorities in Congress could not override his veto, the ascension of George W. Bush and his radical anti-choice agenda assured the legislation would become law under his watch.

It did. Congress passed the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 on October 22, 2003. Large numbers of Democrats joined a nearly unanimous GOP in both houses; the bill passed 63-34 in the Senate, and 281-142 in the House. President Bush signed it into law at a White House ceremony on November 5.

A prescient Senator Barbara Boxer commented called it a "very sad day for the women of America, a very sad day for the families of America" and added that "for the first time in history bans a medical procedure without making any exception for the health of a woman."

Senator Boxer was prescient indeed, as perhaps, was I. The choice foes slippery slope strategy succeeded not only in removing the "health of the mother" principle from the Court's abortion precedents, but laid the groundwork for undermining Sandra Day O'Connor's "undue burden" standard established in Casey.

And despite the national consensus for abortion rights, many Democrats helped make it happen.

University of South Carolina football coach Steve Spurrier generally doesn't appear on anyone's list of moral exemplars in sports. His sideline tantrums, raging at referees and brief but bombastic tenure with the Washington Redskins didn't endear him to many outside of Florida, the state where he made his name. But this weekend, Spurrier showed surprising courage - and class - in calling for the Confederate battle flag to be removed from the grounds of the South Carolina state house.

While accepting a leadership award from City Year on Friday, Coach Spurrier spoke bluntly about the damage the CSA banner and its flag-waving adherents inflict of the image of South Carolina:

"My opinion is we don't need the Confederate flag at our Capitol. I don't really know anybody that wants it there, but I guess there are a lot of South Carolinians that do want it there.

I realize I'm not supposed to get in the political arena as a football coach, but if anybody were ever to ask me about that damn Confederate flag, I would say we need to get rid of it. I've been told not to talk about that. But if anyone were ever to ask me about it, I certainly wish we could get rid of it."

During an interview last year, Spurrier admitted being embarrassed by the display of the Confederate flag during an ESPN pre-game show. "Some clown or some dude," he fumed, "was waving that big ol' Confederate flag right behind them about the whole time they were on." Acknowledging the strong feelings the flag engenders among many of his own supporters, Spurrier added Friday:

"If you had a relative who died in the Confederate war, maybe you'd feel very strongly about it, too. But that's history. If it represents something that angers people, then why do that?"

Not all of Spurrier's Gamecocks fans share his point of view. As the South Carolina paper "The State" reported:

Don Gordon is one of them. Gordon, a state officer with the Sons of Confederate Veterans, said Spurrier's call for the removal of the flag was "the moral equivalent of calling our ancestors 'nappy-headed hos'...As a USC graduate, I love Carolina football. But I'm not willing to give up my heritage for any football recruit or any football coach."

As the critical South Carolina presidential primary approaches, many White House hopefuls shrink from taking on the Palmetto State's Confederate flag issue. Rudy Giuliani recently termed the matter one for the state to decide, flip-flopping from his past of history of opposition to its public display. In 2000, supposed maverick John McCain similarly caved to Republican enthusiasts of the ante-bellum South during the primary, only to apologize later for his clear political cowardice. And for many of McCain's Republican allies, of course, waving the Confederate flag is an essential ingredient in their ongoing use of the race card.

But for one day on this one issue, Coach Steve Spurrier showed all those wannabe leaders that he's got game.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair may have fatally undermined his legacy and the prospects for his Labor Party with his slavish devotion to George W. Bush and his calamitous project in Iraq. But on one small matter of rhetoric at least, the UK government may have seen the light.

As the BBC reports today, Blair's International Development Secretary Tony Benn declared that British government does not use the term "global war on terror" to describe either the current conflict against Al Qaeda or the quagmire in Iraq. As Benn put it:

"In the UK, we do not use the phrase 'war on terror' because we can't win by military means alone...by letting them feel part of something bigger, we give them strength."

As I wrote in August 2005 ("The Global War on Error"), the Bush administration's dangerous and misguided branding of the U.S. struggle against Al Qaeda obscures the true nature of the conflict, putting the American people at even greater risk:

This is not a case, as Shakespeare might have said, of a rose by any other name smelling as sweet. The United States is not engaged in a twilight struggle against a concept. The United States is fighting Al Qaeda, an organization with political and military goals, one that declared war on America in 1996 and attacked its homeland in 2001. Bin Laden's organization and its network of loosely affiliated cells and followers must be beaten back politically, diplomatically, ideologically - and militarily.

But almost from the moment the Twin Towers fell, President Bush has mischaracterized the enemy we face and failed to grasp the nature of the conflict we must fight and win...

For the full analysis, see "The Global War on Error."

In anticipation of his make-or-break testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday regarding his role in the partisan purge of U.S. attorneys, embattled Attorney General Alberto Gonzales took to the pages of the Washington Post to save his neck. But by contradicting his own March 6th USA Today op-ed, Gonzales may have simply tightened the noose.

In his April 15 Washington Post piece ("Nothing Improper"), Gonzales resorts to the dual defenses of revisionist history and hazy memory. President Bush's Attorney General summarized his case:

"To be clear: I directed my then-deputy chief of staff, Kyle Sampson, to initiate this process; fully knew that it was occurring; and approved the final recommendations. Sampson periodically updated me on the review. As I recall, his updates were brief, relatively few in number and focused primarily on the review process.

During those conversations, to my knowledge, I did not make decisions about who should or should not be asked to resign."

Sadly for the soon-to-be former Attorney General, that statement directly contradicts his primary assertion from his on March 6th screed in USA Today. He must have made "decisions about who should or should not be asked to resign", because as Gonzales wrote then, "they simply lost my confidence."

"While I am grateful for the public service of these seven U.S. attorneys, they simply lost my confidence. I hope that this episode ultimately will be recognized for what it is: an overblown personnel matter."

Gonzales' April 15 op-ed, of course, also contradicts public statements he made previously. On March 30, Gonzales declared "I don't recall being involved in deliberations involving the question of whether or not a U.S. attorney should or should not be asked to resign." Two weeks later, the Attorney General apparently did recall such discussions, a point his one-time chief-of-staff Kyle Sampson made during his Congressional testimony on March 29, 2007. "I don't think," Sampson testified, "the attorney general's statement that he was not involved in any discussions of U.S. attorney removals was accurate."

As Attorney General Gonzales nears his date with destiny on Tuesday, he must walk a tightrope between self-preservation and perjury. As I wrote previously, Gonzales almost certainly lied under oath during his January 18th testimony. There, he claimed he would neither change a U.S. attorney to impact an ongoing investigation nor use the infamous Patriot Act provision to skirt Senate confirmation of his replacements. Emails subsequently released by the DOJ showed otherwise. (For the details, see "The Top 10 Reasons Gonzales Must Go.")

Time will tell if Alberto Gonzales lies to Congress this week. But in the pages of two of America's most prominent newspapers, he already has.

(For the latest news, email archives, document dumps and other essential materials in the Bush DOJ U.S. attorneys purge, visit the Perrspectives U.S. Attorneys Scandal Documents Center.)

UPDATE: The DOJ has posted the transcript of Gonzales' prepared statement for his Tuesday testimony. It is clear that Gonzales' piece in today's Washington Post was extracted almost verbatim from it. Gonzales' statement also makes clear that his primary - and disturbing - line of defense will be a hazy memory and his own supposedly marginal role in the process of sacking the U.S. attorneys.

On Sunday, the Albuquerque Journal published an explosive article detailing the critical roles of President Bush, Karl Rove and New Mexico Senator Pete in the sacking of U.S. attorney David Iglesias. Alberto Gonzales' apparent opposition to Iglesias' ouster and the timeline of events leading up to it suggest President Bush was being less than truthful about his own role in the prosecutor purge.

Back on March 13, President Bush brushed aside questions about the exploding scandal and the possibility of his own heavy hand in it:

"I've heard those allegations about, you know, political decision-making. It's just not true. What the Justice Department did was appropriate ... What was mishandled was the explanation.

"I never brought up a specific case nor gave him [Alberto Gonzales] specific instructions. When members of the Senate come up and say to me, `I've got a complaint,' I think it's entirely appropriate and necessary for me to pass those complaints on."

President Bush reiterated his description of his own passive role a week later on March 20th:

"It is common for me, members of my staff, and the Justice Department to receive complaints from members of Congress in both parties, and from other citizens. And we did hear complaints and concerns about U.S. attorneys. Some complained about the lack of vigorous prosecution of election fraud cases, while others had concerns about immigration cases not being prosecuted. These concerns are often shared between the White House and the Justice Department, and that is completely appropriate."

But the revelations in today's Albquerque Journal piece paint a far different picture. Despite White House spokesman Dan Bartlett's March 14 assertion that "there was no directive given, as far as telling him (Gonzales) to fire anybody or anything like that," the Journal describes the President's essential role. A frustrated Domenici went to Gonzales to pursuer Iglesias' removal for his supposed failure to bring indictments against New Mexico Democrats in advance of the 2006 mid-term elections. When Gonzales refused, Domenici went over his head to President Bush:

In the spring of 2006, Domenici told Gonzales he wanted Iglesias out.

Gonzales refused. He told Domenici he would fire Iglesias only on orders from the president.

At some point after the election last Nov. 6, Domenici called Bush's senior political adviser, Karl Rove, and told him he wanted Iglesias out and asked Rove to take his request directly to the president.

Domenici and Bush subsequently had a telephone conversation about the issue.

The conversation between Bush and Domenici occurred sometime after the election but before the firings of Iglesias and six other U.S. attorneys were announced on Dec. 7.

The importance of Bush's role in reflected in the unfolding timeline of the prosecutor purge. Igelisias' name did not appear on a list of targeted prosecutors prepared in October. But by November 15th, 2006, Iglesias does appear on the list of those USAs to be sacked. On December 7, he was among those notified of their termination. As the Albuquerque Journal suggests, President Bush's intervention in early November is the likely explanation for Iglesias' changed fate.

To access the AB Journal.com piece and all the latest news, email archives, document dumps and other essential materials in the Bush DOJ U.S. attorneys purge, visit the Perrspectives U.S. Attorneys Scandal Documents Center.

Among the revelations contained in the latest DOJ document dump is the central role of the Federalist Society in entrenching the permanent Republican majority among the ranks of the U.S. attorneys. As FireDogLake, ThinkProgress and others have reported, membership in the Federalist Society was crucial to a favorable ranking by the Gonzales team entrusted with purging the USAs ranks of those not "loyal Bushies."

But as Perrspectives detailed back in the spring of 2005, the conservative Federalist Society is the essential ingredient in the GOP strategy to transform the judiciary into a Republican partisan redoubt. From its critical role in the 2000 Florida recount and replacing the American Bar Association as the arbiter of White House judicial nominees to its influential role in making - or breaking - the careers of U.S. prosecutors, the Federalist Society looms behind the scenes as a virtual Opus Dei in the conservative revolution taking place in the judicial branch.

Which is not what its members and patrons would have you believe. As I wrote in 2005 at the height of the "up-or-down" vote confrontation in the Senate over Bush's judicial picks, C. Boyden Gray provided a case in point. In a stunning interview with NPR's Terry Gross, Gray, the Bush family consigliere, White House counsel (1989-93), and Bush 2000 transition chief, claimed that the Federalist Society could be 'best described as a debating society."

Here's more from my 2005 piece:

[...]That "debating society" counts among its members 40% of George W. Bush's judicial nominees. The top ranks of the Bush administration has been staffed by Federalist stars, including John Ashcroft, Ted Olson, Spencer Abraham, Gale Norton, and Eugene Scalia, just to name a few. In addition to Antonin Scalia, Kenneth Starr and Ed Meese, other Federalist notables include Linda Chavez, Robert Bork and Orrin Hatch. As the New Republic, the Washington Monthly and the American Prospect point out, the Federalist Society seeks nothing less than the capture and redefinition of the American judiciary - a goal they are well on their way to achieving.

Which brings us to the last and perhaps most evasive Gray episode on Fresh Air. Terry Gross noted that Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch and later President Bush (aided by then White Counsel Alberto Gonzales) abandoned the traditional practice of using the "liberal" American Bar Association (ABA) to vet potential nominees, instead turning to the Federalist Society.

In an angry, deceptive response conjuring up "the meaning of is", Gray again emptied both barrels:

"I don't know what you're talking about...The ABA continues to play the role it has played for the last half a century. The Federalist Society does nothing like this...Your understanding is wrong, I think. The Federalist Society does not vet anybody...Vetting has a very definite meaning...People talk...There is no formal consultation mechanism." [Exchange starts at the 25:30 mark]

While Monica Goodling and her fellow true believers (and third-rate attorneys) from Pat Robertson's Regent University who may provide the foot soldiers in the conservative conquest of the American legal system, it is the Federalist Society which provides the generals - and the war plan.

For the more on the Federalist Society's role the latest the latest news, email archives, hearings, legal filings and other essential documents on the Bush DOJ prosecutor firings, see "The U.S. Attorney Scandal Document Center."

If April showers bring May flowers, then this April's deluge of conservative wrong-doing should produce a bumper crop of right-wing resignations and convictions later this year. Over the past few weeks, Republican luminaries past and present have offered up an almost endless string of gaffes, missteps, ethical lapses and criminal behavior.

Let's start with in Washington with Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumseld's right-hand man and Iraq war architect at the Pentagon who now finds himself in serious trouble over at the World Bank. With his dictatorial style and allegations he arranged an unprecedented promotion and raise for his colleague-girlfriend, Wolfowitz now faces calls for his resignation. And here he thought that holes in his socks were his biggest problem.

Across town, Senator Pete Domenici, known as "el jefe" in his home state of New Mexico, is now in deep caca over his role in the U.S. attorney firings. Domenici "lawyered up" in the wake of revelations that he pressed sack U.S. attorney David Iglesias over possible indictments of NM Democrats. Now the AP is reporting the once-invincible Domenici may retire in 2008. As Iglesias himself might have said, Domenici "can't handle the truth."

Meanwhile, Tom Delay, the disgraced former House Majority Leader, is back with a vengeance and a new book. After attacking his own one-time Texas GOP colleague Dick Armey as "drunk with ambition," the former exterminator deployed the language of the Nazi final solution against the Democrats. After comparing liberals to Hitler, he compared his own indictment back in Texas with the persecution and deaths of 6,000,000 Jews in the Holocaust. The only analogy we hear from the Hammer more often is the self-proclaimed comparison of Tom Delay and Jesus Christ.

In Nevada, Delay's one-time colleague and now Nevada Governor Jim Gibbons found himself in an ethical hole and decided to keep digging. Only weeks after surviving a scandal surrounding a rumored sexual assault, Gibbons and his wife are being investigated for possible bribes involving not one but two defense contractors. Email records include such smoking gun lines as "please don't forget to bring the money you promised Jim and Dawn." Gibbons responded by claiming that "I have heard that the Democrats have paid to have these Wall Street Journal articles written." What happens in Vegas, the Angel muses, doesn't necessarily stay in Vegas.

Back in New York, Bernard Kerik, President Bush's aborted Homeland Security pick, is in even more hot water and might yet take Rudy Giuliani and Alberto Gonzales down with him. In March, Kerik rejected a plea deal involving charges of alleged tax fraud, conspiracy to eavesdrop and mortgage fraud. Just two weeks later, new revelations showed that Giuliani and Gonzales continued to support Kerik to run DHS even after the White House learned of his ties to mob-related firms. His legal woes appear to be hurting his consulting business. Like Oliver North, Gordon Liddy and other GOP felons past, the Angel ponders, Kerik can still count on a home at Fox News.

Which brings us to 2008 GOP presidential front-runner Rudy Giuliani. September 2001 may have catapulted New York's mayor to national prominence, but April 2007 may keep him from the White House. His protege Bernard Kerik continues to be albatross, with revelations that Giuliani knew early on of his ties to mob-related firms yet continued to push President for Kerik to head Homeland Security. Days later, we learned that Rudy is his third wife's third husband. And in recent days, American discovered that America's Mayor doesn't know much about nuclear proliferation, the Confederate flag or the price of milk. For Rudy, the GOP primaries really will be a drag.

Last and certainly least, former Reagan OMB head and supply-side junky David Stockman is finally paying a price for his past perfidy. As William Grieder famously documented, the arrogant "tax cut and spend" Stockman was the architect of the massive Republican budget deficits we've learned to know and hate. Stockman's comeuppance finally came, with his indictment last month on charges of defrauding investors and banks. Some times the wheels of justice turn slowly, indeed.

For the complete archives of conservatives miscreants punished by the Avenging Angel, visit here.

On Monday, Dick Cheney's one-time firm Halliburton announced it had completed work on past contracts in Iran. That news comes just weeks after the company revealed it would move its Houston headquarters to Dubai in order to escape both American taxes and restrictions on business in the Middle East.

As Perrspectives reported in February, Halliburton had side-stepped the U.S. sanctions regime in place against Iran since the 1990's by using a Cayman Islands subsidiary. And what should come as a surprise to no one, CEO Dick Cheney opposed those very sanctions until, of course, he became George W. Bush's Vice President:

[...]In 2004, the CBS newsmagazine 60 Minutes detailed the Iranian business dealings of Cheney's former company, Halliburton. Despite the prohibitions signed into law by President Clinton with his 1995 executive order and the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act of 1996, Halliburton continued to reap the profits of business with Iran through its non-U.S. subsidiaries. While U.S. law bans virtually all commerce with the rogue nations, Halliburton was able to jump through its major loophole: the rules do not apply to any foreign or offshore subsidiary so long as it is run by non-Americans. As CBS documented:

That subsidiary, Halliburton Products and Services, Ltd., is wholly owned by the U.S.-based Halliburton and is registered in a building in the capital of the Cayman Islands -- a building owned by the local Calidonian Bank. Halliburton and other companies set up in this Caribbean Island, because of tax and secrecy laws that are corporate friendly.

Halliburton is the company that Vice President Dick Cheney used to run. He was CEO from 1995 to 2000, during which time Halliburton Products and Services set up shop in Iran. Today, it sells about $40 million a year worth of oil field services to the Iranian government.

In the wake of the January 2004 60 Minutes piece, the company moved quickly to declare that "Halliburton's business in Iran is clearly permissible under applicable laws and regulations" and cited its October 2003 disclosures to the New York City police and fire pension funds. Despite those assurances, Dick Cheney's old firm was subpoenaed by a U.S grand jury in June 2004. In early 2005, Halliburton announced that it would end its business activities there when it fulfills its ongoing contracts, including a $35 million gas drilling project it had just won the previous month.

Though he does not benefit directly from the Iran contracts of Halliburton's foreign-based subsidiaries, Cheney continues to have financial ties to his former firm. Despite Cheney's assurances that "I've severed all my ties with the company, gotten rid of all my financial interest," a 2003 report by the Congressional Research Service found that the Vice President retained 433,000 shares of Halliburton. In addition, Cheney received $162,392 and $205,298 in deferred payments in 2001 and 2002, respectively.

Given the stakes, it's no wonder Dick Cheney had a born-again experience on Iranian sanctions when he entered the Bush administration. While Vice President, Cheney in 2002 denounced Iran as "the world's leading exporter of terror." But during his tenure as Halliburton CEO in the 1990's, Cheney strenuously argued against Clinton's sanctions regime and expanded Halliburton's business with Tehran. But in 1998, he complained that U.S. firms were "cut out of the action." And back in 1996, Cheney railed against the Clinton prohibitions on Iranian trade and financial activity for American firms:

"We seem to be sanction-happy as a government. The problem is that the good Lord didn't see fit to always put oil and gas resources where there are democratic governments."

When it comes to disinvestment in Iran, Republicans like Mitt Romney and Dick Cheney shouldn't, to paraphrase then-candidate George W Bush, "take the high horse and then claim the low road." The task of decrying those who unwittingly provide aid and comfort to the Iranian regime is best left to those who are sincere about it, such as Oregon Senator Ron Wyden. In 2005, Wyden in reaction to the Halliburton's cozy relationship proposed a bill to require the Treasury Department to publicly list both foreign firms doing business with Iran's energy interests as well as any U.S entities holding more than a $100,000 stake in them. And just last month, Wyden introduced the "Stop Arming Iran Act" to ensure that surplus parts and components from retired American F14 fighter jets are not auctioned off to arms dealers serving the government in Tehran[...]

For more background, see "Romney and Cheney in Deep with Iran Investments."

The controversy over the racist commentary of Don Imus continues to boil over in the liberal blogosphere. But while there is general agreement with the calls by Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson for Imus' firing by CBS Radio and MSNBC, there is a disappointing silence when its comes to Sharpton and Jackson's own histories of hate speech and racial intolerance.

There is no doubt that for his slur against the Rutgers women's basketball team and track record of on-air bigotry, Imus needs to go. As AmericaBlog, MediaMatters, DailyKos and a host of others thoroughly document, Imus has long served listeners a steady diet of racist and misogynistic vitriol. No one should be surprised that his feeble apology and subsequent two week suspension wrist-slap has left Imus' critics unsatisfied, to say the least.

There is also no doubt that Imus' slanders differ little in kind or degree from a long roster of right-wing purveyors of hate. Just to name a few (space prohibits listing them all), Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham, Michael Savage, Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter seamlessly deliver a brand of hate that is increasingly consistent with the rhetoric of today's Republican Party. It's no wonder that Al Sharpton and so much of the liberal blogosphere is angry and disappointed by the continued and surprising support for Imus from the likes of Howard Fineman, Tom Oliphant and others.

But when Al Sharpton becomes the self-appointed avenger of racist rhetoric, liberals of all stripes should be very concerned indeed. The Reverend, after all, has a long and unrepentant history of race-baiting and literally inflammatory language. It helped catapult him from civil right leader to a New York political player with presidential ambitions.

Sharpton, as you'll recall, was one of the perpetrators of the 1987 Tawana Brawley hoax in upstate New York. Despite a $345,000 jury award against him, Reverend Al never apologized for the role he played in slandering six policemen and local prosecutor Stephen Pagones over Brawley's spurious allegations of rape. Worse still, in 1995 Sharpon decried a Jewish business owner in Harlem as a "white interloper" as one of his associates urged protesters to burn the store. Several people were killed in the ensuing blaze. Only later in his career did Sharpton moderate his public statements, if not his private beliefs.

Jesse Jackson has hardly been a paragon of tolerance himself. During his 1984 presidential campaign, Jackson famously referred to New York as "Hymie Town." Two decades later during the Terri Schiavo affair, Jackson joined forces with the extremist anti-abortion v