MSNBC's new military analyst

I just watched an interview on "Countdown" with Wes Clark, and he was introduced as "MSNBC's new military analyst." I wish he was running for President, but I am happy he is no longer on Faux News.

Bork's lawsuit is weak, but his hypocrisy is strong.

Overview

This post will analyze Robert Bork's lawsuit by examining the allegations in his complaint and New York law. I will also discuss briefly what a poor job his lawyers have done so far, and I will expound upon that in a subsequent post.

Bork filed his lawsuit in federal court, and the initial pleading in federal court is called a "complaint."

The laws of the State of New York will be used to determine the issues of liability and damages.

The contents of Bork's complaint

• Factual allegations
  

The facts as alleged by Bork are as follows:

6. On the evening of June 6, 2006, the New Criterion magazine held an event (the “New Criterion event”) at the Yale Club. The New Criterion invited Mr. Bork, among other guests, to deliver remarks at the event.

7. The New Criterion hosted the event in a banquet room at the Yale Club. As the host of the event, the Yale Club provided tables and chairs where guests could sit during the reception and the evening’s speeches. At the front of the room, the Yale Club provided a dais, atop which stood a lectern for speakers to address the audience.

8. Because of the height of this dais, the Yale Club’s normal practice is to provide a set of stairs between the floor and the dais. At the New Criterion event, however, the Yale Club failed to provide any steps between the floor and the dais. Nor did the Yale Club provide a handrail or any other reasonable support feature to assist guests attempting to climb the dais.

9. When it was his turn to deliver remarks to the audience, Mr. Bork approached the dais. Because of the unreasonable height of the dais, without stairs or a handrail, Mr. Bork fell backwards as he attempted to mount the dais, striking his left leg on the side of the dais and striking his head on a heat register.

10. As a result of the fall, a large hematoma formed on Mr. Bork’s lower left leg, which later burst. The injury required surgery, extended medical treatment, and months of physical therapy.

11. Mr. Bork suffered excruciating pain as a result of this injury and was largely immobile during the months in which he received physical therapy, preventing him from working his typical schedule before the injury. The months of relative inactivity weakened Mr. Bork’s legs so that he still requires a cane for stability. In addition, Mr. Bork continues to have a limp as a result of this injury.

(emphasis added). The italicized excerpt is a prime example of why I (and many others) say that this complaint is poorly drafted. The intended meaning of that excerpt is far from clear. On the one hand, it seems that what the lawyers meant was that before the injury Bork had an extablished schedule that went beyond the date of the injury, but that he was unable to meet that schedule because of the injury. So why didn't the lawyers say "established" schedule instead of "typical" schedule? By using "typical," the excerpt could be interpreted to mean that the injury prevented Bork from working his schedule as it existed from the date of the injury backwards from--not after--that date. That makes no sense, and in fact is impossible. Perhaps what the lawyers intended to convey was that after the injury Bork was unable to work a schedule similar to what he had prior to the injury, but they did not make that clear, to say the least, and that meaning presents significant problems. As discussed below, Bork is seeking damages for lost work and income. If he cannot show specific work and income that he lost after the date of the injury, he cannot recover any damages for lost work. Showing a "typical" instead of an actual and established schedule ain't gonna cut it. This is really sloppy drafting which I would not expect to see from a semi-experienced plaintiff's lawyer or lawyers from one of the nation's largest and most prestigious law firms, but I will discuss that in a subsequent post.

One fact other fact to keep in mind is that at the time of this incident, Bork was 79 years old.

• Allegations of negligence

In ¶¶ 13-14 of his complaint, Bork alleges that the Yale Club had a duty to provide reasonably safe facilities, and that such duty meant that the Club was required to provide stairs and a handrail from the floor to the dais. Bork also alleges the following:

15. It was reasonably foreseeable that, by failing to provide a safe dais and stairs between the floor and dais, a supporting handrail, or any other reasonable support feature, a guest such as Mr. Bork attending the New Criterion event would be injured while attempting to mount the dais.

16. The Yale Club’s negligent failure to provide reasonably safe facilities, and in particular, its failure to provide a safe dais and stairs between the floor and dais, a supporting handrail, or any other reasonable support feature to protect its guests attempting to mount the dais, caused Mr. Bork to fall while attempting to mount the dais and caused his extensive and continuing injuries.

Paragraph 17 alleges that due to this negligence, Bork suffered damages.

These damages include pain and suffering, a continuing leg injury, medical bills and related costs of treatment, and lost work time and income. The long-term effects of his injuries continue to manifest themselves.

These alleged damages will be discussed in detail in a subsequent section.

• Allegations of gross negligence

Bork's allegations of gross negligence and damages are the same as those for ordinary negligence listed above, with one difference. All the allegations for gross negligence claim that the Yale Club acted wantonly, willfully, and in reckless disregard of the safety of its guests.

• Damages sought by Bork

According to the complaint, Bork seeks three basic types of damages:

A. Awarding actual damages resulting from Defendant’s wrongdoing in excess of $1,000,000.

B. Punitive damages in an amount to be proven at trial.

C. Pre- and post-judgment costs, interest and attorney’s fees.

My first reactions to the complaint

Much of what follows will have more meaning to lawyers, but I will try to explain some things for the non-lawyers who might be among my oh so vast readership.

Where to start? I guess I'll start with how poorly the complaint was drafted. Early in my career, If I had tried to file a pleading that was put together like this one, I would have been told to fix it or find a new job. Most of my career has involved representing plaintiffs, and I have worked on many personal injury cases. Based on my experience, Bork's complaint is missing a great many basic factual allegations. I will give an example. Just because an organization such as the Yale Club hosts an event in some building does not necessarily mean the organization will be liable for the claims made by Bork. Depending on the state and the applicable law, the owner of the building could be liable. Good personal injury lawyers know to include allegations showing ownership and control of premises and events. This was not done by Bork's lawyers. Did the Yale Club own and control the premises, or did the New Criterion magazine? Did the magazine or the Yale Club have control over the premises and the event? No one can tell from the complaint, and that shows shoddy work. I am not going to list any of the other missing allegations now for two reasons: 1) those allegations are not absolutely required under federal pleading rules, and 2) I will instead quote a New York personal injury lawyer on these missing allegations. I will, however, say that the absence of these allegations indicates that Bork's lawyers don't have a clue about how to handle a plaintiff's claim in a personal injury lawsuit.

Next, I wondered about contributory or comparative negligence (which is called "proportionate responsibility" in Texas). These terms basically refer to any fault on the part of the injured person who is suing (the plaintiff). In almost all states, such contributory or comparative conduct by the plaintiff can reduce or eliminate the amount of damages the plaintiff receives. Bork obviously saw that there were no stairs, handrails, or any other "reasonable support features," and yet he decided to try to mount the dais. Bork, a 79-year old man, freely decided to try to step onto the dais in spite of the fact that he saw no stairs or handrail. And, given the lack of anything to the contrary in the complaint, it appears that Bork did not ask for any assistance of any kind. I immediately thought that Bork was in large part responsible for his own injuries.

Then I thought about doctrines known as "assumption of the risk" and "open and obvious conditions." These doctrines go to the plaintiff's conduct. If a dangerous condition (like no stairs or handrail beside a dais) is open and obvious and a person still tries to mount the dais, he could be found to have assumed any risk involved in trying to mount the dais, and such conduct could then reduce the amount of damages he can recover. It sure seemed to me that these doctrines would be highly applicable to Bork's lawsuit.

But don't take my word for it. In my first post about this case, I quoted some comments from Ted Frank (tort reform advocate and resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute). Here are some more:

Bork is not claiming that he involuntarily slipped on stairs that were poorly maintained, he is not claiming that the dais was deceptively placed such that he didn't realize there was a large drop; Bork is claiming that he made a conscious decision to try to climb onto a dais and fell.

*******

[This is] a case of what is at best comparative negligence, and the plaintiff here is seeking to blame the defendant for an incident where the plaintiff's actions are an intervening cause. Judge Bork is not so addled that the possibilities of accident from a 79-year-old climbing a dais are not at least as foreseeable to him as to the defendant, who is less aware of Bork's physical capabilities.

Yeah, what he said. Even on the Free Republic site--which is hardly liberal-friendly, to put it mildly--one poster (by the name of DemEater) succinctly explained the weakness of Bork's claims:

Why not ask for stairs or a boost up rather than trying to climb on the stage at 80+ years old? And if it was so open and obvious, it should have been obvious not to do it.

(emphasis added).

As for damages, I had several concerns. Judging from the allegations of the complaint, actual damages won't get to $1 million without a substantial award for pain and suffering. And, as I noted in my first post on this case, "pain and suffering" is a favorite target of the tort reform crowd (and lest anyone has forgotten, Bork is a prominent figure in that crowd). Not only that, but Bork is seeking actual damages "in excess" of $1 million! There's no way he gets that without a big award for pain and suffering. The next thing that caught my eye was the request for attorney's fees. I know that in Texas, a plaintiff cannot get attorney's fees in a personal injury case.

And then I realized that in order to evaluate Bork's claims, I would need to know about New York law. As it turns out, New York law shows that Bork has a weak case.

New York law on liability

Section 1411 of the New York Consolidated Laws reads as follows:

In any action to recover damages for personal injury, injury to property, or wrongful death, the culpable conduct attributable to the claimant or to the decedent, including contributory negligence or assumption of risk, shall not bar recovery, but the amount of damages otherwise recoverable shall be diminished in the proportion which the culpable conduct attributable to the claimant or decedent bears to the culpable conduct which caused the damages.

Thus, contributory negligence and assumption of risk will be applicable in Bork's case.

According to this website,

New York follows a pure comparative negligence system. With this system, a judge or jury assigns a percentage of fault to each responsible party and then apportions the damage award accordingly. Using this system, an injured person may recover his or her damages even if the injured person was 99% at fault in causing the injury, with those damages reduced by his or her portion of the fault.

So, Bork could end up winning the battle but losing the war. He could get a judgment that the Yale Club was negligent, but his damages could be reduced to almost nothing because of his own conduct.

I also found some in-depth analysis on a site called the New York Personal Injury Law Blog. The author of that site is Eric Turkewitz, a lawyer in New York City who has been a personal injury lawyer (meaning he generally represents plaintiffs) in New York for over 20 years. In other words, this guy knows personal injury law and what is needed to win a personal injury case. In a post unrelated to the Bork case, Turkewitz noted that a typical defense in a slip and fall case in New York is that the unsafe condition was open and obvious. My limited research of New York case law shows that an open and obvious condition is relevant to the issue of the plaintiff's contributory/comparative negligence. Here's what that means. An open and obvious condition does not relieve the owner or controller of premises of a duty to keep those premises reasonably safe, meaning in turn that the owner/controller could still be found liable--but an open and obvious condition can be used to reduce the amount of damages an injured party can recover. [NOTE: My research was not exhaustive, and I did not find any Court of Appeals decisions. If any New York lawyers want to clarify this point, I would welcome that.] So an open and obvious condition could result in a plaintiff winning the battle (getting a judgment that the defendant is liable) but losing the war (receiving very little in damages).

Turkewitz has devoted a separate page to the Bork case. On June 8, Turkewitz posted his initial thoughts on Bork's lawsuit:

1. This is a routine New York personal injury case. There is nothing particularly exceptional about it from the Complaint other than the plaintiff, a noted conservative jurist who has been part of the American Enterprise Institute, which engages in tort "reform" activities.
2. Since no hospitalization is mentioned, I assume that the surgery for the hematoma was out-patient and may have been a simple drainage of some kind. Perhaps the med-bloggers who visit here can offer up a bit more on what kind of surgery was likely;
3. The Complaint doesn't even come close to explaining why punitive damages would be warranted in such a routine negligence matter. My gut reaction is that it is frivolous.
4. The Complaint asked for attorneys fees. Why? You can't get them in New York for a standard personal injury claim.
5. The Complaint asks for pre-judgment interest. Why? You can't get that here either. Sad, but true. Interest runs from the date of the judgment not from the date of the accident, thereby giving insurance companies a reason to delay litigation as long as possible. Perhaps Judge Bork wants to come with me the next time I lobby the legislature to amend the law to include pre-judgment interest?
6. The Complaint asks for an amount "in excess of $1,000,000" (not merely $1M, but in excess of). Where are the damages for making such a huge demand?

(emphasis added). I'm telling ya, the answer to that last question is "pain and suffering." In any event, here is analysis from a highly experienced plaintiff's lawyer who knows New York personal injury law, and that analysis shows that much of Bork's lawsuit is weak, and it shows Bork's abject hypocrisy. Three days later, after having given the matter more thought, Turkewitz posted his list of "top 10 things Judge Bork should consider." The list is brilliant, and I urge people to read the entire list, as I am going to quote only portions of it, specifically those showing what allegations should have been in the complaint.

5. Make sure the new complaint explicitly alleges the Yale Club owns the premises. You didn't do it the first time. If they are going to deny it, you want to know now.

4. Make sure the new complaint explicitly alleges the Yale Club controls and operates the premises. You failed to do this the first time. If the Yale Club contracted operations to a 3rd party, or allowed the New Criterion magazine as a sponsor to undertake these activities, you want to know now. Make sure each fact is separately pleaded so you know exactly what position the Yale Club is taking with respect to who operated and controlled this event and this room when they answer the Complaint with admissions and denials.

3. Make sure the new complaint specifically claims the New Criterion did not operate or control this event in any way, or sue them if you think they did. This is important since you alleged they were the "host." (In paragraph 7, you called both Yale and New Criterion the "host.") Whatever you do, just don't leave this vague as you did the first time. It may not be the Yale Club that did the actual set-up for the dais. Do you want to wait for the statute of limitations to expire only to see the Yale Club point at the empty chair?

None of this might be meaningful to non-lawyers, but trust me when I say that all of the things mentioned by Turkewitz are basic, rudimentary matters--as in things that any lawyer with even scant experience in handling these types of cases would know to include and would not think about filing a lawsuit that did not contain these matters.

Turkewitz's "top ten" list also had a suggestion about Bork's actual damages, but I will discuss that item in the next section.

Thus, New York law shows that Bork's complaint is poorly drafted, seeks damages that are not allowed under New York law, and that his basic claims are weak because of his own conduct.

Back to Bork's hypocrisy

Recall that my earlier post had this excerpt from an editorial co-authored by Bork:

Courts are now meccas for every conceivable unanswered grievance or perceived injury. Juries dispense lottery-like windfalls, attracting and rewarding imaginative claims and far-fetched legal theories.

(emphasis added). These words ring hollow now. Bork has brought a lawsuit that seeks a "lottery-like windfall" for injuries caused in large part by his own actions. Instead of accepting responsibility for his own poor judgment, his own decision to proceed in the face of an open and obvious danger, and his own refusal to seek any assistance, he seeks to recover actual damages in excess of $1 million dollars AND punitive damages.

Item 2 in Turkewitz's "top ten" list in part addresses Bork's allegation that parts of his damages are "lost work time and income." Item 2 goes on to show Bork's hypocrisy in light of the editorial excerpt above:

2. Do not make a claim for future lost speaking fees, unless they are huge. If you do, your prior writings and statements on tort reform may become relevant to show that your stock as a speaker to conservative groups has been devalued as a result of the appearance of hypocrisy in filing a suit with some meritless claims thrown in to the mix. The man-on-the-street may well remember you as a SCOTUS nominee, but they surely don't know of what you have written. You don't want them to know either, because some of the claims in your federal complaint can't be justified under any legal theory. And that makes you, as a former big-shot judge, look bad.

(emphasis in original). As far as I am concerned, Bork has always looked bad. He has always been a arrogant hypocritical elitist who tries to dress up his agenda in grand principles that sound good, but then when he tries to apply those principles, his true nature comes through. Since his Supreme Court nomination was thankfully shot down, he has been defended and supported by the right wingers. That is, perhaps until now. Turkewitz stated on June 13 that

I searched TownHall, a site with dozens of conservative commentators, to add additional viewpoints to this collection, but could find no reference whatsoever to the lawsuit.

Town Hall is the place online to find the "Who's who" of right wing conservative pundits. I did my own search of the site just before publishing this post. There is still no mention of this lawsuit. That is interesting because almost without fail, any time some winger darling--like Bork--is attacked, there is an immediate response by the wingers. And boy, has there been an attack on Bork over this lawsuit. The fact that no one--other than his son--has tried to defend Bork could be an indication that at last we know how much hypocrisy is too much even for the wingers.

The failed "no confidence" vote on Gonzo

Overview

So, the Democrats' attempt to get a "no confidence" vote against General Attorney Gonzales did not make it through the Senate. What waste of time and energy--in at least three ways.

A "no confidence" vote would carry no actual authority.

First of all, even if the vote had succeeded, it would have been almost completely meaningless. The vote would have had absolutely no authority. It could not have directly produced any results. The only vote from the Congress which would have had any actual impact on Gonzo's job status would have been a vote to impeach him--and that has to come from the House, not the Senate. A "no confidence" vote was not going to change Bush's mind one bit. To reiterate, the "no confidence" vote in the Senate was not going to have any direct impact on Gonzales's job.

The Democrats handled the immediate aftermath poorly.

Despite the foregoing analysis, the Democrats had an opportunity to use this "no confidence" vote move as an effective tool in shaping public opinion, but--as usual--they blew it. They could have issued a simple statement along these lines: "Gonzales has lied repeatedly before Congress. Alternatively, his allegedly faulty memory shows he is not capable of running the Department of Justice. He has shown that he is far more interested in political agendas than justice. And yet President Bush refuses to get rid of him. We feel that Gonzales is hurting the country, and we have expressed this to the President repeatedly. We felt like we had to do this to get the President to face reality." This explanation would have accomplished two things: 1) it would have kept the focus on Gonzo's misconduct, and 2) provided a non-whiny reason for seeking the vote. Instead, what did we hear from the Democrats? We heard that a majority of Senators showed they have "no confidence" in Gonzales, that some of them were Republicans, and that no Republicans actually defended Gonzales. All of that is true, but so what? What was needed was a direct response to all the charges that have been made (and will continue to be made) that this was meaningless and a waste of time. What the Dems actually said in the aftermath did not do that.

Strategically, this was a bad move.

Did the Dems need a "no confidence" to keep up the pressure on Gonzales and Bush? NO. Here's a list of things that would keep up that pressure: continue the investigation and hearings on the USA firing and hirings and the politicization of the DoJ; hold press conferences on these matters; write op-ed pieces; go on TV and radio and internet talk shows; send more letters to Bush; etc., etc. While it is true that these options are still open, there is a chance they will not be as effective now. Why? Because the effort to get a "no confidence" vote failed. Instead of pursuing these other efforts, the Democrats chose to try something that would have been no more than a symbolic gesture, and they couldn't even get that accomplished. At best what this has done is produce a "one step forward, two steps back" situation. Whatever momentum had been built up has been lost, and now time and effort has to be spent getting that back to the level it had before the failed vote and explaining why the effort was undertaken in the first place. As a result, the Bush administration and its supporters have an opportunity to criticize and downplay every effort made from now on. That hinders any attempt to influence public opinion on a wider scale.

I think the attempt at a "no confidence" vote was, is, and will continue to be a bad idea. However, if I was going to undertake such an effort, I would not have done so now. I would have waited until I had more evidence of wrongdoing. I would have waited until I had made more public complaints about the whole situation. I would have waited until all Democratic Senators could have been persuaded to show up for the vote. None of the Dem Senators running for President even bothered to leave the campaign trail to show up for this deal. Knowing that 60 votes were needed, the Dems have the slimmest of majorities, and that only a handful of Republicans were going to break ranks, the Dem leadership should have known that getting 60 votes was not going to happen at this time.

All in all, this "no confidence" vote was a gambit that had no chance of succeeding, would have been largely meaningless even if it had succeeded, and has--in my opinion--done nothing to help get rid of Gonzales.

Whoop-dee-damn-doo.

What a Bork

In my last year of law school, I wrote a directed research paper on defamation law. What I proposed was rather radical (in a nutshell, greatly reducing the standards for liability but increasing the standards for proving and obtaining money damages), but that is not the subject of this post. In the course of my research, I came across the musings of Robert Bork. I had never before--and to this day still have not--seen a bigger pompous hyprocritical asshole. I literally did a dance of joy when Bork's nomination to the Supreme Court was terminated. I would rather have Paul Wolfowitz running the country than for Robert Bork to have any kind of authority, and anyone who has read this blog even semi-regularly knows that is a strong statement for me. And just to underscore that sentiment, please note that I used Wolfowitz's actual name instead of "Wolfowitless."

And now Bork has just proved my point. Bork has long been one of the loudest voices among those squawking about tort reform. Tort reform is another subject for another time, but for now I will say that most "tort reforms" are not about reforming the system, but rather seek to eliminate all liability, and anyone who thinks that is a good idea needs to think again. Tort reformers almost always complain about frivolous lawsuits and excessive damages, especially punitive damages and damages for pain and suffering.

And now Robert Bork, champion of tort reform, has filed a lawsuit against The Yale Club seeking $1 million in damages--including pain and suffering--and punitive damages. I am going to analyze Bork's lawsuit in detail in subsequent posts, but for now I just want to point out that Bork has spent much effort in the past arguing that tort reform has been needed to stop lawsuits that seek excessive damages for things like pain and suffering. According to Bork, the tort system is out of control and needs to be controlled by Congress because the current system is threatening the national economy. As he wrote in a 2002 article,

State tort law today is different in kind from the state tort law known to the generation of the Framers. The present tort system poses dangers to interstate commerce not unlike those faced under the Articles of Confederation. Even if Congress would not, in 1789, have had the power to displace state tort law, the nature of the problem has changed so dramatically as to bring the problem within the scope of the power granted to Congress. Accordingly, proposals, such as placing limits or caps on punitive damages, or eliminating joint or strict liability, which may once have been clearly understood as beyond Congress's power, may now be constitutionally appropriate.

And in 1995, Bork co-authored an editorial in the Washington Times that said the following:

Interstate commerce and trade have become the principal victims of a runaway liability system.

Courts are now meccas for every conceivable unanswered grievance or perceived injury. Juries dispense lottery-like windfalls, attracting and rewarding imaginative claims and far-fetched legal theories. Today's merchant enters the marketplace with trepidation - anticipating from the civil justice system the treatment that his ancestors experienced with the Barbary pirates.

(emphasis added). And now, when he is injured, Bork brings one of those lawsuits he has in the past sought to all but eliminate. That is rank and abject hypocrisy, folks.

But you don't have to take my word for it. Ted Frank is a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institue, one of the leading conservative and/or Republican think tanks in the country. He is also a staunch advocate of tort reform. Here's just part of what he said about Bork's lawsuit:

Before someone accuses us of playing this down, let me be out front and say that I find Judge Bork's slip and fall suit against the Yale Club embarrassingly silly.

*******

I don't find Bork or Bork's suit a subject of amusement. I find it sad. The injury is sad, the betrayal of values Bork once stood for is sad, and the fact that I find myself in a position where I need to criticize the actions of Bork and a law firm I respect greatly is sad.

*******

This claim in this suit seems to go against Bork's previously stated values. If that is because the complaint is poorly drafted, and there is a better story to be told, I will be the first to apologize.

(italics in original). The link to these comments presents a good overall discussion of this matter, including comments from Bork's son, and those interested in this case should read that full post. I will be referring to it and others in subsequent posts here.

Some of those subsequent posts are going to explain why this is a bullshit lawsuit, and thus will further expose Bork's hypocrisy.

Milligan needs a mulligan.

Dennis Milligan has been the chairman of the Arkansas Republican Party for about two weeks. Republicans in Arkansas might want to make sure his tenure is short.

In his first interview as chairman, Milligan talked briefly about the Iraq war, and in so doing said some of the most stupid things I have yet heard.

He said he’s “150 percent” behind Bush on the war in Iraq.

"At the end of the day, I believe fully the president is doing the right thing, and I think all we need is some attacks on American soil like we had on [Sept. 11, 2001 ], and the naysayers will come around very quickly to appreciate not only the commitment for President Bush, but the sacrifice that has been made by men and women to protect this country," Milligan said.

What a dumbass.

First of all, he obviously does not realize that if we have "some attacks on American soil" what has become Bush's primary justification for the war--"We're fighting the terrorists there so we don't have to fight them here"--will be conclusively proved to be bullshit. That will also mean that Bush--by standards he established his ownself--will have utterly failed in what he has often claimed to be his most important task, namely protecting the people of this country. That fact has somehow failed to penetrate Milligan's thick concrete excuse for a skull. Instead, Milligan thinks that such utter failure will cause people to appreciate Bush. It seems far more likely that many of those who still actually appreciate what Bush has done would change their minds.

Second, it is clear that Milligan could not even graduate from Bush's school of "strategery." Thinking that violent terrorist attacks against America is a viable strategy for scoring political gains is not a good plan. Here's a hint, Milligan: a much better plan is to make sure such attacks do not occur. Otherwise, people might think that you actually want attacks to occur.

Lastly, even blatant freedom-haters like myself do appreciate the sacrifices made by our men and women in the military. What we don't appreciate is that those sacrifices have been made for a war that was destined to become a FUBAR situation no matter what we did. What we don't appreciate is that those sacrifices were made as a result of horrendous planning and a criminal lack of planning for the post-war period. What we don't appreciate is that those sacrifices have been made in a war that has not made America safer, but instead has harmed this country in so many ways.

Forget about Osama, George wants Vince McMahon!

For those who have more culture or less free time than me, Vince McMahon is the majority owner and board chairman of World Wrestling Entertainment (the WWE), which is a big-time pro wrestling company. McMahon is also an active player in the action in the ring. The character he plays is way over the top--extremely arrogant and ruthless, always telling and showing everyone that he runs the show. McMahon does a great job in playing his character. Let me say that again--McMahon does a great job in playing his character. Vince McMahon is out there to put on a show. Everyone knows that it is a show and that Vince McMahon is not going to directly harm our nation no matter how much he yells, snarls, or pounds his chest.

And then there is George W. Bush. His cheap theatrics and choice phrases are of a different character because of his position. "Bring it on," "dead or alive," "You're either with us or against us," etc., are all things that would sound great coming from Vince McMahon. However, Bush is not the head of a sports entertainment company. He is the freaking President of the United States. What he does and says does have a direct impact on this nation.

So why am I bringing this up? Well, a May 31, 2007, editorial by Georgie Anne Geyer in the Dallas Morning News shows that Bush is now behaving like a pro wrestler. Before showing the key part of the editorial, here's some background info...Upon initial investigation, I found that Geyer is generally referred to as a conservative columnist. After doing some more research on that claim, I have found there is some dispute about it. She considers herself to be "a politically moderate, well-traveled, constantly reporting columnist of the old style — I came up completely through journalism and not through special-agenda politics, like so many columnists today." I also found that before the Iraq war, Geyer had this to say about Bush and his predecessor:

The Bush people inherited an absolutely terrible situation. Every single problem we have was one that either was fomented or planted and exacerbated by the do-nothing policies of the Clinton administration.

When Bill Clinton came to the presidency, I frequently wrote and said: "This man is going to put us in mortal danger because he does not know how to use military force."

*******

Now we have in the Bush administration a leadership that can use force effectively and do it quickly and intelligently. Thank God we had that change-over in time to deal with the current crises. Otherwise we would have had sanctions. We would have had all kinds of attempts at reconciliation. We would have suffered seminars all over the country about why they hate us, why we should hate ourselves and why we should never hate them.

She has also had numerous articles published in The American Conservative, and Pat Buchanan lists her as one of his favorites columnists.

As for the Dallas Morning News, I know a thing or two about that publication, although I must admit my knowledge might be dated considering that I have not lived in Dallas since the fall of 2002. I have often said that Dallas is the most Republican place in the country. This November, however, there was a bit of a change, as every Republican running for judge in Dallas County was defeated. I never dreamed that would ever happen--and wish that it had happened a few years ago when my legal practice was based in Dallas. Thus, Dallas might not be quite as Republican as in the past, but it is still a Republican bastion, in my opinion. Dallas is one of the largest cities in the country, yet it has only one daily newspaper, the Dallas Morning News. To say that that paper is Republican and conservative is like saying that it gets a bit warm in Texas in the summer. In other words, it is a huge understatement. The paper is owned by the Belo Corporation, which is an integral part of the big-time money establishment in Dallas. The Morning News, as the only daily paper in town for over 20 years, has long been a key element in implementing the agenda of the establishment, and often that has taken the form of making sure that opposing views were given little or no coverage. Thus, I was surprised when I saw that Geyer's editorial was printed in the Dallas Morning News.

Now, with all of that background, let's get to the actual editorial. Geyer was writing about Iraq and terrorism, and here is the portion of the editorial that has been the buzz all over the blogosphere:

But by all reports, President Bush is more convinced than ever of his righteousness.

Friends of his from Texas were shocked recently to find him nearly wild-eyed, thumping himself on the chest three times while he repeated "I am the president!" He also made it clear he was setting Iraq up so his successor could not get out of "our country's destiny."

Remember, she was writing about George W. Bush, not Vince McMahon.

Now, I know what some of you are thinking...Geyer did not identify any of these "friends," and thus there is no reason to believe her. Well, if the editorial had been published in the New York Times, I would would give more credence to such complaint. However, the editorial was published in the Dallas Morning News, the antithesis of a liberal, anti-Republican, anti-Bush publication.

Still, it is true that Geyer did not name either the "friends" or her source. However, take a good look at Bush's past behavior and try to tell me this story could not possibly be true, and I will tell you that you should not be allowed to handle sharp objects or operate heavy machinery.

Another former Bush administration official explains how Bush has failed America.

The ways in which the Bush administration has been disastrous for America are myriad, but this post will focus on one--America's standing in the world. I have maintained that the Iraq war and the way that the Bush administration has handled that whole process--and others--has cost us our role as leader of the free world. Notice that I did not say "most powerful nation." I said "leader." Notice also that I did not say "ruler." Anyhoo, America has little credibility in the international community because of the Bush administration. I have been far from alone in expressing those views, and now another voice has joined the chorus.

His name is Price Floyd. Here are some excerpts from his professional bio:

Price Floyd joined the Center for New American Security (CNAS) as the Director of External Relations in March 2007. He brings more than 15 years of communications and diplomatic experience with the U.S. Department of State, most recently as the Director of Media Affairs. Mr. Floyd directed a staff of 10 in the development and implementation of media strategies to promote the foreign policy agenda – from elections in Afghanistan and Iraq, to the responses to the tsunami in Indonesia and the earthquake in Pakistan...Mr. Floyd began his career at the Department assisting the Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs from 1990-1993. Mr. Floyd has received numerous awards for his service including the State Department’s Superior Honor Award for his work during the Bosnia War, Superior Honor Award for service during the Pakistan Earthquake Relief Effort, and the Service Medal from the United Nations and European Union for work in Montenegro as part of the International Conference on the Former Yugoslavia.

Floyd worked in the State Department during the Bush 41 administration, the Clinton administration, and most of the Bush 43 administration (he is listed in the State Department telephone directory dated 5/30/2007).

On May 25, 2007, Floyd had an editorial published by the Fort Worth Star-Telegram:

To turn a famous Hollywood movie quote on its head: What we don't have here is a failure to communicate.

Since 9-11, the State Department has undertaken an unprecedented effort to reach audiences both in the U.S. and overseas to explain our foreign policy objectives. My former office there arranged more than 6,500 interviews in the past six years, about half of those with international media. On any given day, senior department officials, including the secretary of state, were doing four or five interviews.

Yet during this time, poll after poll showed an alarming trajectory of increased animosity toward America and this administration in particular, both here and abroad.

This contradiction -- reaching a larger audience than ever before to explain our foreign policy goals and objectives, while the support for those policies fell -- underscores the gap between how our actions have been perceived and how we want them to be perceived.

We have eroded not only the good will of the post-9-11 days but also any residual appreciation from the countries we supported during the Cold War. This is due to several actions taken by the Bush administration, including pulling out of the Kyoto Protocol (environment), refusing to take part in the International Criminal Court (rule of law), and pulling out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (arms control). The prisoner abuse scandal at Abu Ghraib and the continuing controversy over the detainees in Guantanamo also sullied the image of America.

Collectively, these actions have sent an unequivocal message: The U.S. does not want to be a collaborative partner. That is the policy we have been "selling" through our actions, which speak the loudest of all.

As the director of media affairs at State, this is the conundrum that I faced every day. I tried through the traditional domestic media and, for the first time, through the pan-Arab TV and print media -- Al Jazeera, Al Arabiya, Al Hayat -- to reach people in the U.S. and abroad and to convince them that we should not be judged by our actions, only our words.

I was not a newcomer to these issues. I had served at the State Department for more than 17 years, through the Persian Gulf War, Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo, numerous episodes of the Middle Eastern peace process and discussions in North Korea on its nuclear programs.

During each of these crises, we at least appeared to be working with others, even if we took actions with which others did not agree. We were talking to our enemies as well as our allies. Our actions and our words were in sync, we were transparent, our agenda was there for all to see, and our actions matched it.

This is not the case today. Much of our audience either doesn't listen or perceives our efforts to be meaningless U.S. propaganda.

We need a president who will enable the U.S. to return to its rightful place as the "beacon on a hill" -- a country that others want to emulate, not hate; a country that proves through words and deeds that it is free, not afraid.

We need to demonstrate that we are willing to help out our neighbors and to do what is necessary to ensure that our country and its citizens are safe.

We must do the real work of public diplomacy, not public relations. We need to greatly increase the number of people-to-people exchanges. We need to bring more officials from foreign governments and nongovernmental organizations to the United States -- not just to Washington but to Middle America, small-town America, even the inner cities of America.

We must re-create the American Libraries that we used to run and support in countries around the world. These centers gave thousands of people round the globe access to information that in most cases was not available in their countries.

Given where we stand in the eyes of the world, the results of these efforts will take years, possibly decades, to reap any positive benefits. But this change is vital to U.S. national security. It is also a moral obligation that we owe to the world.

(emphasis added). The only thing I have to add is a "thanks" to Laura Rozen, as I found out about this editorial through one of her posts.