AmCop's 7-month anniversary reading/drinking/coprophest this evening:

Friday, May 14

6:30 - 8:30 pm

Barbes

376 9th Street (between 6th and 7th Avenues) in Brooklyn.

http://www.barbesbrooklyn.com/ (for directions, etc.)

Bring a very thick raincoat and $5 for a drink!

Finchy writes:

Now that Brazil, Spain and India have ousted their right-leaning regimes in surprising upsets, might it be possible to start talking of a Bush Effect? As the situation in Iraq gets worse and worse, the world is increasingly privy to the nightmarish consequences of allowing a far-right government free reign. Is it possible that Bush represents a particular form, a certain design of feces and death, that people around the world do not want to see reflected in their own leaders?

I realize that I could be accused of Americacentrism here. After all, I'm sure Indian voters had plenty of other, local reasons for bumping Vajpayee. But aren't I allowed to hope? To pray that sensible people everywhere might grasp the affinities between and unite against demonic rightist agendas in general? If this happens in enough countries, it could snowball, and who knows...

Berlusconi's next! THEN we'll have a movement on our hands.

Blicero adds: I found this fact, from the NYTimes article, quite compelling:

And unlike in the United States, where the most prosperous also vote the most, in India it is the poor who turn out in greatest numbers.

Trent Lott, from 10/29/03:

If we have to, we just mow the whole place down, see what happens. You're dealing with insane suicide bombers who are killing our people, and we need to be very aggressive in taking them out.

Q: Is he referring to Iraq, New York City, or the English dept. at Ole Miss?

Finchy writes:

God bless Kenyon Martin for his brief disruption of the media's relentless
caca-storm. From the New York Times:

KENYON MARTIN had a great answer the other day when a television reporter tried to drag him into a contrived patriotic position, wondering whether therecent death of Pat Tillman might inspire Martin to go to the Athens Games if invited and lay it on the line for Dream Team IV.

Martin was incredulous. "He was at war, man," Martin said, referring to Tillman. "He was in a war - you understand that? Somebody was shooting at him, and he was shooting back. That's a little different than going over there to play basketball.

"He was risking his life for his country. That's not what we're doing. We're playing basketball for our country."

Is it possible that Al Qaeda has a team that they could send to Athens? Osama's tall, he could play center.

Scats passes along this blog post from Salon:

Here's a riddle that's been perplexing me: how is it that the general who orders multiple investigations into detainee abuse in the Iraq gulag, the second (and most crucial) of them led by someone as tough-minded and ethically independent as Antonio Taguba, is the same man who issues orders that systematize those abuses and give over control of the prisons to the interrogators? Is Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, coalition military commander in Iraq, schizophrenic?

Whole thing.

Did you know that when Rumsfeld presses a button in his ear, songs come out from his asshole? You can listen to the songs here.

speakingcorpse writes:

Wisconsin daily follows example of Brian Lehrer, demands its readers show more "balance" in their letters so that the editorial page can reflect both the for and against positions concerning collective national suicide.

Wisconsin Daily Asks Readers to Send Pro-Bush Letters

NEW YORK According to polls, President Bush's popularity has been dwindling since the Iraq war heated up again last month, but has it really come to this? A Wisconsin daily newspaper, in a novel twist, has resorted to asking readers to send in pro-Bush letters to the editor to balance out the many critical of the President.

In a notice to its readers, The Post-Crescent of Appleton, Wis. (weekday circulation 54,193), observed that with the presidential race heating up, the editors have found themselves in a "quandary." They feel their Views page takes "the political and social temperature of the Valley." But now the question is: "How can we balance the perspectives and topics of our letters when many of our submissions have been coming only from one side?"

"We've been getting more letters critical of President Bush than those that support him. We're not sure why, nor do we want to guess. But in today's increasingly polarized political environment, we would prefer our offering to put forward a better sense of balance ...

"Since we depend upon you, our readers, to supply our letters, that goal can be difficult. We can't run letters that we don't have.

"If you would like to help us 'balance' things out, send us a letter, make a call or punch out an e-mail ... We'd love to hear from you."

speakingcorpse writes:

Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz was obviously getting anxious about the "frenzy" over the "mistreatment" of prisoners. It was "spinning" (or perhaps being spun, as Sen. Inhofe suggested yesterday) "out of control." But now Mr. Kurtz can breathe a long sigh of relief. Everything makes sense again. No need to think, no need to reconsider policy. Nick Berg has been executed! The war is rejoined! Hooray!

"The murderers changed the subject yesterday.

Just when the frenzy over American mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners was
spinning out of control, we got a reminder of what we're up against."

speakingcorpse writes:

From the Guardian (UK):

Lakhdar Brahimi, the UN special representative, was sent to Iraq to ease the passage to democracy much against his will. With his arm twisted by Kofi Annan and George Bush, he reluctantly agreed but warned of the risk of ensnaring the UN in this ill-fated US/UK adventure. As the murder of its previous envoy showed, the UN is unloved in a country that suffered 12 years of corruptly administered UN sanctions. Brahimi warned that the US would never hand over enough power to make a truly independent UN intervention possible. He was right. Now, according to Tony Blair's close advisers, he is about to walk away from Iraq, leaving Britain and America alone to stew after June 30.

Read the whole article. He's about to recommend that the UN have nothing to do with the transfer, because Bremer wants corrupt governing council members in the new government, wants the new government to have no law-making authority, and wants to leave intact already-signed contracts for the building of FOURTEEN NEW UNITED STATES MILITARY BASES IN IRAQ.

speakingcorpse writes:

I write the following just in case you AmCoppers haven't had a chance to follow all the details of the Iraqi prison scandal. I know it's hard to follow it closely, given that the details are so traumatic for our nation, for our sense of ourselves as participating citizens in the world's greatest democracy. (And it seems it was traumatic, too, for our Iraqi students in the ways of democracy; we still have so much to teach them.)

Anyway, this article neatly states what is at issue in the current controversy. The Brigadier General who commanded the prison explains that she was told that she had to place members of her military police unit under the command of military intelligence. This was ordered by General Miller, Gitmo impresario and now (surprise, surprise!) the man who is supposed to "clean up" the prison at Abu Ghraib. (Gen. Miller does seem to be a very clean man himself. I bet his asshole is very clean.)

Anyway, the military police Brigadier General (Karpinski) protested repeatedly that this transfer of command was a bad idea. Major General Taguba, the endearing small Asian investigator, essentially corroborates her story. He said yesterday under oath that Karpinski "challenged" Miller's command to give her MP's over to the control of intelligence. And he notes in his report that such a command was contrary to military doctrine and was the enabling condition of the abuse.

Dr. Stephen Cambone (an Italian American who holds the same advanced degree as the African-American national security adviser Condoleezza Rice) was sent to Capitol Hill yesterday to testify, along with the soft-voiced General Taguba. The Doctor was not called to testify by anyone in Congress. He was sent by the White House for one reason only: to try to undercut General Taguba's claims about who ordered that the MP's be placed under the control of military intelligence. Of course, the Doctor couldn't contradict Taguba without lying, so he was reduced to making lame claims about the MP's and the MI officers being told to "work together."

Let's just be clear about what this means. The untrained MP's, scared shitless by having to work in an overcrowded prison that had already nearly been overrun several times by rebellious prisoners, were told that they HAD to work with the interrogation "experts" from MI. They were told that the prisoners were the worst terrorists (with "American Blood" on their hands, as Senator James Inhofe put it yesterday), even though the prisoners were mostly miscellaneously detained civilians. The MI people must have said something like this to the MP's: "We've got to get information out of these terrorists to prevent them from killing more of your comrades. It's hard to get information from Arabs, but we are experts. Many of us have been trained by those expert "Arabists," veterans of the Israeli Defense Forces. So we know what we're doing. And even if what we suggest sounds strange, remember, you HAVE to work with us. That's what your commanding officer was told. So let's get down to business."

Which they did, the MI's and the MP's, some of them with great alacrity. In the case of Pfc. England, it seems as if a long-suppressed talent was suddenly made recognizable. And as the pictures make clear, she was delighted to discover that she was born to do the important work of extracting the special information that only Arabs can conceal. And the very FACT of the pictures reveals also that her talents delighted her colleagues and superiors. She was the star of Abu Ghraib.

Finchy writes:

Yet another sign of how ridiculous things have gotten: even an offensively
salacious disaster film about global warming avoids use of the words "global
warming" in its website for fear of offending the Bush administration's
pollution-friendly environmental policy. Kudos to the New York Times for
comparing the current state of media cowardice and self-censorship to the
McCarthy era.

Blicero asks: Is Laurie David (of the NRDC) related to Larry David (whose fictional wife on "Curb Your Enthusiasm" works for the NRDC)?

Oh, and a nice little connection between the global warming "debate" and the current prisoner-torture catastrophe. Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) is the courageous, iconoclastic congressman who had these comments yesterday:

``I'm probably not the only one up at this table that is more outraged by the outrage than we are by the treatment,'' Inhofe, an Oklahoma Republican and an outspoken conservative, told a U.S. Senate hearing probing the case.

In heated remarks at odds with others on the Senate Armed Services Committee who criticized the U.S. military's handling of prisoners at the Abu Ghraib prison outside Baghdad, Inhofe said American sympathies should lie with U.S. troops.

``I am also outraged that we have so many humanitarian do-gooders right now crawling all over these prisons looking for human rights violations, while our troops, our heroes are fighting and dying,'' he said.

``These prisoners, you know they're not there for traffic violations,'' said Inhofe, whose senatorial Web site describes him as an advocate of ``Oklahoma values.''

``If they're in cellblock 1-A or 1-B, these prisoners, they're murderers, they're terrorists, they're insurgents. Many of them probably have American blood on their hands and here we're so concerned about the treatment of those individuals.''

Well, Inhofe is the same dude who has taken a similarly brave and coventional-wisdom-debunking stand on global warming, as covered in the AmCop post "Shit, Lies, Death" (12/10/03):

'Hoax'

US Senator James Inhofe , who chairs the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, says it is inconsistent with freedom, prosperity and environmental policy progress.

"I'm becoming more and more convinced... that global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people and the world ," he told a conference briefing.

Global warming, prison torture...one "hoax" after another...

From MaxSpeak:

"HERE IS THE ENEMY"

by the Sandwichman

This has come up in the comments section of MaxSpeak that is also mentioned in comments on Atrios and Whiskey Bar. As the implications are potentially extremely serious, I think it merits greater exposure even though the connections are, as far as I know, only circumstantial.

On March 7, 2004 an "enemies list" composed of signatories to an anti-war petition was posted on the Free Republic website. The introductory and subsequent comments on that list suggest that the purpose of the posting was to encourage people to harrass the individuals on the list and to circulate their names to agencies and individuals that might take action against them.

Nick Berg's father, Michael Berg was on that list and he named Prometheus Methods Tower Service, Inc. as an affiliation. According to his family on March 24, 2004 -- approximately two weeks after publication of the enemies list on the Free Republic website -- Nick Berg was detained by Iraqi police who handed him over to US forces, he was then held until April 6 when he was released, the day after his family had filed a lawsuit in Philadelphia federal court. Nick Berg was not heard from again after April 9.

MoveOn writes:

Together, we did something remarkable on Saturday. Working with a coalition of grassroots groups, we registered tens of thousands of voters and made over 300,000 phone calls in a single afternoon.

In Philadelphia, a huge crowd gathered to see speakers before fanning out across the city to register voters. In Seattle, WA and Reno, NV and Lewiston, ME and 90 other cities in all 17 of the key "battleground" states, 7,500 folks walked door-to-door, talking to their neighbors and registering tens of thousands of them to vote. And at more than a thousand phone banking parties, MoveOn members made more than 300,000 phone calls to swing state voters in a single afternoon -- a staggering and wholly unprecedented feat.

And Saturday was just the beginning. Over the coming weeks and months, we're going to build a field campaign that will help MoveOn members across the country register and mobilize voters every day between now and Nov. 2nd. Professionals often spend $8 or more per registered voter, but for $50, we can help MoveOn members contact 325 voters and register 65 of them. Can you help us raise $1 million to start hiring local organizers and build on our tremendous success on Saturday?

Please click here to contribute now.

This is the first time we will have MoveOn staff on the ground. They'll work in some of the most important states for the election, contacting and training MoveOn members for election work and acting as a local point of contact.

Together, we're demonstrating that we can turn our passion -- our hopes and dreams for a better country -- into effective work on the ground that will win the election. It's also good news for democracy: after decades of TV-driven campaigning, people are starting to talk to each other again about the issues that affect us all.

From: Giuseppe Abote
Date: Tue May 11, 2004 9:28:25 AM US/Eastern
To: letters@nytimes.com

Editor:

Re: "For Iraqis to Win, U.S. Must Lose":

In his long-overdue concession to reality, war supporter David Brooks writes, "We went into Iraq... We were going to topple Saddam... We expected to be universally admired... We didn't understand the tragic irony that our power is also our weakness."

What you mean "we," kemo sabe?

M. Abote

As Kos points out, at the time of the oral arguments the government knew about the Abu Ghraib abuses. They have now lied to the Supreme Court. See this letter from the WaPo:

Fallout From Abu Ghraib

Friday, May 7, 2004; Page A32

By requesting that CBS delay its report on prisoner abuses at Abu Ghraib by two weeks [news story, May 4], Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, deprived the country of a full and forthright oral argument before the Supreme Court on the rights of U.S. citizens whom the government has detained as "enemy combatants."

Oral argument in those cases, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld and Padilla v. Rumsfeld, ended about noon April 28. CBS aired the report eight hours later. Had the report aired the previous week, the government's responses to certain questions at oral argument would certainly have been different. Specifically, it would have been clear what abuses could be perpetrated under the government's theory that "enemy combatants" have no rights.

As it happened, the justices asked Principal Deputy Solicitor General Paul D. Clement what in the law would check the executive branch from torturing prisoners. He responded that the government would honor its obligations under the "convention to prohibit torture and that sort of thing."

He also explained that as a practical matter torture is not the best means of extracting information from prisoners, because one "would wonder about the reliability of the information you are getting"; the "way you get the best information from individuals is that you interrogate them, you try to develop a relationship of trust. . . ." Mr. Clement said that it is "the judgment of those involved in these processes, that the last thing you want to do is torture somebody." He concluded in response to a question about checks on the executive branch's authority to engage in torture: "You have to recognize that . . . where the government is on a war footing, you have to trust the executive. . . ."

As the abuses at Abu Ghraib show, one cannot simply trust the executive branch to protect human rights under U.S. criminal law, the Constitution and the Geneva Conventions. For the sake of our security and for the protection of human rights everywhere, we believe the court should agree.

JAMES F. FITZPATRICK

Washington

The writer, a partner at the law firm Arnold & Porter, filed friend-of-the-court briefs with the Supreme Court in the Hamdi and Padilla cases on behalf of Global Rights, a Washington-based international human rights group that he chairs.

Dawkins writes:

Hey AmCoppers:

You can become a part of history by volunteering for this summer's Republican National Convention in New York City!

Mayor Bloomberg and former Mayor Koch, the Chairman of the convention's volunteer drive, need your help.

For more information, visit the website of the NYC host committee.

http://www.nyc2004.org/

Meanwhile AmCop suggests some fun and edifying ways to make sure the Republican convention is the best it can be:

1. Direct arriving Congressmen and delegates to their accommodations in nearby Buffalo, NY.

2. Fertilize podiums and risers with fresh upstate New York manure.

3. Remember: "free speech zones" for the convention are to be assembled on the center floor of Madison Square Garden.

4. During President Bush's keynote speech, stand on stage, clasp hands with assembled children of color, set self on fire.

Blicero adds:

5. Trip convention-goers so they fall into the street and hurt themselves.

6. Conduct loud, easily-overheard (esp. by children) conversations about salad-tossing, skull-fucking, and "santorum."

7. Throw woodchips/mulch at them.

8. Dress up as Jesus Christ and punch them in the face.

Have other suggestions for volunteer activities? Please post them in the Comment window.

An important letter to Michael Powell.

speakingcorpse writes:

As far as I'm concerned Lynndie England is the most admirable current participant in the Iraq war. She makes apparent the nature of the whole necrophilic catatrophe. The others conceal it and delude themselves and the citizens of the world. If anyone can redeem our atrocity, it is Lynndie England and the people who photographed her.

The Nation announces the following:

You don't have to live in a battleground state to join the battle for the
White House in November. With an election that is almost certain to be
decided by a whisker in a handful of swing states, those of us who live in
places like New York--where the outcome on November 2nd is not in
doubt--can too easily feel like spectators to the most important political
contest of our lives.

So, what can those of us in "safe" states do to have a direct impact on
who becomes the next President? One answer, at least in two states with
lots of progressives eager to be put to work, is being provided by the
USAction affiliates in New York and New Jersey with their new Volunteer
2004 campaign.

For more, read Katrina vanden Heuvel's Editor's Cut:
http://www.thenation.com/edcut/index.mhtml?bid=7

And check out the Volunteer 2004 website:
http://www.citizenactionny.org/volunteer2004.html

From the NY Times:

To the Editor:

Anthony Lewis says: "There was a stunning moment in President Bush's 2003 State of the Union address when he said that more than 3,000 suspected terrorists `have been arrested in many countries. And many others have met a different fate. Let's put it this way: They are no longer a problem for the United States.' "

Given recent happenings, is there anyone powerful enough to demand that the president explain this statement fully and truthfully?

SANDRA SIZER
Boston, May 7, 2004

speakingcorpse writes:

None of this article makes sense unless you remember that today the media were invited to the prison for a tour. The prison population had to be drastically reduced before the tour. So half of the prisoners were simply removed. They were removed by being loaded onto buses and being driven to an abandoned quarry four hours from the prison. The buses were followed by the cars of the prisoners' family members, who picked them up, in some cases. Some of the prisoners dropped off at the quarry had nowhere to go, so they asked for rides back to Baghdad. The media tour made it necessary to get rid of a lot of prisoners as quickly as possible, and this was how it was done. Why was it so important to get rid of the prisoners? And why take them so far away? Read the account of the media tour and you will see that even the prisoners that were there caused serious "public relations" inconveniences. It was essential for the CPA planners to get the prisoners as far away as possible from the reporters. They had to be released, or the prison would be revealed to have been an overcrowded hell-hole. But if they had been outside of the prison and nearby, they would doubtless have accosted the reporters (as did the prisoners who remained incarcerated, from a distance). And unlike those who remained incarcerated, the newly freed ones would have been able to talk in detail to the reporters, who would have broadcast their stories to the world. So they were removed to the quarry.

Now: what does it say that half of the prison population could be summarily released, on a day's notice? It says that they didn't belong there in the first place. And that the leaders of our brave men and women knew it.

Scats alerts us (from last Thursday--I'm back online but still catching up):

You may have seen this already, but Sy Hersh just kicked some ass on O'Reilly. Stayed on an even keel and checked every one of O'Reilly's attempts to dilute our culpability. He left no openings, as close to unassailable as I've seen. Really a beautiful performance. If we had a hundred guys like that in the media it would be a really different show.

Blicero adds: My favorite Bill quote:

But how do you wind up in a prison if you're just innocent and didn't do anything?

How do you indeed. He's a brilliant man.

Via matthewyglesias.com:

Dear Randy Cohen,

I'm writing to you today because I've got a pickle of a moral conundrum
that I thought would be perfect for the Ethicist. I'm a U.S. reservist
currently stationed in Baghdad. As you're no doubt aware, the fog of
war raises all kinds of ethical dilemmas, and having one's life on the
line forces one to operate in many moral grey zones. Nevertheless, I
like to think I've stuck to an upstanding moral code that would befit
an American representing his country.

Recently, I was transferred to overseeing detainees at an Iraqi prison.
Here's the problem: I would like to rape and torture them
indiscriminately. I don't feel this behavior presents a moral problem,
since, as Senator Lieberman and the Chicago Sun Time's cartoon page
agree, the 9/11 attacks are worse. However, one of my colleagues feels
that in some ways rape is still immoral even after 9/11.

I told her it seemed as thought she was really splitting hairs. I mean,
9/11 is worse than prison abuse so any moral distinctions after that is
like asking how many angels can stand on head of a pin. Still, since
we've been abusing the fuck out of them lately the question has come up
a lot and we hoped you could settle it for us.

Sincerely,

Brad from Baghdad

From "President Discusses America’s Leadership in Global War on Terror"
January 22, 2004

Saddam Hussein was found in a hole, hiding. Saddam Hussein, the once all-powerful tyrant who used his brutal dictatorship to intimidate and destroy lives, will no longer be able to do so in Iraq. He sits in a prison cell. And the Iraqi people are free. (Applause.)

Fifty-five of the top officials, former officials in that regime -- of the 55, 45 have been captured or killed. The other 10 have got to be nervous. (Laughter and applause.) They're out there -- they're out there trying to shake our will. See, these people are murderers. They'll take innocent life to try to convince others that freedom isn't worth it. They will kill indiscriminately -- they don't care who -- to try to shake our confidence, to try to get in the heads of the American people. They don't understand America. America will never be intimated by thugs and assassins. (Applause.)

We're making progress. It's important for you to know that we're on the offensive in Iraq. As I said the other night, we're leading over 1,600 patrols a day, 180 raids every week. I mean, we're chasing them down. We're bringing them and foreign terrorists to justice there, so we don't have to face them in America. We're bringing them there because we understand freedom is vital for our future, freedom in Iraq is vital for our future.
.....
More Iraqis are now coming forward. They realize the killings that are taking place -- sometimes maybe by foreign terrorists, obviously sometimes by former Baathist officials -- will stop the march to freedom. They want to be free. You've got to understand, these people, like you and I, love freedom. It's in everybody's heart. And Pachachi understands that, and so does the Governing Council.

Freedom is happening in Iraq. And you've got to understand why it's important. Freedom in the heart of the Middle East, freedom and democracy in the place that has breeded resentment and terror, is in our national interests. A free Iraq will help change the world. A free Iraq will help change a neighborhood that needs to change. A free Iraq will make it easier for our children to grow up in a peaceful society.

People say, what are you doing in the long-term? We know what you're doing in the short-term, we can hear you and see you -- you're sending troops after the killers. What about the long-term plan against terrorists? Free societies do not breed terrorism. Free societies are peaceful nations. What we're doing for the long-term, we're promoting freedom. (Applause.)

The world is changing for the better.

For a variety of reasons, American companies that sell globally say that they have so far experienced little if any disruption from discontent over the war in Iraq. For the most part, consumers around the world seem as likely to be influenced by economic conditions as by politics. And, in a display of the growing sophistication in marketing big American brands in global markets, many people see products originating from the United States as firmly rooted in their own home nations.

Even Muslims in the Middle East and Southeast Asia do not seem to translate their anger into a boycott of American products. For example, as Hidayat bin Ismail, 19, emerged Friday from midday prayers at the Sultan Mosque in Singapore, he acknowledged that he was still patronizing places like McDonald's and KFC even after seeing the pictures of American soldiers abusing Iraqi prisoners.

Scats passes along this item:

The Indian government has asked the United States for information on reports that Indian nationals were being forced to work for contractors in Iraq with little rest and low pay and held "against their will". The Ministry of External Affairs asked the US Embassy in New Delhi for details on the number of Indians working in Iraq, a ministry spokesman said. The ministry "expressed its concern regarding the disturbing reports about the conditions in which some Indian nationals are being forced to work for contractors active in Iraq", a statement said. The embassy was asked about news reports "that Indians who wished to leave were unable to do so, and were being compelled to continue to remain in Iraq against their will", the statement said.

Story.

Dear [Dawkins],

With Mother's Day coming up this weekend, I've been thinking about how proud I am of our children.

And it's with a mother's pride that I'm writing you today to ask you to support our eldest, George W., and his re-election campaign with a donation of $1000, $500, $250, $100 or $50.

www.GeorgeWBush.com/Million/

George W. has been President during challenging times and he has met the tasks at hand with a steely determination and clarity of purpose. From fighting the War on Terrorism to defending the homeland, the President has shown steady and strong leadership.

I love that last sentence. This campaign is really touching on such a broad range of important themes: "From" fighting the War on Terrorism "to" defending the homeland. Is the distinction supposed to be that "the War on Terrorism" is blowing up Arabs before they blow us up, and "defending the homeland" is keeping ourselves from being blown up by Arabs (e.g., by blowing them up first)?

Anyway, Happy Mother's Day!

Alphabetized coinages culled from the Atrios community.

Check out "Rumsfeld's Rules" (Copyright 1980). Click here for HTML version.

Dawkins writes:

"George W. Bush... has betrayed the Republican Party's Christian base, with half-hearted, insincere devotion to God in his public policies. Bush has lost our faith."

Couldn't have said it any better ourselves.

AmCop endorses Roy Moore for President.